of war in which victory deposes the conquer'd party from some part of his Dominions M. Nothing is intended by these words witness the Law-maker but that the Pope by no Papal or Ecclesiastical Authority can depose the King S. Do the express words of the Oath bear this reservation Do they not expresly exclude it The Authority of the Pope himself of the Church and of the See of Rome are they not foresworn in the foregoing words which being sworn to what can these words nor by any other means with any other imply M. What are the preceding words S. They are these and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome c. I beseech you reflect upon the words and then tell me Can other that is different means from the Authority of Pope and Church be the same with the Authority of Pope and Church Can God himself make you and another to be the same And if he cannot what Law-maker can enable me to swear according to the plain sense of the express words the Pope and an other and that the means of Ecclesiastical Authority and other means are the same which he must necessarily do who will perswade me that to deny one and to deny the other according to express words is no more than to deny one and the same thing M. This is so clear that nothing but a previous wilful engagement to the contrary can obscure it Why did not the Law-maker make his interpretation a part of the express words as he has made the express words an exclusion of his interpretation and the only Subject of my Oath S. The fourth Clause is No Person whatsoever has Power to absolve me from this Oath this Clause according to express the words is no truer than the former and therefore cannot be lawfully sworn M. Shew why it cannot be sworn S. Because the King by quitting his Crown may quit me of my Allegiance Is he no body Should the King and Parliament dismember a part of the Realm where I am Native and make it over to a Forreign Prince am not I free from my Allegiance and are they no person whatsoever doth not the power of Victory transfer Allegiance from one King to another and the conquering part is he no body M. Should the King quit his Crown he might too repent himself as soon body sayes S. That 's much to the purpose God send him long to live and Reign but would his repentance unperson him and make him no body M. But the common sense is that no person from Rome can absolve me of my Allegiance S. The common sense of the words whatsoever the maker of the Oath might intend bear no such exposition but with a clear Negative exclude it for no person whatsoever in its natural sense is equivalent to this No Pope no King no Prince can absolve em which is evidently false as hath been made out and cannot be sworn M. Is not Victory and the Kings quitting the Crown equivalent to death and the Succession of an Heir which it 's manifest cannot be understood by these words no person whatsoever S. No for death which is a pure Negation only takes away the person from the dignity and not the dignity from the person as the King might do from himself and succession â—s so far from deposing that it is a continuation of the Predecessours right CHAP. VI. Of the 5. Clause of the Assertory Part. M. WHat else have you to say against the Oath S. The 5. Clause is I farther from my heart abhor detest and abjure as heretical this damnable Doctrine and position that Princes which are excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any whatsoever M. What is' t you scruple at S. I scruple at more than one thing for it contains several things repugnant to Faith M. If what you say you make appear to be true you will justify the Popes Breves who affirm what you say you will stop your adversaries mouth who boast you cannot after long poring pick any thing out of the Oath which is contrary to Faith and you will clear your self of Disloyalty in refusing it S. The first thing contrary to Faith is for a secular Power much more a Protestant to usurp the Supremacy due to the Church in deciding what is Heretical as the Parliament do's by tendring this Clause From this it follows that 2. the complyance in swearing that Clause is also contrary to Faith as being an approbation of that power 3. It is contrary to Faith to make the Doctrine of Deposing Heretical it never having been condemned by the Church 4. It is contrary to Faith to make an Article of Faith what is not as it would be to say it is Article of Faith that the Pope cannot depose a Prince in a Case of Heresie and revolt from the Church For this must be of faith if the contradictory be Heretical as it would not be Heretical to deny Transubstantiation if Transubstantiation were not an Article of faith Lastly what is implyed in the whole Clause it is against faith to hold it Lawful to swear a thing to be Heretical which is not M. Doth not the result of this favour Stilling-fleet and others who fall foul upon Catholicks for this Doctrine of deposing S. No for as it is not Heretical so it is no part of Catholick Faith Nor doth any man as a Catholick believe it M. Is it not more favourable to Princes to hold it is Heretical S. It cannot be favourable to any one to hold an untruth M. How can a Prince secure himself from that Doctrine S. By a promissory Oath of never holding it nor teaching it though it be not Heretical M. But by your good leave this is not so binding as to swear it to be Heretical S. It is more binding for having sworn it to be Heretical if afterwards I find it not to be Heretical as one will easily do I am freed from my Oath as having sworn an untruth but when I promise by Oath never to follow it nor teach it be it Heretical or no I have no such evasion as is manifest M. You have acquitted your self as to this point but may not the particle as Heretical make this sense that I abjure that doctrine as if it were Heretical or like an Heresie As it is said I hate him as a Toad I love him as my Father S. I do not deny but that the natural sense of the particle as somtimes implyes similitude or equality but it is when it relates to different Subjects for example let him be unto thee as a heathen But this is not our present Case M. I see it is not S. Sometimes the particle as implyes the reality of a thing being so for example a paper as seditious was burnt signifyes its reality of being seditious M. Pray give me a General Rule when the particle as in
that this Proposition A Prince excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by his Subjects or any one whatsoever is Heretical Therefore I may swear it to be Heretical S. This proposition as being exposed to Quibbles is not proper to be sworn by every Idiot who must perfectly understand what he swears to or he exposes himself to Perjury M. Is it not clear that it is Heretical to say a Prince excommunicated may be murthered S. Grant it is how comes the proposition saying A Prince excommunicated may be deposed to be Heretical Who has defined it so to be M. The proposition as affirming both together to be lawful is Heretical S. That is not the sense of the proposition but to the truth of it is required that the proposition saying one or the other to be lawful be Heretical and the proposition saying the one that is Deposing is not Heretical M. Pray clear it a little better if you can S. It is clear by the words themselves for by the words of the Oath I do not swear the proposition saying A Prince excommunicated may be deposed and murthered but may be deposed or murthered to be Heretical which in the common way of speaking are wholly different By the first is sworn to teach the Lawfulness of both together to be Heretical and the Lawfulness of both together implying Murthering to be lawful is truly Heretical By the second is sworn to teach Lawfulness of the one which is of Deposing or the other that is Murthering to be Heretical which is false for the saying it is lawful to depose an excommunicated Prince is not Heretical M. You have said as much for clearing this case as the express words afford you according to which one is to swear S. I only add that if the Oath-teachers can give any interpretation so connatural to the express words as I have done he that takes the Oath being sworn to wave all Reservation must swear to both which without Perjury he cannot After so many real difficulties against the Lawfulness of the Oath I cannot but enquire how one can take these last two Clauses of the Assertory part first that it is administred to me by good and lawful power the determining what is Heresy appertaining to the Catholick Church and not to a Protestant Parliament The second And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the Faith of a Christian so help me God CHAP. VIII Of the Promissory part of the Oath M. THe Assertory part of the Oath is it any part of Allegiance S. It is not M. Then the greatest part of this Oath is intitled from Allegiance contains Allegiance as the least part of it S. You say no more than what I have often answered From which you may infer that by the Oath something more than Allegiance was intended M. Is it not a part of Allegiance to acknowledge your King S. It is no part of Allegiance to acknowledg Him by a thought and a swearing I think so but it is to acknowledge Him by a promissory Oath of Allegiance which supposes a certainty of His being my true King M. Are you ready to swear all the promissory part of the Oath S. I am except only the promise of discovering what is contained by Law under the word Treason which I cannot do without betraying my Religion and he that will be a Traytor to his Religion upon the like Motives will be a Traytor to his King M. What are those things S. They are First to maintain or extoll Authority in the See of Rome the 2. time is high treason 5. Eliz. 1. 2dly to obtain or put in ure any Bull from Rome high treason 13 Eliz. 2. Thirdly for Jesuit or Priest made by Authority of the Pope to come or remain in the King's Dominions high treason 27 Eliz. 78. 4thly to perswade or reconcile or to be reconciled to the Roman Religion High treason 23 Eliz. 1. 3. Jacob. 4. for this last Burnet was condemned few years since and several meerly for being Priests have lately been executed So that those Laws are yet in rigour M. Do you then think the aforesaid things are signify'd by the word Treason S. How can I think otherwise for the signification of words is taken from the will of men they being indifferent of their own nature to signify any thing and the will of men cannot be more clearly expressed than by their Laws so that the most certain signification of a word is what it hath by Law This is so evident that no Philosopher no divine no Lawyer ever yet called it in question Besides is it not made a distinct member from conspiracies M. I have heard some say to be Priests and the like are but Spiritual Treasons S. Spiritual Treasons that hang a man corporally Are Spiritual Treasons Treasons or no is not this an evasion and are not all evasions abjured besides all Spiritual power in opposition to the Pope being by the Law of the Nation setled in the King as part of his right as it is treason to own extern power opposit to his right in temporals so is it not treason according to the Law to own the Popes power opposit to his right in his Spirituals the common sense of the word Treason can it be better derived than from the common Law M. But doth not King James declare that he intends nothing by the Oath than the securing himself from the deposing power and the dangerous principles ensuing from it and that he exacts nothing but a civil Allegiance S. Under such a pretence might not I as well be sworn to renounce the Pope and my Religion as be bound to take an unlawful Oath would not that secure him as much as the Oath The greatest security he could have he might have had by a promissory Oath of never following that opinion this never was deny'd him nor will be deny'd his Successours his reservation of civil Allegiance is excluded by the express words of the Oath which he himself obliges me to swear to Would it not argue a strange power to grant me leave to swear to an Interpretation and by the same Oath to exclude it M. Cannot then the Law-maker dispense in his own act S. He may dispense with me from taking the Oath but supposing the Law by his order or permission inforces the Oath upon me the Law-maker cannot dispense with me to swear in a different sense from what the express words bear Nay doth not the Law-makers bringing an Interpretation own the unlawfulness of the express words M. Have you any thing else to instance for what you say S. I have if you will be pleased to tell me how the charge of the Attorney General runs against a Priest condemned purely for Priest-hood M. Forasmuch as I have been able to gather out of the Trials of such as have been condemned the charge runs thus As a false Traitor to our Soveraign Lord
against all Conspirators and that all this is the indispensable Law of God as any of your learned School-Men though they cannot put their discourse into the right figure and mood Let us now account for these two Chapters First to assert the Kings right and to renounce all power of the Pope and Subject to depose or murther him is deny'd by him to be a part of the Subjects due Allegiance to the King Secondly he imposes the Doctrine of some of his own School upon others against their express declaration to the contrary Lastly he concludes the generality of men uncapable to understand that robbing and murthering is against the Law of God Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrine His tbird Chapter Examined THis Chapter begins with reciprocating the old saw And since he will neither give any reason why my answers to his thred-bare objection does not satisfy nor can improve it any farther my answer is still in force against him The objection was and now is from the Title of the Statute wherein the Oath is contained which runs thus An Act for the discovering and suppressing Popish Recusants and as if the Title could not be verifi'd by other parts of the Statutes or as if all parts of the Statute must be in the Title he inferrs from thence that the Oath of Allegiance was designed to distinguish betwixt Papists and Protestants not betwixt Loyal and disloyal Papists though the Law-maker for whose safety and by whom the Oath was made into a Law both in his Premonition and Apology to Christian Princes the Law it self declares against him So that in his judgment to take the Oath is in the eye of the Law to be a Protestant to refuse it a Papists and so by the Title of the Law a Quaker is rendred a Papist Reverend Father to rid my hands for ever of this so often repeated objection pray observe that I voluntarily and freely and without any force from his way of arguing have and do give him his objection What then ought not the Oath be taken by a Papist Absur'd For put case that the King and Parliament being perswaded that the Papists commit Idolatry should oblige their Subjects by an Oath to renounce Idolatry would not the refusal of this Oath with the same Justice by the design of the Law distinguish betwixt Papists and Protestants And must a Papist therefore refuse this Oath Nay ought he not to take it the sooner so to undeceive the world and unmake the Sign This is our case Some eminent persons of your Society asserted at that time the deposing and King-killing Doctrin the Gunpowder-plot-men put it into Practise amongst whom some of your Society were charged with it and executed for it The King and Parliament supposing it as well they might to be the Doctrine of our Church fram'd an Oath to abjure it This Oath now by Law is become to many a distinctive sign betwixt Protestants and Papists what then must a Papist do who abhors that Doctrin Clearly he ought to abjure it so to undeceive the People and unmake the sign From hence I conclude that the Objection from the Title of the Statute is dispatch'd But if he will not accept of my deed of Gift then I resume my Liberty to dissent from him and I have for my Defence King James who best understood the Design of his own Law and assures all Christian Princes that The Oath was made for a true Distinction not betwixt Papists and Protestants but betwixt Papists of quiet Disposition and in all other things good Subjects and such other Papists as in their Hearts maintained the like violent bloody Maximes as the Powder Traitors did Prem pag. 9. and in his Apology and this he writ at that time when both the Title and the Statute was in the Eye and Mouth of every Man Wherefore nothing but the Defence of a bad Cause could force this Catechist to Derogate from the Credit Truth and Honour of this Prince whose Testimony the Statute it self does Ratify declaring that the Oath was framed For the better Trial how his Majesties Subjects stood affected in point of Loyalty and Obedience Now had the Oath been devised for distinction in Religion probably the words would have been thus For the better Trial how his Majesties Subjects stood affected in point of Religion To that of King James no reply with Justice can ever be made but to the Statute he offers thus That such a preamble is likewise prefixed To the Ordaining the taking of the Communion in the Protestant way And yet it is no distinctive sign betwixt loyal and disloyal Catholicks but betwixt Protestants and Catholicks I reply That the Receiving the Communion in the Protestant way is in it self Essentially a sign of Protestant Religion but to Renounce by Oath the deposing or murthering Power and to declare it to be against the Word of God is no Essential sign of the Protestant Religion but only of Loyalty Consequently whatever the Preamble be the Oath of Allegiance is a sign of Loyalty and receiving communion in the Protestant way is a sign of Profession of that Religion The Expences of his Third Chapter are thus First It is a Repetition of the same Objection ten times answered without the least Improvement Secondly He gives his Adversary advantage against himself Thirdly He expects that the Title of the Statute should be as large as the Statute Fourthly To compass his Design he confounds the Nature or Essence of things Reverend Father is this Christian Dictrine His Fourth Chapter examined IN this Chapter he begins to take the Oath asunder and divides it into two parts the one Assertory and the other Promissory and against each part moves many vain and impertinent Scruples Every thing he meets with is a Giant but of his own creation His first encounter is against the Assertory part which once more he degrades from sharing in any part of Allegiance because it is not a promise of Fidelity therefore it is no Oath of Allegiance As if it were not as much a duty of a Subject to maintain by Oath the Right of his Prince upon which all promise of Fidelity must be built as the promise it self Since therefore both parts are a performance of the Subject's duty both parts do integrate and compleat the Oath of Allegiance Before he advances farther he thought it expedient to expose to view these following words of the Oath And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any Equivocation or mental Evasion or secret Reservation whatsoever This is a snare in which he hopes to catch the swearer tripping by perjury as acting contrary to his Oath His first Gimcrack is from the first words of the Oath thus I A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testify and declare in my Conscience before
God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries Who would have thought that any good Subject should have stumbled at this Is it an imputation to the Oath that 't is too clear What plain-meaning man is there who understood not these words till now he meets with this following cross and crabbed Comment To testify he tells you as importing something distinct from my acknowledging in the Rigour of the express words is to bear Witness to declare as distinct from professing is as it were to act the part of a judge in clearing a thing not so well known Surely this Catechism runs the fate of many Comments which is to be more obscure than the Text. For what exigence is there that these four words I acknowledg profess testify declare must have all distinct meanings Is it from the nature of the Law or Oath Evidently no. For since 't is the design of the Law-maker by the use of words to be clear and easy and since nothing conduces more to that design than synonimous words giving light to each other for some of necessity will be more obscure than others 't would be preposterous to expect from the nature of an Oath or Law a distinct Sence for every word Nay 't is against all Experience for both in the Canon and Civil Law in Statutes in Bonds in Indentures in Deeds and in the Breves and Bulls of Popes nothing is so frequent as redundance of words in the same Sence and all little enough to render the Acts or Obligations clear sure and binding Secondly Why must the words of this Oath be used in the most rigorous sence methinks the plain and common sence required by the Oath should not be always the most rigorous sence And I am very certain that if all words were used in their rigorous sence few would understand them and so they would be unfit for Oaths Thirdly what warrant has he that these words Testify and declare in my Conscience do import in rigour to bear Witness before a Judge and to act as it were the part of a Judge Since nothing is more familiar in plain and Common Sence than to Testify and declare a matter in a man's Conscience without the thought of any act of Jurisdiction Fourthly To testify and declare in a man's conscience that the King is rightful King is so far from questioning the Kings right that it places it beyond all question For whereas at the time this Oath was framed and before several Divines of the Society and others maintained the deposing and murthering Power which gave rise to the Powder-Plot this Oath was made wherein these words amongst others were industriously inserted to cut off all such pretended Power So that what question was about the Kings right was started by the men of deposing and murthering Principles against whom and their Doctrine this Oath was made Another Bone too hard for his Digestion is that he cannot Swear The King is Rightful and Lawful King of all his Dominions Because he knows not what they are or what Right the King has to them My Answer is That the Oath requires not that the swearer should know every spot of Land possessed by the King either in Europe Affrica or America but only that he swear in particular That he is Rightful and Lawful King of this his Realm and in general of all other his Dominions So that what ever change has been made of his Dominions since the framing of this Oath either by gain or by loss to the Crown nothing is more certain than that he is lawful King of all his Dominions we may therefore with all security in Conscience conclude that in the first Clause of this Oath there is neither Equivocation secret Reservation mental Evasion or any just cause to asperse this Oath His Bill of Charges runs thus First he denies it to be part of the Subjects Allegiance or Fidelity to assert the right of his Prince Secondly in defiance of reason and his own experience he requires in an Oath that every word have a distinct sense from others Thirdly he confounds the plain and common sense of words obvious to every understanding with their rigorous sense known to a few only Fourthly he forces the words testify and declare from their plain and common sense that he may fault the Oath Fifthly to declare the King 's right so that no body can justly take it from him he tells you is to question the Kings Right Finally he has a scruple to swear the King is Lawful King of his Dominions as if Dominion could be his and not his Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrine His Fifth Chapter Examined THe design of this Chapter is to render the takers of the Oath perjur'd as using secret reservations inconsistent with the Oath obliging them to the plain and common understanding of the same words without Equivocation mental Evasion or secret Reservation His first charge of perjury is from the third Clause or branch of the Oath which if you credit him is thus I declare in my conscience before God that the Pope neither of himself nor by any other means with any other can depose the King Had he been a fair dealer he would have cited the words as they are in the Oath thus nor by any other meanes with any other hath any power or Authority to depose the King Which differs from this other expression can depose the King For Authority in the Oath coming after Power does limit it to a just and Lawful Power whereas can depose implies a power either just or unjust to depose the King and the Oath meddles not with an unjust power of deposing him but because it is a Maxime in the Law id solum possum quod licite possum I will suppose he meant well What does he inferr from those words that neither the Pope nor King nor Prince nor Emperour hath any power or Authority to depose the King To this I answer him out of his own Instruction that by these words of the Oath nothing is designed but an Exclusion of the Popes Spiritual power to depose the King He resumes thus do the express words of the Oath bear this reservation I answer here is no Reservation but the plain and common sense of the words as they are understood by all man-kind for when mention is made of the Pope's Power of deposing Soveraign Princes who ever understands any other but such as Popes have claimed and what Pope ever laid claim to the deposing power or proceeded to the deposition of Soveraigns but by vertue of a Commission from Jesus Christ as being Vicar and Supreme Pastor upon earth Gregory the seventh was the first that made use of that power several others have followed his steps examin their pretences turn over their Bulls and publick Declarations and see if they plead not a Commission from
the Catechism and in the Appendix he declares the Pope to be Judge as to the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of an Oath This being so does not the Pope when he commands him to swear the deposing Doctrine to be an Article of faith by such a command declare that Oath to be Lawful for him to take Clearly then to say the Pope in that case is not to be obey'd is to make him judge and no judge as to the Lawfulness of an Oath Finally in his Nineth Chapter has he not declared the Pope to be Soveraign Judge in Spiritualls If then he shall declare it to be an Article of Faith that by vertue of his Spiritual Power he can depose Kings ought not this Catechist believe that power or right to be a Spiritual Right and consequently obey when the Pope shall command him to swear it In his Appendix he tells you no for he has a demonstration against his own Catechism Riddle now my riddle what 's this Infallible and not infallible a Judge and no Judge a Soveraign and no Soveraign how can that be Reverend Father Are these the Mysteries of Christian Doctrine THE DECREE Of the FATHERS of the Society of Jesus of the English Province At their Provincial Congregation made against the Oath of Allegiance at Ghent the Fifth day of July this present Year 1681. WITH Some Animadversions upon it THat we may proceed with uniformity amongst our selves in the manner of acting touching the Oath of Allegiance First Let us all profess that as much Obedience and Fidelity ought to be sincerely sworn and exhibited to our King from every one of us as is wont to be sworn and exhibited to any Princes whatsoever from other Catholick Subjects Secondly That the Oath as now it is sprinkled with many heterodor clauses cannot be taken as being condemned by many Breves of Popes Thirdly If any against the Decrees of Popes have taught the foresaid Oath to be lawful let him not be admitted to Absolution without Publick Recantation either made or sacredly promised Fourthly Those who against their Conscience have taken the Oath let them be deprived of Absolution without manifest signs of Repentance and promise of Amendment for the future But those who with a good Conscience have taken it are to be instructed and if they renounce it are to be absolved Fifthly Let care be taken lest either too much facility or morosity in absolving breed Scandal Exceptions Against The foregoing DECREE AGainst this Consult and the Decrees made by it there are many Exceptions First A few men overvoting the rest of the Consult and locking up with the key of pretended Authority the Understandings of the lesser number of the Consult and of all those who are not in the Consult do Tyrannize over them and oblige them when a question is put whether the Oath be True or False good or evil to answer in the sence of the Consult though their dictamen of Conscience be against it So that a Lay-Person who makes choice of a Confessor out of this Society for his Vertue and Learning and thinks to find an Oracle in him is gull'd For 't is the Consult that swayes by whom this Confessor though otherwise against his conscience must advise and act And therefore when 't is given out that all the Jesuits are against the Oath of Allegiance 't is in truth a great cheat for it may be more than half of them are for it but being over-aw'd by such Consults to whom they have vowed obedience they must either submit be punished or expelled the Order Secondly To determin of an Oath whether it be True or False Lawfull or Un-Lawful by number of votes of such Communities even in their fullest Assembly is to throw Cross or Pile even or odd in the search of Truth For if the votes happen to be odd then the Oath is True or if you will False but if they be even 't is a drawn match and then it must be put to the vote again till an odd one starts up and that must carry it In the framing of Laws for the well governing of such communities 't is confessed the plurality or number of votes must prevail because those Laws have all their force to bind the members of the community from the number of votes But the Truth of an Oath or the Conformity it has to the Law of God is independent from any Votes of the Communities and is Truth it self and known by a rational man such as preachers of the Gospel ought to be not by a Plurality of Votes but by the Laws of God and Reason or by an Authority Infallible so that to put Truth to the vote and act against conscience is unexcusable The first Article of this Decree promiseth much in shew but performs nothing in substance it equivocates with the King and in the end deludes him For when they offer to swear the same Allegiance to him as other Catholick Subjects do to any Princes whatsoever either those Princes are in Communion with the Church of Rome or out of it if they are in communion with the Church of Rome they have no reason to fear the Deposing Power since the men of the Deposing School have taught it only practicable in point of Heresie and Apostacy and therefore out of some reason of state may safely enough omit in their Oath the renouncing of that Power But if those Princes be out of communion with the Church of Rome I know not whether they have felt the smart of the deposing Doctrine sure I am our Princes as Henry the Eighth Queen Elizabeth and King James have run the risque of it both in their Crowns and Lives and consequently their Successours have reason to exact the renouncing of it whilst other Princes may not Besides if other Princes require less of their Subjects than they may must we who are Subjects pay less duty to our Prince than in Justice he requires The second Article is a great errour for after so many challenges never yet could they find the least position against Catholick Faith in this Oath and those who by importunity wrested any Decrees from the Pope suggested unto him as is manifest by their writtings that his Power of Excommunication and Supremacy in Spirituals was taken from him by this Oath so that those Breves were procured by artifice and surprize But admit the Pope had condemned it if that must deterr us from taking it I know no Oath of Allegiance which renounceth either the Pope's power of deposing or the exercise of that power but may by some Pope or other be condemned whilest that Pope asserts his power to Depose Nay the Oath which the Jesuits themselves offer to take may run the same Fate and so no Allegiance must be pay'd to the King but such as the Pope will allow him which may be none at all The third and fourth Article are the vain Attempts of Men without Authority For to frame Decrees for binding
Abbot in the Clink See Rushworth Tom. 1. Anno 1626. pag. 241 242. Who writ for the Oath which forced Urban the 8. to give out another Breve in condemnation of the Oath and confirmation of his Predecessours Breves which was published by Bishop Smith Could more be done by the Sea Apostolick to require a due obedience M. Notwithstanding all you have said the Oath teaches flatly deny the publication of these Breves S. Their denyal must be made out the contrary being clear by Originals it being a Maxim in Law presumitur factum quod debuit fieri What ought to be done is to be presumed done M. It is said the Pope was mis-inform'd and it is prov'd thus the word murthering in the Latin version of the Oath presented to the Pope is Translated occidere to kill S. And what then the Englishing out of Scripture the word non occides thou shalt not murther is it to misinform the people of Gods command why then the Latining the word to murther occidere mis-informs his Holiness can any one think the word occidere applyed to the sacred persons of Kings can signify Chance-medley if not it implyes an unlawful killing which is murthering and do not the Oath-Teachers themselves term the Doctrine of murthering King-killing Doctrine and surely they will grant occidere signifies to kill Another objection is that the Popes first Breve on which the others are grounded runs thus Que cum ita sint satis vobis ex ipsis verbis perspectum esse debet quod hujusmodi juramentum salva fide Catholica salute animarum vestrarum praestari non potest cum multa contineat quae fidei saluti aperte adversantur S. Pray English these words M. The Pope having set down the words of the Oath says which things being so out of the words themselves it must be well enough known to you that this Oath without prejudice of Catholick faith and salvation of your souls cannot be taken seeing it contains many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and salvation S. What is there in all this to except against M. It seems not to be true that the Oath contains many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and salvation S. The Pope says it is true that the Oath contains many things contrary to faith the Oath-Teachers say it is not true Is not this as good as to Challenge the Pope who is Judge to make good his words can a petty Lawyers ill grounded opinion free me from the obedience due to the Judges sentence is it not against faith for a secular Protestant power to place it self in the Chair of the Church to decide spiritual points Is it not against faith to comply with that power much more to swear that power to be a lawful one Is it not against faith to swear a thing to be Heretical which is not Is it not repugnant to faith to discover all Priests comprehended under the common sense of the word Treason So that were we not obliged to submit to the Pope as Judge doth not reason compel us CONCLUSION M. BUt if after all this I think the Oath to be Lawful may not I take it S. No Because such a thought can not be well grounded for it neither hath Authority nor Reason to rely upon M. How shall I know that my thought is well grounded S. By examining whether it be not a rash one proceeding from engagement passion or in consideration of what is said to the contrary and by discussing the certainty of the thing I swear unto For if I have not a Moral certainty of what I am to swear I cannot rationally apply God's veracity to the affirming of what I doubt of M. I pray you descend to a particular can I swear Innocent the 11. is Pope S. Yes because I have a moral certainty of it as I have of my King being King M. But he may chance not to be baptized and so be no Pope Considering the natural causes there is a possibility of it but the pure possibility of a thing affords me no ground to think it is or it is not and therefore weakens not the certainty I have that it is M. Have not the Jesuits in France subscribed to the like Oath S. Never and had the sixteen who subscribed some other propositions done it what would it have signify'd against the judges sentence Would it not be pleasant for one cast in Chancery or an other Court to get the opinion of some Lawyer against the judges sentence and so think to carry it M. Did not the Jesuits subscribe that the Doctrine of deposing was wicked contrary to the word of God c. S. They subscribed to the condemnation of Santarellus whose book contain'd more then that But grant they did did they swear to what they subscribed and is not more certainty required to an Oath then to a subscription and could a subscription of sixteen Jesuits make it Heretical It is not enough for a private spirit to subscribe that it is contrary to the word of God to make it Heretical but the Church must define it to be contrary to the word of God which it never yet has done M. Is not the French Oath of Allegiance the same with the English S. No as will appear by the French Oath turned into English But first you know full well that in the year 1615 the third state of France in which the Hugonot party was very strong proposed an Oath much like to our English Oath of Allegiance But what was the issue the other two chief states the Nobility and Clergy rejected it as pernicious cause of Schism and the open gate to Heresy as you may read in King James his Preface to his declaration for the right of Kings set forth in French in the same year and in the Eloquent Oration of Cardinal Peron made in the Chamber of the third state in the name of all the Nobility and Clergy of France and afterwards sent to our Soveraign King James in which Oration the Cardinal affirms that the third state enjoyning the said Oath had their Lesson given them from England M. I pray you give me the French Oath in English for I perceive what ever was acted in France as to the deposing Power haply concluded in it And the Oath-Teachers used to say it was the same with the English S. The Oath runs thus I swear on the most holy and sacred name of God and promise to your Majesty that I shall be as long as I live a faithful Subject and servant and shall procure unto you all service and good to your Kingdom as much as I am able that I never will be present in any Council or enterprise to the prejudice of the same and that if any thing come to my knowledge of this kind I will make it known to your Majesty and so help me God and his holy Gospel An Oath of this Tenour none can refuse to his Majesty
THE Assembly of your fathers in London their Negotiation there in the month of April 1678. wrought as different impressions in the minds of men as was their affection or disaffection towards them The Roman Catholicks thought them innocent others believed them Criminal some faulted their ill Principles but clear'd them from the ill Effects with which they stood charged But all men admired in that period the great Justice and Wisdom of God who to put an Everlasting Curse upon deposing and murthering Doctrine was pleased to let pass a severity upon some descendents from those Ancestors who by advancing unwarrantable Doctrines had wrought amongst us the disturbance both of Church and State for this was but an Effect of the sowre Grapes their Fathers had eaten At their next assembly Triennial which was at Ghent in the month of July 1681 the world was big with Expectation of some publick Act or deed whereby their whole Province should renounce and disown those fatal Principles the smart of which themselves and others for their sakes had so lately felt and long since the whole Mass of Roman Catholicks from the most Execrable Powder-Plot to this day This 't was thought by many would be the only Salve to all our Soar's would sweeten the Temper of the Government now exasperated and set them and all of us right in the opinion of all good men But alas all our hopes are faded for not only before this last Assembly both Manuscript and printed Libels were dispersed amongst their Confidents against the Oath of Allegiance but even then by common vote of the Consult a Peremptory Decree was made against it antecedent to which an Invective by way of a Catechism was set forth with an artifice fit to impose upon the weak and illiterate The first care of the Catechist is to rack the words of the Oath stretching them beyond all sense or reason so to raise a storm of scruples in the minds of his readers and cast a mist to offuscate the clearest light imaginable What can be more clear or Transparent to the meanest Capacity than the Exordium of this Oath and what can be more unhappily wrested and distorted from it's plain and common sense then it is by this Catechist Take an Essay The Oath begins thus I A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testify and declare in my Conscience before God and the World that our Soveraign Lord the King is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries Would you imagin he could stick at this yet so it is and the scruple is that by these words the King 's right in lieu of being asserted is brought into Question certainly either he or the Law-makers were strangely out for doubtless their design was to put it out of all Question the reason given is because sayes he To testify and declare as distinct from the other words is to bear Witness and as it were to act the part of a Judge in clearing a thing not so well known and is it not to question the right of a King to call the Subject and swear him a Witness of it Reverend Father I now give you only a Tast of his scruples reserving both this and the rest with their answers until I meet them in their Order and therefore at present shall only put this question to you whether in reason the Oath ought to be refused for such wretched Constructions as this is and what Oath can be devised against which a Thousand such exceptions may not be urg'd His next concern is to fix in the mind of his Disciples a Character of his Loyalty but in Terms so General so Equivocal that the Oath he offers to swear by may be taken the King may be deposed and murthered by the swearer and yet no man perjured His words are bushes in which lurks the Fox of Equivocation let 's beat a bush and try if we can unkennel him In the end of his book The refusers says he of the Oath are ready to swear his Majesty to be their Lawful King Very well but how long shall he be their Lawful King any longer then the Pope will allow him to be so Clearly no For since they refuse to renounce and abjure his deposing Power he is but a precarious King the Pope may depose him as he has attempted upon others he may absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance engaged to him by this Cobweb Oath nay he may by his Breves or Bulls Excommunicate his Subjects in Case they persevere to obey him for this is no new thing in the World and he may also declare all this to proceed from his Spiritual Power of which the Pope if we may credit this Catechist is sole Judge from whom there is no appeal as appears from his Nineth Chapter Is not this to Equivocate and sport with the Crowns and lives of Princes He proceeds in his Mock-Oath thus The refusers are ready to swear they will never teach or follow the Doctrine of deposing What in the name of Wonder is this will they abjure the deposing Doctrine No will they hold against it without an Oath No will they swear to stand by the King and disobey the Pope in case he should by his Breves or Bulls declare that as Vicar of Jesus Christ he absolves the Subjects from their Allegiance and Excommunicates all those who obey the King No For this disobedience to the Popes Breves they have Censured in others and in his Nineth Chapter he declares the Pope to be the Sole and Infallible Judge in the Case What then must be the import of these slippery words they will never teach or follow the Doctrine of deposing or what advantage comes to the King by them But admit the sense be that they swear to stand by the King notwithstanding any Papal deposition though they will not abjure his Power Is it honour or Conscience to swear to disobey the command of a Judge whom they hold with certainty to be infallible Can his Majesty repose any trust in them or can he believe any Oaths binding enough to those who maintain such Doctrines To hold the Pope Infallible and at the same time to swear to disobey his Bulls of deposition deserves neither credit from Pope nor King The last Article of his new Oath is that they are ready to swear that they will discover whatever Conspiracy against his Majesty So far 't is well but when the Pope shall Depose his Majesty then he will be no more his Majesty and so the King will find himself deluded by this Oath And what if after this the Pope shall prohibit this Oath by his Breve to be taken by Roman-Catholicks as undoubtedly he may and will for as the Power of Deposing is Abjur'd by our Oath of Allegiance so is the Exercise of that Power renounced by this new Oath and assuredly the Pope will be as tenacious of the Exercise of his Power
that as in all Arts the signification of Terms is borrowed from the Masters of those Arts so is it in the art of Equivocating or other Dodging in speech the Teachers of which as they have delivered us these following Terms Equivocation Mental Reservation Material prolocution and Mental Evasion so have they given us the sense of them Equivocation is when a word of it's self capable of many Senses is by Circumstances fixed to one only in which the Auditor understands it but the speaker craftily means another for example being to journey I desire my friend to buy me a Horse he promises me so to do meaning a painted Horse this is Equivocation for though the word Horse may signify a Real or Painted Horse yet in these Circumstances it can only import a Real Horse Secret or mental Reservation is when part of a sense is exteriously pronounced by words and another part which should make out the whole sense is interiourly hid or reserved in the mind of the speaker so to impose upon his Auditor as if being interrogated whether I did see Peter to day I should reply having notwithstanding seen him No reserving in my thoughts not in the Church Material prolocution is a pronouncing of words parrat-wise without any meaning Mental Evasion is a general expression and common to all these Cheats by words Now as Equivocation ceases to be in words when all Circumstances concurr to give them a determinate sense so it fares with mental or secret reservation when what otherwise would be hid and reserved in the mind is laid open by declarative Circumstances for then nothing is concealed and what is not concealed is not mentally or secretly reserv'd My third note shall be that this Term Heretical is Equivocal in it self as having divers plain and common significations for since Use and Custom is the Rule of speech consonant to which this word Heretical imports Opposition sometimes to the word of God written in which sense 't is always used by Protestants sometimes to universal Tradition and sometimes to the definitions of General Councils or to some Consequence derived from any of these clearly there is not any one of these Oppositions but what is the plain and common sense of the word Heretical hence it is that the opinion that there were Antipodes was anciently by some censured for Heretical as by others the standing of the Sun and rouling of the Earth has lately been Hence the Divines in the Schools do dayly Object Heresie to each other without refusing communion with each other and upon any one of these Methods the Censores Librorum and Bishops at their Tribunals have proceeded to the censure Heretical If then in the Oath of Allegiance there be Circumstances restraining it to any of these notions Evidently that must be the plain and common sense of the word My last note is that Popes though never so holy and learned may in their private Letters or Breves nay and in their Bulls too proceed from misinformation from others as also upon their own private opinion and by so doing may Err to the great prejudice of others in which case there must be a Rule by which the errour may be discovered and if it prove fatal to Church or State the Pope is not to be obey'd These notes premised I shall apply them to particulars as my Method shall direct me His first and Second Chapters Examined IN the first two Chapters he states the Question whether the Oath of Allegiance be Lawful or no then sums up the requisits to a Lawful Oath as that it must have Truth Lawfulness of the thing sworn and a necessity to swear Then to make sure work of it 't is resolv'd the Oath of Allegiance shall fail in all and so fairly concludes it every way unlawful The proofs of his bold assertion are ranged in his following Chapters through which I shall attend his march But first I shall smooth a Rubb or two which in these two Chapters he thought fit to put in my way The first is that the Title of Allegiance does ill become this Oath and his reason is because the greatest part is meerly speculative and assertory and therefore no Oath of Allegiance So that in his Opinion the Title squares only to the promisory part which he tells you is in order to bind our selves to another but an assertory Oath is a swearing in order to be believed I beseech him in his next Catechism to declare what it is in the Oath he calls meerly speculative Is the Kings right to the Crown there asserted a meer speculation Fare-well then King whom this Catechist has rendred only King of Fairies and whose Kingdom at this rate is but a Fools Paradise Otherwise I should think that every Subject that by Oath asserts the right of his Prince and abjures the Pope's and Subject's Power to depose or murther him were by vertue of this Oath though no promisory Oath should follow to defend his Prince and oppose the Pope and rebells The right of a Prince and the duty of a Subject are Correlatives they live and expire together no man can assert the one but must assert the other if so 't is clear the assertory part of the Oath is not meerly speculative or in order only to be believed but also tends to practise Again is not the assertory part of the Oath as much the duty of a Subject as the promisory Will the King take it well or think him worthy of trust who by an Oath promiseth to obey and defend him whose right to command he refuseth to assert Evidently then the assertory part of the Oath is as much the Duty Fidelity or Allegiance of the Subjects towards their King as the promisory it being the bottom upon which the promisory part is grounded and therefore who sticks to own the Kings right to command is as unfaithful to him as he who denies him a promise to obey I conclude then that not only the promisory but also the assertory part of the Oath makes up the Oath of Allegiance The second remora he puts in my way is to impose upon the defenders of the Oath that they content themselves with a bare probability of the truth they swear when 't is manifest they never bate an Ace of a moral certainty though the Men of his School as Valentia Escobar and others have advanced this Doctrine he now lays to the charge of others Escobar moral theol Tract 1. Exam. 3. cap. 3. Valentia and others in the places formerly cited by me And whereas he objects that Illiterate persons understand not the words nor have any Moral certainty of the truth of the Oath I must dissent from him and do believe they have as great certainty that the King holds not his Crown from the Pope that he is Supreme in all Temporals that as such he is to be obeyed that no man may rob him or murther him that his Subjects are bound to defend him
Christ as being Supreme Pastors This is the sense of Bellarmin Suarez Mariana Becanus Hessius Lessius Tolet Valentia Gretser Hereau and all those of the Society who with so much heat have advanced the Popes deposing Power In fine this is known and common even Lippis tonsoribus so that though the power of deposing be in it self Equivocal and may imply a Spiritual or Temporal power yet when 't is attributed to the Pope 't is then fixed to a Spiritual power and is so understood by all He still pursues me thus that by this Oath 't is not only sworn that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome has any Authority to depose the King but also that the Pope by no other means with any other has power or Authority to depose the King which implyes that no body can depose the King not a Pope nor King nor Emperour I answer that if this be his consequence he must needs have a very hard opinion of both the Framers and Takers of the Oath the one for forcing men to swear against a Noon-day light and experience and the others for so swearing But to defeat this consequent no more is requisit than to look upon the promise which is that the Pope by no other means with any other has power or Authority to depose the King So that still 't is the Popes Power or Authority which is only renounced by this Oath not any other For those words can only import that the Pope what ever means he makes use of though he has the Emperour or the great Mogul on his side to aid him has no Power or Authority to depose the King And this is truth though it may be the Pope alone is stronger than the King and can bring more forces into the field By this you see what little care he has in deriving his consequences which though feeble he leaves to shift for themselves Possibly he may advance farther and make this Objection May not the Pope being a powerful Prince and injur'd by the King right himself by force of Arms and so if victory be of his side dispossess the King of his Dominions Undoubtedly he may but not by that Power and Authority which is renounced by the Oath as is evident from the common notion all men have of Power and Authority to depose when placed in the Pope And therefore when it shall happen that the Pope does war with the King or other Princes if he be stronger than they he may dispossess them as they may him but then this is not done by what we call Papal Power or Authority but by natural strength and Reason and in such cases we must use the same Terms as custom gives to other Princes when they are Victorious as that they have conquered or subdued such a Prince or King it not being so usual to say they have deposed such a Prince and when the word deposing is apply'd to the Power of a Temporal Prince all men understand it to be a Temporal Power but when 't is spoken of the Pope no man thinks upon any other than his Spiritual Power as Christ's Vicar When therefore the Pope conquers by his Temporal Sword the Circumstances he is in declare to the world in what sense the word deposing Power is used From hence I must conclude that from the common use or plain sense of the word deposing when joyn'd to the Pope's power without other circumstances is meant only his Spiritual Power and that without any Equivocation or secret Reservation for where nothing is conceal'd or hid nothing is reserv'd The next clause he jumps upon is this I do believe in my conscience and am resolv'd that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me from this Oath This clause he tells you is no more true than the former and I am much of his mind The reason he gives is because the King by quitting his Crown may quit me of my Allegiancc Besides the power of Victory transfers Allegiance from one King to another This branch I confess has not much of swearing in it but is full of solid Truth For although the power of Victory may transfer Allegiance from one Prince to another and the King by quitting his Crown quits me of my Allegiance yet that 's not done by any Absolution for Absolution or absolving from Oaths are by use and custom Terms appropriated to Acts of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as is likewise absolution from sin and in this sense were always understood in this Oath this being the common notion of the words without any Equivocation or secret Reservation And truly if the Translation of Allegiance from Prince to Prince or from King to his Successor by a voluntary gift may be termed Absolution from the Oath of Allegiance with as much justice a dying Prince may be said to absolve his Subjects from their Oath by Transferring their Allegiance to his Successor which was by Oath obliged to the Predecessour for though by death the person be taken from the dignity which is continued in the Successour yet in his sense of Absolution the Subject is as truly absolved or quit of his Oath of Allegiance given to the predecessour as he should have been if resignation had been made to the Successour before death To allude therefore to the lameness of his discourse I introduced him in the last answer I made to this Objection putting this question What if the King should dye is not the Subject quit of his Allegiance Shewing by the folly of that question how far he prevaricated from the true sense of the Oath But after all this pother about nothing let us put the case that not only the power of deposing in general but even when 't is appropriated to the Pope in particular as also the power of absolving were Terms Equivocal or imply'd a secret Reservation is it not in the sphear of Concomitant Circumstances to clear them from that state and fix them to a manifest Certainty Thus then I discourse the design of this Oath was the preservation of the King his Heirs and Successors from the pretended Spiritual Power of the Pope in deposing Princes and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance King Henry the Eight before this Oath was thought upon was made an Example of that Power for though he was not actually deposed yet the Pope had declared him deposed his Subjects absolved from their Allegiance and all persons Excommunicated who should obey him Queen Elizabeth had her share in some sad effects of this Extravagant Power Upon pretence of this Power it was that the most detestable Powder plot was laid to have destroyed King James and all the Royal Family in the great Assembly of the Kingdom for whose safety and defence against this Power the Oath was made Bellarmin Suarez and others of that School maintain'd that Power by their Pens King James and others his
Subiects whereof some were Roman-Catholicks vigorously opposed them From hence 't is evidently concluded that the Power of Deposing and Absolving from the Oath must be understood of Spiritual Power in the Pope or Church and that no secret Reservation intervenes since nothing is concealed which by clear and undeniable circumstances is not revealed So ends this Chapter The summe of his gains in this fifth Chapter is this First he corrupts the words of the Oath Secondly he will have words to signify without rule Thirdly in signification of words he has no regard to subjecta materia or the matter in hand Fourthly by vertue of his Logick he can make one to be two or two to be one Fifthly he minds no Circumstances in the understanding of words Finally to beat down the Oath he forces the word Absolve out of his proper to an improper sence Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrin The Sixth Chapter Examined THis Chapter speaks loud promiseth much and performs little a deep mouth is a sign of slow heels for the game which he thought was in his hand is beyond his reach Three things he attempts in this Chapter First to justify the Popes Breves Secondly to stop the mouth of his Adversary Thirdly to clear himself of his Loyalty God send him a good Deliverance The method to his design is to charge the fifth branch of the Oath with a small parcel of Heresies or Articles repugnant to Faith in number no more than five The Pope though he declares in his Breve that there are many things against Faith in the Oath yet in his wisdom thought it fit to conceal them nay being from time to time with humble supplication sollicited to declare them would never condescend to any discovery How came the mystery to be now reveal'd Is this Catechist the Pope's Nuncio has he any warrant from him to define what is Heresy If not he is deeply guilty of usurping a power of defining no more appertaining to him than to the King and Parliament against whom he is so earnest for using their judgment only of discretion in Censuring a proposition for Heretical The Clause of the Oath which he now attacks runs thus And I do farther swear that I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as Impious and Heretical this Damnable Doctrin and Position that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any whatsoever Before I enquire into the Heresies with which he chargeth this Clause I have two exceptions against him the first is that he permits so many synominous expressions to pass uncontrouled in this Clause for which he so hotly inveighed against the first For Doctrin and Position abhor and detest to swear against and abjure seem to march in synonymous couples My second exception is that he passeth by this censure as Impious tacitly allowing the Doctrin abjur'd to be Impious though not Heretical Whereas in truth there is the same rule for both the repugnance to the Word of God giving both denominations and therefore whoever may swear to abhor aposition as Impious may abjure it as Heretical But these are only points of incogitancy his Eyes and Thoughts being fixed upon a bunch of Heresies which hangs from this branch of the Oath The First Article against Faith in this Clause he declares to be for a Secular Power much more a Protestant to usurp the Supremacy due to the Church in deciding what is Heretical Had he been pleased to have term'd it against good manners for the Secular or Protestant Power to have gone before the Spiritual or Church in deciding what is Heretical it had been more moderate but to say 't is against Faith 't is unpardonable For what if a General Council should afterwards define the same Doctrine to be Heretical which King James and his Parliament have done in this Oath which for ought he knows in good time it may would they have acted any thing against Faith meerly because they prevented the Council If so then all those Pious Christians who declared Arianism Eutychianism Berengarianism and the like to be against their Faith before the three Councils defined the same did all act against Faith Nay the hot De-fide-men of the Schools who so highly value themselves upon their Doctrine crying out The Church the Church at every turn and knocking their Adversaries on the head with hoc est Hereticum will not be exempt from this censure since a thousand propositions have been by them declared Heretical never thought of by any Council Nothing is more frequent amongst the Censors of Books than such Qualifications and shall it be said they have all usurp't the Supremacy of the Church in so doing or that they have acted against Faith If so let them be all Hereticks for company The second point he defines to be against Faith in this Clause is a complyance in the Swearer with that Usurped Power it being sayes he an Approbation of that Usurpation Is it not pleasant that what he has concluded against the Maker and Swearer of this Clause may all be true and yet the Clause it self be clear and innocent So it is for a bare Usurpation of the Supremacy in declaring what is Heretical as also a bare compliance with that usurpation are the faults of the persons not of the Clause which may be very good and orthodox whilst the Usurper and Complyer are not How then comes it to be concluded that this is against Faith in this Clause The third Heresy he fastens upon this Clause is That it makes a doctrine Heretical which has never been condemn'd by the Church I answer that neither the Oath-maker nor the Church her self can render by their condemnation a doctrine Heretical which was not so before their Condemnation If then the Doctrine which by this Clause is declared to be Heretical be such in its self before the declaration as it may be for any thing now opposed how can the declaration of it in this Clause be against Faith Again do not Catholicks as well as Protestants repute that to be Heretical which is repugnant to the clear Word of God Do not the Divines in the Schools censure that for Heretical which is in Opposition to an evident consequence derived from Faith And is not either of these the plain and common sense of this word Heretical Why then in the acceptation of that word must we be ty'd up to his humorous Notion since common use which gives life to words has left us at liberty And seeing the Law-maker's Rule of Faith in whose sence we are to swear is the Word of God written if what in this Clause is declared to be Heretical be truly against that Rule how is it possible this Clause should be inconsistent with Faith Is not this an odd piece of Doctrine to be put into a Catechism His fourth and fifth charge against this clause of the Oath are that it makes that to be
's make experiment of this Rule in these two propositions let Peter be to thee as a Heathen and let Peter be to thee as an Heretick or as Heretical Diabolical or what he pleases All these predicates are Adjectives which do fall upon the Substantive Peter In the first proposition he owns the particle as to imply only similitude or equality and yet the word Heathen is an adjective as much as Heretick Heretical or Diabolical for there are heathen Women and heathen Doctrines as well as heathen Men clearly then the rule fails in his own example Now that a General Rule should allow an Exception is no great wonder but that the Exception should lye in the very example urg'd by the propounder is prodigiously absurd The particle as being thus common to Similitude and Identity he puts this question to himself whether in this clause it may be restrained by the swearer to a Similitude and he answers himself negatively because if both sences be not sworn to there will be a secret Reservation which the Oath excludes But I must beg leave to dissent from him for when a word may have two plain common significations and no Circumstances do biass it to one more than to the other 't is in the swearer's choice to use it as he pleases so he swears truth in either sense nor is there in so doing any danger of secret or mental Reservation which then onely happens when a part of a proposition is pronounced by the mouth another part is reserved secretly in the mind to piece up the whole so that without it the sense as intended by the speaker would not be compleat As if you asking me whether I did such or such a thing I answer no reserving in my mind so as I am obliged to tell you this later part of the proposition is secretly reserved and so the proposition is vicious because it is destructive to Humane Society But in our case where a word or proposition may have two plain and common meanings and both true I may swear the one and abstract from or not mind the other for I reserve nothing in my mind to piece out the sense of the proposition since my meaning is what the words do plainly and exteriously import and since both senses of the proposition are true it imports not in what sence I took it for either of them satisfies the Magistrate and so no body is deluded I affirm'd it was a rule in all Laws that if a word may have two Significations whereof one renders the Law Just the other Unjust it ought to be taken in that sence which renders the Law Just Also I added that in Penal Laws words are to be interpreted in the most favourable sence To this I have his Assent as to other cases but not in this because by the words of the Oath sayes he All mental Evasions and secret Reservations are excluded I answer out of my foresaid Notes that when a word is equivocal or a sence in a proposition seems to be reserv'd if circumstances do determine it then 't is no more Equivocal nor the sence reserv'd for what is not conceal'd is not reserv'd But these Rules of rendering the Law just by a fit interpretation of words and favourable in penalties are circumstances so known that if any thing were otherwise Equivocal in this Oath or seem'd to be reserv'd they fix them to a Just and Favourable sence consequently as to the point of Justice and Favour there is nothing concealed so nothing Equivocal nothing reserv'd This I bring ad abundanâ—iam not that there is any need of this Observation for any thing now opposed since the words are left in their plain and common sence And as to the word Heretical the Circumstance of the Law makers owning the the Scripture to be their Rule of Faith hath determined it's Sence And if it had not yet the Oath abstracting from materially or formally Heretical terms of School-invention may be taken in that Abstraction as I may swear a man is a Living Creature though by my words 't is not resolv'd what living Creature he is Reverend Father when you see a Catechist advancing his own Figments in lieu of Christian Doctrin you cannot but think his case desperate In all my disputes with him and his Consorts I required for the taking this Oath the same certainty which all mankind expect to find in all other Oaths that is a rational judgment or moral certainty for these are my words which he read in my Letter now cited but by his wonted Artifice he conceals them to possess his Reader with this Errour that I hold Opinion in the Swearer defence enough against Perjury and that the Oath runs to this purpose I think the Pope cannot Absolve me I think that Doctrin is Heretical I think King Charles to be my lawful King c. Whereas in truth there is not any thing of this sound in all my Letters Upon this sandy Foundation he builds his Castles True it is I asserted that a Moral Certainty was consistent with an Absolute Possibility of the thing being otherwise and that therefore the swearer did only assert the truth of the thing as it is in his Conscience or Rational Judgment not always as it is in it's self otherwise few or no Oaths would be taken and that this Moral Certainty would render the swearer secure in his Conscience from all Perjury and justify him before God and Man Whereas to swear positively what he thinks to be true is if not perjury at least to expose himself to it which though what he swears happens to be true leaves a guilt upon his Conscience and renders him in excusable before God and man By this you may see the Impostor detected and his Ignorance exposed in not distingushing betwixt the two Certainties Moral and Metaphysical and also Opinion the first admitting an absolute possibility of a thing being otherwise than is affirm'd the second excluding it and the third standing with an actual fear and doubt that the thing is otherwise I conclude then that he who takes this Oath must not onely think but must be Certain and verily judge that the King is Rightful and Lawful King c. and that the deposing or murthering Power is to be renounced as Impious and Heretical Against this Conclusion he opposeth his Evidence for the contradictory part and his reason is because he is certain there is no definition of the Church to make it Heretical and he is as certain that neither private Men nor Uniuersities can make it Heretical I answer that neither they nor Bishops nor Popes nor Councils nor Angels can make any Doctrin Heretical but only the Opposition it has to the Word of God Again I answer that to disobey my Prince in Temporals is as Opposit to the Word of God and also to the Doctrin of the Church as 't is to disobey the Pope in Spirituals if therefore it be Heretical to
it be Heretical to affirm it Lawful to murther the King then for murther's sake 't is Heretical to assert it Lawful to depose or murther him For Example if it be a Heretical position to say it is Lawful to do evil he that shall say 't is Lawful to do good or evil delivers a position heretical for by that position 't is left to a man's choice to do either lawfully If therefore either of the parts of that position be heretical the whole must be so because bonum ex integra causa malum vero ex quolibet defectu He concludes this assertory part of the Oath with a Quere or two first how a man can swear that this Oath is administer'd unto him by good and lawful power I answer because it is administer'd unto him by his Lawful Magistrate impowerd by God so to do Secondly how he can swear by this Oath heartily willingly and truly upon the Faith of a Christian I answer because 't is the will of God that Subjects perform their duties to their Prince not repiningly but cheerfully hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus His accounts of this Chapter are but short First he denies it to be Heretical to teach it Lawful to rob or steal Secondly he weighs not the truth of this maxim bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Thirdly he wonders how a Magistrate can administer a lawful Oath Fourthly he quarrels with Subjects for swearing Allegiance to their Prince heartily willingly truly and in the Faith of a Christian Reverend Father Is this Christian Doctrin His Eight Chapter Examined THis is a Chip of the Old Block still tautologies still repetition of old stories The Assertory part of the Oath is again excommunicated from an Oath of Allegiance and my task is to Absolve it Again then to assert by Oath the Kings Right when required and to renounce all power to depose or murther him is the duty of every good Subject and without which to promise Allegiance would be a vicious and an unjust Act. And since the Oath is made out of both parts my inference in opposition to his is that by this Oath nothing but pure and candid Allegiance was intended by the Law-maker We are now arrived to the promisory part of the Oath against which he seems to have only this exception that the swearer by it does promise to disclose not only all traiterous Conspiracies against the King but all Treasons Now many most important points of Religion being by the Law made Treasons as to maintain any Authority in the See of Rome to be Ordained Priest by Authority derived from that See and then to come and remain in the Kings Dominions to reconcile or be reconciled to the Roman Religion c. he cannot sayes this Catechist make discovery of these things without betraying his Religion and he who will do so will be a Traitor to his King For my part I see no necessity why the swearer should be reputed a Traitor either to the one or the other since both the Law and Law-makers as also practitioners in the Law or Custom all which are the best interpreters of the Law do exempt him from such discoveries as shall be evinced by this following induction The Statute wherein the Oath is contained assures him that the design in framing this Oath was for the better tryal how his Majesties Subjects stood affected as to their Loyalty The Law-maker himself that King for whose safety the Oath was made forecasting that some unhappy Catechist would wrest all things in the Oath to the worst sence prevents his Objection by declaring that nothing is by this Oath required but a profession of that Temporal Allegiance or Civil Obedience which all Subjects by the Law of God Nature do owe to their Lawful Princes with promise to resist and disclose pray observe what all contrary Uncivil violence Premon pag. 9. Now to maintain a Spiritual Authority in the See of Rome to be a Roman Priest to reconcile or be reconciled to the Roman-Catholick Church are not things repugnant to that Temporal and Civil Allegiance which all Subjects by the Law of Nature do owe to their Lawful Soveraigns Clearly then the discovery of any of them comes not within the verge of this Oath And therefore the Charge which is brought of High Treason against a Priest at the Bar has no connexion with the Treasons to be discovered by vertue of this Oath Roman Priesthood being only Treason by a particular positive Law and all the Treasons to be revealed by this Oath are onely such as are against Temporal and Civil Allegiance due to all Princes by the Laws of God and Nature The next Expounder of the Law is Custome Optima interpres legum est consuetudo by which all words are to be regulated To Custome then I appeal and demand whether ever any Person of Worth and Honour amongst Protestants who have taken this Oath and are acquainted with Priests and persons by them reconciled to the Roman Church do think themselves in Conscience obliged to discover them believing them guilty of no other Treason than that of Orders and reconciling or being reconciled That they do not is more clear than Noon-day light Nay 't is observed that none but the scum of people who either out of Malice to some private person or for filthy lucre are Informers of this Nature and as such are by Protestants themselves reputed vile And whereas the Law has provided penalties for those who conceal such treasons as are against Natural Temporal and Civill Allegiance yet the bare knowledg of a Priest and not revealing him is not punished by Law To reinforce the Objection he argues thus The signification of Words is taken from the will of men which cannot be more clearly expressed than by their Laws since then by the Laws these things above mentioned are Treasons and all Treasons by this Oath are to be discovered it seems to him evident that those also ought to be discovered or a secret Reservation excluded by the Oath must intervene rendering the swearer perjur'd This is the Sum of his discourse To which I thus reply that though words signify by the will of men and the will of men be expressed by their Laws yet the words of the Law cannot alwayes express the will of the Lawmaker unless vested with concomitant Circumstances foâ— if a word in a law may have divers sences it must be fixed to some one in particular This being so and the word Treason in the Oath being by all Circumstances as by the words of the Statute by the design of the Lawmaker interpreting his own Law and by common use and practise of the Law fixed to such a determined sort of Treason that and onely that is by vertue of this Oath to be discovered Nor is there room here for any secret reservation for these Circumstances laying all things open nothing is secret nothing reserved My conclusion of this Chapter
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
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