all I commend your Conclusion That if this Doctrine be an Errour the Church of Rome for several Ages was a wicked and blind Church and a Synagogue of Satan and 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 Friers 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 Bravely spoken and like a true Disciple of Hildebrand Hear this O ye Writers of Controversial Letters and beware how ye fall into these mens hands You may cry out upon these Opinions as long as you please and make us believe your Church is not concerned in them but if this Good man may be credited you can never find Authority enough to make your Opinion so much as Probable A very hard case for Princes when it will not be allowed so much as probable that Princes should keep their Crowns on their Heads if the Pope thinks fit to take them away or that Subjects should still owe Allegeance to Princes when the Pope absolves them from it Very hard indeed in such an Age of Probable Doctrines when so small Authority goes to make an Opinion Probable that this against the Pope's Deposing power should not come within the large sphere of Probability Hear this ye Writers of Apologies for Papists Loyalty who would perswade us silly people of the Church of England that this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes is onely the Opinion of some Doctours and not the Doctrine of your Church when this Learned Authour proves you have as much Reason and Authority to believe it as that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of it and Father Caron's 250 Authours cannot make the contrary Opinion so much as Probable this having been for some Ages one at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church as our Authour saith From whence it follows it must have been always so or else Oral Tradition and Infallibility are both gone For how could that be the Doctrine of one Age which was not of the precedent What did Fathers conspire to deceive their Children then Is it possible to suppose such an alteration to happen in the Doctrine of the Church and yet the Church declare to adhere to Tradition at that time If this be possible in this case then for all that we know that great Bugbear of Transubstantiation might steal in in the dark too And so farewell Oral Tradition But how can Infallibility stand after it when the Church was so enormously deceived for so long together as this Authour proves it must have been if this Doctrine be false If the Blackloists in England and Irish Remonstrants do not all vanish at the appearance of this Treatise and yield themselves Captives to this smart and pithy Authour I expect to see some of them concerned for their own Vindication so far as to answer this short Treatise but I beseech them then to shew us the difference between the coming in of Transubstantiation and this Deposing doctrine since the same Popes the same Councils and the same Approbation of the Church are produced for both This is all I have to say of this First Treatise whose Authour I do highly commend for his plain dealing for he speaks out what he really thinks and believes of this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes But I am no sooner entred upon the Second Treatise but I fansy my self in Fairy-land where I meet with nothing but phantastick Shows and Apparitions when I go about to fasten upon any thing it is immediately gone the little Fairy leaps up and down and holds to nothing intending onely to scare and affright his party from the Oath of Allegeance and when he hath done this he disappears The Substance of the Oath saith the Authour of the Questions whom he pretends to answer is the Denying and Abjuring the Pope's Power of deposing Princes This is plain and home to the purpose what say you to this Is this Doctrine true or false may it be renounced or not Hold say you For my part it is as far from my thoughts as forein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power Is it indeed forein to your purpose to speak to the Substance of the Oath No say you the Substance of the Oath is contained in this Question Whether a Catholick may deny by Oath and universally abjure the Pope's Power to depose Princes not Whether he may deny it but Whether he may deny it by Oath And the great Argument to prove the Negative is that it hath been a Question debated for 500 years and no clear and authoritative Decision of the Point yet appeareth to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce Where are we now Methinks we are sailing to find O Brasil We thought our selves as sure as if we had got the Point in the First Treatise a good firm solid substantial Point of Faith and now all of a sudden it is vanished into clouds and vapours and armies fighting in the air against each other Is it possible for the Sense Belief and Doctrine of the Church as the First Authour assures us it was to become such a Moot-point always disputed never decided This hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists Canonists from first to last afore Calvin 's time in all the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been able yet 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 Thus the Authour of the First Treatise Since it is but more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish and that Experience the easiest and clearest of Arguments puts it too sadly beyond dispute that this grand Controversie Whether the Pope hath any Power or Authority to depose Princes for any cause pretence or exigency whatsoever hath been for divers Ages from time to time disputed in the Schools by Speculative men and is to this day among Catholick Controvertists and Catholick Princes too as the Authour of the Second Treatise confesseth What shall I say to you Gentlemen when you thus flatly contradict each other How come you to be so little agreed upon your Premisses when you joyn in the same Conclusion There is some mysterie in this which we are not to understand This I suppose it is Among those who may be trusted this is an Article of faith and for such the First Treatise was written But for the sake of such who would see too far into these things we must not own it
be liable to the same Exceptions as the publick Acts of France which are produced by our Adversaries to the same intent Finally concerning the Sentiment of the ancient French Divines about this Point I refer the Reader to the learned Oration of Cardinal Peron delivered before the Third Estate of France And admitting that some modern French Divines do seem to favour the Oath if the ancient Divines be of the contrary Opinion why should we acquiesce rather to the Sentiment of the former then of the latter especially since the Opinion of the latter has been seconded by the Pope's Briefs condemning the Oath I have been longer about this Point because I find that the chief or onely inducement of several persons to believe that the Oath may lawfully be taken is this pretended Authority of France 88. If it be Objected lastly That many learned English Divines have and do defend the Lawfulness of this Oath That several English Catholicks Consciencious men have taken it That the ancient Fathers of the Church were against the Pope's Power to depose Kings That so great an Authority as this is for the Lawfulness of the Oath cannot but make the Affirmative probable and if it be probable that the Oath may be taken why may we not take it especially since it is practically improbable that it is lawfull to deprive a man of what he possesses viz. a King of his Kingdome upon a meerly probable Opinion That it is no Article of Faith that this Oath is unlawfull or that the Pope has any Power to depose Princes and if so why may we not take the Oath and swear positively that the Pope has no such Power Finally That those who impugn the Oath are for the greater part Priests and Iesuits who depend of the Court of Rome who are carried away with Passion and Interest and who have never seriously considered the merits of the Cause and consequently are not to be consulted nor hearkned unto in this matter 89. Concerning the Divines and other Authours who defend or have defended the Lawfulness of this Oath Consider First what Character Vrban the Eighth gives of them in the Brief he published against this Oath the 30. of May 1626. in these words They who persuade you otherwise speaking to English Catholicks prophesy unto you a lying Vision and a fraudulent Divination For sooner ought the sword of the mighty to take from a Christian his life then his Faith Yea if an Angel from Heaven teach you otherwise then the Apostolick Truth let him be accursed Anathema sit And whether should His Majesty give the like Character of one of his Subjects in order to prevent the rest from consulting him or following his Counsell in a certain civil matter he would deserve to be held for an obedient Subject who notwithstanding His Majestie 's Prohibition should follow such a man's counsell in the very thing prohibited 90. Consider Secondly that actually the Superiours of the Clergy and of the Religious Orders here in England with several others of their respective Subjects learned consciencious and grave men unanimously judge that the Oath ought not to be taken and publickly profess that they are of this Judgment whenas the Priests who are of the contrary Opinion excepting one who is in actual Disobedience to his Superiours to whom he has made a vow of Obedience and who for his Disobedience has been excommunicated do not dare publickly to declare themselves though the disadvantage if any lies here upon those who are against the Oath 91. Consider Thirdly that whoever is against any Part or Clause of this Oath may justly be alledged against this Oath whereas no body can be alledged for the Oath unless he be for all and every Clause thereof as is manifest according to that common Maxime Bonum ex integra causa Malum ex quocunque defectu Nay those who are against the Oath need onely to shew that something therein contained is at least doubtfull for a doubtfull Oath is unlawfull whereas those who defend the Oath must prove that whatever is therein contained as the immediate Object of the Oath is certain for such must be the immediate Object of an Oath And who will not rather think that so many who are against the Oath will evince that something therein contained is at least doubtfull then so few who are for it will prove that all things therein couched and sworn are certain it being far easier to evince a thing to be doubtfull then the contrary certain 92. Consider Fourthly that even our Adversaries do confess that all the Scholastical Divines and all the Canonists for about 500 years have been against some Clauses contained in this Oath and that even now there is scarce any Divine and much less Canonist and to Divines and Canonists properly appertains the discussion of the Clauses of this Oath under debate who dares to defend publickly the Lawfulness thereof Neither is there any Catholick Authour besides some few of His Majestie 's Subjects either French German or of any other Countrey for so much as I have been able to learn who has printed any thing in defence of this Oath as it lies whereas not onely His Majestie 's Subjects but also many forrein Authours Spaniards Italians Germans and Flemmings have printed Books against it even as it lies Now to say that all the Divines and Canonists were in so gross an Errour and for so many years no body daring to oppose them till some few Priests of our Nation rose up to disabuse the World and prove that all those Divines and Canonists had not understood either the Scriptures or the Councills or the ancient Fathers though in all probability they were as much vers'd in them as these modern Divines for them to say this I say seems somewhat strange and savours not a little what the Protestants affirm concerning their pretended Reformation viz. That the whole Church was involved for many hundred years in gross Errours till Luther and Calvin came to disabuse the World and to shew that the Doctours of the Church for so many years had been erroneously mistaken in the true sense of Scripture It seems also very strange what some of our Adversaries insinuate that those ancient Divines and Canonists had not seriously but perfunctorily considered the Points under debate in this Oath though they write great Tracts concerning them What man can prudently think that neither Bellarmine nor Peron nor Suarez nay nor St. Thomas nor any other of so many ancient and modern Divines who have impugned this Oath or some part thereof have seriously studied the Point but onely slightly examined it and that onely Withrington Peter Walsh and some others of their Caball have throughly discussed this matter and seriously studied it If it be reasonable to reject the Authority of so many Grave and Learned Divines upon such a precarious Supposition as this is why may not any one upon the same account slight the authority of his
much bent to consider what Roman Catholicks could not swear that they did not reflect what they themselves could swear Wherefore it would not be amiss when they require us to take either the Oath of Supremacy or Allegeance or comply with the Test enacted the last year to shew them that they require of us what they themselves even according to their own Principles cannot doe whereby will easily appear the unreasonableness of their Request From the premisses hitherto set down one may justly conclude that the Example of such Catholicks who have taken the Oath as grounding themselves upon palpable Mistakes and Misinformations cannot be a prudent Motive for others to take it nor a good Argument to shew the Lawfulness thereof 130. Concerning the Authority of the ancient Fathers against the Pope's Power to depose Princes or to absolve their Subjects from their Allegeance Consider First that though it should be granted that the ancient Fathers are against the forementioned Power in the Pope it does not therefore follow that they are for this Oath but onely for one part thereof neither for that in such a degree that one may positively swear it Consider Secondly that to prove that the ancient Fathers and Doctours deny the Pope to have any Power whatsoever either by himself or by others to depose Princes in any case imaginable 't is necessary to prove that they deny the Pope any Power whatsoever to deprive a Prince of civil Communication with his Subjects by force of any Excommunication whatsoever or in supposition there has been an Agreement made between Catholick Princes that if any one of them become an Heretick he should forfeit his Kingdome or be liable to be deposed by the rest in case he refuses to recant to declare any one of such Princes an Heretick though really he be such or in case that a Subject or Subjects cannot live under an Hereticall Prince and Persecutour of the true Church without imminent danger of being perverted and consequently is or are bound by the Law of God and Nature to withdraw themselves to declare I say in such a case that he or they are bound to withdraw and to oblige them to it For those who assert the Pope's Deposing power expound it in one of these three ways which many do not seem to understand Therefore it would not be amiss to ask them who deny the Pope any Power to depose Princes what they mean by a Power to depose Princes 131. Consider Thirdly whether Bellarmine Peron Suarez and others who assert that Power do not alledge severall ancient Councills and Fathers for their Opinion and if so what reason is there why we should not think that they being persons so eminent in Doctrine and Erudition did not understand them as well as Withrington Caron or Peter Walsh especially since most of the modern Divines and Canonists having seen what both parties do produce out of Antiquity in their favour are for the Affirmative And had I time I could lay open the gross Mistakes committed by Caron in the quotation of ancient Authours for his Opinion 132. Consider Fourthly whether it would avail a man in a Suit of Law to pretend that the ancient Lawyers are on his side after that the modern Judges and Lawyers or the far greatest part of them having heard what he could say for himself had determined the contrary And if not apply the same to our present case 133. Consider Fifthly whether those ancient Fathers which the Maintainers of the Oath alledge may not be understood to speak onely of a direct Power in the Pope to depose Princes and if so whether they can prejudice the Opinion which onely allows him an indirect Power Or whether they may not be understood to deny onely that the Pope as Pope for as such he has no Temporall Dominions nor Temporall Sovereignty cannot compell any Prince by his own Temporall Forces to quit his Kingdome and if so the Authority of such Fathers cannot be prejudiciall to the Opinion which affirms that the Pope having declared a Prince an Heretick and a Persecuter of the Church may invoke the help of Catholick Kings and authorize them to compell such a Prince by force of their Arms to desist from persecuting his Subjects and in case of refusall to Depose him 134. Consider Sixthly whether ancient Fathers are to be alledged for an Opinion after it has been condemned by the Church or the Pope as this Oath severall times has been as for instance whether it be now a sufficient motive to affirm that Children baptized by Hereticks are to be re-baptized because St. Cyprian was of that Opinion before the contrary was defined 135. Consider Lastly whether it be not the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers that we are bound to afford at least an Exteriour Obedience to the Pope's express Commands in matters appertaining unto him if the Compliance with them be not manifestly Sinfull as the Forbearance of this Oath which is the thing onely required of us by the Pope in the above-mentioned Briefs is not and whether there be not severall things contained in this Oath the Decision whereof according to the common Sentiment of the ancient Fathers does appertain to the Ecclesiasticall Court whose Head the Pope is 136. Concerning the Probability of the Opinion that asserts the Lawfulness of this Oath Consider First whether an express Declaration or Prohibition of the Church or Pope does not render the thing prohibited practically improbable or the Lawfulness of the practice thereof improbable though the thing in it self and prescinding from such a Prohibition be probably or certainly lawfull As prescinding from the Prohibition of the Church 't is as lawfull to eat flesh upon Fridays as upon any other days of the week yet this is improbable practically speaking supposing such a Prohibition And if this be so consider farther whether since the Pope to whose Orders we owe at least an Exteriour Obedience has prohibited us by severall Briefs to take this Oath it be not practically improbable that it is lawfull to take it though we should grant that the Oath prescinding from such a Prohibition or Declaration is in it self and speculatively speaking probable as severall hidden Mysteries of our Faith prescinding from the Declaration or Definition of the Church do seem probably otherwise 137. Consider Secondly that it is not probable nor credible that the Maintainers of the Oath would have made as they did their application to the Pope to the end he might give sentence of the Lawfulness thereof and whether it did contain any thing contrary to Faith or not had they not been persuaded that the Decision of these matters did appertain to the Pope And if so that it was very ridiculous for them to make any such application to the Pope for the Decision of these matters or to refer themselves to the Pope's Judgment if they were resolved not to submit even exteriourly to his Judgment in case he should give sentence against
for fear we lose some Residences and Patrons of the Nobility and Gentry therefore among these we must not own it as an Article of faith but as a Controverted Point How then say some of the Fathers of the Society shall we keep them from taking the Oath of Allegeance and if we do suffer them to doe that farewell to our Interest in England P. W. and the Blackloists will prevail Come come saith Father W. never fear I have a Topick will scare them all though we own it as a Controverted Point What is that say they with great Joy Let me alone saith he to them I will prove them all guilty of Perjury if they take the Oath because it is a Controverted Point Excellent they all cry this will doe our business in spite of them Let us now come near and handle this mighty Argument that we may discern whether it be a mere Spectre or hath any flesh and bones The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath partly assertory and partly promissory In an Assertory Oath it is essentially requisite that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true Very well but suppose a person doth in his conscience believe that the Pope cannot Depose Princes nor Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance may not such a man swear it without Perjury No says our good Father A man may swear against his Conscience not onely when he doubts but when he hath just cause to doubt How is that good Sir when other men see that he hath cause to doubt or when himself sees it If he sees himself that he hath cause to doubt he doth not believe in his Conscience that to be so as he swears it is for how can a man firmly believe that which he sees cause to doubt If he sees none himself what is that to his Conscience if others think they do if he does not think his Conscience bound to be swayed by their Authority But the Mysterie of this Iesuitism is that no Gentlemen ought to have judgments of their own in these matters but to be swayed by the extrinsick Authority of their Teachers And therefore if they say they have cause to doubt they must doubt whether they do or no. If Gentlemen of freer understandings and education allow themselves the liberty to enquire into these matters they presently see through all this Tiffany Sophistry and find the thing still carried on is meer blind Obedience although in following the conduct of such self-interested Leaders they run themselves into continual Difficulties If a man be satisfied in his Conscience the Pope hath no Deposing power according to the Rules of their own best Casuists he may lawfully abjure it The truth required in an Oath saith Cardinal Tolet is that by which a man speaks that which he thinks in his heart and to swear falsly is to swear otherwise then one thinks And to swear otherwise then a thing really is provided he think it to be so is neither mortal nor venial sin but 1. in case a man hath not used diligence to enquire and to this he doth not require the utmost but onely some and convenient diligence 2. if he be doubtfull in his mind when he swears and yet swears it as certain 3. when he is ready to swear although he knew the thing to be otherwise Suarez saith that in an Assertory Oath the Truth confirmed by it lies in the conformity of the Assertion to the mind of the Speaker rather then to the Thing it self so that if a man thinks it false which he swears although it be really true he is guilty of Perjury and so on the contrary if a man swears a thing really false which he invincibly thinks to be true he is not guilty of Perjury but swears a lawfull Oath according to the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas By invincibly Suarez means no more then Tolet doth by thinking so after convenient diligence For Suarez lays down this Rule afterwards that When a man swears what is really false but he thinks it true if his thinking be joyned with sufficient care and a probable opinion of the truth mark that he is free from the guilt of Perjury This he saith is the common and express Doctrine and built upon this ground Because the Truth and Falshood of an Oath doth not so much relate to the Matter sworn as to the Mind and Conscience of him that swears Dominicus Soto determines this case very plainly If a man swears that to be true which he thinks so after due enquiry though it be false he doth not sin at all And the measure of diligence he proportions to the nature and quality of the Thing which is therefore left to prudence and discretion Iacobus de Graffiis hath this Assertion He that swears a thing to be true which he thinks so although it be really false sins not unless he neglected to use that diligence which he was bound to use and according to the greatness of that neglect the measure of his sin is to be taken Greg. Sayr saith that to a lawfull Assertory Oath no more is required then the agreement of what a man saith with the inward sense of his mind according to the reasonable judgment a man passes upon what he swears Which words are taken out of Gregory de Valentia Qui non videt vel dubitat esse falsum quod jurat perjurus non est saith Vasquez He that doth not see or doubt that to be false which he swears is not guilty of Perjury Which words are quoted and approved by Layman because all Perjury must have its foundation in a Lie And saith he he that swears in an Assertory Oath doth not affirm the certainty of his own knowledge but directly the very thing which he swears Nay he farther saith that where the Matter sworn is capable of no more then Probability a man may lawfully swear the truth according to that degree of certainty which the thing will bear although it should happen to be otherwise then he thinks So that according to the common and received Doctrine of their own Casuists the foundation of this Second Treatise is false as might be shewed by many more testimonies if these were not sufficient which is That since this Doctrine about the Pope's Deposing power hath no infallible certainty in it a man cannot attest the truth or falshood of it by an Oath Which was the more surprising to me considering how usual it is among your selves to swear to such Opinions of which you cannot pretend to infallible certainty by any evidence of Faith or authoritative Decision of the Church What think you of the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas are there no mere Opinions undecided by the Church in his Works is there infallible certainty in of all them I do not think any Iesuit in the world will say so for a reason every own knows because his Order holds the direct contrary in