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
the Affirmative of the latter Question and onely differ as to the Persons in whom the Power of calling Princes to an Account doth lie whether it be in the Pope or the People And even as to this they do not differ so much as men may at first imagine For however the Primitive Christians thought it no Flattery to Princes to derive their Power immediately from God and to make them accountable to him alone as being Superiour to all below him as might be easily proved by multitudes of Testimonies yet after the Pope's Deposing Power came into request the Commonwealth-Principles did so too and the Power of Princes was said to be of another Original and therefore they were accountable to the People Thus Gregory VII that holy and meek-spirited Pope not onely took upon him to Depose the Emperour and absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance but he makes the first constitution of Monarchical Government to be a meer Vsurpation upon the just Rights and Liberties of the People For he saith That Kings and Princes had their beginning from those who being ignorant of God got the power into their hands over their equals through the instigation of the Devil and by their pride rapine perfidiousness murther ambition intolerable presumption and all manner of wickedness This excellent account of the Original of Monarchical Government we have from that famous Leveller Gregory VII that most Holy and Learned Pope who for his Sanctity and Miracles was canonized for a Saint as the Authour of the First Treatise notably observes Did ever any Remonstrance Declaration of the Army or Agreement of the People give a worse account of the beginning of Monarchy then this Infallible Head of the Church doth What follows from hence but the justifying all Rebellion against Princes which upon these Principles would be nothing else but the People's recovering their just Rights against intolerable Usurpations For shame Gentlemen never upbraid us more with the pernicious Doctrines of the late Times as to Civil Government The very worst of our Fanaticks never talked so reproachfully of it as your canonized Saint doth Their Principles and Practices we of the Church of England profess to detest and abhorre but I do not see how those can doe it who have that Self-denying Saint Gregory VII in such mighty veneration I pray Gentlemen tell me what Divine Assistence this good Pope had when he gave this admirable Account of the Original of Civil Government and whether it be not very possible upon his Principles for men to be Saints and Rebells at the same time I have had the curiosity to enquire into the Principles of Civil Government among the fierce Contenders for the Pope's Deposing power and I have found those Hypotheses avowed and maintained which justifie all the Practices of our late Regicides who when they wanted materials and Examples of former Ages when they had a mind to seem learned in Rebellion they found no Smith in Israel but went down to the Philistins to sharpen their fatal Axe Else how came the Book of Succession to the Crown of England to be shred into so many Speeches and licensed then by such Authority as they had to justify their Proceedings against our late Sovereign of glorious Memory Wherein the main design is to prove That Commonwealths have sometimes lawfully chastised their lawfull Princes though never so lawfully descended or otherwise lawfully put in possession of their Crowns and that this hath fallen out ever or for the most part commodious to the Weal-publick and that it may seem that God approved and prospered the same by the good Success and Successours that ensued thereof These were the Principles of the most considerable men of that Party here in England at that time For it is a great and common mistake in those that think the Book of Succession to have been written by F. Parsons alone For he tells us that Card. Allen Sir Francis Inglefield and other principal persons of our Nation are known to have concurred to the laying together of that Book as by their own hands is yet extant and this to the publick benefit of our Catholick Cause First that English Catholicks might understand what special and precise Obligation they have to respect Religion in admitting any new Prince above all other Respects humane under heaven And this is handled largely clearly and with great variety of learning reasons doctrine and examples throughout the First Book This was purposely intended for the Exclusion of His Majestie 's Royall Family K. Iames being then known to be a firm Protestant and therefore two Breves were obtained from the Pope to exclude him from the Succession which were sent to Garnet Provincial of the Iesuits One began Dilectis Filiis Principibus Nobilibus Catholicis the other Dilecto Filio Archipresbytero reliquo Clero Anglicano In both which the Pope exhorts them not to suffer any person to succeed in the Crown of England how near soever in Bloud unless he would not barely tolerate the Catholick Faith but promote it to the utmost and swear to maintain it By virtue of which Apostolical Sentence Catesby justified himself in the Gun-powder-Treason For saith he if it were lawfull to exclude the King from the Succession it is lawfull to cast him out of Possession and that is my work and shall be my care Thus we see the Pope's Deposing power was maintained here in England by such who saw how necessary it was for their purpose to defend the Power of Commonwealths over their Princes either to exclude them from Succession to the Crown or to deprive them of the Possession of it The same we shall find in France in the time of the Solemn League and Covenant there in the Reigns of Henry III. and IV. For those who were engaged so deep in Rebellion against their lawfull Princes found it necessary for them to insist on the Pope's Power to depose and the People's to deprive their Sovereigns Both these are joyned together in the Book written about the just Reasons of casting off Henry III. by one who was then a Doctour of the Sorbon wherein the Authour begins with the Power of the Church but he passes from that to the Power of the People He asserts the Fundamental and Radical Power to be so in them that they may call Princes to account for Treason against the People which he endeavours at large to prove by Reason by Scripture by Examples of all sorts forrein and domestick And he adds That in such cases they are not to stand upon the niceties and forms of Law but that the necessities of State do supersede all those things If this man had been of Counsel for the late Regicides he could not more effectually have pleaded their Cause The next year after the Murther of Henry III. by a Monk acted and inspired by these Rebellious Principles came forth another virulent Book against Henry IV. under the name
evil actions which natural reason discovers to be evil for how can the Hatred of God or a wilfull Lie be any other then evil The same I say of Disobedience to Parents and violation of Oaths lawfully made which are things evil in their own nature The Question now is whether the Pope can doe that which they say God himself cannot viz. make Perjury not to be a Sin For an Oath of Allegeance cannot be denied to be a lawfull Oath and a lawfull Oath lays an obligation on Conscience to the performance of it and gives another a just right to challenge that Allegeance as a Duty by virtue of his Oath and where-ever there is a necessary Duty God himself saith Aquinas cannot dispense for then he would act contrary to the Rule of Eternal Righteousness which he can never doe It is true they grant that God in regard of his Supreme Dominion can alter the matter or circumstances of things as in Abraham's sacrificing his Son upon God's particular Command which in those circumstances was not Murther but this they say well is no Dispensation with the Law nor any act of Iurisdiction as a Legislator but onely an act of Supreme Power But our Question is onely about Dispensing with the force and obligation of a Law of Nature such as keeping our Oaths undoubtedly is And since God himself is not allowed the Power of dispensing it seems very strange how the Pope should come by it unless it were out of a desire to exalt himself above all that is called God Thomas Aquinas saith that there can be no Dispensation to make a man doe any thing against his Oath for saith he keeping an Oath is an indispensable divine precept but all the force of a Dispensation lies in altering the matter of an Oath which being variable may be done To clear this in every Oath are three things to be considered 1. the Obligation upon the person to perform what he swears to 2. the Right which the person hath to challenge that performance to whom the Oath is made 3. the interest which God hath as Supreme Judge to see to the performance and to punish the breakers of it Now which of these is it the Pope's Dispensation in a promissory Oath doth fall upon Surely the Pope doth not challenge to himself God's Supreme Power of punishing or not punishing Offenders so that if men do break their Oaths if they have the Pope's Dispensation they do not fear the punishment of Perjured persons I am willing to believe this is not their meaning It must therefore be one of the former But then how comes the Pope to have power to give away another man 's natural Right A man swears Allegeance to his Prince by virtue of which Oath the Prince challenges his Allegeance as a sworn Duty and so it is according to all Rules of common Reason and Justice The Pope he dispenseth with this Oath and absolveth the person from this Allegeance i. e. the Pope gives away the Prince's Right whether he will or no. Is not this great Justice and infinitely becoming God's Vicar upon earth But how came the Pope by that Right of the Prince which he gives away The Right was a just and natural Right belonging to him on a meer civil account what Authority then hath the Pope to dispose of it May he not as well give away all the just Rights of men to their Estates as those of Princes to their Crowns The very plain Truth is the Defenders of the Pope's indirect Power are forced to shuffle and cut and make unintelligible distinctions and in effect to talk non-sense about this matter The onely men that speak sense are those who assert the Pope in plain Terms to have a direct Temporal Monarchy and that all Kings are their Subjects and Vasalls and therefore they may dispose of their Crowns and doe what they please with them We know what these men would have and if Princes be tame enough to submit to this Power they own the Pope as their true Sovereign Lord and must rule or not rule at his Pleasure But it is impossible for those who contend onely for Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Pope to defend his Power of Absolving Subjects from their Allegeance to Princes since this Power of altering the matter is not an act of Iurisdiction but of meer Power as was said before as to God himself in the case of Abraham Therefore those who contend onely for the Pope's dispensing with Oaths of Allegeance on the account of his Spiritual Jurisdiction can never justify the giving away the natural Rights of Princes for that is an act of Power and not of Iurisdiction And Cajetan well observes that the relaxation of an Oath by altering the matter is an act of direct Power because the thing it self is immediately under the power of the person as in a Father over his Son or a Lord over his Vassall and therefore the Dispensing with the Oath of Allegeance cannot be by the alteration of the matter unless a direct Power over Princes be asserted Cajetan laies down a good Rule about Dispensing with Oaths that in them we ought to see that no prejudice be done to the person to whom and for whose sake they are made and therefore he saith the Pope himself hath not that Power over Oaths which he hath over Vows And yet Maldonat saith that neither the Pope nor the whole Church can dispense in a solemn Vow and that a Dispensation in such cases is no less then an Abrogation of the Law of God and Nature Dominicus à Soto saith that although the Pope may dispense in a Vow yet he cannot in an Oath For saith he the Pope cannot relax an Oath which one man hath made to another of paying to him what he owes him which ariseth from the nature of the Contract which is confirmed by an Oath The Pope having not the Power to take away from another man that which doth belong to him cannot doe him so much injury as to relax the Oath which is made to him And in the loosing of Oaths care ought to be taken that there be no injury to a third person Afterwards he puts this case whether if the Pope dispenseth with an Oath without just cause that Dispensation will free a man from Perjury Which he denies for this Reason because a Dispensation cannot hold in the Law of God or Nature Therefore since it is a Law of God that a man should perform what he swears although that Bond doth arise from the will and consent of the party yet it cannot be dissolved without sufficient Reason But what reason can be sufficient he determines not However we have gained thus much that the Pope cannot take away the Right of a third person which he must doe if he can Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance to their Prince which is as much due to him as a summe of money is to a Creditor I
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
all I commend your Conclusion That if this Doctrine be an Errour the Church of Rome for several Ages was a wicked and blind Church and a Synagogue of Satan and if it were no Errour they that now call it an Errour are wicked Catholicks and in damnable Errour Nor though all the Doctours of Sorbon all the Parliaments and Vniversities of France all the Friers or Blackloists in England or Ireland all the Libertines Politicians and Atheists in the world should declare for it could it ever be an Authority to make it a probable Opinion Bravely spoken and like a true Disciple of Hildebrand Hear this O ye Writers of Controversial Letters and beware how ye fall into these mens hands You may cry out upon these Opinions as long as you please and make us believe your Church is not concerned in them but if this Good man may be credited you can never find Authority enough to make your Opinion so much as Probable A very hard case for Princes when it will not be allowed so much as probable that Princes should keep their Crowns on their Heads if the Pope thinks fit to take them away or that Subjects should still owe Allegeance to Princes when the Pope absolves them from it Very hard indeed in such an Age of Probable Doctrines when so small Authority goes to make an Opinion Probable that this against the Pope's Deposing power should not come within the large sphere of Probability Hear this ye Writers of Apologies for Papists Loyalty who would perswade us silly people of the Church of England that this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes is onely the Opinion of some Doctours and not the Doctrine of your Church when this Learned Authour proves you have as much Reason and Authority to believe it as that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of it and Father Caron's 250 Authours cannot make the contrary Opinion so much as Probable this having been for some Ages one at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church as our Authour saith From whence it follows it must have been always so or else Oral Tradition and Infallibility are both gone For how could that be the Doctrine of one Age which was not of the precedent What did Fathers conspire to deceive their Children then Is it possible to suppose such an alteration to happen in the Doctrine of the Church and yet the Church declare to adhere to Tradition at that time If this be possible in this case then for all that we know that great Bugbear of Transubstantiation might steal in in the dark too And so farewell Oral Tradition But how can Infallibility stand after it when the Church was so enormously deceived for so long together as this Authour proves it must have been if this Doctrine be false If the Blackloists in England and Irish Remonstrants do not all vanish at the appearance of this Treatise and yield themselves Captives to this smart and pithy Authour I expect to see some of them concerned for their own Vindication so far as to answer this short Treatise but I beseech them then to shew us the difference between the coming in of Transubstantiation and this Deposing doctrine since the same Popes the same Councils and the same Approbation of the Church are produced for both This is all I have to say of this First Treatise whose Authour I do highly commend for his plain dealing for he speaks out what he really thinks and believes of this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes But I am no sooner entred upon the Second Treatise but I fansy my self in Fairy-land where I meet with nothing but phantastick Shows and Apparitions when I go about to fasten upon any thing it is immediately gone the little Fairy leaps up and down and holds to nothing intending onely to scare and affright his party from the Oath of Allegeance and when he hath done this he disappears The Substance of the Oath saith the Authour of the Questions whom he pretends to answer is the Denying and Abjuring the Pope's Power of deposing Princes This is plain and home to the purpose what say you to this Is this Doctrine true or false may it be renounced or not Hold say you For my part it is as far from my thoughts as forein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power Is it indeed forein to your purpose to speak to the Substance of the Oath No say you the Substance of the Oath is contained in this Question Whether a Catholick may deny by Oath and universally abjure the Pope's Power to depose Princes not Whether he may deny it but Whether he may deny it by Oath And the great Argument to prove the Negative is that it hath been a Question debated for 500 years and no clear and authoritative Decision of the Point yet appeareth to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce Where are we now Methinks we are sailing to find O Brasil We thought our selves as sure as if we had got the Point in the First Treatise a good firm solid substantial Point of Faith and now all of a sudden it is vanished into clouds and vapours and armies fighting in the air against each other Is it possible for the Sense Belief and Doctrine of the Church as the First Authour assures us it was to become such a Moot-point always disputed never decided This hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists Canonists from first to last afore Calvin 's time in all the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been able yet to produce so much as one Catholick Authour afore Calvin 's time that denied this Power to the Pope absolutely or in any case whatsoever Thus the Authour of the First Treatise Since it is but more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish and that Experience the easiest and clearest of Arguments puts it too sadly beyond dispute that this grand Controversie Whether the Pope hath any Power or Authority to depose Princes for any cause pretence or exigency whatsoever hath been for divers Ages from time to time disputed in the Schools by Speculative men and is to this day among Catholick Controvertists and Catholick Princes too as the Authour of the Second Treatise confesseth What shall I say to you Gentlemen when you thus flatly contradict each other How come you to be so little agreed upon your Premisses when you joyn in the same Conclusion There is some mysterie in this which we are not to understand This I suppose it is Among those who may be trusted this is an Article of faith and for such the First Treatise was written But for the sake of such who would see too far into these things we must not own it
for fear we lose some Residences and Patrons of the Nobility and Gentry therefore among these we must not own it as an Article of faith but as a Controverted Point How then say some of the Fathers of the Society shall we keep them from taking the Oath of Allegeance and if we do suffer them to doe that farewell to our Interest in England P. W. and the Blackloists will prevail Come come saith Father W. never fear I have a Topick will scare them all though we own it as a Controverted Point What is that say they with great Joy Let me alone saith he to them I will prove them all guilty of Perjury if they take the Oath because it is a Controverted Point Excellent they all cry this will doe our business in spite of them Let us now come near and handle this mighty Argument that we may discern whether it be a mere Spectre or hath any flesh and bones The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath partly assertory and partly promissory In an Assertory Oath it is essentially requisite that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true Very well but suppose a person doth in his conscience believe that the Pope cannot Depose Princes nor Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance may not such a man swear it without Perjury No says our good Father A man may swear against his Conscience not onely when he doubts but when he hath just cause to doubt How is that good Sir when other men see that he hath cause to doubt or when himself sees it If he sees himself that he hath cause to doubt he doth not believe in his Conscience that to be so as he swears it is for how can a man firmly believe that which he sees cause to doubt If he sees none himself what is that to his Conscience if others think they do if he does not think his Conscience bound to be swayed by their Authority But the Mysterie of this Iesuitism is that no Gentlemen ought to have judgments of their own in these matters but to be swayed by the extrinsick Authority of their Teachers And therefore if they say they have cause to doubt they must doubt whether they do or no. If Gentlemen of freer understandings and education allow themselves the liberty to enquire into these matters they presently see through all this Tiffany Sophistry and find the thing still carried on is meer blind Obedience although in following the conduct of such self-interested Leaders they run themselves into continual Difficulties If a man be satisfied in his Conscience the Pope hath no Deposing power according to the Rules of their own best Casuists he may lawfully abjure it The truth required in an Oath saith Cardinal Tolet is that by which a man speaks that which he thinks in his heart and to swear falsly is to swear otherwise then one thinks And to swear otherwise then a thing really is provided he think it to be so is neither mortal nor venial sin but 1. in case a man hath not used diligence to enquire and to this he doth not require the utmost but onely some and convenient diligence 2. if he be doubtfull in his mind when he swears and yet swears it as certain 3. when he is ready to swear although he knew the thing to be otherwise Suarez saith that in an Assertory Oath the Truth confirmed by it lies in the conformity of the Assertion to the mind of the Speaker rather then to the Thing it self so that if a man thinks it false which he swears although it be really true he is guilty of Perjury and so on the contrary if a man swears a thing really false which he invincibly thinks to be true he is not guilty of Perjury but swears a lawfull Oath according to the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas By invincibly Suarez means no more then Tolet doth by thinking so after convenient diligence For Suarez lays down this Rule afterwards that When a man swears what is really false but he thinks it true if his thinking be joyned with sufficient care and a probable opinion of the truth mark that he is free from the guilt of Perjury This he saith is the common and express Doctrine and built upon this ground Because the Truth and Falshood of an Oath doth not so much relate to the Matter sworn as to the Mind and Conscience of him that swears Dominicus Soto determines this case very plainly If a man swears that to be true which he thinks so after due enquiry though it be false he doth not sin at all And the measure of diligence he proportions to the nature and quality of the Thing which is therefore left to prudence and discretion Iacobus de Graffiis hath this Assertion He that swears a thing to be true which he thinks so although it be really false sins not unless he neglected to use that diligence which he was bound to use and according to the greatness of that neglect the measure of his sin is to be taken Greg. Sayr saith that to a lawfull Assertory Oath no more is required then the agreement of what a man saith with the inward sense of his mind according to the reasonable judgment a man passes upon what he swears Which words are taken out of Gregory de Valentia Qui non videt vel dubitat esse falsum quod jurat perjurus non est saith Vasquez He that doth not see or doubt that to be false which he swears is not guilty of Perjury Which words are quoted and approved by Layman because all Perjury must have its foundation in a Lie And saith he he that swears in an Assertory Oath doth not affirm the certainty of his own knowledge but directly the very thing which he swears Nay he farther saith that where the Matter sworn is capable of no more then Probability a man may lawfully swear the truth according to that degree of certainty which the thing will bear although it should happen to be otherwise then he thinks So that according to the common and received Doctrine of their own Casuists the foundation of this Second Treatise is false as might be shewed by many more testimonies if these were not sufficient which is That since this Doctrine about the Pope's Deposing power hath no infallible certainty in it a man cannot attest the truth or falshood of it by an Oath Which was the more surprising to me considering how usual it is among your selves to swear to such Opinions of which you cannot pretend to infallible certainty by any evidence of Faith or authoritative Decision of the Church What think you of the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas are there no mere Opinions undecided by the Church in his Works is there infallible certainty in of all them I do not think any Iesuit in the world will say so for a reason every own knows because his Order holds the direct contrary in
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