to the other But if he do abjure as absolutely he doth if he takes the Oath this same abjuring is the very charge of Perjury which is now under my pen and as I conceive inevitable by reason that the necessary knowledge certainty and assurance of the truth of what he swears or of the falsehood of what he abjures without which every such assertory Oath necessarily ends in Perjury is not to be had nor expected whilst this speculative Point remains under dispute a dispute as experience too clearly testifies not yet effectually determined by any publick nor I am sure determinable by any private authority as shall appear yet more fully in the next Chapter CHAP. IV. A Continuation of the former Discourse shewing the manifest unlawfulness as of Swearing so of Abjuring the Deposing power A Duty we owe to the Pope saith the Authour of the Questions a Duty to the King both commanded by God both obliging under sin yet both confined to their proper limits too much of the Temporal may be ascribed to Popes too much of the Spiritual to Kings too much may be challenged by both All which is most true but the difficulty is when these two Supreme Powers contest as actually they do concerning Power in Temporalls who shall then be Judge The Pope claims a Deposing power the King denies it if the Pope be Judge the Deposing power will carry it if the King it will be cast If we consult or appeal to the authority of the Learned and bring the cause to their bar there is nothing but noise censures and loud disagreements Bellarmin and Suarez write for the Deposing power and are condemned at Paris Barkly and Withrington appear against it and are condemned at Rome the Censurers all this while on both sides professing a previous mature and impartial examination of the Books and Doctrines they condemn Caron the laborious defender of the first Remonstrance in his loyalty asserted what betwixt Canonists and Divines Schoolmen and Fathers Popes Councils Universities and Kingdomes is said to have made a catalogue of more then 250 Opposers of the Deposing doctrine On the contrary what number of favourers and abettors there are for it may appear by this that even the Authour of the 8 th Controversial Letter tells us pag. 5. that the face of Authority is on that side and again pag. 7. that of Learned men those who write of this subject write generally in favour of it as likewise the Authour of the Questions in his Preface acknowledgeth the Maintainers of the Deposing power to be the more numerous party and that he himself sides with the few against the many and withall granteth pag. 24. that this act of Deposing Kings hath not onely been done by Popes but approved by Councils If we step over into France there we are strangely surprized with instances on both sides Behold in the year 1626. Eight Universities of that Realm declare smartly against the Deposing power and yet but a few years before viz. in the year 1614. in the General Assembly of the Three Estates in which were present 5 Cardinals 7 Archbishops and 47 Bishops besides many other learned Ecclesiasticks and Dignitaries of the Gallican Church two parts of three of this great Representative of that Kingdome were of another mind and so far from hearkening to or countenancing the hot Proposalls that were made against the Deposing doctrine that they left it in possession as they found it of whatsoever right or title it could pretend to What now shall the private Christian and loyal Subject doe who passionately desireth to share himself in all humble duty between God and Caesar what I say shall he doe in this unfortunate competition of the two grand Powers Shall he by his single sufficiency dare to assume to himself the right of judicature and boldly swear either for or against the Deposing power and to pass a decisive sentence under Oath that the Pope hath or hath not the Power in contest Were I worthy to offer my advice in this particular I should conceive it much more pertinent and proper for him seriously to consider with himself whether an act of this nature be not the same or rather indeed much worse then if a stander by upon hearing an Assembly of grave Divines or Counsellours learned in the Law all of them much above his size and abilities in their respective professions warmly debating a perplext Law-case or sturdy knot in Divinity should by a rash and unlicensed confidence take upon him the Umpirage of the cause and without any more adoe bluntly swear these men are in the right and the other in the wrong or the others are in the right and these in the wrong And whether he proceed not upon as meer a blind peradventure whatever part of the contradiction he swears in this last case and that it be not as slippery a piece of pure contingency in him whether he hit or miss as if upon the sight of an handfull of Guinnies he should all at a venture swear odde or even for a wager since that he hath no true knowledge for his guidance nor the least degree of certainty to steer by or fix him CHAP. V. A farther confirmation of the premisses ALL this which I have hitherto discoursed is no more then what is evidently deducible from and throughly grounded in the Principles and Concessions of those Learned persons who utterly deny the Pope hath any Power to depose Princes who yet neither do nor can make out a title and claim for their Doctrine to any higher pretence or degree then that of Opinion and in this I presume I shall speak the sense of all if I say it is never lawfull nor justifiably safe to swear to an Opinion as true nor to abjure an Opinion as false speaking as here I do of such free and debatable Tenets as are openly and avowedly held and taught by Catholick Divines divided amongst themselves in their private sentiments and School-disputes because no one of these Opinions can sufficiently answer for its own truth nor secure the officious Swearer who lends it his Oath that he goes Christianly and groundedly to work whether side soever of the Opinion he makes choice of to be sworn or abjur'd For it is not in Opinions as in things which we know by clear and certain evidence as it happens in those early and fair Notions implanted in us by nature from the first glimmering of Reason called First Principles as that Every whole is greater then a part of the whole It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time c. which great Maxims of Nature sufficiently speak for and evidence themselves without the help of Syllogisms moods or figure and are no sooner understood then readily and necessarily assented unto Nor is it in Opinions as in certain scientifical Deductions and demonstrative Conclusions partly flowing connaturally by a train of immediate consequences partly
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
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
as or more expressive terms then in the present Oath as shall be made appear hereafter nay nor to take those Clauses of the Oath which do manifestly contain no more then meer Civill Allegeance Neither do they in rigour oblige us to give an interiour assent to the Reasons why they prohibit this Oath For even the Decrees of Generall Councills according to the common sentiment of Divines do not oblige us always to believe the Reasons for the framing such Decrees inserted in them to be good and solid As in the Second Councill of Nice it was declared That Angels may be painted because they have Bodies The Declaration is good but the Reason is false So that though one refuses the Oath in compliance to the Pope's commands it does not follow that he does not think the Oath in it self and speculatively speaking to be lawfull and consequently if he thinks that the Acts therein contained do concern meer Civill Allegeance he is bound as long as he remains in such a persuasion to comply with those Acts whether he has taken this Oath or not For a Subject is bound to Civill Allegeance by the Law of God and Nature antecedently to all Oaths Finally the Popes do not forbid us in these Briefs an Act of Loyalty or Civill Allegeance For the taking of this Oath which is onely forbidden us in these Briefs is not properly speaking any Act of Civil Allegeance but onely a Security thereof and how little trust is to be put in such a Security does appear by the sad experience of the late Wars as a Bond for the payment of such a sum of money is no part of the payment but onely a Security for it if the Debtor denies it Nay a Subject may be obliged to his Civill Allegeance and equally punished for his not-complying therewith or for being a Traitour whether he has taken the Oath or not Whence I conclude that since the Briefs do not forbid us any Act of Civill Allegeance it is manifest that the Compliance with such Briefs cannot be inconsistent with the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes which reaches no farther then to all Acts of Civill Allegeance 28. Consider Lastly whether those who reject the forementioned Briefs of the Popes published after so long and so serious deliberation under such frivolous pretences as we have already seen and shall see hereafter do not open a way for Subjects to resist and disobey the express Commands or Prohibitions if they be condemned therein of their respective Sovereigns though issued forth after never so serious a debate pretending that they were grounded upon Inconsiderateness Misinformation and Mistakes in thinking that such a thing was contrary to the Laws of the Realm and the Prerogatives of His Majesty or that the King did not proceed therein according to the Rules prescribed in such cases or that His Majesty was a Party in the debate and that consequently He ought not to be Judge or finally that such Prohibitions and Commands are prejudiciall to the Liberty of the people and common Welfare of the Nation and that they may be occasion of great Disturbances in the Kingdome And whether if such Exceptions as these be warrantable and not to be decided by the Sovereigns themselves they do not render the Authority of Kings though our Adversaries who make use of them will needs seem to be stout Champions for Regall Power very weak and insignificant as in effect they do render the Authority of the Pope 29. If it be objected Thirdly That to refuse this Oath when we are required to take it by the King is sinfull inductive to Schism and scandalous to our Religion as if the Principles thereof were inconsistent with Civill Allegeance due to Princes and in such matters no man is bound to obey the Pope's Decrees but rather to the contrary That should the Pope declare it Sinfull to bear His Majesty Civill Allegeance which is due unto him by the Law of God and Nature certainly we should not think our selves bound to submit to such a Declaration That this Oath contains onely a meer Civill Allegeance as our Kings have declared and to them it belongs to declare what is meer Civill Allegeance and not to the Pope whose Jurisdiction extends onely to Spiritualls That we are bound to obey our Sovereign's Commands in all probable matters and which are not manifestly sinfull as the taking of this Oath is not That since it is doubtfull at least whether the Things contained in this Oath wherein the difficulty thereof consists appertain to the Spirituall or Civill Court why should the Pope decide it rather then the King And since the King commands us to take the Oath and the Pope prohibits us to take it the thing being of it self doubtfull and not manifestly sinfull on either side why should we submit rather to the Pope's Ordinance then to the King's That the King may confine the Pope's Power and declare that he has not a direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome in Temporalls or to vacate the Civill Laws thereof at his pleasure and consequently that it is not proper for the Pope to declare how far his Spirituall Authority does extend it self in all Causes Finally that the like Argument may be made to shew the Refusall of this Oath to be unlawfull as we made above to prove unlawfull the Taking thereof in this manner Whoever of His Majestie 's Subjects refuses this Oath being required thereunto denies an exteriour Obedience to the King's Ordinance in matters appertaining unto him and no farther then they appertain unto him But it is unlawfull to deny such an Obedience to the King's Ordinance and in such matters Therefore it is unlawfull for any of His Majestie 's Subjects when required thereunto to refuse this Oath 30. Concerning the Sinfulness of the Refusall of this Oath objected against us Consider First whether this Objection be not against all or most of those Catholicks who defend the Lawfulness of this Oath whose aim onely is to shew not that it is a Sin to refuse this Oath but that it is no Sin to take it Secondly Consider whether the refusall of this Oath can be sinfull unless the taking thereof be absolutely obligatory and if not then consider whether there be any absolute obligation to take this Oath since the taking thereof is no part of Civill Allegeance as has been already shewn Neither does His Majesty absolutely require of us the taking of this Oath but onely conditionally if we will enjoy such and such Employments or Priviledges which we are not bound to accept of And though those who refuse the Oath in many circumstances are liable to some Penalties enacted against Roman Catholicks yet they are punished even in that case not so much for refusing the Oath but because by refusing it they are suspected to be Popishly inclined Whence therefore can there be proved any absolute obligation to take this Oath especially since the Pope hath
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
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
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
in token of their concurring thereunto after it was pronounced all the Prelates lighting their Tapers held them downward and so put them out and threw them on the ground And every one of them set his hand to the Bull of the Sentence And there were present at it the other Emperour of Constantinople the Embassadours of France and England and of most other Christian States and not one of them no not the Emperour 's own Advocate opened his mouth against the Jurisdiction of the Court onely he put in his Appeal from it to the next more General Council which is an acknowledging the Jurisdiction Yea and the Emperour himself when the Sentence was reported to him though he slighted it as unjust and frivolous yet he never excepted to it as given à non Iudice And the King of England and the French King Lewis IX afterwards Canonized for a Saint and their Nobles justified the Sentence and the French King took upon him the protecting of the Pope's cause against the Emperour 6. In the same General Council of Lyons was made a Canon That whatever Prince should cause any Christian to be murthered by an Assasin he should ipso facto incurre the Sentence of Excommunication and Deposition 7. In Anno 1606. Pope Paul V. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls That the Oath of Allegeance establish'd by Parliament 3. Iac. salvâ Fide Catholicâ Salute animarum suarum praestari non potest cùm multa contineat quae Fidei ac Saluti apertè adversantur Now there are not in it multa to which this Censure is possibly applicable unless this be one That the Pope hath no Power to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance Therefore this Proposition was condemned by that Pope as contra Fidem Salutem animae 8. In Anno 1648. Pope Innocent X. censured the Subscribers negatively to these Propositions 1. The Pope or Church hath power to absolve any persons from their Obedience to the Civil Government established or to be established in this Nation in Civil affairs 2. By the command or dispensation of the Pope or Church it is lawfull to kill or doe any injury to persons condemned or excommunicated for Heresy or Schism 3. It is lawfull by dispensation at least from the Pope to break Promise or Oath made to Hereticks to have done unlawfully and incurred the Censures contained in the holy Canons and Apostolick Constitutions contra negantes Pontificiam authoritatem in causis Fidei Now there is none of these Propositions to which this Censure can reasonably be fastened but the first onely therefore that was thus censured 9. This very last year the now Pope being consulted touching the lawfulness of taking the late Irish Protestation in which is renounced this Power of the Pope declared That instar repullulantis Hydrae it did contain Propositiones convenientes cum aliis à Sede Apostolica olim reprobatis signanter à fel. mem Paulo V. per Constitutionem in forma Brevis nuper anno 1648. in Congregatione specialiter commissa ab Innocentio X. c. Se graviter indoluisse quòd per exemplum Ecclesiasticorum tracti sint in eundem errorem Nobiles Seculares ejusdem Regni Hiberniae quorum Protestationem ac Subscriptiones pariter reprobat idque ad eximendas Catholicorum conscientias à dolo errore quo circumveniuntur 10. That this hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in all the several Nations of Christendome yea even in France it self yea even of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Ioann Parisiens Gerson c. you may see abundantly proved by that admirable man Cardinal Peron in his Oration made in the name of all the Bishops of France to the Third Estate of Parliament And it is convinced by this That neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been yet able 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 as will appear by examining their quotations To conclude then This having been for some Ages One at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church according to which she hath frequently and avowedly practised and proceeded in her highest Courts and inflicted her highest Censures upon the Opponents of it If it be an Errour the Church was at that time a wicked and blind Church a Synagogue of Satan the Pillar and Ground of Truth and with it the whole Fabrick of Faith and Religion shook and tottered 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 Fryars 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 THE SECOND TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which have now been publick for divers years reduced to one principall Question concerning the Substance of the said Oath CHAP. I. The Occasion and State of the present Question IN the year 1661. was published a small Treatise under this Title Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which were proposed by a Catholick Gentleman in a Letter to a Person of Learning and Honour A late officious hand hath now in the year 1674. thought it seasonable to re-publish this short and judicious Treatise for the satisfaction of such as are at present either concerned or curious The Authour 's professed design in these Questions concerning the Oath was to propose his sense by way of Quaere's wherein he hopes not to be accused of presumption whilst he onely seeks what he professeth not to know And yet is so knowing that though he could heartily wish for a more condescending form of Oath he sticks not to affirm and he is positive in it that if the manner of expression were a little changed every syllable of the substance might be intirely retained Now if you ask him what he means by the Substance of the Oath he expresly tells you that the Substance of the Oath is the Denying and abjuring the Pope's power to depose Princes For my part 't is as far from my thoughts as forrein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power nor shall I at all play the criticall Interpreter of the Oath nor concern my self with raising any artificiall and learned obscurities such as the Publisher hints at about any inconvenient phrase nor boggle at the form and dress but closely apply my reason
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
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
exhort the people in their Sermons to embrace the contrary Doctrine to the Propositions they had prohibited But from all this it cannot be inferred that the French Iesuits did or would have sworn positively That the Pope has no Power in no case whatsoever to depose Princes nor that they did exhort the people to swear any such thing nor that they were commanded by the Parliament so to doe One may exhort another to embrace an Opinion which notwithstanding he will not nor cannot positively swear to be true nor exhort the other to swear it is so And yet whoever exhorts any one to take the Oath he must exhort him to swear positively that the forementioned Opinion viz. That the Pope has no Power to depose Kings is true Much less can it be inferred from the aforesaid Decree that the French Iesuits did approve or were commanded to approve of all the other Clauses contained in the present Oath And consequently their Authority cannot be alledged for the Lawfulness thereof For though the Clauses relating to the Pope's Power to depose Princes may seem to some to contain the main Difficulty yet this to others seems no Difficulty at all and there are several other Difficulties involved in the Oath as has been shewn And to the end we may lawfully take an Oath 't is necessary to be satisfied concerning all and every Difficulty and Clause thereof For to swear any thing either false or doubtfull though never so little in it self is a grievous Sin 66. Concerning the Authority of the Vniversity of Paris in particular for the Lawfulness of the Oath besides what already has been said in general Consider First that though we should grant as we do not that the Universitie of Paris and other Universities of France are for the Oath yet even our Adversaries confess that the Universities of Spain are against it where beyond debate there are many Learned and Consciencious men and as zealous for the Honour and Safety of their Kings as any in France and they have as many Prerogatives relating to the Security of their Sovereigns against the Usurpations of any Ecclesiastical Prince as in any Countrey whatsoever So that admitting that on both sides there are grave Authours yet the Negative in the present debate has the advantage of the Affirmative That the Pope who is the competent Judge in these affairs as above has been proved and to whom both parties made their address has given his express Sentence for the Negative and among other things which render an Opinion before probable practically or in practice improbable one is an authentick Declaration or Sentence of a competent especially Supreme Judge to the contrary 67. Suppose that in a Plea before the King and His Councill there are many brave Lawyers on both sides who produce several pregnant Arguments and excellent Precedents in favour of their respective Clients which render the Cause doubtfull yet that party must needs carry it for whom the King and His Council gave their definitive Sentence neither is it longer lawfull for the party condemned to stand out because many learned Lawyers are on his side or to retrive the former Arguments produced for his right which signifies no more then to plead after the Suit is lost Neither would the party who had gained the Cause concern himself any farther with what the Lawyers of the contrary side object against him The same happens in our present Case There are many grave and learned Authours against the Oath suppose there are also many for it yet since the Impugners of the Oath have obtained several express Sentences of the Supreme Judge in their favour they do not think themselves obliged to take any farther notice of what the Defenders of the Oath produce against them which cannot excuse them from an exteriour Compliance with the Judge's express Sentence as long as it is authentick And this is the Reason why the Impugners of the Oath have not in a long time printed any thing against it For what more can they pretend by their writings but that the Oath be condemned by the Pope which has been already done But the Defenders of the Oath continue still to write after they have lost the cause according to the common saying Losers must have leave to talk or at least they will take it 68. Consider Secondly that among other Oaths which those who desire to be incorporated in the University of Paris are to take one for the Degree of Bachelour is That they will hold the Articles of the Faculty of Paris to be true and that when occasion offers they will defend them to be agreeable to Faith and Religion which is a promissory Oath the truth whereof onely requires that he who swears has a sincere intention to doe what he promises and as we have already seen one may promise even under an Oath that he will defend such an Opinion to be true when occasion offers though he does not nor cannot lawfully many times swear positively that it is true For these two Oaths are very different Before God I judge that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings and I promise to defend it when occasion requires and Before God he has no such Power The immediate object of the former Oath is onely our own Judgment or Intention whereof every one is certain and consequently to call God for witness that he has such a Judgment being certain that he has it is not to expose God to be a witness to a Falsity But the immediate object of the latter Oath is the Matter it self which probably may be otherwise and to call God for witness of a thing that I know probably may be otherwise is to expose him to be witness of a Falsity which let the matter be never so little is a great affront And therefore it is a common way of speaking among consciencious people I think such a thing is true but I will not swear it is true Hence it follows that the immediate object of Oaths is not alwaies the Judgment of the person who takes them otherwise it would be impossible that one should ever swear false judging that he swears true since every one is conscious of his own actual Judgment neither can one think that he judges actually when he does not And yet certainly it is possible that one should swear false thinking that he swears true So that though we should grant that the University of Paris does oblige her Members to swear that they will defend that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings it does not therefore follow that they can be or are bound to swear positively that the Pope has no such Power which notwithstanding we must swear if we will take this Oath Neither because they are bound to swear that they will defend the Articles of the Faculty of Paris to be agreeable to Faith and Religion does it therefore follow as some do seem to pretend that they are bound to
Pope I see not since there is no Temporall nor Ecclesiasticall Preferment here in England to which in the present conjuncture of affairs his Holiness can promote them And if this be so then upon the account of dependency we ought rather to suspect those who defend the Oath then those who impugn it 145. Consider Thirdly whether some of those Priests who have shewn themselves most forward to defend the Oath have not received considerable Pensions and sums of money to print their Books relating to this Subject from Protestant persons of quality either Clergy-men or Lay-men or both and whether they have not been countenanced and caressed by them upon that score And that this has happened we can make appear Moreover whether they can produce any Precedents of English Priests who have received the like summs of money or incouragement from the Pope for opposing the Oath And if not then considering the event that this Debate has had hitherto we must conclude that the Defenders of this Oath have got more then the Opposers thereof 146. And here I cannot but reflect upon what is related of some of our Protestant Prelates who being noted that they kept familiar correspondency with some Roman Priests and encouraged them in their designs answered that they did it to breed a Schism among Roman Catholicks thereby the better to destroy them Prynne in his Canterbury Doom pag. 557. saies that Archbishop Lawd being accused that he conversed familiarly with some Priests answered King Iames had conference with and extended favours to some Priests making good use thereof to set them at variance among themselves and induce them to write one against another as Watson and Preston who wrote divers Books in defence of the Oath of Allegeance and did good service therein Whereupon my Predecessour Archbishop Abbott granted Preston a kind of Protection under his hand and seal Ibid. Lawd granted also Preston a Protection under his hand Fuller in his Church-History in the Life of King Iames saies thus Doctour Bancroft afforded the Seculars countenance and maintenance in London-House accommodating them with necessaries to write against their Adversaries viz. the Iesuits hoping that the Protestants might assault the Romish Cause with more advantage when they found a breach made to their hands by the others own dissensions Where I cannot but note that as concerning the present Point we speak of the Protestants countenanced the Priests who defended the Oath as Preston the chief among them and not those Priests who opposed it Whence appears that Protestants are of opinion that the Defenders of the Oath are against the Church of Rome but not the Opposers thereof since they joyn with the former and not with the latter and sure they would joyn with the Enemies of our Church according to their opinion and not with her Friends 147. Consider Lastly that those who are most blamed for opposing the Lawfulness of the Oath are less liable to any suspicion of pretence or Interest in this matter since they are tied by a particular Vow not to pretend neither directly nor indirectly any Preferment or Dignity besides they have been particularly prohibited by their General who resides at Rome under pain of Excommunication either to preach or teach in publick Disputes or Books that the Pope has any Power to depose Kings the like Prohibition for ought I know being not imposed upon any other Religious Order And whatsoever heretofore some of them have taught concerning this Subject 't is certain what Henry the Fourth of France justified in a publick Speech that they taught nothing in this matter which is not still taught and has been taught before their Society was in the world by several Learned men of other Orders I have proposed these Considerations for the Satisfaction of such Catholicks who have a desire to be informed concerning the Lawfulnesse or Unlawfulnesse of this Oath to the end that having perused them over they may proceed in a matter of so great concernment with due consideration For I have endeavoured to couch in this short Discourse the main Arguments on both sides I believe that Consciencious Catholicks who shall be pleased to peruse seriously the forementioned Considerations will have at least some rational Reluctancy to take the Oath as it lies which is enough to render the taking thereof unlawfull since such as take it do swear that they doe it heartily that is without any Reluctancy of mind but rather with a Propension and Inclination to take it which certainly no body can lawfully swear who feels a Reluctancy of mind to any part of the Oath And to summe up the whole Substance of this Treatise Since it is certain neither do our Adversaries deny it that it belongs to the Pope to decide whether this Oath be unlawfull or not Since the Pope has determined severall times that it is unlawfull and has prohibited the taking thereof as all do confesse Since what our Adversaries still urge for the Lawfulnesse of this Oath in it self has been long since proposed to the Pope and does concern the very thing for the Decision whereof even they refer themselves to the Pope's Judgment with resolution to stand to his Determination otherwise why should they refer it to him Since finally all the Exceptions our Adversaries make against the Briefs and the Proceedings of the Pope in framing of them are frivolous and such as would vacate were they of any force all Briefs whatsoever issued forth by Popes and which even they themselves would not have allowed us to make in case the Pope had given the contrary Sentence Since I say all this is so as does manifestly appear by what has hitherto been set down I conclude That our Adversaries are destitute of all rationall Motives whereby to justify their Disobedience to the forementioned Briefs and that nothing but Ignorance or Obstinacy can move them to stand out THE END Supplicatio ad Clem. X. per Francisc Simonis Mogunt A.D. 1675. Quis nesciat Reges Duces ab iis habuisse principium qui Deum ignorantes superbiâ rapinis perfidiâ homicidiis postremò universis penè sceleribus Mundi Principe Diabolo viz. agitante super pares sc. homines dominari caecâ cupiditate intolerabili praesumptione affectaverunt Greg. VII l. 8. ep 21. Pag. 4. An Apologie in defence of Ecclesiastical Subordination in England pag. 187. col 2. Rog. Widdrington Supplicat ad Paul 5. p. 133. De justa Abdicatione Henrici Tertii è Francorum Regno Lugd. A. 1591. l. 1. à c. 5. ad c. 9. * à c. 9. ad c. 25. l. 4. c. 1. ad c. 6. lib. 4. c. 23. De justa Reip. Christianae in Reges Impios Haereticos Authoritate Antw. A.D. 1592. Responce de vrays Catholiques Francois à l'advertisement des Catholiques Anglois pour l'exclusion du Roy de Navarre de la Couronne de France A. D. 1588. Iuramentum populi non eum astringit ad obediendum Regi nisi Rex