God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries Who would have thought that any good Subject should have stumbled at this Is it an imputation to the Oath that 't is too clear What plain-meaning man is there who understood not these words till now he meets with this following cross and crabbed Comment To testify he tells you as importing something distinct from my acknowledging in the Rigour of the express words is to bear Witness to declare as distinct from professing is as it were to act the part of a judge in clearing a thing not so well known Surely this Catechism runs the fate of many Comments which is to be more obscure than the Text. For what exigence is there that these four words I acknowledg profess testify declare must have all distinct meanings Is it from the nature of the Law or Oath Evidently no. For since 't is the design of the Law-maker by the use of words to be clear and easy and since nothing conduces more to that design than synonimous words giving light to each other for some of necessity will be more obscure than others 't would be preposterous to expect from the nature of an Oath or Law a distinct Sence for every word Nay 't is against all Experience for both in the Canon and Civil Law in Statutes in Bonds in Indentures in Deeds and in the Breves and Bulls of Popes nothing is so frequent as redundance of words in the same Sence and all little enough to render the Acts or Obligations clear sure and binding Secondly Why must the words of this Oath be used in the most rigorous sence methinks the plain and common sence required by the Oath should not be always the most rigorous sence And I am very certain that if all words were used in their rigorous sence few would understand them and so they would be unfit for Oaths Thirdly what warrant has he that these words Testify and declare in my Conscience do import in rigour to bear Witness before a Judge and to act as it were the part of a Judge Since nothing is more familiar in plain and Common Sence than to Testify and declare a matter in a man's Conscience without the thought of any act of Jurisdiction Fourthly To testify and declare in a man's conscience that the King is rightful King is so far from questioning the Kings right that it places it beyond all question For whereas at the time this Oath was framed and before several Divines of the Society and others maintained the deposing and murthering Power which gave rise to the Powder-Plot this Oath was made wherein these words amongst others were industriously inserted to cut off all such pretended Power So that what question was about the Kings right was started by the men of deposing and murthering Principles against whom and their Doctrine this Oath was made Another Bone too hard for his Digestion is that he cannot Swear The King is Rightful and Lawful King of all his Dominions Because he knows not what they are or what Right the King has to them My Answer is That the Oath requires not that the swearer should know every spot of Land possessed by the King either in Europe Affrica or America but only that he swear in particular That he is Rightful and Lawful King of this his Realm and in general of all other his Dominions So that what ever change has been made of his Dominions since the framing of this Oath either by gain or by loss to the Crown nothing is more certain than that he is lawful King of all his Dominions we may therefore with all security in Conscience conclude that in the first Clause of this Oath there is neither Equivocation secret Reservation mental Evasion or any just cause to asperse this Oath His Bill of Charges runs thus First he denies it to be part of the Subjects Allegiance or Fidelity to assert the right of his Prince Secondly in defiance of reason and his own experience he requires in an Oath that every word have a distinct sense from others Thirdly he confounds the plain and common sense of words obvious to every understanding with their rigorous sense known to a few only Fourthly he forces the words testify and declare from their plain and common sense that he may fault the Oath Fifthly to declare the King 's right so that no body can justly take it from him he tells you is to question the Kings Right Finally he has a scruple to swear the King is Lawful King of his Dominions as if Dominion could be his and not his Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrine His Fifth Chapter Examined THe design of this Chapter is to render the takers of the Oath perjur'd as using secret reservations inconsistent with the Oath obliging them to the plain and common understanding of the same words without Equivocation mental Evasion or secret Reservation His first charge of perjury is from the third Clause or branch of the Oath which if you credit him is thus I declare in my conscience before God that the Pope neither of himself nor by any other means with any other can depose the King Had he been a fair dealer he would have cited the words as they are in the Oath thus nor by any other meanes with any other hath any power or Authority to depose the King Which differs from this other expression can depose the King For Authority in the Oath coming after Power does limit it to a just and Lawful Power whereas can depose implies a power either just or unjust to depose the King and the Oath meddles not with an unjust power of deposing him but because it is a Maxime in the Law id solum possum quod licite possum I will suppose he meant well What does he inferr from those words that neither the Pope nor King nor Prince nor Emperour hath any power or Authority to depose the King To this I answer him out of his own Instruction that by these words of the Oath nothing is designed but an Exclusion of the Popes Spiritual power to depose the King He resumes thus do the express words of the Oath bear this reservation I answer here is no Reservation but the plain and common sense of the words as they are understood by all man-kind for when mention is made of the Pope's Power of deposing Soveraign Princes who ever understands any other but such as Popes have claimed and what Pope ever laid claim to the deposing power or proceeded to the deposition of Soveraigns but by vertue of a Commission from Jesus Christ as being Vicar and Supreme Pastor upon earth Gregory the seventh was the first that made use of that power several others have followed his steps examin their pretences turn over their Bulls and publick Declarations and see if they plead not a Commission from
Christ as being Supreme Pastors This is the sense of Bellarmin Suarez Mariana Becanus Hessius Lessius Tolet Valentia Gretser Hereau and all those of the Society who with so much heat have advanced the Popes deposing Power In fine this is known and common even Lippis tonsoribus so that though the power of deposing be in it self Equivocal and may imply a Spiritual or Temporal power yet when 't is attributed to the Pope 't is then fixed to a Spiritual power and is so understood by all He still pursues me thus that by this Oath 't is not only sworn that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome has any Authority to depose the King but also that the Pope by no other means with any other has power or Authority to depose the King which implyes that no body can depose the King not a Pope nor King nor Emperour I answer that if this be his consequence he must needs have a very hard opinion of both the Framers and Takers of the Oath the one for forcing men to swear against a Noon-day light and experience and the others for so swearing But to defeat this consequent no more is requisit than to look upon the promise which is that the Pope by no other means with any other has power or Authority to depose the King So that still 't is the Popes Power or Authority which is only renounced by this Oath not any other For those words can only import that the Pope what ever means he makes use of though he has the Emperour or the great Mogul on his side to aid him has no Power or Authority to depose the King And this is truth though it may be the Pope alone is stronger than the King and can bring more forces into the field By this you see what little care he has in deriving his consequences which though feeble he leaves to shift for themselves Possibly he may advance farther and make this Objection May not the Pope being a powerful Prince and injur'd by the King right himself by force of Arms and so if victory be of his side dispossess the King of his Dominions Undoubtedly he may but not by that Power and Authority which is renounced by the Oath as is evident from the common notion all men have of Power and Authority to depose when placed in the Pope And therefore when it shall happen that the Pope does war with the King or other Princes if he be stronger than they he may dispossess them as they may him but then this is not done by what we call Papal Power or Authority but by natural strength and Reason and in such cases we must use the same Terms as custom gives to other Princes when they are Victorious as that they have conquered or subdued such a Prince or King it not being so usual to say they have deposed such a Prince and when the word deposing is apply'd to the Power of a Temporal Prince all men understand it to be a Temporal Power but when 't is spoken of the Pope no man thinks upon any other than his Spiritual Power as Christ's Vicar When therefore the Pope conquers by his Temporal Sword the Circumstances he is in declare to the world in what sense the word deposing Power is used From hence I must conclude that from the common use or plain sense of the word deposing when joyn'd to the Pope's power without other circumstances is meant only his Spiritual Power and that without any Equivocation or secret Reservation for where nothing is conceal'd or hid nothing is reserv'd The next clause he jumps upon is this I do believe in my conscience and am resolv'd that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me from this Oath This clause he tells you is no more true than the former and I am much of his mind The reason he gives is because the King by quitting his Crown may quit me of my Allegiancc Besides the power of Victory transfers Allegiance from one King to another This branch I confess has not much of swearing in it but is full of solid Truth For although the power of Victory may transfer Allegiance from one Prince to another and the King by quitting his Crown quits me of my Allegiance yet that 's not done by any Absolution for Absolution or absolving from Oaths are by use and custom Terms appropriated to Acts of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as is likewise absolution from sin and in this sense were always understood in this Oath this being the common notion of the words without any Equivocation or secret Reservation And truly if the Translation of Allegiance from Prince to Prince or from King to his Successor by a voluntary gift may be termed Absolution from the Oath of Allegiance with as much justice a dying Prince may be said to absolve his Subjects from their Oath by Transferring their Allegiance to his Successor which was by Oath obliged to the Predecessour for though by death the person be taken from the dignity which is continued in the Successour yet in his sense of Absolution the Subject is as truly absolved or quit of his Oath of Allegiance given to the predecessour as he should have been if resignation had been made to the Successour before death To allude therefore to the lameness of his discourse I introduced him in the last answer I made to this Objection putting this question What if the King should dye is not the Subject quit of his Allegiance Shewing by the folly of that question how far he prevaricated from the true sense of the Oath But after all this pother about nothing let us put the case that not only the power of deposing in general but even when 't is appropriated to the Pope in particular as also the power of absolving were Terms Equivocal or imply'd a secret Reservation is it not in the sphear of Concomitant Circumstances to clear them from that state and fix them to a manifest Certainty Thus then I discourse the design of this Oath was the preservation of the King his Heirs and Successors from the pretended Spiritual Power of the Pope in deposing Princes and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance King Henry the Eight before this Oath was thought upon was made an Example of that Power for though he was not actually deposed yet the Pope had declared him deposed his Subjects absolved from their Allegiance and all persons Excommunicated who should obey him Queen Elizabeth had her share in some sad effects of this Extravagant Power Upon pretence of this Power it was that the most detestable Powder plot was laid to have destroyed King James and all the Royal Family in the great Assembly of the Kingdom for whose safety and defence against this Power the Oath was made Bellarmin Suarez and others of that School maintain'd that Power by their Pens King James and others his
the Catechism and in the Appendix he declares the Pope to be Judge as to the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of an Oath This being so does not the Pope when he commands him to swear the deposing Doctrine to be an Article of faith by such a command declare that Oath to be Lawful for him to take Clearly then to say the Pope in that case is not to be obey'd is to make him judge and no judge as to the Lawfulness of an Oath Finally in his Nineth Chapter has he not declared the Pope to be Soveraign Judge in Spiritualls If then he shall declare it to be an Article of Faith that by vertue of his Spiritual Power he can depose Kings ought not this Catechist believe that power or right to be a Spiritual Right and consequently obey when the Pope shall command him to swear it In his Appendix he tells you no for he has a demonstration against his own Catechism Riddle now my riddle what 's this Infallible and not infallible a Judge and no Judge a Soveraign and no Soveraign how can that be Reverend Father Are these the Mysteries of Christian Doctrine THE DECREE Of the FATHERS of the Society of Jesus of the English Province At their Provincial Congregation made against the Oath of Allegiance at Ghent the Fifth day of July this present Year 1681. WITH Some Animadversions upon it THat we may proceed with uniformity amongst our selves in the manner of acting touching the Oath of Allegiance First Let us all profess that as much Obedience and Fidelity ought to be sincerely sworn and exhibited to our King from every one of us as is wont to be sworn and exhibited to any Princes whatsoever from other Catholick Subjects Secondly That the Oath as now it is sprinkled with many heterodor clauses cannot be taken as being condemned by many Breves of Popes Thirdly If any against the Decrees of Popes have taught the foresaid Oath to be lawful let him not be admitted to Absolution without Publick Recantation either made or sacredly promised Fourthly Those who against their Conscience have taken the Oath let them be deprived of Absolution without manifest signs of Repentance and promise of Amendment for the future But those who with a good Conscience have taken it are to be instructed and if they renounce it are to be absolved Fifthly Let care be taken lest either too much facility or morosity in absolving breed Scandal Exceptions Against The foregoing DECREE AGainst this Consult and the Decrees made by it there are many Exceptions First A few men overvoting the rest of the Consult and locking up with the key of pretended Authority the Understandings of the lesser number of the Consult and of all those who are not in the Consult do Tyrannize over them and oblige them when a question is put whether the Oath be True or False good or evil to answer in the sence of the Consult though their dictamen of Conscience be against it So that a Lay-Person who makes choice of a Confessor out of this Society for his Vertue and Learning and thinks to find an Oracle in him is gull'd For 't is the Consult that swayes by whom this Confessor though otherwise against his conscience must advise and act And therefore when 't is given out that all the Jesuits are against the Oath of Allegiance 't is in truth a great cheat for it may be more than half of them are for it but being over-aw'd by such Consults to whom they have vowed obedience they must either submit be punished or expelled the Order Secondly To determin of an Oath whether it be True or False Lawfull or Un-Lawful by number of votes of such Communities even in their fullest Assembly is to throw Cross or Pile even or odd in the search of Truth For if the votes happen to be odd then the Oath is True or if you will False but if they be even 't is a drawn match and then it must be put to the vote again till an odd one starts up and that must carry it In the framing of Laws for the well governing of such communities 't is confessed the plurality or number of votes must prevail because those Laws have all their force to bind the members of the community from the number of votes But the Truth of an Oath or the Conformity it has to the Law of God is independent from any Votes of the Communities and is Truth it self and known by a rational man such as preachers of the Gospel ought to be not by a Plurality of Votes but by the Laws of God and Reason or by an Authority Infallible so that to put Truth to the vote and act against conscience is unexcusable The first Article of this Decree promiseth much in shew but performs nothing in substance it equivocates with the King and in the end deludes him For when they offer to swear the same Allegiance to him as other Catholick Subjects do to any Princes whatsoever either those Princes are in Communion with the Church of Rome or out of it if they are in communion with the Church of Rome they have no reason to fear the Deposing Power since the men of the Deposing School have taught it only practicable in point of Heresie and Apostacy and therefore out of some reason of state may safely enough omit in their Oath the renouncing of that Power But if those Princes be out of communion with the Church of Rome I know not whether they have felt the smart of the deposing Doctrine sure I am our Princes as Henry the Eighth Queen Elizabeth and King James have run the risque of it both in their Crowns and Lives and consequently their Successours have reason to exact the renouncing of it whilst other Princes may not Besides if other Princes require less of their Subjects than they may must we who are Subjects pay less duty to our Prince than in Justice he requires The second Article is a great errour for after so many challenges never yet could they find the least position against Catholick Faith in this Oath and those who by importunity wrested any Decrees from the Pope suggested unto him as is manifest by their writtings that his Power of Excommunication and Supremacy in Spirituals was taken from him by this Oath so that those Breves were procured by artifice and surprize But admit the Pope had condemned it if that must deterr us from taking it I know no Oath of Allegiance which renounceth either the Pope's power of deposing or the exercise of that power but may by some Pope or other be condemned whilest that Pope asserts his power to Depose Nay the Oath which the Jesuits themselves offer to take may run the same Fate and so no Allegiance must be pay'd to the King but such as the Pope will allow him which may be none at all The third and fourth Article are the vain Attempts of Men without Authority For to frame Decrees for binding
of war in which victory deposes the conquer'd party from some part of his Dominions M. Nothing is intended by these words witness the Law-maker but that the Pope by no Papal or Ecclesiastical Authority can depose the King S. Do the express words of the Oath bear this reservation Do they not expresly exclude it The Authority of the Pope himself of the Church and of the See of Rome are they not foresworn in the foregoing words which being sworn to what can these words nor by any other means with any other imply M. What are the preceding words S. They are these and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome c. I beseech you reflect upon the words and then tell me Can other that is different means from the Authority of Pope and Church be the same with the Authority of Pope and Church Can God himself make you and another to be the same And if he cannot what Law-maker can enable me to swear according to the plain sense of the express words the Pope and an other and that the means of Ecclesiastical Authority and other means are the same which he must necessarily do who will perswade me that to deny one and to deny the other according to express words is no more than to deny one and the same thing M. This is so clear that nothing but a previous wilful engagement to the contrary can obscure it Why did not the Law-maker make his interpretation a part of the express words as he has made the express words an exclusion of his interpretation and the only Subject of my Oath S. The fourth Clause is No Person whatsoever has Power to absolve me from this Oath this Clause according to express the words is no truer than the former and therefore cannot be lawfully sworn M. Shew why it cannot be sworn S. Because the King by quitting his Crown may quit me of my Allegiance Is he no body Should the King and Parliament dismember a part of the Realm where I am Native and make it over to a Forreign Prince am not I free from my Allegiance and are they no person whatsoever doth not the power of Victory transfer Allegiance from one King to another and the conquering part is he no body M. Should the King quit his Crown he might too repent himself as soon body sayes S. That 's much to the purpose God send him long to live and Reign but would his repentance unperson him and make him no body M. But the common sense is that no person from Rome can absolve me of my Allegiance S. The common sense of the words whatsoever the maker of the Oath might intend bear no such exposition but with a clear Negative exclude it for no person whatsoever in its natural sense is equivalent to this No Pope no King no Prince can absolve em which is evidently false as hath been made out and cannot be sworn M. Is not Victory and the Kings quitting the Crown equivalent to death and the Succession of an Heir which it 's manifest cannot be understood by these words no person whatsoever S. No for death which is a pure Negation only takes away the person from the dignity and not the dignity from the person as the King might do from himself and succession â—s so far from deposing that it is a continuation of the Predecessours right CHAP. VI. Of the 5. Clause of the Assertory Part. M. WHat else have you to say against the Oath S. The 5. Clause is I farther from my heart abhor detest and abjure as heretical this damnable Doctrine and position that Princes which are excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any whatsoever M. What is' t you scruple at S. I scruple at more than one thing for it contains several things repugnant to Faith M. If what you say you make appear to be true you will justify the Popes Breves who affirm what you say you will stop your adversaries mouth who boast you cannot after long poring pick any thing out of the Oath which is contrary to Faith and you will clear your self of Disloyalty in refusing it S. The first thing contrary to Faith is for a secular Power much more a Protestant to usurp the Supremacy due to the Church in deciding what is Heretical as the Parliament do's by tendring this Clause From this it follows that 2. the complyance in swearing that Clause is also contrary to Faith as being an approbation of that power 3. It is contrary to Faith to make the Doctrine of Deposing Heretical it never having been condemned by the Church 4. It is contrary to Faith to make an Article of Faith what is not as it would be to say it is Article of Faith that the Pope cannot depose a Prince in a Case of Heresie and revolt from the Church For this must be of faith if the contradictory be Heretical as it would not be Heretical to deny Transubstantiation if Transubstantiation were not an Article of faith Lastly what is implyed in the whole Clause it is against faith to hold it Lawful to swear a thing to be Heretical which is not M. Doth not the result of this favour Stilling-fleet and others who fall foul upon Catholicks for this Doctrine of deposing S. No for as it is not Heretical so it is no part of Catholick Faith Nor doth any man as a Catholick believe it M. Is it not more favourable to Princes to hold it is Heretical S. It cannot be favourable to any one to hold an untruth M. How can a Prince secure himself from that Doctrine S. By a promissory Oath of never holding it nor teaching it though it be not Heretical M. But by your good leave this is not so binding as to swear it to be Heretical S. It is more binding for having sworn it to be Heretical if afterwards I find it not to be Heretical as one will easily do I am freed from my Oath as having sworn an untruth but when I promise by Oath never to follow it nor teach it be it Heretical or no I have no such evasion as is manifest M. You have acquitted your self as to this point but may not the particle as Heretical make this sense that I abjure that doctrine as if it were Heretical or like an Heresie As it is said I hate him as a Toad I love him as my Father S. I do not deny but that the natural sense of the particle as somtimes implyes similitude or equality but it is when it relates to different Subjects for example let him be unto thee as a heathen But this is not our present Case M. I see it is not S. Sometimes the particle as implyes the reality of a thing being so for example a paper as seditious was burnt signifyes its reality of being seditious M. Pray give me a General Rule when the particle as in
and we are all bound to take it M. But one request more I have to make you how comes it to pass that the Pope's Declaration binds to a complyance in not taking the Oath even with the loss of Liberty Life and Fortunes seeing the precepts of the Church do not oblige with so much Rigour S. The Case is clear it is because the Law of God obliges me not to take an unlawful Oath and the Law of God is indispensable now the Pope in the present Case as being Gods Vicar acts the part of Moses and declares my obligation of not taking the Oath to be a part of God's Law from which it follows it is indispensable On the contrary the Precepts of the Church are dispensable by the power that Enacted them and oblige not to so much inconveniency as the forfeiture of Lives and Fortunes M. But have not the Errours of other Popes been pressed upon you as of Nicolas John Caelestin Alezander c. And that neither Paul the fifth nor Urban the Eighth is more Infallible than they and that if the Breves of others may pass unobserved so may theirs S. And have not I remitted the Author of that Objection for the Answer to Bellarmin from whom he Englished it They spoke as private men their Opinions exacted no Obedience and therefore were not obeyed Let him produce a Precedent in the Church if he can of Obedience denyed to two Popes issuing no less than 4 Breves upon the same point and exacting a Compliance under Eternal Damnation This is the present case but no more there is no dealing with private Spirits expressed in their Words If I know what I know better than the Pope can tell me I 'le believe my self The Will Rules Reason hath little place I conclude humbly begging my Reader to peruse more than once this Instruction and then to judge who of the two are better grounded in Principles of Loyalty Government and Religion the refusers or the teachers of the Oath of Allegiance The Oath-teachers delude their King and Magistrates for First they declare they only swear their Opinion and their changeable Opinion can be no Allegiance 2ly they only swear against the Popes spiritual Authority of Deposing and not his Temporal annexed to it nor of any other Prince 3ly Where they swear they detest the Doctrin of Deposing or Murdering as Impious and Heretical they mean only Similitude and Similitude including distinction they make it neither to be Heretical nor Impious Though the Doctrin of Murdering be absolutely both Impious and Heretical 4ly They Swear to discover all Treasons that shall come to their knowledg but they do not mean all Treasons declared by Law so to be nor the knowledge had by Confession 5ly When they say they swear without any Reservation whatsoever they except the forementioned Restrictions Lastly when they Swear the Pope cannot Authorise any Forreign Prince to invade c. They do not mean he cannot implore their Armies and perswade them to Invade in case of Persecution What then doth this Oath of Allegicome to as they swear it The Refusers of the Oath are ready to swear his Majesty to be their lawful King and by consequence all due Allegiance to him they are ready to swear they will never Teach or follow the Doctrin of Deposing they are ready to swear they will discover what ever Conspiracy against his Majesty that comes to their knowledge in a word they are ready to swear the strictest Oath that ever was yet tendered by Catholick King to his Subjects The Appendix M. WHat if the Pope should command you to swear the Deposing Doctrine to be an Article of Faith and the Oath to be Lawful S. I say he is not to be obeyed he being subordinate to God who forbids me to swear without the requisites to a Lawful Oath and in this Case I should be as far from the requisit of certainty of what I were commanded to swear as I am certain that Doctrine is no Article of Faith M. In that Case the Pope would declare it is an Article of Faith who are we to believe the Pope or God S. This his declaration would be as void as the Parliament's is in declaring it is Heretical it being a certainty that it is neither Heretical nor an Article of Faith M. You seem then to deny that the Pope can declare the Deposing Doctrin to be an Article of Faith whereas in a Controversy whether it be or no it belongs to the Pope to decide it S. Where there is a Controversy in a Point that is meerly Spiritual I say I am to stand to the Pope's Decision but as to the point of Deposing it is neither meerly Spiritual nor in Controversy it being certain it is no Article of Faith against which certainty the Pope cannot declare M. Pray explain your self a little better S. The Point in Controversy between Pope and King is not whether the Doctrine of Deposing be Heretical or an Article of Faith For it is certain it is neither for where the Contest on both sides is Lawful neither the one can be an Article of Faith nor the other Heretical as is manifest the controversie between them is this The Doctrine of deposing grounds a Title or Right to depose Kings in case of Heresy and revolt from the Church The Doctrine of not-deposing grounds an opposite right both these rights are Temporalities as is clear the controversy is which of the two Pretenders to Right hath Right of his side Pope or King I say they are both Parties both Supreme Judges neither can decide it belongs to the whole Church if to any to do it and till that be done each party may oblige their subjects in Temporals to stand for their Right but cannot oblige them to swear as a certainty the Doctrine on which it is grounded either to be Heretical or an Article of Faith M. But should an Oath be tendered either for the deposing Doctrine it's being Heretical or an Article of Faith to whom would it belong to judge of the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of it S. I answer it is already judged of by Gods Law as it is that I cannot swear white is black to declare it unlawful belongs to the Spiritual Court an Oath being an Act of Religion if true a Sacriledge if false nor doth such a Judgment incroach upon the right of eitheir Party neither Party having right to a false Oath and though the Pope as to the Right of deposing be a party as to the Point of the Unlawfulness of the Oath he is Judge The Catechist Catechiz'd OR LOYALTY ASSERTED In a LETTER to A Father of the Society IN Answer to a Catechism wrirten by One of his Order against the OATH of ALLEGIANCE ENTITULED A Brief Instruction touching the Oath of Allegiance by way of a Dialogue Printed in the Year 1681. The Catechist Catechiz'd OR LOYALTY ASSERTED IN A Letter to a Father of the Society c. Reverend Father
should not be as Efficacious to exempt Communion from being a mark of Religion and make it only a sign of Loyalty as the former is to exclude the Oath from being a distinctive sign as both this Act of Parliament by its Title and the Popes Breves declare it to be So that I am yours and only add the joyning such things as the Oath and Communion together sufficiently declares the meaning of the Title and the Law-makers intention of discovering and suppressing Popish Recusants by means of this Oath S. This being so I cannot in Conscience take it M. I pray come to the particulars of the Oath in it self S. It is my duty to comply with your just commands CHAP. IV. The Assertory part of the Oath considered in two Clauses M. DEscend to those particulars that render the Oath unlawful in it self S. They are more than one wherefore I must lay down a Method to be the clearer M. As you please S. First then I divide this Oath into its Assertory part and its promissory an Assertory Oath as I have told you is to swear a thing to be true in order to be believed and this Assertory Oath as is evident includes no promise of Fidelity and by Consequence is no Oath of Allegiance M. Produce the first Clause you say cannot be sworn S. I shall place first what in the Oath is with design placed last but influences upon all that goes before it M. What is that S. They are these words following And all those things I do plainly and sincerly acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mentall evasions or secret reservation whatsoever M. What difficulty find you in these words S. The difficulty is that after I have sworn what cannot be sworn according to the express words and without some reservation I am engaged to forswear all reservation in what I have sworn M. What is that which cannot be sworn according to the express words and without any reservation S. Give me leave to propose unto you by way of doubt the ensuing Clause though never so plausible in appearance I testify and declare in my Conscience before God and the world that our Soveraign KING CHARLES is lawful and Rightful KING of the Realm and all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries M. I cannot conceive any reason you have to stumble at this S. My first reason is a due respect to his Majesty the 2. is that I understand not perfectly what I am to swear nor have a Moral certainty of the truth of it M. Is not this an affected pretence to cloak disobedience S. Were it so I should not swear as I do in these express foregoing words I truly and sincerely acknowledg and Profess that is interiourly and exteriourly own by words and deeds Our Soveraign King Charles to be lawful King c. M. Are not the words I testify and declare as necessary to my Allegiance as the other S. No they are Derogatory to his Majesty and by Consequence to my Allegiance M. My thinks you are harping upon a ticklish point wherefore I pray explain your self better S. To testify as importing somthing distinct from my acknowledging in the rigour of the express word is to bear witness to declare as distinct from professing is as it were to act the part of a Judg in Clearing a thing not so well known and is it not to question the right of a King to call the Subject and swear him a witness of it are witnesses sworn but in Case of Controversy or are declarations required but in Case of doubt the King is King by his already declared indisputable right This right without any more makes the Subject a Subject To swear me to witness he is my King after my acknowledgment of his right is as it were to make him own his right to my acknowledgment whereas my acknowledgment is a tribute due to his right which has no need of my witnessing or declaring it as the Tenor of the Oath seems to suppose it hath by requiring me to be a witness and declarer of it M. You are a very precise swearer S. No preciser then I am sworn to be by the express words I am to swear to without any Reservation which obliges me to discuss exactly the signification of them and I find those words I testify and declare in their natural extent rather prejudicial to his Majesties right and my Alletrance than otherwise M. Have you any other reason against this Clause S. I have my 2 d. reason is that being a person as most are to whom the Oath is tendred not well versed in matters of State and Justice am forced to swear things which are above me M. What are those S. I am sworn to testify and declare before God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful King of this Realm and all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries M. I fear you are more nice than Conscientious what difficulty can you find in this S. My difficulty is that I know not what I swear M. Do you not know he is your Lawful King S. I know and swear it too Let every Subject of his respective Dominions and Country do the same but do I who am an Idiot know what is meant by all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries Do I know what they are and the right to them have I Moral Certainty of what I swear to his Title runs King of England Scotland France and Ireland he possesses many places in Affrica and America some Dominions have been changed since the framing of this Oath I am not certain of the Justice of his Titles to all and therefore as a faithful Subject upon probable Motives will presume it will swear to stand for it which is true Allegiance but for want of certainty of the right he hath to all cannot swear it M. I did not expect you would have insisted upon this Clause however I must own you cannot be too nice in examining what you swear being clogg'd with the first Clause of swearing to the express words without any Reservation whatsoever CHAP. V. Of 2. more Clauses of the Assertory part S. THe third Clause I declare in my Conscience before God that the Pope neither of himself nor by any other means with any other can depose the King M. What exception make you against this Clause S. The want of Truth which makes me perjured if I without any reservation swear to the plain and common understanding of the same words M. What is the common and plain sence of the words as they lye S. This proposition The Pope by no other means with any other can depose the King is expresly the same as this No body can depose the King that is no Pope no King no Emperour no Prince which you see is against the dayly practise
that this Proposition A Prince excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by his Subjects or any one whatsoever is Heretical Therefore I may swear it to be Heretical S. This proposition as being exposed to Quibbles is not proper to be sworn by every Idiot who must perfectly understand what he swears to or he exposes himself to Perjury M. Is it not clear that it is Heretical to say a Prince excommunicated may be murthered S. Grant it is how comes the proposition saying A Prince excommunicated may be deposed to be Heretical Who has defined it so to be M. The proposition as affirming both together to be lawful is Heretical S. That is not the sense of the proposition but to the truth of it is required that the proposition saying one or the other to be lawful be Heretical and the proposition saying the one that is Deposing is not Heretical M. Pray clear it a little better if you can S. It is clear by the words themselves for by the words of the Oath I do not swear the proposition saying A Prince excommunicated may be deposed and murthered but may be deposed or murthered to be Heretical which in the common way of speaking are wholly different By the first is sworn to teach the Lawfulness of both together to be Heretical and the Lawfulness of both together implying Murthering to be lawful is truly Heretical By the second is sworn to teach Lawfulness of the one which is of Deposing or the other that is Murthering to be Heretical which is false for the saying it is lawful to depose an excommunicated Prince is not Heretical M. You have said as much for clearing this case as the express words afford you according to which one is to swear S. I only add that if the Oath-teachers can give any interpretation so connatural to the express words as I have done he that takes the Oath being sworn to wave all Reservation must swear to both which without Perjury he cannot After so many real difficulties against the Lawfulness of the Oath I cannot but enquire how one can take these last two Clauses of the Assertory part first that it is administred to me by good and lawful power the determining what is Heresy appertaining to the Catholick Church and not to a Protestant Parliament The second And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the Faith of a Christian so help me God CHAP. VIII Of the Promissory part of the Oath M. THe Assertory part of the Oath is it any part of Allegiance S. It is not M. Then the greatest part of this Oath is intitled from Allegiance contains Allegiance as the least part of it S. You say no more than what I have often answered From which you may infer that by the Oath something more than Allegiance was intended M. Is it not a part of Allegiance to acknowledge your King S. It is no part of Allegiance to acknowledg Him by a thought and a swearing I think so but it is to acknowledge Him by a promissory Oath of Allegiance which supposes a certainty of His being my true King M. Are you ready to swear all the promissory part of the Oath S. I am except only the promise of discovering what is contained by Law under the word Treason which I cannot do without betraying my Religion and he that will be a Traytor to his Religion upon the like Motives will be a Traytor to his King M. What are those things S. They are First to maintain or extoll Authority in the See of Rome the 2. time is high treason 5. Eliz. 1. 2dly to obtain or put in ure any Bull from Rome high treason 13 Eliz. 2. Thirdly for Jesuit or Priest made by Authority of the Pope to come or remain in the King's Dominions high treason 27 Eliz. 78. 4thly to perswade or reconcile or to be reconciled to the Roman Religion High treason 23 Eliz. 1. 3. Jacob. 4. for this last Burnet was condemned few years since and several meerly for being Priests have lately been executed So that those Laws are yet in rigour M. Do you then think the aforesaid things are signify'd by the word Treason S. How can I think otherwise for the signification of words is taken from the will of men they being indifferent of their own nature to signify any thing and the will of men cannot be more clearly expressed than by their Laws so that the most certain signification of a word is what it hath by Law This is so evident that no Philosopher no divine no Lawyer ever yet called it in question Besides is it not made a distinct member from conspiracies M. I have heard some say to be Priests and the like are but Spiritual Treasons S. Spiritual Treasons that hang a man corporally Are Spiritual Treasons Treasons or no is not this an evasion and are not all evasions abjured besides all Spiritual power in opposition to the Pope being by the Law of the Nation setled in the King as part of his right as it is treason to own extern power opposit to his right in temporals so is it not treason according to the Law to own the Popes power opposit to his right in his Spirituals the common sense of the word Treason can it be better derived than from the common Law M. But doth not King James declare that he intends nothing by the Oath than the securing himself from the deposing power and the dangerous principles ensuing from it and that he exacts nothing but a civil Allegiance S. Under such a pretence might not I as well be sworn to renounce the Pope and my Religion as be bound to take an unlawful Oath would not that secure him as much as the Oath The greatest security he could have he might have had by a promissory Oath of never following that opinion this never was deny'd him nor will be deny'd his Successours his reservation of civil Allegiance is excluded by the express words of the Oath which he himself obliges me to swear to Would it not argue a strange power to grant me leave to swear to an Interpretation and by the same Oath to exclude it M. Cannot then the Law-maker dispense in his own act S. He may dispense with me from taking the Oath but supposing the Law by his order or permission inforces the Oath upon me the Law-maker cannot dispense with me to swear in a different sense from what the express words bear Nay doth not the Law-makers bringing an Interpretation own the unlawfulness of the express words M. Have you any thing else to instance for what you say S. I have if you will be pleased to tell me how the charge of the Attorney General runs against a Priest condemned purely for Priest-hood M. Forasmuch as I have been able to gather out of the Trials of such as have been condemned the charge runs thus As a false Traitor to our Soveraign Lord
it be Heretical to affirm it Lawful to murther the King then for murther's sake 't is Heretical to assert it Lawful to depose or murther him For Example if it be a Heretical position to say it is Lawful to do evil he that shall say 't is Lawful to do good or evil delivers a position heretical for by that position 't is left to a man's choice to do either lawfully If therefore either of the parts of that position be heretical the whole must be so because bonum ex integra causa malum vero ex quolibet defectu He concludes this assertory part of the Oath with a Quere or two first how a man can swear that this Oath is administer'd unto him by good and lawful power I answer because it is administer'd unto him by his Lawful Magistrate impowerd by God so to do Secondly how he can swear by this Oath heartily willingly and truly upon the Faith of a Christian I answer because 't is the will of God that Subjects perform their duties to their Prince not repiningly but cheerfully hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus His accounts of this Chapter are but short First he denies it to be Heretical to teach it Lawful to rob or steal Secondly he weighs not the truth of this maxim bonum ex integra causa malum ex quolibet defectu Thirdly he wonders how a Magistrate can administer a lawful Oath Fourthly he quarrels with Subjects for swearing Allegiance to their Prince heartily willingly truly and in the Faith of a Christian Reverend Father Is this Christian Doctrin His Eight Chapter Examined THis is a Chip of the Old Block still tautologies still repetition of old stories The Assertory part of the Oath is again excommunicated from an Oath of Allegiance and my task is to Absolve it Again then to assert by Oath the Kings Right when required and to renounce all power to depose or murther him is the duty of every good Subject and without which to promise Allegiance would be a vicious and an unjust Act. And since the Oath is made out of both parts my inference in opposition to his is that by this Oath nothing but pure and candid Allegiance was intended by the Law-maker We are now arrived to the promisory part of the Oath against which he seems to have only this exception that the swearer by it does promise to disclose not only all traiterous Conspiracies against the King but all Treasons Now many most important points of Religion being by the Law made Treasons as to maintain any Authority in the See of Rome to be Ordained Priest by Authority derived from that See and then to come and remain in the Kings Dominions to reconcile or be reconciled to the Roman Religion c. he cannot sayes this Catechist make discovery of these things without betraying his Religion and he who will do so will be a Traitor to his King For my part I see no necessity why the swearer should be reputed a Traitor either to the one or the other since both the Law and Law-makers as also practitioners in the Law or Custom all which are the best interpreters of the Law do exempt him from such discoveries as shall be evinced by this following induction The Statute wherein the Oath is contained assures him that the design in framing this Oath was for the better tryal how his Majesties Subjects stood affected as to their Loyalty The Law-maker himself that King for whose safety the Oath was made forecasting that some unhappy Catechist would wrest all things in the Oath to the worst sence prevents his Objection by declaring that nothing is by this Oath required but a profession of that Temporal Allegiance or Civil Obedience which all Subjects by the Law of God Nature do owe to their Lawful Princes with promise to resist and disclose pray observe what all contrary Uncivil violence Premon pag. 9. Now to maintain a Spiritual Authority in the See of Rome to be a Roman Priest to reconcile or be reconciled to the Roman-Catholick Church are not things repugnant to that Temporal and Civil Allegiance which all Subjects by the Law of Nature do owe to their Lawful Soveraigns Clearly then the discovery of any of them comes not within the verge of this Oath And therefore the Charge which is brought of High Treason against a Priest at the Bar has no connexion with the Treasons to be discovered by vertue of this Oath Roman Priesthood being only Treason by a particular positive Law and all the Treasons to be revealed by this Oath are onely such as are against Temporal and Civil Allegiance due to all Princes by the Laws of God and Nature The next Expounder of the Law is Custome Optima interpres legum est consuetudo by which all words are to be regulated To Custome then I appeal and demand whether ever any Person of Worth and Honour amongst Protestants who have taken this Oath and are acquainted with Priests and persons by them reconciled to the Roman Church do think themselves in Conscience obliged to discover them believing them guilty of no other Treason than that of Orders and reconciling or being reconciled That they do not is more clear than Noon-day light Nay 't is observed that none but the scum of people who either out of Malice to some private person or for filthy lucre are Informers of this Nature and as such are by Protestants themselves reputed vile And whereas the Law has provided penalties for those who conceal such treasons as are against Natural Temporal and Civill Allegiance yet the bare knowledg of a Priest and not revealing him is not punished by Law To reinforce the Objection he argues thus The signification of Words is taken from the will of men which cannot be more clearly expressed than by their Laws since then by the Laws these things above mentioned are Treasons and all Treasons by this Oath are to be discovered it seems to him evident that those also ought to be discovered or a secret Reservation excluded by the Oath must intervene rendering the swearer perjur'd This is the Sum of his discourse To which I thus reply that though words signify by the will of men and the will of men be expressed by their Laws yet the words of the Law cannot alwayes express the will of the Lawmaker unless vested with concomitant Circumstances foâ— if a word in a law may have divers sences it must be fixed to some one in particular This being so and the word Treason in the Oath being by all Circumstances as by the words of the Statute by the design of the Lawmaker interpreting his own Law and by common use and practise of the Law fixed to such a determined sort of Treason that and onely that is by vertue of this Oath to be discovered Nor is there room here for any secret reservation for these Circumstances laying all things open nothing is secret nothing reserved My conclusion of this Chapter