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
the King S. So that one for being a Priest according to Law is a false Traitor that is guilty of Treason And consequently I swearing to discover all Treason swear to discover all Priests to some Informer and to concur with the intent and title of the Act of Parliament to the discovering and suppressing Popish Recusants What can be thought of more repugnant to faith M. You have quieted me as to this point yet I have one demand to make S. What is that M. You know divers misled some for interest some for other ends some for want of due Reflection have taken the Oath are they therefore bound to discover all Priests S. No no more than Herod was obliged to cut off St. John's head The reason is that such a discovery being unlawful and damnable in it self an Oath which is a sacred act of Religion cannot be a bond of iniquity and oblige me to what is unlawful M. I am ready to subscribe that you have made good the unlawfulness of the Oath First by reason of the title of Parliament exacting it 2. For want of truth in all the clauses of the assertory part 3. For want of Justice in the clause of the promissory part Lastly for want of necessity there being a necessity under a grievous sin as the Pope declares for the not taking it S. I could not fail of your approbation of what I learned of you CHAP. IX Of the Pope's prohibition of the Oath of Allegiance M. IS not the Pope our Soveraign Judg in Spirituals S. Yes as our King in Temporals M. Why am I rather to obey the Pope in refusing the Oath than the King in taing it S. Because the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an Oath as a point of Conscience lies within the verge not of a Temporal but of a Spiritual Jurisdiction M. Hath not the King the right to tender an Oath of Allegiance S. He has but this Oath contains much more than Allegiance in it which renders it unlawful M. Hath the Pope no Prerogative above other Judges S. Yes according to the general sentence of Catholicks he has that of Infallibility in points of Doctrine M. Do you hold the Pope Infallible S. I do but not as an Article of Faith because it has never been defined by a general Council though I judge it definable M. In what degree then do you hold it S. I hold it with a great certainty not being able to doubt of the contrary For who can think the Rock can fall who can judge efficacious Christ's prayer for Peter that his Faith might not fail who can imagin that the spirit of Infallibility which assists the whole Church should abandon the Head of it who can surmise that Christ who tenderd his Church above his own Life should permit its Pastor not to feed it but to poison it with false Doctrine M. I must interrupt you for I know you might and would say much more as to this point and solve the difficulty to the contrary but you have said enough to infer that if submission be due to other Judgges who are Fallible it is without doubt due to the Pope who has too much reason to be judged Infallible But not to bring more into Dispute than what purely concerns the Oath supposing him as Fallible as other Judges is he not to be Obeyed S. The case being supposed equal if he may be disobeyed in points of Conscience why may not secular Judges be disobey'd in Temporalls and so adue all Government and Loyalty M. Though Judges be supposed Fallible are not private persons as fallible as they S. Much more Fallible as being byas'd by Interest Passion and Engagement which are not so incident to Judges M. What if a Judge be misinformed doth his sentence hold S. His sentence holds until such time as that sentence be repealed either by himself better informed or by a Superiour Authority If a private persons pretence of misinformation could render a sentence void what sentence would hold might not every Plaintif or defendant who is cast always pretend misinformation and would not this be to place every private person above the Judge M. May one be Judge in his own cause S. In some Cases he not only may be but must be Judge and to deny it is to Authorize all Rebellion Has not the King right to judge in points concerning his Prerogative and to suppress Rebellion to pretend he cannot is it not to place another judge over the Suprem You will say the judge is a part he is so but head and governs the whole Were it not to unchair the Pope to say he cannot be Judge in spirituals because a part he is a part but the ruling part he is the head of the Church and as such ought to be obeyed Consult the Canon and Civil Law and you will find they both defeat that pretence For the cause of the Church or the state wherein the Episcopal or Royal Authority is concerned is not termed a private or personal cause of the man who is Bishop or King and for that reason doth not ground an exclusion of that same man to judge in it M. You having premised what is necessary and evidently true and what it behooves secular Princes to maintain as well as the Pope I pray come to the Popes Breves condemning the Oath how many are they and of what nature S. They are four Three of Paul the Fifth and one of Urban the eighth Paul the Fifth given in the year 1606 sets down the Oath word by word and having taken notice of several other things in the act enjoyning the Oath condemns the Oath as containing things contrary to faith which Breve directed to the English Catholicks was delivered to Mr. Blackwel then Arch-Priest who notwithstanding his inclination to the contrary accepted it and divulged it by which it became so publick that K. James himself owned it to be the Popes and as such inserted it word by word in his answer to it so that it could not be doubted whether it were the Popes or no. Learned men in Italy France and Spain employed their pens in the defence of it The year after it being pretended that the Breve was surreptitious and he mis-informed the Pope in a second Breve condemns it again after long and serious deliberation and being perfectly informed as he declares and ex certa scientia This also though with the same unwillingness was published by Mr. Blackwell but he being deposed for taking the Oath and Mr. George Birket made Arch-Priest in his place Birket published them absolutely as did also Doctor Worthington Assistant of the Archpriest as also a third of Paul the fifth recalling the faculties of such as held or abetted the Oath Prestons books in favour of the Oath Printed the one 1611. the other 1613. were by the same Pope condemned 1614. for all these Breves there wanted not some as the said Preston and others animated by that Presbyterian Arch-Bishop
against all Conspirators and that all this is the indispensable Law of God as any of your learned School-Men though they cannot put their discourse into the right figure and mood Let us now account for these two Chapters First to assert the Kings right and to renounce all power of the Pope and Subject to depose or murther him is deny'd by him to be a part of the Subjects due Allegiance to the King Secondly he imposes the Doctrine of some of his own School upon others against their express declaration to the contrary Lastly he concludes the generality of men uncapable to understand that robbing and murthering is against the Law of God Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrine His tbird Chapter Examined THis Chapter begins with reciprocating the old saw And since he will neither give any reason why my answers to his thred-bare objection does not satisfy nor can improve it any farther my answer is still in force against him The objection was and now is from the Title of the Statute wherein the Oath is contained which runs thus An Act for the discovering and suppressing Popish Recusants and as if the Title could not be verifi'd by other parts of the Statutes or as if all parts of the Statute must be in the Title he inferrs from thence that the Oath of Allegiance was designed to distinguish betwixt Papists and Protestants not betwixt Loyal and disloyal Papists though the Law-maker for whose safety and by whom the Oath was made into a Law both in his Premonition and Apology to Christian Princes the Law it self declares against him So that in his judgment to take the Oath is in the eye of the Law to be a Protestant to refuse it a Papists and so by the Title of the Law a Quaker is rendred a Papist Reverend Father to rid my hands for ever of this so often repeated objection pray observe that I voluntarily and freely and without any force from his way of arguing have and do give him his objection What then ought not the Oath be taken by a Papist Absur'd For put case that the King and Parliament being perswaded that the Papists commit Idolatry should oblige their Subjects by an Oath to renounce Idolatry would not the refusal of this Oath with the same Justice by the design of the Law distinguish betwixt Papists and Protestants And must a Papist therefore refuse this Oath Nay ought he not to take it the sooner so to undeceive the world and unmake the Sign This is our case Some eminent persons of your Society asserted at that time the deposing and King-killing Doctrin the Gunpowder-plot-men put it into Practise amongst whom some of your Society were charged with it and executed for it The King and Parliament supposing it as well they might to be the Doctrine of our Church fram'd an Oath to abjure it This Oath now by Law is become to many a distinctive sign betwixt Protestants and Papists what then must a Papist do who abhors that Doctrin Clearly he ought to abjure it so to undeceive the People and unmake the sign From hence I conclude that the Objection from the Title of the Statute is dispatch'd But if he will not accept of my deed of Gift then I resume my Liberty to dissent from him and I have for my Defence King James who best understood the Design of his own Law and assures all Christian Princes that The Oath was made for a true Distinction not betwixt Papists and Protestants but betwixt Papists of quiet Disposition and in all other things good Subjects and such other Papists as in their Hearts maintained the like violent bloody Maximes as the Powder Traitors did Prem pag. 9. and in his Apology and this he writ at that time when both the Title and the Statute was in the Eye and Mouth of every Man Wherefore nothing but the Defence of a bad Cause could force this Catechist to Derogate from the Credit Truth and Honour of this Prince whose Testimony the Statute it self does Ratify declaring that the Oath was framed For the better Trial how his Majesties Subjects stood affected in point of Loyalty and Obedience Now had the Oath been devised for distinction in Religion probably the words would have been thus For the better Trial how his Majesties Subjects stood affected in point of Religion To that of King James no reply with Justice can ever be made but to the Statute he offers thus That such a preamble is likewise prefixed To the Ordaining the taking of the Communion in the Protestant way And yet it is no distinctive sign betwixt loyal and disloyal Catholicks but betwixt Protestants and Catholicks I reply That the Receiving the Communion in the Protestant way is in it self Essentially a sign of Protestant Religion but to Renounce by Oath the deposing or murthering Power and to declare it to be against the Word of God is no Essential sign of the Protestant Religion but only of Loyalty Consequently whatever the Preamble be the Oath of Allegiance is a sign of Loyalty and receiving communion in the Protestant way is a sign of Profession of that Religion The Expences of his Third Chapter are thus First It is a Repetition of the same Objection ten times answered without the least Improvement Secondly He gives his Adversary advantage against himself Thirdly He expects that the Title of the Statute should be as large as the Statute Fourthly To compass his Design he confounds the Nature or Essence of things Reverend Father is this Christian Dictrine His Fourth Chapter examined IN this Chapter he begins to take the Oath asunder and divides it into two parts the one Assertory and the other Promissory and against each part moves many vain and impertinent Scruples Every thing he meets with is a Giant but of his own creation His first encounter is against the Assertory part which once more he degrades from sharing in any part of Allegiance because it is not a promise of Fidelity therefore it is no Oath of Allegiance As if it were not as much a duty of a Subject to maintain by Oath the Right of his Prince upon which all promise of Fidelity must be built as the promise it self Since therefore both parts are a performance of the Subject's duty both parts do integrate and compleat the Oath of Allegiance Before he advances farther he thought it expedient to expose to view these following words of the Oath And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the 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 This is a snare in which he hopes to catch the swearer tripping by perjury as acting contrary to his Oath His first Gimcrack is from the first words of the Oath thus I A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testify and declare in my Conscience before
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
teach it Lawful to disobey the Pope 't is full as Heretical to teach it lawful to disobey the King And if it be Heretical to teach it lawful to disobey him 't is equally Heretical to affirm it lawful to depose him which I think is the worst kind of Disobedience Finally I have already evinc'd that a Doctrin may be Htretical before any Definition of a General Council Before the end of this Chapter he refers us to the Sorbon and bids us examin what Opinion that famous School held as to this point in Henry the third and Henry the fourth's dayes as also at the Siege of Paris I have upon several exigences enlarged my self upon this passage being forced unto it by his and others importunity and since he is delighted with the repetition of it I shall reduce into a summary what is more diffused in my Letters Thus then This Doctrin within the compass of these times was declared to omit a score of other severe Censures to be contrary to the Word of God And not only by the Sorbon was it thus declared but also by seven more Universities as Caen Rhemes Tholouse Poictiers Valence Bourdeaux and Burges and all this in the year 1626. This Doctrine as being against the Word of God was censured by the faculty of Paris in Bellarmin Suarez Becanus and Santarellus whereupon by order of Parliament some of their Books were burnt And this Doctrine so Censured by the Sorbon to be against the Word of God the most eminent of the Society in France did solemnly engage by a promise signed under their hands dated March 16. 1626. to subscribe by which instrument also they faithfully promised never to profess any Opinion or Doctrine contrary to what shall be maintained by the aforesaid Clergy and University of the Kingdom or the Sorbon in this matter Finally by decree of Parliament June 27. 1614. the Fathers of the Society throughout France were obliged under pain of High Treason to preach in their publick Sermons against the Deposing Power as being repugnant to Christian Doctrin which accordingly they did Thus in short have I given you the Transactions of France and the Sorbon relating to the affair in hand He interrogates thus Did the French Jesuits subscribe to the Censure I answer they promised to subscribe if then they did not subscribe they were to blame an honest man will stand to his promise Their promise is extant dated March 16. 1626. He proceeds Did they subscribe the deposing doctrine was Heretical My reply is in the Affirmative for whoever subscribes a doctrine to be against the Word of God subscribes it to be Heretical In the upshot he desires to know whether they subscribed it any more than as their own Opinions And I must declare that I cannot resolve him whether they did subscribe it so much as their own Opinion or against it However if they stand to their promise and subscribe to the Censure that being positive the Subscription must also be Positive unless he knows of any Exception made in their Declaration This Chapter has put him to Charges the Summe Total is First a discovery of his Ignorance in the notion of what is Heretical Secondly he numbers the same thing five times over and knows it not because it is differently worded Thirdly he dreams of a Clubb of five Heresies in one branch of the Oath where none but himself can discover any Fourthly to swear the deposing doctrine to be Heretical he fancies is no Security to the King as if the owning his Crown to be from God is of no force Fifthly though the deposing doctrine be never so often taught and practised by other Principles yet if it be not a part of Catholick Belief he thinks the King safe Sixthly he will not own that there is any security in the Oath of Allegiance though the swearer holds the Oath to be Indispensable Seventhly he makes the Pope judge of the Lawfulness of all Oaths and yet offers to take an Oath in defiance of the Pope Eighthly he gives a Rule for the particle as and in the application contradicts himself Ninethly he understands not the meaning of a Secret Reservation Tenthly he imposes upon the defenders of the Oath Opinion in lieu of Moral Certainty Eleventhly he confounds Moral with Metaphysical Certainty Twelfthly he takes Councils to be Authors of our Faith Thirteenthly he is an ill bird and beraies his own nest discovering the shame of some of the Society in France Fourteenthly he dodges about the Subscription of the French Jesuits now owning and then disowning it Finally he scruples to be an honest man that is to swear to what he subscribes Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrine The Seventh Chapter Examined IN this Chapter a Hue and Cry is made after the former Clause 't is again search'd into and a new Evasion brought to light The clause is I swear that I do from my Heart abhor detest and abjure as Impious and Heretical this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes which be Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any whatsoever This Proposition he tells us as being exposed to Quibbles is not proper to be sworn by every Ideot I am much of his mind But this Proposition as it is exposed in the clear Terms of the Oath and not quibbled upon as Sophisters is proper enough to be sworn not indeed by every Ideot such as the Laws of God and Men exempt from Oaths but by the Illiterate as well as the Literate for would he and some few others lay a side their learned Obscurities by which they design to darken all that comes in their way the proposition as it lies is intelligible to all those whose Capacity does fit them for an Oath For the better understanding of the Scruple he allows it to be Heretical to assert it Lawful to murther the King but not to Depose This supposed he argues thus I do not swear the proposition saying a Prince excommunicated may be depose and murthered but may be deposed or murthered to be Heretical My first reply shall be that it is equally against the Law of God to assert that a Prince Excommunicated may be Deposed as it is to assert that he may be Murthered For he who by his Command obligeth us not to murther does equally oblige us not to Steal or Rob. Since therefore to depose a Prince is to rob him of his Crown 't is against the Law of God and consequently 't is heretical to affirm it Lawful He ask's who has defin'd it I answer God in the Decalogue in Holy Scripture by Universal Tradition 't is written in the hearts of all good Christians and the repugnancy to any one of these principles renders a position Heretical My second reply is that in case I should allow him that the doctrin of deposing were not heretical yet the proposition sworn in this clause to be Heretical would still be so For if
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
inconsiderable number in the Church which defends Personal Infallibility do they hold the Pope otherwise Infallible than defining Faith ex Cathedra And will any man assert the Pope's private Letters to the Catholicks of England for so Eudaemon one of your Fathers terms them to be Definitions of Faith If so pray what point of Faith is defined by these Breves can there be a definition of Faith and nothing defined Again was it ever heard that a Definition of Faith was sent in a Letter to a small number of men and not directed to the Whole Church Besides where are all the Formalities all the Ceremonies which the de-side men themselves seek for for in Faith-definitions Is not this to render the Catholick Faith more absurd than her very enemies could wish it But for a more easie dispatch of the Errour of our Catechist who engages for Popes more than they will for themselves I shall shew you what sence some of the greatest and humblest of Popes had of their own frailty in being often surprized by mis-informations upon which by an exigent of feeble nature they were forced to ground themselves Gregory truly the great seeing some to wonder that a Pope should be by misinformation circumvented replies thus Why do ye wonder that we are deceived being but men Have you not observed that David a King who had the Spirit of Prophecy gave an Unjust Judgment against the Son of Jonathan Who therefore will think it strange that Impostors should surprize us sometimes Us I say who are no Prophets We are overwhelmed with affairs and our spirits being diverted by so many things are the less attentive to any thing in particular and so may be more easily mistaken in some one thing Greg. Dialog 1. Chap. 4. After him I offer you Alexander the Third who in his Breve or Letter to the Arch-Bishop of Ravenna which is now a Law in the Canon declares thus If it happen sometimes that we send to your Fraternity such Decrees as you are not satisfied with trouble not your self at it for you may either with reverence put them in execution or give us an account why you think you ought not And we shall take it well at your hands that you execute not any decree which might bave been procured from us either by Surprize or Artifice Cap. Siquando in rescrip Thus may you see these two great Prelates confuting our little Catechist by owning that in their Letters or Breves they may be Circumvented by Surprize and Artifice Personal Infallibility he confesses is no Article of Faith but I judge it saith he definable Well then we are in a fair way of having a new Article of Faith if the Church will rely upon his judgment But if I mistake not the Church will have more than his pretended Certainty which he assures us is very great but to what degree whether of a high Probability Moral Physical or Metaphysical Evidence he knows not To evince this Certainty whatever it be he drops two or three Topicks with this enforcement Who can think this who can judge that who can imagine or surmise another thing So that if you do but think judge or imagine otherwise his Topicks are non-plust And I cannot blame him to touch them onely gently since he knew both Protestants and Catholicks had often answered them beyond reply Quitting at last his post or his pretence to personal infallibility he brings into a parallell the Spiritual with the Temporall Judge thus If the Pope may be disobey'd in the point of Conscience why may not Secular Judges be disobey'd in Temporalls I answer that neither of them against the Law of God is to be obey'd And whereas he would conclude as from a maxim that a sentence of a Judge passed upon Misinformation ought to stand good untill it be repealed by himself better informed or by a Superiour Nothing is more certain than that every sentence of a Judge be he Pope or King which is repugnant to the Law of God is ipso facto void or null and that without farther demur This he tells you is a way to pervert all Judicature and to place every private person above the Judge My reply shall be to put him in a Circumstance where his Superiour or General to whom he has vow'd Special Obedience layes his Commands upon him which in his Judgment clearly controul the Law of God Then I ask him What he would do in that case Will he obey 't will be a sin against his Conscience which dictates to him out of the Gospel That he must obey God rather than man Will he disobey That cuts the throat of his own Argument for then the Objection returns upon him that this is to confound all and place every private person above the Judge What this Catechist will do in this case I cannot resolve but for my part I would do what all good men have done upon the like occasion that is I would make use of my Reason which God has given me and if it be clear unto me that my Superiour be he Pope or King commands me to sin against the Law of God I should freely disobey him but with this submission to receive what penalty he shall inflict upon me within his sphere for this the nature of all Government requires Now by doing this I cannot be said to judge the actions of my Superiour with the judgment of Authority but I make use of the Judgment of Discretion by which I and every man is to govern his Actions And if this Rule be observed there can be no danger of placing a private person above the Judge for he submits to the punishment of the Judge and onely prefers God before Man His next position is That the Pope may judge in his own Cause To this I answer as I did in my last though according to his custome he over-leaps it that where there is a just cause of Dispute as he owns there is betwixt the Pope and all Kings in point of Deposing there is truly party and party nor can either of them be Judge For though both of them will Judge for themselves because neither will own that the other has a just cause to dispute yet if truly there be just cause of dispute neither of them can be properly Judge for if one be Judge the other must submit to his decision and so can have no just cause to dispute Our former discourse has been built upon the supposition that the Pope had authentickly prohibited by his Breves the Oath to be taken so that what follows as it is in the dark so if it were allow'd him for true 't would advance nothing to his conclusion But I cannot let pass his Confidence in being so positive that Mr. Blackwell published the two Breves of Paul the fifth whereas it is evident both out of Mr. Blackwell's own writings that he was so far from publishing them that he severely reprov'd Dr. Worthington for doing it
of the Oath of Allegiance grounded upon such private Opinions may be subject to misinformation and errour Nor does it import that the Command be of one or two Popes never so often iterated or that the menace be of Temporal or Eternal pains for still we are at this lock that 't is the private opinion of Popes for which Liberty Life and Fortunes are not to be sacrificed Had he perused the Letters Decrees of Popes so often cancelled in the Church even by succeeding Popes experience would have taught him that 't is no new thing that the Decrees of Popes may spring from their private opinions and misinformation and when they do are revocable either by themselves or others and never to be obey'd to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church and this without any disrespect to the Holy See so thought St. Bernard to omit many others who gives this lesson to our Catechist that the Apostolick See has this for which 't is much celebrated that it stands not upon punctilioes of honour but is easily prevailed with to retract that which by surprize had been procured from it 'T is indeed but just that no body should thrive by Injustice and that especially before the Holy See Bernard Epist 180. He was now come to the last period of his Catechism when he thought it expedient to make a deeper impression in the minds of his Readers of his little tricks and arts by a re-capitulation of his worthy feats First he places in the van a known Imposture saying that we declare that by the Oath onely our Opinion is sworn whereas we require a settled Judgment and that with more Certainty than Escobar or many of his four and twenty Elders do think requisit to an Oath as was made out in the last Secondly he imputes it as a Crime to the swearers that they do not by their Oath exclude as well the Temporal power of the Pope and of other Princes as onely the Spiritual power of the Pope as if other Princes and the Pope as a Temporal Prince may not right themselves by force of arms and invade the King's Dominions as he may theirs in case ' of wrong done him and reciprocally possess themselves of new Conquests Or as if King James and that Parliament by whom the Oath was made a Law were to be begged for Fools Thirdly he deludes his reader again in declaring that we by the particle as in the Oath doe onely mean Similitude This I say is a delusion for we do not onely assert that this particle as joyned to Impious and Heretical may be taken for a Similitude but also for Identity and that in the plain and common sence of the particle and moreover that 't is in the choice of a swearer to mean either Similitude or Identity Nor is it materiall in which sence he swears provided his abhorrence or detestation of the Doctrine be the same in either Fourthly he blames the swearer that engaging by Oath to discover all Treasons he omits to discover some that are such by Law as also Treasons known in Confession As if an Oath were not framed of words and words were not to be regulated by concomitant Circumstances and Pro Subjecta Materia as has been declared both by the Law and Law-maker Fifthly he charges the swearer with this Perjury that at the same time he swears to use no secret reservation he actually has in his mind a secret reservation as if restriction of words known to be such by common Circumstances were secret reservations or as if what is not hid but open to the whole world were secretly reserved Finally he faults the Oath that by it is sworn that the Pope cannot authorize any forraign Prince to invade the King but not that he cannot implore his aid to invade him as if to implore Aid and Authorize were one and the same thing What remains is the modell of an Oath he would present the King to be taken by his Subjects the juggle of which is discovered in the beginning of this my Answer to his Catechism to repeat it will be too tedious and I am heartily weary of still rowling the same stone which his constant repetition of the same things has forced me upon Wherefore having made our accounts even in the foregoing Chapters I shall also state those of his conclusion of the Catechism and so end First He puts three slurs upon his own Fathers in point of honesty Secondly He obtrudes upon others his own dreams as their sayings Thirdly He is guilty of that for which he blames his Adversary and sees it not Fourthly He confounds the Pope's private Opinion with a Faith-definition Fifthly He would sacrifice all the Catholicks of England to the Pope's private Opinion Sixthly Either he thinks the Decree of Popes must in no case be disobeyed or if he thinks they may he dares not give a rule for it Seventhly He commits three impostures Finally He understands not the difference betwixt Authorizing and Imploring Aid and is a great stranger to secret reservation Reverend Father Is this Conclusion of his Catechism Christian Doctrine For to you and to the impartial reader as he commends his Catechism so shall I my answer Peruse it and weigh it the more severe you are in the examining of it the more kind you will be to your self and me since Truth and nothing but Truth is the Game we are in pursuit of Reverend Father Your ever Faithful A. B. THE ANSWER To His APPENDIX Reverend Father THe Catechist having printed and publish't his Catechism he thought fit to send post after it an Appendix in a Manuscript by way I suppose of Refutation of it for I never saw two things more at odds one with another than the Catechism and this Manuscript are For in his Nineth Chapter of the Catechism he gives out that the General sence of Catholicks is to hold the Pope to be Infallible in points of Doctrine and he himself tells you he is certain the Pope is infallible in deciding points of doctrine and though he owns that 't is not Faith that the Pope is Infallible yet he judges it defineable Now against himself he argues thus in his manuscript What sayes he if the Pope should command a man to swear the deposing Doctrine to be an Article of Faith he answers himself thus he ought not to be obeyed and he gives for his reason because he is certain 't is no Article of Faith Is not this rare dodging with the King and Pope In the Catechism Chap. Nineth he was certain the Pope was Infallible in deciding Faith the Pope now in the hypothesis has declared a point of Doctrin to be of Faith and commands him to swear it to be so but is not to be obeyed nay he assures you there is certainty against the Pope's infallibility against which certainty the Pope cannot declare Is not this to make the Pope infallible and not-infallible when he pleases Again both in
that as in all Arts the signification of Terms is borrowed from the Masters of those Arts so is it in the art of Equivocating or other Dodging in speech the Teachers of which as they have delivered us these following Terms Equivocation Mental Reservation Material prolocution and Mental Evasion so have they given us the sense of them Equivocation is when a word of it's self capable of many Senses is by Circumstances fixed to one only in which the Auditor understands it but the speaker craftily means another for example being to journey I desire my friend to buy me a Horse he promises me so to do meaning a painted Horse this is Equivocation for though the word Horse may signify a Real or Painted Horse yet in these Circumstances it can only import a Real Horse Secret or mental Reservation is when part of a sense is exteriously pronounced by words and another part which should make out the whole sense is interiourly hid or reserved in the mind of the speaker so to impose upon his Auditor as if being interrogated whether I did see Peter to day I should reply having notwithstanding seen him No reserving in my thoughts not in the Church Material prolocution is a pronouncing of words parrat-wise without any meaning Mental Evasion is a general expression and common to all these Cheats by words Now as Equivocation ceases to be in words when all Circumstances concurr to give them a determinate sense so it fares with mental or secret reservation when what otherwise would be hid and reserved in the mind is laid open by declarative Circumstances for then nothing is concealed and what is not concealed is not mentally or secretly reserv'd My third note shall be that this Term Heretical is Equivocal in it self as having divers plain and common significations for since Use and Custom is the Rule of speech consonant to which this word Heretical imports Opposition sometimes to the word of God written in which sense 't is always used by Protestants sometimes to universal Tradition and sometimes to the definitions of General Councils or to some Consequence derived from any of these clearly there is not any one of these Oppositions but what is the plain and common sense of the word Heretical hence it is that the opinion that there were Antipodes was anciently by some censured for Heretical as by others the standing of the Sun and rouling of the Earth has lately been Hence the Divines in the Schools do dayly Object Heresie to each other without refusing communion with each other and upon any one of these Methods the Censores Librorum and Bishops at their Tribunals have proceeded to the censure Heretical If then in the Oath of Allegiance there be Circumstances restraining it to any of these notions Evidently that must be the plain and common sense of the word My last note is that Popes though never so holy and learned may in their private Letters or Breves nay and in their Bulls too proceed from misinformation from others as also upon their own private opinion and by so doing may Err to the great prejudice of others in which case there must be a Rule by which the errour may be discovered and if it prove fatal to Church or State the Pope is not to be obey'd These notes premised I shall apply them to particulars as my Method shall direct me His first and Second Chapters Examined IN the first two Chapters he states the Question whether the Oath of Allegiance be Lawful or no then sums up the requisits to a Lawful Oath as that it must have Truth Lawfulness of the thing sworn and a necessity to swear Then to make sure work of it 't is resolv'd the Oath of Allegiance shall fail in all and so fairly concludes it every way unlawful The proofs of his bold assertion are ranged in his following Chapters through which I shall attend his march But first I shall smooth a Rubb or two which in these two Chapters he thought fit to put in my way The first is that the Title of Allegiance does ill become this Oath and his reason is because the greatest part is meerly speculative and assertory and therefore no Oath of Allegiance So that in his Opinion the Title squares only to the promisory part which he tells you is in order to bind our selves to another but an assertory Oath is a swearing in order to be believed I beseech him in his next Catechism to declare what it is in the Oath he calls meerly speculative Is the Kings right to the Crown there asserted a meer speculation Fare-well then King whom this Catechist has rendred only King of Fairies and whose Kingdom at this rate is but a Fools Paradise Otherwise I should think that every Subject that by Oath asserts the right of his Prince and abjures the Pope's and Subject's Power to depose or murther him were by vertue of this Oath though no promisory Oath should follow to defend his Prince and oppose the Pope and rebells The right of a Prince and the duty of a Subject are Correlatives they live and expire together no man can assert the one but must assert the other if so 't is clear the assertory part of the Oath is not meerly speculative or in order only to be believed but also tends to practise Again is not the assertory part of the Oath as much the duty of a Subject as the promisory Will the King take it well or think him worthy of trust who by an Oath promiseth to obey and defend him whose right to command he refuseth to assert Evidently then the assertory part of the Oath is as much the Duty Fidelity or Allegiance of the Subjects towards their King as the promisory it being the bottom upon which the promisory part is grounded and therefore who sticks to own the Kings right to command is as unfaithful to him as he who denies him a promise to obey I conclude then that not only the promisory but also the assertory part of the Oath makes up the Oath of Allegiance The second remora he puts in my way is to impose upon the defenders of the Oath that they content themselves with a bare probability of the truth they swear when 't is manifest they never bate an Ace of a moral certainty though the Men of his School as Valentia Escobar and others have advanced this Doctrine he now lays to the charge of others Escobar moral theol Tract 1. Exam. 3. cap. 3. Valentia and others in the places formerly cited by me And whereas he objects that Illiterate persons understand not the words nor have any Moral certainty of the truth of the Oath I must dissent from him and do believe they have as great certainty that the King holds not his Crown from the Pope that he is Supreme in all Temporals that as such he is to be obeyed that no man may rob him or murther him that his Subjects are bound to defend him