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
King which is what is understood by authorizing him to stave off by arms the manifest injury done to his Sheep in Spiritualls and if he may in that case invoke the help of some Christian King to that effect since it is manifest that Ecclesiasticks may in some cases invoke the help of a Secular Power whether then the King so invoked may not condescend to the Pope's request and compell the Hereticall Prince and Persecutour by force of arms to desist from seducing his Subjects and in case of refusall to prosecute the War as he may all other just Wars till he has deposed him and consequently absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance And if they grant all this how can they counsell us to swear that the Pope neither by himself nor with any other has any Power to depose Kings or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy them or their Countries All which is involved in the Oath 80. Consider Thirdly that because the Gallican Church has such Privileges or Liberties granted unto it either by some particular Concessions of the Pope or by some Contract or otherwise it does not therefore follow that every other Church or Kingdome does enjoy the same Privileges or Liberties For one Kingdome may have some particular Privileges which another has not and perhaps we had here some particular Privileges granted unto us from Rome which were not granted in France Among the Propositions alledged out of France concerning the Pope's Authority another is which seems to be held in France That the Pope cannot put an Interdict which is a meer Ecclesiasticall Censure as an Excommunication is either upon the French King or his Kingdome and moreover the Members of the University of Paris do swear that they will defend among other Articles that the said University does not approve that the Pope may depose Bishops or deprive them though Ecclesiasticall persons of their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction contrary to the Liberties and Canons of the Gallican Church commonly received in that Kingdome And yet sure even those Catholicks who stand so much for the Oath would think it somewhat harsh if the Parliament should force them to swear that the Pope cannot depose a Catholick Bishop of England were there any such Bishop that deserved to be deposed or that he cannot put an Interdict upon this Kingdome since they onely pretend to deny the Pope any Jurisdiction over the Temporalls of the Kingdome or to inflict Temporall punishments but not over the Spiritualls thereof or to inflict Ecclesiasticall punishments such as an Interdict is Wherefore this consequence is null Such a Practice or such a Doctrine is allowed of in France or for France Therefore the same Practice or Doctrine must be allowed of in England and for England Besides that the liberty which the French have concerning our present Debate is onely that they may defend that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings which liberty is also given to our English since the Pope in the above-mentioned Briefs does not declare expresly as our Adversaries falsely suppose he does that he has any such Power or forbid us to hold or defend the contrary 81. Consider Fourthly whether should we grant which we do not that there were in France a publick Oath for all sorts of people wherein they do positively swear that the Pope has not any Power to depose his most Christian Majesty whether I say there would not be severall particular Reasons to refuse such an Oath as our present Oath is in England considering the present condition thereof which are of no force in France to refuse the like Oath For we may prudently suspect here in England that since the Framers of this Oath were mortall Enemies to the Pope and See of Rome they have made such frequent mention therein of the Pope and See of Rome without specifying any other Sovereign Temporall Prince nay not so much as containing them in generall terms though there be as much need for His Majesty to secure the Loyalty of his Subjects against other Sovereigns as against the Pope out of hatred and contempt of the Roman Church the Papall Dignity and the Pope's Supremacy in Spiritualls and since they could not so easily bring Catholicks to deny it explicitly by taking the Oath of Supremacy they intend to make them deny it implicitly and under a colour of Civil Loyalty inducing them to take this Oath of Allegeance And that this was the design of the Parliament is manifest For they would have inserted in the Oath a Renunciation of the Pope's power to Excommunicate whereby they would implicitly even according to our Adversaries judgment have denied the Pope's Supremacy And though they left out that Clause at King Iames his request yet there remains enough to make us prudently suspect that the Oath was contrived in contempt of the Papall Dignity Now it is a constant opinion among Divines that when any thing though it should be indifferent of it self is required of us in contempt of any lawfull Dignity we are bound to refuse it though otherwise we might submit unto it It is related of some ancient Christians that they would rather die then swear by the Fortune of Caesar because such an Oath was required of them by the Pagan Emperours in contempt of the True God to the end that they who took it might be thought to acknowledge implicitly thereby that Fortune was a Goddess yet Christians may if it be necessary swear by the Fortune of their Princes who are Christians In like manner should an Arrian King require of his Subjects that they should swear or subscribe this Proposition Christ is a Creature they might justly refuse it though that Proposition in rigour be true because they might prudently suspect that the Arrians did require of them such an Oath or Subscription in contempt of the Divinity of our B. Saviour which they denied and endeavoured to prove their Assertion because he was a Creature Now nothing of this could be suspected in France where they are Roman Catholicks and own the Pope's Dignity and Supremacy in Spiritualls 82. Moreover the very Title of the Act wherein this Oath is inserted as above has been hinted does insinuate that it was instituted by publick Authority as a distinctive Sign for to discover Roman Catholicks by the Refusall thereof Neither can it be said that the Framers of this Oath intended thereby onely to distinguish Loyall Catholicks from those who are not such First Because the Title makes no such distinction and I suppose that the Title was put in by those who framed the Act and intended thereby to declare their intention Secondly Because we might say the same of distinctive Signs of Christians instituted by Pagan Emperours viz. That they were instituted by them onely to distinguish Obedient and Loyall Christians from others who were not such For Christians who were put to death by the Emperours for not submitting to the publick Tests ordained by them
were said to be put to death for Disobedience to the Emperours Edicts and many of the Pagan Emperours did feign that they could not be secure of the Christians as some Protestants feign that they cannot be secure of Papists and consequently those Pagan Emperours might in the like manner have required a compliance with those Tests in order to their Security as Iulian the Apostata required his Christian Souldiers to doe homage to his Standard where he and Iupiter were painted under pretence of the Respect due unto him Thirdly Because Protestants are perswaded that the very Principles of our Religion are inconsistent with Civil Allegeance and therefore in the beginning of the forementioned Act they look upon this Inconsistency as an infection drawn from our Religion and consequently they intend this Oath for to distinguish Roman Catholicks from not Roman Catholicks or which is the same Catholicks who stick to their Principles as by them understood from those who do not So that whoever takes this Oath does according to the Protestants Sentiment renounce or deny some Principle of the Roman Religion though they require somewhat more for a perfect Conformity to their Religion 83. Now 't is certain according to all Divines that it is never lawfull to comply with the distinctive Sign of a false Religion though the thing of it self should be lawfull or indifferent as with the eating of Swines-flesh in time of the Iews and the burning of Incense before an Idoll which might have been instituted as an affront for such Signs are onely arbitrary And yet should there have been the like Oath enacted in France we could not prudently suspect that it would ever have been intended for a distinctive Sign of Catholicks from not Catholicks 84. Again our present Oath has been prohibited by several Briefs of the Pope particularly directed to the Catholicks of England which is sufficient to perswade any good English Catholick to acquiesce and forbear the taking thereof But supposing that the Oath framed by the Third Estate of France had past yet had it not been prohibited by the Pope there would not have been the same reason to refuse it in France as here And sure the French are so addicted to the Pope that had he expresly prohibited them to take such an Oath or to defend such a Doctrine they would have submitted thereunto since we see that they submitted to the Bull of Innocent X. wherein the Five Propositions of Iansenius are condemned and assented unto it without expecting the Determination of a General Council and though severall persons in France are suspected to have adhered to those Propositions 85. The better to explicate this Doctrine let us suppose that two persons possess their respective Lands upon the same Title and that one of them has been condemned by his lawfull Judge as possessing such Lands upon an unjust Title The other who is not personally condemned though his Title be no better is not bound to take notice of such a Condemnation nor to deliver up his Lands till he be personally condemned In the like manner though the English are bound to forbear to take this Oath because they are prohibited particularly to take it yet the French supposing they have the like Oath or teach the Doctrine contained in our Oath as they do not would not be bound to take notice of such a Prohibition as not being directed unto them Wherefore as it is not reasonable that the same liberty should be permitted to them who live in places infected as to others who inhabit places free from infection to them who are in a tempest as to those who enjoy fair weather So neither is it reasonable that we English who live in a Kingdome infected with Heresy and under a Persecution should be permitted to have the same liberty as they have in France where they publickly profess the Catholick Religion and the Magistrates are free from the infection of Heresy and obedient Sons to the Church and consequently what they determine concerning the Pope's Authority cannot be suspected to proceed from hatred to the Papall Dignity whenas on the contrary since our Magistrates are implacable Enemies to the Pope what they resolve concerning the Pope's Power may prudently be thought to proceed out of indignation against him and with design to bring off Catholicks by little and little from their Obedience to the Pope And certainly we ought to trust rather a Friend and to give him more liberty then an Enemy Whence I conclude that whatever our Adversaries produce out of the publick Acts or Decrees of the Parliaments and Universities of France is of little or no force to justifie the taking our present Oath 86. Consider Lastly that though our Adversaries do boast that some Doctours of the Sorbon being consulted about this Oath have approved it as it lies yet I have never seen their Subscriptions produced and the Authours who have written hitherto for the Oath make mention onely of those publick Acts above quoted I remember that those who heretofore defended the Nullity of the Marriage between Henry the Eighth and Queen Katharine pretended to have Subscriptions from the Doctours of Paris in their favour yet all Catholicks now confess that the forementioned Marriage was valid though the validity thereof has never been declared by a General Council but onely by particular Bulls or Briefs as the Unlawfulness also of this Oath has been declared Moreover admit that some Doctours of Paris have approved this Oath as represented unto them yet we ought to consider how the Case was stated For every one is not able to state rightly a Case and several times are left out some Circumstances very material which change the nature thereof And particularly we ought to consider whether the several Differences assigned above between England and France in relation to the present Debate were taken notice of wherewith French Divines might probably be unacquainted and perhaps some of them were ask'd onely concerning the Pope's Power to depose Kings which because they denied those who proposed the Quere presently inferred that they approved the whole Oath which inference is ridiculous as has been shewn Now 't is certain that the same Case differently stated requires a different Solution Neither does it appertain to a Divine when he gives his opinion of a Case so stated to examine whether it be rightly stated or not Some French Divines having been asked whether it be lawfull for Catholicks in England to frequent the Protestant Churches have answered in the affirmative because it is lawfull in France for Catholicks to goe to the Huguenots Churches yet afterwards being more particularly informed of our Laws and Customes and of the Pope's Brief prohibiting English Catholicks to frequent such Churches which he has not prohibited to the French they have answered and subscribed the contrary 87. Besides should we see the Subscriptions of those Doctours in favour of the Oath if there be any probably we should find them to
them as he did and consequently we cannot probably presume they had any such resolution So that unless they will condemn their own proceedings in this matter which 't is not probable they will do they must needs confess themselves bound to afford at least an Exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Briefs concerning this matter till they be lawfully repealed 138. Consider Thirdly whether the same Exceptions which they make against the Pope's Briefs and his proceedings in this matter viz. That he was misinformed That the Pope's Briefs are here in England of no force without the approbation of the King who as things now stand does acknowledge no Spirituall Power in the Pope over his Realm and consequently will not approve any thing that comes from him in order to the direction of His Subjects whether favourable or not favourable unto him That the Pope is fallible and inferiour to a Generall Councill and other Exceptions mentioned above whether I say the same Exceptions might not have been made by us in case the Pope had given sentence for them and against us and had commanded all to take the Oath when they should be required thereunto by His Majesty and whether our Adversaries do think that such Exceptions made by us in that case against the Pope's Sentence could have justified our Refusall of the Oath or our Disobedience to the Pope's express Commands Or what would they have said of us should we have persisted still to urge the same Reasons and the Authority of so many Doctours against the Lawfulness of the Oath after it had been declared lawfull by the Pope and upon that account and under pretence of Probability should have still refused the Oath I am confident that they will not confess that such proceedings of ours in that case though they be the very same which now they make use of would have been justifiable 139. Consider Fourthly that the Maxime they make so much account of in this great Debate viz. In dubiis melior est conditio possidentis In doubtfull matters better is the condition of him that possesses and consequently that no body can be lawfully dispossess'd of what he has upon a meer probable Opinion is insignificant in our present case For it is to be understood as our Adversaries also understand it as long onely as the matter under debate has not been decided by a lawfull Judge Now the Unlawfulness of this Oath which is the main Point under debate has been severall times decided by the Pope to whom even our Adversaries refer the Decision of this matter Neither does the Pope decide in the above-mentioned Briefs as the Opponents would needs suppose that he has Authority to depose Kings which is the thing our Adversaries say is under debate but onely prohibits us to swear that he has not any such Authority or hinders the King from deciding it in his own favour and every one has right as long as the thing is under debate between him and another to hinder his Adversary from deciding it on his side 140. Consider Fifthly whether meer indirect Power in the Pope to depose Princes such as is in every King to depose any other Sovereign be inconsistent with the Sovereignty of Princes or whether it does dispossess them actually thereof If not then to admit such a Power in the Pope as some do is not to admit any thing which does actually dispossess Kings of their Temporall Sovereignty 141. Consider Sixthly whether according to the severall Precedents alledged by such Authours who assert the aforementioned Power in the Pope and assented unto as to matters of fact by their Adversaries Popes have not exercised such a Power many years agoe and consequently whether the Popes have not possession of such a Power just or not just I do not decide for one takes possession of a Power by exercising its Acts. So that the debate which remains is not whether the Pope has Possession of such a Power or not but onely whether he has a just Possession thereof or onely an usurp'd and consequently according to the Maxime produced by our Adversaries In dubiis melior est conditio possidentis the Pope ought not to be deprived of such a Power till the matter be lawfully decided against him And to oblige men to swear positively that he has no such Power is in a certain manner to deprive him thereof and to oblige men to swear positively a doubtfull thing 142. Consider Lastly that though it be probable that one cannot wage war or deprive any one of what he possesses upon the account of a meer probable Opinion whether this be so certain since grave Authours are of the contrary sentiment that we may positively swear that no body who has onely a probable Opinion on his side can lawfully dispossess another of what actually he has 143. Concerning the Interest of those who impugn the Oath objected in the last place against us Consider First whether it be not as probable at least that those who defend the Oath and deny the Pope all Power whatsoever to depose Princes are Flatterers of Princes and Sycophants of Temporall Courts as that those who are of the contrary perswasion are Flatterers of the Pope and Sycophants of the Spirituall Court and whether morally speaking it be not impossible that where the matter under debate is of so vast an extent as Supremacy in Spiritualls and Supremacy in Temporalls there should not be some prospect of Interest of whatsoever side we be either from the Pope if one defends the Negative that the Oath is not lawfull or from the King if one maintains the Affirmative that it is lawfull and consequently whether were this Exception equitable one ought to hearken to either side 144. Consider Secondly whether Roman Catholicks His Mâ—jestie's Subjects do not depend more of the King and Civill Government in order to their Interest and Preferment then of the Pope and Roman Court or whether those who impugn the Oath may not fear more Dammages from the Civill Government then those who defend it from the Ecclesiasticall or finally whether the latter may not hope to obtain greater Advantages from His Majesty by defending the Oath then the former from his Holiness by impugning it Those who defend the Oath aim or may aim at some particular Priviledges or Exemptions to be granted them upon that account from the Civill Government Neither do I see what Dammages they can fear from the Pope by defending the Oath For though perhaps the Pope may Excommunicate some of them upon that score yet an unjust Excommunication does not any harm and the Defenders of the Oath are persuaded that such an Excommunication would be unjust and not to be taken notice of On the other side those English Catholicks who impugn the Oath may fear lest the Penalties be put in execution against them upon that account which whether justly or unjustly executed do in effect equally prejudice And what such Catholicks can hope for from the
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
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
buying and selling profaned the materiall Temple of God as Hereticks profane with their Heresies the Souls of men the Spirituall Temples of God St. Peter gave Sentence of death against Ananias and Sapphira and God miraculously concurred to the execution thereof as he does miracles sometimes to confirm the Sentences issued by the Pastours of the Church The power of Excommunication which is allowed the Pope and other Prelats is meerly Spirituall as all confess and yet in some cases it extends it self to deprive the person excommunicated from all Civil Communication with others due unto them by the Law of Nature according to what has been alledged above out of Scripture Neither can it be said that such a punishment was imposed upon Excommunicated persons by the consent of Temporall Princes For what Temporal Prince was there in the time of the Apostles who granted any such effect to their Excommunication since the Temporall Princes then living were Persecutours of Christianity 99. Besides a Confessarius has meer Spirituall power over his Penitent and yet sure he may enjoyn some corporall and temporall Penance as has already been hinted and oblige him or declare him obliged to make such a restitution or to forbear the going to such a place where the occasion of his ruine was All which things are Temporall A Wife who cannot live with her Husband without imminent danger of being perverted by him is bound to quit his company and deprive him of the right he has over her though meerly Temporall and Carnall and she may be commanded by her Spirituall Directour to doe so And sure there is as great a Tie between a Wife and her Husband though in a different kind as between a Subject and his Prince 100. Again what Kingdome is there where meerly Spirituall crimes as Heresie Apostasie Blasphemy c. are not punished by the Law with some Temporall Punishment either of Death or Imprisonment or Banishment or Confiscation of goods or such like Certain it is that in England there are severall Punishments enacted by the Law against Spirituall crimes and in matters of Religion as it appears by so many Penall Laws established against Recusants yea whoever is Excommunicated here in England is deprived according to the Law of power to plead or sue another for what is due unto him So that Protestants doubtless are not of opinion that one cannot be Temporally punished by a meer Spirituall Power or upon a meer Spirituall account 101. If it be objected that Temporall Princes have enacted such Laws against Spirituall crimes as prejudiciall to the Temporall Good of their Subjects or because at least Christian Princes are impowered by severall Titles allowed them to defend by their Temporall Forces the Church and to punish crimes destructive to Faith I answer that according to this Objection the Pope may deprive one of some Temporall thing if nothing else do hinder it when it is prejudiciall to the Spirituall Good of Christians for he is invested also with severall Titles which enable him to direct the Temporalls of Princes in order to their Spirituall good or the Spirituall good of their Nation Because if a meer Temporall Power such as we onely ascribe to Kings can extend it self to the Temporall punishment of a meer Spirituall crime when it is prejudiciall to the Temporall good the Judgment of which crime does not belong to the Temporall Court why may not a meer Spirituall power such as we attribute onely to the Pope over all Christendome enjoyn in certain cases if there be not some other obstacle a Temporall punishment or deprive of some Temporall thing in order to a Spirituall end the Execution of which punishment and the Deprivation of which thing belongs to the Temporall Prince And so we see that the Ecclesiasticall Power does and may justly in some cases invocare auxilium brachii secularis invoke the assistence of the Secular Power in order to inflict some Temporall punishment upon the account of some Spirituall crime 102. Yet farther The power of Excommunicating which is meerly Spirituall may in some cases extend it self to punish meer Civill crimes as may be made appear by severall instances why may not therefore in the like manner a meer Spirituall power extend it self in some cases to inflict a Temporall punishment And a meer Temporall Power also may in certain cases extend it self to punish Ecclesiasticall Princes who are exempt from the ordinary Civill Jurisdiction why therefore on the contrary may not a meer Spirituall Power extend it self to punish in some cases Temporall persons and with Temporall punishments at least by the Assistence of Civil Magistrates For Temporalls are not out of the reach of the Spirituall Power more then Spiritualls are out of the reach of the Temporall Power 103. Finally the stoutest Maintainers of the Oath and the greatest Impugners of the Pope's Power to depose Princes cannot deny but that a Subject who is persecuted by his Prince upon the score of his Religion and is in imminent danger of being perverted may lawfully flie and steal away into a forrein Country according to the ancient practice of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians and according to those words of the Gospell Cùm autem persequentur vos in civitate ista fugite in aliam and this even against his Prince's express prohibition and his Spirituall Directours may counsell him or enjoyn him to doe so and consequently such a man may lawfully in that case deprive his Prince upon a meer Spirituall account viz. the Salvation of his Soul of a naturall-born Subject which belongs to the Temporalties of the Prince Yea what Priest or Lay-Catholick is there even among those who are so hot for the Oath and against the Pope's Deposing power pretending thereby to signalize with particularity their Loyalty to the King who does not transgress and thinks he may do so lawfully upon some Spirituall account severall Civil and Temporall Laws enacted by the King and Parliament against Popish Recusants either sending over their Children beyond Seas against the express Laws of the Realm or tarrying in the Kingdome against severall Proclamations of His Majesty or doing many other meer Temporall things prohibited unto Papists by the Law 104. All which instances most whereof are granted by our Adversaries do evidently evince That Spirituall and Temporall things are not so vastly different that they cannot in any case possible interfere the one with the other That it is not always unlawfull to deprive one of a Temporall thing upon a meer Spirituall account and that a meer Spirituall Power may in some cases extend it self to Temporall things and consequently That this proof of the forementioned Assertion viz. that the Pope has not Power to depose Kings in any case possible is manifestly false and of no force whatever the Assertion be in it self Neither do I say that because a Spirituall Power may in some cases extend it self to Temporalls it may therefore Depose