to be true in order to be believ'd M. What is a Promisory S. It is to swear a Promise in order to bind our selves to another M. In which of these two Oaths does an Oath of Allegiance consist S. In a promisory as is clear for by a promise alone I bind my Allegiance M. Is the English Oath of Allegiance wholly Promisory S. No the greatest part is meerly speculative and Assertory and therefore no Oath of Allegiance so that the Title ill becomes the whole and seems only put to draw in People M. Set me down the Conditions required for the Lawfulness of an Oath S. They are three Truth Lawfulness of the thing to be sworn and Necessity of swearing M. What do you mean by Truth S. I mean that I must understand the words I swear by and that I must have a moral certainty that the thing is so as I swear it to be which certainty admits no doubt of the thing 's being otherwise M. Is not the probability of a thing 's being so enough for one to swear it S. No for probability leaving a rational doubt whether the thing be so or no I cannot bring God's veracity to witness what I doubt of M. May not I upon a probability of a thing 's being so swear I think it is so S. I may because the Oath is then grounded upon the certainty I have of my Thought tho' never so weak and not upon the probability of the thing M. Pray come to the 2. Requisit what do you mean by the Lawfulness of a thing S. I mean that the thing be neither unlawful in it self as the telling of a lye nor by prohibition as eating Flesh upon Friday M. What do you understand in the third Requisite by Necessity S. I mean that one must not swear lightly but by reason of some Obligation grounded in a vertue as Charity Justice or Obedience M. Of which of these requisites does the Oath of Allegiance fail S. It fails of all It fails of Truth which is the first because many Illiterate Persons do not understand the force of the words and those who understand them have no moral certainty of the truth of the things signifi'd by them It fails of the 2. Requisit that is the Lawfulness of the thing I swear First by reason this Oath obliges me to unlawful Discoveries Secondly by reason it is prohibited by a lawful power and Thirdly by being made a mark of Religion M. What say you to the 3. Requisit which is Necessity S. It appears from the want of the two first requisits For it is so far from the requisit of Necessity as that it is necessary not to take it M. You seem then to hold this Oath cannot be taken without a grievous sin and without Perjury S. It is but what two Popes have declared with several Breves M. What is Perjury S. It is a calling God to witness a falsity M. In what consists it's Malice S. In making God who is Truth it self Witness of an untruth and as it were Perjured he being his own Oath in what he witnesses M. Is Perjury a great sin S. Yes a hainous one and so against Nature as the very Gentiles the Scythians and Aegyptians put the Perjured to Death the Indians cut off their Hands and Feet CHAP. III. Of the Title of the Act. M. WHat is the Title of the Act which orders the tendring the Oath S. It is An Act for the discovering and suppressing Popish Recusants M. What do you infer from this Title S. I infer what is naturally Inferr'd from a Title the intent of the Act which is to discover and suppress Popish Recusants by means of the Oath M. Do you then think the Oath to be intended as a distinctive sign of Popery S. Yes for what ever is ordered to Discover and Suppress Popish Recusants must be intended to distinguish them from others M. Why so Are there not other things enjoin'd by the Act to distingush Recusants as the going to Church to Communion c. which may verify the Title of the Act S. There are but those things discover Dissenters in General who refuse the Protestant Communion and Church no less than Catholicks The Oath of Allegiance is only proper to try Catholiks and therefore chiefly pointed at by the Title M. Have you considered the Preamble in the Act prefixed to the Oath it may perchance alter your Opinion S. I believe not I pray deliver it me M. It runs thus And for the better tryal how his Majestyes Subjects stand Affected in point of Loyalty and due Obedience be it also Enacted c. By which words you see the intent is to distingush Loyal from disloyal Subjects and not what you pretend from the Title of the Act. S. Be it said with your good leave this preamble Confirms the Oath to be not only a distinctive sign to discover a Papist but adds to the Discovery a Penalty the greatest imaginable of making a Papist to be reputed and persecuted as Disloyal and consequently to be suppressed as is designed in the Title M. Is then the Title of the Act fitly and fully apply'd to the Oath since other things are contain'd in the Act S. Yes for a Papist is Discover'd by his Refusal and his refusal of the Oath brings him in Disloyal and exposes him as such to the Laws to be Suppress'd which is the full intention of the Act for so are compleated the two parts of the Title to Discover and Suppress From this you must necessarily infer that this Law which settles Protestant Religion by the words Loyalty and Obedience understands and aims at nothing but a complyance with that Religion M. Can you make this out by another instance contained in the Act and prove that this Oath is intended for a distinction of Religion and not only a distinction of Loyalty S. Yes I can if you allow Communion and going to Church to be a distinctive mark of Religion M. I allow them for such S. If so be pleased to reflect how the same Act does declare that Communion is proposed for a distinctive sign of Loyalty and Obedience and not for a sign of Religion for the Preamble to the ordaining the taking of the Communion is this For the better discovery therefore of such Persons and their evil Affection to the Kings Majesty and the state of the Realm to the end that evil purposes may be better prevented be it Enacted that once in every Year following he receive the Lords Supper M. This is somthing for if the Receiving the Communion be a distinctive sign of Religion although the Preamble might be produced to perswade the contrary and that it is only a distinctive sign of Loyalty so the taking the Oath is clearly a distinctive sign to discover a Papist as the Title does declare though the Preamble alledged seem to bear another intent Nor can I invent a Reason when I compare the two Preambles why this latter Preamble
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
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
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
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-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
as of the Power it self this being vain and useless without that Is the Pope in this case of Prohibition to be Obeyed If so adieu all Allegiance promised by Oath Is he to be disobey'd then the 9th or last Chapter of his Catechism will rise in judgment against him it being a Self-Condemnation Reverend Father you have here the design of the Catechism whose Doctrin though it be but the same boil d Capon often disht and serv'd up Objections ten times Answered without a step advanc'd yet because it is now hasht and minced into a Catechism so to allure weaker Stomacks I shall advise them of the Poison it brings and apply the Antidote The Preface to the Reader Examined AS the Preface to his Catechism is Tripartite so shall be my Answer First He declares against Perjury with which he couples the Oath of Allegiance so joyning in Communion Falshood with Truth Light with Darkness Christ with Beliaâ— Divers says he by taking an unlawfuâ— Oath have encreased the Evil of Perjury If so then 't is to be hoped that divers who have taken a lawful Oath have decreased the Evil of Perjury and since the Oath of Allegiance may be such for any thing opposed by him I know not why it may not work a perfect Cure to that Evil in the Sphear of Loyalty whereas an Equivocating Oath such as he now offers is so far from Curing that presently it Kills Perjury 't is Confessed is the worst oâ— Sins and Equivocation in an Oath is the worst of Perjuries Barefac'd perjury iâ— soon discovered and the Author ofteâ— shamed into Repentance but perjury in Masquerade or Equivocation lies concealed and when disclosed it stands upon it's terms of Justification and has eveâ— a Colour for the mischief it does which renders it Incurable He that by Oath Equivocates with his King can never be true to his God And since your Antifimbria gives a Challenge to him who presumes to say that any of your Society holds the Doctrin of Equivocation since it was very lately Condemned by Innocent the 11th my Answer by his favour is That if Antifimbria be the Catechist and the Catechist be of your Society Antifimbria is the man and the Oath he offers to take is my Evidence From hence I step to the second part of his Preface wherein he discloses a Mystery Some sayes he who took this Oath have since slept at a Minister's Sermon and took the Cheering Cup others have renounced the Popes Supremacy and the greatest part abused by the specious Title of Allegiance swore what they meant and meant what was just This is a Hodg-podg of good and bad together all put to the account of the Oath of Allegiance whose hard Fate it is that for it's sake even what is best in an Oath must be hated for what can be more Rational in a Man than in due Circumstances to Swear what he means and mean what is just For if he swears otherwise than what he means he must either Lye or to give it a finer Term must Equivocate But he add's thus their meaning was far from the words they swear Was it so Then clearly they did not swear what they meant which can only be when their words and their meaning go together And if any who have taken this Oath have renounced the Popes Supremacy I hope it was in Temporals and that 's the very Life and Soul of the Oath of Allegiance But if the Abjuration was of purely Spirituals it can no more be charged upon this Oath than upon the Oath or Vow made in Baptism Nor is the deserting Communion with the Roman-Catholick-Church or taking the Cheering Cup as he calls it in the Protestant Church or any other by assing from the Roman Catholick-Faith neer so much the Effect of this Oath as the disorders of Private Members of his or any other Religious Family is to be imputed to the vow of blind Obedience to their General since the Oath is no Cause of them In the third part of his Preface he seems to have a priviledge to say any thing and therefore imposes upon the defenders of the Oath as their Doctrin that they swear not to the words as they lye but only their Opinion and yet whoever amongst the approvers of the Oath of Allegiance contented himself with the bare thought or only Opinion of the Truth of it How often have they declar'd That a Rational settled Judgment or imoral Certainty and such as is required in all Oaths to justify a prudent and Conscientious Man though possibly the thing sworn may be otherwise is requisit to take this Oath Has he so soon forgot the Lesson I read him out of the most Eminent of his Four and Twenty Elders in Escobar when he had censured them and all others as disingenuous who were not of his mind Is his new Oath with which he professeth to Live and Dy more binding than this Will he disobey the Pope in case he declares this new Oath to contain many things repugnant to Faith or Salvation If not his Allegiance will certainly Dy with him but he 'l not Dy with his Allegiance If he disobey the Pope I conclude with this Evidence against his Preface that he is obliged to burn his Catechism and so shall neither by it convince his Adversaries nor confirm his Friends much less reclaim others which is his design The Account of his Preface is thus First he makes this Deduction some have of late been Perjur'd Ergo a lawful and good Oath ought not to be taken Secondly things unconnected and disparate he makes to be Cause and Effect Thirdly what is most perfect in an Oath is by him reputed Vicious Fourthly he Imposes upon the defenders of the Oath Opinion in lieu of Certainty as a requisit to an Oath Lastly he prefers an Equivocating Oath to an Oath that is Clear and Candid Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrin Now before I take his Catechism in Peeces I shall offer you a few Notes short clear and easy the Observation of which alone is a ful vindication of the Oath of Allegiance and a Total Defeat to his Catechism My first Note shall be that since our understandings are so fruitful and various in their Productions and our words so few that they cannot adequate every distinct Notion of the Mind it must inevitably follow that many words must be Equivocal that is must contain many different meanings from whence must rise great Obscurities in speech and writing for the clearing of which a regard must be had to Circumstances as time place person antecedents consequents the end and motive of speech c. All or some of which do usually give light to the Auditor or Reader and fix words to a determinate sense if therefore in the Oath of Allegiance there be any word in it self Obscure or Equivocal and if it be circumstanc't by these or some of these advantages 't is render'd unequivocal and clear My second Note is
'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
should not be as Efficacious to exempt Communion from being a mark of Religion and make it only a sign of Loyalty as the former is to exclude the Oath from being a distinctive sign as both this Act of Parliament by its Title and the Popes Breves declare it to be So that I am yours and only add the joyning such things as the Oath and Communion together sufficiently declares the meaning of the Title and the Law-makers intention of discovering and suppressing Popish Recusants by means of this Oath S. This being so I cannot in Conscience take it M. I pray come to the particulars of the Oath in it self S. It is my duty to comply with your just commands CHAP. IV. The Assertory part of the Oath considered in two Clauses M. DEscend to those particulars that render the Oath unlawful in it self S. They are more than one wherefore I must lay down a Method to be the clearer M. As you please S. First then I divide this Oath into its Assertory part and its promissory an Assertory Oath as I have told you is to swear a thing to be true in order to be believed and this Assertory Oath as is evident includes no promise of Fidelity and by Consequence is no Oath of Allegiance M. Produce the first Clause you say cannot be sworn S. I shall place first what in the Oath is with design placed last but influences upon all that goes before it M. What is that S. They are these words following And all those things I do plainly and sincerly acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mentall evasions or secret reservation whatsoever M. What difficulty find you in these words S. The difficulty is that after I have sworn what cannot be sworn according to the express words and without some reservation I am engaged to forswear all reservation in what I have sworn M. What is that which cannot be sworn according to the express words and without any reservation S. Give me leave to propose unto you by way of doubt the ensuing Clause though never so plausible in appearance I testify and declare in my Conscience before God and the world that our Soveraign KING CHARLES is lawful and Rightful KING of the Realm and all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries M. I cannot conceive any reason you have to stumble at this S. My first reason is a due respect to his Majesty the 2. is that I understand not perfectly what I am to swear nor have a Moral certainty of the truth of it M. Is not this an affected pretence to cloak disobedience S. Were it so I should not swear as I do in these express foregoing words I truly and sincerely acknowledg and Profess that is interiourly and exteriourly own by words and deeds Our Soveraign King Charles to be lawful King c. M. Are not the words I testify and declare as necessary to my Allegiance as the other S. No they are Derogatory to his Majesty and by Consequence to my Allegiance M. My thinks you are harping upon a ticklish point wherefore I pray explain your self better S. To testify as importing somthing distinct from my acknowledging in the rigour of the express word is to bear witness to declare as distinct from professing is as it were to act the part of a Judg 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 are witnesses sworn but in Case of Controversy or are declarations required but in Case of doubt the King is King by his already declared indisputable right This right without any more makes the Subject a Subject To swear me to witness he is my King after my acknowledgment of his right is as it were to make him own his right to my acknowledgment whereas my acknowledgment is a tribute due to his right which has no need of my witnessing or declaring it as the Tenor of the Oath seems to suppose it hath by requiring me to be a witness and declarer of it M. You are a very precise swearer S. No preciser then I am sworn to be by the express words I am to swear to without any Reservation which obliges me to discuss exactly the signification of them and I find those words I testify and declare in their natural extent rather prejudicial to his Majesties right and my Alletrance than otherwise M. Have you any other reason against this Clause S. I have my 2 d. reason is that being a person as most are to whom the Oath is tendred not well versed in matters of State and Justice am forced to swear things which are above me M. What are those S. I am sworn to testify and declare before God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful King of this Realm and all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries M. I fear you are more nice than Conscientious what difficulty can you find in this S. My difficulty is that I know not what I swear M. Do you not know he is your Lawful King S. I know and swear it too Let every Subject of his respective Dominions and Country do the same but do I who am an Idiot know what is meant by all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries Do I know what they are and the right to them have I Moral Certainty of what I swear to his Title runs King of England Scotland France and Ireland he possesses many places in Affrica and America some Dominions have been changed since the framing of this Oath I am not certain of the Justice of his Titles to all and therefore as a faithful Subject upon probable Motives will presume it will swear to stand for it which is true Allegiance but for want of certainty of the right he hath to all cannot swear it M. I did not expect you would have insisted upon this Clause however I must own you cannot be too nice in examining what you swear being clogg'd with the first Clause of swearing to the express words without any Reservation whatsoever CHAP. V. Of 2. more Clauses of the Assertory part S. THe third Clause 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 M. What exception make you against this Clause S. The want of Truth which makes me perjured if I without any reservation swear to the plain and common understanding of the same words M. What is the common and plain sence of the words as they lye S. This proposition The Pope by no other means with any other can depose the King is expresly the same as this No body can depose the King that is no Pope no King no Emperour no Prince which you see is against the dayly practise
common speech has this second signification S. The best I can give you as to our present Case is it generally implies the reality of a thing being so as often as it applyes an Adjective to a Substantive for the Adjective not being able to stand without the Substantive the particle as makes the Adjective fall upon the Substantive I do not disapprove of your Rule exemplify it S. It is our present Case When I abjure a Doctrine as Heretical the particle as casts the Adjective Heretical upon the Doctrine which is its substantive and implies the Doctrine to be Hererical M. But should you grant the Particle as might imply similitude as it doth a reality of being Heretical might I restrain it to similitude S. No for in your supposition the particle as being in its common sense indifferent to both I must swear both M. Why so S. Because I must swear without reservation M. Is it not true that words are to be sworn in the sense which renders the Law just and that a penal Law is to be interpreted in the most favourable sense S. It is true in some other Cases but not in this where by the express words of the Oath all evasions interpretations and reservations are excluded would it not be ridiculous for the Law or Law-maker to give me leave by using reservation to forswear my self M. Methinks the word Heretical may signify material Heresy S. You tire me out with these restrictions and I tell you again I must swear without any restriction whatsoever M. I have a better evasion then any of these S. You are resolved to try my patience if it be an evasion which the express words afford you not you abjure it However I pray make it known M. Be it true or not true that the Pope can absolve me from my Oath be it true or not true that the Doctrin of deposing is Heretical I may yet swear I think the Pope cannot absolve me I think that Doctrine is Heretical S. Do not I swear these things in the same nature as I swear King Charles to be my Lawful King I do as is manifest and when I swear him to be so do I only swear I think he is my Lawful King to swear at the Barr I think one guilty is no good evidence to swear that one is guilty is a good evidence by which it appears how much difference there is in my swearing it is so and I think it is so Where do you find in the whole Oath so much as the word I think M. You profess in your Conscience that is according to your judgment is not that as much as to swear you think it is so S. It is most certain my Judgment or Conscience must direct me to swear otherwise my Oath would be irrational but this Conscience may direct me to swear a Doctrine to be Heretical may direct me to swear I think it is Heretical which are two different things and it cannot be made out of the Oath that I swear I think it is Heretical M. You have reason and you might reflect how the Oath-teachers by this evasion without any dispensation from the Pope keep their Allegiance at their own disposal as to this Assertory part S. How so M. Because it hangs upon the hinge of a thought ready to be turned any way I swear I think it is so and not being certain that it is for example that King Charles is my King that the Doctrine of deposing is Heretical in the next hour upon new Motives I may change my thought and with my thought my Allegiance for my thought I swear to is not grounded in a certainty of truth as A. B. ownes in his 3. letter for were one certain of the truth he might swear the things to be true in themselves which A. B. a chief Oath-teacher denys to do S. Me thinks this is very clear which makes me inferr moreover that this evasion is injurious to his Majesty M. For what reason S. By reason it ownes I do not swear as true in it self that King Charles is my Lawful King but that I think only he is which includes a doubt of his being so for were I certain I might swear he is my Lawful King M. From whence do you inferr this S. Because according to the Oathists Confession I do not swear as true in it self the Doctrine of deposing to be Heretical Now the words of the Oath falling equally on both if they do not affirm as true in it self the one they do not the other M. Am I then obliged to swear as true in it self that King Charles is my Lawful King S. I am if the King exacts it for I have as Physical and moral evidence of his being my King and King of England Scotland and Ireland as I have of his being owned by the whole world without any one laying claim to the contrary M. Have not I the same evidence that the Doctrine of deposing is Heretical S. No I have evidence to the contrary for it is evident the Church has never defined it to be Heretical A private person's nor a whole university's declaring it to be against the word of God does not make it Heretical Let men examin what the Sorbon's opinion was concerning this point in Henry the third and Henry the fourth's time and of the Siege of Paris M. Are you then certain the Doctrine of deposing is not Heretical S. I am as I am certain there is no definition of the Church to make it so from which certainty I conclude I cannot so much as rationally think it Heretical for can I be certain a thing is not Heretical and yet think it is Heretical and if I cannot think it is Heretical how can I swear it to be Heretical or that I think it to be so M. Did not the French Jesuits subscribe to the Censure of the deposing Doctrine as being contrary to the word of God c S. Whether they did or did not it serves for nothing but to bring an envy upon them Did they subscribe the deposing Doctrine was Heretical what harm for peace sake to subscribe an opinion did they declare the opposite opinion to be an Article of Faith did they swear the opinion to be Heretical did they subscribe that opinion any more than as an opinion and by way of opinion M. You have said a great deal and no more than what is true draw your conclusion from what has been said S. It is that I can neither swear the Doctrine of deposing to be Heretical nor that I think it to he Heretical as having a certainty it is not Heretical CHAP. VII Another evasion answer'd M. IN the first place I conjure you to lay aside all Logical School-Terms and subtleties and clear the difficulty so as I may say that a Gentleman reading it before he goes a Hunting may understand it S. I can do no more than promise the best of my endeavour M. The evasion is
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
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