inconsiderable number in the Church which defends Personal Infallibility do they hold the Pope otherwise Infallible than defining Faith ex Cathedra And will any man assert the Pope's private Letters to the Catholicks of England for so Eudaemon one of your Fathers terms them to be Definitions of Faith If so pray what point of Faith is defined by these Breves can there be a definition of Faith and nothing defined Again was it ever heard that a Definition of Faith was sent in a Letter to a small number of men and not directed to the Whole Church Besides where are all the Formalities all the Ceremonies which the de-side men themselves seek for for in Faith-definitions Is not this to render the Catholick Faith more absurd than her very enemies could wish it But for a more easie dispatch of the Errour of our Catechist who engages for Popes more than they will for themselves I shall shew you what sence some of the greatest and humblest of Popes had of their own frailty in being often surprized by mis-informations upon which by an exigent of feeble nature they were forced to ground themselves Gregory truly the great seeing some to wonder that a Pope should be by misinformation circumvented replies thus Why do ye wonder that we are deceived being but men Have you not observed that David a King who had the Spirit of Prophecy gave an Unjust Judgment against the Son of Jonathan Who therefore will think it strange that Impostors should surprize us sometimes Us I say who are no Prophets We are overwhelmed with affairs and our spirits being diverted by so many things are the less attentive to any thing in particular and so may be more easily mistaken in some one thing Greg. Dialog 1. Chap. 4. After him I offer you Alexander the Third who in his Breve or Letter to the Arch-Bishop of Ravenna which is now a Law in the Canon declares thus If it happen sometimes that we send to your Fraternity such Decrees as you are not satisfied with trouble not your self at it for you may either with reverence put them in execution or give us an account why you think you ought not And we shall take it well at your hands that you execute not any decree which might bave been procured from us either by Surprize or Artifice Cap. Siquando in rescrip Thus may you see these two great Prelates confuting our little Catechist by owning that in their Letters or Breves they may be Circumvented by Surprize and Artifice Personal Infallibility he confesses is no Article of Faith but I judge it saith he definable Well then we are in a fair way of having a new Article of Faith if the Church will rely upon his judgment But if I mistake not the Church will have more than his pretended Certainty which he assures us is very great but to what degree whether of a high Probability Moral Physical or Metaphysical Evidence he knows not To evince this Certainty whatever it be he drops two or three Topicks with this enforcement Who can think this who can judge that who can imagine or surmise another thing So that if you do but think judge or imagine otherwise his Topicks are non-plust And I cannot blame him to touch them onely gently since he knew both Protestants and Catholicks had often answered them beyond reply Quitting at last his post or his pretence to personal infallibility he brings into a parallell the Spiritual with the Temporall Judge thus If the Pope may be disobey'd in the point of Conscience why may not Secular Judges be disobey'd in Temporalls I answer that neither of them against the Law of God is to be obey'd And whereas he would conclude as from a maxim that a sentence of a Judge passed upon Misinformation ought to stand good untill it be repealed by himself better informed or by a Superiour Nothing is more certain than that every sentence of a Judge be he Pope or King which is repugnant to the Law of God is ipso facto void or null and that without farther demur This he tells you is a way to pervert all Judicature and to place every private person above the Judge My reply shall be to put him in a Circumstance where his Superiour or General to whom he has vow'd Special Obedience layes his Commands upon him which in his Judgment clearly controul the Law of God Then I ask him What he would do in that case Will he obey 't will be a sin against his Conscience which dictates to him out of the Gospel That he must obey God rather than man Will he disobey That cuts the throat of his own Argument for then the Objection returns upon him that this is to confound all and place every private person above the Judge What this Catechist will do in this case I cannot resolve but for my part I would do what all good men have done upon the like occasion that is I would make use of my Reason which God has given me and if it be clear unto me that my Superiour be he Pope or King commands me to sin against the Law of God I should freely disobey him but with this submission to receive what penalty he shall inflict upon me within his sphere for this the nature of all Government requires Now by doing this I cannot be said to judge the actions of my Superiour with the judgment of Authority but I make use of the Judgment of Discretion by which I and every man is to govern his Actions And if this Rule be observed there can be no danger of placing a private person above the Judge for he submits to the punishment of the Judge and onely prefers God before Man His next position is That the Pope may judge in his own Cause To this I answer as I did in my last though according to his custome he over-leaps it that where there is a just cause of Dispute as he owns there is betwixt the Pope and all Kings in point of Deposing there is truly party and party nor can either of them be Judge For though both of them will Judge for themselves because neither will own that the other has a just cause to dispute yet if truly there be just cause of dispute neither of them can be properly Judge for if one be Judge the other must submit to his decision and so can have no just cause to dispute Our former discourse has been built upon the supposition that the Pope had authentickly prohibited by his Breves the Oath to be taken so that what follows as it is in the dark so if it were allow'd him for true 't would advance nothing to his conclusion But I cannot let pass his Confidence in being so positive that Mr. Blackwell published the two Breves of Paul the fifth whereas it is evident both out of Mr. Blackwell's own writings that he was so far from publishing them that he severely reprov'd Dr. Worthington for doing it
of the Oath of Allegiance grounded upon such private Opinions may be subject to misinformation and errour Nor does it import that the Command be of one or two Popes never so often iterated or that the menace be of Temporal or Eternal pains for still we are at this lock that 't is the private opinion of Popes for which Liberty Life and Fortunes are not to be sacrificed Had he perused the Letters Decrees of Popes so often cancelled in the Church even by succeeding Popes experience would have taught him that 't is no new thing that the Decrees of Popes may spring from their private opinions and misinformation and when they do are revocable either by themselves or others and never to be obey'd to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church and this without any disrespect to the Holy See so thought St. Bernard to omit many others who gives this lesson to our Catechist that the Apostolick See has this for which 't is much celebrated that it stands not upon punctilioes of honour but is easily prevailed with to retract that which by surprize had been procured from it 'T is indeed but just that no body should thrive by Injustice and that especially before the Holy See Bernard Epist 180. He was now come to the last period of his Catechism when he thought it expedient to make a deeper impression in the minds of his Readers of his little tricks and arts by a re-capitulation of his worthy feats First he places in the van a known Imposture saying that we declare that by the Oath onely our Opinion is sworn whereas we require a settled Judgment and that with more Certainty than Escobar or many of his four and twenty Elders do think requisit to an Oath as was made out in the last Secondly he imputes it as a Crime to the swearers that they do not by their Oath exclude as well the Temporal power of the Pope and of other Princes as onely the Spiritual power of the Pope as if other Princes and the Pope as a Temporal Prince may not right themselves by force of arms and invade the King's Dominions as he may theirs in case ' of wrong done him and reciprocally possess themselves of new Conquests Or as if King James and that Parliament by whom the Oath was made a Law were to be begged for Fools Thirdly he deludes his reader again in declaring that we by the particle as in the Oath doe onely mean Similitude This I say is a delusion for we do not onely assert that this particle as joyned to Impious and Heretical may be taken for a Similitude but also for Identity and that in the plain and common sence of the particle and moreover that 't is in the choice of a swearer to mean either Similitude or Identity Nor is it materiall in which sence he swears provided his abhorrence or detestation of the Doctrine be the same in either Fourthly he blames the swearer that engaging by Oath to discover all Treasons he omits to discover some that are such by Law as also Treasons known in Confession As if an Oath were not framed of words and words were not to be regulated by concomitant Circumstances and Pro Subjecta Materia as has been declared both by the Law and Law-maker Fifthly he charges the swearer with this Perjury that at the same time he swears to use no secret reservation he actually has in his mind a secret reservation as if restriction of words known to be such by common Circumstances were secret reservations or as if what is not hid but open to the whole world were secretly reserved Finally he faults the Oath that by it is sworn that the Pope cannot authorize any forraign Prince to invade the King but not that he cannot implore his aid to invade him as if to implore Aid and Authorize were one and the same thing What remains is the modell of an Oath he would present the King to be taken by his Subjects the juggle of which is discovered in the beginning of this my Answer to his Catechism to repeat it will be too tedious and I am heartily weary of still rowling the same stone which his constant repetition of the same things has forced me upon Wherefore having made our accounts even in the foregoing Chapters I shall also state those of his conclusion of the Catechism and so end First He puts three slurs upon his own Fathers in point of honesty Secondly He obtrudes upon others his own dreams as their sayings Thirdly He is guilty of that for which he blames his Adversary and sees it not Fourthly He confounds the Pope's private Opinion with a Faith-definition Fifthly He would sacrifice all the Catholicks of England to the Pope's private Opinion Sixthly Either he thinks the Decree of Popes must in no case be disobeyed or if he thinks they may he dares not give a rule for it Seventhly He commits three impostures Finally He understands not the difference betwixt Authorizing and Imploring Aid and is a great stranger to secret reservation Reverend Father Is this Conclusion of his Catechism Christian Doctrine For to you and to the impartial reader as he commends his Catechism so shall I my answer Peruse it and weigh it the more severe you are in the examining of it the more kind you will be to your self and me since Truth and nothing but Truth is the Game we are in pursuit of Reverend Father Your ever Faithful A. B. THE ANSWER To His APPENDIX Reverend Father THe Catechist having printed and publish't his Catechism he thought fit to send post after it an Appendix in a Manuscript by way I suppose of Refutation of it for I never saw two things more at odds one with another than the Catechism and this Manuscript are For in his Nineth Chapter of the Catechism he gives out that the General sence of Catholicks is to hold the Pope to be Infallible in points of Doctrine and he himself tells you he is certain the Pope is infallible in deciding points of doctrine and though he owns that 't is not Faith that the Pope is Infallible yet he judges it defineable Now against himself he argues thus in his manuscript What sayes he if the Pope should command a man to swear the deposing Doctrine to be an Article of Faith he answers himself thus he ought not to be obeyed and he gives for his reason because he is certain 't is no Article of Faith Is not this rare dodging with the King and Pope In the Catechism Chap. Nineth he was certain the Pope was Infallible in deciding Faith the Pope now in the hypothesis has declared a point of Doctrin to be of Faith and commands him to swear it to be so but is not to be obeyed nay he assures you there is certainty against the Pope's infallibility against which certainty the Pope cannot declare Is not this to make the Pope infallible and not-infallible when he pleases Again both in
of war in which victory deposes the conquer'd party from some part of his Dominions M. Nothing is intended by these words witness the Law-maker but that the Pope by no Papal or Ecclesiastical Authority can depose the King S. Do the express words of the Oath bear this reservation Do they not expresly exclude it The Authority of the Pope himself of the Church and of the See of Rome are they not foresworn in the foregoing words which being sworn to what can these words nor by any other means with any other imply M. What are the preceding words S. They are these and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome c. I beseech you reflect upon the words and then tell me Can other that is different means from the Authority of Pope and Church be the same with the Authority of Pope and Church Can God himself make you and another to be the same And if he cannot what Law-maker can enable me to swear according to the plain sense of the express words the Pope and an other and that the means of Ecclesiastical Authority and other means are the same which he must necessarily do who will perswade me that to deny one and to deny the other according to express words is no more than to deny one and the same thing M. This is so clear that nothing but a previous wilful engagement to the contrary can obscure it Why did not the Law-maker make his interpretation a part of the express words as he has made the express words an exclusion of his interpretation and the only Subject of my Oath S. The fourth Clause is No Person whatsoever has Power to absolve me from this Oath this Clause according to express the words is no truer than the former and therefore cannot be lawfully sworn M. Shew why it cannot be sworn S. Because the King by quitting his Crown may quit me of my Allegiance Is he no body Should the King and Parliament dismember a part of the Realm where I am Native and make it over to a Forreign Prince am not I free from my Allegiance and are they no person whatsoever doth not the power of Victory transfer Allegiance from one King to another and the conquering part is he no body M. Should the King quit his Crown he might too repent himself as soon body sayes S. That 's much to the purpose God send him long to live and Reign but would his repentance unperson him and make him no body M. But the common sense is that no person from Rome can absolve me of my Allegiance S. The common sense of the words whatsoever the maker of the Oath might intend bear no such exposition but with a clear Negative exclude it for no person whatsoever in its natural sense is equivalent to this No Pope no King no Prince can absolve em which is evidently false as hath been made out and cannot be sworn M. Is not Victory and the Kings quitting the Crown equivalent to death and the Succession of an Heir which it 's manifest cannot be understood by these words no person whatsoever S. No for death which is a pure Negation only takes away the person from the dignity and not the dignity from the person as the King might do from himself and succession â—s so far from deposing that it is a continuation of the Predecessours right CHAP. VI. Of the 5. Clause of the Assertory Part. M. WHat else have you to say against the Oath S. The 5. Clause is I farther from my heart abhor detest and abjure as heretical this damnable Doctrine and position that Princes which are excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any whatsoever M. What is' t you scruple at S. I scruple at more than one thing for it contains several things repugnant to Faith M. If what you say you make appear to be true you will justify the Popes Breves who affirm what you say you will stop your adversaries mouth who boast you cannot after long poring pick any thing out of the Oath which is contrary to Faith and you will clear your self of Disloyalty in refusing it S. The first thing contrary to Faith is for a secular Power much more a Protestant to usurp the Supremacy due to the Church in deciding what is Heretical as the Parliament do's by tendring this Clause From this it follows that 2. the complyance in swearing that Clause is also contrary to Faith as being an approbation of that power 3. It is contrary to Faith to make the Doctrine of Deposing Heretical it never having been condemned by the Church 4. It is contrary to Faith to make an Article of Faith what is not as it would be to say it is Article of Faith that the Pope cannot depose a Prince in a Case of Heresie and revolt from the Church For this must be of faith if the contradictory be Heretical as it would not be Heretical to deny Transubstantiation if Transubstantiation were not an Article of faith Lastly what is implyed in the whole Clause it is against faith to hold it Lawful to swear a thing to be Heretical which is not M. Doth not the result of this favour Stilling-fleet and others who fall foul upon Catholicks for this Doctrine of deposing S. No for as it is not Heretical so it is no part of Catholick Faith Nor doth any man as a Catholick believe it M. Is it not more favourable to Princes to hold it is Heretical S. It cannot be favourable to any one to hold an untruth M. How can a Prince secure himself from that Doctrine S. By a promissory Oath of never holding it nor teaching it though it be not Heretical M. But by your good leave this is not so binding as to swear it to be Heretical S. It is more binding for having sworn it to be Heretical if afterwards I find it not to be Heretical as one will easily do I am freed from my Oath as having sworn an untruth but when I promise by Oath never to follow it nor teach it be it Heretical or no I have no such evasion as is manifest M. You have acquitted your self as to this point but may not the particle as Heretical make this sense that I abjure that doctrine as if it were Heretical or like an Heresie As it is said I hate him as a Toad I love him as my Father S. I do not deny but that the natural sense of the particle as somtimes implyes similitude or equality but it is when it relates to different Subjects for example let him be unto thee as a heathen But this is not our present Case M. I see it is not S. Sometimes the particle as implyes the reality of a thing being so for example a paper as seditious was burnt signifyes its reality of being seditious M. Pray give me a General Rule when the particle as in
that this Proposition A Prince excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by his Subjects or any one whatsoever is Heretical Therefore I may swear it to be Heretical S. This proposition as being exposed to Quibbles is not proper to be sworn by every Idiot who must perfectly understand what he swears to or he exposes himself to Perjury M. Is it not clear that it is Heretical to say a Prince excommunicated may be murthered S. Grant it is how comes the proposition saying A Prince excommunicated may be deposed to be Heretical Who has defined it so to be M. The proposition as affirming both together to be lawful is Heretical S. That is not the sense of the proposition but to the truth of it is required that the proposition saying one or the other to be lawful be Heretical and the proposition saying the one that is Deposing is not Heretical M. Pray clear it a little better if you can S. It is clear by the words themselves for by the words of the Oath I do not swear the proposition saying A Prince excommunicated may be deposed and murthered but may be deposed or murthered to be Heretical which in the common way of speaking are wholly different By the first is sworn to teach the Lawfulness of both together to be Heretical and the Lawfulness of both together implying Murthering to be lawful is truly Heretical By the second is sworn to teach Lawfulness of the one which is of Deposing or the other that is Murthering to be Heretical which is false for the saying it is lawful to depose an excommunicated Prince is not Heretical M. You have said as much for clearing this case as the express words afford you according to which one is to swear S. I only add that if the Oath-teachers can give any interpretation so connatural to the express words as I have done he that takes the Oath being sworn to wave all Reservation must swear to both which without Perjury he cannot After so many real difficulties against the Lawfulness of the Oath I cannot but enquire how one can take these last two Clauses of the Assertory part first that it is administred to me by good and lawful power the determining what is Heresy appertaining to the Catholick Church and not to a Protestant Parliament The second And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the Faith of a Christian so help me God CHAP. VIII Of the Promissory part of the Oath M. THe Assertory part of the Oath is it any part of Allegiance S. It is not M. Then the greatest part of this Oath is intitled from Allegiance contains Allegiance as the least part of it S. You say no more than what I have often answered From which you may infer that by the Oath something more than Allegiance was intended M. Is it not a part of Allegiance to acknowledge your King S. It is no part of Allegiance to acknowledg Him by a thought and a swearing I think so but it is to acknowledge Him by a promissory Oath of Allegiance which supposes a certainty of His being my true King M. Are you ready to swear all the promissory part of the Oath S. I am except only the promise of discovering what is contained by Law under the word Treason which I cannot do without betraying my Religion and he that will be a Traytor to his Religion upon the like Motives will be a Traytor to his King M. What are those things S. They are First to maintain or extoll Authority in the See of Rome the 2. time is high treason 5. Eliz. 1. 2dly to obtain or put in ure any Bull from Rome high treason 13 Eliz. 2. Thirdly for Jesuit or Priest made by Authority of the Pope to come or remain in the King's Dominions high treason 27 Eliz. 78. 4thly to perswade or reconcile or to be reconciled to the Roman Religion High treason 23 Eliz. 1. 3. Jacob. 4. for this last Burnet was condemned few years since and several meerly for being Priests have lately been executed So that those Laws are yet in rigour M. Do you then think the aforesaid things are signify'd by the word Treason S. How can I think otherwise for the signification of words is taken from the will of men they being indifferent of their own nature to signify any thing and the will of men cannot be more clearly expressed than by their Laws so that the most certain signification of a word is what it hath by Law This is so evident that no Philosopher no divine no Lawyer ever yet called it in question Besides is it not made a distinct member from conspiracies M. I have heard some say to be Priests and the like are but Spiritual Treasons S. Spiritual Treasons that hang a man corporally Are Spiritual Treasons Treasons or no is not this an evasion and are not all evasions abjured besides all Spiritual power in opposition to the Pope being by the Law of the Nation setled in the King as part of his right as it is treason to own extern power opposit to his right in temporals so is it not treason according to the Law to own the Popes power opposit to his right in his Spirituals the common sense of the word Treason can it be better derived than from the common Law M. But doth not King James declare that he intends nothing by the Oath than the securing himself from the deposing power and the dangerous principles ensuing from it and that he exacts nothing but a civil Allegiance S. Under such a pretence might not I as well be sworn to renounce the Pope and my Religion as be bound to take an unlawful Oath would not that secure him as much as the Oath The greatest security he could have he might have had by a promissory Oath of never following that opinion this never was deny'd him nor will be deny'd his Successours his reservation of civil Allegiance is excluded by the express words of the Oath which he himself obliges me to swear to Would it not argue a strange power to grant me leave to swear to an Interpretation and by the same Oath to exclude it M. Cannot then the Law-maker dispense in his own act S. He may dispense with me from taking the Oath but supposing the Law by his order or permission inforces the Oath upon me the Law-maker cannot dispense with me to swear in a different sense from what the express words bear Nay doth not the Law-makers bringing an Interpretation own the unlawfulness of the express words M. Have you any thing else to instance for what you say S. I have if you will be pleased to tell me how the charge of the Attorney General runs against a Priest condemned purely for Priest-hood M. Forasmuch as I have been able to gather out of the Trials of such as have been condemned the charge runs thus As a false Traitor to our Soveraign Lord
Abbot in the Clink See Rushworth Tom. 1. Anno 1626. pag. 241 242. Who writ for the Oath which forced Urban the 8. to give out another Breve in condemnation of the Oath and confirmation of his Predecessours Breves which was published by Bishop Smith Could more be done by the Sea Apostolick to require a due obedience M. Notwithstanding all you have said the Oath teaches flatly deny the publication of these Breves S. Their denyal must be made out the contrary being clear by Originals it being a Maxim in Law presumitur factum quod debuit fieri What ought to be done is to be presumed done M. It is said the Pope was mis-inform'd and it is prov'd thus the word murthering in the Latin version of the Oath presented to the Pope is Translated occidere to kill S. And what then the Englishing out of Scripture the word non occides thou shalt not murther is it to misinform the people of Gods command why then the Latining the word to murther occidere mis-informs his Holiness can any one think the word occidere applyed to the sacred persons of Kings can signify Chance-medley if not it implyes an unlawful killing which is murthering and do not the Oath-Teachers themselves term the Doctrine of murthering King-killing Doctrine and surely they will grant occidere signifies to kill Another objection is that the Popes first Breve on which the others are grounded runs thus Que cum ita sint satis vobis ex ipsis verbis perspectum esse debet quod hujusmodi juramentum salva fide Catholica salute animarum vestrarum praestari non potest cum multa contineat quae fidei saluti aperte adversantur S. Pray English these words M. The Pope having set down the words of the Oath says which things being so out of the words themselves it must be well enough known to you that this Oath without prejudice of Catholick faith and salvation of your souls cannot be taken seeing it contains many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and salvation S. What is there in all this to except against M. It seems not to be true that the Oath contains many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and salvation S. The Pope says it is true that the Oath contains many things contrary to faith the Oath-Teachers say it is not true Is not this as good as to Challenge the Pope who is Judge to make good his words can a petty Lawyers ill grounded opinion free me from the obedience due to the Judges sentence is it not against faith for a secular Protestant power to place it self in the Chair of the Church to decide spiritual points Is it not against faith to comply with that power much more to swear that power to be a lawful one Is it not against faith to swear a thing to be Heretical which is not Is it not repugnant to faith to discover all Priests comprehended under the common sense of the word Treason So that were we not obliged to submit to the Pope as Judge doth not reason compel us CONCLUSION M. BUt if after all this I think the Oath to be Lawful may not I take it S. No Because such a thought can not be well grounded for it neither hath Authority nor Reason to rely upon M. How shall I know that my thought is well grounded S. By examining whether it be not a rash one proceeding from engagement passion or in consideration of what is said to the contrary and by discussing the certainty of the thing I swear unto For if I have not a Moral certainty of what I am to swear I cannot rationally apply God's veracity to the affirming of what I doubt of M. I pray you descend to a particular can I swear Innocent the 11. is Pope S. Yes because I have a moral certainty of it as I have of my King being King M. But he may chance not to be baptized and so be no Pope Considering the natural causes there is a possibility of it but the pure possibility of a thing affords me no ground to think it is or it is not and therefore weakens not the certainty I have that it is M. Have not the Jesuits in France subscribed to the like Oath S. Never and had the sixteen who subscribed some other propositions done it what would it have signify'd against the judges sentence Would it not be pleasant for one cast in Chancery or an other Court to get the opinion of some Lawyer against the judges sentence and so think to carry it M. Did not the Jesuits subscribe that the Doctrine of deposing was wicked contrary to the word of God c. S. They subscribed to the condemnation of Santarellus whose book contain'd more then that But grant they did did they swear to what they subscribed and is not more certainty required to an Oath then to a subscription and could a subscription of sixteen Jesuits make it Heretical It is not enough for a private spirit to subscribe that it is contrary to the word of God to make it Heretical but the Church must define it to be contrary to the word of God which it never yet has done M. Is not the French Oath of Allegiance the same with the English S. No as will appear by the French Oath turned into English But first you know full well that in the year 1615 the third state of France in which the Hugonot party was very strong proposed an Oath much like to our English Oath of Allegiance But what was the issue the other two chief states the Nobility and Clergy rejected it as pernicious cause of Schism and the open gate to Heresy as you may read in King James his Preface to his declaration for the right of Kings set forth in French in the same year and in the Eloquent Oration of Cardinal Peron made in the Chamber of the third state in the name of all the Nobility and Clergy of France and afterwards sent to our Soveraign King James in which Oration the Cardinal affirms that the third state enjoyning the said Oath had their Lesson given them from England M. I pray you give me the French Oath in English for I perceive what ever was acted in France as to the deposing Power haply concluded in it And the Oath-Teachers used to say it was the same with the English S. The Oath runs thus I swear on the most holy and sacred name of God and promise to your Majesty that I shall be as long as I live a faithful Subject and servant and shall procure unto you all service and good to your Kingdom as much as I am able that I never will be present in any Council or enterprise to the prejudice of the same and that if any thing come to my knowledge of this kind I will make it known to your Majesty and so help me God and his holy Gospel An Oath of this Tenour none can refuse to his Majesty
and we are all bound to take it M. But one request more I have to make you how comes it to pass that the Pope's Declaration binds to a complyance in not taking the Oath even with the loss of Liberty Life and Fortunes seeing the precepts of the Church do not oblige with so much Rigour S. The Case is clear it is because the Law of God obliges me not to take an unlawful Oath and the Law of God is indispensable now the Pope in the present Case as being Gods Vicar acts the part of Moses and declares my obligation of not taking the Oath to be a part of God's Law from which it follows it is indispensable On the contrary the Precepts of the Church are dispensable by the power that Enacted them and oblige not to so much inconveniency as the forfeiture of Lives and Fortunes M. But have not the Errours of other Popes been pressed upon you as of Nicolas John Caelestin Alezander c. And that neither Paul the fifth nor Urban the Eighth is more Infallible than they and that if the Breves of others may pass unobserved so may theirs S. And have not I remitted the Author of that Objection for the Answer to Bellarmin from whom he Englished it They spoke as private men their Opinions exacted no Obedience and therefore were not obeyed Let him produce a Precedent in the Church if he can of Obedience denyed to two Popes issuing no less than 4 Breves upon the same point and exacting a Compliance under Eternal Damnation This is the present case but no more there is no dealing with private Spirits expressed in their Words If I know what I know better than the Pope can tell me I 'le believe my self The Will Rules Reason hath little place I conclude humbly begging my Reader to peruse more than once this Instruction and then to judge who of the two are better grounded in Principles of Loyalty Government and Religion the refusers or the teachers of the Oath of Allegiance The Oath-teachers delude their King and Magistrates for First they declare they only swear their Opinion and their changeable Opinion can be no Allegiance 2ly they only swear against the Popes spiritual Authority of Deposing and not his Temporal annexed to it nor of any other Prince 3ly Where they swear they detest the Doctrin of Deposing or Murdering as Impious and Heretical they mean only Similitude and Similitude including distinction they make it neither to be Heretical nor Impious Though the Doctrin of Murdering be absolutely both Impious and Heretical 4ly They Swear to discover all Treasons that shall come to their knowledg but they do not mean all Treasons declared by Law so to be nor the knowledge had by Confession 5ly When they say they swear without any Reservation whatsoever they except the forementioned Restrictions Lastly when they Swear the Pope cannot Authorise any Forreign Prince to invade c. They do not mean he cannot implore their Armies and perswade them to Invade in case of Persecution What then doth this Oath of Allegicome to as they swear it The Refusers of the Oath are ready to swear his Majesty to be their lawful King and by consequence all due Allegiance to him they are ready to swear they will never Teach or follow the Doctrin of Deposing they are ready to swear they will discover what ever Conspiracy against his Majesty that comes to their knowledge in a word they are ready to swear the strictest Oath that ever was yet tendered by Catholick King to his Subjects The Appendix M. WHat if the Pope should command you to swear the Deposing Doctrine to be an Article of Faith and the Oath to be Lawful S. I say he is not to be obeyed he being subordinate to God who forbids me to swear without the requisites to a Lawful Oath and in this Case I should be as far from the requisit of certainty of what I were commanded to swear as I am certain that Doctrine is no Article of Faith M. In that Case the Pope would declare it is an Article of Faith who are we to believe the Pope or God S. This his declaration would be as void as the Parliament's is in declaring it is Heretical it being a certainty that it is neither Heretical nor an Article of Faith M. You seem then to deny that the Pope can declare the Deposing Doctrin to be an Article of Faith whereas in a Controversy whether it be or no it belongs to the Pope to decide it S. Where there is a Controversy in a Point that is meerly Spiritual I say I am to stand to the Pope's Decision but as to the point of Deposing it is neither meerly Spiritual nor in Controversy it being certain it is no Article of Faith against which certainty the Pope cannot declare M. Pray explain your self a little better S. The Point in Controversy between Pope and King is not whether the Doctrine of Deposing be Heretical or an Article of Faith For it is certain it is neither for where the Contest on both sides is Lawful neither the one can be an Article of Faith nor the other Heretical as is manifest the controversie between them is this The Doctrine of deposing grounds a Title or Right to depose Kings in case of Heresy and revolt from the Church The Doctrine of not-deposing grounds an opposite right both these rights are Temporalities as is clear the controversy is which of the two Pretenders to Right hath Right of his side Pope or King I say they are both Parties both Supreme Judges neither can decide it belongs to the whole Church if to any to do it and till that be done each party may oblige their subjects in Temporals to stand for their Right but cannot oblige them to swear as a certainty the Doctrine on which it is grounded either to be Heretical or an Article of Faith M. But should an Oath be tendered either for the deposing Doctrine it's being Heretical or an Article of Faith to whom would it belong to judge of the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of it S. I answer it is already judged of by Gods Law as it is that I cannot swear white is black to declare it unlawful belongs to the Spiritual Court an Oath being an Act of Religion if true a Sacriledge if false nor doth such a Judgment incroach upon the right of eitheir Party neither Party having right to a false Oath and though the Pope as to the Right of deposing be a party as to the Point of the Unlawfulness of the Oath he is Judge The Catechist Catechiz'd OR LOYALTY ASSERTED In a LETTER to A Father of the Society IN Answer to a Catechism wrirten by One of his Order against the OATH of ALLEGIANCE ENTITULED A Brief Instruction touching the Oath of Allegiance by way of a Dialogue Printed in the Year 1681. The Catechist Catechiz'd OR LOYALTY ASSERTED IN A Letter to a Father of the Society c. Reverend Father
as of the Power it self this being vain and useless without that Is the Pope in this case of Prohibition to be Obeyed If so adieu all Allegiance promised by Oath Is he to be disobey'd then the 9th or last Chapter of his Catechism will rise in judgment against him it being a Self-Condemnation Reverend Father you have here the design of the Catechism whose Doctrin though it be but the same boil d Capon often disht and serv'd up Objections ten times Answered without a step advanc'd yet because it is now hasht and minced into a Catechism so to allure weaker Stomacks I shall advise them of the Poison it brings and apply the Antidote The Preface to the Reader Examined AS the Preface to his Catechism is Tripartite so shall be my Answer First He declares against Perjury with which he couples the Oath of Allegiance so joyning in Communion Falshood with Truth Light with Darkness Christ with Beliaâ— Divers says he by taking an unlawfuâ— Oath have encreased the Evil of Perjury If so then 't is to be hoped that divers who have taken a lawful Oath have decreased the Evil of Perjury and since the Oath of Allegiance may be such for any thing opposed by him I know not why it may not work a perfect Cure to that Evil in the Sphear of Loyalty whereas an Equivocating Oath such as he now offers is so far from Curing that presently it Kills Perjury 't is Confessed is the worst oâ— Sins and Equivocation in an Oath is the worst of Perjuries Barefac'd perjury iâ— soon discovered and the Author ofteâ— shamed into Repentance but perjury in Masquerade or Equivocation lies concealed and when disclosed it stands upon it's terms of Justification and has eveâ— a Colour for the mischief it does which renders it Incurable He that by Oath Equivocates with his King can never be true to his God And since your Antifimbria gives a Challenge to him who presumes to say that any of your Society holds the Doctrin of Equivocation since it was very lately Condemned by Innocent the 11th my Answer by his favour is That if Antifimbria be the Catechist and the Catechist be of your Society Antifimbria is the man and the Oath he offers to take is my Evidence From hence I step to the second part of his Preface wherein he discloses a Mystery Some sayes he who took this Oath have since slept at a Minister's Sermon and took the Cheering Cup others have renounced the Popes Supremacy and the greatest part abused by the specious Title of Allegiance swore what they meant and meant what was just This is a Hodg-podg of good and bad together all put to the account of the Oath of Allegiance whose hard Fate it is that for it's sake even what is best in an Oath must be hated for what can be more Rational in a Man than in due Circumstances to Swear what he means and mean what is just For if he swears otherwise than what he means he must either Lye or to give it a finer Term must Equivocate But he add's thus their meaning was far from the words they swear Was it so Then clearly they did not swear what they meant which can only be when their words and their meaning go together And if any who have taken this Oath have renounced the Popes Supremacy I hope it was in Temporals and that 's the very Life and Soul of the Oath of Allegiance But if the Abjuration was of purely Spirituals it can no more be charged upon this Oath than upon the Oath or Vow made in Baptism Nor is the deserting Communion with the roman-catholick-Roman-Catholick-Church or taking the Cheering Cup as he calls it in the Protestant Church or any other by assing from the Roman catholick-Catholick-Faith neer so much the Effect of this Oath as the disorders of Private Members of his or any other Religious Family is to be imputed to the vow of blind Obedience to their General since the Oath is no Cause of them In the third part of his Preface he seems to have a priviledge to say any thing and therefore imposes upon the defenders of the Oath as their Doctrin that they swear not to the words as they lye but only their Opinion and yet whoever amongst the approvers of the Oath of Allegiance contented himself with the bare thought or only Opinion of the Truth of it How often have they declar'd That a Rational settled Judgment or imoral Certainty and such as is required in all Oaths to justify a prudent and Conscientious Man though possibly the thing sworn may be otherwise is requisit to take this Oath Has he so soon forgot the Lesson I read him out of the most Eminent of his Four and Twenty Elders in Escobar when he had censured them and all others as disingenuous who were not of his mind Is his new Oath with which he professeth to Live and Dy more binding than this Will he disobey the Pope in case he declares this new Oath to contain many things repugnant to Faith or Salvation If not his Allegiance will certainly Dy with him but he 'l not Dy with his Allegiance If he disobey the Pope I conclude with this Evidence against his Preface that he is obliged to burn his Catechism and so shall neither by it convince his Adversaries nor confirm his Friends much less reclaim others which is his design The Account of his Preface is thus First he makes this Deduction some have of late been Perjur'd Ergo a lawful and good Oath ought not to be taken Secondly things unconnected and disparate he makes to be Cause and Effect Thirdly what is most perfect in an Oath is by him reputed Vicious Fourthly he Imposes upon the defenders of the Oath Opinion in lieu of Certainty as a requisit to an Oath Lastly he prefers an Equivocating Oath to an Oath that is Clear and Candid Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrin Now before I take his Catechism in Peeces I shall offer you a few Notes short clear and easy the Observation of which alone is a ful vindication of the Oath of Allegiance and a Total Defeat to his Catechism My first Note shall be that since our understandings are so fruitful and various in their Productions and our words so few that they cannot adequate every distinct Notion of the Mind it must inevitably follow that many words must be Equivocal that is must contain many different meanings from whence must rise great Obscurities in speech and writing for the clearing of which a regard must be had to Circumstances as time place person antecedents consequents the end and motive of speech c. All or some of which do usually give light to the Auditor or Reader and fix words to a determinate sense if therefore in the Oath of Allegiance there be any word in it self Obscure or Equivocal and if it be circumstanc't by these or some of these advantages 't is render'd unequivocal and clear My second Note is
Subiects whereof some were Roman-Catholicks vigorously opposed them From hence 't is evidently concluded that the Power of Deposing and Absolving from the Oath must be understood of Spiritual Power in the Pope or Church and that no secret Reservation intervenes since nothing is concealed which by clear and undeniable circumstances is not revealed So ends this Chapter The summe of his gains in this fifth Chapter is this First he corrupts the words of the Oath Secondly he will have words to signify without rule Thirdly in signification of words he has no regard to subjecta materia or the matter in hand Fourthly by vertue of his Logick he can make one to be two or two to be one Fifthly he minds no Circumstances in the understanding of words Finally to beat down the Oath he forces the word Absolve out of his proper to an improper sence Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrin The Sixth Chapter Examined THis Chapter speaks loud promiseth much and performs little a deep mouth is a sign of slow heels for the game which he thought was in his hand is beyond his reach Three things he attempts in this Chapter First to justify the Popes Breves Secondly to stop the mouth of his Adversary Thirdly to clear himself of his Loyalty God send him a good Deliverance The method to his design is to charge the fifth branch of the Oath with a small parcel of Heresies or Articles repugnant to Faith in number no more than five The Pope though he declares in his Breve that there are many things against Faith in the Oath yet in his wisdom thought it fit to conceal them nay being from time to time with humble supplication sollicited to declare them would never condescend to any discovery How came the mystery to be now reveal'd Is this Catechist the Pope's Nuncio has he any warrant from him to define what is Heresy If not he is deeply guilty of usurping a power of defining no more appertaining to him than to the King and Parliament against whom he is so earnest for using their judgment only of discretion in Censuring a proposition for Heretical The Clause of the Oath which he now attacks runs thus And I do farther swear that I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as Impious and Heretical this Damnable Doctrin and Position that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any whatsoever Before I enquire into the Heresies with which he chargeth this Clause I have two exceptions against him the first is that he permits so many synominous expressions to pass uncontrouled in this Clause for which he so hotly inveighed against the first For Doctrin and Position abhor and detest to swear against and abjure seem to march in synonymous couples My second exception is that he passeth by this censure as Impious tacitly allowing the Doctrin abjur'd to be Impious though not Heretical Whereas in truth there is the same rule for both the repugnance to the Word of God giving both denominations and therefore whoever may swear to abhor aposition as Impious may abjure it as Heretical But these are only points of incogitancy his Eyes and Thoughts being fixed upon a bunch of Heresies which hangs from this branch of the Oath The First Article against Faith in this Clause he declares to be for a Secular Power much more a Protestant to usurp the Supremacy due to the Church in deciding what is Heretical Had he been pleased to have term'd it against good manners for the Secular or Protestant Power to have gone before the Spiritual or Church in deciding what is Heretical it had been more moderate but to say 't is against Faith 't is unpardonable For what if a General Council should afterwards define the same Doctrine to be Heretical which King James and his Parliament have done in this Oath which for ought he knows in good time it may would they have acted any thing against Faith meerly because they prevented the Council If so then all those Pious Christians who declared Arianism Eutychianism Berengarianism and the like to be against their Faith before the three Councils defined the same did all act against Faith Nay the hot De-fide-men of the Schools who so highly value themselves upon their Doctrine crying out The Church the Church at every turn and knocking their Adversaries on the head with hoc est Hereticum will not be exempt from this censure since a thousand propositions have been by them declared Heretical never thought of by any Council Nothing is more frequent amongst the Censors of Books than such Qualifications and shall it be said they have all usurp't the Supremacy of the Church in so doing or that they have acted against Faith If so let them be all Hereticks for company The second point he defines to be against Faith in this Clause is a complyance in the Swearer with that Usurped Power it being sayes he an Approbation of that Usurpation Is it not pleasant that what he has concluded against the Maker and Swearer of this Clause may all be true and yet the Clause it self be clear and innocent So it is for a bare Usurpation of the Supremacy in declaring what is Heretical as also a bare compliance with that usurpation are the faults of the persons not of the Clause which may be very good and orthodox whilst the Usurper and Complyer are not How then comes it to be concluded that this is against Faith in this Clause The third Heresy he fastens upon this Clause is That it makes a doctrine Heretical which has never been condemn'd by the Church I answer that neither the Oath-maker nor the Church her self can render by their condemnation a doctrine Heretical which was not so before their Condemnation If then the Doctrine which by this Clause is declared to be Heretical be such in its self before the declaration as it may be for any thing now opposed how can the declaration of it in this Clause be against Faith Again do not Catholicks as well as Protestants repute that to be Heretical which is repugnant to the clear Word of God Do not the Divines in the Schools censure that for Heretical which is in Opposition to an evident consequence derived from Faith And is not either of these the plain and common sense of this word Heretical Why then in the acceptation of that word must we be ty'd up to his humorous Notion since common use which gives life to words has left us at liberty And seeing the Law-maker's Rule of Faith in whose sence we are to swear is the Word of God written if what in this Clause is declared to be Heretical be truly against that Rule how is it possible this Clause should be inconsistent with Faith Is not this an odd piece of Doctrine to be put into a Catechism His fourth and fifth charge against this clause of the Oath are that it makes that to be
without nay against his Order without which no publication could then be Authentick and at the same time he writ unto all the Clergy the Gentry and Nobility animating them to take the Oath declaring it to be a duty incumbent upon them by the Law of God Nay the Fathers of your Society themselves whose importunity had procured from the Pope this irregular power of an Arch-Priest in lieu of a Bishop thinking to have served themselves of him when first they presented him to the Pope have and do lay it to his charge that he refused to publish them And what afterwards was done either by Mr. Birket the next Arch-priest or Bishop Smith is so obscure and of so little concern to the main dispute that to redeem farther trouble of arguing it with him I shall rather afford him some grains of allowance and refer him to my foregoing discourse than trifle time in a matter which though it be granted will avail him nothing Another instance of mis-information I took from the word Murther'd in the Oath which was translated by the term Occidi which is a Generical word and may be used in a good or bad sence whereas the word Murther is alwayes the Killing a man against the Law of God He answers that if this were so then when the Command non Occides is translated into this English Thou shalt not Kill it were to misinform the People of God's Command His Inference would be very proper if the Church in her Catechism did not declare what sort of Killing God did prohibit by his Law reserving to the Magistrate the power of the Sword and this Answer was given him before it being an Objection I had made by way of anticipation for there I reply'd that in the Decalogue the Church is not ty'd up to the plain and common sence of the words as we are by the Oath Then he asks Whether any can think the word Occidere apply'd to the Sacred Persons of Kings can signifie Chance-medley if not sayes he it implies an Unlawful Killing How Is there no mean betwixt Chance-medley and Unlawful Killing What thinks he of Killing by the stroke of Justice Is that either Chance-medley or Unlawful Again what conceit has he of all those Authors cited in my former Letters for defending the Lawfulness of Killing Kings in case of resistance after deposition Did they not believe and maintain that deposition did desecrate their persons and consequently that Killing them in case of refusal to be deposed was lawful Did they believe it either Chance-medley or Unlawful Pray let him peruse the places cited and then give his Judgment Since therefore words are not to be understood at his rate I conclude that the plain and common sence of the word Murther which the Oath requires we should stand too is not expressed by Occidi consequently the Pope was imposed upon by the Translator the Oath forbidden is not our Oath of Allegiance The Pope having by his Breve declared that it must be well enough known to us that the Oath without prejudice to Catholick Faith and Salvation of our Souls cannot be taken since it contains many things which are manifestly repugnant to Faith and Salvation from this declaration I argued thus that since we our selves are of all men most conscious to our selves of what we know or of what we are ignorant that being a matter of fact for the most part depending from our sences and alwayes concealed within our own Breasts and since it is so far from being well enough known to us that there is any thing in the Oath repugnant to Faith or Salvation that neither our selves could ever discover it nor our Adversaries whose concern it is to discountenance this Oath could after so many years industry point it out from hence I say I conclude that it was not the will of the Pope to oblige us by his Breves to abstain from taking this Oath And from this knowledge derived from sences and thus concealed I asserted that every man knows what he knows and also what he knows not much better than any man even the Pope can tell him Upon this to render me disrespectfull to his Holyness he singles out some of my words from their fellows by which they are to subsist and then declares that I challenge the Pope to make good his words when it is rather an humble Submission professing our Ignorance of what the Pope supposeth us to be knowing After this he runs himself out of Breath with questions already answered as thus Is not this against Faith is not that so is not a Third Fourth and Fifth thing so To all which in their due places I have given my answer Now to the levelling of his accounts for his Nineth Chapter First having declared the Pope to be the Soveraign Judge of the Lawfulness of an Oath at the same time he offers to take an Oath in defiance of the Pope's Power Secondly he owns the King to be Supream Judge in Temporalls yet will not allow him to Judge of what is Temporal in the Oath Thirdly he would have the Crowns of Princes the Lives and Fortunes of Subjects to stand or fall from the Single and Bare Opinion of a Pope Fourthly he engages for the Generality of Catholicks without their warrant and against truth Fifthly he holds the private Letters of a Pope directed to a few men to be as Infallible as a Faith-definition So that as many periods as are in the Popes Breves or private Letters so many new Articles of Faith are coined Sixthly he is certain the Pope is Infallible but with what Certainty he knows not Seventhly right or wrong against the Law of God or with it a Judge he holds must be obeyed Eightly he is injurious to the Memory of Mr. Blackwell the Arch-Priest Ninethly he distinguisheth not betwixt Killing and Murthering Lastly he makes the Pope Omniscient Reverend Father Is this Christian Doctrine His Conclusion of the Catechism Examined THis Conclusion of his Book is not unlike the play of Blind-mans-Buff where he strikes at a venture without regard to Friend or Foe then jumps to and fro without any thing of method Will you have a tast of his kindness to his friends Thus then I produced Sixteen of the most considerable of the Society in all France promising to the King under their hands to Subscribe to the Censure of the Sorbon and never to teach against the Sorbon in this point The Censure is that the Doctrine of deposing Kings is false erroneous contrary to the Word of God c. To this Censure he will not own that the men of your Society subscribed but onely that they subscribed to the condemnation of Santarellus whose Book contained more than that If then they did not subscribe to the Censure against deposing Doctrin having so religiously promised it to the King in their declaration of the Sixteenth of March 1626. where is Honesty Is not this to cast dirt upon the
in opposition to his shall be not like him to applaud my self but to referr my Answer to men of impartial Judgment to whom I present this following account First he excludes from an Oath of Allegiance the first and greatest Duty of a Subject to his Soveraign Secondly he is endless in his repetition of the same thing often answered without advance Thirdly he is incorrigibly obstinate against the plain words of the Law Law-maker and practise of the Law Fourthly he minds not Circumstances to understand words by Finally he puts a Reservation where nothing is reserved Reverend Father Is this Christian Doctrine His Nineth Chapter Examined NOthing is more usual with him than to reckon without his Host he is not content to style the Pope Chief Judge in Spiritualls unless it be with the Lustre of Soveraign a Character which may be the Pope himself will not admit and those who maintain a General Council to be above the Pope will not allow Though he supposeth it as a known maxim True it is amongst the Roman-Catholick Prelates the Pope is Chief Judge but they are also Jure Divino Judges So that in the Court of Judicature he is neither Monarch nor Soveraign But suppose he were Soveraign Judge in Spirituals as the King is in Temporalls does it follow from hence that I must rather obey the Pope by refusing the Oath than the King by taking it Yes sayes he because the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of an Oath as a point of conscience lyes within the verge not of a Temporal but Spiritual Jurisdiction If so I believe the new Oath of Allegiance which he offers the King in the name of Catholicks will end in a juggle especially he declaring with certainty the Pope to be Infallible Judge for though it does not renounce the Pope's Power of deposing yet it stands in defiance of that Power and renders it vain ridiculous as never practicable nay the Subject swears by it that he will stand by the King and disobey the Pope if he attempts to depose him And can any man of sence perswade himself that such an Oath can be acceptable to the Pope who claims the deposing power will he ever permit such an Oath without declaring it Unlawful And if he shall declare it Unlawful and by his Breve prohibit it to be taken must he not be obeyed as an Infallible Judge By his Doctrine 't is Evident he ought You see then this Catechist by the offer of his new Oath designs to delude both Pope and King But this answer is only ad hominem My Second Answer more direct is that the King being the sole Judge in Temporals 't is presumed he best knows his own Temporal Concerns and the Extent of his Power as the Pope does his in Spirituals if then in the defence of his Right in Temporals he frames an Oath to be taken by his Subjects and declares as King James did that he requires by that Oath nothing but Civil or Temporal Allegiance and if it be clear unto his Subjects that nothing is comprehended in the Oath but Temporal Allegiance my Answer I say is that it is within the verge of the Temporal Power to judge of the Lawfulness of his own Oath for the Lawfulness depending upon the good or ill design of the Law-maker and the words of the Oath of which himself is the Interpreter the design being only to contain his Subjects within the bounds of their Temporal Duty and the words importing no other than Temporal Allegiance whoever wrests his words from the design and sence by him declared invades his Right Otherwise the Pope asserting his own right or power to depose Kings may and will render all Oaths repugnant to that Power illegitimate For 't is but declaring them to be against his Spiritual Power and all is in his own hand and the question of deposing is at an End Nay at this rate of arguing the Pope may hedge in all things within the Circle of his Jurisdiction for since there is nothing that bears not the badge of Good or Evil Lawful or Unlawful all things must be brought to the Spiritual Court and then what need of Kings when the Spiritual Power alone can govern the Universe Thirdly Admit the Pope were Judge as to the Legality or Illegality of the Oath must his Decision always prevail what if he were impos'd upon by Sycophants as is the fate of all Princes more or less what if he gave too much credit to sinister suggestions as that his Supremacy in Spirituals was invaded his power of Excommunication and his Jurisdiction of Binding and Absolving wrested from him Now that he was in these unhappy circumstances is too evident to those who have perused the Books of the Mis-informers against the Oath all of them using such figg-leaf pretences But let us also allow that there was fair dealing in the Informers may not this Judge be too Indulgent to his own private Opinion and so as to deceive himself and others Undoubtedly he may for on all sides 't is confess'd that Popes may err in their private Opinion and as clear it is that the errour once discover'd nothing can justifie an Obedience to such a Power or Judge when the Crowns and Lives of Princes the Catholick Religion and the Fortunes Liberties and Lives of all Catholick Subjects must otherwise become a sacrifice to his Errour To this great truth I have the Pope himself assenting Innocent the Third a great and wise Prelat who as he is cited by a learned Cardinal Franc. Zabarel de Schism declares thus We are not to obey the Pope when there is a vehement presumption that the state of the Church may be disturbed or other mischiefs like to follow Nay it were a Sin to Obey because every one is bound to prevent future evils Innocent de sent Excomm cap. inquisit But another great Cardinal warrants us in such cases not to obey the Pope though he should proceed even to Excommunication so Panormitanus Alledged by Sylvester in these terms We are not sayes he to obey the Pope if it may be presumed our obedience will trouble the state of the Church or because of any future Evil or Scandal though the Precept were under pain of Excommunication latae sententiae Sylvester ex Panormitan verbo obedientia num 5. Cardinal Tolet a Jesuit avers the same truth Tolet de sept peccat mort cap. 15. in a more ample manner so also many others To take away the Ground upon which I now stand he tells me that 't is the general sentiment of Catholicks that the Pope is Infallible in points of Doctrine First I demand how many Catholicks he has consulted upon this point wherein he is so positive For I believe they will not stand to his engagement at least in so considerable a number To father opinions upon all Divines all Catholicks the whole Church c. are tricks now so common that they will take no longer Secondly that