of Briefs which import an absolute Power in the Pope to defeat and avoid at his Will the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and consequently touch the King's Regalities as the Statute expresses it and destroy His Sovereignty in Temporals which the Briefs we produce do not for they onely enjoyn a meer forbearance of this Oath which certainly does not dethrone His Majesty of his Sovereignty in Temporalls as will appear by what hereafter shall be added or else of Briefs Enactive as in other Kingdoms the like Statutes are understood whereby some new Law is enacted or some new thing ordained relating to the External Government of the Church as the Presentments to Churches or Benefices or the Translation of Bishops or Bishopricks and such like things which are mentioned in the Statutes but not of Briefs Declarative whereby such a Doctrine is declared Erroneous or Hereticall such an Action Sinfull and destructive to Salvation As for instance the Declarative part of the Councill of Trent though never admitted in England by publick Authority does oblige all English Catholicks but not the Enactive part thereof Now the Briefs we speak of are not Enactive as is manifest but Declarative For they do not make this Oath unlawfull but onely declare it to be so 8. Consider Thirdly whether should it be admitted that these Statutes in their primary institution did extend to all Briefs whatsoever it can prudently be thought that they were ever intended by the Catholicks that made them for the condition wherein we now are in England viz. of an open Rebellion against the Pope and the Church of Rome when no Brief though never so just nor nothing else that comes from Rome in order to our Spirituall direction is admitted by publick Authority Suppose that before the late Civil Wars it had been enacted by the King and Parliament perhaps there is some such Act that no Commission sent by His Majesty to any particular person should be of force unless it were delivered unto him by the Lieutenant of the County where he resided could we prudently think that such an Act was ever intended by loyal Subjects that voted it for the case of a publick Rebellion when all the Lieutenants were manifest Rebells against the King and resolved to pass nothing in His favour and consequently to deprive thereby His Majesty of all Power to send Orders to His loyall Subjects remaining in England in a time when He had most need of their Assistence or that whoever should refuse to obey His Majestie 's expresse Commands under such a pretence could be esteemed a faithfull Subject 9. Consider Fourthly whether should these Statutes be taken in the latitude the Opponent pretends all intercourse between the Pope and the English Catholicks and all direction from him in order to their Spiritual conduct would not be quite cut off in a time when they had greatest need thereof such is the time of Persecution and all Dispensations Indulgences and Faculties and all Powers or Prohibitions whatsoever that come from Rome for they all come in Bulls Briefs and such like Instruments would not be rendered void and of no force 10. Consider Fifthly whether this be not against the common perswasion and practice of the English Catholicks not excepting even those who defend the Lawfulness of this Oath who without any scruple use their Faculties sent to them from Rome who procure thence as occasion requires Dispensations Indulgences and other Powers who make their application to Rome in severall Emergencies ready to submit to the Pope's Judgment and whether it would not be very ridiculous both for them to procure such things and for the Pope to grant them were it true what this Objection pretends viz. That no Brief or Grant brought from Rome without the King's approbation which in this conjuncture of affairs cannot be hoped for is here of any force 11. Consider Sixthly whether it be reasonable that there should be the same liberty to treat with as the Opponent pretends or the same obligation to depend of Princes who are out of the Church as of those who are in the Church in order to Ecclesiasticall affairs such is the admission or refusall of the Pope's Bulls or Briefs and consequently whether the present Catholicks of England ought to have the same dependence of their Prince who is no Catholick in order to Ecclesiastical matters as the ancient English Catholicks had of their Princes who were Catholicks Certainly no body will say that we have the same obligation to depend of Governours who are Rebells in order to Civill concerns as of those that are faithfull or that there ought to be the same liberty to treat with persons infected as with persons who are not infected It was no absurdity for the ancient Catholicks of England to make their Application to their Catholick Princes for leave to get such a Grant from the Pope whereas now it would seem very absurd should they make any such Application to His Majesty For though we do acknowledge our selves to be as much bound to obey His Majesty in all Civill and Temporall concerns as the ancient Catholicks were bound to obey their respective Catholick Princes yet hence it does not follow that we are so much bound to depend of His Majesty that now is so long as he is of a different Religion from us in order to Ecclesiasticall Discipline as the ancient English Catholicks did depend of their Princes 12. Consider Lastly that in the above-mentioned Statute of Richard the Second express mention is made of the Sentence of Excommunication yet all Catholicks even those who deny the Pope to have any Power to Depose Kings do unanimously grant him a Power to Excommunicate Kings if they become Hereticks and remain obstinate nay King Iames refused to oblige His Catholick Subjects to renounce such a Power in the Pope Now according to this Objection no Sentence of Excommunication fulminated against any English King the same is of any of his Subjects is of any force here unless approved and submitted unto by himself and if he submits unto it he is not obstinate and by consequence does not deserve to be Excommunicated So that if what this Objection pretends be true the Pope has no power to Excommunicate any Hereticall King of England unless in a case wherein he deserves it not which is to have no power at all to Excommunicate him 13. If it be objected Secondly That the Pope with a Generall Councill is above the Pope without it that with it he is Infallible without it Fallible and that therefore we are not bound with our own prejudice to stand to his Decrees which are issued out without a Generall Councill as these Briefs are nor to forbear taking this Oath till the Unlawfulness thereof be declared by a Generall Councill the Supreme Judge of Controversies which hitherto has not been done That the Pope may be and was mistaken and misinformed concerning this Oath thinking that therein are contained severall
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
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
the Affirmative of the latter Question and onely differ as to the Persons in whom the Power of calling Princes to an Account doth lie whether it be in the Pope or the People And even as to this they do not differ so much as men may at first imagine For however the Primitive Christians thought it no Flattery to Princes to derive their Power immediately from God and to make them accountable to him alone as being Superiour to all below him as might be easily proved by multitudes of Testimonies yet after the Pope's Deposing Power came into request the Commonwealth-Principles did so too and the Power of Princes was said to be of another Original and therefore they were accountable to the People Thus Gregory VII that holy and meek-spirited Pope not onely took upon him to Depose the Emperour and absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance but he makes the first constitution of Monarchical Government to be a meer Vsurpation upon the just Rights and Liberties of the People For he saith That Kings and Princes had their beginning from those who being ignorant of God got the power into their hands over their equals through the instigation of the Devil and by their pride rapine perfidiousness murther ambition intolerable presumption and all manner of wickedness This excellent account of the Original of Monarchical Government we have from that famous Leveller Gregory VII that most Holy and Learned Pope who for his Sanctity and Miracles was canonized for a Saint as the Authour of the First Treatise notably observes Did ever any Remonstrance Declaration of the Army or Agreement of the People give a worse account of the beginning of Monarchy then this Infallible Head of the Church doth What follows from hence but the justifying all Rebellion against Princes which upon these Principles would be nothing else but the People's recovering their just Rights against intolerable Usurpations For shame Gentlemen never upbraid us more with the pernicious Doctrines of the late Times as to Civil Government The very worst of our Fanaticks never talked so reproachfully of it as your canonized Saint doth Their Principles and Practices we of the Church of England profess to detest and abhorre but I do not see how those can doe it who have that Self-denying Saint Gregory VII in such mighty veneration I pray Gentlemen tell me what Divine Assistence this good Pope had when he gave this admirable Account of the Original of Civil Government and whether it be not very possible upon his Principles for men to be Saints and Rebells at the same time I have had the curiosity to enquire into the Principles of Civil Government among the fierce Contenders for the Pope's Deposing power and I have found those Hypotheses avowed and maintained which justifie all the Practices of our late Regicides who when they wanted materials and Examples of former Ages when they had a mind to seem learned in Rebellion they found no Smith in Israel but went down to the Philistins to sharpen their fatal Axe Else how came the Book of Succession to the Crown of England to be shred into so many Speeches and licensed then by such Authority as they had to justify their Proceedings against our late Sovereign of glorious Memory Wherein the main design is to prove That Commonwealths have sometimes lawfully chastised their lawfull Princes though never so lawfully descended or otherwise lawfully put in possession of their Crowns and that this hath fallen out ever or for the most part commodious to the Weal-publick and that it may seem that God approved and prospered the same by the good Success and Successours that ensued thereof These were the Principles of the most considerable men of that Party here in England at that time For it is a great and common mistake in those that think the Book of Succession to have been written by F. Parsons alone For he tells us that Card. Allen Sir Francis Inglefield and other principal persons of our Nation are known to have concurred to the laying together of that Book as by their own hands is yet extant and this to the publick benefit of our Catholick Cause First that English Catholicks might understand what special and precise Obligation they have to respect Religion in admitting any new Prince above all other Respects humane under heaven And this is handled largely clearly and with great variety of learning reasons doctrine and examples throughout the First Book This was purposely intended for the Exclusion of His Majestie 's Royall Family K. Iames being then known to be a firm Protestant and therefore two Breves were obtained from the Pope to exclude him from the Succession which were sent to Garnet Provincial of the Iesuits One began Dilectis Filiis Principibus Nobilibus Catholicis the other Dilecto Filio Archipresbytero reliquo Clero Anglicano In both which the Pope exhorts them not to suffer any person to succeed in the Crown of England how near soever in Bloud unless he would not barely tolerate the Catholick Faith but promote it to the utmost and swear to maintain it By virtue of which Apostolical Sentence Catesby justified himself in the Gun-powder-Treason For saith he if it were lawfull to exclude the King from the Succession it is lawfull to cast him out of Possession and that is my work and shall be my care Thus we see the Pope's Deposing power was maintained here in England by such who saw how necessary it was for their purpose to defend the Power of Commonwealths over their Princes either to exclude them from Succession to the Crown or to deprive them of the Possession of it The same we shall find in France in the time of the Solemn League and Covenant there in the Reigns of Henry III. and IV. For those who were engaged so deep in Rebellion against their lawfull Princes found it necessary for them to insist on the Pope's Power to depose and the People's to deprive their Sovereigns Both these are joyned together in the Book written about the just Reasons of casting off Henry III. by one who was then a Doctour of the Sorbon wherein the Authour begins with the Power of the Church but he passes from that to the Power of the People He asserts the Fundamental and Radical Power to be so in them that they may call Princes to account for Treason against the People which he endeavours at large to prove by Reason by Scripture by Examples of all sorts forrein and domestick And he adds That in such cases they are not to stand upon the niceties and forms of Law but that the necessities of State do supersede all those things If this man had been of Counsel for the late Regicides he could not more effectually have pleaded their Cause The next year after the Murther of Henry III. by a Monk acted and inspired by these Rebellious Principles came forth another virulent Book against Henry IV. under the name
grant after all this that Cajetan and Soto both yield to the common Doctrine of their Church about Dispensing with Oaths made to Excommunicated persons by way of punishment to them but they do not answer their own Arguments And Cajetan saith that caution is to be used lest prejudice be done to another by it i. e. they durst not oppose the common Opinion although they saw sufficient Reason against it Cardinal Tolet seems to speak home to our case when he saith that an Oath made to the benefit of a third person cannot be dispensed with no not by the Pope himself without the consent of that person as the Pope cannot take away another man's goods One would have thought this had been as full to our purpose as possible and so it is as to the Reason of the thing But he brings in after it a scurvy exception of the case of Excommunicated persons without offering the least shew of Reason why the common Rules of Iustice and Honesty ought not to be observed towards persons censured by the Church Nor doth he attempt to shew how the Pope comes by that Power of Dispensing with Oaths in that case which he freely declares he hath not in any other Gregory Sayr thinks he hath nicked the matter when with wonderfull subtilty he distinguisheth between the free act of the will in obliging it self by an Oath and the Obligation following upon it to perform what is sworn Now saith he the Pope in Dispensing doth not take away the second viz. the Obligation to perform the Oath the Bond remaining for that were to go against the Law of God and Nature but because every Oath doth suppose a Consent of the will the Dispensation falls upon that and takes away the force of the Oath from it If this Subtilty will hold for all that I can see the Pope may dispense with all the Oaths in the world and justify himself upon this Distinction for as Azorius well observes if the Reason of Dispensing be drawn from the Consent of the will which is said to be subject to the Pope he may at his pleasure dispense with any Oath whatsoever Sayr takes notice of Azorius his dissatisfaction at this Answer but he tells him to his teeth that he could bring no better yea that he could find out no Answer at all Azorius indeed acknowledges the great difficulty of explaining this Dispensing power of the Pope as to Oaths and concludes at last that the Bond of an Oath cannot be loosed by the Pope but for some Reason drawn from the Law of Nature which is in effect to deny his Authority for if there be a Reason from the Law of Nature against the obligation of an Oath the Bond is loosed of it self Others therefore go the plainest way to work who say that all Oaths have that tacit Condition in them If the Pope please But Sayr thinks this a little too broad because then it follows evidently that the Pope may dispense as he pleases without cause which he saith is false Others again have found out a notable device of distinguishing between the Obligation of Iustice and of Religion in an Oath and say that the Pope can take away the Religious Obligation of an Oath though not that of Iustice. This Widdrington saith was the Opinion of several grave and learned Catholicks in England and therefore they said they could not renounce the Pope's Power of absolving persons from the Oath of Allegeance But he well shews this to be a vain and impertinent Distinction because the intention of the Oath of Allegeance is to secure the Obligation of Iustice and the intention of the Pope in Absolving from that Oath is to take it away as he proves from the famous Canons Nos Sanctorum and Iuratos So that this Subtilty helps not the matter at all Paul Layman confesseth that a promissory Oath made to a man cannot ordinarily be relaxed without the consent of the person to whom it is made because by such an Oath a man to whom it is made doth acquire as just a right to the performance as he hath to any of his Goods of which he cannot be deprived But from this plain and just Rule he excepts as the rest do the publick Good of the Church as though Evil might be done for the Good of the Church although not for the Good of any private person whereas the Churche's Honour ought more to be preserved by the ways of Iustice and Honesty Wo be to them that make good evil and evil good when it serves their turn for this is plainly setting up a particular Interest under the name of the Good of the Church and violating the Laws of Righteousness to advance it If men break through Oaths and the most solemn Engagements and Promises and regard no Bonds of Iustice and Honesty to compass their ends let them call them by what specious names they please the Good Old Cause or the Good of the Church it matters not which there can be no greater sign of Hypocrisy and real Wickedness then this For the main part of true Religion doth not lie in Canting phrases or Mystical notions neither in Specious shews of Devotion nor in Zeal for the true Church but in Faith as it implies the performance of our Promises as well as belief of the Christian Doctrine and in Obedience or a carefull observance of the Laws of Christ among which Obedience to the King as Supreme is one Which they can never pretend to be an inviolable Duty who make it in the power of another person to Absolve them from the most solemn Oaths of Allegeance and consequently suppose that to keep their Oaths in such case would be a Sin and to violate them may become a Duty which is in effect to overturn the natural differences of Good and Evil to set up a Controlling Sovereign Power above that of their Prince and to lay a perpetual Foundation for Faction and Rebellion which nothing can keep men from if Conscience and their solemn Oaths cannot 3. Therefore the third Mischief common to this Deposing power of the Pope and Commonwealth-Principles is the Justifying Rebellion on the account of Religion This is done to purpose in Boucher and Reynolds the fierce Disputers for the Pope's and the People's Power Boucher saith that it is not onely lawfull to resist Authority on the account of Religion but that it is folly and impiety not to doe it when there is any probability of success And the Martyrs were onely to be commended for Suffering because they wanted Power to resist Most Catholick and Primitive Doctrine And that the Life of a Wicked Prince ought not to be valued at that rate as the Service of God ought to be That when Christ paid tribute to Caesar he did it as a private man and not meddling with the Rights of the People That if the People had not exercised their Power over the lives of bad
Princes there had been no Religion left in many Countries And he finds great fault with the Catholicks in England that they suffered Heretical Princes to live and saith that they deserved to endure the miseries they did undergo because of it that there is no juster cause of War then Religion is that the Prince and People make a solemn League and Covenant together to serve God and if the Prince fail of his part the People ought to compell him to it And he accounts this a sufficient Answer to all Objections out of Scripture If he will not hear the Church how much more if he persecutes it let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican And he brings all the Examples he could think of to justify Rebellion on the account of Religion Rossaeus proves that Hereticks being Excommunicated lose all Right and Authority of Government and therefore it is lawfull for their Subjects to rise up against them and that no War is more just or holy then this Which he endeavours at large to defend and to answer all Objections against it And the contrary Opinion he saith was first broached by the Calvinists in France when they had the expectation of the Succession of Henry IV. which Doctrine he calls Punick Divinity and Atheism and the New Gospel The truth is he doth sufficiently prove the Lawfulness of resisting Princes on the account of Religion to have obtained together with the Pope's Power of deposing Princes And there can be no other way to justifie the Wars and Rebellions against Henry IV. of Germany and France and other Princes after their Excommunications by the Pope but by stifly maintaining this Principle of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And therefore this cannot be looked on as the Opinion of a few factious spirits but as the just consequence of the other Opinion For the Pope's Deposing power would signifie very little unless the People were to follow home the blow and to make the Pope's Thunder effectual by actual Rebellion And the Popes understand this so well that they seldom denounce their Sentence of Excommunication against Princes but when all things are in readiness to pursue the design as might be made appear by a particular History of the several Excommunications of Princes from the Emperour Henry IV. to our own times If they do forbear doing the same things in our Age we are not to impute it to any alteration of their minds or greater Kindness to Princes then formerly but onely to the not finding a fit opportunity or a Party strong and great enough to compass their ends For they have learnt by experience that it is onely loss of Powder and Ammunition to give fire at too great a distance and that the noise onely awakens others to look to themselves but when they meet with a People ready prepared for so good a Work as the Nuntio in Ireland did then they will set up again for this Good Old Cause of Rebellion on the account of Religion And it is observable that Cardinal Bellarmin among other notable Reasons to prove the Pope's Deposing power brings this for one Because it is not lawfull for Christians to suffer an Heretical Prince if he seeks to draw his Subjects to his Belief And what Prince that believes his own Religion doth it not And what then is this but to raise Rebellion against a Prince whenever he and they happen to be of different Religions But that which I bring this for is to shew that the Pope's Deposing power doth carry along with it that mischievous Principle to Government of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And from this Discourse I infer that there can be no real Security given to the Government without renouncing this Deposing power in the Pope But that which is the present pretence among them is that it is not this they stick at but the quarrel they have at the Oath of Allegeance as it is now framed I shall therefore proceed to the Second thing viz. II. That if they do renounce the Pope's Deposing power in good earnest they have no reason to refuse the Oath of Allegeance And now Gentlemen I must again make my Address to you with great thanks for the satisfaction you have given me in this particular I have seriously read and considered your Treatises and I find by them all that if you durst heartily renounce this Doctrine all the other parts of the Oath might go down well enough The Authour of the First Treatise is so ingenuous as to make the following Proposition the whole Foundation of his Discourse viz. That it is not lawfull to take any Oath or Protestation renouncing the Pope's Power in any case whatsoever to Depose a Christian Prince or Absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance And in my mind he gives a very substantial Reason for it Because the holding that he hath no such Power is Erroneous in Faith Temerarious and Impious What would a man wish for more against any Doctrine Whatever P. W. and his Brethren think of this Deposing power this Piece doth charge them home and tells them their own and that they are so far from being sound Catholicks that deny it that in one word they are Hereticks damnable Henrician Hereticks What would they be thought Catholicks that charge the Church for so many Ages with holding a damnable Errour and practising mortal Sin as their Church hath done if the Pope hath no Deposing power For this honest Gentleman confesseth That it is a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Rights of Princes and the cause of much deadly Feud betwixt the Church and Secular States of many bloudy Wars of Princes one against another and wicked Rebellions of Subjects against their Princes O the irresistible power of Truth How vain is it for men to go about to Masquerade the Sun His light will break through and discover all It is very true this hath been the effect of this blessed Doctrine in the Christian world Seditions Wars Bloudshed Rebellions what not But how do you prove this to have been the Doctrine of the Church of Rome How say you by all the ways we can prove any Doctrine Catholick Popes have taught it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as Erroneous in faith Pernicious to salvation wicked Folly and Madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it Have they so in good sooth Nay then it must be as good Catholick Doctrine as Transubstantiation its own self if it hath been declared in Councils and received by the Church Yes say you that I prove by the very same Popes the same Councils the same Church and in the same manner that Transubstantiation was And for my part I think you have done it and I thank you for it I am very well satisfied with your Proofs they are very solid and much to the purpose But above
for fear we lose some Residences and Patrons of the Nobility and Gentry therefore among these we must not own it as an Article of faith but as a Controverted Point How then say some of the Fathers of the Society shall we keep them from taking the Oath of Allegeance and if we do suffer them to doe that farewell to our Interest in England P. W. and the Blackloists will prevail Come come saith Father W. never fear I have a Topick will scare them all though we own it as a Controverted Point What is that say they with great Joy Let me alone saith he to them I will prove them all guilty of Perjury if they take the Oath because it is a Controverted Point Excellent they all cry this will doe our business in spite of them Let us now come near and handle this mighty Argument that we may discern whether it be a mere Spectre or hath any flesh and bones The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath partly assertory and partly promissory In an Assertory Oath it is essentially requisite that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true Very well but suppose a person doth in his conscience believe that the Pope cannot Depose Princes nor Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance may not such a man swear it without Perjury No says our good Father A man may swear against his Conscience not onely when he doubts but when he hath just cause to doubt How is that good Sir when other men see that he hath cause to doubt or when himself sees it If he sees himself that he hath cause to doubt he doth not believe in his Conscience that to be so as he swears it is for how can a man firmly believe that which he sees cause to doubt If he sees none himself what is that to his Conscience if others think they do if he does not think his Conscience bound to be swayed by their Authority But the Mysterie of this Iesuitism is that no Gentlemen ought to have judgments of their own in these matters but to be swayed by the extrinsick Authority of their Teachers And therefore if they say they have cause to doubt they must doubt whether they do or no. If Gentlemen of freer understandings and education allow themselves the liberty to enquire into these matters they presently see through all this Tiffany Sophistry and find the thing still carried on is meer blind Obedience although in following the conduct of such self-interested Leaders they run themselves into continual Difficulties If a man be satisfied in his Conscience the Pope hath no Deposing power according to the Rules of their own best Casuists he may lawfully abjure it The truth required in an Oath saith Cardinal Tolet is that by which a man speaks that which he thinks in his heart and to swear falsly is to swear otherwise then one thinks And to swear otherwise then a thing really is provided he think it to be so is neither mortal nor venial sin but 1. in case a man hath not used diligence to enquire and to this he doth not require the utmost but onely some and convenient diligence 2. if he be doubtfull in his mind when he swears and yet swears it as certain 3. when he is ready to swear although he knew the thing to be otherwise Suarez saith that in an Assertory Oath the Truth confirmed by it lies in the conformity of the Assertion to the mind of the Speaker rather then to the Thing it self so that if a man thinks it false which he swears although it be really true he is guilty of Perjury and so on the contrary if a man swears a thing really false which he invincibly thinks to be true he is not guilty of Perjury but swears a lawfull Oath according to the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas By invincibly Suarez means no more then Tolet doth by thinking so after convenient diligence For Suarez lays down this Rule afterwards that When a man swears what is really false but he thinks it true if his thinking be joyned with sufficient care and a probable opinion of the truth mark that he is free from the guilt of Perjury This he saith is the common and express Doctrine and built upon this ground Because the Truth and Falshood of an Oath doth not so much relate to the Matter sworn as to the Mind and Conscience of him that swears Dominicus Soto determines this case very plainly If a man swears that to be true which he thinks so after due enquiry though it be false he doth not sin at all And the measure of diligence he proportions to the nature and quality of the Thing which is therefore left to prudence and discretion Iacobus de Graffiis hath this Assertion He that swears a thing to be true which he thinks so although it be really false sins not unless he neglected to use that diligence which he was bound to use and according to the greatness of that neglect the measure of his sin is to be taken Greg. Sayr saith that to a lawfull Assertory Oath no more is required then the agreement of what a man saith with the inward sense of his mind according to the reasonable judgment a man passes upon what he swears Which words are taken out of Gregory de Valentia Qui non videt vel dubitat esse falsum quod jurat perjurus non est saith Vasquez He that doth not see or doubt that to be false which he swears is not guilty of Perjury Which words are quoted and approved by Layman because all Perjury must have its foundation in a Lie And saith he he that swears in an Assertory Oath doth not affirm the certainty of his own knowledge but directly the very thing which he swears Nay he farther saith that where the Matter sworn is capable of no more then Probability a man may lawfully swear the truth according to that degree of certainty which the thing will bear although it should happen to be otherwise then he thinks So that according to the common and received Doctrine of their own Casuists the foundation of this Second Treatise is false as might be shewed by many more testimonies if these were not sufficient which is That since this Doctrine about the Pope's Deposing power hath no infallible certainty in it a man cannot attest the truth or falshood of it by an Oath Which was the more surprising to me considering how usual it is among your selves to swear to such Opinions of which you cannot pretend to infallible certainty by any evidence of Faith or authoritative Decision of the Church What think you of the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas are there no mere Opinions undecided by the Church in his Works is there infallible certainty in of all them I do not think any Iesuit in the world will say so for a reason every own knows because his Order holds the direct contrary in
some Points And yet the Dominicans swear to maintain S. Thomas his Doctrine What think you of the Immaculate Conception which so many Vniversities have sworn to maintain as Luc. Wadding hath shewed at large and yet all these Oaths were made before any authoritative Decision of the Church One of you hath found out an evasion for this by saying that it is one thing to swear to maintain a Doctrine as true and another to swear to it as true I cry you mercy Gentlemen I had thought no persons would have sworn to maintain a falshood or to defend that as true which at the same time they believed or suspected not to be true Why may not you then swear that you will maintain the Pope hath no Power to depose Princes when your Prince requires it as well as swear to maintain the Immaculate Conception when the Vniversity requires it whatever your private Opinion be But to prevent this subterfuge Wadding saith from Surius that the Vniversity of Mentz would admit none to any degree in Divinity without swearing that he would neither approve nor hold in his mind any other Opinion What think you now of swearing to the truth of an Opinion not decided by the Church upon the best probable reasons that can be given for it And therefore all this outcry about Perjury was onely to frighten and amuse and not to convince or satisfy The rest of that Treatise consists of impertinent Cavills against several Expressions in the Oath of Allegeance which ought to be understood according to the intention of the Law-givers the reason and design of the Law and the natural sense of the words and if they will but allow these as the most reasonable ways of interpreting Laws all those Exceptions will be found too light to weigh down the balance of any tolerable judgment and have been answered over and over from the days of Widdrington to the Authour of the Questions and therefore I pass them over and leave them to any who shall think it worth their pains to make a just Answer to them The Third Treatise is written by a very Considering man as any one may find in every Page of it He bids his Readers consider so much as though he had a mind to have them spend their days in considering the Oath without ever taking it As he had that desired time to consider the Solemn League and Covenant and when he was asked how long time he would take for it he told them but a little time for he was an old man and not likely to live long But what is it which this person offers which is so considerable His main Argument is from the Pope's Authority prohibiting the taking this Oath expressly at several and distant times and after the most ample information and the Writings on both sides it being a thing belonging to the Pope's Authority as Spiritual Governour and not to the Civil Power to determine This is an Argument I must leave to those to answer who think themselves obliged to justify the Pope's Authority and to disobey it at the same time To this some answer That the Pope's Prohibition proceeding on a false Supposition and a private Opinion of his own viz. that there are some things in the Oath repugnant to Faith they are not bound to obey it because it belongs not to the Pope without a Council to determine matters of Faith That the Popes have sometimes required very unjust and unreasonable things of which Warmington gives some notable instances of his own knowledge That Obedience to all Superiours is limited within certain bounds which if they exceed men are not bound to obey them That the very Canonists and Schoolmen do set bounds to the Pope's Authority as 1. when great mischief is like to ensue by his Commands so Francisc. Zabarell Panormitan Sylvester and others 2. when injury comes to a third person by it so Card. Tolet Panormitan Soto c. 3. when there is just cause to doubt the Lawfulness of the thing commanded so Pope Adrian Vasquez Navarr and others cited by Widdrington 4. when he commands about those things wherein he is not Superiour so Tolet determins A man is onely obliged in those things to obey his Superiour wherein he hath Authority over him Now say they we having just cause to doubt whether the Pope may command us in things relating to our Allegeance and apparent Injury coming to Princes by owning this Doctrine and much Mischief having been done by it and more designed as the Gunpowder-Treason the true Occasion of this Oath it is no culpable Disobedience to take the Oath of Allegeance notwithstanding the Pope's Prohibition And upon the very same Grounds and Reasons which made the King's Royal Ancestours with their Parliaments to limit the Pope's Authority in England in the ancient Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire His Majestie 's Grandfather might with his Parliament enact that Law which requires the taking of the Oath of Allegeance and how comes such Disobedience in Temporals say they to be now more repugnant to Catholick Religion then it was in those days Nay in those times it was good Doctrine that when a Dispute arose whether a thing did belong to the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power to judge the Civil Power hath made Laws and determined it and the Subjects did submit to the Civil Authority This and much more might be said to shew the inconsequence of this Argument upon which the stress of the Third Treatise lies but I leave the full Answer to those that are concerned The plainest shortest and truest Answer is That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction over us either in Spirituals or Temporals But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that if they would renounce the Pope's Deposing power there is nothing else according to the Principles of their own Religion could hinder them from taking the Oath of Allegeance Which is in effect acknowledged at last by this Authour of the Third Treatise when he offers a new Form of an Oath rather more expressive of Civil Obedience then the Oath of Allegeance Are not Princes mightily obliged to you Gentlemen that take such wonderfull care to have a more express Oath then this already required by Law How comes this extraordinary fit of Kindness upon you Do you really think the Oath of Allegeance defective in this point No no. We know what you would have If we can get but this Oath out of the way the same interest which can remove this will prevent another as some argue about other matters at this time Well but what Security is this which you do so freely offer First You are ready to swear without any Mental reservation that you acknowledge our Sovereign Lord CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Dominions A wonderfull Kindness While the old Gentleman at Rome pleases you will doe this but suppose he should
the Condemning of it at Rome But for all this the Authour of the Third Treatise quotes Spondanus for it The plain truth of the story is this Sanctarellus his Book coming to Paris met with so ill reception there that it was condemned by the Sorbon burnt by Order of the Parliament and the Iesuits hard put to it upon very strict Examinations wherein they shuffled and shewed all the Tricks they had but these would not serve their turn they are commanded to disown and confute this Doctrine Pierre Coton upon whom the main business lay being too hard set made a shift to escape the difficulty of his Province by dying Notwithstanding this the Doctours of Sorbon would not let the business die with him but renewed it the beginning of the next year upon which the King sent the Bishop of Nantes to them to let them know they had done enough in that matter the Book being condemned and the Pope having forbidden the sale of the Book at Rome A very wonderfull Condemnation of it that a Book should be forbidden to be sold and at Rome too and that so long after the publishing of it and when all that had a mind to it were provided already without any Censure upon the Authour or Doctrine Who dares talk of the Severity of the Court of Rome Could any thing be done with greater Deliberation and more in the spirit of Meekness and to less purpose then this was But after all this doth not to me look any ways like the Condemning of it at Rome before it was burnt at Paris and I suppose upon second thoughts you will be of my mind But you will tell me you did not expect to hear of these things in print That may be for we live in an Age wherein many things come to pass we little thought of For I dare say you never thought these Papers would have come into my hands but since they did so I could not envy the publick the benefit I receiv'd by reading of them hoping that they will contribute much to the satisfaction of others at least in this one point that you hold the very same Principles about the Pope's Power of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Allegeance that ever you did And therefore I conclude it would be great weakness to recede from our Legal Tests against the men of such Principles for any new Devices whatsoever Feb. 13. 1676 7 THE JESUITS LOYALTY THE FIRST TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE The Conclusion to be proved It is not lawfull to take any Oath or Protestation renouncing the Pope's Power in any case whatsoever to depose a Christian Prince or absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance The Proof MY Reason is Because the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is Erroneous in faith Temerarious and Impious Which I prove thus That Opinion which must suppose that the Church hath at some time been in a damnable Errour of Belief and Sin of Practice is Erroneous in faith Temerarious and Impious But this Opinion is such Ergo. The Major I suppose will not be denied by any Catholick because that were to suppose that the Church hath at some time ceased to be a Catholick and Holy Church which were Heresy to suppose possible The Minor is proved If the Church at some time hath believed and supposed as certain that the Pope hath such a Power in some case and upon that belief and supposall hath exercised it in her supremest Tribunals and if her Errour supposing she erred in it was a damnable Errour and her Practice if unlawfull a mortal Sin then this Opinion must suppose that the Church hath c. But the Church hath at some time so believed and practised and if amiss it was a damnable Errour and Practice Ergo. The Sequele of the Major is evident in terminis The second part of the Minor is likewise evident because it was a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Right of Princes to withstand which is a damnable sin Rom. 13. and cause of much deadly feud betwixt the Church and Secular States of many bloudy Wars of Princes one against another and wicked Rebellions of Subjects against their Princes For the first part of the Minor if I shew 1. That Popes have taught it as sound Doctrine proving it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as erroneous in faith pernicious to salvation wicked folly and madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it 2. That Popes have in the highest Tribunals of the Church deposed Sovereign Princes and absolved Subjects from their Allegeance and this with the advice and assent of their Councils and not onely Patriarchal but sometimes even General 3. That Popes and General Councils by them confirmed have denounced Excommunication to such as should obey their Princes after such Sentence of Deposition and Absolution of their Subjects from their Allegeance 4. That a General Council confirmed by the Pope hath made a Canon-Law regulating the manner of Deposing Princes in some case and Absolving their Subjects from their Allegeance 5. That all Catholick Divines and Casuists that have treated of it from the first to the last afore Calvin's time in all the severall Nations of Christendom have asserted this Power of the Pope without so much as one contradicting it in all that time 6. That all Catholick Emperours Kings yea even they that were deposed States Magistrates and Lawyers and finally all the Catholicks in the world for the time being have by tacit consent at least approved and received this Doctrine of Popes Divines and Casuists and these Censures Canons and Practices of Popes and General Councils I say if I shew all this I hope it will be granted a sufficient Proof That the Church hath at some time so believed taught and practised Now to shew this among a multitude of Instances I shall name some few of the principal As 1. In Anno 1074. S. Gregory VII a most holy and learned Pope who for his Sanctity and Miracles was canonized for a Saint threatned Philip the French King that unless he abstained from his Simoniacall selling of Bishopricks he would excommunicate him and all his Subjects that should obey him as King which he counted none would after such Sentence but Apostates from Christianity And that King hereupon submitted to the Pope and amended his fault 2. In Anno 1076. the same holy Pope in a Patriarchal Council of Rome wherein were present 110 Bishops with the advice and upon the importunity of the whole Synod deposed Henry IV. King of the Germans and absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance to him And did it ex Cathedra as Vicar of Christ and Successour of S. Peter in virtue of the Power of binding which Christ gave to him in S. Peter And this Sentence he published in a Breve to all the Princes Prelates and people of the Empire And it was published by his Legates
to the 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
drawn and hammered out with much pains study and speculations from the abovesaid Principles which Deductions and Conclusions are called Sciences whose chiefest property and richest piece of satisfaction whereby they gratifie the Understanding of man is their clear and convincing Evidence placed beyond all contradiction from Sense or Reason Nor lastly is it in Opinions as in those supernaturall Truths made known unto us by Divine revelation and are of Faith where there is absolute Certainty though without Evidence for Faith wears a scarf before her eyes and believes what she sees not Both which to wit Faith and Science as they justly command and challenge so withall they fully secure our assent from all danger and suspicion of errour the one by its Evidence the other by its Certainty the one interessing the light and patronage of the First Principles the other engaging a Divine and infallible Authority for the truth of their Proposalls But in Opinions it fares quite otherwise for an Opinion having neither the Evidence of Science nor the Certainty of Faith nor indeed any other inferiour degree of Certainty physicall or morall as the Schools speak but onely the slippery knot of Probability to hold by leaves the considering Opiner in a state of suspence and indetermination not daring nor indeed knowing how to yield any more then a faint and timorous assent to either side of the Tenet seeing that neither side is any more then onely probably true or probably false And because true and onely probably true false and onely probably false are not the same but two very different things and at so great a distance that no art or law of consequence can ever bring them together or convincingly argue from the one to the other hence it is that what is onely probably true is not therefore true and what is onely probably false is not therefore false from whence it is finally and manifestly concluded that neither side of an Opinion is lawfully attestable by Oath as simply true nor safely abjurable as simply false To come now to the particular Tenet which denies the Pope's Deposing power in all cases circumstances and emergencies whatsoever If we address our selves to the Maintainers and Abettors of this Tenet if we consult the Authour and Publisher of the Questions if we propose the Case to the Sorbon Doctours and the Faculty of Paris we shall find all their answers concurring in this That their negative Tenet is no more then an Opinion For first the Publisher of the Questions coming to speak of the difference between the Deniers and Abettors of this Power and the nature and quality thereof plainly professeth that this difference is no difference of Faith but onely of Opinions and the Authour of the Questions calls it an Opinion a safe Opinion indeed but no more or other thing then an Opinion an Opinion also the Sorbon Doctours take it for nor is their own Censure or Doctrine any more then their Opinion Neither do they nor indeed could they with any shew of reason or coherence to their own principles discourse at any other rate or ever intend to screw it up any higher then an Opinion For it is not to be imagined that those grave learned and prudent Divines who in their publick Articles concerning Papal and Regal Authority in the year 1663. do not own or look upon any Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome antecedent to and abstracting from the joynt consent or acceptation of the Church as inerrable would ever goe about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Doctrine either as a Point or Article of faith in it self or as a Rule of faith to others but onely as a Rule of Opinion if you please and a Judgment whereby such as were under their charge might remember to frame and regulate not their Faith but their Opinions which are the express words of the Decree it self Since then the deniall of the Pope's Deposing power neither doth nor can pretend any higher then an Opinion admit that its being the Opinion of so many Learned Divines might render it safe to hold and embrace it yet it s being but an Opinion though of Learned Divines renders it unsafe to swear it and no less unsafe to abjure what is contrary to it The Reason I have already given Because nothing can lawfully be sworn as true which is not more then meerly probable or probably true that is which is not either certain or infallible now all the Learned know that a certain or infallible Opinion is as great a bull as an uncertain fallible Article of faith so that to swear to an Opinion as certainly true is as much as to swear an Opinion is no Opinion and the Swearer doth thereby at one breath intangle himself in his own words his Reason in a Contradiction and his Soul in Perjury CHAP. VI. A particular Danger of Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power according to the form set down in the Oath of Allegeance I Shall here annex a particular consideration of the wofull Snare those souls run themselves into and apparent Danger of Swearing they know not what who venture to abjure the Deposing power as it lies expressed in its several Branches in the Oath of Allegeance whereas those Learned persons who undertook to defend and explain the Oath render it not onely difficult but next to impossible to understand what it is that is to be abjured I think I may take it for granted that no person of integrity and candour can ever conceive it lawfull for him to swear without first endeavouring to gain a right understanding of what he is to swear for to swear what a man understands not is blindly to rove at a venture and to swear he knows not what wilfully abandoning the conduct and slighting the inward upbraidings and reproofs of his Reason and which is worse it bewraies a feared Soul a wretched and sinfull preparednesse of mind to prostitute an Oath to the attesting of any thing that comes next to hand where Self-indemnity or other secular ends and advantages are proposed as the accursed purchace or reward of Perjury In the Oath of Allegeance it is required of us to abjure the Pope's Deposing power in all and every its respective Branches therein expressed one of which Branches is That the Pope hath not any Power to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy the King or his Countries Which Branch by the way the Authour and Publisher of the Questions in the form of the Oath set down by them have wholly omitted in both Editions as well that of the year 61. as the other of this present year 74. through what mistake or how occasioned I know not It is not easily to be conceived what subtle Obscurities and learned Intricacies Roger Withrington one of the greatest Champions that ever appeared for the Oath and his friend C. I. who confesseth to have compiled his Book out of
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
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