Temporal to depose the Pope The first of these Propositions is that which in the year of our Lord 1614. the House of Commons in France in the General Assembly of the Three Estates would have been at and offered not onely to own and swear to it themselves as a fundamental and holy Law but also passionately endeavoured that others should be compelled by rigorous penalties to doe the like But the project was stifled in the birth and the abortive Bill laid aside by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal who well weighing the controverted nature of the case were more considerate and tender of their Oaths then to venture them upon a foundation which take whether side they pleased must needs fail and betray the Swearer to an active sin and shame But what shall we say to the second Proposition may we not strain a little farther for the Pope then the King will not Religion bear us out if we adventure to swear that there is not any Power upon earth Spiritual or Temporal to depose the Pope To which I answer It is neither Religion Veneration Duty or Awe to the See of Rome which ought either to perswade or extort any more then it can legitimate such an Oath which it can never do in regard of the publick and unreproved disputableness of the case For whether we consider matter of fact or right it is no news amongst Catholick Divines that if the Pope should become an Heretick and they grant the If to be no impossible supposition he then forfeits his right to the Apostolical Chair and thereupon may lawfully be judged and deposed by the Spiritual power of the Church And this is a Doctrine which hath been long publick to the world a Doctrine pretending a Canonical Constitution and a Conciliary Act for its ground and support a Doctrine not unknown to Italy yet uncensured at Rome nay held and taught by some who lived and wrote even at the Pope's feet Where by the way our impartiall School-men seem at least to clear themselves from all sinister prejudices of Favour and Flattery and the stale imputation of framing and modelling their Doctrines to the humour and interest of the Court of Rome whereas we here see that some of them and those of eminent note make as bold with the common Father of the Church the Pope himself and even run him down with their Speculations as confidently and with as much show of zeal as at other times they set themselves to unthrone the meanest Prince in Christendome upon the same pretence And though his Holiness knows that Popes sit not so fast nor are so firmly rivetted to their Thrones but that divers of them have been deposed and sees withall this particular Deposing doctrine threatning Popes no less then Princes taught under his very eyes and for the same cause and that cause Heresy and that Heresy hath even by Catholicks been charged more then once against some of his Predecessours yet notwithstanding this concurrence and complicated pretence of Fears and Jealousies he never goes about to establish his Rights Person and Authority by any such assertory Oath as ours is but chuseth rather to trust Providence with his concerns then that the Triple crown should owe any part of its Security to an illegal and unnecessary Oath or his people be compell'd needlesly to swear away the peace of their Conscience for securing that of the Common-wealth But to draw the case yet to a nearer parallel and to close more particularly with the Oath of Allegeance wherein we are commanded to swear that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome nor by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King and this to be understood as to comprehend all causes cases or pretences possible Let us spell the Oath backwards and reade Pope for King and King for Pope and then suppose we were injoyned to swear that no King or Prince either of himself or by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath in any possible case any Power or Authority to depose the Pope let us see what the Schools and the publick and currently-allowed Tenets of Divinity will award as to the taking or refusing this Oath It is acknowledged on all hands there are divers instances from history of Depositions of Popes by Temporal Princes as well as of Temporall Princes by Popes which yet our Divines seem to restrain to the common case of Heresy and therefore the otherwise-pious and godly Emperour Otho incurred at least the mild censure and reprehension of such pens as record the fact for deposing Pope Iohn the XII because though he was one of the worst of Popes yet by the crime of Heresy he was wanting in the black list of his Offences to fill up the measure of his crying Misdemeanours and justify the Sentence and severity of his Deposition though even taking the case as it was not onely the pious Emperour saith Bellarmine conceived this Pope might be deposed but many Doctours thought so as well as he But however nothing is more certain then that it is a common and allowed Opinion of divers Divines that in case of Heresy the Pope may be judged and deposed by the Church Some of which carry it yet a step farther adding ought to may that is that he not onely may but ought to be deposed and that this may and ought is not onely the Churche's right but her obligation and she thereby bound to proceed to due execution thereof to the utmost of her power and if the Pope who is to be deposed should chance to resist oppose and stand in defiance of the Churche's judgment and she not in a condition to call his obstinacy to an account and to turn him out of his Chair by virtue of her Spiritual arms alone and yet her duty still supposed incumbent and pressing upon her to discharge and free her self and her Children from the thraldome of an Usurper then these Authours will tell us that the Law of Nature or that which is a Law to it self Necessity which even in causes Ecclesiastical takes upon her to justify force when nothing but force will serve for the compassing a just and necessary end will prompt the Church as is usual in some other cases to have recourse to the Temporal Power and call in the assistence of the Secular arm to her succour In which juncture no doubt any King Prince or zealous Otho who would please to interest himself in and espouse the Churche's quarrel might both deserve and receive her Commission and thanks to act with authority as a welcome auxiliary in the Holy war even to the Deposing of the Pope and placing another in his Throne in order to the good of Souls and the just recovery of the Ecclesiastical liberties and Spiritual rights Here then being a Case confessedly possible and an Opinion
Withrington's expresse Grounds and Doctrine plunge themselves and their reader into in descanting upon this one point of the Oath They tell us that by this clause is not denied the Pope's Authority to command but onely his Power to authorize in Temporals in order to a Spirituall good or to declare that they who have Authority to depose or to make war are bound to use their Temporal Authority and to draw the Temporal sword when the necessity of the Church and Spiritual good of Souls shall require the same for that this Authority to declare and command doth not exceed the limits of a Spiritual power Thus these Learned Persons Let me here intreat the courteous Reader to lend me his eyes and attention to help me out For if Temporal Princes as is here supposed have Power and Authority to invade or annoy forrein Princes or their Countries nay to depose them when the good of Souls and necessity of the Church shall require it if the Pope is to be Judge of this necessity and to declare when against whom and upon what occasion the Temporal sword is to act its part by invading or annoying the delinquent Prince his Person or State if I say the Pope hath Power though not to authorize yet to declare and not onely to declare but to command the doing of all this as being in the line of Spirituality and within the vierge of an Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction truly my opinion is and I think every sober and disinteressed Judgment will upon due reflexion subscribe to the same that this Doctrine as it contributes little to the Security of Princes and as little to the satisfaction of intelligent Readers so it is not every one can easily understand or be able to reconcile it to truth and its self for if I mistake not it foully clashes with both For since we are here treating of the Legality or Illegality of an Oath and what we may or may not safely swear or abjure what can seemingly have more of the Riddle or less to the purpose in it then to be gravely told for our instruction and the quieting of our Consciences that we may lawfully abjure the Pope's Power of Authorizing but not in any wise abjure his Power of Commanding a forrein Prince to invade or annoy His Majesty or His Kingdoms Again that we may safely swear the Pope hath no Power to Depose Princes but that we must not abjure his Power of Commanding others to depose them Alas and is not this a much mistaken favour a mere mock-pretence of Security to Crowned heads and of ease and relief to troubled Consciences wholly built upon this nice and ambiguous Distinction of Authorizing and Commanding A Distinction in this case so subtile that it is impossible to find where the difference lies and is therefore in very deed no Distinction at all either in respect of the King to whom it is all one and His perill or ruine undistinguishably the same whether He be invaded and deposed by the Pope's Authority or onely by his Command Neither is it any Distinction in respect of the Swearer who cannot securely nor without a self-contradiction from which this Distinction can never clear him swear that the Pope hath not any Power and Authority to depose Princes if he have Power and Authority to command others to depose them because this authoritative injunction of his is enough to intitle him to the fact and his very Commanding others to depose both makes and denominates him the Deposer Besides all this if it be true what these Authours assume that Temporall Princes have when the good of Souls and the necessity of the Church requires it Power to depose one another how can any man being of this opinion lawfully swear the Pope hath not any such Power who as we all know is a mixt person and as well a Temporal Prince as a Spiritual Pastour and therefore it would argue great partiality in this Doctrine wholly to exclude him at least as he is a Temporal Prince from his share in the Deposing power from whence it would finally follow that the Oath could not be taken without a distinction of different formalities in the same person that is without distinguishing the Pope as Pope from himself as he is a Temporal Prince and then also the two formalities being at odds the Temporal Prince would be the more powerfull Pope of the two These and the like entangled Positions I take to be clearly consequential and absolutely necessary inferences from the aforesaid dark and perplexed discourse of these Authours Now the use and advantage the Reader may please to make hereof is this sober and wholesome reflexion That since Withrington who bestowed much pains and since large and learned Comments upon the Oath since he I say whilst he pretends to explain one of the Branches of that very Point wherein the Substance of the Oath consists according to the Authour of the Questions leads us into such a Labyrinth of thorny and insignificant Distinctions cross and thwarting Niceties of words as that a more then ordinary clue of reason and attention is necessary to wind us out what consciencious and considerate person of less leisure industry learning and other abilities then Withrington was seriously pondering this Oath shall hope he understands what he is to abjure or dare to abjure what he understands not CHAP. VII The just Plea of Conscience in refusing to abjure the Deposing doctrine consider'd with the like reference to the Depositions of Popes as of Kings I Am much taken with the seasonable advice and wholesome caution I find in the Fourth of the Controversial Letters which I shall elsewhere have occasion to quote more at large Princes and Bishops saith this Gentleman pag. 8. are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not touched without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty It was under the warrant of this apology to my own thoughts and the confidence of my Reader 's candour that I first engaged in this Discourse and that now for his farther satisfaction to shew that there is nothing of any Popishly-affected partiality in the refusing this abjuring Oath but that our Recusancy is wholly grounded upon sound Reason and upright Conscience I shall compare the unlawfulness of abjuring the Pope's Deposing power with the like unlawfulness of abjuring the Power of deposing Popes both these Powers· being alike controvertible amongst some of the Learned whereof divers do freely and openly teach that Popes may be deposed as well as Kings and for the like cause For which end I shall here advance and confront in their severall instances two Propositions of a more large and comprehensive nature in relation to the Deposing power as first That there is absolutely no Power or Authority upon earth either Spiritual or Temporal to depose Kings let the cause or pretence be what it will secondly That there is absolutely no such Power or Authority upon earth Spiritual or
as or more expressive terms then in the present Oath as shall be made appear hereafter nay nor to take those Clauses of the Oath which do manifestly contain no more then meer Civill Allegeance Neither do they in rigour oblige us to give an interiour assent to the Reasons why they prohibit this Oath For even the Decrees of Generall Councills according to the common sentiment of Divines do not oblige us always to believe the Reasons for the framing such Decrees inserted in them to be good and solid As in the Second Councill of Nice it was declared That Angels may be painted because they have Bodies The Declaration is good but the Reason is false So that though one refuses the Oath in compliance to the Pope's commands it does not follow that he does not think the Oath in it self and speculatively speaking to be lawfull and consequently if he thinks that the Acts therein contained do concern meer Civill Allegeance he is bound as long as he remains in such a persuasion to comply with those Acts whether he has taken this Oath or not For a Subject is bound to Civill Allegeance by the Law of God and Nature antecedently to all Oaths Finally the Popes do not forbid us in these Briefs an Act of Loyalty or Civill Allegeance For the taking of this Oath which is onely forbidden us in these Briefs is not properly speaking any Act of Civil Allegeance but onely a Security thereof and how little trust is to be put in such a Security does appear by the sad experience of the late Wars as a Bond for the payment of such a sum of money is no part of the payment but onely a Security for it if the Debtor denies it Nay a Subject may be obliged to his Civill Allegeance and equally punished for his not-complying therewith or for being a Traitour whether he has taken the Oath or not Whence I conclude that since the Briefs do not forbid us any Act of Civill Allegeance it is manifest that the Compliance with such Briefs cannot be inconsistent with the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes which reaches no farther then to all Acts of Civill Allegeance 28. Consider Lastly whether those who reject the forementioned Briefs of the Popes published after so long and so serious deliberation under such frivolous pretences as we have already seen and shall see hereafter do not open a way for Subjects to resist and disobey the express Commands or Prohibitions if they be condemned therein of their respective Sovereigns though issued forth after never so serious a debate pretending that they were grounded upon Inconsiderateness Misinformation and Mistakes in thinking that such a thing was contrary to the Laws of the Realm and the Prerogatives of His Majesty or that the King did not proceed therein according to the Rules prescribed in such cases or that His Majesty was a Party in the debate and that consequently He ought not to be Judge or finally that such Prohibitions and Commands are prejudiciall to the Liberty of the people and common Welfare of the Nation and that they may be occasion of great Disturbances in the Kingdome And whether if such Exceptions as these be warrantable and not to be decided by the Sovereigns themselves they do not render the Authority of Kings though our Adversaries who make use of them will needs seem to be stout Champions for Regall Power very weak and insignificant as in effect they do render the Authority of the Pope 29. If it be objected Thirdly That to refuse this Oath when we are required to take it by the King is sinfull inductive to Schism and scandalous to our Religion as if the Principles thereof were inconsistent with Civill Allegeance due to Princes and in such matters no man is bound to obey the Pope's Decrees but rather to the contrary That should the Pope declare it Sinfull to bear His Majesty Civill Allegeance which is due unto him by the Law of God and Nature certainly we should not think our selves bound to submit to such a Declaration That this Oath contains onely a meer Civill Allegeance as our Kings have declared and to them it belongs to declare what is meer Civill Allegeance and not to the Pope whose Jurisdiction extends onely to Spiritualls That we are bound to obey our Sovereign's Commands in all probable matters and which are not manifestly sinfull as the taking of this Oath is not That since it is doubtfull at least whether the Things contained in this Oath wherein the difficulty thereof consists appertain to the Spirituall or Civill Court why should the Pope decide it rather then the King And since the King commands us to take the Oath and the Pope prohibits us to take it the thing being of it self doubtfull and not manifestly sinfull on either side why should we submit rather to the Pope's Ordinance then to the King's That the King may confine the Pope's Power and declare that he has not a direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome in Temporalls or to vacate the Civill Laws thereof at his pleasure and consequently that it is not proper for the Pope to declare how far his Spirituall Authority does extend it self in all Causes Finally that the like Argument may be made to shew the Refusall of this Oath to be unlawfull as we made above to prove unlawfull the Taking thereof in this manner Whoever of His Majestie 's Subjects refuses this Oath being required thereunto denies an exteriour Obedience to the King's Ordinance in matters appertaining unto him and no farther then they appertain unto him But it is unlawfull to deny such an Obedience to the King's Ordinance and in such matters Therefore it is unlawfull for any of His Majestie 's Subjects when required thereunto to refuse this Oath 30. Concerning the Sinfulness of the Refusall of this Oath objected against us Consider First whether this Objection be not against all or most of those Catholicks who defend the Lawfulness of this Oath whose aim onely is to shew not that it is a Sin to refuse this Oath but that it is no Sin to take it Secondly Consider whether the refusall of this Oath can be sinfull unless the taking thereof be absolutely obligatory and if not then consider whether there be any absolute obligation to take this Oath since the taking thereof is no part of Civill Allegeance as has been already shewn Neither does His Majesty absolutely require of us the taking of this Oath but onely conditionally if we will enjoy such and such Employments or Priviledges which we are not bound to accept of And though those who refuse the Oath in many circumstances are liable to some Penalties enacted against Roman Catholicks yet they are punished even in that case not so much for refusing the Oath but because by refusing it they are suspected to be Popishly inclined Whence therefore can there be proved any absolute obligation to take this Oath especially since the Pope hath
all I commend your Conclusion That if this Doctrine be an Errour the Church of Rome for several Ages was a wicked and blind Church and a Synagogue of Satan and if it were no Errour they that now call it an Errour are wicked Catholicks and in damnable Errour Nor though all the Doctours of Sorbon all the Parliaments and Vniversities of France all the Friers or Blackloists in England or Ireland all the Libertines Politicians and Atheists in the world should declare for it could it ever be an Authority to make it a probable Opinion Bravely spoken and like a true Disciple of Hildebrand Hear this O ye Writers of Controversial Letters and beware how ye fall into these mens hands You may cry out upon these Opinions as long as you please and make us believe your Church is not concerned in them but if this Good man may be credited you can never find Authority enough to make your Opinion so much as Probable A very hard case for Princes when it will not be allowed so much as probable that Princes should keep their Crowns on their Heads if the Pope thinks fit to take them away or that Subjects should still owe Allegeance to Princes when the Pope absolves them from it Very hard indeed in such an Age of Probable Doctrines when so small Authority goes to make an Opinion Probable that this against the Pope's Deposing power should not come within the large sphere of Probability Hear this ye Writers of Apologies for Papists Loyalty who would perswade us silly people of the Church of England that this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes is onely the Opinion of some Doctours and not the Doctrine of your Church when this Learned Authour proves you have as much Reason and Authority to believe it as that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of it and Father Caron's 250 Authours cannot make the contrary Opinion so much as Probable this having been for some Ages one at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church as our Authour saith From whence it follows it must have been always so or else Oral Tradition and Infallibility are both gone For how could that be the Doctrine of one Age which was not of the precedent What did Fathers conspire to deceive their Children then Is it possible to suppose such an alteration to happen in the Doctrine of the Church and yet the Church declare to adhere to Tradition at that time If this be possible in this case then for all that we know that great Bugbear of Transubstantiation might steal in in the dark too And so farewell Oral Tradition But how can Infallibility stand after it when the Church was so enormously deceived for so long together as this Authour proves it must have been if this Doctrine be false If the Blackloists in England and Irish Remonstrants do not all vanish at the appearance of this Treatise and yield themselves Captives to this smart and pithy Authour I expect to see some of them concerned for their own Vindication so far as to answer this short Treatise but I beseech them then to shew us the difference between the coming in of Transubstantiation and this Deposing doctrine since the same Popes the same Councils and the same Approbation of the Church are produced for both This is all I have to say of this First Treatise whose Authour I do highly commend for his plain dealing for he speaks out what he really thinks and believes of this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes But I am no sooner entred upon the Second Treatise but I fansy my self in Fairy-land where I meet with nothing but phantastick Shows and Apparitions when I go about to fasten upon any thing it is immediately gone the little Fairy leaps up and down and holds to nothing intending onely to scare and affright his party from the Oath of Allegeance and when he hath done this he disappears The Substance of the Oath saith the Authour of the Questions whom he pretends to answer is the Denying and Abjuring the Pope's Power of deposing Princes This is plain and home to the purpose what say you to this Is this Doctrine true or false may it be renounced or not Hold say you For my part it is as far from my thoughts as forein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power Is it indeed forein to your purpose to speak to the Substance of the Oath No say you the Substance of the Oath is contained in this Question Whether a Catholick may deny by Oath and universally abjure the Pope's Power to depose Princes not Whether he may deny it but Whether he may deny it by Oath And the great Argument to prove the Negative is that it hath been a Question debated for 500 years and no clear and authoritative Decision of the Point yet appeareth to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce Where are we now Methinks we are sailing to find O Brasil We thought our selves as sure as if we had got the Point in the First Treatise a good firm solid substantial Point of Faith and now all of a sudden it is vanished into clouds and vapours and armies fighting in the air against each other Is it possible for the Sense Belief and Doctrine of the Church as the First Authour assures us it was to become such a Moot-point always disputed never decided This hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists Canonists from first to last afore Calvin 's time in all the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been able yet to produce so much as one Catholick Authour afore Calvin 's time that denied this Power to the Pope absolutely or in any case whatsoever Thus the Authour of the First Treatise Since it is but more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish and that Experience the easiest and clearest of Arguments puts it too sadly beyond dispute that this grand Controversie Whether the Pope hath any Power or Authority to depose Princes for any cause pretence or exigency whatsoever hath been for divers Ages from time to time disputed in the Schools by Speculative men and is to this day among Catholick Controvertists and Catholick Princes too as the Authour of the Second Treatise confesseth What shall I say to you Gentlemen when you thus flatly contradict each other How come you to be so little agreed upon your Premisses when you joyn in the same Conclusion There is some mysterie in this which we are not to understand This I suppose it is Among those who may be trusted this is an Article of faith and for such the First Treatise was written But for the sake of such who would see too far into these things we must not own it
for fear we lose some Residences and Patrons of the Nobility and Gentry therefore among these we must not own it as an Article of faith but as a Controverted Point How then say some of the Fathers of the Society shall we keep them from taking the Oath of Allegeance and if we do suffer them to doe that farewell to our Interest in England P. W. and the Blackloists will prevail Come come saith Father W. never fear I have a Topick will scare them all though we own it as a Controverted Point What is that say they with great Joy Let me alone saith he to them I will prove them all guilty of Perjury if they take the Oath because it is a Controverted Point Excellent they all cry this will doe our business in spite of them Let us now come near and handle this mighty Argument that we may discern whether it be a mere Spectre or hath any flesh and bones The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath partly assertory and partly promissory In an Assertory Oath it is essentially requisite that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true Very well but suppose a person doth in his conscience believe that the Pope cannot Depose Princes nor Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance may not such a man swear it without Perjury No says our good Father A man may swear against his Conscience not onely when he doubts but when he hath just cause to doubt How is that good Sir when other men see that he hath cause to doubt or when himself sees it If he sees himself that he hath cause to doubt he doth not believe in his Conscience that to be so as he swears it is for how can a man firmly believe that which he sees cause to doubt If he sees none himself what is that to his Conscience if others think they do if he does not think his Conscience bound to be swayed by their Authority But the Mysterie of this Iesuitism is that no Gentlemen ought to have judgments of their own in these matters but to be swayed by the extrinsick Authority of their Teachers And therefore if they say they have cause to doubt they must doubt whether they do or no. If Gentlemen of freer understandings and education allow themselves the liberty to enquire into these matters they presently see through all this Tiffany Sophistry and find the thing still carried on is meer blind Obedience although in following the conduct of such self-interested Leaders they run themselves into continual Difficulties If a man be satisfied in his Conscience the Pope hath no Deposing power according to the Rules of their own best Casuists he may lawfully abjure it The truth required in an Oath saith Cardinal Tolet is that by which a man speaks that which he thinks in his heart and to swear falsly is to swear otherwise then one thinks And to swear otherwise then a thing really is provided he think it to be so is neither mortal nor venial sin but 1. in case a man hath not used diligence to enquire and to this he doth not require the utmost but onely some and convenient diligence 2. if he be doubtfull in his mind when he swears and yet swears it as certain 3. when he is ready to swear although he knew the thing to be otherwise Suarez saith that in an Assertory Oath the Truth confirmed by it lies in the conformity of the Assertion to the mind of the Speaker rather then to the Thing it self so that if a man thinks it false which he swears although it be really true he is guilty of Perjury and so on the contrary if a man swears a thing really false which he invincibly thinks to be true he is not guilty of Perjury but swears a lawfull Oath according to the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas By invincibly Suarez means no more then Tolet doth by thinking so after convenient diligence For Suarez lays down this Rule afterwards that When a man swears what is really false but he thinks it true if his thinking be joyned with sufficient care and a probable opinion of the truth mark that he is free from the guilt of Perjury This he saith is the common and express Doctrine and built upon this ground Because the Truth and Falshood of an Oath doth not so much relate to the Matter sworn as to the Mind and Conscience of him that swears Dominicus Soto determines this case very plainly If a man swears that to be true which he thinks so after due enquiry though it be false he doth not sin at all And the measure of diligence he proportions to the nature and quality of the Thing which is therefore left to prudence and discretion Iacobus de Graffiis hath this Assertion He that swears a thing to be true which he thinks so although it be really false sins not unless he neglected to use that diligence which he was bound to use and according to the greatness of that neglect the measure of his sin is to be taken Greg. Sayr saith that to a lawfull Assertory Oath no more is required then the agreement of what a man saith with the inward sense of his mind according to the reasonable judgment a man passes upon what he swears Which words are taken out of Gregory de Valentia Qui non videt vel dubitat esse falsum quod jurat perjurus non est saith Vasquez He that doth not see or doubt that to be false which he swears is not guilty of Perjury Which words are quoted and approved by Layman because all Perjury must have its foundation in a Lie And saith he he that swears in an Assertory Oath doth not affirm the certainty of his own knowledge but directly the very thing which he swears Nay he farther saith that where the Matter sworn is capable of no more then Probability a man may lawfully swear the truth according to that degree of certainty which the thing will bear although it should happen to be otherwise then he thinks So that according to the common and received Doctrine of their own Casuists the foundation of this Second Treatise is false as might be shewed by many more testimonies if these were not sufficient which is That since this Doctrine about the Pope's Deposing power hath no infallible certainty in it a man cannot attest the truth or falshood of it by an Oath Which was the more surprising to me considering how usual it is among your selves to swear to such Opinions of which you cannot pretend to infallible certainty by any evidence of Faith or authoritative Decision of the Church What think you of the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas are there no mere Opinions undecided by the Church in his Works is there infallible certainty in of all them I do not think any Iesuit in the world will say so for a reason every own knows because his Order holds the direct contrary in
some Points And yet the Dominicans swear to maintain S. Thomas his Doctrine What think you of the Immaculate Conception which so many Vniversities have sworn to maintain as Luc. Wadding hath shewed at large and yet all these Oaths were made before any authoritative Decision of the Church One of you hath found out an evasion for this by saying that it is one thing to swear to maintain a Doctrine as true and another to swear to it as true I cry you mercy Gentlemen I had thought no persons would have sworn to maintain a falshood or to defend that as true which at the same time they believed or suspected not to be true Why may not you then swear that you will maintain the Pope hath no Power to depose Princes when your Prince requires it as well as swear to maintain the Immaculate Conception when the Vniversity requires it whatever your private Opinion be But to prevent this subterfuge Wadding saith from Surius that the Vniversity of Mentz would admit none to any degree in Divinity without swearing that he would neither approve nor hold in his mind any other Opinion What think you now of swearing to the truth of an Opinion not decided by the Church upon the best probable reasons that can be given for it And therefore all this outcry about Perjury was onely to frighten and amuse and not to convince or satisfy The rest of that Treatise consists of impertinent Cavills against several Expressions in the Oath of Allegeance which ought to be understood according to the intention of the Law-givers the reason and design of the Law and the natural sense of the words and if they will but allow these as the most reasonable ways of interpreting Laws all those Exceptions will be found too light to weigh down the balance of any tolerable judgment and have been answered over and over from the days of Widdrington to the Authour of the Questions and therefore I pass them over and leave them to any who shall think it worth their pains to make a just Answer to them The Third Treatise is written by a very Considering man as any one may find in every Page of it He bids his Readers consider so much as though he had a mind to have them spend their days in considering the Oath without ever taking it As he had that desired time to consider the Solemn League and Covenant and when he was asked how long time he would take for it he told them but a little time for he was an old man and not likely to live long But what is it which this person offers which is so considerable His main Argument is from the Pope's Authority prohibiting the taking this Oath expressly at several and distant times and after the most ample information and the Writings on both sides it being a thing belonging to the Pope's Authority as Spiritual Governour and not to the Civil Power to determine This is an Argument I must leave to those to answer who think themselves obliged to justify the Pope's Authority and to disobey it at the same time To this some answer That the Pope's Prohibition proceeding on a false Supposition and a private Opinion of his own viz. that there are some things in the Oath repugnant to Faith they are not bound to obey it because it belongs not to the Pope without a Council to determine matters of Faith That the Popes have sometimes required very unjust and unreasonable things of which Warmington gives some notable instances of his own knowledge That Obedience to all Superiours is limited within certain bounds which if they exceed men are not bound to obey them That the very Canonists and Schoolmen do set bounds to the Pope's Authority as 1. when great mischief is like to ensue by his Commands so Francisc. Zabarell Panormitan Sylvester and others 2. when injury comes to a third person by it so Card. Tolet Panormitan Soto c. 3. when there is just cause to doubt the Lawfulness of the thing commanded so Pope Adrian Vasquez Navarr and others cited by Widdrington 4. when he commands about those things wherein he is not Superiour so Tolet determins A man is onely obliged in those things to obey his Superiour wherein he hath Authority over him Now say they we having just cause to doubt whether the Pope may command us in things relating to our Allegeance and apparent Injury coming to Princes by owning this Doctrine and much Mischief having been done by it and more designed as the Gunpowder-Treason the true Occasion of this Oath it is no culpable Disobedience to take the Oath of Allegeance notwithstanding the Pope's Prohibition And upon the very same Grounds and Reasons which made the King's Royal Ancestours with their Parliaments to limit the Pope's Authority in England in the ancient Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire His Majestie 's Grandfather might with his Parliament enact that Law which requires the taking of the Oath of Allegeance and how comes such Disobedience in Temporals say they to be now more repugnant to Catholick Religion then it was in those days Nay in those times it was good Doctrine that when a Dispute arose whether a thing did belong to the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power to judge the Civil Power hath made Laws and determined it and the Subjects did submit to the Civil Authority This and much more might be said to shew the inconsequence of this Argument upon which the stress of the Third Treatise lies but I leave the full Answer to those that are concerned The plainest shortest and truest Answer is That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction over us either in Spirituals or Temporals But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that if they would renounce the Pope's Deposing power there is nothing else according to the Principles of their own Religion could hinder them from taking the Oath of Allegeance Which is in effect acknowledged at last by this Authour of the Third Treatise when he offers a new Form of an Oath rather more expressive of Civil Obedience then the Oath of Allegeance Are not Princes mightily obliged to you Gentlemen that take such wonderfull care to have a more express Oath then this already required by Law How comes this extraordinary fit of Kindness upon you Do you really think the Oath of Allegeance defective in this point No no. We know what you would have If we can get but this Oath out of the way the same interest which can remove this will prevent another as some argue about other matters at this time Well but what Security is this which you do so freely offer First You are ready to swear without any Mental reservation that you acknowledge our Sovereign Lord CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Dominions A wonderfull Kindness While the old Gentleman at Rome pleases you will doe this but suppose he should
in several Nations of Christendom and confirmed afterward in divers National Councils And after his death was confirmed by the three Popes that succeeded him during that King's life And the Catholick Subjects of that King obeyed it and such as denied the Pope's Jurisdiction to depose the King were by the Catholicks called Hereticks and Schismaticks and had the name of Henriciani Yea even the King himself in his Letter to the Pope wherein he complained of the Sentence denied not the Pope's Jurisdiction to depose him if he had been an Heretick but pleaded he was no Heretick in which case alone the tradition of holy Fathers as he said allowed the Deposition of Kings by the Pope Nay and even that Cardinal Villain Beno Ring-leader of the Schismaticks in that Libell against the Pope wherein he raked together all the matters he could to make him odious and particularly accused his deposing the King yet accused it not for being done without Jurisdiction but onely that he did it contra ordinem juris Finally in a Diet of the Empire called on purpose to decide by the Canons of the Church which had the juster cause the Pope or the King where met the wisest of the Princes and Prelates of the German nation of both parties the Archbishop of Saltzburg Prolocutor of the Pope's party alledged and shewed by the Canons that the Deposition was just To which was answered by the Archbishop of Mentz Prolocutor of the King's party that the Pope and Princes had done the King injury in that he being at Rome performing his penance injoyn'd him by the Pope they had set up another King Rodulph against him And he added that by the Canons the King being spoliatus could not be condemned or cited till he were restored to possession So here was no plea then against the Pope's Jurisdiction no not by the King 's own Advocates 3. The same holy Pope did not onely believe and suppose this Doctrine to be most certainly true and sound as he shewed by his practice of it but did formally teach it to the Church by Canons published in a Patriarchal Council at Rome and to the German Prelates that consulted him of it and prove it to them from Scripture and Tradition and by S. Peter's authority exhorted and required all Subjects of the Empire to obey and execute the Sentence by resisting the deposed King putting them in mind that it is a sin as bad as Idolatry to disobey S. Peter's See and termed it no less then wicked and damnable folly and madness to deny that Power to be in the Pope 4. In Anno 1215. the Council of Lateran an undoubted General Council and the greatest for number of Prelates that ever was settled a Rule to be observed in the deposing of Princes and absolving their Subjects from their Allegeance in case they be negligent in purging their Land from Hereticks And the Canon was made in the presence and with the consent of both the Emperours Greek and Roman and the greatest part of the Kings and Princes of Christendome and of the Embassadours of the rest Answ. 1. Those that goe under the name of the Canons of this Council were not decreed by the Council but onely published for Canons of it by Gregory IX Repl. It is against reason to imagine that Holy and Learned Pope would commit so gross a forgery and in matters of that high concern and at a time so soon after the Council as the greatest part of the Prelates that assisted at it were living to confute it and protest against it the Decretals of that Pope being published within twelve years after that Council Answ. 2. All Historians of those times testify no Canons were made in that Council except one or two about the Recovery of the Holy Land and the Subjection of the Greek Church to the Roman Repl. Not one Historian testifies any such negative Answ. 3. This Decree was not found among the other Acts of the Council for 300 years Repl. It was always among the other Canons in the Decretals of Gregory IX published within twelve years after the Council and in the first Copy that was printed of the Canons of that Council this was one and Cochleus that sent the Copy of it to the Printer said it had been long agoe written out of an ancient Book Answ. 4. This Canon names not Sovereign Princes but Lords onely Repl. It names Lords qui non habent Dominos principales which can be none but Sovereign Princes 5. In Anno 1245. Pope Innocent IV. in a General Council at Lyons by a formal definitive Sentence published in the Council and approved by all the Prelates deposed the Emperour Frederick II d. and absolved all his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance and not onely that but by his Apostolick authority inhibited them to obey him as Emperour or King and not to advise or aid him as such under pain of Excommunicatio latae sententiae And he grounded his authority for it upon that Text Quodcunque solveris c And it was afterward inserted into the Canons of the Church And it was not given precipitately or in passion but upon consult first had with divers of the most able Divines that were at the Council and after mature debate in divers Consistories in which some of the Cardinals pleaded as Advocates for the Emperour and others answered them insomuch as the Pope could not remember that ever any cause was discussed with more exactness and longer deliberation And they proceeded to the Sentence with much unwillingness and forced by necessity because they saw no other way without offending God the Church and their own consciences and condoling his misery that was sentenced All which the Pope himself wrote in a Letter to the Cistertian Abbots here in England And when the Pope objected in Council to the Emperour the Crimes for which he proceeded against him the Emperour's Advocate a wise and eloquent man Doctour of both Laws and Judge in the Emperour's Court pleaded to it not that the Pope had no Jurisdiction to depose the Emperour but which acknowledged the Jurisdiction that the Emperour was not guilty of the Crimes objected and namely not of Heresie and prayed respite for the Emperour to make his defence in person And the Embassadours of the Kings of France and England seconded his Petition which also was an acknowledging by them of the Pope's Jurisdiction to depose the Emperour and thereupon two weeks respite was granted And when the Emperour heard of it he refused to appear not because they had no Jurisdiction in the cause but because they appeared to be his Adversaries And upon that and other pretexts appeal'd from that to the next more General Council And this Sentence was as I said published with approbation of all the Prelates present in the Council which were to the number of 140 Archbishops and Bishops And
to the Substance of the Oath taking for the measure of its Notion the rule and standard the Authour of the Questions hath already given us saying that the Substance of the Oath is the Denying and abjuring the Pope's power to depose Princes Here then lies the grand Case here is the principal Question Whether a Catholick may I do not say barely deny but deny by Oath and universally abjure the Pope's power to depose Princes Concerning which Question first as I meet with nothing either in the Authour or Publisher of the Questions which in my judgement does in the least evince the affirmative so secondly I think enough is said by both to conclude manifestly for the negative to wit That no Catholick can safely admit of and take the Substance of the Oath even as the case is understood and stated in the Authour 's own terms This I shall endeavour with all possible clearness and brevity to make out in the first place and afterwards set down and answer the Grounds the Authour of the Questions proceeds on which are principally three 1. The Censure of many famous French Universities denying rejecting and condemning the Doctrine of the Pope's Deposing power as new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God pernicious seditious and detestable 2. The Subscription of the French Iesuits to two of the most remarkable of these Censures 3. The Practice of the Clergy the religious and the wiser sort of the Laiety in other Countries when the Pope makes war or any other way contends with their Sovereign Princes or States All which being put together to the end it may appear how far the Argument even in its full and united strength is from reaching our Case let it be once more remembred that the state of our Question is not Whether a Catholick may deny reject censure and condemn the Pope's Power to depose Princes which yet is the utmost that can be proved by warrant of these forrein Precedents but Whether he may safely deny reject censure and condemn by his Oath and universally abjure this Deposing doctrine This is that which the Authour of the Questions affirms that which he calls the very Substance of the Oath and that for which I am sure no French University quoted by him no Subscription of the Iesuits no Practice of the Clergy the religious and the wiser sort of the Laiety in other Countries afford us so much as any single instance CHAP. II. Why it cannot be safe either to swear to the Deposing doctrine as true or to abjure it as false SInce it is but even more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish and that experience the easiest and clearest of arguments puts it but too sadly beyond dispute that this grand Controversy Whether the Pope hath any Power and authority to depose Princes for any cause pretence or exigency whatsoever hath been for divers Ages from time to time disputed in the Schools by speculative men in their subtile and notionall way of reasoning And what Trithemius recorded to posterity above 500 years agoe that Scholastici certant adhuc sub Iudice lis est utrùm Papa posset Imperatorem deponere may for ought we know 500 years hence be as much a question and as far from ending as now it is whereas even in our days the Controversy finds but too many stirr Champions and Abettors to maintain the quarrell and keep life in the debate by their warm and smart contests no clear and authoritative decision of the Point yet appearing to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce Since likewise when a Point is thus in dispute amongst Catholick Princes some of them peremptorily denying and hotly opposing what others as positively assert and vigorously maintain and this openly avowedly and in the face of the world no one can determinately swear to either side of the point in dispute as true nor warrantably abjure the other as false for this were to swear a thing as true or to abjure it as false which is confessedly in dispute whether it be so or no which is never lawfull From hence I conceive that for the deciding of our Question Whether a Catholick may lawfully abjure the Pope's Deposing power and authority there needs no more then barely to suppose that it is a Question whether the Pope hath any such Power and Authority or no. For here one Question resolves the other grant this second to be a Question the first will be none For if it be a Question whether the Pope hath any such Power and Authority or no no man can safely swear that without all question he hath none I say without all question because what we swear as true ought to be unquestionably such otherwise we fall under the guilt and sacrilege of Perjury For a more full evidence and farther clearing of this so important a Truth namely That the swearing or abjuring a controverted doctrinall Point unavoidably draws upon us the execrable guilt of Perjury let us consider the difference of Oaths in generall and the different parts of the Oath of Allegeance in particular Of Oaths some are assertory others promissory An assertory Oath is when we positively say such or such a thing is true or false and then bind this saying of ours with an Oath A promissory Oath is that whereby we engage to doe what we promise or to leave undone what we promise not to doe and thereupon give our Oath as a bond of performance The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath partly assertory as where it is affirmed that the Pope hath not any Power or Authority to depose the King or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries or to discharge any of his Subjects from their Allegeance c. partly promissory as namely where the Swearer engages that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or to be made against the King his Heirs or Successours he will bear faith and true allegeance to them he will defend them to the utmost of his power against all conspiracies or attempts whatsoever That which here principally falls under consideration is the nature of an assertory Oath in which Oath it is essentially requisite that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true and all little enough for the securing us against God's and Truth 's sworn enemy Perjury which abominable sin is defined by the Schools to be a Lie confirmed by Oath And to lie saith St. Austin is to speak against that which a man thinks in his mind or conscience or as we usually express it when a man speaks not as he thinks viz. when there lies a secret check and contradiction in the breast to what is uttered by the mouth Put these two together and the case stands thus To speak contrary to what a man thinks in his conscience is according to true morals the definition of a Lie and to
to the other But if he do abjure as absolutely he doth if he takes the Oath this same abjuring is the very charge of Perjury which is now under my pen and as I conceive inevitable by reason that the necessary knowledge certainty and assurance of the truth of what he swears or of the falsehood of what he abjures without which every such assertory Oath necessarily ends in Perjury is not to be had nor expected whilst this speculative Point remains under dispute a dispute as experience too clearly testifies not yet effectually determined by any publick nor I am sure determinable by any private authority as shall appear yet more fully in the next Chapter CHAP. IV. A Continuation of the former Discourse shewing the manifest unlawfulness as of Swearing so of Abjuring the Deposing power A Duty we owe to the Pope saith the Authour of the Questions a Duty to the King both commanded by God both obliging under sin yet both confined to their proper limits too much of the Temporal may be ascribed to Popes too much of the Spiritual to Kings too much may be challenged by both All which is most true but the difficulty is when these two Supreme Powers contest as actually they do concerning Power in Temporalls who shall then be Judge The Pope claims a Deposing power the King denies it if the Pope be Judge the Deposing power will carry it if the King it will be cast If we consult or appeal to the authority of the Learned and bring the cause to their bar there is nothing but noise censures and loud disagreements Bellarmin and Suarez write for the Deposing power and are condemned at Paris Barkly and Withrington appear against it and are condemned at Rome the Censurers all this while on both sides professing a previous mature and impartial examination of the Books and Doctrines they condemn Caron the laborious defender of the first Remonstrance in his loyalty asserted what betwixt Canonists and Divines Schoolmen and Fathers Popes Councils Universities and Kingdomes is said to have made a catalogue of more then 250 Opposers of the Deposing doctrine On the contrary what number of favourers and abettors there are for it may appear by this that even the Authour of the 8 th Controversial Letter tells us pag. 5. that the face of Authority is on that side and again pag. 7. that of Learned men those who write of this subject write generally in favour of it as likewise the Authour of the Questions in his Preface acknowledgeth the Maintainers of the Deposing power to be the more numerous party and that he himself sides with the few against the many and withall granteth pag. 24. that this act of Deposing Kings hath not onely been done by Popes but approved by Councils If we step over into France there we are strangely surprized with instances on both sides Behold in the year 1626. Eight Universities of that Realm declare smartly against the Deposing power and yet but a few years before viz. in the year 1614. in the General Assembly of the Three Estates in which were present 5 Cardinals 7 Archbishops and 47 Bishops besides many other learned Ecclesiasticks and Dignitaries of the Gallican Church two parts of three of this great Representative of that Kingdome were of another mind and so far from hearkening to or countenancing the hot Proposalls that were made against the Deposing doctrine that they left it in possession as they found it of whatsoever right or title it could pretend to What now shall the private Christian and loyal Subject doe who passionately desireth to share himself in all humble duty between God and Caesar what I say shall he doe in this unfortunate competition of the two grand Powers Shall he by his single sufficiency dare to assume to himself the right of judicature and boldly swear either for or against the Deposing power and to pass a decisive sentence under Oath that the Pope hath or hath not the Power in contest Were I worthy to offer my advice in this particular I should conceive it much more pertinent and proper for him seriously to consider with himself whether an act of this nature be not the same or rather indeed much worse then if a stander by upon hearing an Assembly of grave Divines or Counsellours learned in the Law all of them much above his size and abilities in their respective professions warmly debating a perplext Law-case or sturdy knot in Divinity should by a rash and unlicensed confidence take upon him the Umpirage of the cause and without any more adoe bluntly swear these men are in the right and the other in the wrong or the others are in the right and these in the wrong And whether he proceed not upon as meer a blind peradventure whatever part of the contradiction he swears in this last case and that it be not as slippery a piece of pure contingency in him whether he hit or miss as if upon the sight of an handfull of Guinnies he should all at a venture swear odde or even for a wager since that he hath no true knowledge for his guidance nor the least degree of certainty to steer by or fix him CHAP. V. A farther confirmation of the premisses ALL this which I have hitherto discoursed is no more then what is evidently deducible from and throughly grounded in the Principles and Concessions of those Learned persons who utterly deny the Pope hath any Power to depose Princes who yet neither do nor can make out a title and claim for their Doctrine to any higher pretence or degree then that of Opinion and in this I presume I shall speak the sense of all if I say it is never lawfull nor justifiably safe to swear to an Opinion as true nor to abjure an Opinion as false speaking as here I do of such free and debatable Tenets as are openly and avowedly held and taught by Catholick Divines divided amongst themselves in their private sentiments and School-disputes because no one of these Opinions can sufficiently answer for its own truth nor secure the officious Swearer who lends it his Oath that he goes Christianly and groundedly to work whether side soever of the Opinion he makes choice of to be sworn or abjur'd For it is not in Opinions as in things which we know by clear and certain evidence as it happens in those early and fair Notions implanted in us by nature from the first glimmering of Reason called First Principles as that Every whole is greater then a part of the whole It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time c. which great Maxims of Nature sufficiently speak for and evidence themselves without the help of Syllogisms moods or figure and are no sooner understood then readily and necessarily assented unto Nor is it in Opinions as in certain scientifical Deductions and demonstrative Conclusions partly flowing connaturally by a train of immediate consequences partly
controversie between the Deniers and Assertors of the Deposing power For that this Deposing doctrine hath been held by Popes and other Learned Divines not onely as speculatively probable but also as safely practicable even against one in possession appears manifestly not onely by their open pretence and claim but also by their frequent and publick Sentence of Deposition against severall Sovereign Powers all of them actually in possession even from the time of the Emperour Hen. IV. to the days of King Hen. IV. of France the first and last of Christian Princes who stand as instances upon record and sad testimonialls of Papal Deposition the one having had the Sentence of Deprivation passed against him by Pope Gregory VII the other by Sixtus V. England in particular hath cause to remember and deplore the lamentable effects of the like Sentence pronounced by Paulus Tertius against King Hen. VIII and of Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth Likewise I have already in the Fourth Chapter quoted the testimony and free acknowledgment of the Authour of the Questions that this act of deposing Kings hath not onely been done by Popes but approved by Councills All which I do not produce any more then he himself doth with the least intention or design to interest my self in the decision of that Question or to prove that the Doctrine is in it self practically probable but onely that it was held so by Popes Councils and Learned Divines and therefore as being a controverted Point of doctrine can be no due and immediate object of an assertory Oath nor safely abjurable even by those who otherwaies hold it safely deniable as practically no Power at all There followeth another Argument which the Authour of the Questions in pursuance of his usual way of arguing and conformably to the title of his Work proposeth by way of Quere Let them tell me saith he pag. 25. are they not ready to swear they will faithfully serve their King whiles they live and that notwithstanding any Papall Dispensation or whatever other proceeding to the contrary What signifies this but an express renouncing all Obedience to the Pope in these Points 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 reall difference as to Government and the practicall part of humane life can we imagine between these two I 'll swear never to obey my Commander and I 'll swear he has no Power to command me The summe of the first part of this Discourse which is quite besides the Question in a short word is this either deny the Pope's Authority or obey it so that if those good Subjects who are ready to swear they will adhere to the King though the Pope should depose him will but say though not swear he cannot depose him which is no more then with the French Divines to deny the Deposing power then the Gentleman and the first part of his Argument are satisfied Now to his Question that follows which is the second and indeed the onely pertinent part of his Argument what wise and real difference as to Government and the practicall part of humane life there is between these two I 'll swear never to obey my Commander and I 'll swear he hath no Power to command me they will easily answer that the last of these two Oaths is an assertory Oath and swears to a disputable piece of Doctrine as to an absolute Truth which is down-right Perjury as hath been proved already in the 2.3.4 and 5. Chapters the other I 'll swear never to obey my Commander to wit the Pope in this particular case of Deposing the King being a promissory Oath and tending wholly to practice engages not for the absolute truth of any Doctrine but onely for the Swearer's Allegeance and Loyalty and therefore requires no absolute certainty to build on but onely a safe and practically-probable Opinion as a sufficiently-strong principle of action such as the Authour of the Questions every-where designedly maintains the Deniall of the Pope's Deposing power to be from whence they will lastly conclude that there is as much difference between these two Oaths as between Perjury and Loyalty and sure that is difference enough even as to Government and the practical part of humane life In the last place comes his conjectural proof or rather his meer affirmative presumption That our glorious Ancestours who refused and suffered for refusing the Oath of Allegeance would certainly have changed their judgment had they but seen read perused examined and throughly considered all those many particulars which he dilates upon in a large flourish of words To all which my Fifth Chapter may serve for a Reply and a sufficient evidence that had these worthy Predecessours of ours seen the unanimous Judgment of so many Universities and the publick Subscriptions of so many eminent Regulars they are the words of the Authour of the Questions had they examined the sense of Antiquity towards Sovereign Princes which acknowledge them Supreme in Temporals and accountable to none but God had they read the learned Treatises composed by Catholick Writers both of our own and other Nations where this King-dethroning Power is absolutely disavowed had they perused the Declarations of the Kings in France and Arrests of Parliaments there had they I say done all this and more then this yet after all they could have found the Opinion denying the Deposing power to be no more then an Opinion Neither the Judgment of the French Universities nor the learned Treatises of both the Barkleys father and son nor Withrington's Gloss and Exposition together with the Apologetical answer his Theological Disputation and whatever else he wrote against Suarez Lessius Fitzherbert and Skulkenius can prove it to be any more then an Opinion in the opinion of the Authour and Publisher of the Questions And since that enough hath already been said to prove that an opinionative assent cannot safely ground a consciencious Oath asserting the truth or abjuring the falsehood of the thing that is sworn I shall now pass to this final conclusion of my Discourse That whereas it is the voice and Law of Nature that Protection claims Allegeance and that perfect Subjection to Civil Powers under which we live is the strict injunction no less then dictate of Reason whereby it comes to pass that nothing is or ought to be more inviolably dear to a loyal heart nor more highly and justly valuable in it self then to be and to bear the name of a good Subject life and fortunes are nothing to it yet since that to take the Oath as it lies were to over-buy that precious title by making Perjury the price of it and laying out our very Souls upon the purchace whenas it is to be had at a much cheaper rate and as with more ease to the Conscience of the Subject so with no
exhort the people in their Sermons to embrace the contrary Doctrine to the Propositions they had prohibited But from all this it cannot be inferred that the French Iesuits did or would have sworn positively That the Pope has no Power in no case whatsoever to depose Princes nor that they did exhort the people to swear any such thing nor that they were commanded by the Parliament so to doe One may exhort another to embrace an Opinion which notwithstanding he will not nor cannot positively swear to be true nor exhort the other to swear it is so And yet whoever exhorts any one to take the Oath he must exhort him to swear positively that the forementioned Opinion viz. That the Pope has no Power to depose Kings is true Much less can it be inferred from the aforesaid Decree that the French Iesuits did approve or were commanded to approve of all the other Clauses contained in the present Oath And consequently their Authority cannot be alledged for the Lawfulness thereof For though the Clauses relating to the Pope's Power to depose Princes may seem to some to contain the main Difficulty yet this to others seems no Difficulty at all and there are several other Difficulties involved in the Oath as has been shewn And to the end we may lawfully take an Oath 't is necessary to be satisfied concerning all and every Difficulty and Clause thereof For to swear any thing either false or doubtfull though never so little in it self is a grievous Sin 66. Concerning the Authority of the Vniversity of Paris in particular for the Lawfulness of the Oath besides what already has been said in general Consider First that though we should grant as we do not that the Universitie of Paris and other Universities of France are for the Oath yet even our Adversaries confess that the Universities of Spain are against it where beyond debate there are many Learned and Consciencious men and as zealous for the Honour and Safety of their Kings as any in France and they have as many Prerogatives relating to the Security of their Sovereigns against the Usurpations of any Ecclesiastical Prince as in any Countrey whatsoever So that admitting that on both sides there are grave Authours yet the Negative in the present debate has the advantage of the Affirmative That the Pope who is the competent Judge in these affairs as above has been proved and to whom both parties made their address has given his express Sentence for the Negative and among other things which render an Opinion before probable practically or in practice improbable one is an authentick Declaration or Sentence of a competent especially Supreme Judge to the contrary 67. Suppose that in a Plea before the King and His Councill there are many brave Lawyers on both sides who produce several pregnant Arguments and excellent Precedents in favour of their respective Clients which render the Cause doubtfull yet that party must needs carry it for whom the King and His Council gave their definitive Sentence neither is it longer lawfull for the party condemned to stand out because many learned Lawyers are on his side or to retrive the former Arguments produced for his right which signifies no more then to plead after the Suit is lost Neither would the party who had gained the Cause concern himself any farther with what the Lawyers of the contrary side object against him The same happens in our present Case There are many grave and learned Authours against the Oath suppose there are also many for it yet since the Impugners of the Oath have obtained several express Sentences of the Supreme Judge in their favour they do not think themselves obliged to take any farther notice of what the Defenders of the Oath produce against them which cannot excuse them from an exteriour Compliance with the Judge's express Sentence as long as it is authentick And this is the Reason why the Impugners of the Oath have not in a long time printed any thing against it For what more can they pretend by their writings but that the Oath be condemned by the Pope which has been already done But the Defenders of the Oath continue still to write after they have lost the cause according to the common saying Losers must have leave to talk or at least they will take it 68. Consider Secondly that among other Oaths which those who desire to be incorporated in the University of Paris are to take one for the Degree of Bachelour is That they will hold the Articles of the Faculty of Paris to be true and that when occasion offers they will defend them to be agreeable to Faith and Religion which is a promissory Oath the truth whereof onely requires that he who swears has a sincere intention to doe what he promises and as we have already seen one may promise even under an Oath that he will defend such an Opinion to be true when occasion offers though he does not nor cannot lawfully many times swear positively that it is true For these two Oaths are very different Before God I judge that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings and I promise to defend it when occasion requires and Before God he has no such Power The immediate object of the former Oath is onely our own Judgment or Intention whereof every one is certain and consequently to call God for witness that he has such a Judgment being certain that he has it is not to expose God to be a witness to a Falsity But the immediate object of the latter Oath is the Matter it self which probably may be otherwise and to call God for witness of a thing that I know probably may be otherwise is to expose him to be witness of a Falsity which let the matter be never so little is a great affront And therefore it is a common way of speaking among consciencious people I think such a thing is true but I will not swear it is true Hence it follows that the immediate object of Oaths is not alwaies the Judgment of the person who takes them otherwise it would be impossible that one should ever swear false judging that he swears true since every one is conscious of his own actual Judgment neither can one think that he judges actually when he does not And yet certainly it is possible that one should swear false thinking that he swears true So that though we should grant that the University of Paris does oblige her Members to swear that they will defend that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings it does not therefore follow that they can be or are bound to swear positively that the Pope has no such Power which notwithstanding we must swear if we will take this Oath Neither because they are bound to swear that they will defend the Articles of the Faculty of Paris to be agreeable to Faith and Religion does it therefore follow as some do seem to pretend that they are bound to
least whether they have seriously pondered them the Expressions so weighty wherewith they declare the Unlawfulness of the Oath and the Character they give of such as counsell or teach the contrary which certainly is enough to startle any tender Conscience and whether they can think themselves obedient Sons to their Supreme Pastour and Father when they disobey his expresse Prohibition published several times after so long debate and so mature deliberation Finally whether most of them have not been carried away with the pretended Authority of France for the Lawfulness of the Oath whereas France never approved by any Publick Act the whole Oath as it lies nor that part thereof for which onely the Authority of France is alledged as it is couched in the Oath 121. Consider Lastly that if what is commonly reported be true all or most of such Catholicks who have taken the Oath have proceeded upon evident Mistakes Some of them were induced thereunto because they thought that the taking this Oath was not malum in se but onely malum quia prohibitum and that the Popes by their Briefs had made it unlawfull and declared it so and consequently that an extraordinary damage such as they apprehend in the Refusall of the Oath does excuse them from complying with this as with other Prohibitions of the same nature Now this is a manifest Mistake as has been shewn above And certainly to take a false doubtfull unjust or unnecessary Oath is intrinsecè malum or malum in se. 122. Others have taken the Oath making beforehand a publick or private Protestation that they intended onely to swear thereby a meer Civil Allegeance and this way they pretended to secure their Conscience But in the like manner they might take the Oath of Supremacy making a Protestation beforehand that they intended onely thereby to swear that the King is Protectour of the Church as all Christian Princes are and that to Him as such does belong to take care that the Laws established by the Church be observed in His Kingdome and that the Pope has no Preeminency inconsistent with the aforesaid Obligation of Christian Princes 123. Moreover one might in the same manner take the Communion of the Protestants making a Protestation that he takes it onely as meer Bread and Wine or for his Breakfast and incense an Idol too protesting that he does it onely to perfume the room All which are vast absurdities as no Catholick can deny The reason is because as long as an Action is in it self unlawfull or as long as it is doubtfull whether it be so or no no previous Protestation can make it lawfull 124. In fine some others of them will needs persuade themselves that in the Oath is denied onely a direct and absolute Power but not an indirect and conditionall Power in the Pope to depose Kings But how can this be credible when both King Iames who had a great hand in framing the Oath and all other Authours whatsoever either Catholicks or Protestants who have hitherto published Books in defence of the Oath have unanimously understood that therein was denied not onely a direct but an indirect Power also in the Pope to depose Princes And it is not probable that they would explicate their own Opinion to any disadvantage or prejudice and make it harder then really it is 125. Besides they all impugn Bellarmine as the chief Maintainer of the Pope's Deposing power and as the greatest Enemy to the Oath and yet Bellarmine as much as any other impugns the Pope's direct Power to deprive Princes of their Dominions and it is not credible that the Maintainers of the Oath would make themselves more Adversaries then really they were or make so famous a man as Bellarmine their Enemy in a matter wherein he is their Friend Moreover the very cause for which the Oath was framed does contain the deniall of an indirect Power For this Oath was framed to deny the Pope all Power and Authority to depose a King of England or dispose of his Dominions or to absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance even in case such a King should not onely be an Heretick himself but also force his Subjects to be so and the Pope could not defend his Flock otherwise then by Deposing him And what is this but to deny an indirect Power in the Pope to depose Kings Neither do I think that there is even amongst Protestants any Divine or Lawyer who can deny but that the forementioned Case is comprehended in the Oath 126. If they say That should that Clause of the Oath be understood in the Latitude pretended even the Protestants themselves who take it would be manifest Perjurers For they would swear in taking this Oath that the Pope is not Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome since every Supreme Temporall Prince has an indirect Power to depose any other Sovereign as above has been expounded And how is it credible that Protestants should frame such an Oath as no body Protestant or Catholick could take without manifestly perjuring himself 127. To this I answer That all Catholicks must confess that whoever takes the Oath of Supremacy does swear false and consequently that those Protestants who framed it and took it were manifest Perjurers and many of them without an invincible ignorance viz. such as denied the Supremacy of the Pope in Spiritualls as doubtless many of the first Framers of that Oath did Yea severall Protestants and amongst the rest King Iames acknowledge the Pope to be Patriarch of the West and that England appertains to the Western Patriarchate and consequently that the Pope has some Preeminency in England in order to Spiritualls for every Patriarch has some Preeminency in his whole Patriarchate and yet they swear positively in the Oath of Supremacy that no Forrein Prelate has or ought to have any Preeminency within this Realm and by consequence they swear false even according to their own Principles 128. What wonder therefore is it that Protestants out of Indignation towards Catholicks should frame such an Oath of Allegeance that even they themselves could not take without being perjured And the like is to be seen in all Heterodox Countries where out of hatred to the true Religion such things are often required of the Professours thereof that even the Heterodox Professours themselves cannot lawfully execute Besides the Test enacted the last year 1673. though levelled onely at Catholicks is notwithstanding such that others who are not Roman Catholicks yea Protestants of the English Church cannot comply with if they understand the Principles of their respective Religions and will stand to them as may easily be made appear 129. 'T is therefore not to be wondered at that men out of Passion should over-doe things and that Protestants to the end they might be sure to frame such a Test that Roman Catholicks could not take should frame such an one and in such generall terms that they themselves could not comply with For their mind seems to have been so