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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
the Condemning of it at Rome But for all this the Authour of the Third Treatise quotes Spondanus for it The plain truth of the story is this Sanctarellus his Book coming to Paris met with so ill reception there that it was condemned by the Sorbon burnt by Order of the Parliament and the Iesuits hard put to it upon very strict Examinations wherein they shuffled and shewed all the Tricks they had but these would not serve their turn they are commanded to disown and confute this Doctrine Pierre Coton upon whom the main business lay being too hard set made a shift to escape the difficulty of his Province by dying Notwithstanding this the Doctours of Sorbon would not let the business die with him but renewed it the beginning of the next year upon which the King sent the Bishop of Nantes to them to let them know they had done enough in that matter the Book being condemned and the Pope having forbidden the sale of the Book at Rome A very wonderfull Condemnation of it that a Book should be forbidden to be sold and at Rome too and that so long after the publishing of it and when all that had a mind to it were provided already without any Censure upon the Authour or Doctrine Who dares talk of the Severity of the Court of Rome Could any thing be done with greater Deliberation and more in the spirit of Meekness and to less purpose then this was But after all this doth not to me look any ways like the Condemning of it at Rome before it was burnt at Paris and I suppose upon second thoughts you will be of my mind But you will tell me you did not expect to hear of these things in print That may be for we live in an Age wherein many things come to pass we little thought of For I dare say you never thought these Papers would have come into my hands but since they did so I could not envy the publick the benefit I receiv'd by reading of them hoping that they will contribute much to the satisfaction of others at least in this one point that you hold the very same Principles about the Pope's Power of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Allegeance that ever you did And therefore I conclude it would be great weakness to recede from our Legal Tests against the men of such Principles for any new Devices whatsoever Feb. 13. 1676 7 THE JESUITS LOYALTY THE FIRST TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE The Conclusion to be proved 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 The Proof MY Reason is Because the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is Erroneous in faith Temerarious and Impious Which I prove thus That Opinion which must suppose that the Church hath at some time been in a damnable Errour of Belief and Sin of Practice is Erroneous in faith Temerarious and Impious But this Opinion is such Ergo. The Major I suppose will not be denied by any Catholick because that were to suppose that the Church hath at some time ceased to be a Catholick and Holy Church which were Heresy to suppose possible The Minor is proved If the Church at some time hath believed and supposed as certain that the Pope hath such a Power in some case and upon that belief and supposall hath exercised it in her supremest Tribunals and if her Errour supposing she erred in it was a damnable Errour and her Practice if unlawfull a mortal Sin then this Opinion must suppose that the Church hath c. But the Church hath at some time so believed and practised and if amiss it was a damnable Errour and Practice Ergo. The Sequele of the Major is evident in terminis The second part of the Minor is likewise evident because it was a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Right of Princes to withstand which is a damnable sin Rom. 13. and 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 For the first part of the Minor if I shew 1. That Popes have taught it as sound Doctrine proving 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 2. That Popes have in the highest Tribunals of the Church deposed Sovereign Princes and absolved Subjects from their Allegeance and this with the advice and assent of their Councils and not onely Patriarchal but sometimes even General 3. That Popes and General Councils by them confirmed have denounced Excommunication to such as should obey their Princes after such Sentence of Deposition and Absolution of their Subjects from their Allegeance 4. That a General Council confirmed by the Pope hath made a Canon-Law regulating the manner of Deposing Princes in some case and Absolving their Subjects from their Allegeance 5. That all Catholick Divines and Casuists that have treated of it from the first to the last afore Calvin's time in all the severall Nations of Christendom have asserted this Power of the Pope without so much as one contradicting it in all that time 6. That all Catholick Emperours Kings yea even they that were deposed States Magistrates and Lawyers and finally all the Catholicks in the world for the time being have by tacit consent at least approved and received this Doctrine of Popes Divines and Casuists and these Censures Canons and Practices of Popes and General Councils I say if I shew all this I hope it will be granted a sufficient Proof That the Church hath at some time so believed taught and practised Now to shew this among a multitude of Instances I shall name some few of the principal As 1. In Anno 1074. S. Gregory VII a most holy and learned Pope who for his Sanctity and Miracles was canonized for a Saint threatned Philip the French King that unless he abstained from his Simoniacall selling of Bishopricks he would excommunicate him and all his Subjects that should obey him as King which he counted none would after such Sentence but Apostates from Christianity And that King hereupon submitted to the Pope and amended his fault 2. In Anno 1076. the same holy Pope in a Patriarchal Council of Rome wherein were present 110 Bishops with the advice and upon the importunity of the whole Synod deposed Henry IV. King of the Germans and absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance to him And did it ex Cathedra as Vicar of Christ and Successour of S. Peter in virtue of the Power of binding which Christ gave to him in S. Peter And this Sentence he published in a Breve to all the Princes Prelates and people of the Empire And it was published by his Legates
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
themselves but few and without the engagements of Colledges and Foundations is perhaps of less esteem with them then the interest of their universall Body at Rome whence so many advantages are continually derived to the rest of their Society This is to a tittle his full discourse upon this subject And now were I demanded a reason why this Gentleman should thus freely let loose to a weak and meer conjecturall descant upon the very thoughts and secret intentions of religious men as if any temporal interest were or could be more dear to or sway more with them then Loyalty to their King and Country my charity would prompt me to ascribe it to something of a too precipitate and mistaken zeal or sinister preoccupation of judgement which is too easily taken up at unawares in this Age of ours and oftentimes fostered to the great prejudice of the innocent even by persons otherwise of a sober and no immoderate temper who might doe a great deal of right no less to themselves then others would they be pleased to consider that this is a great breach of Christian Charity and is one day sadly to be reckoned for when an impartial and all-knowing Justice shall sit upon the Bench to judge between man and man Neither is the strength of the Gentleman's Discourse nor the depth of his Politicks such but that a very common reason and an easy reflexion bating passion and prejudice may be Machiavil enough both to fathome and answer him For if the Cause of the French and English Iesuits were the same as he pretends it is and withall they supposed to be those circumspect wise wary prudent persons as he is pleased to character them in this place then the English Iesuits must needs see that by writing after the copy which the French Iesuits have set them they could not in any likelihood hazard any of their publick concerns at Rome nor justly fear the endangering the interest of their universal Body there by acting no more then the French had done in the same Cause without any known check or censure from the See Apostolick to this day And the Authour of the Questions affords me a convincing proof of this in his second Question from whose mouth I take the words and argue thus That if there be Reasons enough to turn the eye of Authority quite away from seeing what the French Iesuits so openly avowed in the face of the world are there not enough to connive at the English Iesuits who are but a few and act privately and not without the excusing plea of extreme necessity The Argument cannot be disliked because it is perfectly his own Wherefore if as he saith the Cause of the English and French Iesuits be the same I conceive our Authour was much mistaken in his conjectural answer as to the reason he assigns of their different Actings in the same Cause For if the Cause be not the same as plainly it is not then this mistake is much the greater and his charity the less Had he produced a Censure against the Pope's Deposing power equal to that of the Sorbon drawn up signed and assented to by the generality of Seculars and Regulars here in England for the satisfaction of the State demanding as a Test of our Allegeance the Subscription of such a Censure and the Iesuits alone should stand out and refuse to subscribe and set their hands to it or if he had given us an Oath of Allegeance exactly parallel to ours taken by the French Iesuits and declined by the English then indeed the Cause of both had been the same and their Actings different but these two conditions both failing that is the French Iesuits having no such Oath of Allegeance to take as ours nor the English any such Censure to subscribe as the French evidently the Cause of the one and the other is not the same and so it will be no wonder to an impartial Considerer they should act differently in different Causes though I shall shew afterwards that nothing can difference either their Principles or Practices where the Cause will bear it Another mistake of the Authour of the Questions is the very reason given by him why he conceiveth the distinction between a simple Subscription and a down-right Oath to be a meer unnecessary Scruple because saith he no sincere and generous honesty will solemnly and deliberately attest under his hand what he will not in due circumstances swear to be true How swear to be true and yet this Gentleman knew full well had he but reflected on it that the onely Question here is of Swearing or Abjuring Opinions Wherefore had this Reason of his faln under Montalt's hands and that he had catcht it dropping from a Iesuit's pen how he would have answered it I know not but I am sure the daily practice of the Church in a free and unoffensive Subscribing of Opinions abundantly confutes it for what more usuall amongst our greatest Divines in resolving Cases of weight and concern then to deliver and attest their Opinion under their hand And was it not thus that the Faculty of Theologie delivered and subscribed their Censure as a Judgment for others to remember to frame and regulate their Opinions by Again doth not our Authour himself in his Preface reason the case in this very manner that if three or four Doctours nay perhaps one who hath well studied the point can make an Opinion safe how much more where a greater number and whole Universities engage their Judgment And if then the French Iesuits submitting their own subscribed to the Judgment of the University of Paris and by it were willing to frame and regulate their own Opinions let any friend of our Authour or his Principles speak wherein or what was their trespass For if as he argues the Authority of so many Catholick Doctours rendered their Opinion safe sure it could not be unsafe in the Iesuits to subscribe it as such But now to draw a generall consequence from a simple Subscription to a down-right Oath as our Authour doth and to conclude that a sincere and generous honesty will oblige a man in due circumstances to swear every thing he attests under his hand to be true this in other terms is to conclude that a sincere and generous honesty will oblige a man in some circumstances to act against Reason and Conscience by swearing an Opinion to be true which kind of Oath is a gross offence both against Logick and Divinity and no less then Sacrilege and Self-contradiction as hath been already proved in the Fifth Chapter The last mistake waving many others I shall concern my self with at present is found in the Authour's Fourth Question where he informs his Reader that the Iesuits are the strictest of all Religious in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives This he gives and attests under his hand in print but I hope his sincere and generous honesty would have been loth deliberately to swear it to be true
for as I question not but he was too good a Christian deliberately to swear an untruth so I think he was too much a Scholar deliberately to take this for a truth For let any learned and unprejudiced person but compare Bellarmine Suarez or any other Writer of the Society not onely with the loose and exorbitant Fantasies of Carerius Musconius or Zecchius but with other grave Religious men with Panormitanus Alvares Pelagius Augustinus Triumphas Bosius and too many others to be listed here and then let him freely judge and speak as he sees cause which of these Religious are the strictest in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives I am sure Io. Barkley one of Bellarmine's greatest adversaries was yet so just to him as to let the world know that Sixtus Quintus expressed his great displeasure and it was near passing to a Censure against the Learned Cardinall not for extending but rather for clipping the Pope's Prerogatives by disputing and writing so much as he did against the direct Power and so giving less to the Pope then the Pope himself claimed and other Religious men asserted as his due Besides how can it be averred with truth that the Iesuits are the strictest Religious in maintaining and extending the Prerogative of the Deposing power who of all Religious are the onely persons that by especiall Precept and Decree which was first made by themselves and afterwards renewed at the instance of the Parliament of Paris have silenced this Doctrine in their Pulpits shut their School-doors against it banished it from their publick Disputes and suffer not so much as the mention of it to pass under their Pens unless where necessity or duty make it a Crime to be wholly silent Lastly how far the Iesuits are from being the strictest in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives by any particular Doctrine of their own and how ready they are to disavow and renounce all singularity in this kind both England and France afford us a fair instance in a very observable and I think unexceptionable harmony of professions and acting between the English and French Iesuits in point of Allegeance For as father Cotton the mouth and speaker of the rest of his Order in France freely offered that the Doctrine of the Sorbon should be theirs and that what the Faculty of Paris should determine and subscribe they were ready to subscribe also so in the year 1661. the very year wherein these Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance first came to light an English Iesuit in the behalf of the rest of his Brethren offered in print that what Oath of Allegeance the English Clergy and other Religious should agree upon that they would most readily take themselves and willingly invite all others to take it An evidence then which I think a greater cannot easily be given how far they are from any particular kindness to any less allowable Doctrine of their own who shew so much of submission and deference to others Judgments as best suiting with the modesty and humility of Religious men CHAP. X. The rest of the Answer to the Authour of the Questions AFter a carefull survey and a no less impartial then particular and due examination of his small Treatise I find the main Question throughout the whole so generally mis-stated by him even contrary to his own expresse assertions and the very terms wherein he first proposed and thereby engaged to dispute it which I set down in the First Chapter and purposely stated the principall Controversy out of him with this previous and particular Observation That our present Question was not Whether a Catholick may safely deny but deny by Oath that Deniall also being the very Substance of the Oath and universally abjure the Pope's Power of deposing Princes which point he hath treated so cursorily and spoken so little directly to it that the onely application of my former discourse by way of Answer to his few proofs will be all the Answer which the rest of his Book can justly claim and the discovery of his Mistakes will be the refutation of his Arguments As first where he endeavours to fetch the parallel over from France to England arguing from the Censures and Judgment of the French Divines and pressing the Question home why we may not safely and uncensurably profess as much as they To which is answered from the foresaid grounds That though we might safely and uncensurably profess as much as they yet 't is one thing to profess as much as they and another to swear as much as they profess and that though the first might yet the second cannot be safely and uncensurably done and this for the same reason which by repeated instances I have often inculcated that where Catholick Divines teach differently some one way some another there can be no safe ground for an assertory Oath in either way because chuse which of the two ways you please it will still be a Question amongst the Learned whether Truth lies in that way or no and it is this Questionableness of the Point till the Church interpose for the decision of the Case will rise up in judgment against the Swearer and make out the charge of Perjury against him And truly were there no more in taking the Oath of Allegeance then in Subscribing the Sorbon Censures I would gladly ask this Question of the Authour or Publisher of the Questions That whereas the said Oath hath been long since translated and hath now travelled abroad in the Latine tongue for some more then one or two scores of years how it comes to pass that so many famous French Universities which so unanimously and solemnly and deeply condemn this Position of the Pope's Deposing power and all this as the Authour of the Questions observes without constraint voluntarily delivering their free Judgment unmenaced by their King unconcerned in Self-preservation should not at least out of a common concern for Religion whose credit is at stake or out of a sense of Compassion to us their suffering Brethren in England where our Laws so threatningly command and our All is so near concern'd voluntarily deliver their free Judgment and unanimously subscribe our Oath and by their Subscribing encourage us to the taking of it if it were really true that the taking of the said Oath amounted to no more then the denying or condemning of this Position of the Pope's Deposing power or that a simple denying and denying by Oath or condemning and abjuring were all one Then for his next Argument That however the Deposing power may by some be held speculatively probable yet as to any execution it is practically no Power at all against one in possession and consequently may be abjured as such This I say seems too plainly to beg the question and to take that for an uncontrovertible truth which hath been already shewn and is necessarily implied in the very state of the Question to be the chief or rather the onely point in
less Security to the Prince we must conclude upon the whole that it can never be lawfull thus to rob God of the things that are God's under pretence of rendring unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's nor to ground our Allegeance to the King upon the forfeiture of our Loyalty to the King of Kings THE THIRD TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE Several Considerations proposed for the satisfaction of such Catholicks as desire to be informed concerning the Oath of Allegeance Enacted Tertio Iacobi Capite quarto 1. COncerning the Lawfulness of an Oath in general Consider First that as all do confesse three Conditions are requisite for the Lawfulness of an Oath viz. Truth Iustice and Necessity So that an Oath wherein any thing whatsoever contained though never so little is either unjust false or doubtfull or if the taking of it be not necessary and effectual to some good end is unlawfull and ought to be refused Secondly Consider that any Oath whatsoever wherein any of the forementioned Conditions is wanting is according to the constant sentiment of Divines intrinsecally evill and such as cannot be justified in any case possible though never so great good be hoped for by taking it or never so great evill be feared by refusing it Thirdly Consider that whoever takes any Oath though in it self never so just without a due previous Consideration swears rashly and commits a grievous Sin To this all do agree Whence I conclude That to the end one may lawfully take this Oath it is necessary that after a serious Consideration he finds nothing therein unjust nothing false nothing doubtfull and that he judges the taking thereof to be requisite and effectuall for some good intent 2. Concerning the Unlawfulness of this Oath deduced from the Briefs of Popes issued forth against it Consider First that the Unlawfulness of this Oath has been declared by three several Briefs of Popes The First was issued forth by Paul the V. September 21. 1606. the Second by the same Pope September 21. 1607. the Third by Pope Vrban the VIII May 30. 1626. This neither Protestants nor Catholicks deny Secondly Consider that several things are contained or involved in this Oath the decision whereof appertains onely to the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Court viz. How far the Spirituall Power extends it self What Authority Christ left to the Supreme Spirituall Pastour as such What are the effects of an Excommunication What Propositions are Hereticall and the main debate about this Oath is Whether it be Sinfull or not The decision of all which things wherein consists the chief difficulty of this Oath according to the unanimous consent of both Catholicks and Protestants belongs onely to the Ecclesiasticall Court Withrington the great Stickler for the Oath made his humble address to the Pope concerning this matter representing unto him his Reasons for the Lawfulness thereof and earnestly beseeching him that laying aside the Misinformation of others he would be pleased to give his Judgment therein according to his own knowledge Which certainly he would never have done had he not been perswaded that there was something contained in this Oath the Judgment whereof did appertain to the Pope and to the Ecclesiasticall Court Moreover the same Authour with other Catholicks who have written in defence of the Oath do plainly professe that were the Unlawfulness thereof declared by a General Council they would think themselves bound to submit And yet neither in that case would they be bound to submit were not the Cause Ecclesiasticall for such Causes onely appertain to Councills 3. Consider Thirdly that the Pope is Supreme Governour in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affairs which no true Catholick can question Fourthly that an exteriour Obedience at least is due to the Sentence or Judgment of all Supreme Governours in all matters appertaining unto them and so far as they do appertain unto them which all do grant who grant any Government and consequently that an exteriour Obedience at least is due to the Orders or Prohibition of the Pope in all Ecclesiasticall matters And this all must confess who confess him to be Supreme Governour in such matters Fifthly Consider that it is unlawfull to deny any Obedience or Compliance that is due as is manifest and by consequence that it is unlawfull to deny an exteriour Obedience to the Orders or Prohibition of the Pope in all matters appertaining unto him and no farther then they appertain unto him or in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters Sixthly That the Popes have prohibited this Oath by reason of the Clauses it contains relating to the Ecclesiasticall Court and for Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall respects onely viz. for containing things contrary to Faith and Salvation or for being noxious and sinfull For such Motives and no other are exprest in the forementioned Briefs And consequently that they have prohibited this Oath upon the account of matters appertaining unto them and no farther then they do appertain unto them Lastly Consider that whoever takes this Oath denies an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Prohibition contained in the Briefs For he exteriourly takes an Oath which the Pope in such Briefs prohibits to be taken as is evident 4. Hence I frame this Argument to conclude the Unlawfulness of the aforesaid Oath Whoever takes this Oath denies an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Prohibition in matters appertaining unto him and no farther then they appertain unto him But it is unlawfull to deny an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Prohibitions in matters appertaining unto him and no farther then they appertain unto him Therefore it is unlawfull to take this Oath 5. If it be objected First That the Pope's Briefs are of no force here in England without the King's approbation which these Briefs have not according to the Statutes 25. of Edward the Third and 16. of Richard the Second made in Catholick times and that it cannot be unlawfull to deny Obedience to a Brief where it is of no force neither is there any reason why the present Catholicks of England should not have the same liberty to refuse the Pope's Brief not approved by the King as the ancient Catholicks had 6. In Answer to this Objection Consider First that what is alledged out of the forementioned Statutes does not prove that Briefs brought into England without the King's licence are void and of no force but onely that those who procure them and bring them hither without the King's approbation are liable to a Praemunire and other Penalties which is very different For though it be punishable to doe a thing yet the thing once done may be valid Those who contract a clandestine Marriage here in England are liable to the Penalties enacted by the Canons in such cases yet the Marriage so contracted is valid and obligatory 7. Consider Secondly that should we grant as we do not that such Statutes render the Briefs they speak of void and of no force they are to be understood either
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
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