Withrington's expresse Grounds and Doctrine plunge themselves and their reader into in descanting upon this one point of the Oath They tell us that by this clause is not denied the Pope's Authority to command but onely his Power to authorize in Temporals in order to a Spirituall good or to declare that they who have Authority to depose or to make war are bound to use their Temporal Authority and to draw the Temporal sword when the necessity of the Church and Spiritual good of Souls shall require the same for that this Authority to declare and command doth not exceed the limits of a Spiritual power Thus these Learned Persons Let me here intreat the courteous Reader to lend me his eyes and attention to help me out For if Temporal Princes as is here supposed have Power and Authority to invade or annoy forrein Princes or their Countries nay to depose them when the good of Souls and necessity of the Church shall require it if the Pope is to be Judge of this necessity and to declare when against whom and upon what occasion the Temporal sword is to act its part by invading or annoying the delinquent Prince his Person or State if I say the Pope hath Power though not to authorize yet to declare and not onely to declare but to command the doing of all this as being in the line of Spirituality and within the vierge of an Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction truly my opinion is and I think every sober and disinteressed Judgment will upon due reflexion subscribe to the same that this Doctrine as it contributes little to the Security of Princes and as little to the satisfaction of intelligent Readers so it is not every one can easily understand or be able to reconcile it to truth and its self for if I mistake not it foully clashes with both For since we are here treating of the Legality or Illegality of an Oath and what we may or may not safely swear or abjure what can seemingly have more of the Riddle or less to the purpose in it then to be gravely told for our instruction and the quieting of our Consciences that we may lawfully abjure the Pope's Power of Authorizing but not in any wise abjure his Power of Commanding a forrein Prince to invade or annoy His Majesty or His Kingdoms Again that we may safely swear the Pope hath no Power to Depose Princes but that we must not abjure his Power of Commanding others to depose them Alas and is not this a much mistaken favour a mere mock-pretence of Security to Crowned heads and of ease and relief to troubled Consciences wholly built upon this nice and ambiguous Distinction of Authorizing and Commanding A Distinction in this case so subtile that it is impossible to find where the difference lies and is therefore in very deed no Distinction at all either in respect of the King to whom it is all one and His perill or ruine undistinguishably the same whether He be invaded and deposed by the Pope's Authority or onely by his Command Neither is it any Distinction in respect of the Swearer who cannot securely nor without a self-contradiction from which this Distinction can never clear him swear that the Pope hath not any Power and Authority to depose Princes if he have Power and Authority to command others to depose them because this authoritative injunction of his is enough to intitle him to the fact and his very Commanding others to depose both makes and denominates him the Deposer Besides all this if it be true what these Authours assume that Temporall Princes have when the good of Souls and the necessity of the Church requires it Power to depose one another how can any man being of this opinion lawfully swear the Pope hath not any such Power who as we all know is a mixt person and as well a Temporal Prince as a Spiritual Pastour and therefore it would argue great partiality in this Doctrine wholly to exclude him at least as he is a Temporal Prince from his share in the Deposing power from whence it would finally follow that the Oath could not be taken without a distinction of different formalities in the same person that is without distinguishing the Pope as Pope from himself as he is a Temporal Prince and then also the two formalities being at odds the Temporal Prince would be the more powerfull Pope of the two These and the like entangled Positions I take to be clearly consequential and absolutely necessary inferences from the aforesaid dark and perplexed discourse of these Authours Now the use and advantage the Reader may please to make hereof is this sober and wholesome reflexion That since Withrington who bestowed much pains and since large and learned Comments upon the Oath since he I say whilst he pretends to explain one of the Branches of that very Point wherein the Substance of the Oath consists according to the Authour of the Questions leads us into such a Labyrinth of thorny and insignificant Distinctions cross and thwarting Niceties of words as that a more then ordinary clue of reason and attention is necessary to wind us out what consciencious and considerate person of less leisure industry learning and other abilities then Withrington was seriously pondering this Oath shall hope he understands what he is to abjure or dare to abjure what he understands not CHAP. VII The just Plea of Conscience in refusing to abjure the Deposing doctrine consider'd with the like reference to the Depositions of Popes as of Kings I Am much taken with the seasonable advice and wholesome caution I find in the Fourth of the Controversial Letters which I shall elsewhere have occasion to quote more at large Princes and Bishops saith this Gentleman pag. 8. are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not touched without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty It was under the warrant of this apology to my own thoughts and the confidence of my Reader 's candour that I first engaged in this Discourse and that now for his farther satisfaction to shew that there is nothing of any Popishly-affected partiality in the refusing this abjuring Oath but that our Recusancy is wholly grounded upon sound Reason and upright Conscience I shall compare the unlawfulness of abjuring the Pope's Deposing power with the like unlawfulness of abjuring the Power of deposing Popes both these Powers· being alike controvertible amongst some of the Learned whereof divers do freely and openly teach that Popes may be deposed as well as Kings and for the like cause For which end I shall here advance and confront in their severall instances two Propositions of a more large and comprehensive nature in relation to the Deposing power as first That there is absolutely no Power or Authority upon earth either Spiritual or Temporal to depose Kings let the cause or pretence be what it will secondly That there is absolutely no such Power or Authority upon earth Spiritual or
Protestants in their publick Votes in Parliament whether I say this Scandal if any remains be not rather acceptum then datum like to that which Christian Religion lay under among the Iews for transgressing their Ceremonies and consequently not to be taken notice of 37. Consider Secondly whether should all Catholicks concurre to take the Oath Protestants would not in all probability attribute this their concurrence rather to a desire of their safety or of some particular Interest then to the Principles of their Religion as they have and do yet attribute the constant and general Loyalty of the Catholicks in the late Wars not to the Tenets of their Religion but to the Generosity of their minds or desire of their Security as they have published in their Books and Sermons Nay some as I hear have said the same already of Catholicks that have taken the Oath So that the taking of the Oath is ineffectual for the End pretended since Protestants would not therefore have a better opinion of our Religion but worse opinion of Catholicks who take the Oath as professing a Religion to whose Principles as by Protestants understood they are ashamed to conform And if so then consider whether probably speaking Protestants are not more scandalized at Catholicks who take the Oath as not standing in their opinion to the Maximes of the Religion they profess and as denying an exteriour Compliance with the express Commands of him whom they acknowledge to be their Supreme Pastour which Compliance even Protestants grant to be due to the Pastours of the Church then at Catholicks who refuse it which Refusal Protestants ascribe not to any want of Loyalty in them whereof they have sufficient proofs already but to some scruple of Conscience or to the Submission they think themselves obliged to pay to the Ordinances of the Pope And one may easily gather by what is set down in a Letter to a Parliament-man lately printed concerning Peter Walsh who amongst those who profess themselves to be Catholicks seems now to be the onely man who openly and in print vindicates the taking this Oath one may gather I say by what is couched in that Letter what opinion Protestants have of such Catholicks who though they acknowledge the Pope to be their Supreme Pastour yet justify the taking this Oath against several express Prohibitions of the Pope So that by taking the Oath the Scandal if any is not removed from our Religion but rather a new Scandal is fastened upon Catholicks that take it 38. Consider Thirdly whether Protestants are not of opinion that the Supremacy in Spiritualls is inherent and annexed to the Crown as has been declared in Parliament and consequently that as long as Catholicks refuse the Oath of Supremacy which they must doe as long as they will be Catholicks they refuse to acknowledge the Supremacy of His Majesty in Temporalls and His Crown For whosoever refuses to acknowledge any thing inherent and annexed to the Crown refuses at least implicitly to acknowledge the Crown and his Loyalty thereunto So that as long as we remain Catholicks we shall be accounted by Protestants not loyal Subjects in our Tenets whatsoever we be in our Practices 39. Consider Fourthly whether such Catholicks as take the Oath whilst ineffectually they pretend to remove the Scandal Protestants have so unjustly conceived of our Religion by taking the Oath do not create a just Scandal in other Catholicks who refuse it seeing how they slight the expresse Order of their Supreme Head in Ecclesiastical matters 40. Concerning the Case contained in the Objection wherein the Opponent supposes that the Pope should forbid us to bear Civil Allegeance to His Majesty due unto Him by the Law of God and of Nature or should declare such an Allegeance to be Sinfull Consider First that supposing as we do suppose that His Majesty is our Sovereign in all Civil and Temporal Concerns and that not onely in order to the Civil Power but also to the exercise thereof to deny unto Him Civil Allegeance due unto Him by the Law of God and Nature is manifestly Sinfull and in matters manifestly Sinfull we are not bound to obey the Ordinances of our Superiours whether Spiritual or Temporal Nay it would be Heretical to prohibit a meer Civil Allegeance in that supposition or declare it unlawfull and a Pope that should teach an Heresy or become an Heretick would according to the common consent of Divines cease to be Pope and consequently his Orders in that case were not to be obeyed 41. Consider Secondly whether it be reasonable that because there may be feigned a case or cases wherein the Pope or any other Superiour Ecclesiastical or Civil might command a thing manifestly Sinfull and therefore not to be done we should upon that account deny Obedience to the Commands of the Pope or any other lawfull Superiour in matters evidently or at least probably lawfull And the forbearance of this Oath which is onely enjoyned us in the forementioned Briefs as has been shewn is manifestly or probably lawfull as our Adversaries seem to confess 42. Consider Thirdly that the Popes have been so far from forbidding Catholicks to render Civil Obedience to His Majesty His Royal Father and Grandfather Kings of England that rather they have several times and in terms very significant charged the English Catholicks to render to their Majesties all Civil Allegeance and Obedience Neither have the Popes declared any of their Majesties deprived of their Crown Nay never any Pope as some have well advertised has declared any Heretical Prince brought up alwaies in that Profession as the three forementioned Kings were brought up Protestants deprived of their Dominions Neither do the Popes in the above-mentioned Briefs whereby they prohibit the taking of this Oath declare in expresse terms that they have any Authority to Depose Hereticall Princes and much less do they oblige us to swear or to make any acknowledgement that they have any such Authority but onely they enjoyn us a meer forbearance of the Oath the taking whereof is not properly as has been shewed above any Act of Civil Allegeance or at least of bare Civil Allegeance 43. Concerning the meer Civil Allegeance pretended to be contained in this Oath and that alone Consider First whether whatsoever a Prince is pleased to put into an Oath which he terms an Oath of Allegeance is to be held as appertaining to meer Civil Allegeance and whether the Refusers thereof are to be lookt upon as Refusers of Civil Allegeance As for instance if an Oath intitled an Oath of meer Civil Allegeance were framed wherein were expresly denied a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate any of His Majestie 's Subjects in any case whatsoever or to direct them in Spiritual affairs sure no Catholick would say that such an Oath did contain meer Civil Allegeance though the Prince by whose order it was framed should term it an Oath of Civil Allegeance or that the Refusers thereof were guilty of
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
will likewise have Power to Depose Princes and what a fine case are Princes in if their Power lies at the mercy of every insolent or peevish Bishop If it be not by the Power of Excommunication by what Power is it that the Prince is Deposed by the Pope Is it by virtue of Pasce oves and Dabo tibi Claves That Prince's case is extremely to be pitied that hath no better Security for his Power then what the Pope hath for his from those places in the judgment of the most ingenuous persons of the Roman Communion And it seems a very hard case that Princes should lose their unquestionable Rights for the sake of so doubtfull an Authority at best as that of the Popes especially over Princes is And it is so much the more hard with them because no private person loses his Estate by Excommunication and yet Princes must lose their Kingdoms by it This is indeed no Court Holy-water nor a design to flatter Princes but such horrible Injustice and Partiality that it is a wonder to me the Princes of Christendom have not long since combined together to dethrone him who thinks it in his power to depose them thereby making himself the Caliph of the Western Babylon And so no doubt they would have done had it not been for the difference of Interests among Christian Princes that have made some therefore side with and uphold the Papal Monarchy because others opposed it and every one hopes at one time or other to make use of it for his own turn But yet methinks it is their common Interest to secure themselves against the prevalency of this dangerous Doctrine on their own Subjects for all those who believe it are but Conditional Subjects to their Princes for their Obedience depends on the Will and Pleasure of another whom they think themselves bound absolutely to obey and yet not bound to believe he did right in Excommunicating and Deposing their Prince For they dare not say he is Infallible in his Proceedings against Princes so that right or wrong they must obey the Pope and disobey their lawfull Sovereign If the Pope through Pride or Passion or Interest or Misinformation thunder out Excommunication against a Christian Prince all which they say he is capable of in pronouncing this dreadfull Sentence then all his Subjects are presently free from their Allegeance and they may doe what they please against him And what a miserable condition were Sovereign Princes in if all Christians were such Fools to think themselves bound to obey an unjust Sentence of the Bishop of Rome against their just and lawfull Prince For upon these Principles though the Popes be never so much Parties they must be the onely Iudges in this case And what redress is to be expected there where it is so much the Interest of the person concerned to have it believed he cannot erre If these were really the terms of Princes being admitted to Christianity it would make the most considerable Argument to perswade them to Infidelity For what have they to doe to judge them that are without But Princes have no cause to be afraid of being Christians for the sake of this Doctrine For if Christ and his Apostles were the best Teachers of Christianity this is certainly no part of it For the Religion they taught never meddled with Crowns and Scepters but left to Caesar the things that were Caesar's and never gave the least intimation to Princes of any Forfeiture of their Authority if they did not render to God the things that are God's The Christian Religion left mankind under those Forms and Rules of Civil Government in which it found them it onely requires all men of what rank or order soever to be subject to the Higher Powers because they are the Ordinance of God and bids all Christians pray for them in Authority that under them they may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty Thus far the Christian Religion goes in these matters and thus the Primitive Christians believed and practised when their Religion was pure and free from the Corruptions and Usurpations which the Interests and Passions of men introduced in the following Ages And how then come Princes in these latter times to be Christians upon worse and harder terms then in the best Ages of it But how doth it appear that Princes do become Christians upon such Conditions that if the Pope Excommunicate them they lose their Crowns What Office of Baptism is this contained in Did their Godfathers and Godmothers undertake this for them No that is not said but that it is implied in the nature of the thing How so Is it because Dominion is founded in Grace No not that neither But in my mind there is very little difference between Dominion being founded in Grace and being forfeited for want of it And so we are come about to the Fanatick Principles of Government again which this Deposing power in the Pope doth naturally lead men to But this is not all the Mischief of this Doctrine For 2. It breaks all Bonds and Oaths of Obedience how sacred and solemn soever they have been That we may the better apprehend the pernicious consequence of this Doctrine we are to consider 1. That there is a mutual Duty owing between Princes and Subjects on the account of the Relation between them such as doth naturally arise from it and antecedently to their embracing the Christian Religion For without an obligation to Obedience on the Subjects part the Authority of a Prince is an insignificant thing and the publick good of the Society cannot be obtained 2. That when Subjects are Absolved from their Oaths of Allegeance by the Pope they are thereby declared free from that natural Duty they were obliged to before For Allegeance to Princes doth not flow from the Relation between them and the People as Christians but as Members of a Civil Society and therefore the Absolving Subjects from that is in plain terms nulling the Obligation to a natural Duty and taking away the force of Oaths and Promises 3. That all mankind are agreed that it is a Sin to break a lawfull Oath and the more solemn and weighty the Oath is the greater the Perjury but in case of the Pope's Absolving Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance it must be said that that which otherwise would be a Sin becomes none and a notorious Crime becomes a Duty because done by virtue of the Pope's Authority This is that now we are to understand if possible what Authority that is in the Pope which can turn Evil into Good and Good into Evil that can make Civil Obedience to Princes to be a Crime and Perjury to be none This is an admirable Power and greater then the Schoolmen will allow to God himself where there is intrinsick Goodness in the nature of the thing and inseparable Evil from the contrary to it For say they Divine Providence being supposed God cannot but forbid those
evil actions which natural reason discovers to be evil for how can the Hatred of God or a wilfull Lie be any other then evil The same I say of Disobedience to Parents and violation of Oaths lawfully made which are things evil in their own nature The Question now is whether the Pope can doe that which they say God himself cannot viz. make Perjury not to be a Sin For an Oath of Allegeance cannot be denied to be a lawfull Oath and a lawfull Oath lays an obligation on Conscience to the performance of it and gives another a just right to challenge that Allegeance as a Duty by virtue of his Oath and where-ever there is a necessary Duty God himself saith Aquinas cannot dispense for then he would act contrary to the Rule of Eternal Righteousness which he can never doe It is true they grant that God in regard of his Supreme Dominion can alter the matter or circumstances of things as in Abraham's sacrificing his Son upon God's particular Command which in those circumstances was not Murther but this they say well is no Dispensation with the Law nor any act of Iurisdiction as a Legislator but onely an act of Supreme Power But our Question is onely about Dispensing with the force and obligation of a Law of Nature such as keeping our Oaths undoubtedly is And since God himself is not allowed the Power of dispensing it seems very strange how the Pope should come by it unless it were out of a desire to exalt himself above all that is called God Thomas Aquinas saith that there can be no Dispensation to make a man doe any thing against his Oath for saith he keeping an Oath is an indispensable divine precept but all the force of a Dispensation lies in altering the matter of an Oath which being variable may be done To clear this in every Oath are three things to be considered 1. the Obligation upon the person to perform what he swears to 2. the Right which the person hath to challenge that performance to whom the Oath is made 3. the interest which God hath as Supreme Judge to see to the performance and to punish the breakers of it Now which of these is it the Pope's Dispensation in a promissory Oath doth fall upon Surely the Pope doth not challenge to himself God's Supreme Power of punishing or not punishing Offenders so that if men do break their Oaths if they have the Pope's Dispensation they do not fear the punishment of Perjured persons I am willing to believe this is not their meaning It must therefore be one of the former But then how comes the Pope to have power to give away another man 's natural Right A man swears Allegeance to his Prince by virtue of which Oath the Prince challenges his Allegeance as a sworn Duty and so it is according to all Rules of common Reason and Justice The Pope he dispenseth with this Oath and absolveth the person from this Allegeance i. e. the Pope gives away the Prince's Right whether he will or no. Is not this great Justice and infinitely becoming God's Vicar upon earth But how came the Pope by that Right of the Prince which he gives away The Right was a just and natural Right belonging to him on a meer civil account what Authority then hath the Pope to dispose of it May he not as well give away all the just Rights of men to their Estates as those of Princes to their Crowns The very plain Truth is the Defenders of the Pope's indirect Power are forced to shuffle and cut and make unintelligible distinctions and in effect to talk non-sense about this matter The onely men that speak sense are those who assert the Pope in plain Terms to have a direct Temporal Monarchy and that all Kings are their Subjects and Vasalls and therefore they may dispose of their Crowns and doe what they please with them We know what these men would have and if Princes be tame enough to submit to this Power they own the Pope as their true Sovereign Lord and must rule or not rule at his Pleasure But it is impossible for those who contend onely for Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Pope to defend his Power of Absolving Subjects from their Allegeance to Princes since this Power of altering the matter is not an act of Iurisdiction but of meer Power as was said before as to God himself in the case of Abraham Therefore those who contend onely for the Pope's dispensing with Oaths of Allegeance on the account of his Spiritual Jurisdiction can never justify the giving away the natural Rights of Princes for that is an act of Power and not of Iurisdiction And Cajetan well observes that the relaxation of an Oath by altering the matter is an act of direct Power because the thing it self is immediately under the power of the person as in a Father over his Son or a Lord over his Vassall and therefore the Dispensing with the Oath of Allegeance cannot be by the alteration of the matter unless a direct Power over Princes be asserted Cajetan laies down a good Rule about Dispensing with Oaths that in them we ought to see that no prejudice be done to the person to whom and for whose sake they are made and therefore he saith the Pope himself hath not that Power over Oaths which he hath over Vows And yet Maldonat saith that neither the Pope nor the whole Church can dispense in a solemn Vow and that a Dispensation in such cases is no less then an Abrogation of the Law of God and Nature Dominicus à Soto saith that although the Pope may dispense in a Vow yet he cannot in an Oath For saith he the Pope cannot relax an Oath which one man hath made to another of paying to him what he owes him which ariseth from the nature of the Contract which is confirmed by an Oath The Pope having not the Power to take away from another man that which doth belong to him cannot doe him so much injury as to relax the Oath which is made to him And in the loosing of Oaths care ought to be taken that there be no injury to a third person Afterwards he puts this case whether if the Pope dispenseth with an Oath without just cause that Dispensation will free a man from Perjury Which he denies for this Reason because a Dispensation cannot hold in the Law of God or Nature Therefore since it is a Law of God that a man should perform what he swears although that Bond doth arise from the will and consent of the party yet it cannot be dissolved without sufficient Reason But what reason can be sufficient he determines not However we have gained thus much that the Pope cannot take away the Right of a third person which he must doe if he can Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance to their Prince which is as much due to him as a summe of money is to a Creditor I
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
to the Substance of the Oath taking for the measure of its Notion the rule and standard the Authour of the Questions hath already given us saying that the Substance of the Oath is the Denying and abjuring the Pope's power to depose Princes Here then lies the grand Case here is the principal Question Whether a Catholick may I do not say barely deny but deny by Oath and universally abjure the Pope's power to depose Princes Concerning which Question first as I meet with nothing either in the Authour or Publisher of the Questions which in my judgement does in the least evince the affirmative so secondly I think enough is said by both to conclude manifestly for the negative to wit That no Catholick can safely admit of and take the Substance of the Oath even as the case is understood and stated in the Authour 's own terms This I shall endeavour with all possible clearness and brevity to make out in the first place and afterwards set down and answer the Grounds the Authour of the Questions proceeds on which are principally three 1. The Censure of many famous French Universities denying rejecting and condemning the Doctrine of the Pope's Deposing power as new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God pernicious seditious and detestable 2. The Subscription of the French Iesuits to two of the most remarkable of these Censures 3. The Practice of the Clergy the religious and the wiser sort of the Laiety in other Countries when the Pope makes war or any other way contends with their Sovereign Princes or States All which being put together to the end it may appear how far the Argument even in its full and united strength is from reaching our Case let it be once more remembred that the state of our Question is not Whether a Catholick may deny reject censure and condemn the Pope's Power to depose Princes which yet is the utmost that can be proved by warrant of these forrein Precedents but Whether he may safely deny reject censure and condemn by his Oath and universally abjure this Deposing doctrine This is that which the Authour of the Questions affirms that which he calls the very Substance of the Oath and that for which I am sure no French University quoted by him no Subscription of the Iesuits no Practice of the Clergy the religious and the wiser sort of the Laiety in other Countries afford us so much as any single instance CHAP. II. Why it cannot be safe either to swear to the Deposing doctrine as true or to abjure it as false SInce it is but even more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish and that experience the easiest and clearest of arguments puts it but too sadly beyond dispute that this grand Controversy Whether the Pope hath any Power and 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 in their subtile and notionall way of reasoning And what Trithemius recorded to posterity above 500 years agoe that Scholastici certant adhuc sub Iudice lis est utrùm Papa posset Imperatorem deponere may for ought we know 500 years hence be as much a question and as far from ending as now it is whereas even in our days the Controversy finds but too many stirr Champions and Abettors to maintain the quarrell and keep life in the debate by their warm and smart contests no clear and authoritative decision of the Point yet appearing to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce Since likewise when a Point is thus in dispute amongst Catholick Princes some of them peremptorily denying and hotly opposing what others as positively assert and vigorously maintain and this openly avowedly and in the face of the world no one can determinately swear to either side of the point in dispute as true nor warrantably abjure the other as false for this were to swear a thing as true or to abjure it as false which is confessedly in dispute whether it be so or no which is never lawfull From hence I conceive that for the deciding of our Question Whether a Catholick may lawfully abjure the Pope's Deposing power and authority there needs no more then barely to suppose that it is a Question whether the Pope hath any such Power and Authority or no. For here one Question resolves the other grant this second to be a Question the first will be none For if it be a Question whether the Pope hath any such Power and Authority or no no man can safely swear that without all question he hath none I say without all question because what we swear as true ought to be unquestionably such otherwise we fall under the guilt and sacrilege of Perjury For a more full evidence and farther clearing of this so important a Truth namely That the swearing or abjuring a controverted doctrinall Point unavoidably draws upon us the execrable guilt of Perjury let us consider the difference of Oaths in generall and the different parts of the Oath of Allegeance in particular Of Oaths some are assertory others promissory An assertory Oath is when we positively say such or such a thing is true or false and then bind this saying of ours with an Oath A promissory Oath is that whereby we engage to doe what we promise or to leave undone what we promise not to doe and thereupon give our Oath as a bond of performance The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath partly assertory as where it is affirmed that the Pope hath not any Power or Authority to depose the King or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries or to discharge any of his Subjects from their Allegeance c. partly promissory as namely where the Swearer engages that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or to be made against the King his Heirs or Successours he will bear faith and true allegeance to them he will defend them to the utmost of his power against all conspiracies or attempts whatsoever That which here principally falls under consideration is the nature of an assertory Oath in which Oath it is essentially requisite that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true and all little enough for the securing us against God's and Truth 's sworn enemy Perjury which abominable sin is defined by the Schools to be a Lie confirmed by Oath And to lie saith St. Austin is to speak against that which a man thinks in his mind or conscience or as we usually express it when a man speaks not as he thinks viz. when there lies a secret check and contradiction in the breast to what is uttered by the mouth Put these two together and the case stands thus To speak contrary to what a man thinks in his conscience is according to true morals the definition of a Lie and to
to the other But if he do abjure as absolutely he doth if he takes the Oath this same abjuring is the very charge of Perjury which is now under my pen and as I conceive inevitable by reason that the necessary knowledge certainty and assurance of the truth of what he swears or of the falsehood of what he abjures without which every such assertory Oath necessarily ends in Perjury is not to be had nor expected whilst this speculative Point remains under dispute a dispute as experience too clearly testifies not yet effectually determined by any publick nor I am sure determinable by any private authority as shall appear yet more fully in the next Chapter CHAP. IV. A Continuation of the former Discourse shewing the manifest unlawfulness as of Swearing so of Abjuring the Deposing power A Duty we owe to the Pope saith the Authour of the Questions a Duty to the King both commanded by God both obliging under sin yet both confined to their proper limits too much of the Temporal may be ascribed to Popes too much of the Spiritual to Kings too much may be challenged by both All which is most true but the difficulty is when these two Supreme Powers contest as actually they do concerning Power in Temporalls who shall then be Judge The Pope claims a Deposing power the King denies it if the Pope be Judge the Deposing power will carry it if the King it will be cast If we consult or appeal to the authority of the Learned and bring the cause to their bar there is nothing but noise censures and loud disagreements Bellarmin and Suarez write for the Deposing power and are condemned at Paris Barkly and Withrington appear against it and are condemned at Rome the Censurers all this while on both sides professing a previous mature and impartial examination of the Books and Doctrines they condemn Caron the laborious defender of the first Remonstrance in his loyalty asserted what betwixt Canonists and Divines Schoolmen and Fathers Popes Councils Universities and Kingdomes is said to have made a catalogue of more then 250 Opposers of the Deposing doctrine On the contrary what number of favourers and abettors there are for it may appear by this that even the Authour of the 8 th Controversial Letter tells us pag. 5. that the face of Authority is on that side and again pag. 7. that of Learned men those who write of this subject write generally in favour of it as likewise the Authour of the Questions in his Preface acknowledgeth the Maintainers of the Deposing power to be the more numerous party and that he himself sides with the few against the many and withall granteth pag. 24. that this act of Deposing Kings hath not onely been done by Popes but approved by Councils If we step over into France there we are strangely surprized with instances on both sides Behold in the year 1626. Eight Universities of that Realm declare smartly against the Deposing power and yet but a few years before viz. in the year 1614. in the General Assembly of the Three Estates in which were present 5 Cardinals 7 Archbishops and 47 Bishops besides many other learned Ecclesiasticks and Dignitaries of the Gallican Church two parts of three of this great Representative of that Kingdome were of another mind and so far from hearkening to or countenancing the hot Proposalls that were made against the Deposing doctrine that they left it in possession as they found it of whatsoever right or title it could pretend to What now shall the private Christian and loyal Subject doe who passionately desireth to share himself in all humble duty between God and Caesar what I say shall he doe in this unfortunate competition of the two grand Powers Shall he by his single sufficiency dare to assume to himself the right of judicature and boldly swear either for or against the Deposing power and to pass a decisive sentence under Oath that the Pope hath or hath not the Power in contest Were I worthy to offer my advice in this particular I should conceive it much more pertinent and proper for him seriously to consider with himself whether an act of this nature be not the same or rather indeed much worse then if a stander by upon hearing an Assembly of grave Divines or Counsellours learned in the Law all of them much above his size and abilities in their respective professions warmly debating a perplext Law-case or sturdy knot in Divinity should by a rash and unlicensed confidence take upon him the Umpirage of the cause and without any more adoe bluntly swear these men are in the right and the other in the wrong or the others are in the right and these in the wrong And whether he proceed not upon as meer a blind peradventure whatever part of the contradiction he swears in this last case and that it be not as slippery a piece of pure contingency in him whether he hit or miss as if upon the sight of an handfull of Guinnies he should all at a venture swear odde or even for a wager since that he hath no true knowledge for his guidance nor the least degree of certainty to steer by or fix him CHAP. V. A farther confirmation of the premisses ALL this which I have hitherto discoursed is no more then what is evidently deducible from and throughly grounded in the Principles and Concessions of those Learned persons who utterly deny the Pope hath any Power to depose Princes who yet neither do nor can make out a title and claim for their Doctrine to any higher pretence or degree then that of Opinion and in this I presume I shall speak the sense of all if I say it is never lawfull nor justifiably safe to swear to an Opinion as true nor to abjure an Opinion as false speaking as here I do of such free and debatable Tenets as are openly and avowedly held and taught by Catholick Divines divided amongst themselves in their private sentiments and School-disputes because no one of these Opinions can sufficiently answer for its own truth nor secure the officious Swearer who lends it his Oath that he goes Christianly and groundedly to work whether side soever of the Opinion he makes choice of to be sworn or abjur'd For it is not in Opinions as in things which we know by clear and certain evidence as it happens in those early and fair Notions implanted in us by nature from the first glimmering of Reason called First Principles as that Every whole is greater then a part of the whole It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time c. which great Maxims of Nature sufficiently speak for and evidence themselves without the help of Syllogisms moods or figure and are no sooner understood then readily and necessarily assented unto Nor is it in Opinions as in certain scientifical Deductions and demonstrative Conclusions partly flowing connaturally by a train of immediate consequences partly
drawn and hammered out with much pains study and speculations from the abovesaid Principles which Deductions and Conclusions are called Sciences whose chiefest property and richest piece of satisfaction whereby they gratifie the Understanding of man is their clear and convincing Evidence placed beyond all contradiction from Sense or Reason Nor lastly is it in Opinions as in those supernaturall Truths made known unto us by Divine revelation and are of Faith where there is absolute Certainty though without Evidence for Faith wears a scarf before her eyes and believes what she sees not Both which to wit Faith and Science as they justly command and challenge so withall they fully secure our assent from all danger and suspicion of errour the one by its Evidence the other by its Certainty the one interessing the light and patronage of the First Principles the other engaging a Divine and infallible Authority for the truth of their Proposalls But in Opinions it fares quite otherwise for an Opinion having neither the Evidence of Science nor the Certainty of Faith nor indeed any other inferiour degree of Certainty physicall or morall as the Schools speak but onely the slippery knot of Probability to hold by leaves the considering Opiner in a state of suspence and indetermination not daring nor indeed knowing how to yield any more then a faint and timorous assent to either side of the Tenet seeing that neither side is any more then onely probably true or probably false And because true and onely probably true false and onely probably false are not the same but two very different things and at so great a distance that no art or law of consequence can ever bring them together or convincingly argue from the one to the other hence it is that what is onely probably true is not therefore true and what is onely probably false is not therefore false from whence it is finally and manifestly concluded that neither side of an Opinion is lawfully attestable by Oath as simply true nor safely abjurable as simply false To come now to the particular Tenet which denies the Pope's Deposing power in all cases circumstances and emergencies whatsoever If we address our selves to the Maintainers and Abettors of this Tenet if we consult the Authour and Publisher of the Questions if we propose the Case to the Sorbon Doctours and the Faculty of Paris we shall find all their answers concurring in this That their negative Tenet is no more then an Opinion For first the Publisher of the Questions coming to speak of the difference between the Deniers and Abettors of this Power and the nature and quality thereof plainly professeth that this difference is no difference of Faith but onely of Opinions and the Authour of the Questions calls it an Opinion a safe Opinion indeed but no more or other thing then an Opinion an Opinion also the Sorbon Doctours take it for nor is their own Censure or Doctrine any more then their Opinion Neither do they nor indeed could they with any shew of reason or coherence to their own principles discourse at any other rate or ever intend to screw it up any higher then an Opinion For it is not to be imagined that those grave learned and prudent Divines who in their publick Articles concerning Papal and Regal Authority in the year 1663. do not own or look upon any Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome antecedent to and abstracting from the joynt consent or acceptation of the Church as inerrable would ever goe about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Doctrine either as a Point or Article of faith in it self or as a Rule of faith to others but onely as a Rule of Opinion if you please and a Judgment whereby such as were under their charge might remember to frame and regulate not their Faith but their Opinions which are the express words of the Decree it self Since then the deniall of the Pope's Deposing power neither doth nor can pretend any higher then an Opinion admit that its being the Opinion of so many Learned Divines might render it safe to hold and embrace it yet it s being but an Opinion though of Learned Divines renders it unsafe to swear it and no less unsafe to abjure what is contrary to it The Reason I have already given Because nothing can lawfully be sworn as true which is not more then meerly probable or probably true that is which is not either certain or infallible now all the Learned know that a certain or infallible Opinion is as great a bull as an uncertain fallible Article of faith so that to swear to an Opinion as certainly true is as much as to swear an Opinion is no Opinion and the Swearer doth thereby at one breath intangle himself in his own words his Reason in a Contradiction and his Soul in Perjury CHAP. VI. A particular Danger of Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power according to the form set down in the Oath of Allegeance I Shall here annex a particular consideration of the wofull Snare those souls run themselves into and apparent Danger of Swearing they know not what who venture to abjure the Deposing power as it lies expressed in its several Branches in the Oath of Allegeance whereas those Learned persons who undertook to defend and explain the Oath render it not onely difficult but next to impossible to understand what it is that is to be abjured I think I may take it for granted that no person of integrity and candour can ever conceive it lawfull for him to swear without first endeavouring to gain a right understanding of what he is to swear for to swear what a man understands not is blindly to rove at a venture and to swear he knows not what wilfully abandoning the conduct and slighting the inward upbraidings and reproofs of his Reason and which is worse it bewraies a feared Soul a wretched and sinfull preparednesse of mind to prostitute an Oath to the attesting of any thing that comes next to hand where Self-indemnity or other secular ends and advantages are proposed as the accursed purchace or reward of Perjury In the Oath of Allegeance it is required of us to abjure the Pope's Deposing power in all and every its respective Branches therein expressed one of which Branches is That the Pope hath not any Power to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy the King or his Countries Which Branch by the way the Authour and Publisher of the Questions in the form of the Oath set down by them have wholly omitted in both Editions as well that of the year 61. as the other of this present year 74. through what mistake or how occasioned I know not It is not easily to be conceived what subtle Obscurities and learned Intricacies Roger Withrington one of the greatest Champions that ever appeared for the Oath and his friend C. I. who confesseth to have compiled his Book out of
Temporal to depose the Pope The first of these Propositions is that which in the year of our Lord 1614. the House of Commons in France in the General Assembly of the Three Estates would have been at and offered not onely to own and swear to it themselves as a fundamental and holy Law but also passionately endeavoured that others should be compelled by rigorous penalties to doe the like But the project was stifled in the birth and the abortive Bill laid aside by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal who well weighing the controverted nature of the case were more considerate and tender of their Oaths then to venture them upon a foundation which take whether side they pleased must needs fail and betray the Swearer to an active sin and shame But what shall we say to the second Proposition may we not strain a little farther for the Pope then the King will not Religion bear us out if we adventure to swear that there is not any Power upon earth Spiritual or Temporal to depose the Pope To which I answer It is neither Religion Veneration Duty or Awe to the See of Rome which ought either to perswade or extort any more then it can legitimate such an Oath which it can never do in regard of the publick and unreproved disputableness of the case For whether we consider matter of fact or right it is no news amongst Catholick Divines that if the Pope should become an Heretick and they grant the If to be no impossible supposition he then forfeits his right to the Apostolical Chair and thereupon may lawfully be judged and deposed by the Spiritual power of the Church And this is a Doctrine which hath been long publick to the world a Doctrine pretending a Canonical Constitution and a Conciliary Act for its ground and support a Doctrine not unknown to Italy yet uncensured at Rome nay held and taught by some who lived and wrote even at the Pope's feet Where by the way our impartiall School-men seem at least to clear themselves from all sinister prejudices of Favour and Flattery and the stale imputation of framing and modelling their Doctrines to the humour and interest of the Court of Rome whereas we here see that some of them and those of eminent note make as bold with the common Father of the Church the Pope himself and even run him down with their Speculations as confidently and with as much show of zeal as at other times they set themselves to unthrone the meanest Prince in Christendome upon the same pretence And though his Holiness knows that Popes sit not so fast nor are so firmly rivetted to their Thrones but that divers of them have been deposed and sees withall this particular Deposing doctrine threatning Popes no less then Princes taught under his very eyes and for the same cause and that cause Heresy and that Heresy hath even by Catholicks been charged more then once against some of his Predecessours yet notwithstanding this concurrence and complicated pretence of Fears and Jealousies he never goes about to establish his Rights Person and Authority by any such assertory Oath as ours is but chuseth rather to trust Providence with his concerns then that the Triple crown should owe any part of its Security to an illegal and unnecessary Oath or his people be compell'd needlesly to swear away the peace of their Conscience for securing that of the Common-wealth But to draw the case yet to a nearer parallel and to close more particularly with the Oath of Allegeance wherein we are commanded to swear that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome nor by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King and this to be understood as to comprehend all causes cases or pretences possible Let us spell the Oath backwards and reade Pope for King and King for Pope and then suppose we were injoyned to swear that no King or Prince either of himself or by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath in any possible case any Power or Authority to depose the Pope let us see what the Schools and the publick and currently-allowed Tenets of Divinity will award as to the taking or refusing this Oath It is acknowledged on all hands there are divers instances from history of Depositions of Popes by Temporal Princes as well as of Temporall Princes by Popes which yet our Divines seem to restrain to the common case of Heresy and therefore the otherwise-pious and godly Emperour Otho incurred at least the mild censure and reprehension of such pens as record the fact for deposing Pope Iohn the XII because though he was one of the worst of Popes yet by the crime of Heresy he was wanting in the black list of his Offences to fill up the measure of his crying Misdemeanours and justify the Sentence and severity of his Deposition though even taking the case as it was not onely the pious Emperour saith Bellarmine conceived this Pope might be deposed but many Doctours thought so as well as he But however nothing is more certain then that it is a common and allowed Opinion of divers Divines that in case of Heresy the Pope may be judged and deposed by the Church Some of which carry it yet a step farther adding ought to may that is that he not onely may but ought to be deposed and that this may and ought is not onely the Churche's right but her obligation and she thereby bound to proceed to due execution thereof to the utmost of her power and if the Pope who is to be deposed should chance to resist oppose and stand in defiance of the Churche's judgment and she not in a condition to call his obstinacy to an account and to turn him out of his Chair by virtue of her Spiritual arms alone and yet her duty still supposed incumbent and pressing upon her to discharge and free her self and her Children from the thraldome of an Usurper then these Authours will tell us that the Law of Nature or that which is a Law to it self Necessity which even in causes Ecclesiastical takes upon her to justify force when nothing but force will serve for the compassing a just and necessary end will prompt the Church as is usual in some other cases to have recourse to the Temporal Power and call in the assistence of the Secular arm to her succour In which juncture no doubt any King Prince or zealous Otho who would please to interest himself in and espouse the Churche's quarrel might both deserve and receive her Commission and thanks to act with authority as a welcome auxiliary in the Holy war even to the Deposing of the Pope and placing another in his Throne in order to the good of Souls and the just recovery of the Ecclesiastical liberties and Spiritual rights Here then being a Case confessedly possible and an Opinion
which Authority renders probable in which Case and according to which Opinion Kings and Princes have at least by Authority of the Church and with others Power and Authority to depose the Pope I see no objection offer it self but the way open and fairly smoothed to this Resolution of the Case That no Catholick can safely take this counter-Oath nor securely swear that no King or Prince either of himself or by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath in any possible case any Power or Authority to depose the Pope And therefore comparing the two Oaths together this and the Oath of Allegeance I think that as no man could rightly be accounted a bad Catholick at Rome for denying to take this so neither can he justly be reputed a bad Subject in England for refusing the other because this Recusancy is equally blamable in either of the two cases or absolutely unreprovable in both the ground of both being one and the same which indeed is neither favour nor fear of man but rather a just fear of incurring God's disfavour and the inviolable duty we owe to Truth and an upright Conscience which lays an indispensable tie of Recusancy upon us so far as never to take any assertory Oath requiring of us to swear or abjure any speculative controverted Doctrines though we suppose the Oath to be as much in favour of the Pope as our Oath of Allegeance is conceived to be of the King CHAP. VIII Abjuring the Deposing doctrine neither is nor can be any part of the Oath as it is an Oath of Allegeance and therefore not at all necessary to a true Oath of Allegeance More Allegeance may be sworn and better Security given to Princes by abjuring all Discourses and Disputes in favour of the Deposing doctrine then by abjuring the Doctrine it self I Have seen and taken some pains to peruse a Book of Oaths and the several terms thereof above two hundred in all both ancient and modern forrein and domestick out of sundry authentick Books and Records wherein amongst so many Oaths of Fealty Service and Duty as are mentioned there which generally run in the promissory strain I find not one that injoyns the swearing or abjuring of any controverted Doctrine save onely our two Oaths of Allegeance and Supremacy which upon that account lie under the just exception as I think of being singular and without precedent in their kind wherefore what the Authour of the Questions so expresly assumes my self also for his and the Argument's sake having been willing hitherto to goe along with him in his own supposition viz. that the Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power is the Substance of the Oath cannot be strictly made out without the help and allowance of a distinction nor regularly understood but onely of the assertory part for otherwise if we speak properly it is so far from being the Substance that it is not so much as a Part of the Oath as it is an Oath of Allegeance and a Bond of Duty from the Subject to his Supreme Lord. And of this there will need little proof when it is considered that the Bond of an Oath is in reference to something which is to be performed for the future and therefore cannot appertain to an assertory Oath which is a thing present or past but belongs onely to a promissory Oath Wherefore since it is plain that this abjuring the Pope's Deposing power is an assertory Oath there can be no doubt that it being in it self and in the nature of the thing no Bond at all it can be no Bond of Allegeance and therefore also no part of the Oath as it is an Oath of Allegeance And if the forbearing all Disputes and Discourses any ways favouring the Deposing power may be as I think it is look'd upon as part of our Allegeance then it follows likewise that more Allegeance may be sworn by the promissory Oath in abjuring all such Disputes and Discourses in favour and defence of the Deposing doctrine then by abjuring the Doctrine it self because this last Oath of abjuring the Doctrine it self being purely assertory contains no Promise Bond or Tie at all so that in fine it is the promissory Oath alone that is the true Oath of Allegeance and the sole Bond of Duty from the Subject to his Prince This I take to be the reason why some learned Catholicks who understood both themselves the difference of Oaths and the nature of Allegeance full well having upon sundry emergent occasions exhibited to the publick several Oaths of fidelity for the quieting of all State-jealousies and fears from the Pope's Deposing power have wholly confined themselves to the promissory form Thus 13 Catholick Priests made a solemn Protestation of their Allegeance to Queen Elizabeth by a publick Instrument the last day of Ianuary and the last year of Her Majestie 's reign wherein after having acknowledged the Queen though divided from the Church of Rome in Communion for their true and lawfull Sovereign they promised that they would yield to Her Majesty all Obedience in Temporal causes notwithstanding any Authority or any Excommunication whatsoever denounced or to be denounced against Her Majesty or Her Subjects The like Declaration and Acknowledgment Mr. Iames Haughton aliàs Mr. Thomas Green Professour of Divinity of the holy Order of Saint Benedict gave under his hand to the then Lord Bishop of Durham the 5. November An. 1619. and did promise and vow to be a true and faithfull Subject to His Majesty and His Successours during his life notwithstanding any Sentence from the Pope whatsoever of Excommunication Deposition or Absolution of His Majestie 's Subjects from their natural Obedience to Him or His Heirs There hath of late years been often reprinted a brief Explanation of the Roman Catholick belief concerning their Church-worship justification and Civil government in the last clause whereof are these express words We are say they most strictly and absolutely bound to the exact and entire performance of our Promises made to any person of what Religion soever much more to the Magistrates and Civil Powers under whose protection we live whom we are taught to obey by the Word of God not onely for fear but Conscience sake and to whom we will most faithfully observe our Promises of Duty and Obedience notwithstanding any Dispensation Absolution or other proceedings of any forrein Power or Authority whatsoever And this they sincerely and solemnly professed in the sight of God the Searcher of all hearts without any equivocation or mentall reservation whatsoever The Objection which some offer against the sufficiency of these or the like forms grounded upon the difference which the Objectours make between Will not and Cannot is in my opinion wholly groundless what they pretend with so much solicitude in behalf of the State being onely this That it is not enough for a man to swear he Will not unless he swear also he
Adversary saying that he has not seriously examined the Point under debate and that had he seriously pondered it he would have been of the contrary persuasion 93. Consider Fifthly that Mr. Preston who writ those Books concerning this matter published under the name of Withrington and the principal Champion for the Lawfulness of this Oath as I am informed by a person worthy of all Credit and one who was well acquainted with him never took the Oath himself nor advised any other to take it but onely writ those Books to shew for the comfort of Catholicks what might be said in favour thereof The same Authour grants that the Pope has Authority to order and direct the Temporal affairs of Princes and to impose upon them Temporal punishments by way of a Precept or Prohibition or a Direction in order to their Spiritual good and he inveighs against Skulchenius for accusing him as if he had denied the Pope such a Power over the Temporalls of Princes and he saies that there is no controversy in the present Point concerning the Pope's Power to command or prohibit Princes even in Temporal affairs with reference to the Spiritual good of themselves or their Kingdoms Neque de potestate Ecclesiastica praecipiendi sed tantùm coercendi ulla in praesenti controversia est Now this Authority which Withrington admits in the Pope over the Temporalls of Princes seems obnoxious to the same difficulties which he objects against the coercive Power of the Pope and is contrary to the Authority of the Faculty of Paris alledged above by our Adversaries Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod Summus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi Authoritatem habeat And certainly if he has a directive or preceptive Authority over the Temporals of Princes he must have some Authority over their Temporals 94. Now consider whether since Withrington and his Associates will not grant the Pope as Supreme Pastour of the Church any Power or Authority which is not evidently deduced out of the Precedents which Christ and his Apostles have left in Scripture whether I say this preceptive prohibitive and directive Power over the Temporalls of Princes which Withrington grants the Pope can be better declared out of the Precedents left in Scripture by Christ and his Apostles for when did any of them exercise such a Power over Temporal Princes in Civil matters then the coercive power which he denies the Pope And consider farther whether the forementioned Power be not in effect the same with the coercive Power For if the Pope may justly in some cases and in order to the Spiritual good of a Nation command a King to desist from persecuting his Subjects upon the score of Religion or otherwise to lay down his Government and prohibit his Subjects in case he goes on in persecuting them upon that account to bear him Civil Allegeance how can they swear that notwithstanding any Sentence made or granted or to be made and granted by the Pope or his Authority against their Prince they will bear him true Allegeance For certainly all just Precepts are to be obeyed and doubtless Kings will be as unwilling to grant this prohibitive or preceptive Power to the Pope over their Temporalls as the coercive Power For they do not so much fear what the Pope can doe against them by force of Arms as by force of Precepts and Prohibitions 95. Besides the Authour of the Questions concerning the Oath seems to grant that the Pope may in some extravagant case of absolute necessity to defend the Spirituall welfare of those who are committed to his charge and acting onely by a Commission derived from necessity depose Princes as one may justly take away his neighbour's life when unjustly attacqued by him he cannot otherwise defend his own life Now this is all that Bellarmine affirms For he does not grant the Pope Authority to depose Princes but in case of an absolute necessity of defending his Flock from being infected by their Prince with Heresie And if they grant this Power to the Pope how do they affirm that we may swear that the Pope has not any Power or Authority in any case possible to depose Princes So that if what the chief Maintainers of the Oath teach concerning the Deposing power be duely sifted we shall find that in effect they grant what they seem to deny or at least that they grant enough to render the taking of this Oath unlawfull 96. Consider Lastly whether when it manifestly appears that the ground whereon an Authour proceeds is false or inconclusive any account is to be made of the Opinion or Judgment of such an Authour And if not then let us briefly consider the main Reasons whereon the Defenders of the Oath bottome their Sentiment It is far from my intention to defend that the Pope has Authority to depose Princes my design onely is to examine the Reasons whereby some Authours do endeavour to shew that the Pope has no such Authority For let an Opinion be never so good yet some may ground it ill 97. The common Reason therefore whereon most of those Authours who impugn the Pope's Deposing power do ground themselves in this Point is That a meer Spirituall Power such as is onely granted the Pope over all Christendome in no case possible does extend it self to any Temporall thing This Reason does not shew that the Pope as Temporall Prince of Rome has not an indirect Right and Power to depose Kings in some cases such a Power being inherent to every Sovereign Prince and yet if one takes this Oath he must swear that the Pope neither by himself nor otherwise has any Power whatsoever to depose Kings So that whoever takes this Oath does according to the common sense of the words and he swears he takes them so implicitly deny the Pope to be Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome because he denies him something inherent and proper to all Sovereign Princes 98. Moreover a meer Spirituall Power may extend it self in some cases to Temporall things and the contrary is manifestly false And even our Adversaries confess as has been seen above that the Pope's meer Spirituall Power may extend it self to Temporall things per modum directionis aut praecepti Christ and his Apostles either had no Temporall Power whiles they lived or at least did not exercise it but onely a meer Spirituall Power Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo and yet he saies Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium I did not come to bring peace but the sword and to cause a separation between the nearest relations as between Mother and Daughter Brother and Sister and such like who are tied one to the other by the Law of Nature as Subjects are tied to their Sovereign which is to be understood when a reciprocall communication between them is prejudiciall to their eternall Salvation Our Saviour also used a Temporall Power and force to cast out those who with