in token of their concurring thereunto after it was pronounced all the Prelates lighting their Tapers held them downward and so put them out and threw them on the ground And every one of them set his hand to the Bull of the Sentence And there were present at it the other Emperour of Constantinople the Embassadours of France and England and of most other Christian States and not one of them no not the Emperour 's own Advocate opened his mouth against the Jurisdiction of the Court onely he put in his Appeal from it to the next more General Council which is an acknowledging the Jurisdiction Yea and the Emperour himself when the Sentence was reported to him though he slighted it as unjust and frivolous yet he never excepted to it as given à non Iudice And the King of England and the French King Lewis IX afterwards Canonized for a Saint and their Nobles justified the Sentence and the French King took upon him the protecting of the Pope's cause against the Emperour 6. In the same General Council of Lyons was made a Canon That whatever Prince should cause any Christian to be murthered by an Assasin he should ipso facto incurre the Sentence of Excommunication and Deposition 7. In Anno 1606. Pope Paul V. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls That the Oath of Allegeance establish'd by Parliament 3. Iac. salvâ Fide Catholicâ Salute animarum suarum praestari non potest cùm multa contineat quae Fidei ac Saluti apertè adversantur Now there are not in it multa to which this Censure is possibly applicable unless this be one That the Pope hath no Power to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance Therefore this Proposition was condemned by that Pope as contra Fidem Salutem animae 8. In Anno 1648. Pope Innocent X. censured the Subscribers negatively to these Propositions 1. The Pope or Church hath power to absolve any persons from their Obedience to the Civil Government established or to be established in this Nation in Civil affairs 2. By the command or dispensation of the Pope or Church it is lawfull to kill or doe any injury to persons condemned or excommunicated for Heresy or Schism 3. It is lawfull by dispensation at least from the Pope to break Promise or Oath made to Hereticks to have done unlawfully and incurred the Censures contained in the holy Canons and Apostolick Constitutions contra negantes Pontificiam authoritatem in causis Fidei Now there is none of these Propositions to which this Censure can reasonably be fastened but the first onely therefore that was thus censured 9. This very last year the now Pope being consulted touching the lawfulness of taking the late Irish Protestation in which is renounced this Power of the Pope declared That instar repullulantis Hydrae it did contain Propositiones convenientes cum aliis à Sede Apostolica olim reprobatis signanter à fel. mem Paulo V. per Constitutionem in forma Brevis nuper anno 1648. in Congregatione specialiter commissa ab Innocentio X. c. Se graviter indoluisse quòd per exemplum Ecclesiasticorum tracti sint in eundem errorem Nobiles Seculares ejusdem Regni Hiberniae quorum Protestationem ac Subscriptiones pariter reprobat idque ad eximendas Catholicorum conscientias à dolo errore quo circumveniuntur 10. That this hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in all the several Nations of Christendome yea even in France it self yea even of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Ioann Parisiens Gerson c. you may see abundantly proved by that admirable man Cardinal Peron in his Oration made in the name of all the Bishops of France to the Third Estate of Parliament And it is convinced by this That neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been yet able to produce so much as one Catholick Authour afore Calvin's time that denied this Power to the Pope absolutely or in any case whatsoever as will appear by examining their quotations To conclude then This having been for some Ages One at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church according to which she hath frequently and avowedly practised and proceeded in her highest Courts and inflicted her highest Censures upon the Opponents of it If it be an Errour the Church was at that time a wicked and blind Church a Synagogue of Satan the Pillar and Ground of Truth and with it the whole Fabrick of Faith and Religion shook and tottered If it were no Errour they that now call it an Errour are wicked Catholicks and in damnable Errour Nor though all the Doctours of Sorbon all the Parliaments and Vniversities of France all the Fryars or Blackloists in England or Ireland all the Libertines Politicians and Atheists in the world should declare for it could it ever be an Authority to make it a probable Opinion THE SECOND TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which have now been publick for divers years reduced to one principall Question concerning the Substance of the said Oath CHAP. I. The Occasion and State of the present Question IN the year 1661. was published a small Treatise under this Title Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which were proposed by a Catholick Gentleman in a Letter to a Person of Learning and Honour A late officious hand hath now in the year 1674. thought it seasonable to re-publish this short and judicious Treatise for the satisfaction of such as are at present either concerned or curious The Authour 's professed design in these Questions concerning the Oath was to propose his sense by way of Quaere's wherein he hopes not to be accused of presumption whilst he onely seeks what he professeth not to know And yet is so knowing that though he could heartily wish for a more condescending form of Oath he sticks not to affirm and he is positive in it that if the manner of expression were a little changed every syllable of the substance might be intirely retained Now if you ask him what he means by the Substance of the Oath he expresly tells you that the Substance of the Oath is the Denying and abjuring the Pope's power to depose Princes For my part 't is as far from my thoughts as forrein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power nor shall I at all play the criticall Interpreter of the Oath nor concern my self with raising any artificiall and learned obscurities such as the Publisher hints at about any inconvenient phrase nor boggle at the form and dress but closely apply my reason
Princes there had been no Religion left in many Countries And he finds great fault with the Catholicks in England that they suffered Heretical Princes to live and saith that they deserved to endure the miseries they did undergo because of it that there is no juster cause of War then Religion is that the Prince and People make a solemn League and Covenant together to serve God and if the Prince fail of his part the People ought to compell him to it And he accounts this a sufficient Answer to all Objections out of Scripture If he will not hear the Church how much more if he persecutes it let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican And he brings all the Examples he could think of to justify Rebellion on the account of Religion Rossaeus proves that Hereticks being Excommunicated lose all Right and Authority of Government and therefore it is lawfull for their Subjects to rise up against them and that no War is more just or holy then this Which he endeavours at large to defend and to answer all Objections against it And the contrary Opinion he saith was first broached by the Calvinists in France when they had the expectation of the Succession of Henry IV. which Doctrine he calls Punick Divinity and Atheism and the New Gospel The truth is he doth sufficiently prove the Lawfulness of resisting Princes on the account of Religion to have obtained together with the Pope's Power of deposing Princes And there can be no other way to justifie the Wars and Rebellions against Henry IV. of Germany and France and other Princes after their Excommunications by the Pope but by stifly maintaining this Principle of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And therefore this cannot be looked on as the Opinion of a few factious spirits but as the just consequence of the other Opinion For the Pope's Deposing power would signifie very little unless the People were to follow home the blow and to make the Pope's Thunder effectual by actual Rebellion And the Popes understand this so well that they seldom denounce their Sentence of Excommunication against Princes but when all things are in readiness to pursue the design as might be made appear by a particular History of the several Excommunications of Princes from the Emperour Henry IV. to our own times If they do forbear doing the same things in our Age we are not to impute it to any alteration of their minds or greater Kindness to Princes then formerly but onely to the not finding a fit opportunity or a Party strong and great enough to compass their ends For they have learnt by experience that it is onely loss of Powder and Ammunition to give fire at too great a distance and that the noise onely awakens others to look to themselves but when they meet with a People ready prepared for so good a Work as the Nuntio in Ireland did then they will set up again for this Good Old Cause of Rebellion on the account of Religion And it is observable that Cardinal Bellarmin among other notable Reasons to prove the Pope's Deposing power brings this for one Because it is not lawfull for Christians to suffer an Heretical Prince if he seeks to draw his Subjects to his Belief And what Prince that believes his own Religion doth it not And what then is this but to raise Rebellion against a Prince whenever he and they happen to be of different Religions But that which I bring this for is to shew that the Pope's Deposing power doth carry along with it that mischievous Principle to Government of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And from this Discourse I infer that there can be no real Security given to the Government without renouncing this Deposing power in the Pope But that which is the present pretence among them is that it is not this they stick at but the quarrel they have at the Oath of Allegeance as it is now framed I shall therefore proceed to the Second thing viz. II. That if they do renounce the Pope's Deposing power in good earnest they have no reason to refuse the Oath of Allegeance And now Gentlemen I must again make my Address to you with great thanks for the satisfaction you have given me in this particular I have seriously read and considered your Treatises and I find by them all that if you durst heartily renounce this Doctrine all the other parts of the Oath might go down well enough The Authour of the First Treatise is so ingenuous as to make the following Proposition the whole Foundation of his Discourse viz. That it is not lawfull to take any Oath or Protestation renouncing the Pope's Power in any case whatsoever to Depose a Christian Prince or Absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance And in my mind he gives a very substantial Reason for it Because the holding that he hath no such Power is Erroneous in Faith Temerarious and Impious What would a man wish for more against any Doctrine Whatever P. W. and his Brethren think of this Deposing power this Piece doth charge them home and tells them their own and that they are so far from being sound Catholicks that deny it that in one word they are Hereticks damnable Henrician Hereticks What would they be thought Catholicks that charge the Church for so many Ages with holding a damnable Errour and practising mortal Sin as their Church hath done if the Pope hath no Deposing power For this honest Gentleman confesseth That it is a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Rights of Princes and the cause of much deadly Feud betwixt the Church and Secular States of many bloudy Wars of Princes one against another and wicked Rebellions of Subjects against their Princes O the irresistible power of Truth How vain is it for men to go about to Masquerade the Sun His light will break through and discover all It is very true this hath been the effect of this blessed Doctrine in the Christian world Seditions Wars Bloudshed Rebellions what not But how do you prove this to have been the Doctrine of the Church of Rome How say you by all the ways we can prove any Doctrine Catholick Popes have taught it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as Erroneous in faith Pernicious to salvation wicked Folly and Madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it Have they so in good sooth Nay then it must be as good Catholick Doctrine as Transubstantiation its own self if it hath been declared in Councils and received by the Church Yes say you that I prove by the very same Popes the same Councils the same Church and in the same manner that Transubstantiation was And for my part I think you have done it and I thank you for it I am very well satisfied with your Proofs they are very solid and much to the purpose But above
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