Kings but onely that it is not a good Reason to prove that the Pope cannot depose Kings in any case whatsoever because a meer Spirituall Power can in no case possible extend it self to Temporalls 105. Another Reason very common among those who defend the Oath and deny the Pope's Deposing power is Because neither the Unlawfulness of the Oath nor the Pope's Power to depose Kings is any Article of Divine Faith Whence they infer that one may lawfully take the Oath and by consequence swear positively that the Pope has no such Power Now let any one judge whether this consequence be not manifestly null Such a thing is no Article of Faith Therefore we may lawfully swear the contrary It is no Article of Divine Faith that His Majesty is King of Great Britanny shall we therefore swear that He is not It is no Article of Faith that the Pope is Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome and yet neither Protestant nor Catholick will swear that he is not The reason is because a thing may be certain though no Article of Faith or at least doubtfull and one cannot lawfully swear what is false or doubtfull 106. And as for our present case Those who defend the Pope's Power to depose Kings in some cases do not unanimously affirm that it is an Article of Faith or that it is expresly defined as such by any Generall Council or by the universall Consent of the Church but some of them endeavour to prove it out of Scripture as a meer Theologicall Truth others deduce it from Prescription others from a Donation or Agreement made between Catholick Princes alledging to this purpose that famous Canonicall Constitution of the Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third assented unto by the Embassadours and Plenipotentiaries of all or most Catholick Princes of those times present at the Councill 107. At least it does not seem impossible that Catholick Princes out of hatred to Heresie and zeal for the conservation of the Catholick Religion should make a League among themselves that if any of them should become an Heretick and should be declared as such by the Pope to whom as all Catholicks confess belongs the Authority of Declaring one an Heretick it should be lawfull for the rest in that case to attacque the Transgressour and force him by their Arms to recant and in case of refusall to prosecute the War till they have Deposed him and Absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance And what is agreed upon so by the common Consent of Princes cannot be recalled but by their common Consent This case I say does not seem impossible Now the Pope in that case by declaring such a Prince an Heretick does as it were authorize the rest of the Allies to attacque him and in case he refuses to recant to Depose him though he is not then so properly Deposed by force of the Pope's Declaration as of the Contract made between those Princes Suppose that some zealous Protestant should entail his Estate upon his heirs with this Condition That if any of them should quit the Protestant Religion and should be declared by the Archbishop of Canterbury whom Protestants acknowledge here in England as their Primate to have quitted Protestancy his inheritance should pass to the next heir Now if the Archbishop should declare in this case that such an one who possest that Estate had quitted the Protestant Religion he would deprive him or rather declare him deprived of his Estate though the Archbishop has no Authority in rigour to deprive any man of his Estate And in this case such a man would be deprived of his Estate rather by force of the Entailment then of the Archbishop's Declaration 108. Finally Protestants do commonly confess to return to the main Point that the Points wherein they differ from us as No Purgatory No Transubstantiation No Invocation of Saints and such like Negatives are no Articles of Faith and yet they are far from positively swearing the contrary Whence I conclude that the forementioned Reason of these Authours is manifestly false For it runs thus Whensoever any thing is no Article of Faith the contrary may positively be sworn But the Pope's Power to depose Kings is no Article of Faith Therefore we may positively swear that he has no such Power The Major Proposition is manifestly false as has been shewn 109. Another main Argument which the Defenders of the Oath make a great account of in order to deny the Pope's Deposing power is That our Saviour did not come into the World to deprive other men of their Temporal Dominions Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo and much less to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat coelestia Hence they infer that the Pope has no such Power for his Power must be immediately derived from Christ whose Vicar he is To this Argument I answer First That it is manifestly false that the Authority of Christ and his Apostles did not extend it self in some cases to the Deprivation of Temporals as has been proved Secondly That the Pope and other Bishops have the Temporal Sovereignty of several places granted unto them by Temporal Princes or otherwise acquired though neither our Saviour nor his Apostles had any such Sovereignty Wherefore this Consequence is null Christ had no such power Therefore the Pope has it not and yet in the Oath we are bound to swear that the Pope has not any Power whatsoever to depose Princes derived from Christ or any body else Thirdly That out of those words of the Scripture and the Hymn of the Church is not proved that our Saviour had no Authority in some extraordinary case to deprive Kings of their Dominions Certain it is that God has not given me this life to kill my neighbour yet in some extravagant case when I cannot otherwise defend my own life I may lawfully kill him 'T is also certain that His Majesty was not made King of England to take away from other Princes their Dominions yet He may doe it if otherwise He cannot defend His Subjects Neither did Christ come to damn any one out of his primary intention but to save all as is evident from several places of Scripture and yet he does and may justly condemn men who will be obstinate to eternal punishments In like manner his primary design in coming into the world was not to separate a man from his Wife a Son from his Father or Brother from his Sister for he commands all especially Relations to keep union and due correspondence among themselves and yet 't is said of him in Scripture Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium I did not come to bring peace but division and to make a separation between man and Wife Father and Son Brother and Sister when the Communication with them is destructive to their Salvation and yet 't is certain that Subjects are not more expresly commanded in Scripture to honour their
evil actions which natural reason discovers to be evil for how can the Hatred of God or a wilfull Lie be any other then evil The same I say of Disobedience to Parents and violation of Oaths lawfully made which are things evil in their own nature The Question now is whether the Pope can doe that which they say God himself cannot viz. make Perjury not to be a Sin For an Oath of Allegeance cannot be denied to be a lawfull Oath and a lawfull Oath lays an obligation on Conscience to the performance of it and gives another a just right to challenge that Allegeance as a Duty by virtue of his Oath and where-ever there is a necessary Duty God himself saith Aquinas cannot dispense for then he would act contrary to the Rule of Eternal Righteousness which he can never doe It is true they grant that God in regard of his Supreme Dominion can alter the matter or circumstances of things as in Abraham's sacrificing his Son upon God's particular Command which in those circumstances was not Murther but this they say well is no Dispensation with the Law nor any act of Iurisdiction as a Legislator but onely an act of Supreme Power But our Question is onely about Dispensing with the force and obligation of a Law of Nature such as keeping our Oaths undoubtedly is And since God himself is not allowed the Power of dispensing it seems very strange how the Pope should come by it unless it were out of a desire to exalt himself above all that is called God Thomas Aquinas saith that there can be no Dispensation to make a man doe any thing against his Oath for saith he keeping an Oath is an indispensable divine precept but all the force of a Dispensation lies in altering the matter of an Oath which being variable may be done To clear this in every Oath are three things to be considered 1. the Obligation upon the person to perform what he swears to 2. the Right which the person hath to challenge that performance to whom the Oath is made 3. the interest which God hath as Supreme Judge to see to the performance and to punish the breakers of it Now which of these is it the Pope's Dispensation in a promissory Oath doth fall upon Surely the Pope doth not challenge to himself God's Supreme Power of punishing or not punishing Offenders so that if men do break their Oaths if they have the Pope's Dispensation they do not fear the punishment of Perjured persons I am willing to believe this is not their meaning It must therefore be one of the former But then how comes the Pope to have power to give away another man 's natural Right A man swears Allegeance to his Prince by virtue of which Oath the Prince challenges his Allegeance as a sworn Duty and so it is according to all Rules of common Reason and Justice The Pope he dispenseth with this Oath and absolveth the person from this Allegeance i. e. the Pope gives away the Prince's Right whether he will or no. Is not this great Justice and infinitely becoming God's Vicar upon earth But how came the Pope by that Right of the Prince which he gives away The Right was a just and natural Right belonging to him on a meer civil account what Authority then hath the Pope to dispose of it May he not as well give away all the just Rights of men to their Estates as those of Princes to their Crowns The very plain Truth is the Defenders of the Pope's indirect Power are forced to shuffle and cut and make unintelligible distinctions and in effect to talk non-sense about this matter The onely men that speak sense are those who assert the Pope in plain Terms to have a direct Temporal Monarchy and that all Kings are their Subjects and Vasalls and therefore they may dispose of their Crowns and doe what they please with them We know what these men would have and if Princes be tame enough to submit to this Power they own the Pope as their true Sovereign Lord and must rule or not rule at his Pleasure But it is impossible for those who contend onely for Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Pope to defend his Power of Absolving Subjects from their Allegeance to Princes since this Power of altering the matter is not an act of Iurisdiction but of meer Power as was said before as to God himself in the case of Abraham Therefore those who contend onely for the Pope's dispensing with Oaths of Allegeance on the account of his Spiritual Jurisdiction can never justify the giving away the natural Rights of Princes for that is an act of Power and not of Iurisdiction And Cajetan well observes that the relaxation of an Oath by altering the matter is an act of direct Power because the thing it self is immediately under the power of the person as in a Father over his Son or a Lord over his Vassall and therefore the Dispensing with the Oath of Allegeance cannot be by the alteration of the matter unless a direct Power over Princes be asserted Cajetan laies down a good Rule about Dispensing with Oaths that in them we ought to see that no prejudice be done to the person to whom and for whose sake they are made and therefore he saith the Pope himself hath not that Power over Oaths which he hath over Vows And yet Maldonat saith that neither the Pope nor the whole Church can dispense in a solemn Vow and that a Dispensation in such cases is no less then an Abrogation of the Law of God and Nature Dominicus à Soto saith that although the Pope may dispense in a Vow yet he cannot in an Oath For saith he the Pope cannot relax an Oath which one man hath made to another of paying to him what he owes him which ariseth from the nature of the Contract which is confirmed by an Oath The Pope having not the Power to take away from another man that which doth belong to him cannot doe him so much injury as to relax the Oath which is made to him And in the loosing of Oaths care ought to be taken that there be no injury to a third person Afterwards he puts this case whether if the Pope dispenseth with an Oath without just cause that Dispensation will free a man from Perjury Which he denies for this Reason because a Dispensation cannot hold in the Law of God or Nature Therefore since it is a Law of God that a man should perform what he swears although that Bond doth arise from the will and consent of the party yet it cannot be dissolved without sufficient Reason But what reason can be sufficient he determines not However we have gained thus much that the Pope cannot take away the Right of a third person which he must doe if he can Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance to their Prince which is as much due to him as a summe of money is to a Creditor I
controversie between the Deniers and Assertors of the Deposing power For that this Deposing doctrine hath been held by Popes and other Learned Divines not onely as speculatively probable but also as safely practicable even against one in possession appears manifestly not onely by their open pretence and claim but also by their frequent and publick Sentence of Deposition against severall Sovereign Powers all of them actually in possession even from the time of the Emperour Hen. IV. to the days of King Hen. IV. of France the first and last of Christian Princes who stand as instances upon record and sad testimonialls of Papal Deposition the one having had the Sentence of Deprivation passed against him by Pope Gregory VII the other by Sixtus V. England in particular hath cause to remember and deplore the lamentable effects of the like Sentence pronounced by Paulus Tertius against King Hen. VIII and of Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth Likewise I have already in the Fourth Chapter quoted the testimony and free acknowledgment of the Authour of the Questions that this act of deposing Kings hath not onely been done by Popes but approved by Councills All which I do not produce any more then he himself doth with the least intention or design to interest my self in the decision of that Question or to prove that the Doctrine is in it self practically probable but onely that it was held so by Popes Councils and Learned Divines and therefore as being a controverted Point of doctrine can be no due and immediate object of an assertory Oath nor safely abjurable even by those who otherwaies hold it safely deniable as practically no Power at all There followeth another Argument which the Authour of the Questions in pursuance of his usual way of arguing and conformably to the title of his Work proposeth by way of Quere Let them tell me saith he pag. 25. are they not ready to swear they will faithfully serve their King whiles they live and that notwithstanding any Papall Dispensation or whatever other proceeding to the contrary What signifies this but an express renouncing all Obedience to the Pope in these Points True say they we renounce Obedience but not the acknowledgment of his Power we will adhere to the King though the Pope should depose him but will not say he cannot depose him What wise and reall difference as to Government and the practicall part of humane life can we imagine between these two I 'll swear never to obey my Commander and I 'll swear he has no Power to command me The summe of the first part of this Discourse which is quite besides the Question in a short word is this either deny the Pope's Authority or obey it so that if those good Subjects who are ready to swear they will adhere to the King though the Pope should depose him will but say though not swear he cannot depose him which is no more then with the French Divines to deny the Deposing power then the Gentleman and the first part of his Argument are satisfied Now to his Question that follows which is the second and indeed the onely pertinent part of his Argument what wise and real difference as to Government and the practicall part of humane life there is between these two I 'll swear never to obey my Commander and I 'll swear he hath no Power to command me they will easily answer that the last of these two Oaths is an assertory Oath and swears to a disputable piece of Doctrine as to an absolute Truth which is down-right Perjury as hath been proved already in the 2.3.4 and 5. Chapters the other I 'll swear never to obey my Commander to wit the Pope in this particular case of Deposing the King being a promissory Oath and tending wholly to practice engages not for the absolute truth of any Doctrine but onely for the Swearer's Allegeance and Loyalty and therefore requires no absolute certainty to build on but onely a safe and practically-probable Opinion as a sufficiently-strong principle of action such as the Authour of the Questions every-where designedly maintains the Deniall of the Pope's Deposing power to be from whence they will lastly conclude that there is as much difference between these two Oaths as between Perjury and Loyalty and sure that is difference enough even as to Government and the practical part of humane life In the last place comes his conjectural proof or rather his meer affirmative presumption That our glorious Ancestours who refused and suffered for refusing the Oath of Allegeance would certainly have changed their judgment had they but seen read perused examined and throughly considered all those many particulars which he dilates upon in a large flourish of words To all which my Fifth Chapter may serve for a Reply and a sufficient evidence that had these worthy Predecessours of ours seen the unanimous Judgment of so many Universities and the publick Subscriptions of so many eminent Regulars they are the words of the Authour of the Questions had they examined the sense of Antiquity towards Sovereign Princes which acknowledge them Supreme in Temporals and accountable to none but God had they read the learned Treatises composed by Catholick Writers both of our own and other Nations where this King-dethroning Power is absolutely disavowed had they perused the Declarations of the Kings in France and Arrests of Parliaments there had they I say done all this and more then this yet after all they could have found the Opinion denying the Deposing power to be no more then an Opinion Neither the Judgment of the French Universities nor the learned Treatises of both the Barkleys father and son nor Withrington's Gloss and Exposition together with the Apologetical answer his Theological Disputation and whatever else he wrote against Suarez Lessius Fitzherbert and Skulkenius can prove it to be any more then an Opinion in the opinion of the Authour and Publisher of the Questions And since that enough hath already been said to prove that an opinionative assent cannot safely ground a consciencious Oath asserting the truth or abjuring the falsehood of the thing that is sworn I shall now pass to this final conclusion of my Discourse That whereas it is the voice and Law of Nature that Protection claims Allegeance and that perfect Subjection to Civil Powers under which we live is the strict injunction no less then dictate of Reason whereby it comes to pass that nothing is or ought to be more inviolably dear to a loyal heart nor more highly and justly valuable in it self then to be and to bear the name of a good Subject life and fortunes are nothing to it yet since that to take the Oath as it lies were to over-buy that precious title by making Perjury the price of it and laying out our very Souls upon the purchace whenas it is to be had at a much cheaper rate and as with more ease to the Conscience of the Subject so with no
Sovereigns then Children are commanded to honour their Parents and Wives to obey their Husbands 110. If our Adversaries object That the cases alledged by us here and above to prove that Christ and his Apostles did sometimes exercise their Power over Temporals or deprive others of some Temporal thing did proceed not from an ordinary but an extraordinary Power and by consequence hence cannot be inferred that the Pope has any such Power since he succeeds Christ and his Apostles in their ordinary Jurisdiction onely To this I answer That all the cases at least alledged by us are not such For the Power to deprive one by Excommunication of all Civil conversation and to separate a man from his Wife in certain cases is inherent in the Pope according to his ordinary Jurisdiction That the forementioned Instances do shew that though Christ's Power upon earth was meerly Spiritual and his Kingdom was not of this World yet he exercised sometimes his Power over Temporals which was the main intent for which I alledged those Precedents of Christ and his Apostles Finally That it is a very extraordinary case for Popes to Depose Kings and even which is much less to Excommunicate them and those who derive the Pope's Deposing power from Christ affirm that he has received that Power onely for some extraordinary and extravagant cases 111. And here I cannot but reflect upon these Authours who impugn the forementioned Power in the Pope They require their Adversaries to shew out of Scripture the King-dethroning Power if they cannot shew it thence then they triumph and conclude that the Pope has no such Power though that inference be null as we have insinuated If they produce out of Scripture several Instances to prove that Christ's and his Apostles Power did extend it self sometimes to Temporals then they answer that such cases were extraordinary and consequently that they ought not to be brought as proofs of any such Power in the Pope So that though Christ had exercised never so great Temporal Power and had Deposed more Kings then ever Popes did depose or pretend to depose they might with the same Answer put them all off saying that they were extraordinary cases and proceeded from an extraordinary Jurisdiction 112. There follows another Reason of great value among the Impugners of the Pope's Power to depose Kings and it is That there cannot be found in all Antiquity till Gregory the VII his time one precedent for any such Power in the Pope whereas Christians were persecuted as much by Pagan Emperours as they are or have been persecuted by Heretical Princes Neither had the ancient Christians less courage or zeal for their Religion and the conservation thereof then the modern But whatever the opinion of the Pope's Power to depose Kings be this Reason is not solid First Because those who ground the forementioned Power upon Prescription or an Agreement made between Princes can easily answer that in time of the Pagan Emperours there was no such Prescription or Agreement made and consequently that it is no wonder if in their time no such Power was exercised Secondly Because since the Deposition was to be put in execution by the help of some Christian Prince there was not for a long time any Christian Prince at all or any one so powerfull that could put it in execution and consequently the Pope's Sentence if he had issued forth any against a Pagan Emperour would upon this account have been insignificant neither would the Pagan Subjects have taken notice of it and the Christian Subjects were many times so inconsiderable that had they taken notice of it or not it would have been of little concern 113. Thirdly Because 't is no good Argument Such a Power was not exercised till such a time Therefore there was no such Power till such a time The existency of one onely Act does necessarily infer the existency of a Power for it but the denial of several yea of all Acts appertaining to such a Power though for some long time does not necessarily infer the denial of such a Power For a Power especially to extraordinary cases may lie dormant for a long time The Power to Excommunicate Princes nominatim is certainly derived from Christ and yet we find very few Precedents in ancient times of any such Excommunication And some have reflected very well as above we hinted that there is not one Instance of an Heretical Prince who was alwaies brought up in Heresy Excommunicated nominatim and yet even those who deny the Pope any Power to depose Kings affirm that he may Excommunicate nominatim such Princes 114. Fourthly I do not remember to have read that either Iulian the Apostata or any of the Arrian Kings were speciatim Excommunicated and yet sure there was a Power to Excommunicate them yea and they deserved it too Why therefore do these Authours infer that because several Kings who persecuted the Church were not Deposed there was no Power to depose them Such a thing was not done Therefore it might not lawfully have been done is no good Consequence There was no General Council held in the Church for many hundred years after Christ till the First General Council which was that of Nice though there were several Heresies and many zealous Popes in those times shall we therefore conclude that the Popes had no Authority to call a General Council derived from Christ or shall we alledge the continuance of three hundred years without a General Council to prove that there is no Power in the Pope to call such a Council And if a Power could lie dormant by reason of certain Circumstances for three hundred years why not for some years more So that because the Popes did not exercise for many hundred years a Power to depose Kings it does not follow that they were not invested with any such Power 115. I close up this Point with another Reason which is That the Impugners of the Pope's Deposing power cannot understand as they will needs persuade us what difference can be between a direct Power and an indirect Power and since they are convinced that the Pope has no direct Power to depose Princes as even Bellarmine confesses they infer that he neither has an indirect Power to doe it For what matters it say they to make the mischief the less whether one's eyes be beaten out by a direct stroke from a Tennis-ball or by a Bricol In answer to this Difficulty No body denies but that if a Prince be really Deposed the effect is the same whether he was Deposed by a direct or indirect Power and this is all the instance they bring does amount to For certainly 't is harder more extraordinary and more skill is required to strike a set mark by Bricol then by a direct stroke of a Tennis-ball and were one to stand the one or the other stroke sure he would rather stand a Bricol then a direct stroke Moreover there is a vast difference between a direct and