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
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
faces of his own Fathers But grant saies he they did subscribe to the Censure did they swear to what they subscribed Again where is old Honesty Will not a Religious honest man swear to what he will not refuse to subscribe If what he subscribes to be true what harm is there in due Circumstances to swear it If it be not true what honesty can subscribe to it Is not this still to bespatter his French Fathers He advances thus Can the Subscription of Sixteen Jesuits make the Doctrine of deposing Heretical I answer no. But this argues that some Jesuits have two Faiths in their pockets one for Rome and another for Paris they at Rome professing it to stand with the Word of God and they at Paris declaring it to be against the Word of God and is not this to play at Blind-mans-buff with his own Fathers Next he asks whether the French Oath of Allegiance be the same with the English and he answers himself no but adds that the Oath-teachers use to say it was the same My reply is that if he fancy any such Oath-teachers he may fight against his own dream for I know of none who use to say so nor do I see what great need there is of such a Oath in France for those men of your Society whose Books were burnt in Paris for teaching the deposing Doctrin do restrain the Pope's Power of deposing to the cases of Heresy and Apostacy Now the French Kings living in communion with the Church of Rome and fearing no danger from the deposing Doctrin it may be reason of state in them not to meddle with the Pope's Power in their Oath of Allegiance But should the French Kings recede from the Roman Communion as the Kings of England have done or should the deposing men be found in a secret Conspiracy against their Lives as the Powder-Traitors were at Westminster who acted by the deposing Principles can he tell us what Oath the French King would then frame If he cannot let him learn from the Decrees already made against that Doctrin both by that Church and State When I had in defence of the Oath of Allegiance declared that a Moral Certainty was a sufficient assurance to justify an honest man in his Oath and consequently that there was no necessity that the thing sworn should be so absolutely true in it self that it could not possibly be otherwise for then no Oath or at least but few could be taken but onely that it should be true to the judgment of the Swearer when I say I had declared this the Catechist both in his former print and also now inveighs against me as encouraging the greatest dishonesty imaginable and yet poor man he is lap'st into the same errour but sees it not for he assures us he has the same Certainty in swearing the King to be the right and Lawful King of this Realm as he has of Innocent the 11th being Pope who not-withstanding he confesses may possibly be no Pope as not being Baptized Ordained or being simoniacally Elected c which is not to swear the truth of a thing in it self but as it is in the swearers judgment who has for warrant of his honesty a moral Certainty whatever the truth in it self may possibly be Is not this to play at blind-buff and contradict himself At the winding up of his Catechism he propounds to himself a question of all hitherto it may be the most Important 'T is thus How comes it to pass saies he that the Pope's Declaration binds to a Compliance 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 and he answers himself in the words following because saies he the Law of God obliges me not to take an Unlawful Oath and the Law of God is indispensable Now the Pope declares my Obligation of not taking the Oath to be a part of God's Law from whence it follows that 't is indispensable On the contrary the Precepts of the Church are dispensable and oblige not to the forfeiture of Lives and Fortunes The Question put I confess is clear and easy but in his answer he confounds himself though from both I conclude his sence must be thus that the Oath is not therefore indispensable because it is prohibited by the Pope for that would not oblige us with the hazard of Lives and Fortunes but because it is against the Law of God antecedent to the Pope's prohibition and the Pope now as God's Vicar declares it to be so and consequently 't is Indispensable This I say must be his sence if he has any For when he tells us that God obligeth us not to take an unlawful Oath the Question returns what makes an Oath Unlawfull If it be the Pope's prohibition onely that 's dispensable if it be the Law of God antecedent to the Pope's prohibition 't is therefore indispensable This being so I ask whether this prohibition or declaration of the Pope be a definition of Faith or no If it be where is the thing defined without which 't is impossible there should be a Definition Besides is not every man free to maintain any one clause or proposition of the Oath without doing the least injury to the Popes prohibition or declaration For whoever affirms that the Pope's Prohibition falls upon any particular Clause is too rash as not having any warrant from the Pope for his bold Assertion Since then every part of the Oath may separately be maintain'd without infringing the Pope's Prohibition how can the Prohibition of the Oath be a Definition of Faith Clearly then the Pope's declaration by his Breves is bottom'd upon his own private Opinion unto which though all due respect is to be pay'd yet why it should oblige the Catholicks of England with the loss of Liberty Fortunes and Lives since he owns the precepts of the Church do not I expect to be instructed by another Catechism nor do I think he values his own life so little as to hazard it upon the private Opinion of the Pope though never so Learned and Holy But if he will he must pardon others who are not of his mind To convince him that some Breves of Popes may pass un-obey'd I instanced in Nicolas John Caelestin Alexander and most particularly in Boniface the Eight who in his Bull against the French King declared himself not only Supream in Spirituals but also in Temporals and that all were Hereticks who held otherwise To these Objections he sends me to Bellarmin to receive my Answer and I at the same time sent him and another to Withrington and to John Barclay Father and Son who to a tittle have made good the Objection against Bellarmin To say as he does that those Errours were the private Opinions of Popes is to yield the cause and own that Popes may err in their private Opinions and consequently that his Commands such as is the prohibition
and absolving Sinners is the great Work of the Hierarchy of the Church of which neither are these few Men of the Consult nor the whole Body of the Society any part The last Article of this Decree relating to too much facility or morosity in absolving Penitents is somewhat ambidextrous and seems to afford a case for every rich man's Conscience It wants an Oedipus to clear it's sence but if Practice be the best interpreter of words there will be found who will construe it thus If a powerful or wealthy man comes to Confession and having taken the Oath will not recant and renounce it then to dismiss him without Absolution shall be esteemed too much morosity but if a weak or poor man comes then to Absolve him without recanting or renouncing it shall be deemed too much facility which manner of carriage savours too strong of Prudentia Carnis Some of the Society have taken this way to cloud the Oath of Allegiance We do not say they make the Pope his own judge in the case betwixt himself and the King as to the deposing Power but only as to the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the Oath which being an act of Religion 't is his part to judge of it This I say is a manifest elusion of the Oath and collusion with the world For if the Pope owns in himself a right to depose the King 't is evident he may and will declare all Oaths Unlawful that stood in his way and are repugnant to his presumed right nay he may frame an Oath and being the only Judge of the Lawfulness of his own Oath oblige all Catholicks to swear that he has power to depose the King which is to make him Absolute Judge of the Deposing Power Thus you see these Catechists and Framers of Decrees give us many hollow-hearted words concerning Allegiance which when we come to grasp them slip through our fingers vanish into Ayr and signify just nothing The Subscription of threescore Doctors of the Sorbon to the Oath of Allegiance vindicated against some frivolous Exceptions WHen a Man is seized with the itch of Cavelling nothing can escape his Nails but though his itch be incurable and his Nails will grow yet they may be pared The Doctors of Sorbon who have Subscribed to the Oath of Allegiance offer'd to do it without any explanation but being advised to declare themselves upon that part of the Oath wherein some tender Consciences scrupl'd they freely â—omply'd and sign'd an Explanation thus faithfully translated into English The Subscription of the Sorbon Doctors VVE under written Divines and Doctors â—f the Sacred Faculty of Paâ—is do judge the Oath as it is in the other page conceived may with safety of Faith and Conscience be taken by English Catholicks so that the words Deposed and Murthered in the proposition which is of the deposition and murther of Princes and which is condemned as Heretical be taken jointly nay also though separately so notwithstanding that the Heretical proposition for as much as it asserts that Princes may be Deposed be taken materially that is contrary to the word of God and formally also for as much as it adds that they may be Murthered This Declaration or Subscription was given by threescore at least of the Sorbon Doctours and is now the Subject of Cavill Long it was before these Cavillers would own to their friends in England that the Doctors had subscribed and even to this day some of them do out-face the Sun but whosoever now will be any longer deceived is infatuated Those who are conscious to the truth of this Subscription and cannot longer conceal it have still for refuge their little arts to elude it which shall be laid open in these following paragraphs Some say they Parisian Divines famous as well for Piety as Learning do make little or no account of the foresaid Subscription for these following reasons Before I weigh the reasons 't is expedient to clear their terms for I see I have to do with men well skill'd in the equivocating craft First then I beseech them to declare who these Parisian Divines are so famous for Piety and Learning for words are no payment Are they the Divines of the Faculty of Paris or are they the Divines of the Society of Jesuites for both may be Parisian Divines but both are not of the Faculty of Paris If they be of the Society 't is well known that Books printed by some of them asserting the deposing Doctrin were condemned both by the Church and State and ordered to be burnt in Paris and the whole order banisht thence upon that account so that they are not the men to be consulted in this case the Oath being destructive to that Doctrin Though at this present there is reason to believe that the men of that Society in France are of a different judgment from their brethren elsewhere But if they be Divines of the Faculty of Paris what warrant is there under their hands for it For to believe that these renowned Divines would renounce that so ancient and and famous Censure brought by the whole University against Deposing Doctrin declaring it to be new false erroneous against the word of God as they must do if they value not this subscription requires more than the bare words of the asserters I shall also examine their pretended reasons for although they give out that 't is the voice of Jacob yet I doubt not but to evince that the hands be of Esau The first reason is because this Subscription does formally contradict two Breves of Paul the fifth decreeing with deliberation that it is not Lawful for Catholicks with a safe Conscience to take the foresaid Oath since it contains many tbings repugnant to â—aith c. What likelihood is there that this reason should be urged by any Divines of Sorbon who could not be ignorant that at the same time the whole University of Sorbon declared against the Deposing Doctrin as new false eroneous contrary to the word of God some Popes had before assumed that Power and did attempt both by Breves and Bulls too to put it in execution Besides what is more familiar to the Sorbon than to assert the Doctrins of the Gallican Church and the Authority of their Kings against any Breve or Bull whatsoever Nay the French Jesuits themselves have by long experience found it now expedient to disobey the Popes Breves or Bulls which are not consistent with the Policy of France as is manifested in the cases of father Meimbourg the French Kings historian and the Jesuits of Tholouse in point of the Regalia To fix then this reason upon the Divines of Sorbon or the Jesuits of France is to impose upon them The second Reason is Because the Proposition in which the whole difficulty is found cannot be taken jointly but separately as the words are and this truth is shewen by the Learned Perot I am glad to hear the whole difficulty of the Oath is reduced