Rome 1625. having in the 30. and 31. Chapters found these Propositions That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresy and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them and that this custome hath been alwaies practised in the Church c. and on the 4. of April 1626. censured these Propositions of that pernicious Book and condemned the Doctrine therein contained as new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God rendring odious the Papal dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative of the Sovereign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes disturbing the publick Peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the Obedience due to their Sovereigns precipitating them into Faction Rebellion Sedition and even to commit Parricides on the Sacred Persons of their Princes The University of Paris in their General Assembly on the 20. of April 1626. decreed that this Censure should be publickly read every year and that if any Doctour Professour Master of Arts or Scholar should resist disobey or make any the least opposition against the said Censure he should immediately be expell'd and deprived of his Degree Faculty and Rank without hopes of re-admittance The like Decrees on the same occasion the same year against the same Doctrine were made by Seven other Universities of France Likewise the French Iesuits subscribed the Sorbon Censures as the Authour of the Questions tells us And that this was actually done he is confident will not be denied that it was commanded we need no farther evidence says he then the Arrest it self of the Parliament of Paris dated the 17. of March 1626. wherein it is ordered that the Priests and Scholars of Clairmont and of the other two Houses which the Iesuits have in Paris should within three daies subscribe the Censure made by the Faculty of Sorbon This the Authour of the Questions who needed not have been so confident of this last evidence drawn from the Arrest of the Parliament which doubtless must needs be a mistake for otherwise unless we be resolved to rob the Year 1626. of some more daies then were thrown out of the Year 1582. for the Reformation of the Calendar it will be a little hard to understand how the Iesuits should be commanded by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. to subscribe the Sorbon Censures within three daies whereas the first of these Censures was not made before the 4. of April 1626. and the other not before the 20. day of the same month and year even according to his own computation The occasion and ground of the mistake I conceive was this In the month of December 1625. the Sorbon issued out a Censure against another Book entituled Admonitio ad Regem and it was the single Censure against this Book and not the two other Censures against Santarellus his Book as our Authour mistakingly supposed which the Iesuits were commanded to subscribe within three daies by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. and looking back to December 1625. This very quotation and copy of the Censure of the 4. of April is not free from its mistake or at least of begetting a mistake in others and making them think the Censure more clear and home to the point then possibly it is For amongst the Propositions and Doctrines which the Faculty of Theology had found in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Santarellus his Book the Authour of the Questions having onely set down these That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresy and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them and that this Custome has been alwaies practised in the Church here he cuts off what follows and defeats his Reader of his full information with an unreasonable c. as if these Propositions were the onely or at least the principal object of the Censure which yet may justly be doubted for the Faculty goes on in the charge against Santarellus as teaching in the foresaid Chapters That Princes may be punished and deposed not onely for Heresy but for other causes 1. for their faults 2. if it be expedient 3. if they be negligent 4. if their persons be insufficient 5. if unusefull and the like and then follows the Censure it self not singly and separately upon each Proposition by it self which yet is the usual method of the Faculty but upon the whole taken in gross which puts a quite different face upon the matter from what our Authour had given it and renders it doubtfull whether the Faculty would have pronounced so severe a Judgment against the first part of the Doctrine had not those last Propositions proved to be the aggravating circumstance or rather cause that deservedly occasioned and sharpened the Censure As to the Subscription of the Iesuits the true account of that action stands thus Santarellus his Book had been condemned at Rome which it was not for our Authour's purpose to take notice of and his Doctrine generally cried down and disavowed by all good men before ever it fell under the brand of the Sorbon Censures all which notwithstanding such and so eminently singular was the caution and zeal of France against this though already sufficiently supprest mischief that upon the 14. of March 1626. the Principal of the French Iesuits with three Superiours and three other ancient Fathers being summoned to appear before the Parliament of Paris and being asked what they held as to the Points noted in Santarellus Father Cotton the then Provincial having in the name of the rest of his Order disclaim'd all singularity of Opinions different from other Divines answered That the Doctrine of the Sorbon should be theirs and what the Faculty of Paris should determine and subscribe they were ready to subscribe also And this indeed may pass for a Subscription to the Sorbon Censures even before they were made But from this Subscription of the French Iesuits our Authour runs into another mistake seeming to wonder why the English Iesuits should scruple a downright Oath which is exacted of us any more then the French Iesuits did a simple Subscription which was onely required of them And then taking upon him a sober and grave style to open the mystery of this particular Iesuitism he attempts it in these very terms Now were I demanded a reason says he why so circumspect and wise a Body should act so differently in the same Cause but different Countries I could onely return this conjectural answer That being wary and prudent persons they could not but see the concerns they hazarded in France by refusing to subscribe far more important then what they ventured at Rome by subscribing whenas in England all they can forfeit by declining the Oath of Allegeance being
the Affirmative of the latter Question and onely differ as to the Persons in whom the Power of calling Princes to an Account doth lie whether it be in the Pope or the People And even as to this they do not differ so much as men may at first imagine For however the Primitive Christians thought it no Flattery to Princes to derive their Power immediately from God and to make them accountable to him alone as being Superiour to all below him as might be easily proved by multitudes of Testimonies yet after the Pope's Deposing Power came into request the Commonwealth-Principles did so too and the Power of Princes was said to be of another Original and therefore they were accountable to the People Thus Gregory VII that holy and meek-spirited Pope not onely took upon him to Depose the Emperour and absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance but he makes the first constitution of Monarchical Government to be a meer Vsurpation upon the just Rights and Liberties of the People For he saith That Kings and Princes had their beginning from those who being ignorant of God got the power into their hands over their equals through the instigation of the Devil and by their pride rapine perfidiousness murther ambition intolerable presumption and all manner of wickedness This excellent account of the Original of Monarchical Government we have from that famous Leveller Gregory VII that most Holy and Learned Pope who for his Sanctity and Miracles was canonized for a Saint as the Authour of the First Treatise notably observes Did ever any Remonstrance Declaration of the Army or Agreement of the People give a worse account of the beginning of Monarchy then this Infallible Head of the Church doth What follows from hence but the justifying all Rebellion against Princes which upon these Principles would be nothing else but the People's recovering their just Rights against intolerable Usurpations For shame Gentlemen never upbraid us more with the pernicious Doctrines of the late Times as to Civil Government The very worst of our Fanaticks never talked so reproachfully of it as your canonized Saint doth Their Principles and Practices we of the Church of England profess to detest and abhorre but I do not see how those can doe it who have that Self-denying Saint Gregory VII in such mighty veneration I pray Gentlemen tell me what Divine Assistence this good Pope had when he gave this admirable Account of the Original of Civil Government and whether it be not very possible upon his Principles for men to be Saints and Rebells at the same time I have had the curiosity to enquire into the Principles of Civil Government among the fierce Contenders for the Pope's Deposing power and I have found those Hypotheses avowed and maintained which justifie all the Practices of our late Regicides who when they wanted materials and Examples of former Ages when they had a mind to seem learned in Rebellion they found no Smith in Israel but went down to the Philistins to sharpen their fatal Axe Else how came the Book of Succession to the Crown of England to be shred into so many Speeches and licensed then by such Authority as they had to justify their Proceedings against our late Sovereign of glorious Memory Wherein the main design is to prove That Commonwealths have sometimes lawfully chastised their lawfull Princes though never so lawfully descended or otherwise lawfully put in possession of their Crowns and that this hath fallen out ever or for the most part commodious to the Weal-publick and that it may seem that God approved and prospered the same by the good Success and Successours that ensued thereof These were the Principles of the most considerable men of that Party here in England at that time For it is a great and common mistake in those that think the Book of Succession to have been written by F. Parsons alone For he tells us that Card. Allen Sir Francis Inglefield and other principal persons of our Nation are known to have concurred to the laying together of that Book as by their own hands is yet extant and this to the publick benefit of our Catholick Cause First that English Catholicks might understand what special and precise Obligation they have to respect Religion in admitting any new Prince above all other Respects humane under heaven And this is handled largely clearly and with great variety of learning reasons doctrine and examples throughout the First Book This was purposely intended for the Exclusion of His Majestie 's Royall Family K. Iames being then known to be a firm Protestant and therefore two Breves were obtained from the Pope to exclude him from the Succession which were sent to Garnet Provincial of the Iesuits One began Dilectis Filiis Principibus Nobilibus Catholicis the other Dilecto Filio Archipresbytero reliquo Clero Anglicano In both which the Pope exhorts them not to suffer any person to succeed in the Crown of England how near soever in Bloud unless he would not barely tolerate the Catholick Faith but promote it to the utmost and swear to maintain it By virtue of which Apostolical Sentence Catesby justified himself in the Gun-powder-Treason For saith he if it were lawfull to exclude the King from the Succession it is lawfull to cast him out of Possession and that is my work and shall be my care Thus we see the Pope's Deposing power was maintained here in England by such who saw how necessary it was for their purpose to defend the Power of Commonwealths over their Princes either to exclude them from Succession to the Crown or to deprive them of the Possession of it The same we shall find in France in the time of the Solemn League and Covenant there in the Reigns of Henry III. and IV. For those who were engaged so deep in Rebellion against their lawfull Princes found it necessary for them to insist on the Pope's Power to depose and the People's to deprive their Sovereigns Both these are joyned together in the Book written about the just Reasons of casting off Henry III. by one who was then a Doctour of the Sorbon wherein the Authour begins with the Power of the Church but he passes from that to the Power of the People He asserts the Fundamental and Radical Power to be so in them that they may call Princes to account for Treason against the People which he endeavours at large to prove by Reason by Scripture by Examples of all sorts forrein and domestick And he adds That in such cases they are not to stand upon the niceties and forms of Law but that the necessities of State do supersede all those things If this man had been of Counsel for the late Regicides he could not more effectually have pleaded their Cause The next year after the Murther of Henry III. by a Monk acted and inspired by these Rebellious Principles came forth another virulent Book against Henry IV. under the name
swear contrary to the inward dictates of his conscience is that wherein consists the formall notion and malice of Perjury Now this Swearing contrary to what a man thinks in his conscience may happen two ways not onely when he is conscious to himself and knows that what he swears is not true but also when he knows not and therefore doubts or hath just cause to doubt whether it be true or no in which case if he chance to swear it is at the perill of his Soul and contrary to the secret information of his Conscience which must needs check at the act and inwardly protest against it For it is a folly beyond dotage and carries with it the prejudice of the highest self-condemnation imaginable for a man to say I will swear such a thing is true and yet I know not I doubt or have just cause to doubt whether it be so or no. CHAP. III. An Objection answered with a farther display of the former Evidence IF any one shall here pretend that he for his part is so far from doubting that he is already fully perswaded and thinks verily in his conscience the Pope hath not any Power or Authority to depose Kings and why then may not he safely swear as he thinks because no more is required of him then onely to swear according to the best of his knowledge Let him who pretends this please to remember that neither is less required of him then to swear according to a true knowledge that is that he be sure or certain and have no just cause to doubt of the truth of what he swears Let Knowledge then signify Knowledge let it not be a meer term or the abuse of a term let not I think but I know not I am perswaded but I am certain be the ground of his Oath and he is secure But if his knowledge signify no more then his uncertain perswasion and judgment that the thing is so or so then the best of his knowledge is to him no better then ignorance and to swear according to the best of his knowledge will be the same as to swear according to the best of his no-knowledge And it is this want of knowledge will arraign convict and condemn him at the bar of his own heart for a forsworn man Thus if a Witness in any publick Court of justice should offer to swear a thing as true and yet being ask'd if he were sure of it should answer No though we should suppose that he verily thinks it true yet if he be not certain of it 't is manifest it may be as well false as true for any thing he knows for thinking is one thing and knowing another And therefore if upon no better ground then his thinking it to be true he should offer to swear it is so no honest man would stick to say this Witness owes a forfeiture to the Pillory and satisfaction to God and man for so foul a scandal in offering to swear a thing to be true which he knows not whether it be so or no. True it is where an Oath is tendered requiring no more but onely to swear a man's perswasion and judgment not absolutely what is or is not true but onely what he thinks is or is not true there indeed a man may swear according to true knowledge in regard the familiar converse and intimacy with his own thoughts may give him a sufficient assurance and certainty of the truth of what he is to swear because in this supposition he is to swear no more then what he thinks but if any one should goe about to transfer this qualifying gloss and milder exposition to the Oath of Allegeance as an expedient to prevent the sad danger and heavy charge of Perjury in abjuring the controverted Doctrine of the Deposing power as if no such abjuring was intended by the Oath which yet the Authour of the Questions terms the very Substance of the Oath let him who either makes or values this gloss but cast an eye upon the first the middle and the last Branches of the Oath and he will plainly perceive this is onely an exchange of one Perjury for another it alters indeed the mode but shuns not the guilt and by striving to weather out one Rock splits upon another For first in the beginning of the Oath the Swearer solemnly calls God and the world to witness the truth of what he is about to acknowledge profess testify and declare in his conscience and then having uttered all he has to say and particularly in one of the middle clauses having not onely abjur'd the Pope's Deposing power but also abjur'd it as hereticall in the end concludes thus And all these things I do plainly and sincerely 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 mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever By which last clause he again ratifies and binds afresh all his former asseverations and already-sworn engagements by a repeated and reflex Oath looking universally back upon the premisses And all these things says he I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear Now amongst all these things which he doth thus plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear the chief and principal of all others was That the Pope hath not any such Power and Authority as we speak of And he farther adds that he swears this according to the express words by him spoken without any equivocation mental evasion or secret reservation that is without any farther gloss or comment upon his own thoughts or words whatsoever Whereas on the contrary if we should suppose that whilst he expresly abjures the Deposing doctrine and absolutely swears that the Pope has not any such Power and Authority he yet reserves in his mind a mental evasion and secret meaning of his words viz. that he onely thinks and is perswaded he hath no such Power and Authority then directly he forswears himself in swearing otherways then what he professes to swear that is in swearing not according to his express words but according to an unexprest meaning of his words which thing he utterly disavowed and renounced by his Oath And is not this a remedy as bad as the disease and a rare expedient to prevent the danger of Perjury to make a man forswear himself for fear of being forsworn Let us make the best hand of it we can here is onely choice of Perjuries for the comfort and relief of the Swearer whether he do or do not abjure the Deposing power For if he pretend not to abjure it this is contrary to his express words according to which he professeth to swear and by which he doth expresly swear that the Pope hath not any Deposing power and so he is perjur'd by pretending to swear one thing and actually swearing another which is as much as to swear two Oaths in one the one directly cross and contradictory
Cannot be dispensed with or absolved from his Allegeance Which to me seems no reason at all why Will not may not be as good a Subject and give as full security for his Allegeance as Cannot his Oath by which he swears he will not ever accept or make use of any Dispensation or Absolution from his Allegeance being to him as indispensably binding and tying him as fast to his Prince and his interest as any Oath can possibly do For if it be replied that he who now swears he will not ever accept or make use of any such Dispensation or Absolution may come hereafter to alter his mind and then what is become of his cobweb-Oath and the security he gave for his Fidelity It may with as much reason and truth be retorted that he who now swears he cannot be dispensed with nor absolved from his Allegeance may come hereafter to alter his opinion and then where is his cobweb-Oath and the security he gave for his Fidelity I answer then for both That though Wills and Opinions are flippery things yet an Oath may fix both the one and the other yet with this difference and advantage against the foresaid Opinion that Wills may be fixed immediately Opinions onely mediately and indeed by no other means then by first fixing of Wills First then that an Oath may immediately fix and restrain the Will I take to be a clear case for he that swears for example he will not doe such or such a thing tending to the prejudice of a third person is without more adoe under as streight and indispensable a ty as any Oath can bring upon him that is he cannot so much as change his Will nor goe back with his Promise without Perjury and proving false to God his own heart and his Oath As for Opinions since it hath been already proved that it can never be safe to swear or abjure an Opinion and then secondly though it were yet such an Oath being an assertory Oath could bring no bond or obligation upon the Swearer so much as of not changing his Opinion for the future hence it plainly follows that the way of fixing and restraining Opinions is onely mediately and by first fixing and restraining the Will either by a promissory Oath or by the severity of the Law or by both jointly For instance take in King Henry the VIII his daies upon occasion of the then Six famed Articles of Religion it was ordained and enacted by authority of Parliament That if any person or persons within this Realm of England or in any other of the King's dominions did by word or writing printing cyphering or any otherwise publish preach teach say affirm declare dispute argue or hold any Opinion contrary to the foresaid Articles that then such person or persons so offending should be liable to such and such particular penalties as are expressed in the Statute Were this pattern copied out by our Age and that there were a Law now in force That if any person or persons within this Realm or in any other of the King's dominions did by word writing printing cyphering or any other waies publish preach teach say affirm declare dispute argue or hold any Opinion in favour of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes that then such person or persons so offending should be liable to such and such penal severities as the Legislative power of this Nation had in their grave wisedom thought fit to appoint were there I say such an Act as this in force he who would swear to a strict observance thereof would have no more to answer for his Opinions in this particular But yet again though there be no such Law extant let but the good Subject be admitted to swear that he will never by word deed or any otherwise countenance abett defend maintain preach teach or publish any Opinion in favour of the Pope's direct or indirect Deposing power and for the rest that he will inviolably bear Faith and true Allegeance to the King notwithstanding any Dispensation or whatever other proceeding to the contrary and not onely never act against Him but also assist to the best of his power and skill and side with Him against any Power whatsoever that shall at any time act against Him or attempt against His Sacred Person Crown or Dignity Questionless no Security imaginable can be greater then this forasmuch as no one can be more faithfully true to his King or more securely incapable of proving disloyal to Him whilst this Oath is kept And for security that he will keep it I conceive no good Subject will refuse to swear that he will be content if ever he fail in the performance hereof to be deemed and adjudged a Disturber of the peace and an Enemy to his King and Country a man forsworn before God and the world and will therefore freely offer to be punished as in case of Perjury and Rebellion that is to forfeit his Body to the Law his Soul to the doom and wrath of the last day and his Name to scorn and reproach Were this throughly weighed and duly sworn I know no Expedient that could more effectually contribute to the perfect quieting of all just fears of the State nor more securely answer for the peaceable disposition and opinions of the Swearer whenas even the most hidden thoughts and abstracted notions of the speculative man being under unjust restraint and having for guaranty such an Oath and sacred Engagement are sufficiently bound to their good behaviour and secured from all sacrilegious attempts of breaking inclosure and shewing themselves abroad though onely by way of publick and open discourse Wherefore I shall conclude with the Fourth Controversial Letter in behalf of the silencing and abjuring all Disputes in reference to the Deposing doctrine heartily wishing as he doth that we may all preserve the majesty of Supreme powers in an awfull distance and submit to them with the reverence of a quiet Obedience and not make them cheap by unreasonable Disputes Princes and Bishops are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not touched without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty let every quiet and peaceable spirit say Obedience is the duty which God and my condition require from me and in the performance of that I will endeavour to be found unblamable and leave disputing to those who value the praise of a witty and subtle man above that of a faithfull and quiet Subject CHAP. IX An Answer to the Authour of the Questions as far as concerns our present Question IN the first place I shall speak to matter of fact relating to the Sorbon Censures and the Subscription of the French Iesuits the clearing of both which particulars from some unwary misrepresentations and disguises of our Authour shall be the chief subject of this Chapter The first and leading Censure was that of the Sacred Faculty of Theology which upon occasion and mature examination of a certain Latine Book printed at
things repugnant to Faith and Salvation though he specifies none of them and that thereby is abjur'd implicitly a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate Princes and his Supremacy in Spiritualls all which is false and we are not bound to submit to Briefs grounded upon mistakes and misinformations That the Pope is a Party in this Debate and by consequence ought not to be Judge in his own Cause That he must give Sentence according to the Canons or Rules prescribed him by the Church which he does not observe in the Prohibition of this Oath Finally That we ought not to take notice of the Prohibitions or Commands of the Pope when the Compliance with them may be a cause of great Disturbance in the Church or is prejudiciall to the Right of others especially of Sovereign Princes and to the Duty due unto them to which God and the Law of Nations obliges us all which Inconveniences intervene in the Prohibition of this Oath 14. Concerning the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope contained in the Objection Consider First that though the King and Parliament be above the King out of Parliament yet we are bound to submit even against our own Interest to the Orders of the King and His Councill in Civill matters till the contrary be decreed by Parliament which at least is enjoyned us by such Parliaments as command us to bear due Allegeance to His Majesty as our Sovereign in all Civill matters and that in like manner we are bound to submit to the Pope's Ordinances in Ecclesiasticall matters even against our Interests notwithstanding the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope till the contrary be defined by such a Councill which at least is asserted in such Councills and by such Fathers as recommend unto us due Obedience to the Pope as our Supreme Pastour in Spiritualls For the Pope is as Supreme in Spiritualls out of a Councill as the King is in Temporalls out of a Parliament and consequently requires the like submission to his Ordinances 15. Consider Secondly that the Reasons one may seem to have either against the Pope's Decrees out of a Councill or the King's Ordinances out of a Parliament cannot justify the refusing an exteriour Compliance with them but onely may give one ground to make his Addresses to the Councill or Parliament when assembled to have such Decrees or Ordinances repealed and that what we require in our present case is onely that we should forbear the taking this Oath till the Lawfulness thereof be declared by a General Council to which we may apply our selves when convened to have this matter declared 16. Concerning the Fallibility of the Pope and the Infallibility of a General Council Consider First that if it be warrantable to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Decrees in Ecclesiastical matters because Fallible upon the same account it will be lawfull to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Orders of Kings and Princes in Civill affairs for doubtless they are all Fallible and may be mistaken and misinformed and so farewell all Government Secondly Consider that even those Catholicks who affirm the Pope to be Fallible out of a General Council do notwithstanding confess that an exteriour Obedience is due to his Commands in Ecclesiastical matters as the like Obedience is due to the Ordinances of Sovereign Princes in Civil affairs though Fallible And in this present Case no more is required then a meer exteriour Compliance with the Pope's Prohibition Thirdly Consider that even Protestants also who confesse their whole Church and not onely the particular Pastours thereof separately to be Fallible do yet affirm that an exteriour Obedience is due to their Ordinances And it seems somewhat odde that Catholicks should deny the Pope that Obedience under pretence of Fallibility which Protestants assert to be due to the Pastours of their Church though Fallible 17. Lastly Consider that the difference between a General Council and the Pope supposing the Infallibility of the one and the Fallibility of the other is that the Decrees and Declarations of the Pope do oblige onely to an Exteriour Obedience but those of a General Council to an Interiour Assent also 18. Concerning the capacity of the Pope of being misinformed and the pretended Mistakes in this present matter Consider First that between the publishing of the first and the last Brief against the Oath there past Twenty years That in this time the present Question concerning the Lawfulness thereof was canvased on both sides by Learned men both English and Forreiners That Withrington the chief Defender of the Oath and who brings all that is material for it represented in this interim to Paul the Fifth his Reasons for the Lawfulness of it and his Answers to what had been objected against him That the Popes in the forementioned Briefs use as significant terms to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation Mistakes and Inconsiderateness as Motu proprio Ex certa nostra scientia Post longam gravémque deliberationem de omnibus quae in illis continentur adhibitam Haec mera pura integráque voluntas nostra est c. as are used in any Briefs or Instruments whatsoever in order to that intent And if this be so as certainly it is then Consider Secondly that if all these diligences and preventions be not thought sufficient to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation Mistakes and Inconsiderateness what Brief or what Decree Ecclesiastical or Civil is there that the party therein condemned may not under pretence of the like Flaws reject and disobey Such liberty as this to reject the Ordinances of our Sovereigns both Spirituall and Temporall must needs induce a perfect Anarchy 19. Consider Thirdly that it belongs to the Pope to determine whether this Oath does contain any thing contrary to Faith and Salvation or destructive to his Sovereignty in Spiritualls or no. For the determination of such Questions belongs to the Spiritual Court as has been above insinuated as it belongs to the King and the Civil Court to determine whether such a thing be contrary to the Civil Laws and publick welfare of the Kingdome or destructive to His Sovereignty in Temporalls or not And since the Popes after so much diligence used to be informed of the Truth have severall times declared that this Oath contains many things destructive to Faith and Salvation and upon that account have prohibited the taking thereof we are bound to afford at least an exteriour Compliance to this Prohibition 20. Consider Fourthly that as to prohibit a Book 't is not necessary to point out the particular Propositions for which it is prohibited as appears by several publick Prohibitions of Books and Pamphlets issued forth either by Civil or Ecclesiastical Authority neither would it be prudence to design alwaies the particular Propositions for which a Pamphlet is prohibited when they are scandalous and offensive so neither was it necessary for the Prohibition of this Oath that the Pope should
constantly deny the Pope to have any Authority or Power direct or indirect to Depose Kings and finally of the French Iesuits who subscribed the Censure and Condemnation of some Books wherein that Power was defended and why may not the Catholicks of England have the same liberty as the Catholicks of France have 53. Concerning the Authority of France for this Oath objected against us Consider First that though in an Assembly held in France of the Three Estates Ecclesiasticks Nobility and Commons in time of Cardinall Peron there was drawn up an Oath by the Third Estate or Commons wherein is affirmed That there is no Power on earth either Spirituall or Temporall that hath any Right over his Majestie 's Kingdome to Depose the Sacred Persons of our Kings nor to dispense with or absolve their Subjects from their Loyalty and Obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoever yet the Two chief parts of the Assembly viz. the Spirituall and Temporall Lords were so much against this Article of the Oath that they were resolved especially the Spirituall Lords to die rather then take it and the Third Estate or Commons who had drawn it up after they had heard Peron's Oration against it laid it aside which is as much as handsomely to recall it And how can we reasonably say that the Kingdome of France is for an Oath which the Two principall parts of the Assembly representative of that Kingdome were so eager against and which the Third part after serious consideration laid aside 54. Consider Secondly that rather we may alledge the Kingdome of France for the Negative or against the Oath according to what happened in the Assembly For it is a certain kind of Argument against a thing when having been proposed and debated in an Assembly it was not carried but rather rejected Neither has there been since enacted by any other Assembly of France any Oath of this kind to be tendred unto all neither do our Adversaries pretend that any such thing has been done as our Oath of Allegeance was enacted for all sorts of people by our Parliament which corresponds to the Assembly in France Neither is there in France any other Oath wherein is expresly denied the forementioned Power established by the King or any Parliament or any other ways for to be taken by all such who swear Allegeance to his most Christian Majesty And the English Catholicks are ready to take the Oath of Allegeance to His Majesty which is generally tendred in France And why may not His Majesty be content with the same kind of Civil Allegeance from his Subjects which the French King and other Sovereigns require from their Subjects All which shews that France cannot reasonably be brought as a precedent in the Cause we treat of 55. Consider Thirdly that since the Representative of France has so much favoured the Negative though we should grant and whether it must be granted or not we shall see by and by that some other particular Tribunall or Society of that Kingdome have favoured the contrary yet because the Assembly or Representative of France is far above those particular Societies we ought to conclude that France rather countenances the Negative then the Affirmative Should we see that our Parliament did countenance so much the Negative of an opinion as the forementioned Assembly of France did countenance the Refusall of that Oath though some particular Court at Westminster or the University of Oxford should countenance the contrary we ought to say that England rather stood for the Negative then the Affirmative 56. Concerning the Authority of the Parliament and Vniversity of Paris in this Point Consider First that neither that Parliament nor any other Parliament of France neither that University nor any other University of that Kingdome have ever yet made any publick and authentick Act wherein they approve our present Oath of Allegeance as it lies and all its Clauses wherein the difficulty thereof consists neither do our Adversaries pretend any such thing but onely that the Parliament and University of Paris with some other Parliaments and Universities of France have made Decrees wherein they deny the Pope to have any Power whatsoever to Depose Kings or to Absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them for any cause or under any pretence whatsoever Yet hence does not follow that the Parliaments or Universities of that Kingdome do approve this Oath For to approve an Oath 't is necessary to approve all and every part thereof and who onely approves one part does not therefore approve the whole So that whosoever argues hence to shew the Lawfulness of this Oath his Argument must run thus The University and Parliament of Paris approve some Clauses of this Oath whereat severall persons do scruple Therefore they approve the whole Oath Which Argument is inconclusive as is manifest 57. Consider Secondly that though the Authority of the Parliament and University of Paris may work so far with some as to perswade them that this Oath ought not to be refused upon the account of any just Scruple concerning the Power in the Pope to depose Kings or absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them yet it does not therefore follow that the same Authority which does not concern it self at least in any publick Decrees about other Difficulties of the Oath should perswade them not to refuse at all this present Oath since there are severall other respects not taken notice of by the Parliament or University of Paris in their publick Decrees alledged by our Adversaries for which many refuse it Some though satisfied that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings yet they have a great difficulty about the word Hereticall for it seems hard unto them to censure the Doctrine which maintains that Princes Excommunicate or deprived by the Pope may be deposed by their Subjects for an Heresie or for as bad as an Heresie and the Defenders thereof for Hereticks either materiall or formall as invincible ignorance does or does not excuse them or at least for as bad as such and to swear that they detest them in the like manner either for such or as bad as such 58. Others think they cannot swear with Truth that neither the Pope nor any other whatsoever can absolve them from this Oath or any part thereof in any case imaginable since the King himself may absolve His Subjects from such an Oath either all of them by laying down the Government with consent of the Kingdome as Charles the Fifth did and it is hard to oblige one to swear that a King of England in no case possible can doe the like or at least some of them by passing a Town under his Jurisdiction to another King as His Majesty passed Dunkirk to the French King and consequently absolved from the Oath of Allegeance the Inhabitants who had taken it Moreover they do not see how they can swear that it is
impossible that in any case whatsoever a King of England may be justly conquered For if he be justly conquered then he is justly deposed and if justly deposed then his Subjects are absolved from their Oath of Allegeance for no body is bound to pay Allegeance to one who is no longer his King or Sovereign 59. Others cannot swallow that term Heartily inserted in the Oath nor swear that all they must swear if they take the Oath they swear heartily according to the plain and common sense of the words by them spoken For to swear heartily is more then to swear onely with a meer power not to swear A Merchant who throws out his goods into the Sea onely to save himself and his ship cannot be said to doe it heartily which signifies to doe a thing without a reluctancy of mind but rather with an inclination and propension of mind thereunto And how say they can we swear that we take this Oath heartily and without any reluctancy of mind but rather with a great inclination thereunto when we are forced to take it to conserve our privileges or employments or not to undergo severe penalties enacted against those who refuse it and when we see that so many great Difficulties have been started against this Oath and pursued with so much vigour that so many Learned and Consciencious men are against it and that the Supreme Pastour of the Church has so often and so severely prohibited it All which say they cannot but create in any tender Conscience some regret and reluctancy of mind to take the Oath 60. Others are deterred by the Title of the Act wherein this Oath is inserted An Act for the Discovering and Suppressing of Popish Recusants whereby it seems to be insinuated that the taking this Oath is made a Denial of the Roman Catholick Religion or of Popery For though other things are contained in the Act which do contribute to the Discovery of Popish Recusants yet this Oath is inserted among the rest and compleats the Discovery of them And it is not lawfull to doe any thing which is made by Publick Authority a Denial of the true Religion or a distinctive Sign of a false Religion 61. Others though they are satisfied concerning the Substance of the Oath yet are gravelled at some ambiguous Expressions The Authour of the Reflexions upon this Oath though he be very fierce against the Pope's Power to depose Kings yet he seems dissatisfied with the Oath by reason of several ambiguous Expressions therein contained as appears by what he says pag. 76 77. and an Oath must not be ambiguous Nay the Authour of the Questions concerning the Oath though so eager for the Lawfulness thereof does notwithstanding confess pag. 26. that it is drest up unhappily with some odde Expressions at the first sight and therefore he heartily wishes that another form of Oath were framed which might not trouble with Scruples the less-instructed Conscience of any 62. Others though they believe that what-ever is contained in the Oath is true and are ready to swear that they believe it yet they cannot be brought to swear positively that what-ever is asserted in the Oath is true which is very different Others finally though they be satisfied concerning the Substance of the Oath and the Expressions too yet see no Necessity of swearing or any good they get by taking the Oath and an Oath amongst other Conditions must be necessary All such persons as these though they be fully satisfied either from the pretended Authority of France or otherwise that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings yet those Decrees of France which our Adversaries produce do not clear nor so much as touch the forementioned Difficulties and consequently are not alone able to induce the aforesaid persons to take the Oath or to justify the taking thereof Whence it follows that because one refuses the Oath it cannot in rigour be inferred that he denies such a determinate Clause thereof let them take which they please since some dislike one thing and some another nay nor that he does not assent to the whole Substance of the Oath and to its Expressions also And much less can it be thence inferred that such an one who refuses the Oath does deny Civil Allegeance to His Majesty 63. Consider Thirdly that the Decree of the Parliament of Paris published the 27. of Iune 1614. quoted by Withrington in the place above mentioned whereby was prohibited Suarez his Book intitled Defensio Fidei Catholicae c. is to be understood onely as appears by the Chapters cited in the Decree and by the tenour thereof in order to the Prohibition of that Doctrine which maintains the Temporal Authority of the Pope over Kings but it does not concern it self at all with other Difficulties which Suarez and other Authours raise about the Oath which notwithstanding must be cleared before we can take it 64. Consider Fourthly that it is one thing to prohibit the teaching or preaching that the Pope has any Power to depose Kings or to command one to teach and preach the contrary which is all our Adversaries can prove from the forementioned Decrees or any other of the Parliaments and Universities of France and another thing to command one to swear positively that the Pope has no such Power and to abjure the Affirmative as Heretical which the King commands us to doe when He commands us to take this Oath So that the Argument our Adversaries draw from such Decrees of France is this The Parliament or University of Paris prohibits any one to teach that the Pope has Authority to depose Kings or commands some to teach the contrary Therefore the King may command us to swear positively that the Pope has no such Authority or to abjure the contrary as Heretical Which consequence is null as is manifest For what University is there wherein the Members thereof are not prohibited to teach certain Opinions or are not commanded to teach the contrary many of which Opinions are meer Scholastical and Philosophical Questions either part being probable But yet they are not therefore commanded to swear positively that such Opinions are true neither can they in Conscience many times swear it For one may teach such an Opinion to be true though he cannot swear it to be so more being requisite to swear a thing to be true then to teach that it is so 65. Consider Fifthly that what was resolved by the Parliament of Paris in that Decree concerning the Iesuits was That the Rectour with some others of the principal Fathers should be summoned to appear in the Court at such a day That they should be told that contrary to the expresse Order of their own General issued forth in the year 1610. this Book of Suarez had been printed and brought into that Kingdome That they should procure the same Prohibition to be renewed by their General and that they should exhibit an authentical Copy thereof within three months finally That they should
defend them as Articles of Faith For the common Approbation of Theological and Spiritual Books is that they contain nothing which is not agreeable to Faith and good manners and yet sure those who give such Approbations are far from approving all that is contained in such Books as Articles of Faith 69. Consider Thirdly that among other Articles of the Faculty of Paris one is upon which chiefly our Adversaries seem to have had an eye That it is not the Doctrine of the Faculty that the Pope has any Authority over the Temporals of his most Christian Majesty and that the Faculty has alwaies resisted those who affirm this Power to be onely indirect Now to infer hence that the Faculty of Paris does approve our present Oath even in this Point concerning the Pope's Power over the Temporals of Princes is to argue thus The Faculty of Paris does not teach that the Pope has any Authority over the Temporals of Princes Therefore according to the opinion of that Faculty we may swear positively that he has no such Power or Authority Which consequence doubtless is very weak For it is one thing not to teach such a Doctrine or to punish and resist those that do teach it and another thing to authorize one to swear positively or to teach the contrary They might in the like manner quote all the Iesuits who now live or have been alive for many years though they are lookt upon as the greatest sticklers against the Oath in favour of it For they have been prohibited many years agoe and under Excommunication to teach or preach that the Pope has any Authority whatsoever to depose Kings and whoever among them should teach any such Doctrine would be severely punished whence it manifestly follows that it is not the Doctrine of the Iesuits that the Pope can Depose Kings Will our Adversaries therefore infer hence that it is the Doctrine of the Iesuits that we may positively swear that the Pope has no such Power 70. In the same Article is contained That it is not the Doctrine of that Faculty that the Pope is above a General Council nor that he is Infallible without the consent of the Church And sure hence cannot be deduced That it is the Sentiment of the aforesaid Faculty that we may positively swear the contrary Tenets to be true And though in another of their Articles it be affirmed That it is the Doctrine of that Faculty that his most Christian Majestie 's Subjects cannot be dispensed with under any pretence whatsoever in their Loyalty due unto him yet they are not therefore obliged to swear it 71. Moreover among other Oaths which the Members of the University of Paris are bound to take they must swear that they will hold that the B. Virgin Mary was preserved in her Conception from Original Sin yet they are not therefore obliged to swear it and much lesse to abjure the contrary Doctrine as Heretical For there is a vast difference between swearing that we will defend such a Doctrine to be true and swearing that it is true or abjuring the contrary Doctrine as Heretical 72. Consider Fourthly concerning a certain Decree made by the University of Paris the 20. of April 1626. whereof our Adversaries make so great an account condemning several Propositions of Sanctarellus his Book as erroneous seditious contrary to the Word of God c. according to a common interpretation of those words of the Oath I abjure as impious and Heretical c. given by our Adversaries that such a Decree or Prohibition is void and of no force For according to that interpretation of our Adversaries the forementioned words of the Oath are to be taken comparatively not assertively that is not for abjuring that Doctrine for Heretical but onely for as bad as Heretical in the same manner as is commonly said that we detest such an one as the Devil knowing full well that he is not the Devil So that according to this acception 't is not necessary that who takes the Oath should think that the Doctrine there abjured is either impious or Heretical nay he may fully be persuaded that it is neither impious nor Heretical and he must think so if those words must be taken comparatively as some will have for all comparison is between distinct things All which I confess does seem somewhat strange to me Neither do I see how with truth without Hyperbole and according to the plain Sense of the words one can look upon a Doctrine which is not Heretical for as bad as if it were Heretical since Heresy is the blackest Censure and what-ever Proposition is not Heretical is less then Heretical But my present design is not to impugn the aforesaid Interpretation what I affirm is that if such an Interpretation be warrantable yet it cannot be gathered from the above-mentioned Decree wherein the like expression is used viz. as erroneous and contrary to the Word of God that the Doctours of Paris did hold the Propositions condemned in that Decree to be erroneous seditious or contrary to the Word of God Nay notwithstanding that Decree they might and must think those Propositions to be neither erroneous nor seditious nor contrary to the Word of God And if so of what force is this Decree to prove that we may positively swear that the Pope has no Power to depose Princes 73. Consider Fifthly that since the Censures contained in the forementioned Decree are several and the Propositions therein condemned are also several it does not well appear which Censures fall upon which Propositions or whether every Censure falls upon every one of them It seems incredible that those Learned men should censure as erroneous seditious and contrary to the Word of God c. this Proposition which is mentioned in the Decree The Pope may with Temporal punishment chastise Kings and Princes for the crime of Heresy since 't is manifest that should an Heretical Prince be reconciled the Pope or any other Confessarius who should reconcile him might impose upon him for the crime of Heresy some corporal and temporal penance or punishment enjoyning him to give an Alms to build an Hospital or some such other work 74. Consider Sixthly that the forementioned Book of Sanctarellus was prohibited at Rome by the Pope before it was prohibited at Paris as Spondanus a French Authour relates who also says that the animosities of the University of Paris against this Book did arise from some hidden seeds of Schism Now our Adversaries do not so much as pretend that the Pope is for the Lawfulness of this Oath or of opinion that we may positively swear that he has no Power whatsoever to depose Kings though he prohibited that Book Why therefore do they infer that the University of Paris because it prohibits the same Book is for the Oath 75. Consider Seventhly whether the Censures contained in the above-mentioned Decree may not be understood to condemn onely a Power in the Pope to depose
Adversary saying that he has not seriously examined the Point under debate and that had he seriously pondered it he would have been of the contrary persuasion 93. Consider Fifthly that Mr. Preston who writ those Books concerning this matter published under the name of Withrington and the principal Champion for the Lawfulness of this Oath as I am informed by a person worthy of all Credit and one who was well acquainted with him never took the Oath himself nor advised any other to take it but onely writ those Books to shew for the comfort of Catholicks what might be said in favour thereof The same Authour grants that the Pope has Authority to order and direct the Temporal affairs of Princes and to impose upon them Temporal punishments by way of a Precept or Prohibition or a Direction in order to their Spiritual good and he inveighs against Skulchenius for accusing him as if he had denied the Pope such a Power over the Temporalls of Princes and he saies that there is no controversy in the present Point concerning the Pope's Power to command or prohibit Princes even in Temporal affairs with reference to the Spiritual good of themselves or their Kingdoms Neque de potestate Ecclesiastica praecipiendi sed tantùm coercendi ulla in praesenti controversia est Now this Authority which Withrington admits in the Pope over the Temporalls of Princes seems obnoxious to the same difficulties which he objects against the coercive Power of the Pope and is contrary to the Authority of the Faculty of Paris alledged above by our Adversaries Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod Summus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi Authoritatem habeat And certainly if he has a directive or preceptive Authority over the Temporals of Princes he must have some Authority over their Temporals 94. Now consider whether since Withrington and his Associates will not grant the Pope as Supreme Pastour of the Church any Power or Authority which is not evidently deduced out of the Precedents which Christ and his Apostles have left in Scripture whether I say this preceptive prohibitive and directive Power over the Temporalls of Princes which Withrington grants the Pope can be better declared out of the Precedents left in Scripture by Christ and his Apostles for when did any of them exercise such a Power over Temporal Princes in Civil matters then the coercive power which he denies the Pope And consider farther whether the forementioned Power be not in effect the same with the coercive Power For if the Pope may justly in some cases and in order to the Spiritual good of a Nation command a King to desist from persecuting his Subjects upon the score of Religion or otherwise to lay down his Government and prohibit his Subjects in case he goes on in persecuting them upon that account to bear him Civil Allegeance how can they swear that notwithstanding any Sentence made or granted or to be made and granted by the Pope or his Authority against their Prince they will bear him true Allegeance For certainly all just Precepts are to be obeyed and doubtless Kings will be as unwilling to grant this prohibitive or preceptive Power to the Pope over their Temporalls as the coercive Power For they do not so much fear what the Pope can doe against them by force of Arms as by force of Precepts and Prohibitions 95. Besides the Authour of the Questions concerning the Oath seems to grant that the Pope may in some extravagant case of absolute necessity to defend the Spirituall welfare of those who are committed to his charge and acting onely by a Commission derived from necessity depose Princes as one may justly take away his neighbour's life when unjustly attacqued by him he cannot otherwise defend his own life Now this is all that Bellarmine affirms For he does not grant the Pope Authority to depose Princes but in case of an absolute necessity of defending his Flock from being infected by their Prince with Heresie And if they grant this Power to the Pope how do they affirm that we may swear that the Pope has not any Power or Authority in any case possible to depose Princes So that if what the chief Maintainers of the Oath teach concerning the Deposing power be duely sifted we shall find that in effect they grant what they seem to deny or at least that they grant enough to render the taking of this Oath unlawfull 96. Consider Lastly whether when it manifestly appears that the ground whereon an Authour proceeds is false or inconclusive any account is to be made of the Opinion or Judgment of such an Authour And if not then let us briefly consider the main Reasons whereon the Defenders of the Oath bottome their Sentiment It is far from my intention to defend that the Pope has Authority to depose Princes my design onely is to examine the Reasons whereby some Authours do endeavour to shew that the Pope has no such Authority For let an Opinion be never so good yet some may ground it ill 97. The common Reason therefore whereon most of those Authours who impugn the Pope's Deposing power do ground themselves in this Point is That a meer Spirituall Power such as is onely granted the Pope over all Christendome in no case possible does extend it self to any Temporall thing This Reason does not shew that the Pope as Temporall Prince of Rome has not an indirect Right and Power to depose Kings in some cases such a Power being inherent to every Sovereign Prince and yet if one takes this Oath he must swear that the Pope neither by himself nor otherwise has any Power whatsoever to depose Kings So that whoever takes this Oath does according to the common sense of the words and he swears he takes them so implicitly deny the Pope to be Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome because he denies him something inherent and proper to all Sovereign Princes 98. Moreover a meer Spirituall Power may extend it self in some cases to Temporall things and the contrary is manifestly false And even our Adversaries confess as has been seen above that the Pope's meer Spirituall Power may extend it self to Temporall things per modum directionis aut praecepti Christ and his Apostles either had no Temporall Power whiles they lived or at least did not exercise it but onely a meer Spirituall Power Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo and yet he saies Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium I did not come to bring peace but the sword and to cause a separation between the nearest relations as between Mother and Daughter Brother and Sister and such like who are tied one to the other by the Law of Nature as Subjects are tied to their Sovereign which is to be understood when a reciprocall communication between them is prejudiciall to their eternall Salvation Our Saviour also used a Temporall Power and force to cast out those who with
drawn and hammered out with much pains study and speculations from the abovesaid Principles which Deductions and Conclusions are called Sciences whose chiefest property and richest piece of satisfaction whereby they gratifie the Understanding of man is their clear and convincing Evidence placed beyond all contradiction from Sense or Reason Nor lastly is it in Opinions as in those supernaturall Truths made known unto us by Divine revelation and are of Faith where there is absolute Certainty though without Evidence for Faith wears a scarf before her eyes and believes what she sees not Both which to wit Faith and Science as they justly command and challenge so withall they fully secure our assent from all danger and suspicion of errour the one by its Evidence the other by its Certainty the one interessing the light and patronage of the First Principles the other engaging a Divine and infallible Authority for the truth of their Proposalls But in Opinions it fares quite otherwise for an Opinion having neither the Evidence of Science nor the Certainty of Faith nor indeed any other inferiour degree of Certainty physicall or morall as the Schools speak but onely the slippery knot of Probability to hold by leaves the considering Opiner in a state of suspence and indetermination not daring nor indeed knowing how to yield any more then a faint and timorous assent to either side of the Tenet seeing that neither side is any more then onely probably true or probably false And because true and onely probably true false and onely probably false are not the same but two very different things and at so great a distance that no art or law of consequence can ever bring them together or convincingly argue from the one to the other hence it is that what is onely probably true is not therefore true and what is onely probably false is not therefore false from whence it is finally and manifestly concluded that neither side of an Opinion is lawfully attestable by Oath as simply true nor safely abjurable as simply false To come now to the particular Tenet which denies the Pope's Deposing power in all cases circumstances and emergencies whatsoever If we address our selves to the Maintainers and Abettors of this Tenet if we consult the Authour and Publisher of the Questions if we propose the Case to the Sorbon Doctours and the Faculty of Paris we shall find all their answers concurring in this That their negative Tenet is no more then an Opinion For first the Publisher of the Questions coming to speak of the difference between the Deniers and Abettors of this Power and the nature and quality thereof plainly professeth that this difference is no difference of Faith but onely of Opinions and the Authour of the Questions calls it an Opinion a safe Opinion indeed but no more or other thing then an Opinion an Opinion also the Sorbon Doctours take it for nor is their own Censure or Doctrine any more then their Opinion Neither do they nor indeed could they with any shew of reason or coherence to their own principles discourse at any other rate or ever intend to screw it up any higher then an Opinion For it is not to be imagined that those grave learned and prudent Divines who in their publick Articles concerning Papal and Regal Authority in the year 1663. do not own or look upon any Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome antecedent to and abstracting from the joynt consent or acceptation of the Church as inerrable would ever goe about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Doctrine either as a Point or Article of faith in it self or as a Rule of faith to others but onely as a Rule of Opinion if you please and a Judgment whereby such as were under their charge might remember to frame and regulate not their Faith but their Opinions which are the express words of the Decree it self Since then the deniall of the Pope's Deposing power neither doth nor can pretend any higher then an Opinion admit that its being the Opinion of so many Learned Divines might render it safe to hold and embrace it yet it s being but an Opinion though of Learned Divines renders it unsafe to swear it and no less unsafe to abjure what is contrary to it The Reason I have already given Because nothing can lawfully be sworn as true which is not more then meerly probable or probably true that is which is not either certain or infallible now all the Learned know that a certain or infallible Opinion is as great a bull as an uncertain fallible Article of faith so that to swear to an Opinion as certainly true is as much as to swear an Opinion is no Opinion and the Swearer doth thereby at one breath intangle himself in his own words his Reason in a Contradiction and his Soul in Perjury CHAP. VI. A particular Danger of Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power according to the form set down in the Oath of Allegeance I Shall here annex a particular consideration of the wofull Snare those souls run themselves into and apparent Danger of Swearing they know not what who venture to abjure the Deposing power as it lies expressed in its several Branches in the Oath of Allegeance whereas those Learned persons who undertook to defend and explain the Oath render it not onely difficult but next to impossible to understand what it is that is to be abjured I think I may take it for granted that no person of integrity and candour can ever conceive it lawfull for him to swear without first endeavouring to gain a right understanding of what he is to swear for to swear what a man understands not is blindly to rove at a venture and to swear he knows not what wilfully abandoning the conduct and slighting the inward upbraidings and reproofs of his Reason and which is worse it bewraies a feared Soul a wretched and sinfull preparednesse of mind to prostitute an Oath to the attesting of any thing that comes next to hand where Self-indemnity or other secular ends and advantages are proposed as the accursed purchace or reward of Perjury In the Oath of Allegeance it is required of us to abjure the Pope's Deposing power in all and every its respective Branches therein expressed one of which Branches is That the Pope hath not any Power to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy the King or his Countries Which Branch by the way the Authour and Publisher of the Questions in the form of the Oath set down by them have wholly omitted in both Editions as well that of the year 61. as the other of this present year 74. through what mistake or how occasioned I know not It is not easily to be conceived what subtle Obscurities and learned Intricacies Roger Withrington one of the greatest Champions that ever appeared for the Oath and his friend C. I. who confesseth to have compiled his Book out of
Withrington's expresse Grounds and Doctrine plunge themselves and their reader into in descanting upon this one point of the Oath They tell us that by this clause is not denied the Pope's Authority to command but onely his Power to authorize in Temporals in order to a Spirituall good or to declare that they who have Authority to depose or to make war are bound to use their Temporal Authority and to draw the Temporal sword when the necessity of the Church and Spiritual good of Souls shall require the same for that this Authority to declare and command doth not exceed the limits of a Spiritual power Thus these Learned Persons Let me here intreat the courteous Reader to lend me his eyes and attention to help me out For if Temporal Princes as is here supposed have Power and Authority to invade or annoy forrein Princes or their Countries nay to depose them when the good of Souls and necessity of the Church shall require it if the Pope is to be Judge of this necessity and to declare when against whom and upon what occasion the Temporal sword is to act its part by invading or annoying the delinquent Prince his Person or State if I say the Pope hath Power though not to authorize yet to declare and not onely to declare but to command the doing of all this as being in the line of Spirituality and within the vierge of an Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction truly my opinion is and I think every sober and disinteressed Judgment will upon due reflexion subscribe to the same that this Doctrine as it contributes little to the Security of Princes and as little to the satisfaction of intelligent Readers so it is not every one can easily understand or be able to reconcile it to truth and its self for if I mistake not it foully clashes with both For since we are here treating of the Legality or Illegality of an Oath and what we may or may not safely swear or abjure what can seemingly have more of the Riddle or less to the purpose in it then to be gravely told for our instruction and the quieting of our Consciences that we may lawfully abjure the Pope's Power of Authorizing but not in any wise abjure his Power of Commanding a forrein Prince to invade or annoy His Majesty or His Kingdoms Again that we may safely swear the Pope hath no Power to Depose Princes but that we must not abjure his Power of Commanding others to depose them Alas and is not this a much mistaken favour a mere mock-pretence of Security to Crowned heads and of ease and relief to troubled Consciences wholly built upon this nice and ambiguous Distinction of Authorizing and Commanding A Distinction in this case so subtile that it is impossible to find where the difference lies and is therefore in very deed no Distinction at all either in respect of the King to whom it is all one and His perill or ruine undistinguishably the same whether He be invaded and deposed by the Pope's Authority or onely by his Command Neither is it any Distinction in respect of the Swearer who cannot securely nor without a self-contradiction from which this Distinction can never clear him swear that the Pope hath not any Power and Authority to depose Princes if he have Power and Authority to command others to depose them because this authoritative injunction of his is enough to intitle him to the fact and his very Commanding others to depose both makes and denominates him the Deposer Besides all this if it be true what these Authours assume that Temporall Princes have when the good of Souls and the necessity of the Church requires it Power to depose one another how can any man being of this opinion lawfully swear the Pope hath not any such Power who as we all know is a mixt person and as well a Temporal Prince as a Spiritual Pastour and therefore it would argue great partiality in this Doctrine wholly to exclude him at least as he is a Temporal Prince from his share in the Deposing power from whence it would finally follow that the Oath could not be taken without a distinction of different formalities in the same person that is without distinguishing the Pope as Pope from himself as he is a Temporal Prince and then also the two formalities being at odds the Temporal Prince would be the more powerfull Pope of the two These and the like entangled Positions I take to be clearly consequential and absolutely necessary inferences from the aforesaid dark and perplexed discourse of these Authours Now the use and advantage the Reader may please to make hereof is this sober and wholesome reflexion That since Withrington who bestowed much pains and since large and learned Comments upon the Oath since he I say whilst he pretends to explain one of the Branches of that very Point wherein the Substance of the Oath consists according to the Authour of the Questions leads us into such a Labyrinth of thorny and insignificant Distinctions cross and thwarting Niceties of words as that a more then ordinary clue of reason and attention is necessary to wind us out what consciencious and considerate person of less leisure industry learning and other abilities then Withrington was seriously pondering this Oath shall hope he understands what he is to abjure or dare to abjure what he understands not CHAP. VII The just Plea of Conscience in refusing to abjure the Deposing doctrine consider'd with the like reference to the Depositions of Popes as of Kings I Am much taken with the seasonable advice and wholesome caution I find in the Fourth of the Controversial Letters which I shall elsewhere have occasion to quote more at large Princes and Bishops saith this Gentleman pag. 8. are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not touched without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty It was under the warrant of this apology to my own thoughts and the confidence of my Reader 's candour that I first engaged in this Discourse and that now for his farther satisfaction to shew that there is nothing of any Popishly-affected partiality in the refusing this abjuring Oath but that our Recusancy is wholly grounded upon sound Reason and upright Conscience I shall compare the unlawfulness of abjuring the Pope's Deposing power with the like unlawfulness of abjuring the Power of deposing Popes both these Powers· being alike controvertible amongst some of the Learned whereof divers do freely and openly teach that Popes may be deposed as well as Kings and for the like cause For which end I shall here advance and confront in their severall instances two Propositions of a more large and comprehensive nature in relation to the Deposing power as first That there is absolutely no Power or Authority upon earth either Spiritual or Temporal to depose Kings let the cause or pretence be what it will secondly That there is absolutely no such Power or Authority upon earth Spiritual or