defend them as Articles of Faith For the common Approbation of Theological and Spiritual Books is that they contain nothing which is not agreeable to Faith and good manners and yet sure those who give such Approbations are far from approving all that is contained in such Books as Articles of Faith 69. Consider Thirdly that among other Articles of the Faculty of Paris one is upon which chiefly our Adversaries seem to have had an eye That it is not the Doctrine of the Faculty that the Pope has any Authority over the Temporals of his most Christian Majesty and that the Faculty has alwaies resisted those who affirm this Power to be onely indirect Now to infer hence that the Faculty of Paris does approve our present Oath even in this Point concerning the Pope's Power over the Temporals of Princes is to argue thus The Faculty of Paris does not teach that the Pope has any Authority over the Temporals of Princes Therefore according to the opinion of that Faculty we may swear positively that he has no such Power or Authority Which consequence doubtless is very weak For it is one thing not to teach such a Doctrine or to punish and resist those that do teach it and another thing to authorize one to swear positively or to teach the contrary They might in the like manner quote all the Iesuits who now live or have been alive for many years though they are lookt upon as the greatest sticklers against the Oath in favour of it For they have been prohibited many years agoe and under Excommunication to teach or preach that the Pope has any Authority whatsoever to depose Kings and whoever among them should teach any such Doctrine would be severely punished whence it manifestly follows that it is not the Doctrine of the Iesuits that the Pope can Depose Kings Will our Adversaries therefore infer hence that it is the Doctrine of the Iesuits that we may positively swear that the Pope has no such Power 70. In the same Article is contained That it is not the Doctrine of that Faculty that the Pope is above a General Council nor that he is Infallible without the consent of the Church And sure hence cannot be deduced That it is the Sentiment of the aforesaid Faculty that we may positively swear the contrary Tenets to be true And though in another of their Articles it be affirmed That it is the Doctrine of that Faculty that his most Christian Majestie 's Subjects cannot be dispensed with under any pretence whatsoever in their Loyalty due unto him yet they are not therefore obliged to swear it 71. Moreover among other Oaths which the Members of the University of Paris are bound to take they must swear that they will hold that the B. Virgin Mary was preserved in her Conception from Original Sin yet they are not therefore obliged to swear it and much lesse to abjure the contrary Doctrine as Heretical For there is a vast difference between swearing that we will defend such a Doctrine to be true and swearing that it is true or abjuring the contrary Doctrine as Heretical 72. Consider Fourthly concerning a certain Decree made by the University of Paris the 20. of April 1626. whereof our Adversaries make so great an account condemning several Propositions of Sanctarellus his Book as erroneous seditious contrary to the Word of God c. according to a common interpretation of those words of the Oath I abjure as impious and Heretical c. given by our Adversaries that such a Decree or Prohibition is void and of no force For according to that interpretation of our Adversaries the forementioned words of the Oath are to be taken comparatively not assertively that is not for abjuring that Doctrine for Heretical but onely for as bad as Heretical in the same manner as is commonly said that we detest such an one as the Devil knowing full well that he is not the Devil So that according to this acception 't is not necessary that who takes the Oath should think that the Doctrine there abjured is either impious or Heretical nay he may fully be persuaded that it is neither impious nor Heretical and he must think so if those words must be taken comparatively as some will have for all comparison is between distinct things All which I confess does seem somewhat strange to me Neither do I see how with truth without Hyperbole and according to the plain Sense of the words one can look upon a Doctrine which is not Heretical for as bad as if it were Heretical since Heresy is the blackest Censure and what-ever Proposition is not Heretical is less then Heretical But my present design is not to impugn the aforesaid Interpretation what I affirm is that if such an Interpretation be warrantable yet it cannot be gathered from the above-mentioned Decree wherein the like expression is used viz. as erroneous and contrary to the Word of God that the Doctours of Paris did hold the Propositions condemned in that Decree to be erroneous seditious or contrary to the Word of God Nay notwithstanding that Decree they might and must think those Propositions to be neither erroneous nor seditious nor contrary to the Word of God And if so of what force is this Decree to prove that we may positively swear that the Pope has no Power to depose Princes 73. Consider Fifthly that since the Censures contained in the forementioned Decree are several and the Propositions therein condemned are also several it does not well appear which Censures fall upon which Propositions or whether every Censure falls upon every one of them It seems incredible that those Learned men should censure as erroneous seditious and contrary to the Word of God c. this Proposition which is mentioned in the Decree The Pope may with Temporal punishment chastise Kings and Princes for the crime of Heresy since 't is manifest that should an Heretical Prince be reconciled the Pope or any other Confessarius who should reconcile him might impose upon him for the crime of Heresy some corporal and temporal penance or punishment enjoyning him to give an Alms to build an Hospital or some such other work 74. Consider Sixthly that the forementioned Book of Sanctarellus was prohibited at Rome by the Pope before it was prohibited at Paris as Spondanus a French Authour relates who also says that the animosities of the University of Paris against this Book did arise from some hidden seeds of Schism Now our Adversaries do not so much as pretend that the Pope is for the Lawfulness of this Oath or of opinion that we may positively swear that he has no Power whatsoever to depose Kings though he prohibited that Book Why therefore do they infer that the University of Paris because it prohibits the same Book is for the Oath 75. Consider Seventhly whether the Censures contained in the above-mentioned Decree may not be understood to condemn onely a Power in the Pope to depose
grant after all this that Cajetan and Soto both yield to the common Doctrine of their Church about Dispensing with Oaths made to Excommunicated persons by way of punishment to them but they do not answer their own Arguments And Cajetan saith that caution is to be used lest prejudice be done to another by it i. e. they durst not oppose the common Opinion although they saw sufficient Reason against it Cardinal Tolet seems to speak home to our case when he saith that an Oath made to the benefit of a third person cannot be dispensed with no not by the Pope himself without the consent of that person as the Pope cannot take away another man's goods One would have thought this had been as full to our purpose as possible and so it is as to the Reason of the thing But he brings in after it a scurvy exception of the case of Excommunicated persons without offering the least shew of Reason why the common Rules of Iustice and Honesty ought not to be observed towards persons censured by the Church Nor doth he attempt to shew how the Pope comes by that Power of Dispensing with Oaths in that case which he freely declares he hath not in any other Gregory Sayr thinks he hath nicked the matter when with wonderfull subtilty he distinguisheth between the free act of the will in obliging it self by an Oath and the Obligation following upon it to perform what is sworn Now saith he the Pope in Dispensing doth not take away the second viz. the Obligation to perform the Oath the Bond remaining for that were to go against the Law of God and Nature but because every Oath doth suppose a Consent of the will the Dispensation falls upon that and takes away the force of the Oath from it If this Subtilty will hold for all that I can see the Pope may dispense with all the Oaths in the world and justify himself upon this Distinction for as Azorius well observes if the Reason of Dispensing be drawn from the Consent of the will which is said to be subject to the Pope he may at his pleasure dispense with any Oath whatsoever Sayr takes notice of Azorius his dissatisfaction at this Answer but he tells him to his teeth that he could bring no better yea that he could find out no Answer at all Azorius indeed acknowledges the great difficulty of explaining this Dispensing power of the Pope as to Oaths and concludes at last that the Bond of an Oath cannot be loosed by the Pope but for some Reason drawn from the Law of Nature which is in effect to deny his Authority for if there be a Reason from the Law of Nature against the obligation of an Oath the Bond is loosed of it self Others therefore go the plainest way to work who say that all Oaths have that tacit Condition in them If the Pope please But Sayr thinks this a little too broad because then it follows evidently that the Pope may dispense as he pleases without cause which he saith is false Others again have found out a notable device of distinguishing between the Obligation of Iustice and of Religion in an Oath and say that the Pope can take away the Religious Obligation of an Oath though not that of Iustice. This Widdrington saith was the Opinion of several grave and learned Catholicks in England and therefore they said they could not renounce the Pope's Power of absolving persons from the Oath of Allegeance But he well shews this to be a vain and impertinent Distinction because the intention of the Oath of Allegeance is to secure the Obligation of Iustice and the intention of the Pope in Absolving from that Oath is to take it away as he proves from the famous Canons Nos Sanctorum and Iuratos So that this Subtilty helps not the matter at all Paul Layman confesseth that a promissory Oath made to a man cannot ordinarily be relaxed without the consent of the person to whom it is made because by such an Oath a man to whom it is made doth acquire as just a right to the performance as he hath to any of his Goods of which he cannot be deprived But from this plain and just Rule he excepts as the rest do the publick Good of the Church as though Evil might be done for the Good of the Church although not for the Good of any private person whereas the Churche's Honour ought more to be preserved by the ways of Iustice and Honesty Wo be to them that make good evil and evil good when it serves their turn for this is plainly setting up a particular Interest under the name of the Good of the Church and violating the Laws of Righteousness to advance it If men break through Oaths and the most solemn Engagements and Promises and regard no Bonds of Iustice and Honesty to compass their ends let them call them by what specious names they please the Good Old Cause or the Good of the Church it matters not which there can be no greater sign of Hypocrisy and real Wickedness then this For the main part of true Religion doth not lie in Canting phrases or Mystical notions neither in Specious shews of Devotion nor in Zeal for the true Church but in Faith as it implies the performance of our Promises as well as belief of the Christian Doctrine and in Obedience or a carefull observance of the Laws of Christ among which Obedience to the King as Supreme is one Which they can never pretend to be an inviolable Duty who make it in the power of another person to Absolve them from the most solemn Oaths of Allegeance and consequently suppose that to keep their Oaths in such case would be a Sin and to violate them may become a Duty which is in effect to overturn the natural differences of Good and Evil to set up a Controlling Sovereign Power above that of their Prince and to lay a perpetual Foundation for Faction and Rebellion which nothing can keep men from if Conscience and their solemn Oaths cannot 3. Therefore the third Mischief common to this Deposing power of the Pope and Commonwealth-Principles is the Justifying Rebellion on the account of Religion This is done to purpose in Boucher and Reynolds the fierce Disputers for the Pope's and the People's Power Boucher saith that it is not onely lawfull to resist Authority on the account of Religion but that it is folly and impiety not to doe it when there is any probability of success And the Martyrs were onely to be commended for Suffering because they wanted Power to resist Most Catholick and Primitive Doctrine And that the Life of a Wicked Prince ought not to be valued at that rate as the Service of God ought to be That when Christ paid tribute to Caesar he did it as a private man and not meddling with the Rights of the People That if the People had not exercised their Power over the lives of bad
all I commend your Conclusion That if this Doctrine be an Errour the Church of Rome for several Ages was a wicked and blind Church and a Synagogue of Satan and if it were no Errour they that now call it an Errour are wicked Catholicks and in damnable Errour Nor though all the Doctours of Sorbon all the Parliaments and Vniversities of France all the Friers or Blackloists in England or Ireland all the Libertines Politicians and Atheists in the world should declare for it could it ever be an Authority to make it a probable Opinion Bravely spoken and like a true Disciple of Hildebrand Hear this O ye Writers of Controversial Letters and beware how ye fall into these mens hands You may cry out upon these Opinions as long as you please and make us believe your Church is not concerned in them but if this Good man may be credited you can never find Authority enough to make your Opinion so much as Probable A very hard case for Princes when it will not be allowed so much as probable that Princes should keep their Crowns on their Heads if the Pope thinks fit to take them away or that Subjects should still owe Allegeance to Princes when the Pope absolves them from it Very hard indeed in such an Age of Probable Doctrines when so small Authority goes to make an Opinion Probable that this against the Pope's Deposing power should not come within the large sphere of Probability Hear this ye Writers of Apologies for Papists Loyalty who would perswade us silly people of the Church of England that this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes is onely the Opinion of some Doctours and not the Doctrine of your Church when this Learned Authour proves you have as much Reason and Authority to believe it as that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of it and Father Caron's 250 Authours cannot make the contrary Opinion so much as Probable this having been for some Ages one at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church as our Authour saith From whence it follows it must have been always so or else Oral Tradition and Infallibility are both gone For how could that be the Doctrine of one Age which was not of the precedent What did Fathers conspire to deceive their Children then Is it possible to suppose such an alteration to happen in the Doctrine of the Church and yet the Church declare to adhere to Tradition at that time If this be possible in this case then for all that we know that great Bugbear of Transubstantiation might steal in in the dark too And so farewell Oral Tradition But how can Infallibility stand after it when the Church was so enormously deceived for so long together as this Authour proves it must have been if this Doctrine be false If the Blackloists in England and Irish Remonstrants do not all vanish at the appearance of this Treatise and yield themselves Captives to this smart and pithy Authour I expect to see some of them concerned for their own Vindication so far as to answer this short Treatise but I beseech them then to shew us the difference between the coming in of Transubstantiation and this Deposing doctrine since the same Popes the same Councils and the same Approbation of the Church are produced for both This is all I have to say of this First Treatise whose Authour I do highly commend for his plain dealing for he speaks out what he really thinks and believes of this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes But I am no sooner entred upon the Second Treatise but I fansy my self in Fairy-land where I meet with nothing but phantastick Shows and Apparitions when I go about to fasten upon any thing it is immediately gone the little Fairy leaps up and down and holds to nothing intending onely to scare and affright his party from the Oath of Allegeance and when he hath done this he disappears The Substance of the Oath saith the Authour of the Questions whom he pretends to answer is the Denying and Abjuring the Pope's Power of deposing Princes This is plain and home to the purpose what say you to this Is this Doctrine true or false may it be renounced or not Hold say you For my part it is as far from my thoughts as forein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power Is it indeed forein to your purpose to speak to the Substance of the Oath No say you the Substance of the Oath is contained in this Question Whether a Catholick may deny by Oath and universally abjure the Pope's Power to depose Princes not Whether he may deny it but Whether he may deny it by Oath And the great Argument to prove the Negative is that it hath been a Question debated for 500 years and no clear and authoritative Decision of the Point yet appeareth to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce Where are we now Methinks we are sailing to find O Brasil We thought our selves as sure as if we had got the Point in the First Treatise a good firm solid substantial Point of Faith and now all of a sudden it is vanished into clouds and vapours and armies fighting in the air against each other Is it possible for the Sense Belief and Doctrine of the Church as the First Authour assures us it was to become such a Moot-point always disputed never decided This hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists Canonists from first to last afore Calvin 's time in all the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been able yet to produce so much as one Catholick Authour afore Calvin 's time that denied this Power to the Pope absolutely or in any case whatsoever Thus the Authour of the First Treatise Since it is but more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish and that Experience the easiest and clearest of Arguments puts it too sadly beyond dispute that this grand Controversie Whether the Pope hath any Power or Authority to depose Princes for any cause pretence or exigency whatsoever hath been for divers Ages from time to time disputed in the Schools by Speculative men and is to this day among Catholick Controvertists and Catholick Princes too as the Authour of the Second Treatise confesseth What shall I say to you Gentlemen when you thus flatly contradict each other How come you to be so little agreed upon your Premisses when you joyn in the same Conclusion There is some mysterie in this which we are not to understand This I suppose it is Among those who may be trusted this is an Article of faith and for such the First Treatise was written But for the sake of such who would see too far into these things we must not own it
the Condemning of it at Rome But for all this the Authour of the Third Treatise quotes Spondanus for it The plain truth of the story is this Sanctarellus his Book coming to Paris met with so ill reception there that it was condemned by the Sorbon burnt by Order of the Parliament and the Iesuits hard put to it upon very strict Examinations wherein they shuffled and shewed all the Tricks they had but these would not serve their turn they are commanded to disown and confute this Doctrine Pierre Coton upon whom the main business lay being too hard set made a shift to escape the difficulty of his Province by dying Notwithstanding this the Doctours of Sorbon would not let the business die with him but renewed it the beginning of the next year upon which the King sent the Bishop of Nantes to them to let them know they had done enough in that matter the Book being condemned and the Pope having forbidden the sale of the Book at Rome A very wonderfull Condemnation of it that a Book should be forbidden to be sold and at Rome too and that so long after the publishing of it and when all that had a mind to it were provided already without any Censure upon the Authour or Doctrine Who dares talk of the Severity of the Court of Rome Could any thing be done with greater Deliberation and more in the spirit of Meekness and to less purpose then this was But after all this doth not to me look any ways like the Condemning of it at Rome before it was burnt at Paris and I suppose upon second thoughts you will be of my mind But you will tell me you did not expect to hear of these things in print That may be for we live in an Age wherein many things come to pass we little thought of For I dare say you never thought these Papers would have come into my hands but since they did so I could not envy the publick the benefit I receiv'd by reading of them hoping that they will contribute much to the satisfaction of others at least in this one point that you hold the very same Principles about the Pope's Power of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Allegeance that ever you did And therefore I conclude it would be great weakness to recede from our Legal Tests against the men of such Principles for any new Devices whatsoever Feb. 13. 1676 7 THE JESUITS LOYALTY THE FIRST TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE The Conclusion to be proved It is not lawfull to take any Oath or Protestation renouncing the Pope's Power in any case whatsoever to depose a Christian Prince or absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance The Proof MY Reason is Because the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is Erroneous in faith Temerarious and Impious Which I prove thus That Opinion which must suppose that the Church hath at some time been in a damnable Errour of Belief and Sin of Practice is Erroneous in faith Temerarious and Impious But this Opinion is such Ergo. The Major I suppose will not be denied by any Catholick because that were to suppose that the Church hath at some time ceased to be a Catholick and Holy Church which were Heresy to suppose possible The Minor is proved If the Church at some time hath believed and supposed as certain that the Pope hath such a Power in some case and upon that belief and supposall hath exercised it in her supremest Tribunals and if her Errour supposing she erred in it was a damnable Errour and her Practice if unlawfull a mortal Sin then this Opinion must suppose that the Church hath c. But the Church hath at some time so believed and practised and if amiss it was a damnable Errour and Practice Ergo. The Sequele of the Major is evident in terminis The second part of the Minor is likewise evident because it was a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Right of Princes to withstand which is a damnable sin Rom. 13. and cause of much deadly feud betwixt the Church and Secular States of many bloudy Wars of Princes one against another and wicked Rebellions of Subjects against their Princes For the first part of the Minor if I shew 1. That Popes have taught it as sound Doctrine proving it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as erroneous in faith pernicious to salvation wicked folly and madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it 2. That Popes have in the highest Tribunals of the Church deposed Sovereign Princes and absolved Subjects from their Allegeance and this with the advice and assent of their Councils and not onely Patriarchal but sometimes even General 3. That Popes and General Councils by them confirmed have denounced Excommunication to such as should obey their Princes after such Sentence of Deposition and Absolution of their Subjects from their Allegeance 4. That a General Council confirmed by the Pope hath made a Canon-Law regulating the manner of Deposing Princes in some case and Absolving their Subjects from their Allegeance 5. That all Catholick Divines and Casuists that have treated of it from the first to the last afore Calvin's time in all the severall Nations of Christendom have asserted this Power of the Pope without so much as one contradicting it in all that time 6. That all Catholick Emperours Kings yea even they that were deposed States Magistrates and Lawyers and finally all the Catholicks in the world for the time being have by tacit consent at least approved and received this Doctrine of Popes Divines and Casuists and these Censures Canons and Practices of Popes and General Councils I say if I shew all this I hope it will be granted a sufficient Proof That the Church hath at some time so believed taught and practised Now to shew this among a multitude of Instances I shall name some few of the principal As 1. In Anno 1074. S. Gregory VII a most holy and learned Pope who for his Sanctity and Miracles was canonized for a Saint threatned Philip the French King that unless he abstained from his Simoniacall selling of Bishopricks he would excommunicate him and all his Subjects that should obey him as King which he counted none would after such Sentence but Apostates from Christianity And that King hereupon submitted to the Pope and amended his fault 2. In Anno 1076. the same holy Pope in a Patriarchal Council of Rome wherein were present 110 Bishops with the advice and upon the importunity of the whole Synod deposed Henry IV. King of the Germans and absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance to him And did it ex Cathedra as Vicar of Christ and Successour of S. Peter in virtue of the Power of binding which Christ gave to him in S. Peter And this Sentence he published in a Breve to all the Princes Prelates and people of the Empire And it was published by his Legates
Rome 1625. having in the 30. and 31. Chapters found these Propositions That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresy and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them and that this custome hath been alwaies practised in the Church c. and on the 4. of April 1626. censured these Propositions of that pernicious Book and condemned the Doctrine therein contained as new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God rendring odious the Papal dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative of the Sovereign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes disturbing the publick Peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the Obedience due to their Sovereigns precipitating them into Faction Rebellion Sedition and even to commit Parricides on the Sacred Persons of their Princes The University of Paris in their General Assembly on the 20. of April 1626. decreed that this Censure should be publickly read every year and that if any Doctour Professour Master of Arts or Scholar should resist disobey or make any the least opposition against the said Censure he should immediately be expell'd and deprived of his Degree Faculty and Rank without hopes of re-admittance The like Decrees on the same occasion the same year against the same Doctrine were made by Seven other Universities of France Likewise the French Iesuits subscribed the Sorbon Censures as the Authour of the Questions tells us And that this was actually done he is confident will not be denied that it was commanded we need no farther evidence says he then the Arrest it self of the Parliament of Paris dated the 17. of March 1626. wherein it is ordered that the Priests and Scholars of Clairmont and of the other two Houses which the Iesuits have in Paris should within three daies subscribe the Censure made by the Faculty of Sorbon This the Authour of the Questions who needed not have been so confident of this last evidence drawn from the Arrest of the Parliament which doubtless must needs be a mistake for otherwise unless we be resolved to rob the Year 1626. of some more daies then were thrown out of the Year 1582. for the Reformation of the Calendar it will be a little hard to understand how the Iesuits should be commanded by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. to subscribe the Sorbon Censures within three daies whereas the first of these Censures was not made before the 4. of April 1626. and the other not before the 20. day of the same month and year even according to his own computation The occasion and ground of the mistake I conceive was this In the month of December 1625. the Sorbon issued out a Censure against another Book entituled Admonitio ad Regem and it was the single Censure against this Book and not the two other Censures against Santarellus his Book as our Authour mistakingly supposed which the Iesuits were commanded to subscribe within three daies by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. and looking back to December 1625. This very quotation and copy of the Censure of the 4. of April is not free from its mistake or at least of begetting a mistake in others and making them think the Censure more clear and home to the point then possibly it is For amongst the Propositions and Doctrines which the Faculty of Theology had found in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Santarellus his Book the Authour of the Questions having onely set down these That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresy and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them and that this Custome has been alwaies practised in the Church here he cuts off what follows and defeats his Reader of his full information with an unreasonable c. as if these Propositions were the onely or at least the principal object of the Censure which yet may justly be doubted for the Faculty goes on in the charge against Santarellus as teaching in the foresaid Chapters That Princes may be punished and deposed not onely for Heresy but for other causes 1. for their faults 2. if it be expedient 3. if they be negligent 4. if their persons be insufficient 5. if unusefull and the like and then follows the Censure it self not singly and separately upon each Proposition by it self which yet is the usual method of the Faculty but upon the whole taken in gross which puts a quite different face upon the matter from what our Authour had given it and renders it doubtfull whether the Faculty would have pronounced so severe a Judgment against the first part of the Doctrine had not those last Propositions proved to be the aggravating circumstance or rather cause that deservedly occasioned and sharpened the Censure As to the Subscription of the Iesuits the true account of that action stands thus Santarellus his Book had been condemned at Rome which it was not for our Authour's purpose to take notice of and his Doctrine generally cried down and disavowed by all good men before ever it fell under the brand of the Sorbon Censures all which notwithstanding such and so eminently singular was the caution and zeal of France against this though already sufficiently supprest mischief that upon the 14. of March 1626. the Principal of the French Iesuits with three Superiours and three other ancient Fathers being summoned to appear before the Parliament of Paris and being asked what they held as to the Points noted in Santarellus Father Cotton the then Provincial having in the name of the rest of his Order disclaim'd all singularity of Opinions different from other Divines answered That the Doctrine of the Sorbon should be theirs and what the Faculty of Paris should determine and subscribe they were ready to subscribe also And this indeed may pass for a Subscription to the Sorbon Censures even before they were made But from this Subscription of the French Iesuits our Authour runs into another mistake seeming to wonder why the English Iesuits should scruple a downright Oath which is exacted of us any more then the French Iesuits did a simple Subscription which was onely required of them And then taking upon him a sober and grave style to open the mystery of this particular Iesuitism he attempts it in these very terms Now were I demanded a reason says he why so circumspect and wise a Body should act so differently in the same Cause but different Countries I could onely return this conjectural answer That being wary and prudent persons they could not but see the concerns they hazarded in France by refusing to subscribe far more important then what they ventured at Rome by subscribing whenas in England all they can forfeit by declining the Oath of Allegeance being
assign the particular Propositions which he looked upon as repugnant to Faith and Salvation The Prohibition of Suarez his Book made by the Parliament of Paris as containing things destructive to the Honour due to the Kings does not express at least as it is related by Withrington what those particular Things or Propositions are contained in that Book which are destructive to the Veneration due to Kings and yet no body upon that account does quibble at such a Prohibition Why therefore might not the Pope prohibit this Oath as containing things destructive to Faith and Salvation without setting down in particular which those Things are 21. Consider Lastly whether whoever takes this Oath does not implicitly deny either that the Pope has any Power to Excommunicate an Heretical King which Power is inherent in the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church or at least that though he should Excommunicate such a King the Excommunication would have in the person Excommunicated these Effects viz. to deprive him of all civill Communication with others c. which are assigned in Scripture in those places whence the Power in the Pope to Excommunicate is deduced 2. Joan. 1. Neque Ave ei dixeritis 1 Cor. 5. cum hujusmodi nec cibum sumere For sure a King who is deprived of all Civill Communication with others is deprived of all Civill Government in order to the exercise thereof which is a certain kind of Deposing And if some persons though Excommunicated are excepted from these effects either by the Indulgency of the Pope or otherwise whether it does not belong to the Pope to determine which those persons are and whether he has excepted Princes 22. Concerning the Pope being a Party in this debate and not proceeding according to the Canons Consider First that Supreme Governours whether Spirituall or Temporall in Debates wherein their Prerogatives are concerned either are not styled properly Parties or if they be Parties they are also Iudges Otherwise we should not be bound to stand to the Decision of a Generall Councill in matters relating to the Authority of the Church or Generall Councills nor to the Determination of the King and Parliament in matters relating to the Authority and Prerogatives of His Majesty or His Parliament Consider Secondly that if the Pope is not to be hearkened unto when he prohibits the taking of this Oath because he is the Party concerned in the not-taking thereof neither the King upon the same account is to be hearkened unto when He commands us to take the Oath because He is the Party concerned in the taking thereof 23. Consider Thirdly that as there are Canons and Rules prescribed for the proceedings of Popes so there are in the like manner Rules prescribed for the proceedings of Kings of Councills and of Parliaments But as the King or Councill or Parliament must be their own Judges whether they have proceeded in such a Decision or Determination according to the respective Rules prescribed unto them and not any particular person or Subject so must the Pope be his own Judge and not any particular Doctour whether he hath observed in the Prohibition of this Oath the Rules and Canons prescribed unto him in such cases And since the Popes have sufficiently declared that in the Prohibition of this Oath they have proceeded according to the Canons for such cases it is not reasonable that under pretence that they have not observed such Canons we should deny an exteriour Obedience to their Prohibitions 24. Concerning the Disturbance of the Church which the Opponent pretends may follow from the submission to the Briefs and the prejudice created thence or pretended to be created to the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes Consider First that if the Defenders of the Oath would be quiet we might enjoy the same peace and tranquillity in relation to this point which we have enjoyed for many years For the Oppugners of the Oath have not printed any thing for a long time contenting themselves with the Sentences which the above-mentioned Popes have been pleased to issue forth in their favour And consequently the Disturbance if any follow is rather to be attributed to the Defenders of the Oath then to the Oppugners 25. Consider Secondly that if the Pope whose Office it is to declare the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of an Action especially if he be required thereunto and the inconsistency thereof with Faith and Salvation should forbear to declare such an Action unlawfull for fear of some Disturbance or Persecution by the contrivance of some obstinate and discontented persons upon the same account the Councill of Nice should have forborn to have declared against the Arrians the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father and other Generall Councills in the like manner should have waved the Definitions of severall other Doctrines because some malicious men taking occasion thence have raised severall Disturbances and Persecutions Nay our Saviour and the Apostles should upon the same score have forborn the preaching Christian Religion since they foresaw that many Calamities Disturbances and Persecutions would arise by the malice and obstinacy of men upon the account of Christian Religion And therefore Simeon foretold that the coming of Christ would be the occasion of the ruine of many Ecce hic positus est in ruinam resurrectionem multorum in Israel in signum cui contradicetur Luc. 2.34 26. Consider Thirdly that though it be not the intention neither of Popes nor of Generall Councills that their Enactive Decrees in some extraordinary and extravagant cases should oblige when the compliance with them is very prejudiciall or at least they are supposed to have dispensed for such cases as appears in the precept of Fasting or such like yet this cannot reach to their Declarative Decrees such as the present Decree against the Oath is For it cannot be their intention neither can they dispense in any case whatsoever that we may lawfully doe what they have declared and do declare to be of it self unlawfull 27. Consider Fourthly whether what the Popes enjoyn in the above-mentioned Briefs can be prejudiciall to the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes For though Popes be as jealous of their Prerogatives as Kings are of theirs yet they do not enjoyn us in these Briefs to swear that the Pope has any Power or Authority to Depose Kings or to swear any thing else contrary to any Clause contained in this Oath but onely not to take the Oath or not to swear positively that the Pope has no such Power leaving things in the same condition wherein they were in order to any such Obligation before this Oath was framed For although as long as there is a debate whether such a thing belongs to me or another I cannot lawfully take the possession of it yet I may lawfully hinder my Adversary from taking it Neither do they prohibit us to take other Oaths of Allegeance wherein all Civill Allegeance is contained in
Princes either by reason of some Civill Insufficiency in the Prince to govern or some light cause mentioned by Sanctarellus or upon the meer account of Heresy or Apostasy though they should permit their Subjects to enjoy Liberty of conscience which seems to have been the Doctrine of Sanctarellus If so then our case is very different concerning the present Point For neither Bellarmine nor Peron against whom our Adversaries do so hotly inveigh do speak of a meer Civill Insufficiency neither do they affirm that a Prince may lawfully be deposed meerly because he is an Heretick unless moreover he forces his Subjects to be so too by persecuting them And yet in the Oath we are bound to swear that the Pope has not any Power whatsoever in any case possible to depose an Hereticall Prince whether he persecutes his Subjects or not 75. Consider Eighthly that though in the forementioned Decree Sanctarellus his Propositions be condemned as contrary to the Word of God yet this is not properly to condemn them as our Adversaries pretend for Hereticall unless they be declared as such by the Church as to approve a Proposition as agreeable to the Word of God is not to approve it as an Article of Faith according to what above has been insinuated And there is scarce any Scholasticall Question of Divinity wherein the Defenders of either side do not endeavour to prove their Opinion out of Scripture and consequently they look upon the opposite Sentence as contrary to the Word of God yet they are far from censuring it therefore as Hereticall and often prohibited so to doe Nay Protestants who affirm those Tenets wherein we differ from them to be repugnant to Scripture and pretend to prove they are so yet they do withall confess that they are no Heresies So that as well Protestants as Catholicks according to the plain and common sense of the words understand somewhat more by an Hereticall Opinion then an Opinion contrary to the Word of God 77. Concerning other things relating to the Authority of France contained in the Objection Consider First that the Authour of a Book entitled Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance page 8. sets down an Arrest of the Parliament of Paris wherein the Iesuits were ordered as he pretends to subscribe the forementioned Decree or Censure against Sanctarellus his Book But this is a great Mistake if the Arrest be understood of that Decree For that Decree was made upon the 20. of April 1626. and the Arrest was dated the 17 th of March 1626. wherein the Iesuits were commanded to subscribe within three days so that according to this account they were to subscribe a Decree 37 days before it was made and the Censure of the Sorbon mentioned in the Decree was passed the 4 th of April 1626. so that were the Arrest to be understood of this Censure they were to subscribe 15 days before it past which is ridiculous Besides should we grant that the Iesuits had subscribed the forementioned Decree and Censure we have already seen how little that Decree or the Censure therein contained does favour the Lawfulness of this Oath and consequently neither can the Subscription of the Iesuits to such a Censure and Decree help much thereunto For they would not therefore subscribe or approve the Oath as it lies nor affirm that one might positively swear that the Pope has no Power whatsoever to depose Princes and much less that one might swear that he abjures the contrary as Hereticall all which is required in the Oath since the University or Parliament of Paris never required any such Oath or Subscription Nay one's Subscription signifies no more but that he thinks the thing he subscribes to be true yet one may think a thing to be true though he will not swear nor counsell any other to swear it is so 78. Consider Secondly that there are some other Propositions alledged out of France in favour of this Oath which are commonly held in that Kingdome viz. That his most Christian Majesty does not receive his Kingdome but from God and his Sword That he does not acknowledge any other Superiour in his Kingdome but onely God which is to be understood in Temporalls for he acknowledges the Pope to be his Superiour in Spiritualls Now even those who refuse the Oath do confess the same of His Majesty Neither is an indirect and conditionall Power to depose Kings which some ascribe to the Pope in certain cases inconsistent with such Prerogatives For every King has an indirect and conditionall Power or Right to wage war against any other Sovereign though he receives his Government immediately from God and to depose him too in case he injures such a King or his Subjects as it is possible he may and refuses when required thereunto to give any reasonable satisfaction What good English Subject is there who in the late Dutch War which we suppose to have been just on our side would have sworn that His Majesty had not Right and Power to Depose the States Generall whom we acknowledge to be Sovereign and to depend of God alone in Temporalls and consequently to absolve their Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance made to them in case they had persisted to refuse to give His Majesty the satisfaction that was due and what satisfaction was due His Majesty was to be judge So that were this indirect Deposing power inconsistent with the Sovereignty of Princes there would be no Sovereign Prince at all And since the Pope is Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome and its adjacent Territories as even Protestants confess he must have the like indirect Deposing power or right which is inherent in every Sovereign Temporall Prince as even our Adversaries will not deny And yet if we take the Oath we must swear or testify before God which certainly is to swear That the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church of Rome has any Power to depose Kings that is neither Temporall nor Spirituall neither direct nor indirect for the Proposition is Negative and by consequence denies all Power whatsoever 79. And here I cannot but ask our Adversaries a question which is Whether either they or Protestants do affirm that all Wars whatsoever undertaken by Christian Princes whereof some are styled Defenders of the Faith others Catholick Majesties others most Christian Majesties in Defence of the Orthodox Religion against another Prince a Persecutour of the true Church and declared to be such by a lawfull and competent Judge whether I say they affirm that all such Wars are unjust and unlawfull and if not whether the Pope may not declare a Sovereign Prince to be an Heretick and a Persecutour of the Church if really he be such and whether if he may make such a Declaration as being a lawfull Judge in matters of that nature according to the unanimous consent of Catholicks he may not also in that case invoke the help of some pious and powerfull Christian
subscripsit c. Beno de Vit. Hildebrand in the aforesaid Fasciculus h Eodem anno 1080. condicto tam ab inimicis quà m amicis Imperatoris alloquio in Thuringia conveniebant ex utraque parte quicunque sapientissimi de Optimatibus judicabantur Canonum authoritate probaturi cui parti justitia faveret Imperatore tamen absente sic enim ipse consensit Electis hinc Wecilone Moguntino illinc Gebehardo Saltzburgensi disputatio coepta est Affirmat Gebehardus proponente hoc priùs Wecilone Imperatorem non injusto judicio tam Regno quà m Communione Apostolici Sententiâ privatum E contrà Wecilo Dominum suum praejudicium non minùs à Papa quà m à Principibus passum contendit dum ipso ad Canusium in satisfactione posito imò jam à Papa in communionem recepto alterum super se Regem elevarent Adjecit etiam quòd Imperator diu jam à Saxonia depulsus regnandi copiâ etiam ab illa dissensione quae ante Podolphum facta describitur spoliatus nec vocari nec judicari Canonicè debuisset c. Ursperg ad ann 1080. a Dictatus Papae in Concil Roman 3. ann 1076. 1. Quòd Papae liceat Imperatorem deponere 2. Quòd à fidelitate iniquorum Subditos potest absolvere b Quod postulâsti te nostris scriptis quasi juvari communiri c. non adeò necessarium nobis videtur cùm hujus rei tam multa ac certissima documenta in Sacrarum literarum paginis reperiantur c. citing the Scriptures L. 8. ep 21. Eos qui dicunt Regem non oportet excommunicari c. ad Sanctorum Patrum dicta vel facta mittimus Legant itaque c. Considerent cur Zacharias Papa Regem Francorum deposuerit omnes Francigenas à vinculo juramenti quod sibi fecerant absolverit In Registro B. Gregorii c. l. 4. ep 2. c B. Petri authoritate ei Henrico Regi resistite totius Regni gubernacula contradicendo c. illud semper habentes in memoria quia scelus Idololatriae committit qui Apostolicae Sedi obedire contemnit L. 4. ep 23. Contra eorum insaniam qui nefando ore garriunt Authoritatem Apostolicae Sedis non potuisse Regem Henricum excommunicare nec quenquam à Sacramento fidelitatis ejus absolvere ...... Neque enim credimus eos qui ad cumulum suae damnationis veritati impudenter deâ—rahunt contradicunt haec ad suae defensionis audaciam tam ignorantiâ quà m miserae desperationis vecordiâ coaptâsse Id. ibid. Eos qui dicunt Regem non oportet excommunicari licèt pro magna fatuitate nec etiam eis respondere debeamus tamen nè impatienter eorum insipientiam praeteriisse videamur c. L. 4. ep 2. Si B. Gregorius Doctor utique mitissimus Reges qui Statuta sua super unum xenodochium violarent non modò deponi sed etiam excommunicari atque in aeterno examine damnari decrevit quis nos ipsius matris Ecclesiae quantum in ipso est conculcatorem deposuisse excommunicâsse reprehendat nisi fortè similis ejus L. 8. ep 21. a Moneantur seculi potestates c. Si verò Dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica faeditate per Metropolitanum Comprovinciales Episcopos Excommunicationis vinculo innodeturm Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc Summo Pontifici ut extunc ipse vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponat Catholicis occupandam qui eam exterminatis Haereticis sine ulla contradictione possideant salvo jure Domini principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum Eâdem nihilominus lege servatâ circa eos qui non habent Dominos principales Cap. 3. de Haeret. Mitto Decreta Concilii Lateranensis olim ex antiquo descripta Codice Jo. Coâ—hl ep ante Concil Lateran ap Crab. Nos cum fratribus nostris sacro Concilio deliberatione praehabitâ diligenti cùm Jesu Christi vices teneamus in terris nobisque in B. Petri persona sit dictum Quodcunque solveris c. memoratum Principem suis ligatum peccatis abjectum omnique honore dignitate privatum à Domino ostendimus denunciamus ac nihilominus sententiando privamus omnes qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur astricti à juramento hujusmodi perpetuò absolventes authoritate Apostolicâ sirmiter inhibeâ—dâ— nè quisquam ei de caetero tanquam Imperatori vel Regi pareat decernendo quoslibet qui deinceps ei velut Imperatori aut Regi consilium aut auxilium praestilerint ipso facto Excommunicationis vinculo subjacere c. In Actis Concil b Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. c Video quòd ad confusionem meam aspirat Papa ..... nec Sacrum decet Imperium maximè adversanti judicio sisti Synodali Id. ibid. d Id. ibid. * Id. ibid. f Trithem in Chron. Hirsang g Matth. Paris in Henrico 3. h Paul Aemil in Vit. S. Ludov. i In 6. Cap. 1. de Homicid * as he speaks †in his Preface * page 14. page 30. * Trithemius in Chron. historic ad ann 1106. * Magister in 3. dist 39. En. ann 10. S. Thom. †S. Aug. lib. de Mendacio * pag. 31. Second Controversial Letter pag. 31. towards the end of his large Preface Vide Articulos Facultatis Parisiensis de Authoritate Pontificia Regia Art 6. * This Book was printed in an 1620. and called The New-year's gift or A brief and clear Explication of the Oath of Allegeance †Withringt in Apol. n. 99. and in his other books very often Also C. I. in his Explication of the Oath of Allegeance p. 74. Canon de Papa Distinct. 40. Synod 8. act 7. Bellarm. de Rom. pont l. 2. c. 29. * printed at London 1649. S. Thomas 2.2 qu. 89. ar 7. History of the Irish Remonstrance first part of the first Treatise 3.86 The Publisher of the Questions in his Preface to the Authour himself pag. 25. And the Protestant in the 9. Controversial Letter H. 8.31 * Pag. 8. See the Censure it self and first Cont. Letter pag. 13. So speaks the Decree itself Io. Barkley in his Vindiciae pag. 106. This the Publisher of the Questions observes The Account of the Iesuits Life and Doctrine pag. 120. So Onuphrius mentions him lib. 4. Devaria creat Rom. Pont. See Chap. 8. * Vide aliud Breve Paul V. ad D. Georg. Birket 1. Febr. 1608. aliud Urban VIII ad Regem Galliae 3. Maii 1626. aliud ejusdem Pontis eodem die anno ad Episcop Chalcedonensem †Supplic to Paul V. p. 2.91 Vide etiam Supplic Thom. Prestoni Thom. Greeni ad Greg. XV. * Sententia Papae obligat ad non dogmatizandum contrarium Gers. Tract de exam doctrin consid 2. Vide Duvall in Elencho pag. 106. †Hujusmodi Iuramentum salvâ Fide Catholicâ