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
grant after all this that Cajetan and Soto both yield to the common Doctrine of their Church about Dispensing with Oaths made to Excommunicated persons by way of punishment to them but they do not answer their own Arguments And Cajetan saith that caution is to be used lest prejudice be done to another by it i. e. they durst not oppose the common Opinion although they saw sufficient Reason against it Cardinal Tolet seems to speak home to our case when he saith that an Oath made to the benefit of a third person cannot be dispensed with no not by the Pope himself without the consent of that person as the Pope cannot take away another man's goods One would have thought this had been as full to our purpose as possible and so it is as to the Reason of the thing But he brings in after it a scurvy exception of the case of Excommunicated persons without offering the least shew of Reason why the common Rules of Iustice and Honesty ought not to be observed towards persons censured by the Church Nor doth he attempt to shew how the Pope comes by that Power of Dispensing with Oaths in that case which he freely declares he hath not in any other Gregory Sayr thinks he hath nicked the matter when with wonderfull subtilty he distinguisheth between the free act of the will in obliging it self by an Oath and the Obligation following upon it to perform what is sworn Now saith he the Pope in Dispensing doth not take away the second viz. the Obligation to perform the Oath the Bond remaining for that were to go against the Law of God and Nature but because every Oath doth suppose a Consent of the will the Dispensation falls upon that and takes away the force of the Oath from it If this Subtilty will hold for all that I can see the Pope may dispense with all the Oaths in the world and justify himself upon this Distinction for as Azorius well observes if the Reason of Dispensing be drawn from the Consent of the will which is said to be subject to the Pope he may at his pleasure dispense with any Oath whatsoever Sayr takes notice of Azorius his dissatisfaction at this Answer but he tells him to his teeth that he could bring no better yea that he could find out no Answer at all Azorius indeed acknowledges the great difficulty of explaining this Dispensing power of the Pope as to Oaths and concludes at last that the Bond of an Oath cannot be loosed by the Pope but for some Reason drawn from the Law of Nature which is in effect to deny his Authority for if there be a Reason from the Law of Nature against the obligation of an Oath the Bond is loosed of it self Others therefore go the plainest way to work who say that all Oaths have that tacit Condition in them If the Pope please But Sayr thinks this a little too broad because then it follows evidently that the Pope may dispense as he pleases without cause which he saith is false Others again have found out a notable device of distinguishing between the Obligation of Iustice and of Religion in an Oath and say that the Pope can take away the Religious Obligation of an Oath though not that of Iustice. This Widdrington saith was the Opinion of several grave and learned Catholicks in England and therefore they said they could not renounce the Pope's Power of absolving persons from the Oath of Allegeance But he well shews this to be a vain and impertinent Distinction because the intention of the Oath of Allegeance is to secure the Obligation of Iustice and the intention of the Pope in Absolving from that Oath is to take it away as he proves from the famous Canons Nos Sanctorum and Iuratos So that this Subtilty helps not the matter at all Paul Layman confesseth that a promissory Oath made to a man cannot ordinarily be relaxed without the consent of the person to whom it is made because by such an Oath a man to whom it is made doth acquire as just a right to the performance as he hath to any of his Goods of which he cannot be deprived But from this plain and just Rule he excepts as the rest do the publick Good of the Church as though Evil might be done for the Good of the Church although not for the Good of any private person whereas the Churche's Honour ought more to be preserved by the ways of Iustice and Honesty Wo be to them that make good evil and evil good when it serves their turn for this is plainly setting up a particular Interest under the name of the Good of the Church and violating the Laws of Righteousness to advance it If men break through Oaths and the most solemn Engagements and Promises and regard no Bonds of Iustice and Honesty to compass their ends let them call them by what specious names they please the Good Old Cause or the Good of the Church it matters not which there can be no greater sign of Hypocrisy and real Wickedness then this For the main part of true Religion doth not lie in Canting phrases or Mystical notions neither in Specious shews of Devotion nor in Zeal for the true Church but in Faith as it implies the performance of our Promises as well as belief of the Christian Doctrine and in Obedience or a carefull observance of the Laws of Christ among which Obedience to the King as Supreme is one Which they can never pretend to be an inviolable Duty who make it in the power of another person to Absolve them from the most solemn Oaths of Allegeance and consequently suppose that to keep their Oaths in such case would be a Sin and to violate them may become a Duty which is in effect to overturn the natural differences of Good and Evil to set up a Controlling Sovereign Power above that of their Prince and to lay a perpetual Foundation for Faction and Rebellion which nothing can keep men from if Conscience and their solemn Oaths cannot 3. Therefore the third Mischief common to this Deposing power of the Pope and Commonwealth-Principles is the Justifying Rebellion on the account of Religion This is done to purpose in Boucher and Reynolds the fierce Disputers for the Pope's and the People's Power Boucher saith that it is not onely lawfull to resist Authority on the account of Religion but that it is folly and impiety not to doe it when there is any probability of success And the Martyrs were onely to be commended for Suffering because they wanted Power to resist Most Catholick and Primitive Doctrine And that the Life of a Wicked Prince ought not to be valued at that rate as the Service of God ought to be That when Christ paid tribute to Caesar he did it as a private man and not meddling with the Rights of the People That if the People had not exercised their Power over the lives of bad
Princes there had been no Religion left in many Countries And he finds great fault with the Catholicks in England that they suffered Heretical Princes to live and saith that they deserved to endure the miseries they did undergo because of it that there is no juster cause of War then Religion is that the Prince and People make a solemn League and Covenant together to serve God and if the Prince fail of his part the People ought to compell him to it And he accounts this a sufficient Answer to all Objections out of Scripture If he will not hear the Church how much more if he persecutes it let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican And he brings all the Examples he could think of to justify Rebellion on the account of Religion Rossaeus proves that Hereticks being Excommunicated lose all Right and Authority of Government and therefore it is lawfull for their Subjects to rise up against them and that no War is more just or holy then this Which he endeavours at large to defend and to answer all Objections against it And the contrary Opinion he saith was first broached by the Calvinists in France when they had the expectation of the Succession of Henry IV. which Doctrine he calls Punick Divinity and Atheism and the New Gospel The truth is he doth sufficiently prove the Lawfulness of resisting Princes on the account of Religion to have obtained together with the Pope's Power of deposing Princes And there can be no other way to justifie the Wars and Rebellions against Henry IV. of Germany and France and other Princes after their Excommunications by the Pope but by stifly maintaining this Principle of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And therefore this cannot be looked on as the Opinion of a few factious spirits but as the just consequence of the other Opinion For the Pope's Deposing power would signifie very little unless the People were to follow home the blow and to make the Pope's Thunder effectual by actual Rebellion And the Popes understand this so well that they seldom denounce their Sentence of Excommunication against Princes but when all things are in readiness to pursue the design as might be made appear by a particular History of the several Excommunications of Princes from the Emperour Henry IV. to our own times If they do forbear doing the same things in our Age we are not to impute it to any alteration of their minds or greater Kindness to Princes then formerly but onely to the not finding a fit opportunity or a Party strong and great enough to compass their ends For they have learnt by experience that it is onely loss of Powder and Ammunition to give fire at too great a distance and that the noise onely awakens others to look to themselves but when they meet with a People ready prepared for so good a Work as the Nuntio in Ireland did then they will set up again for this Good Old Cause of Rebellion on the account of Religion And it is observable that Cardinal Bellarmin among other notable Reasons to prove the Pope's Deposing power brings this for one Because it is not lawfull for Christians to suffer an Heretical Prince if he seeks to draw his Subjects to his Belief And what Prince that believes his own Religion doth it not And what then is this but to raise Rebellion against a Prince whenever he and they happen to be of different Religions But that which I bring this for is to shew that the Pope's Deposing power doth carry along with it that mischievous Principle to Government of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And from this Discourse I infer that there can be no real Security given to the Government without renouncing this Deposing power in the Pope But that which is the present pretence among them is that it is not this they stick at but the quarrel they have at the Oath of Allegeance as it is now framed I shall therefore proceed to the Second thing viz. II. That if they do renounce the Pope's Deposing power in good earnest they have no reason to refuse the Oath of Allegeance And now Gentlemen I must again make my Address to you with great thanks for the satisfaction you have given me in this particular I have seriously read and considered your Treatises and I find by them all that if you durst heartily renounce this Doctrine all the other parts of the Oath might go down well enough The Authour of the First Treatise is so ingenuous as to make the following Proposition the whole Foundation of his Discourse viz. That it is not lawfull to take any Oath or Protestation renouncing the Pope's Power in any case whatsoever to Depose a Christian Prince or Absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance And in my mind he gives a very substantial Reason for it Because the holding that he hath no such Power is Erroneous in Faith Temerarious and Impious What would a man wish for more against any Doctrine Whatever P. W. and his Brethren think of this Deposing power this Piece doth charge them home and tells them their own and that they are so far from being sound Catholicks that deny it that in one word they are Hereticks damnable Henrician Hereticks What would they be thought Catholicks that charge the Church for so many Ages with holding a damnable Errour and practising mortal Sin as their Church hath done if the Pope hath no Deposing power For this honest Gentleman confesseth That it is a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Rights of Princes and the cause of much deadly Feud betwixt the Church and Secular States of many bloudy Wars of Princes one against another and wicked Rebellions of Subjects against their Princes O the irresistible power of Truth How vain is it for men to go about to Masquerade the Sun His light will break through and discover all It is very true this hath been the effect of this blessed Doctrine in the Christian world Seditions Wars Bloudshed Rebellions what not But how do you prove this to have been the Doctrine of the Church of Rome How say you by all the ways we can prove any Doctrine Catholick Popes have taught it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as Erroneous in faith Pernicious to salvation wicked Folly and Madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it Have they so in good sooth Nay then it must be as good Catholick Doctrine as Transubstantiation its own self if it hath been declared in Councils and received by the Church Yes say you that I prove by the very same Popes the same Councils the same Church and in the same manner that Transubstantiation was And for my part I think you have done it and I thank you for it I am very well satisfied with your Proofs they are very solid and much to the purpose But above
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
which Authority renders probable in which Case and according to which Opinion Kings and Princes have at least by Authority of the Church and with others Power and Authority to depose the Pope I see no objection offer it self but the way open and fairly smoothed to this Resolution of the Case That no Catholick can safely take this counter-Oath nor securely 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 And therefore comparing the two Oaths together this and the Oath of Allegeance I think that as no man could rightly be accounted a bad Catholick at Rome for denying to take this so neither can he justly be reputed a bad Subject in England for refusing the other because this Recusancy is equally blamable in either of the two cases or absolutely unreprovable in both the ground of both being one and the same which indeed is neither favour nor fear of man but rather a just fear of incurring God's disfavour and the inviolable duty we owe to Truth and an upright Conscience which lays an indispensable tie of Recusancy upon us so far as never to take any assertory Oath requiring of us to swear or abjure any speculative controverted Doctrines though we suppose the Oath to be as much in favour of the Pope as our Oath of Allegeance is conceived to be of the King CHAP. VIII Abjuring the Deposing doctrine neither is nor can be any part of the Oath as it is an Oath of Allegeance and therefore not at all necessary to a true Oath of Allegeance More Allegeance may be sworn and better Security given to Princes by abjuring all Discourses and Disputes in favour of the Deposing doctrine then by abjuring the Doctrine it self I Have seen and taken some pains to peruse a Book of Oaths and the several terms thereof above two hundred in all both ancient and modern forrein and domestick out of sundry authentick Books and Records wherein amongst so many Oaths of Fealty Service and Duty as are mentioned there which generally run in the promissory strain I find not one that injoyns the swearing or abjuring of any controverted Doctrine save onely our two Oaths of Allegeance and Supremacy which upon that account lie under the just exception as I think of being singular and without precedent in their kind wherefore what the Authour of the Questions so expresly assumes my self also for his and the Argument's sake having been willing hitherto to goe along with him in his own supposition viz. that the Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power is the Substance of the Oath cannot be strictly made out without the help and allowance of a distinction nor regularly understood but onely of the assertory part for otherwise if we speak properly it is so far from being the Substance that it is not so much as a Part of the Oath as it is an Oath of Allegeance and a Bond of Duty from the Subject to his Supreme Lord. And of this there will need little proof when it is considered that the Bond of an Oath is in reference to something which is to be performed for the future and therefore cannot appertain to an assertory Oath which is a thing present or past but belongs onely to a promissory Oath Wherefore since it is plain that this abjuring the Pope's Deposing power is an assertory Oath there can be no doubt that it being in it self and in the nature of the thing no Bond at all it can be no Bond of Allegeance and therefore also no part of the Oath as it is an Oath of Allegeance And if the forbearing all Disputes and Discourses any ways favouring the Deposing power may be as I think it is look'd upon as part of our Allegeance then it follows likewise that more Allegeance may be sworn by the promissory Oath in abjuring all such Disputes and Discourses in favour and defence of the Deposing doctrine then by abjuring the Doctrine it self because this last Oath of abjuring the Doctrine it self being purely assertory contains no Promise Bond or Tie at all so that in fine it is the promissory Oath alone that is the true Oath of Allegeance and the sole Bond of Duty from the Subject to his Prince This I take to be the reason why some learned Catholicks who understood both themselves the difference of Oaths and the nature of Allegeance full well having upon sundry emergent occasions exhibited to the publick several Oaths of fidelity for the quieting of all State-jealousies and fears from the Pope's Deposing power have wholly confined themselves to the promissory form Thus 13 Catholick Priests made a solemn Protestation of their Allegeance to Queen Elizabeth by a publick Instrument the last day of Ianuary and the last year of Her Majestie 's reign wherein after having acknowledged the Queen though divided from the Church of Rome in Communion for their true and lawfull Sovereign they promised that they would yield to Her Majesty all Obedience in Temporal causes notwithstanding any Authority or any Excommunication whatsoever denounced or to be denounced against Her Majesty or Her Subjects The like Declaration and Acknowledgment Mr. Iames Haughton aliàs Mr. Thomas Green Professour of Divinity of the holy Order of Saint Benedict gave under his hand to the then Lord Bishop of Durham the 5. November An. 1619. and did promise and vow to be a true and faithfull Subject to His Majesty and His Successours during his life notwithstanding any Sentence from the Pope whatsoever of Excommunication Deposition or Absolution of His Majestie 's Subjects from their natural Obedience to Him or His Heirs There hath of late years been often reprinted a brief Explanation of the Roman Catholick belief concerning their Church-worship justification and Civil government in the last clause whereof are these express words We are say they most strictly and absolutely bound to the exact and entire performance of our Promises made to any person of what Religion soever much more to the Magistrates and Civil Powers under whose protection we live whom we are taught to obey by the Word of God not onely for fear but Conscience sake and to whom we will most faithfully observe our Promises of Duty and Obedience notwithstanding any Dispensation Absolution or other proceedings of any forrein Power or Authority whatsoever And this they sincerely and solemnly professed in the sight of God the Searcher of all hearts without any equivocation or mentall reservation whatsoever The Objection which some offer against the sufficiency of these or the like forms grounded upon the difference which the Objectours make between Will not and Cannot is in my opinion wholly groundless what they pretend with so much solicitude in behalf of the State being onely this That it is not enough for a man to swear he Will not unless he swear also he
things repugnant to Faith and Salvation though he specifies none of them and that thereby is abjur'd implicitly a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate Princes and his Supremacy in Spiritualls all which is false and we are not bound to submit to Briefs grounded upon mistakes and misinformations That the Pope is a Party in this Debate and by consequence ought not to be Judge in his own Cause That he must give Sentence according to the Canons or Rules prescribed him by the Church which he does not observe in the Prohibition of this Oath Finally That we ought not to take notice of the Prohibitions or Commands of the Pope when the Compliance with them may be a cause of great Disturbance in the Church or is prejudiciall to the Right of others especially of Sovereign Princes and to the Duty due unto them to which God and the Law of Nations obliges us all which Inconveniences intervene in the Prohibition of this Oath 14. Concerning the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope contained in the Objection Consider First that though the King and Parliament be above the King out of Parliament yet we are bound to submit even against our own Interest to the Orders of the King and His Councill in Civill matters till the contrary be decreed by Parliament which at least is enjoyned us by such Parliaments as command us to bear due Allegeance to His Majesty as our Sovereign in all Civill matters and that in like manner we are bound to submit to the Pope's Ordinances in Ecclesiasticall matters even against our Interests notwithstanding the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope till the contrary be defined by such a Councill which at least is asserted in such Councills and by such Fathers as recommend unto us due Obedience to the Pope as our Supreme Pastour in Spiritualls For the Pope is as Supreme in Spiritualls out of a Councill as the King is in Temporalls out of a Parliament and consequently requires the like submission to his Ordinances 15. Consider Secondly that the Reasons one may seem to have either against the Pope's Decrees out of a Councill or the King's Ordinances out of a Parliament cannot justify the refusing an exteriour Compliance with them but onely may give one ground to make his Addresses to the Councill or Parliament when assembled to have such Decrees or Ordinances repealed and that what we require in our present case is onely that we should forbear the taking this Oath till the Lawfulness thereof be declared by a General Council to which we may apply our selves when convened to have this matter declared 16. Concerning the Fallibility of the Pope and the Infallibility of a General Council Consider First that if it be warrantable to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Decrees in Ecclesiastical matters because Fallible upon the same account it will be lawfull to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Orders of Kings and Princes in Civill affairs for doubtless they are all Fallible and may be mistaken and misinformed and so farewell all Government Secondly Consider that even those Catholicks who affirm the Pope to be Fallible out of a General Council do notwithstanding confess that an exteriour Obedience is due to his Commands in Ecclesiastical matters as the like Obedience is due to the Ordinances of Sovereign Princes in Civil affairs though Fallible And in this present Case no more is required then a meer exteriour Compliance with the Pope's Prohibition Thirdly Consider that even Protestants also who confesse their whole Church and not onely the particular Pastours thereof separately to be Fallible do yet affirm that an exteriour Obedience is due to their Ordinances And it seems somewhat odde that Catholicks should deny the Pope that Obedience under pretence of Fallibility which Protestants assert to be due to the Pastours of their Church though Fallible 17. Lastly Consider that the difference between a General Council and the Pope supposing the Infallibility of the one and the Fallibility of the other is that the Decrees and Declarations of the Pope do oblige onely to an Exteriour Obedience but those of a General Council to an Interiour Assent also 18. Concerning the capacity of the Pope of being misinformed and the pretended Mistakes in this present matter Consider First that between the publishing of the first and the last Brief against the Oath there past Twenty years That in this time the present Question concerning the Lawfulness thereof was canvased on both sides by Learned men both English and Forreiners That Withrington the chief Defender of the Oath and who brings all that is material for it represented in this interim to Paul the Fifth his Reasons for the Lawfulness of it and his Answers to what had been objected against him That the Popes in the forementioned Briefs use as significant terms to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation Mistakes and Inconsiderateness as Motu proprio Ex certa nostra scientia Post longam gravémque deliberationem de omnibus quae in illis continentur adhibitam Haec mera pura integráque voluntas nostra est c. as are used in any Briefs or Instruments whatsoever in order to that intent And if this be so as certainly it is then Consider Secondly that if all these diligences and preventions be not thought sufficient to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation Mistakes and Inconsiderateness what Brief or what Decree Ecclesiastical or Civil is there that the party therein condemned may not under pretence of the like Flaws reject and disobey Such liberty as this to reject the Ordinances of our Sovereigns both Spirituall and Temporall must needs induce a perfect Anarchy 19. Consider Thirdly that it belongs to the Pope to determine whether this Oath does contain any thing contrary to Faith and Salvation or destructive to his Sovereignty in Spiritualls or no. For the determination of such Questions belongs to the Spiritual Court as has been above insinuated as it belongs to the King and the Civil Court to determine whether such a thing be contrary to the Civil Laws and publick welfare of the Kingdome or destructive to His Sovereignty in Temporalls or not And since the Popes after so much diligence used to be informed of the Truth have severall times declared that this Oath contains many things destructive to Faith and Salvation and upon that account have prohibited the taking thereof we are bound to afford at least an exteriour Compliance to this Prohibition 20. Consider Fourthly that as to prohibit a Book 't is not necessary to point out the particular Propositions for which it is prohibited as appears by several publick Prohibitions of Books and Pamphlets issued forth either by Civil or Ecclesiastical Authority neither would it be prudence to design alwaies the particular Propositions for which a Pamphlet is prohibited when they are scandalous and offensive so neither was it necessary for the Prohibition of this Oath that the Pope should
constantly deny the Pope to have any Authority or Power direct or indirect to Depose Kings and finally of the French Iesuits who subscribed the Censure and Condemnation of some Books wherein that Power was defended and why may not the Catholicks of England have the same liberty as the Catholicks of France have 53. Concerning the Authority of France for this Oath objected against us Consider First that though in an Assembly held in France of the Three Estates Ecclesiasticks Nobility and Commons in time of Cardinall Peron there was drawn up an Oath by the Third Estate or Commons wherein is affirmed That there is no Power on earth either Spirituall or Temporall that hath any Right over his Majestie 's Kingdome to Depose the Sacred Persons of our Kings nor to dispense with or absolve their Subjects from their Loyalty and Obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoever yet the Two chief parts of the Assembly viz. the Spirituall and Temporall Lords were so much against this Article of the Oath that they were resolved especially the Spirituall Lords to die rather then take it and the Third Estate or Commons who had drawn it up after they had heard Peron's Oration against it laid it aside which is as much as handsomely to recall it And how can we reasonably say that the Kingdome of France is for an Oath which the Two principall parts of the Assembly representative of that Kingdome were so eager against and which the Third part after serious consideration laid aside 54. Consider Secondly that rather we may alledge the Kingdome of France for the Negative or against the Oath according to what happened in the Assembly For it is a certain kind of Argument against a thing when having been proposed and debated in an Assembly it was not carried but rather rejected Neither has there been since enacted by any other Assembly of France any Oath of this kind to be tendred unto all neither do our Adversaries pretend that any such thing has been done as our Oath of Allegeance was enacted for all sorts of people by our Parliament which corresponds to the Assembly in France Neither is there in France any other Oath wherein is expresly denied the forementioned Power established by the King or any Parliament or any other ways for to be taken by all such who swear Allegeance to his most Christian Majesty And the English Catholicks are ready to take the Oath of Allegeance to His Majesty which is generally tendred in France And why may not His Majesty be content with the same kind of Civil Allegeance from his Subjects which the French King and other Sovereigns require from their Subjects All which shews that France cannot reasonably be brought as a precedent in the Cause we treat of 55. Consider Thirdly that since the Representative of France has so much favoured the Negative though we should grant and whether it must be granted or not we shall see by and by that some other particular Tribunall or Society of that Kingdome have favoured the contrary yet because the Assembly or Representative of France is far above those particular Societies we ought to conclude that France rather countenances the Negative then the Affirmative Should we see that our Parliament did countenance so much the Negative of an opinion as the forementioned Assembly of France did countenance the Refusall of that Oath though some particular Court at Westminster or the University of Oxford should countenance the contrary we ought to say that England rather stood for the Negative then the Affirmative 56. Concerning the Authority of the Parliament and Vniversity of Paris in this Point Consider First that neither that Parliament nor any other Parliament of France neither that University nor any other University of that Kingdome have ever yet made any publick and authentick Act wherein they approve our present Oath of Allegeance as it lies and all its Clauses wherein the difficulty thereof consists neither do our Adversaries pretend any such thing but onely that the Parliament and University of Paris with some other Parliaments and Universities of France have made Decrees wherein they deny the Pope to have any Power whatsoever to Depose Kings or to Absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them for any cause or under any pretence whatsoever Yet hence does not follow that the Parliaments or Universities of that Kingdome do approve this Oath For to approve an Oath 't is necessary to approve all and every part thereof and who onely approves one part does not therefore approve the whole So that whosoever argues hence to shew the Lawfulness of this Oath his Argument must run thus The University and Parliament of Paris approve some Clauses of this Oath whereat severall persons do scruple Therefore they approve the whole Oath Which Argument is inconclusive as is manifest 57. Consider Secondly that though the Authority of the Parliament and University of Paris may work so far with some as to perswade them that this Oath ought not to be refused upon the account of any just Scruple concerning the Power in the Pope to depose Kings or absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them yet it does not therefore follow that the same Authority which does not concern it self at least in any publick Decrees about other Difficulties of the Oath should perswade them not to refuse at all this present Oath since there are severall other respects not taken notice of by the Parliament or University of Paris in their publick Decrees alledged by our Adversaries for which many refuse it Some though satisfied that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings yet they have a great difficulty about the word Hereticall for it seems hard unto them to censure the Doctrine which maintains that Princes Excommunicate or deprived by the Pope may be deposed by their Subjects for an Heresie or for as bad as an Heresie and the Defenders thereof for Hereticks either materiall or formall as invincible ignorance does or does not excuse them or at least for as bad as such and to swear that they detest them in the like manner either for such or as bad as such 58. Others think they cannot swear with Truth that neither the Pope nor any other whatsoever can absolve them from this Oath or any part thereof in any case imaginable since the King himself may absolve His Subjects from such an Oath either all of them by laying down the Government with consent of the Kingdome as Charles the Fifth did and it is hard to oblige one to swear that a King of England in no case possible can doe the like or at least some of them by passing a Town under his Jurisdiction to another King as His Majesty passed Dunkirk to the French King and consequently absolved from the Oath of Allegeance the Inhabitants who had taken it Moreover they do not see how they can swear that it is