Cannot be dispensed with or absolved from his Allegeance Which to me seems no reason at all why Will not may not be as good a Subject and give as full security for his Allegeance as Cannot his Oath by which he swears he will not ever accept or make use of any Dispensation or Absolution from his Allegeance being to him as indispensably binding and tying him as fast to his Prince and his interest as any Oath can possibly do For if it be replied that he who now swears he will not ever accept or make use of any such Dispensation or Absolution may come hereafter to alter his mind and then what is become of his cobweb-Oath and the security he gave for his Fidelity It may with as much reason and truth be retorted that he who now swears he cannot be dispensed with nor absolved from his Allegeance may come hereafter to alter his opinion and then where is his cobweb-Oath and the security he gave for his Fidelity I answer then for both That though Wills and Opinions are flippery things yet an Oath may fix both the one and the other yet with this difference and advantage against the foresaid Opinion that Wills may be fixed immediately Opinions onely mediately and indeed by no other means then by first fixing of Wills First then that an Oath may immediately fix and restrain the Will I take to be a clear case for he that swears for example he will not doe such or such a thing tending to the prejudice of a third person is without more adoe under as streight and indispensable a ty as any Oath can bring upon him that is he cannot so much as change his Will nor goe back with his Promise without Perjury and proving false to God his own heart and his Oath As for Opinions since it hath been already proved that it can never be safe to swear or abjure an Opinion and then secondly though it were yet such an Oath being an assertory Oath could bring no bond or obligation upon the Swearer so much as of not changing his Opinion for the future hence it plainly follows that the way of fixing and restraining Opinions is onely mediately and by first fixing and restraining the Will either by a promissory Oath or by the severity of the Law or by both jointly For instance take in King Henry the VIII his daies upon occasion of the then Six famed Articles of Religion it was ordained and enacted by authority of Parliament That if any person or persons within this Realm of England or in any other of the King's dominions did by word or writing printing cyphering or any otherwise publish preach teach say affirm declare dispute argue or hold any Opinion contrary to the foresaid Articles that then such person or persons so offending should be liable to such and such particular penalties as are expressed in the Statute Were this pattern copied out by our Age and that there were a Law now in force That if any person or persons within this Realm or in any other of the King's dominions did by word writing printing cyphering or any other waies publish preach teach say affirm declare dispute argue or hold any Opinion in favour of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes that then such person or persons so offending should be liable to such and such penal severities as the Legislative power of this Nation had in their grave wisedom thought fit to appoint were there I say such an Act as this in force he who would swear to a strict observance thereof would have no more to answer for his Opinions in this particular But yet again though there be no such Law extant let but the good Subject be admitted to swear that he will never by word deed or any otherwise countenance abett defend maintain preach teach or publish any Opinion in favour of the Pope's direct or indirect Deposing power and for the rest that he will inviolably bear Faith and true Allegeance to the King notwithstanding any Dispensation or whatever other proceeding to the contrary and not onely never act against Him but also assist to the best of his power and skill and side with Him against any Power whatsoever that shall at any time act against Him or attempt against His Sacred Person Crown or Dignity Questionless no Security imaginable can be greater then this forasmuch as no one can be more faithfully true to his King or more securely incapable of proving disloyal to Him whilst this Oath is kept And for security that he will keep it I conceive no good Subject will refuse to swear that he will be content if ever he fail in the performance hereof to be deemed and adjudged a Disturber of the peace and an Enemy to his King and Country a man forsworn before God and the world and will therefore freely offer to be punished as in case of Perjury and Rebellion that is to forfeit his Body to the Law his Soul to the doom and wrath of the last day and his Name to scorn and reproach Were this throughly weighed and duly sworn I know no Expedient that could more effectually contribute to the perfect quieting of all just fears of the State nor more securely answer for the peaceable disposition and opinions of the Swearer whenas even the most hidden thoughts and abstracted notions of the speculative man being under unjust restraint and having for guaranty such an Oath and sacred Engagement are sufficiently bound to their good behaviour and secured from all sacrilegious attempts of breaking inclosure and shewing themselves abroad though onely by way of publick and open discourse Wherefore I shall conclude with the Fourth Controversial Letter in behalf of the silencing and abjuring all Disputes in reference to the Deposing doctrine heartily wishing as he doth that we may all preserve the majesty of Supreme powers in an awfull distance and submit to them with the reverence of a quiet Obedience and not make them cheap by unreasonable Disputes Princes and Bishops are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not touched without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty let every quiet and peaceable spirit say Obedience is the duty which God and my condition require from me and in the performance of that I will endeavour to be found unblamable and leave disputing to those who value the praise of a witty and subtle man above that of a faithfull and quiet Subject CHAP. IX An Answer to the Authour of the Questions as far as concerns our present Question IN the first place I shall speak to matter of fact relating to the Sorbon Censures and the Subscription of the French Iesuits the clearing of both which particulars from some unwary misrepresentations and disguises of our Authour shall be the chief subject of this Chapter The first and leading Censure was that of the Sacred Faculty of Theology which upon occasion and mature examination of a certain Latine Book printed at
Princes there had been no Religion left in many Countries And he finds great fault with the Catholicks in England that they suffered Heretical Princes to live and saith that they deserved to endure the miseries they did undergo because of it that there is no juster cause of War then Religion is that the Prince and People make a solemn League and Covenant together to serve God and if the Prince fail of his part the People ought to compell him to it And he accounts this a sufficient Answer to all Objections out of Scripture If he will not hear the Church how much more if he persecutes it let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican And he brings all the Examples he could think of to justify Rebellion on the account of Religion Rossaeus proves that Hereticks being Excommunicated lose all Right and Authority of Government and therefore it is lawfull for their Subjects to rise up against them and that no War is more just or holy then this Which he endeavours at large to defend and to answer all Objections against it And the contrary Opinion he saith was first broached by the Calvinists in France when they had the expectation of the Succession of Henry IV. which Doctrine he calls Punick Divinity and Atheism and the New Gospel The truth is he doth sufficiently prove the Lawfulness of resisting Princes on the account of Religion to have obtained together with the Pope's Power of deposing Princes And there can be no other way to justifie the Wars and Rebellions against Henry IV. of Germany and France and other Princes after their Excommunications by the Pope but by stifly maintaining this Principle of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And therefore this cannot be looked on as the Opinion of a few factious spirits but as the just consequence of the other Opinion For the Pope's Deposing power would signifie very little unless the People were to follow home the blow and to make the Pope's Thunder effectual by actual Rebellion And the Popes understand this so well that they seldom denounce their Sentence of Excommunication against Princes but when all things are in readiness to pursue the design as might be made appear by a particular History of the several Excommunications of Princes from the Emperour Henry IV. to our own times If they do forbear doing the same things in our Age we are not to impute it to any alteration of their minds or greater Kindness to Princes then formerly but onely to the not finding a fit opportunity or a Party strong and great enough to compass their ends For they have learnt by experience that it is onely loss of Powder and Ammunition to give fire at too great a distance and that the noise onely awakens others to look to themselves but when they meet with a People ready prepared for so good a Work as the Nuntio in Ireland did then they will set up again for this Good Old Cause of Rebellion on the account of Religion And it is observable that Cardinal Bellarmin among other notable Reasons to prove the Pope's Deposing power brings this for one Because it is not lawfull for Christians to suffer an Heretical Prince if he seeks to draw his Subjects to his Belief And what Prince that believes his own Religion doth it not And what then is this but to raise Rebellion against a Prince whenever he and they happen to be of different Religions But that which I bring this for is to shew that the Pope's Deposing power doth carry along with it that mischievous Principle to Government of the Lawfulness of resisting Authority on the account of Religion And from this Discourse I infer that there can be no real Security given to the Government without renouncing this Deposing power in the Pope But that which is the present pretence among them is that it is not this they stick at but the quarrel they have at the Oath of Allegeance as it is now framed I shall therefore proceed to the Second thing viz. II. That if they do renounce the Pope's Deposing power in good earnest they have no reason to refuse the Oath of Allegeance And now Gentlemen I must again make my Address to you with great thanks for the satisfaction you have given me in this particular I have seriously read and considered your Treatises and I find by them all that if you durst heartily renounce this Doctrine all the other parts of the Oath might go down well enough The Authour of the First Treatise is so ingenuous as to make the following Proposition the whole Foundation of his Discourse viz. That it is not lawfull to take any Oath or Protestation renouncing the Pope's Power in any case whatsoever to Depose a Christian Prince or Absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance And in my mind he gives a very substantial Reason for it Because the holding that he hath no such Power is Erroneous in Faith Temerarious and Impious What would a man wish for more against any Doctrine Whatever P. W. and his Brethren think of this Deposing power this Piece doth charge them home and tells them their own and that they are so far from being sound Catholicks that deny it that in one word they are Hereticks damnable Henrician Hereticks What would they be thought Catholicks that charge the Church for so many Ages with holding a damnable Errour and practising mortal Sin as their Church hath done if the Pope hath no Deposing power For this honest Gentleman confesseth That it is a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Rights of Princes and the cause of much deadly Feud betwixt the Church and Secular States of many bloudy Wars of Princes one against another and wicked Rebellions of Subjects against their Princes O the irresistible power of Truth How vain is it for men to go about to Masquerade the Sun His light will break through and discover all It is very true this hath been the effect of this blessed Doctrine in the Christian world Seditions Wars Bloudshed Rebellions what not But how do you prove this to have been the Doctrine of the Church of Rome How say you by all the ways we can prove any Doctrine Catholick Popes have taught it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as Erroneous in faith Pernicious to salvation wicked Folly and Madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it Have they so in good sooth Nay then it must be as good Catholick Doctrine as Transubstantiation its own self if it hath been declared in Councils and received by the Church Yes say you that I prove by the very same Popes the same Councils the same Church and in the same manner that Transubstantiation was And for my part I think you have done it and I thank you for it I am very well satisfied with your Proofs they are very solid and much to the purpose But above
some Points And yet the Dominicans swear to maintain S. Thomas his Doctrine What think you of the Immaculate Conception which so many Vniversities have sworn to maintain as Luc. Wadding hath shewed at large and yet all these Oaths were made before any authoritative Decision of the Church One of you hath found out an evasion for this by saying that it is one thing to swear to maintain a Doctrine as true and another to swear to it as true I cry you mercy Gentlemen I had thought no persons would have sworn to maintain a falshood or to defend that as true which at the same time they believed or suspected not to be true Why may not you then swear that you will maintain the Pope hath no Power to depose Princes when your Prince requires it as well as swear to maintain the Immaculate Conception when the Vniversity requires it whatever your private Opinion be But to prevent this subterfuge Wadding saith from Surius that the Vniversity of Mentz would admit none to any degree in Divinity without swearing that he would neither approve nor hold in his mind any other Opinion What think you now of swearing to the truth of an Opinion not decided by the Church upon the best probable reasons that can be given for it And therefore all this outcry about Perjury was onely to frighten and amuse and not to convince or satisfy The rest of that Treatise consists of impertinent Cavills against several Expressions in the Oath of Allegeance which ought to be understood according to the intention of the Law-givers the reason and design of the Law and the natural sense of the words and if they will but allow these as the most reasonable ways of interpreting Laws all those Exceptions will be found too light to weigh down the balance of any tolerable judgment and have been answered over and over from the days of Widdrington to the Authour of the Questions and therefore I pass them over and leave them to any who shall think it worth their pains to make a just Answer to them The Third Treatise is written by a very Considering man as any one may find in every Page of it He bids his Readers consider so much as though he had a mind to have them spend their days in considering the Oath without ever taking it As he had that desired time to consider the Solemn League and Covenant and when he was asked how long time he would take for it he told them but a little time for he was an old man and not likely to live long But what is it which this person offers which is so considerable His main Argument is from the Pope's Authority prohibiting the taking this Oath expressly at several and distant times and after the most ample information and the Writings on both sides it being a thing belonging to the Pope's Authority as Spiritual Governour and not to the Civil Power to determine This is an Argument I must leave to those to answer who think themselves obliged to justify the Pope's Authority and to disobey it at the same time To this some answer That the Pope's Prohibition proceeding on a false Supposition and a private Opinion of his own viz. that there are some things in the Oath repugnant to Faith they are not bound to obey it because it belongs not to the Pope without a Council to determine matters of Faith That the Popes have sometimes required very unjust and unreasonable things of which Warmington gives some notable instances of his own knowledge That Obedience to all Superiours is limited within certain bounds which if they exceed men are not bound to obey them That the very Canonists and Schoolmen do set bounds to the Pope's Authority as 1. when great mischief is like to ensue by his Commands so Francisc. Zabarell Panormitan Sylvester and others 2. when injury comes to a third person by it so Card. Tolet Panormitan Soto c. 3. when there is just cause to doubt the Lawfulness of the thing commanded so Pope Adrian Vasquez Navarr and others cited by Widdrington 4. when he commands about those things wherein he is not Superiour so Tolet determins A man is onely obliged in those things to obey his Superiour wherein he hath Authority over him Now say they we having just cause to doubt whether the Pope may command us in things relating to our Allegeance and apparent Injury coming to Princes by owning this Doctrine and much Mischief having been done by it and more designed as the Gunpowder-Treason the true Occasion of this Oath it is no culpable Disobedience to take the Oath of Allegeance notwithstanding the Pope's Prohibition And upon the very same Grounds and Reasons which made the King's Royal Ancestours with their Parliaments to limit the Pope's Authority in England in the ancient Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire His Majestie 's Grandfather might with his Parliament enact that Law which requires the taking of the Oath of Allegeance and how comes such Disobedience in Temporals say they to be now more repugnant to Catholick Religion then it was in those days Nay in those times it was good Doctrine that when a Dispute arose whether a thing did belong to the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power to judge the Civil Power hath made Laws and determined it and the Subjects did submit to the Civil Authority This and much more might be said to shew the inconsequence of this Argument upon which the stress of the Third Treatise lies but I leave the full Answer to those that are concerned The plainest shortest and truest Answer is That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction over us either in Spirituals or Temporals But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that if they would renounce the Pope's Deposing power there is nothing else according to the Principles of their own Religion could hinder them from taking the Oath of Allegeance Which is in effect acknowledged at last by this Authour of the Third Treatise when he offers a new Form of an Oath rather more expressive of Civil Obedience then the Oath of Allegeance Are not Princes mightily obliged to you Gentlemen that take such wonderfull care to have a more express Oath then this already required by Law How comes this extraordinary fit of Kindness upon you Do you really think the Oath of Allegeance defective in this point No no. We know what you would have If we can get but this Oath out of the way the same interest which can remove this will prevent another as some argue about other matters at this time Well but what Security is this which you do so freely offer First You are ready to swear without any Mental reservation that you acknowledge our Sovereign Lord CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Dominions A wonderfull Kindness While the old Gentleman at Rome pleases you will doe this but suppose he should
in token of their concurring thereunto after it was pronounced all the Prelates lighting their Tapers held them downward and so put them out and threw them on the ground And every one of them set his hand to the Bull of the Sentence And there were present at it the other Emperour of Constantinople the Embassadours of France and England and of most other Christian States and not one of them no not the Emperour 's own Advocate opened his mouth against the Jurisdiction of the Court onely he put in his Appeal from it to the next more General Council which is an acknowledging the Jurisdiction Yea and the Emperour himself when the Sentence was reported to him though he slighted it as unjust and frivolous yet he never excepted to it as given à non Iudice And the King of England and the French King Lewis IX afterwards Canonized for a Saint and their Nobles justified the Sentence and the French King took upon him the protecting of the Pope's cause against the Emperour 6. In the same General Council of Lyons was made a Canon That whatever Prince should cause any Christian to be murthered by an Assasin he should ipso facto incurre the Sentence of Excommunication and Deposition 7. In Anno 1606. Pope Paul V. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls That the Oath of Allegeance establish'd by Parliament 3. Iac. salvâ Fide Catholicâ Salute animarum suarum praestari non potest cùm multa contineat quae Fidei ac Saluti apertè adversantur Now there are not in it multa to which this Censure is possibly applicable unless this be one That the Pope hath no Power to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance Therefore this Proposition was condemned by that Pope as contra Fidem Salutem animae 8. In Anno 1648. Pope Innocent X. censured the Subscribers negatively to these Propositions 1. The Pope or Church hath power to absolve any persons from their Obedience to the Civil Government established or to be established in this Nation in Civil affairs 2. By the command or dispensation of the Pope or Church it is lawfull to kill or doe any injury to persons condemned or excommunicated for Heresy or Schism 3. It is lawfull by dispensation at least from the Pope to break Promise or Oath made to Hereticks to have done unlawfully and incurred the Censures contained in the holy Canons and Apostolick Constitutions contra negantes Pontificiam authoritatem in causis Fidei Now there is none of these Propositions to which this Censure can reasonably be fastened but the first onely therefore that was thus censured 9. This very last year the now Pope being consulted touching the lawfulness of taking the late Irish Protestation in which is renounced this Power of the Pope declared That instar repullulantis Hydrae it did contain Propositiones convenientes cum aliis à Sede Apostolica olim reprobatis signanter à fel. mem Paulo V. per Constitutionem in forma Brevis nuper anno 1648. in Congregatione specialiter commissa ab Innocentio X. c. Se graviter indoluisse quòd per exemplum Ecclesiasticorum tracti sint in eundem errorem Nobiles Seculares ejusdem Regni Hiberniae quorum Protestationem ac Subscriptiones pariter reprobat idque ad eximendas Catholicorum conscientias à dolo errore quo circumveniuntur 10. That this hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in all the several Nations of Christendome yea even in France it self yea even of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Ioann Parisiens Gerson c. you may see abundantly proved by that admirable man Cardinal Peron in his Oration made in the name of all the Bishops of France to the Third Estate of Parliament And it is convinced by this That neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been yet able to produce so much as one Catholick Authour afore Calvin's time that denied this Power to the Pope absolutely or in any case whatsoever as will appear by examining their quotations To conclude then This having been for some Ages One at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church according to which she hath frequently and avowedly practised and proceeded in her highest Courts and inflicted her highest Censures upon the Opponents of it If it be an Errour the Church was at that time a wicked and blind Church a Synagogue of Satan the Pillar and Ground of Truth and with it the whole Fabrick of Faith and Religion shook and tottered If it were no Errour they that now call it an Errour are wicked Catholicks and in damnable Errour Nor though all the Doctours of Sorbon all the Parliaments and Vniversities of France all the Fryars or Blackloists in England or Ireland all the Libertines Politicians and Atheists in the world should declare for it could it ever be an Authority to make it a probable Opinion THE SECOND TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which have now been publick for divers years reduced to one principall Question concerning the Substance of the said Oath CHAP. I. The Occasion and State of the present Question IN the year 1661. was published a small Treatise under this Title Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which were proposed by a Catholick Gentleman in a Letter to a Person of Learning and Honour A late officious hand hath now in the year 1674. thought it seasonable to re-publish this short and judicious Treatise for the satisfaction of such as are at present either concerned or curious The Authour 's professed design in these Questions concerning the Oath was to propose his sense by way of Quaere's wherein he hopes not to be accused of presumption whilst he onely seeks what he professeth not to know And yet is so knowing that though he could heartily wish for a more condescending form of Oath he sticks not to affirm and he is positive in it that if the manner of expression were a little changed every syllable of the substance might be intirely retained Now if you ask him what he means by the Substance of the Oath he expresly tells you that the Substance of the Oath is the Denying and abjuring the Pope's power to depose Princes For my part 't is as far from my thoughts as forrein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power nor shall I at all play the criticall Interpreter of the Oath nor concern my self with raising any artificiall and learned obscurities such as the Publisher hints at about any inconvenient phrase nor boggle at the form and dress but closely apply my reason
Protestants in their publick Votes in Parliament whether I say this Scandal if any remains be not rather acceptum then datum like to that which Christian Religion lay under among the Iews for transgressing their Ceremonies and consequently not to be taken notice of 37. Consider Secondly whether should all Catholicks concurre to take the Oath Protestants would not in all probability attribute this their concurrence rather to a desire of their safety or of some particular Interest then to the Principles of their Religion as they have and do yet attribute the constant and general Loyalty of the Catholicks in the late Wars not to the Tenets of their Religion but to the Generosity of their minds or desire of their Security as they have published in their Books and Sermons Nay some as I hear have said the same already of Catholicks that have taken the Oath So that the taking of the Oath is ineffectual for the End pretended since Protestants would not therefore have a better opinion of our Religion but worse opinion of Catholicks who take the Oath as professing a Religion to whose Principles as by Protestants understood they are ashamed to conform And if so then consider whether probably speaking Protestants are not more scandalized at Catholicks who take the Oath as not standing in their opinion to the Maximes of the Religion they profess and as denying an exteriour Compliance with the express Commands of him whom they acknowledge to be their Supreme Pastour which Compliance even Protestants grant to be due to the Pastours of the Church then at Catholicks who refuse it which Refusal Protestants ascribe not to any want of Loyalty in them whereof they have sufficient proofs already but to some scruple of Conscience or to the Submission they think themselves obliged to pay to the Ordinances of the Pope And one may easily gather by what is set down in a Letter to a Parliament-man lately printed concerning Peter Walsh who amongst those who profess themselves to be Catholicks seems now to be the onely man who openly and in print vindicates the taking this Oath one may gather I say by what is couched in that Letter what opinion Protestants have of such Catholicks who though they acknowledge the Pope to be their Supreme Pastour yet justify the taking this Oath against several express Prohibitions of the Pope So that by taking the Oath the Scandal if any is not removed from our Religion but rather a new Scandal is fastened upon Catholicks that take it 38. Consider Thirdly whether Protestants are not of opinion that the Supremacy in Spiritualls is inherent and annexed to the Crown as has been declared in Parliament and consequently that as long as Catholicks refuse the Oath of Supremacy which they must doe as long as they will be Catholicks they refuse to acknowledge the Supremacy of His Majesty in Temporalls and His Crown For whosoever refuses to acknowledge any thing inherent and annexed to the Crown refuses at least implicitly to acknowledge the Crown and his Loyalty thereunto So that as long as we remain Catholicks we shall be accounted by Protestants not loyal Subjects in our Tenets whatsoever we be in our Practices 39. Consider Fourthly whether such Catholicks as take the Oath whilst ineffectually they pretend to remove the Scandal Protestants have so unjustly conceived of our Religion by taking the Oath do not create a just Scandal in other Catholicks who refuse it seeing how they slight the expresse Order of their Supreme Head in Ecclesiastical matters 40. Concerning the Case contained in the Objection wherein the Opponent supposes that the Pope should forbid us to bear Civil Allegeance to His Majesty due unto Him by the Law of God and of Nature or should declare such an Allegeance to be Sinfull Consider First that supposing as we do suppose that His Majesty is our Sovereign in all Civil and Temporal Concerns and that not onely in order to the Civil Power but also to the exercise thereof to deny unto Him Civil Allegeance due unto Him by the Law of God and Nature is manifestly Sinfull and in matters manifestly Sinfull we are not bound to obey the Ordinances of our Superiours whether Spiritual or Temporal Nay it would be Heretical to prohibit a meer Civil Allegeance in that supposition or declare it unlawfull and a Pope that should teach an Heresy or become an Heretick would according to the common consent of Divines cease to be Pope and consequently his Orders in that case were not to be obeyed 41. Consider Secondly whether it be reasonable that because there may be feigned a case or cases wherein the Pope or any other Superiour Ecclesiastical or Civil might command a thing manifestly Sinfull and therefore not to be done we should upon that account deny Obedience to the Commands of the Pope or any other lawfull Superiour in matters evidently or at least probably lawfull And the forbearance of this Oath which is onely enjoyned us in the forementioned Briefs as has been shewn is manifestly or probably lawfull as our Adversaries seem to confess 42. Consider Thirdly that the Popes have been so far from forbidding Catholicks to render Civil Obedience to His Majesty His Royal Father and Grandfather Kings of England that rather they have several times and in terms very significant charged the English Catholicks to render to their Majesties all Civil Allegeance and Obedience Neither have the Popes declared any of their Majesties deprived of their Crown Nay never any Pope as some have well advertised has declared any Heretical Prince brought up alwaies in that Profession as the three forementioned Kings were brought up Protestants deprived of their Dominions Neither do the Popes in the above-mentioned Briefs whereby they prohibit the taking of this Oath declare in expresse terms that they have any Authority to Depose Hereticall Princes and much less do they oblige us to swear or to make any acknowledgement that they have any such Authority but onely they enjoyn us a meer forbearance of the Oath the taking whereof is not properly as has been shewed above any Act of Civil Allegeance or at least of bare Civil Allegeance 43. Concerning the meer Civil Allegeance pretended to be contained in this Oath and that alone Consider First whether whatsoever a Prince is pleased to put into an Oath which he terms an Oath of Allegeance is to be held as appertaining to meer Civil Allegeance and whether the Refusers thereof are to be lookt upon as Refusers of Civil Allegeance As for instance if an Oath intitled an Oath of meer Civil Allegeance were framed wherein were expresly denied a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate any of His Majestie 's Subjects in any case whatsoever or to direct them in Spiritual affairs sure no Catholick would say that such an Oath did contain meer Civil Allegeance though the Prince by whose order it was framed should term it an Oath of Civil Allegeance or that the Refusers thereof were guilty of
in his own favour requiring his Subjects to swear positively that the Pope has no such Authority which is as it were to take possession of the part favourable unto him or why may not the Pope inhibit such an Oath in case the King enjoyns it as long as the Question is in debate between the Pope and King as our Adversaries confess it is yet Adhuc sub judice lis est For as long as it is under debate to whom such a thing belongs either of the parties has right to hinder his Adversary from taking possession thereof though he himself cannot take possession of it till the Question be lawfully decided in his favour and it is much less to hinder another from taking possession of a thing then to take possession of it himself 49. Consider Seventhly that whoever acknowledges the King to be our Sovereign in Temporall and Civill matters as we do he must confess that neither the Pope nor any one else has any direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome such a Power in any other being inconsistent with the Sovereignty of the King in Temporalls as in the like manner whoever acknowledges the Pope's Supremacy in Spiritualls as we also do acknowledge he must necessarily upon the like ground deny any other to be invested with the same Superiority So that should the Pope declare himself Sovereign in Temporalls over this Kingdome or any other His Majestie 's Dominions with a direct and absolute Power he would in that case declare a thing manifestly destructive to the King's Sovereignty in Temporalls which we acknowledge Neither does it belong to the Pope or the Spirituall Court to declare who is the Temporall Sovereign of such a Kingdome but to the Representative of that Kingdome or to some other Civill Power according to the different constitutions of Civill Government So that to declare the Pope Temporall Sovereign of such a Kingdome is not to declare how far his Spirituall Jurisdiction as such extends it self which does belong to the Spirituall Court but rather it is to declare him Sovereign or Supreme Governour in a different kind which Declaration does not belong unto him Neither because a lawfull Superiour may perhaps exceed his Power in some matters does it therefore follow that in no other thing he is to be obeyed What therefore we affirm in this point is That as it belongs to a Sovereign Temporall Prince to determine what is precisely necessary for the Conservation of his Temporall Sovereignty in case he be unjustly attacqued by another in his Temporalls so it appertains to the Sovereign Spirituall Prince who is the Pope to determine what is necessary to be done for the Conservation of his Spirituall Sovereignty in case he be unjustly attacqued in Spiritualls 50. Consider Eighthly to the end that it may clearly appear how willing the English Catholicks are to give His Majesty any just Security of their Loyalty that they are ready if it be necessary not onely to take all the Clauses of this Oath wherein meer Civill Allegeance due to His Majesty is contained but other Oaths also rather more expressive of Civill Allegeance then this is viz. such as were taken by the Subjects of the ancient Kings of England or which are taken now by the Catholick Subjects of other Christian Princes whether Catholicks or Protestants or of any other profession And certainly it would be very ridiculous to affirm that there is no standing Oath in any other Christian Country sufficiently expressive of Civill Allegeance And to descend to particulars They are ready to swear without any mentall Reservation That they acknowledge their Sovereign Lord King CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Kingdomes That they renounce all Power whatsoever Ecclesiasticall or Civill Domestick or Forrein repugnant to the same That they confess themselves obliged in Conscience to be as obedient to His Majesty in all Civill affairs as true Allegeance can oblige any Subject to be to his Prince That they promise to bear inviolably during life true Allegeance to His Majesty His lawfull Heirs and Successours and Him and them will defend against all Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against His or their Rights the Rights of their Persons Crown or Dignity by any person whatsoever or under whatsoever pretence That they will doe their best endeavour to discover to His Majesty His Heirs and Successours or to some of their Ministers all treacherous Conspiracies which they shall know or hear of to be against Him or them That they do declare that Doctrine to be impious seditious and abominable which maintains that any private Subject may lawfully kill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince Now let any one judge Protestant or Catholick whether these forementioned Clauses are not more or at least as expressive of Civill Allegeance as the ordinary Oath is And if so then let them consider whether since Catholicks are ready to take any of the Oaths above mentioned they can rationally be suspected to refuse the ordinary Oath of Allegeance for want of Loyalty For did they refuse it upon that account they would not offer to take the abovesaid Oaths wherein as much or more Civill Allegeance is contained then in the ordinary Oath And whether also probably speaking we may not vehemently suspect that Protestants who will not be content that Catholicks should take any of the aforesaid Oaths wherein all Civill Allegeance due to Princes is manifestly contained but will needs have them take the ordinary Oath do require of them somewhat more then meer Civill Allegeance otherwise why should not they be content with any of the forementioned Oaths Wherefore it would not be amiss that when the Oath is tendred to any Catholick who is resolved to refuse it he should make a Protestation of his Fidelity by offering to take any of the forementioned Oaths Which will at least serve to disabuse Protestants that he does not refuse to take the ordinary Oath for want of Civill Allegeance 51. Consider Lastly that doubtless there may be framed an Oath of Allegeance with such glances upon the Tenets of Protestants the same is of any other Religion that no Protestant who will stick to the Tenets of his Religion can take though it would seem very irrationall to deduce thence that Protestants deny Civill Allegeance to His Majestie if they be ready to take another Oath wherein all Civill Allegeance is clearly contained And if so why may not we refuse this Oath by reason of some doubtfull or false Expressions it contains or of some glances it has at our Religion without therefore deserving to be impeached of Disloyalty since we are ready to take other Oaths wherein as much or more Civill Allegeance is contained 52. If they object Fourthly for the Lawfulness of this Oath the Authority of the Kingdome of France of the University and Parliament of Paris and of other Universities and Parliaments of that Kingdome who
buying and selling profaned the materiall Temple of God as Hereticks profane with their Heresies the Souls of men the Spirituall Temples of God St. Peter gave Sentence of death against Ananias and Sapphira and God miraculously concurred to the execution thereof as he does miracles sometimes to confirm the Sentences issued by the Pastours of the Church The power of Excommunication which is allowed the Pope and other Prelats is meerly Spirituall as all confess and yet in some cases it extends it self to deprive the person excommunicated from all Civil Communication with others due unto them by the Law of Nature according to what has been alledged above out of Scripture Neither can it be said that such a punishment was imposed upon Excommunicated persons by the consent of Temporall Princes For what Temporal Prince was there in the time of the Apostles who granted any such effect to their Excommunication since the Temporall Princes then living were Persecutours of Christianity 99. Besides a Confessarius has meer Spirituall power over his Penitent and yet sure he may enjoyn some corporall and temporall Penance as has already been hinted and oblige him or declare him obliged to make such a restitution or to forbear the going to such a place where the occasion of his ruine was All which things are Temporall A Wife who cannot live with her Husband without imminent danger of being perverted by him is bound to quit his company and deprive him of the right he has over her though meerly Temporall and Carnall and she may be commanded by her Spirituall Directour to doe so And sure there is as great a Tie between a Wife and her Husband though in a different kind as between a Subject and his Prince 100. Again what Kingdome is there where meerly Spirituall crimes as Heresie Apostasie Blasphemy c. are not punished by the Law with some Temporall Punishment either of Death or Imprisonment or Banishment or Confiscation of goods or such like Certain it is that in England there are severall Punishments enacted by the Law against Spirituall crimes and in matters of Religion as it appears by so many Penall Laws established against Recusants yea whoever is Excommunicated here in England is deprived according to the Law of power to plead or sue another for what is due unto him So that Protestants doubtless are not of opinion that one cannot be Temporally punished by a meer Spirituall Power or upon a meer Spirituall account 101. If it be objected that Temporall Princes have enacted such Laws against Spirituall crimes as prejudiciall to the Temporall Good of their Subjects or because at least Christian Princes are impowered by severall Titles allowed them to defend by their Temporall Forces the Church and to punish crimes destructive to Faith I answer that according to this Objection the Pope may deprive one of some Temporall thing if nothing else do hinder it when it is prejudiciall to the Spirituall Good of Christians for he is invested also with severall Titles which enable him to direct the Temporalls of Princes in order to their Spirituall good or the Spirituall good of their Nation Because if a meer Temporall Power such as we onely ascribe to Kings can extend it self to the Temporall punishment of a meer Spirituall crime when it is prejudiciall to the Temporall good the Judgment of which crime does not belong to the Temporall Court why may not a meer Spirituall power such as we attribute onely to the Pope over all Christendome enjoyn in certain cases if there be not some other obstacle a Temporall punishment or deprive of some Temporall thing in order to a Spirituall end the Execution of which punishment and the Deprivation of which thing belongs to the Temporall Prince And so we see that the Ecclesiasticall Power does and may justly in some cases invocare auxilium brachii secularis invoke the assistence of the Secular Power in order to inflict some Temporall punishment upon the account of some Spirituall crime 102. Yet farther The power of Excommunicating which is meerly Spirituall may in some cases extend it self to punish meer Civill crimes as may be made appear by severall instances why may not therefore in the like manner a meer Spirituall power extend it self in some cases to inflict a Temporall punishment And a meer Temporall Power also may in certain cases extend it self to punish Ecclesiasticall Princes who are exempt from the ordinary Civill Jurisdiction why therefore on the contrary may not a meer Spirituall Power extend it self to punish in some cases Temporall persons and with Temporall punishments at least by the Assistence of Civil Magistrates For Temporalls are not out of the reach of the Spirituall Power more then Spiritualls are out of the reach of the Temporall Power 103. Finally the stoutest Maintainers of the Oath and the greatest Impugners of the Pope's Power to depose Princes cannot deny but that a Subject who is persecuted by his Prince upon the score of his Religion and is in imminent danger of being perverted may lawfully flie and steal away into a forrein Country according to the ancient practice of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians and according to those words of the Gospell Cùm autem persequentur vos in civitate ista fugite in aliam and this even against his Prince's express prohibition and his Spirituall Directours may counsell him or enjoyn him to doe so and consequently such a man may lawfully in that case deprive his Prince upon a meer Spirituall account viz. the Salvation of his Soul of a naturall-born Subject which belongs to the Temporalties of the Prince Yea what Priest or Lay-Catholick is there even among those who are so hot for the Oath and against the Pope's Deposing power pretending thereby to signalize with particularity their Loyalty to the King who does not transgress and thinks he may do so lawfully upon some Spirituall account severall Civil and Temporall Laws enacted by the King and Parliament against Popish Recusants either sending over their Children beyond Seas against the express Laws of the Realm or tarrying in the Kingdome against severall Proclamations of His Majesty or doing many other meer Temporall things prohibited unto Papists by the Law 104. All which instances most whereof are granted by our Adversaries do evidently evince That Spirituall and Temporall things are not so vastly different that they cannot in any case possible interfere the one with the other That it is not always unlawfull to deprive one of a Temporall thing upon a meer Spirituall account and that a meer Spirituall Power may in some cases extend it self to Temporall things and consequently That this proof of the forementioned Assertion viz. that the Pope has not Power to depose Kings in any case possible is manifestly false and of no force whatever the Assertion be in it self Neither do I say that because a Spirituall Power may in some cases extend it self to Temporalls it may therefore Depose
Kings but onely that it is not a good Reason to prove that the Pope cannot depose Kings in any case whatsoever because a meer Spirituall Power can in no case possible extend it self to Temporalls 105. Another Reason very common among those who defend the Oath and deny the Pope's Deposing power is Because neither the Unlawfulness of the Oath nor the Pope's Power to depose Kings is any Article of Divine Faith Whence they infer that one may lawfully take the Oath and by consequence swear positively that the Pope has no such Power Now let any one judge whether this consequence be not manifestly null Such a thing is no Article of Faith Therefore we may lawfully swear the contrary It is no Article of Divine Faith that His Majesty is King of Great Britanny shall we therefore swear that He is not It is no Article of Faith that the Pope is Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome and yet neither Protestant nor Catholick will swear that he is not The reason is because a thing may be certain though no Article of Faith or at least doubtfull and one cannot lawfully swear what is false or doubtfull 106. And as for our present case Those who defend the Pope's Power to depose Kings in some cases do not unanimously affirm that it is an Article of Faith or that it is expresly defined as such by any Generall Council or by the universall Consent of the Church but some of them endeavour to prove it out of Scripture as a meer Theologicall Truth others deduce it from Prescription others from a Donation or Agreement made between Catholick Princes alledging to this purpose that famous Canonicall Constitution of the Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third assented unto by the Embassadours and Plenipotentiaries of all or most Catholick Princes of those times present at the Councill 107. At least it does not seem impossible that Catholick Princes out of hatred to Heresie and zeal for the conservation of the Catholick Religion should make a League among themselves that if any of them should become an Heretick and should be declared as such by the Pope to whom as all Catholicks confess belongs the Authority of Declaring one an Heretick it should be lawfull for the rest in that case to attacque the Transgressour and force him by their Arms to recant and in case of refusall to prosecute the War till they have Deposed him and Absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance And what is agreed upon so by the common Consent of Princes cannot be recalled but by their common Consent This case I say does not seem impossible Now the Pope in that case by declaring such a Prince an Heretick does as it were authorize the rest of the Allies to attacque him and in case he refuses to recant to Depose him though he is not then so properly Deposed by force of the Pope's Declaration as of the Contract made between those Princes Suppose that some zealous Protestant should entail his Estate upon his heirs with this Condition That if any of them should quit the Protestant Religion and should be declared by the Archbishop of Canterbury whom Protestants acknowledge here in England as their Primate to have quitted Protestancy his inheritance should pass to the next heir Now if the Archbishop should declare in this case that such an one who possest that Estate had quitted the Protestant Religion he would deprive him or rather declare him deprived of his Estate though the Archbishop has no Authority in rigour to deprive any man of his Estate And in this case such a man would be deprived of his Estate rather by force of the Entailment then of the Archbishop's Declaration 108. Finally Protestants do commonly confess to return to the main Point that the Points wherein they differ from us as No Purgatory No Transubstantiation No Invocation of Saints and such like Negatives are no Articles of Faith and yet they are far from positively swearing the contrary Whence I conclude that the forementioned Reason of these Authours is manifestly false For it runs thus Whensoever any thing is no Article of Faith the contrary may positively be sworn But the Pope's Power to depose Kings is no Article of Faith Therefore we may positively swear that he has no such Power The Major Proposition is manifestly false as has been shewn 109. Another main Argument which the Defenders of the Oath make a great account of in order to deny the Pope's Deposing power is That our Saviour did not come into the World to deprive other men of their Temporal Dominions Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo and much less to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat coelestia Hence they infer that the Pope has no such Power for his Power must be immediately derived from Christ whose Vicar he is To this Argument I answer First That it is manifestly false that the Authority of Christ and his Apostles did not extend it self in some cases to the Deprivation of Temporals as has been proved Secondly That the Pope and other Bishops have the Temporal Sovereignty of several places granted unto them by Temporal Princes or otherwise acquired though neither our Saviour nor his Apostles had any such Sovereignty Wherefore this Consequence is null Christ had no such power Therefore the Pope has it not and yet in the Oath we are bound to swear that the Pope has not any Power whatsoever to depose Princes derived from Christ or any body else Thirdly That out of those words of the Scripture and the Hymn of the Church is not proved that our Saviour had no Authority in some extraordinary case to deprive Kings of their Dominions Certain it is that God has not given me this life to kill my neighbour yet in some extravagant case when I cannot otherwise defend my own life I may lawfully kill him 'T is also certain that His Majesty was not made King of England to take away from other Princes their Dominions yet He may doe it if otherwise He cannot defend His Subjects Neither did Christ come to damn any one out of his primary intention but to save all as is evident from several places of Scripture and yet he does and may justly condemn men who will be obstinate to eternal punishments In like manner his primary design in coming into the world was not to separate a man from his Wife a Son from his Father or Brother from his Sister for he commands all especially Relations to keep union and due correspondence among themselves and yet 't is said of him in Scripture Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium I did not come to bring peace but division and to make a separation between man and Wife Father and Son Brother and Sister when the Communication with them is destructive to their Salvation and yet 't is certain that Subjects are not more expresly commanded in Scripture to honour their