Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	bind_v	civil_a	great_a	84	3	2.0931	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35138	The catechist catechiz'd: or, Loyalty asserted in vindication of the oath of allegiance, against a new catechism set forth by a father of the Society of Jesus To which is annexed a decree, made by the fathers of the same Society, against the said oath: with animadversions upon it. By Adolphus Brontius, a Roman-Catholick.	Cary, Edward, d. 1711.; England. Parliament.	1681 (1681)	Wing C722; ESTC R222415	68,490	195

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

in opposition to his shall be not like him to applaud my self but to referr my Answer to men of impartial Judgment to whom I present this following account First he excludes from an Oath of Allegiance the first and greatest Duty of a Subject to his Soveraign Secondly he is endless in his repetition of the same thing often answered without advance Thirdly he is incorrigibly obstinate against the plain words of the Law Law-maker and practise of the Law Fourthly he minds not Circumstances to understand words by Finally he puts a Reservation where nothing is reserved Reverend Father Is this Christian Doctrine His Nineth Chapter Examined NOthing is more usual with him than to reckon without his Host he is not content to style the Pope Chief Judge in Spiritualls unless it be with the Lustre of Soveraign a Character which may be the Pope himself will not admit and those who maintain a General Council to be above the Pope will not allow Though he supposeth it as a known maxim True it is amongst the Roman-Catholick Prelates the Pope is Chief Judge but they are also Jure Divino Judges So that in the Court of Judicature he is neither Monarch nor Soveraign But suppose he were Soveraign Judge in Spirituals as the King is in Temporalls does it follow from hence that I must rather obey the Pope by refusing the Oath than the King by taking it Yes sayes he because the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of an Oath as a point of conscience lyes within the verge not of a Temporal but Spiritual Jurisdiction If so I believe the new Oath of Allegiance which he offers the King in the name of Catholicks will end in a juggle especially he declaring with certainty the Pope to be Infallible Judge for though it does not renounce the Pope's Power of deposing yet it stands in defiance of that Power and renders it vain ridiculous as never practicable nay the Subject swears by it that he will stand by the King and disobey the Pope if he attempts to depose him And can any man of sence perswade himself that such an Oath can be acceptable to the Pope who claims the deposing power will he ever permit such an Oath without declaring it Unlawful And if he shall declare it Unlawful and by his Breve prohibit it to be taken must he not be obeyed as an Infallible Judge By his Doctrine 't is Evident he ought You see then this Catechist by the offer of his new Oath designs to delude both Pope and King But this answer is only ad hominem My Second Answer more direct is that the King being the sole Judge in Temporals 't is presumed he best knows his own Temporal Concerns and the Extent of his Power as the Pope does his in Spirituals if then in the defence of his Right in Temporals he frames an Oath to be taken by his Subjects and declares as King James did that he requires by that Oath nothing but Civil or Temporal Allegiance and if it be clear unto his Subjects that nothing is comprehended in the Oath but Temporal Allegiance my Answer I say is that it is within the verge of the Temporal Power to judge of the Lawfulness of his own Oath for the Lawfulness depending upon the good or ill design of the Law-maker and the words of the Oath of which himself is the Interpreter the design being only to contain his Subjects within the bounds of their Temporal Duty and the words importing no other than Temporal Allegiance whoever wrests his words from the design and sence by him declared invades his Right Otherwise the Pope asserting his own right or power to depose Kings may and will render all Oaths repugnant to that Power illegitimate For 't is but declaring them to be against his Spiritual Power and all is in his own hand and the question of deposing is at an End Nay at this rate of arguing the Pope may hedge in all things within the Circle of his Jurisdiction for since there is nothing that bears not the badge of Good or Evil Lawful or Unlawful all things must be brought to the Spiritual Court and then what need of Kings when the Spiritual Power alone can govern the Universe Thirdly Admit the Pope were Judge as to the Legality or Illegality of the Oath must his Decision always prevail what if he were impos'd upon by Sycophants as is the fate of all Princes more or less what if he gave too much credit to sinister suggestions as that his Supremacy in Spirituals was invaded his power of Excommunication and his Jurisdiction of Binding and Absolving wrested from him Now that he was in these unhappy circumstances is too evident to those who have perused the Books of the Mis-informers against the Oath all of them using such figg-leaf pretences But let us also allow that there was fair dealing in the Informers may not this Judge be too Indulgent to his own private Opinion and so as to deceive himself and others Undoubtedly he may for on all sides 't is confess'd that Popes may err in their private Opinion and as clear it is that the errour once discover'd nothing can justifie an Obedience to such a Power or Judge when the Crowns and Lives of Princes the Catholick Religion and the Fortunes Liberties and Lives of all Catholick Subjects must otherwise become a sacrifice to his Errour To this great truth I have the Pope himself assenting Innocent the Third a great and wise Prelat who as he is cited by a learned Cardinal Franc. Zabarel de Schism declares thus We are not to obey the Pope when there is a vehement presumption that the state of the Church may be disturbed or other mischiefs like to follow Nay it were a Sin to Obey because every one is bound to prevent future evils Innocent de sent Excomm cap. inquisit But another great Cardinal warrants us in such cases not to obey the Pope though he should proceed even to Excommunication so Panormitanus Alledged by Sylvester in these terms We are not sayes he to obey the Pope if it may be presumed our obedience will trouble the state of the Church or because of any future Evil or Scandal though the Precept were under pain of Excommunication latae sententiae Sylvester ex Panormitan verbo obedientia num 5. Cardinal Tolet a Jesuit avers the same truth Tolet de sept peccat mort cap. 15. in a more ample manner so also many others To take away the Ground upon which I now stand he tells me that 't is the general sentiment of Catholicks that the Pope is Infallible in points of Doctrine First I demand how many Catholicks he has consulted upon this point wherein he is so positive For I believe they will not stand to his engagement at least in so considerable a number To father opinions upon all Divines all Catholicks the whole Church c. are tricks now so common that they will take no longer Secondly that