# fulltext

id: A58087
fulltext:
   The rat-trap, or, The Jesuites taken in their owne net &c. discovered in this yeare of jubilee or deliverance from the romish faction, 1641. Heywood, Thomas, d. 1641. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A58087 of text R25043 in the English Short Title Catalog (Wing R294). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 34 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 17 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2017 A58087 Wing R294 ESTC R25043 08726998 ocm 08726998 41686 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A58087) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 41686) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1267:20) The rat-trap, or, The Jesuites taken in their owne net &c. discovered in this yeare of jubilee or deliverance from the romish faction, 1641. Heywood, Thomas, d. 1641. 30 p. : ill. s.n., [London? : 1641] Attributed to Thomas Heywood--NUC pre-1956 imprints. Reproduction of original in the British Library. eng Jesuits -- England. Great Britain -- History -- Charles I, 1625-1649. A58087 R25043 (Wing R294). civilwar no The rat--trap: or, The Iesuites taken in their owne net, &c. Discovered in this yeare of jubilee, or deliverance from the Romish faction; 16 Heywood, Thomas 1641 5798 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 B The rate of 9 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the B category of texts with fewer than 10 defects per 10,000 words. 2002-05 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2002-06 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2002-07 Kirk Davis Sampled and proofread 2002-07 Kirk Davis Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-08 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE RAT — TRAP : OR , The IESVITES taken in their owne Net , &c. Discovered in this yeare of Jubilee , or Deliverance from the Romish faction ; 1641. Imprinted 1641. The Rat-Trap : OR , The Iesuites taken in their owne Net , &c. THe first institution of the Jesuiticall Order , was by the Father of that Sect Ignatius Loyola , not granted at the beginning thereof without great pretence of Sanctity , and religious piety , as professing and protesting to imitate Jesus himselfe ( whose cognizance they seeme to carry ) both in his Life and Doctrine : But these Wolves having crept into the Church in Sheeps cloathing , and admitted into the Flocke , not able to bridle or restraine their bloody and savage natures , have not onely preyd upon them whom they pretended to protect , but also by insinuating into the humours and dispositions of the most powerfull Potentates , have insidiated both their lives and fortunes , as by divers pregnent , ( but prodigious ) demonstrations may appeare : being growne to bee the most cunning Engineers , politick underminers , subtile supplanters , and dangerous incendiaries of any order , quality , or condition , or any faction spirituall or temporall whatsoever . Of whom to make a more generall discovery : They first , skrew themselves into the hearts and thoughts of Princes , villifying unto them all other Sects and Orders , the better to preferre and dignifie their owne ; by which crafty meanes they have inpatronized themselves into the best Abbyes , Monasteries , and other Cloystered and sequestred places of Religion ; and by the supplantation of others interessed , and inherited themselves : by which meanes growing rich and eminent , they may the better mannage all their politick proceedings ; the manner whereof followeth . In Rome lives their Father generall , to whom the inferiour sort ( cald his assistance ) tender due obedience , and these are imployd through all the parts of Christendome , and beare the names of the places in which they recide , as the assistance of Spain , of France , of Italy , England , &c. who by meanes of their correspondents , who disperse themselves into the principall Cities of that Province , first informe themselves of the state , condition , and quality of that Kingdome , and informe the assistants of all passages and occurrants , of which they give notice to the Father generall at Rome , who curiously examining them , and conferring them together , at last conclude to favour the affaires of one Prince , and depresse the designes of another , as shall best correspond with their owne pleasure ; and profit , being most preposterous and almost against Reason , that these pure Professors , should onely intend , and interesse themselves in matters of State , for raine from their Oath and Order , and in the meane time carelessely neglect both the saving of their owne soules , and others committed to their charge , for which the foundation of their society , and brother-hood , was at the first authorised . It is apparent to all men , that they are Confessors to the greatest part of the Nobility through all the Roman Catholike estates , not without great prejudice to the Princes themselves ) to which office they were also to them admitted , by which they penetrate into every designe and purpose , of which they give intelligence to their further generall ; and as secrefie is the sole preservation of a State , without which it is not able to subsist ; and that Princes themselves punish with the greatest vigour such as discover their Counsells ( as the greatest enemies both to their owne Principality , and the safety of their Kingdome ) yet the Jesuites by their Confessions , and Consultations , which their correspondents have , being planted in the chiefe Cities of the Christian world , are sincerely , and punctually advertised of all determinations concluded in their most secret Cabinets and Closets ; so that they better know the power , possessions , expences , and private projects of Princes , than themselves , suppressing or advancing their affaires at their pleasures ; which they may easily do , by reason that by their auricular Confessions , they penetrate even to the very secrets of their soules ; by which meanes the secrets of State being discovered , breeds sometimes a jealousie in Princes of , their best and most faithfull Servants , and Officers , not without the great prejudice both of the King and Subject , and indangering the whole state of the Kingdome . And to continue their stratagems , the better these Jesuiticall Machiavells distinguish themselves into foure rankes or degrees : the first consists of secular or lay-persons , who are joyned to their fraternity , and submit themselves wholly to their power and patronage ; and these are for the most part of the prime Gentry , of both Sexes , wealthy widdowes , Citizens , and Merchants ; from whom by their flattery and insinuations they draw rich donatives , perswading from some annuall pensions ; and others to forsake the world , and leave all their revenues , moveables , coyne , and jewels , to enrich their ingurgitating Monasteries , perswading them that it will prove meritorious for the health of their soules , whilst they with these profits ; Feast , and fat their owne bodyes . A second sort consists of men onely , and these as well of Priests , as Lay-men ; such as professe a sequestred , life and retired , capable of Church preferments , but with a vow to take upon them the habit , whensoever it shall please the Father general to call them unto it ; and such are called Jesuites in voto . The third are those that live in Cloysters and Monasteries , and these are either Priests , Clarkes , or Converts , who because they were not originall of that profession , may by the authority of the Father generall , be deprived and degraded ( though they before have ty'd themselves to keep it by oath ) and these not being as yet called to Office , are subject in all things to the superintendents command . The fourth , are the prime politicke Jesuites , through whose hands passeth all the government of Religion , who labour to reduce their society to an absolute Monarchy , and to plant and settle the head thereof in Rome , ( where all the affaires of the Christian world meet together ) as in a center , that being also the seat of the Father generall , and divers of his agents , who are dayly admitted into the houses of Embissadors and Courts of Cardinals ; by which meanes they preoccupate the affaires of forraine Princes ; that notwithstanding the importunity of their Embassadors and agents , nothing can be there determined , or concluded of , which stands not with their pleasure , and redounds not to their profit ; by which they are grown to that pride and arrogancie , that they have publikely boasted , that they can make Cardinals , Nuntioes ; and in temporall affaires , Lieutenants , Praefects , and Governors ; that their Generall in these times have more power than the Pope himselfe ; adding , that it is better , and much more noble to make Cardinals , than to be a Cardinall . And for their avarice , and greedy accumulating of wealth and riches , they are so farre from obeying the Cannon which enjoynes them to humility , integrity , and austerity of life : but they ingage themselves into all temporall affaires , to the great distaste and detriment of most of the Romish Kings and Princes ; and further , make Merchandize of Pearles , Rubies , Emeralds , Diamonds , and all stones of estimation and value , which they trade in from the Indies , and else where , that there is an opinion through Italie , that the greatest part of them that are sold in Venice are the proper goods and commodities of those Jesuites , the ground of which opinion hath beene received from their owne Brokers , who have had the sale of them . But to rip up all their juglings , legerdemaines , stratagemeticall plots , and combustions in state , which would aske a voluminous Tract , I shall intreate the Reader to satisfie himselfe for the present with this compendious and briefe Preface : onely my purpose being in the next place to discover them not onely for bloody Butchers , but most rigorous regicides ; their damnable plots and practises , ( deserving the hatred and detestation of all men ) which I shall strive to doe by some few examples ; and if the Tree may be judged of by the fruit , wee shall easily see what these Iesuites are . To begin with France , Henry the third of that name , after he had for their many murthers , and massacres of the Protestants , and withall their insufferable insolence to him , caused the two brother Guizes , the Duke and Cardinall to be slaine at Chartres ; after being reconciled to the Protestant King of Navarr , and marching to beleaguer his rebellious Subjects in Paris , being at a place called St. Clawds , hee was most traiterously stabbed with a knife in the bottome of the belly , by a Fryer of the Order of Iacobin , set on by the Iesuites , of which wound he dyed the next day following in the midst of his Army . And his successor , first King of Navarre , and after of France , for his many noble victories stiled Henry the great , having subdued Champaigne , and all Picardie , in his returne to Paris was stab'd in the face with a knife also , by a yong desperate Student , whose name was Iohn Chastell , instigated and set on by the former faction ; for which preditorious fact he was deservedly torne to pieces with wild horses , the twenty ninth of December , but the King by Gods preservation was recovered of that hurt : For which hee instituted Knights of the Order of the Holy Ghost , in Ianuary , being the yeare of grace one thousand five hundred ninety five : but this trayterous violence offered him was but the presage of a future , but more fatall disaster . For this potent King , the next day after hee had seene his Queene most magnificently crowned at St. Denis , upon friday being the foureteenth of May , and in the yeare 1610. about foure of Clocke in the afternoone , was murthered in his Coach by two stabs with a knife , passing the street called Ferroneny ( by one Francis Ravillack born in Angolisme ) which happened after hee had lived sixe and fifty yeares , and one and thirty dayes , having reigned in Navarre thirty seven yeares and eleven moneths , or thereabouts , and in France twenty yeares , nine moneths , and thirteene dayes : but the Traytors death , because it was so remarkable give mee leave a little to insist . He was by profession a Lawyer ; and by the conjecture of all men , was spurred on to perpetrate this horrible act by the Iesuites : though all which hee openly confest was , that what hee did was by the instigation of the Devill ; and his reason , because the King tollerated within his Kingdome two Religions ; the manner of his death was as followeth , after being rackt , and enduring severall sorts of torments in prison , he was brought thence in his shirt , with a Torch of two pound weight lighted in his one hand , and the Knife with which he had murthered the King chain'd to the other , and then set upright in a Dung-cart , the people ready to teare him in peeces , had not the Officers restrayned them ; thence he was brought to the Scaffold , where he crost himselfe , to shew he dyed a Papist : he was next bound to a St. Andrewes Crosse , and his hand chained to the knife burnt in a furnace of fire and brimstone , yet would confesse nothing , onely lamentably roared , but by none pittied . Then was his flesh pulled off with hot burning pincers , and oyle , rosin , pitch and brimstone powred into his wounds , and on his navell clapt a roundle of clay , into which was powered molten lead ; at the last his body was torne in peeces with foure strong horses , which were not able to plucke his sinewy limbs asunder , till the flesh under his armes and thighs was cut , and then was hee totally dis-membred , then were his limbs burnt to ashes , and cast into the wind , his goods confiscate to the King , the house in which hee was borne utterly demolished , and made even with the earth , never any structure to be built there after , and his father and mother to depart the Realme , never more to returne upon the penaltie of being hanged , and that his brethren , sisters , unckles , and all of the name , should upon the same forthwith change their names to some other , so that Ravillack should not be so much as spoken thorow the Realm . And so much of this Iesuiticall Arch-Traytor to the terrifying of others . The like ( in the Low Countries ) was attempted and committed upon the person of that renowned Protestant Prince William of Nassaw Prince of Orange , where a bloudy villaine , thorow his owne cloake a wainscot doore , with a pistoll double charged , shot to death in his owne palace , confessing at his most torturous death , in the middest of torments , that ( saving Ravillacks ) wanted example ; that he was animated and encited to that bloudy facinorous enterprise by the continuall instigation of the Iesuiticall faction . The Iesuites plots discovered , which they have been about this ten or eleven years , worse than that of the Gun-powder Treason . IN the yeare of Grace , one thousand six hundred twenty nine , at Salamanca an Vniversity in Spaine ( by the consent of their Father generall at Rome ) there was an assembly of the Iesuiticall Society , ( who called themselves the holy Synod ) in which one grave Seignior , who was the Prolocutor , began as followeth : Deare brothers of the most Sacred Order , wee being here convented this day ( being the birth day of our Father and Founder ( of ever-living memory ) Ignatius Loyalla ) it is fit that we consult and determine of some affaires , that may tend to the strengthening of our power , the advance of our reputations , and the enriching of our coffers , ( at which there was a generall hum thorow the Table ) when hee proceeded : But as I have proposed you a thing fit to bee done , so there ought meanes to be devised and found , how it may bee accomplished : the course it selfe , of which I have maturely deliberated , and in which I crave the assistance of your counsell , is by setting England and Scotland ( Nations that have too long lived in fraternall love and amity ) at odds , or to use the Scottish phrase , at Deadly Feud : which best how to bring to passe , I sollicite you to deliver you sundry censures . All of them unanimously applauding the matter , now began singly to speake their opinions of the manner : saith one , I thinke it may be done by some new plot & practice of treason : saith another , I suppose rather by sowing some seditious libels amongst them , to make one Nation jealous of the other : a third replyed , to invade one of the Kingdomes by sea , to which purpose they would sollicite the Catholike Princes to joyne in a solemn combination : but a fourth cut him off and said , I like not these attempts by sea , since the bad successe and utter overthrow of the great Armado in Eighty eight , though it had the Popes blessing along , and was by his Holinesse stiled Invincible . O but , said the Prolocutour , the reason of that may be easily given , for the sinnes of the Land were not then ripe , which since are growne to full maturity : But had it then prevailed , with our pistols and ponyards , steeletto's and knives , whips , fire , and faggots , we would have made them taste of that Purgatory here on earth , which they will not beleeve to have place in any corner of Hell . But to leave others , let mee now acquaint you with a project of mine owne , that I think wants president ; for policie hath prevailed , where puissance hath been repulst , and fraud hath entred , where force could not : for Vlysses did more in his Tent , then Ajax did in the field . At this all their eares were prickt up in attention , when he spake on as followeth ; The King of Spaine is stiled the most Catholike , the King of France the most Christian King , and the King of England is titled , Defender of the Faith , having under his Dominion three Kingdomes , England , Scotland , and Ireland ; the first Protestants , the second Puritans , the third Papists . Now in this distraction of religions , how easie is it to raise troubles and tumults ? Now wee have Iesuites in voto , ingenious and active , and fit to be employed in these deep and mysticall designes . Now if you ask me the manner how ? they are to bee sent over , and disperst into the Courts and families of Noble-men , and places bought them , or offices in which they may gaine the best intelligence , by screwing themselves into the bosomes , as well of the noble as ignoble rank : now if you object and say , this cannot bee without charge , and great disbursments of money ? I answer , have we not Collectors , Receivers , and Treasurers to that purpose , employed in severall parts of Christendom : as M. L. the Goldsmith in Fleet-street for the parts of Flaunders ; M. & D. for France ; Mr. Borrowes for Spaine , and others elsewhere ? ( these of the English Nation only ) and them our penetrating and insinuating Agents and Ministers , being so planted and placed neare about the Prince , and principall persons of those three Kingdomes , they may take their opportunity , and catching occasion by the fore-lock , find severall tooles and engines to work with , as to incense the Papists ( with whom our Society is most embraced ) against the Puritans , and set them and other Separatists against the Papists , and both against the Protestants , to bring in new Innovations into the Churches of England and Scotland , such as wee know the most distaste , and can worst digest ; to alter their ancient Liturgy , by inserting new additions into their books of Common prayer , and by admitting into Church livings , none but such as can conforme themselves to all such Tenents as shake hands with the Romish Traditions and Doctrines ; and to thrust out of their Benefices , all such as stand stiffe for the Reformed Religion , but especially to thrust in Ceremonies ( such as they call Superstitions ) Altars , and the like , into the Scottish Kirk , which Nation we know to be perverse , obstinate , and impatient of any Innovation or change , especially in their Religion . Thus wanting power to conquer their Countries , let it be our practice to undermine and blow up their consciences , ruinating them in their distraction about Religion ; for what will not men or women hazard , even goods , lands , nay life it selfe too for their Religion ; for what is more deare or nearer to a Christian than his God and his Religion ? what will cause more dissension , than not to have freedome of their Religion ? Nay , the very Turke himselfe will not feare to dye , though a pseudo-Martyr , even by torments or tortures , ere hee can bee compelled to forsake his Mahomet . Now we knowing the Protestant so constant in his Religion , that hee will suffer no alteration , the Papist so selfe-will'd he will brook no reformation , and the Puritan so obstinate hee will endure no Innovation , and all these spurr'd on by our subtill Agents animation : what seditions , what suspitions , what commotions , what combustions are probable to ensue thereof ; but by this Incendiary kindled in their Kingdomes , Ireland may grow tumultuous , Scotland combustions , and take armes , and Englands peace bee altogether disturbed and disquieted at least , to the exhausting of their treasure , if not their blouds , to their great detriment , if not their generall desolation : and in these jealousies and troubles , to bring in forraine Forces , there would be some hope to attaine our ends . Which speech being gravely delivered , was by the rest greatly applauded , and the Assembly dissolved , with a determinate resolution to put all the former projects in speedy practice with an Et caetera . But to come neare to our owne Country , what miraculous deliverances had Queene El●zabeth ( of ever blessed memory ) from the plots and underminings of those Arch Iesuiticall Regecides ? During her minority , in the reigne of her sister , what projects and stratagems were devised to insidiate her life ; her sundry commitments and impris●nments ? nay , a warrant for her death 〈◊〉 by the Queene , at the animation of 〈…〉 Clergy ? Her damage by water , when her barge at a low ebbe grated upon the arches of the Bridge , when shee was sent a prisoner to the Tower ? by fire , when her lodgings were burnt over her head , during her confinement at Woodstock . In the beginning of her reigne , what complotting by the Iesuites of Spaine , France , and Italy , to supplant her from her true and lawfull inheritance , by discharging her Subjects from their loyalty and obedience ? Troubles also were raised in her Kingdom of Ireland by one Nicolas Saunders , a pestilent Traytour , and one of that seditious Order , whose pen and tongue spared not only malitiously to calumniate the Queene her selfe , but the Lady Anne Bulleine her mother , who having purchased a consecrated Banner with power Legantine , landed amongst the Rebels , whither was sent also S. Iosephus with an army of Italians and Spanyards , to joyne with the revolted Earle of Desmond , his brother Fitz Morris , and others : but their army was soone distrest , the Earle dyed wretchedly , and Saunders fell mad , and dyes starved in the cliffes of an almost unaccessible mountaine . The like machinations were devised against her by Cardinall Allen , Englefield , and Rosse , as also by Doctor Parry , by travell Hispanisied , Italionated , and fully Iesuitified , who after his returne , when the Queenes Majysty vouchsafe him her gracious presence in her garden , came arm'd with a Pistoll to have taken away her life , had he not beene miraculiously prevented , for which horrible Treason he was soone after drawne hang'd and quartered . The horrible Treason of the fourteene Traytors began in one Savage a Bastard ; but Instigate thereunto by two Priests , Gilbert Gifford and one Hudson , and the rest of the conspirators drawne in by Ballard the Priest and Iesuit who with the other guilty of the same treason against her majesties owne person , the twentieth of September in Lincolnes Inn fields vpon a publick Scaffold were hang'd and quartered ; divers others suffered at Tiburne ; the prime of which and of most note , were father Campion , and master Soothwell who during his Imprisonment in the tower writ two excellent poems ; the on 〈…〉 led Saint Peters complaint , the other Magdalens teares , for seducing her Majesties subjects and denying the supremacy . I will conclude all the Iesuitical Treasons against her ( and those by her own Subjects , ) which that as Edward Squire are belonging to the Queenes stable , who beeing in Spaine was perswaded and seduced from his allegeance by one Walpoole a revolted runnagate , and entred into the Iesuiticall order ( one of these before named Invato , ) who gave a mortiserous confection in a bladder , to poyson the pummell of her saddle , who after his return into England attending his opportunity , one day when her Majesty was to take horse , came openly with a smiling countenance in the presence of many , and having prickt the bladder , and wearing a thick tand glove for his owne security , chapt his hand vpon the pummell of the saddle , and with a lowd and cheerefull voyce sayd God save the Queene : but it pleased God out of his mercifull providence , to take his word not his meaning ; for neither mounting , nor alighting , nor all the way shee roade , ( wearing a thinne glove ) shee once layd her hand vpon the pummell ? but the Treason beeing after discovered , he by his owne conviction was convicted and condemned . To come nearer to the dayes of Royall King Iames her successour , whose Coronation by reason of the great sicknesse in and about London then raigning , beeing deferrd , in this Interim two Italionated Jesuite Priests whose names were Watson and Clark , layes a plot to surprize the person of King Iames and Prince Henry , and to compell them to subscribe two things to their owne puposticall ends , and further had drawne into this conspiracy Henry Brook , Lord Cobham , and Lord Warden of the Cinque ports . Thomas Lord Gray of Wilton , Sir Walter Raliegh Lord Warden of the Staneries . Sir Griffin Markham , Sir Edward Parham , George Brooke brother to the Lord Cobham and Bartlemew Brooksby : whom these Iesuits had perswaded by their sophisticall arguments that the attempt could be no Treason , beeing done before the Kings Coronation , alleadging that Saul was not King till he was chosen in Mispeh , though he had bin maintayned in Ramah by Samuell the Prophet , neither Ieroboam , who in the dayes of Samuell had been confirmed by the Prophet to raigne over Israel til the people made him King vpon the foolish answer of Rehoboam , but yet notwithstanding all their syllogisticall Flourishers , it was proved vnto them ( to their costs , ) That in England there is no Interregum , because the King never dyeth , and that the Coronation is but a ceremony to shew the Prince to the people , for which onely there dyed ( which was the Kings great mercy ) the two Iesnits Watson and Clarke , the twenty ninth of November , and George Brookes , vpon the first of December next ensuing . But that Damnable and Diabollicall plot of the Gunpowder arch-Treason , exceedeth all president or example , the like from the beginning of time not read or heard : hatcht in the Iesuiticall nest of that most bloudy Brotherhood , which because it is yearely remembred in every Pulpet almost thorow the Kingdome , I spare further to aggravate , only to put the reader in minde that no such execrable act could be put in agitation without a Iesuit to prompt and further it : witnes Father Garnet an arch provinciall Priest of that murder , who as the rest of those conspiratours in that satannical Conjuration dyed the death of a Traytour being drawn , hangd , and quartered . These are but a few amongst many , and ere I proceed any further , I must intreate the indifferent and unpartiall Reader , to take some things necessary into his consideration . First how the adversaries spare not both in their words and writings bitterly to asperse and condemne the severity of the Lawes , for the cutting of such pestilent and preditorious Malefactors , as if they alone were all conscience and Christianity , libellously traducing them , as if they were like Braccoas ( the Legislator amongst the Athenians ) writ in blood , pretending ours to bee a meere usurped power , no better than Tyranny , whom their bloody and mercilesse persecutions , they strive to mittigate and extenuat by the countenance and authoritie of the Church , and Apostolicall Iurisdiction , when Christ himselfe left as his last Legacy upon earth , his peace amongst them ; when the Apostles never assumed to themselves any Pontificall state and habite , but were Preachers and teachers of the Word : when all their successors in the Primitive Church were so far from being persecutors , that themselves patiently suffered persecution and Martyrdome for the Gospell sake : when the Papisticall prelates of these times ; instigated and spurd on by their Iesuiticall Engineeres , instead of Prayer , Fasting , Exhortation , Admonition , and pious instruction , deale altogether in Fire and Faggot Daggers , Pistolls , powder-plots , and the like , excluding all mercy and charity , so they can but adde the least Mite to their Papall Monarchy . When on the contrary our Lawes stretch no further than to punish runnagates and revolters of our owne Nation ; such as being borne naturall subjects renounce their allegiance to their lawfull Prince and Soveraigne , transplanting themselves into other Countries , acknowledging forraigne supreams , denying that supremacy of their owne naturall Liege , refusing to subscribe to the oath of allegiance ; and not herewith contented , they most traiterously seeke to seduce and alienate the hearts of the subjects from their religion , faith , and obedience , in contempt of the Lawes , which in duty and conscience by the Lawes of Nations , they are bound to observe . Nor are these just punishments inflicted upon their capitoll delinquencies , without giving them warning to flie and abandon the Realme : but upon their peremptory and willfull returne in despight of Proclamation , and meere contempt both of prerogative and Parlamentall authority they as it were dare justice , and in their selfe-wild obstinacy thrust themselves into the hands of the hangman , as if they were borne hereditary to the halter . For instance , ( and which is now at this present in agitation ) one Iohn Goodman , a Priest and Iesuite , notwithstanding all former caveats and premonitions , having the libery of the whole world to retire and solace himselfe , only he was banished and debar'd this land nine yeares since , the entrance into wch he knew no lesse than the forfeiture of his life , with a shamefull death annexed , & knowing withall , how hateful the nama of a Romish , Priest , was to all the true and faithfull subjects of the kingdome , yet maugre all interdiction & proclamations forbidding the contrary , desperately , ( if not madly ) exposed himselfe unto all the penalty and dangers of the law , and being taken , and in the * Rat-trap held by the leg , for feare of slipping away , and brought unto his tryall , having all the favour that could be shewne to a Malefactor in that kind , by his owne free and voluntary confession accused and condemn'd himself , and when judgment must of necessity ( as in all such cases ) be , and was pronounced against him , yet the Kings Majesty out of his great and unbounded clemency & mercy , when he was ready to be drawn to execution , sent him a Reprieve for his life : and since being delivered up unto the high Court of Parlament , they , in hope of his reformation , and recantation , have not as yet proceeded against his life ; unto whose mercy I leave him , & with whom I conclude this briefe Tractate : Desiring with all the Reader to take further into his consideration the lenity of our lawes , and the milde proceedings therein to spare Christian blood : when on the contrary , our adversaries with their Corrigidoes and Catchpooles , thirst nothing more after : when no Lay Protestant traveller in Rome or Spain , dares so much as hold argument of his owne Faith , or shew a booke in his owne Language , but he shall be hurried into the bloudy Inquisition ; to endure more tortures and paines than in their owne devised purgatory , the miseries and torments whereof , if any would be further satisfied , let them but read the lamentable sufferings of Mr. Lythgow , amply set downe in the booke of his Travells . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A58087e-100 * New-gate : and iron shackle on hi● leg 


id: A59899
fulltext:
   A vindication of both parts of the Preservative against popery in an answer to the cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jesuit / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1688 Approx. 252 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 60 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A59899 Wing S3370 ESTC R21011 12048942 ocm 12048942 53115 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59899) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53115) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 823:11) A vindication of both parts of the Preservative against popery in an answer to the cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jesuit / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. [4], 111, [3] p. Printed for William Rogers ..., London : 1688. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. "Books printed for, and are to be sold by W. Rogers": p. [1]-[3] at end. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Sabran, Lewis, 1652-1732. Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. Jesuits -- Controversial literature. 2003-11 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2003-12 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-01 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2004-01 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-02 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus , A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery , &c. Guil. Needham , R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archie pisc . Cant. à Sacr. Domest . Iuly 4. 1688. A VINDICATION OF Both PARTS OF THE Preservative AGAINST POPERY : IN ANSWER TO THE CAVILS OF LEWIS SABRAN , Jesuit . By WILLIAM SHERLOCK , D. D. Master of the Temple . LONDON : Printed for William Rogers at the Sun , over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet . 1688. TO THE READER . I Must confess , F. Lewis Sabran of the Society of Jesus , as he writes himself , has all the good Qualities belonging to his Order , excepting that Learning , which some of his Order have formerly had , but he is excusable for that , because of late , that has been the least of their care ; but what they want in Learning , they make up in Confidence and Noise , which is a nearer conformity to the temper and spirit of their first Founder . When I first saw his Sheet which he wrote against the First Part of the Preservative , I read it over , and laid it aside , as I thought it deserved ; for I easily perceived , that he could not , or would not understand the plainest sense , and I saw nothing he had objected , which could impose upon the most unlearned Protestant ; and I had no mind to engage with a Man , who has not Vnderstanding enough to be Confuted : But the honest Footman thought fit to call him to an account , and I believe all impartial Men thought the Footman had the better of him , and yet the Jesuite had an honourable occasion to retreat , had his Wit served him to take it ; for no Man would have expected that a Jesuite should have encountered a Footman ; but here his Courage out-ran his Wit , as it often happens to Knights Errant in their bold Adventures . I do intend as little as possibly I can to concern my self in the Dispute between the Jesuite and the Footman ; the Footman is able to Defend himself , and I e'en quake for the Jesuite for fear he should ; but having a little leisure at present , I will spare some few hours to Vindicate the Preservative from this Jesuite's Cavils , for it will appear , that they are no better . As for those many good words he has bestowed on me , I take them for Complements on course , and to be plain with him , they are all lost upon me , for when I have Reason and Truth on my sid● I am perfectly insensible of all the Sportings of Wit and Satyr , for there are no Iests bite , but those that are true . I do not intend to pursue this Jesuite in all his rambling Excursions , but shall keep close to my business , to Vindicate The Preservative , and that in as few words as I can ; and this will come into a very narrow compass ; for he has as little to say , as ever man had , if you keep him out of his Common-place Disputes ; but if you suffer him to draw you into those beaten Roads , there is no end of him ; for he has the Confidence of a Jesuite to repeat all the old baffled Arguments without blushing . I confess , I am a little ashamed to meddle with so trifling an Adversary , and know not how I shall Answer it to the Ingenious Gentlemen of the Temple , to whom he so often Appeals against the Master , for spending my time so ill , unless his Character of a Jesuite will plead my excuse , which has been a formidable Name in former Ages : and if this will do , I have a very honourable and a very easie Task of it , an Adversary to encounter with the glorious Character of a Jesuite , but without the Sense of a Footman . A VINDICATION OF THE FIRST PART OF THE Preservative . THE Charge against me is very formidable , that I advance such Principles in the Preservative , as make void the use of Reason , Faith , Fathers , Councils , Scripture , and Moral Honesty , if he had said less , he might sooner have been believed , or might have proved it better , when such wild and extravagant Accusations confute themselves ; but Iesuits commonly spoil all by over-doing . Let us examine particulars . SECT . I. The Principles which are pretended to overthrow all right Vse of Common Sense Vindicated . THE first instance of this nature is , that I Charge Catholicks with this great Crime , that they will not allow the reading Heretical Books , and prove my Charge , because God not only allows , but requires it . The Paragraph he refers to is in p. 3. of the Preservative , in these words : Men of weak judgments , and who are not skilled in the Laws of Disputation , may easily be imposed on by cunning Sophisters , and such as lie in wait to deceive : the Church of Rome is very sensible of this , and therefore will not suffer her People to dispute their Religion , or to read Heretical Books , nay not so much as to look into the Bible it self ; but though we allow all this to our People , as that which God not only allows but requires , &c. from hence he charges me with saying , that God not only allows but requires People to read Heretical Books , But the honest Footman plainly told him , what the meaning of Heretical Books was , that I spoke the Language of their Church , which calls all Books Heretical which are not of the Roman stamp : and this is all that I meant by it , as every honest Reader would see . Does not he use the very same way of speaking himself in the same Paragraph , when he retorts this Crime upon us , that we use all endeavours to hinder our Flocks from hearing Catholick Sermons , and reading Catholick Books , for are any Christians so absurd as to forbid People to hear Catholick Sermons , and to read Catholick Books ? No sure , not what they think Catholick : and why may not I use Heretical , as well as he use Catholick in the sense of the Church of Rome ? by Heretical meaning such Books as the Church of Rome calls Heretical , as by Catholick he means such Books as the Church of Rome calls Catholick ; for they are both equally Heretical and Catholick . But he complains in the Preservative Considered , p. 4. That he had asked three very material Questions , and the Footman had not vouchsafed an Answer to them , and I believe the Footman was in the right , for they deserved none . But let us hear them , This ( says he ) seemed to me extravagant , not to say impious , and to all those who have inherited from St. Paul that Faith to which he exacts so firm and unwavering an adherency , that if an Angel from Heaven should teach us any thing in opposition to it , we ought not to mind him , or return him any other Answer than Anathema . How can , said I , this positive certainty stand with an obligation of reading Heretical Books which oppose that Faith , to frame by them , and settle a judgment . But now , if these Heretical Books do not oppose that Faith , which was Preached by St. Paul , I hope , there was no need of answering this Question ; and if the Catholick Books do , I would desire him to Answer the Question ; and if there be a Dispute depending , which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine , I would desire him to tell me , How we shall know , which of them does it , without examining them ? When we know these Books , which contradict St Paul's Doctrine , we will reject them with an Anathema , and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent , whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels , and that shews , that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense ; for though we reject the Council of Trent , yet we read it , as they find to their cost . His next Question ( or else I cannot make three of them ) is , By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction ? viz , of reading Heretical Books ; which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question ; for no man pretends , that God commands us to read Books , which we know to be Heretical ; though a man who is inquiring after Truth , must read such Books , as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical . But his killing Question is to come . I asked further , How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense , a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves , could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters , that they stand not to that their Iudgment , but comply against it , and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications , Sequestrations , Imprisonments , &c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience , acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such . But what is this to reading Heretical Books ? Is there any Law in the Church of England , thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books ? There is we know in the Church of Rome , where besides other Heretical Books , to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License , which is rarely granted , and ought not to be at all , brings a man in danger of the Inquisition , which one word signifies more than any man can tell , but he who has felt it , witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa . Well , but to allow a liberty of Judging , and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment , is contrary to Common Sense : It is so , but who gives a liberty of Judging , and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment ? I am sure , the Church of England accounts any man a Knave , who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience . There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions , no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England , as we know , where there is . Yes ! We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications , Sequestrations , Imprisonments , Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects , even by Hanging and Quartering ; which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience , acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such . It is a blessed time for these Jesuits , who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves , to rail at Persecution ; but let that pass . It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging , and to deny a liberty of Practice ; for God , suppose , to allow men to choose their Religion , and to Damn them , if they choose wrong . That is to say , a Natural liberty of Judgment , and by the same reason , the Natural liberty of Will , is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State : If this were so , it would indeed make Persecution ( as he calls it ) in a free-judging Church very absurd , but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense , for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging , to Persecute too ; and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome : Let Protestants here see , if such Jesuits could rule the Roast , what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging ; they loose their Argument against Persecution : for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge , may with good Reason Persecute them , if they do : that all men , who like Liberty of Conscience , are concerned to oppose Popery , which it seems is the only Religion , that can make it reasonable to Persecute , nay , which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute , for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church , which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience , as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience , which allows a liberty of Judging . Thus far the Preservative is safe , and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self , that is not my business at present . His next Quarrel is , that ( Preser . p. 4 , 5. ) I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists , till they disown Infallibility . I own the charge , and repeat it again , that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists , till they renounce Infallibility , as that is opposed to a l●berty of Judging ; for so the whole Sentence runs : Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot , and not stir an inch , till they disown Infallibility , and confess , that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion , according to the Proofs , that are offered to him . This the Jesuit either designedly concealed , or did not understand , though it is the whole design of that Discourse : For the plain state of the Case is this . The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible , and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority , and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word , without Examination ; for we must not Judge for our selves , but learn from an Infallible Church : Now I say , it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispu●e with us about Religion , when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false , for it is to no purpose to Dispute , unless we can Judge ; and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them , ought to exact this Confession from them , that every man must Judge for himself , and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason , and this is to make them disown Infallibility , as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome , to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging . If it be absurd to Dispute with a man , who denies me a liberty of Judging , then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute , and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge , which is a contradiction to such a Liberty . By this time , I suppose , he sees to what little purpose his Objections are ; that to require such a disowning of Infallibility , is to say , 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason , he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other , though Infallible : No Sir ! but 't is to say , that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing , till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge , who will not suffer me to use my Reason , or to Judge for my self : It does not make void the use of Common Sense and Reason , when it should lead us to submit to any just Authority ; but to submit to such an unjust Authority , makes void the use of Common Sense and Reason , because he will not allow us to use our Reason . The Iews had no Reason , as he pretends to reject St. Paul's Disputation , till he had renounced Infallibility , because he never urged his own Infallibility , as the sole Reason of their Faith , and to debar them from a liberty of Judging , as the Church of Rome does ; if he had , it had been as vain a thing for the Iews to have Disputed with St. Paul , as it is for Protestants to Dispute with Papists . His next Exception is against those Words , ( Pres. p. 6. ) What difference is there betwxit mens using their private Iudgments to turn Papists , or to turn Protestants ? To this he answers ▪ The same as betwixt two sick men , the one whereof chooses to put himself in an able Doctors hands , whom he knows to have an infallible Remedy ▪ ( which none but Mountebanks ever had yet ) whilst the other chooses his own Simples , and makes his own Medicines . The case is this ; I was giving a reason , why Papists , who have any modesty should not dispute with Protestants , because it is an appeal to every man's private judgment : if ever they make Converts , they must be beholden to every man's private judgment for it , for I think men cannot change their opinions , without exercising a private judgment about it ▪ and I suppose when they dispute with men to make them Papists , they intend to convert them by their own private judgments : now what difference is there between mens using their private judgments to turn Papists or to turn Protestants ? one indeed may be false , and the other true , but private judgment is private judgment still ; and if it be so great a fault for men to use their private judgments , it is as great a fault in a Papist , as it is in a Protestant . So that all that I said is , that there is no dif●erence with respect to mens using their private judgment , whether they use their private judgment to turn Papists , or to turn Protestants , for both is but private judgment ; and to confute this , he tells us , that there is a great difference between turning Papist , and turning Protestant , which I granted there was ; but is nothing to the present Argument . I say , there is no difference as to the principle or cause of their change , when the change of both is owing to private judgment , and he learnedly proves , that the change itself is different , as widely different , as Papist and Protestant differ . But though the Footman had plainly told him this , the Jesuite had not wit to understand it , and therefore ( Preservative Consid. p. 11. ) adds , is there no difference then betwixt one , who follows his fancy in chusing his way , and him who chuses a good guide , and follows him , because they both chuse ? do both equally rely on their fancy ? I grant , there is a difference between these two , as there is between a Protestant and a Papist ; but when the dispute is , whether they shall follow their own reason and judgment , or give up themselves to follow a Guide with a blind and implicite faith , and every man must determine this by his own private judgment , which is the case I proposed , which way so ever they determine this question , whether to follow their own reason , or to follow a Guide , in this point , they both equally rely on their own private reason , and judgment , or as he calls it , fancy . In the next place he says , I take the Catholicks part , and tho' faintly , yet speak well in so clear a cause . The intention of those Disputes is only to lead you to the infallible Church , and set you upon a Rock , and then it is very natural to renounce your own judgment , when you have an infallible Guide , This I do alledge as the most plausible pretence to justifie Papists in disputing with Protestants , that the end of it is to lead us to an infallible Church . That our own judgment must bring us to the infallible Guide , but when we have found him , we have no farther use for our own judgment . I offered two Answers to this , neither of which he durst meddle with , but nibbles at a Passage in each . The 1. he thus represents , they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith , because the sense given of Scripture and Fathers takes its Authority from the Church understanding it so . But my Answer was this ; That if Disputes be only to lead us to the infallible Church , then it puts an end to all the particular Disputes of Religion between us and the Church of Rome : We may dispute on about an infallible Iudge , but they cannot with any sense dispute with us about the particular Articles of Faith , such as Transubstantiation , the Sacrifice of the Mass , &c. for these are to be learnt only from the Church , and cannot be proved by Scripture or Fathers without the Authority of the Church . Which is a demonstration if Faith must be resolved into the infallible Authority of the Church , for then no Arguments are a sufficient foundation for Faith without the Authority of the Church , or if they be , there is no necessity of resolving our Faith into Church Authority , because we have a good foundation for Faith without it . He answers , This is false . The sense ( of Scripture ) takes its authority from God ▪ who spoke that Word , though we are certain , that we have the true sense of that Word , because we receive it from the Church , which is protected and guided in delivering us both the letter and sense , by the infallible Spirit of God , that is to abide with her for ever , according to Christ's promise , John 14.16 . This is a choice Paragraph . The Question between us is , Whether they can by Scripture convince a man , who does not yet believe the infallible Authority of the Church , as we Protestants do not , that their Doctrines of Transubstantiation , the Sacrifice of the Mass , the Worship of Images , &c. are true Gospel-Doctrines : This I say they cannot , if they be true to their own Doctrine , that we cannot be certain , what the true sense of Scripture is , without the infallible Authority of the Church of Rome . For a man cannot be convinced by Scripture , till he be sure , what the true sense of Scripture is , and if we cannot be sure of this without relying on the Authority of the Church in expounding Scripture , then a Protestant , who disowns such an Authority , can never be sure , what the true sense of Scripture is , and therefore cannot be convinced by Scripture-Proofs , which shews how absurd it is for a Papist , who professes to believe all this , to attempt to perswade a Protestant who rejects the Authority of their Church , of the truth of Popish Doctrines from Scripture : either he thinks these Doctrines so plainly contained in Scripture , that a man , who rejects the Authority of the Church , may be forced to acknowledge , that they are in Scripture , and then he must reject the necessity of Church-Authority for the understanding of Scripture , which is to yield up a very concerning point to Protestants ; or else he must confess , that he does very foolishly or knavishly in urging Scripture-Proofs to a man , who rejects the Authority of their Church , without which he knows there are no Scripture-Proofs of any Authority . But this , which was the true state of the Controversie , the Jesuite takes no notice of ; all that he says is this : That the sense of Scripture takes its Authority from God , that is , is ultimately resolved into God's Authority , who intended such a sense in it , but as to Catholicks , ( for such he must mean ) their certainty of the sense of Scripture is resolved immediately into the Authority of the Church , which is guided in expounding Scripture by an infallible Spirit : Now is not this the very same , that I sai● , that all Scripture-Proofs must be resolved into the Authority of the Church , and are not good without it , as it is impossible they should be , if we cannot certainly know , what the true sense of Scripture is , but from the Exposition of the Church . And yet if the Church of Rome be no more infallible in delivering the sense of Scripture , than in delivering the letter of it , there is no great encouragement to rely on her infallibility : as is evident from the many Corruptions of their Vulgar Latine , which one Pope corrected after another , and yet it is not corrected still ; that it was a little over-sight in this Jesuite , ( though possibly he knew nothing of the matter ) to make the Church equally infallible in delivering the letter and the sense of Scripture . But to do him right , he seems to offer at something of sense in his dispute between Iohn and William , which is the right way to a place . For , says he , is John disabled from convincing William of his mistake by reasons , because he hath with him a Guide who certainly knows the way , and that he himself would certainly pass by those reasons , if his Guide assured him , that he applied them ill and wrongly to that way . This has something of argument in it , and therefore shall be considered , and I am glad to meet with any thing , that deserves to be considered . The sum of his Argument ( which I shall represent fairly for him , because he has not shewn it to the best advantage ) is this . That Roman-Catholicks have two ways of finding out the sense of Scripture , either by the use of Reason , or by the Expositions of an infallible Guide : but that Reason must be subordinate to the Guide , and if Reason dictates one sense of Scripture , and the Church teaches another , Reason must submit , and a true Catholick must embrace the sense of the Church , though it be against his Reason ; but yet if Reason , and his Guide be both of a side , and he can prove by Reason , that to be the true sense of Scripture , which the Church gives of it , he may then wave the Authority of the Church , when he disputes with those , who reject such Authority , and argue from the reasons of things , and the natural interpretation of Scripture it self . As Iohn may convince William , who rejects the infallibility of Iohn's Guide , which is the true way by plain reason , while his reason is not contradicted by his Guide : and if our Jesuite can make more of this Argument himself , let him . I am sure he has spoiled it by repeating it in his Preserv . Consider . p. 11. John is not disabled of convincing William of his mistake , because he receives the reasons he uses from an infallible Guide . Where he has set it upon another bottom , and a very silly one for his purpose : for if the force of his Reasons be resolved into the Authority of an infallible Guide , it is all lost to him , who disowns the infallibility of the Guide : or if he means , that Iohn is taught such Reasons by an infallible Guide , as are able by their own evidence to convince William without any regard to the infallibility of the Guide , we desire no more than to see such Reasons , and to be left to judge for our selves ; but this ends in a Protestant Resolution of Faith , for every man to judge for himself according to the evidence of Reason , which in it self is neither more nor less evident , for being proposed or learnt from a fallible or infallible Guide . And yet by what follows , he can mean no more , but that the Authority of an infallible Judge must over-rule every Man's private Reason ; for he appeals to the learned Gentlemen of the Temple , hoping they will joyn with him maintaining against their Master , that all the Iudges of the Land may very reasonably convince by Law an impertinent Party , though he should oppose , that they may not do it , because their interpretation of the Law is to deliver the true sense of it . Which is glorious Nonsence , that all the Judges of the Land can convince a man , who is not convinced , but declares still , that they have not given the true sense of the Law. In all Civil Causes there must be a final judgment , and every private man must submit to the decision of Authority , whether his own reason be satisfied or not ; but it is not so in matters of Religion , in which no man at the peril of his Soul must be over-ruled by any Authority , till he be first convinced . So that the Jesuite had said a good thing by chance , but for want of understanding it , had lost it again ; and any man may see , that I could as easily have lost it , as he , had I a mind to it ; but I will not part with it without an Answer , because it is the most plausible thing , that can be said , and possibly other men may understand it , who can't answer it , though he don't . His Argument then as first proposed is this , That they allow of Reason in expounding Scripture , so long as they do not contradict the Sense and Exposition of the Church ; and therefore they may dispute with Hereticks from Scripture , without concerning the Authority of the Church in the dispute . Now in answer to this , there are some material Questions to be asked . As , 1. Whether they can dispute with Protestants by Scripture-Arguments without allowing them to judge of the sense of Scripture by their own private Reason ? and whether this be agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that every man may judge of the sense of Scripture by his own private Reason ? 2. Whether the Scripture be so plain and perspicuous , especially in the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome , that every honest impartial Inquirer may find the true sense of them without an infallible Interpreter ? if they be , I think , they never ought to talk of the obscurity of Scripture , nor the necessity of an infallible Judge more ; if they be not , and if they know , that they are not , then they know before hand , that the evidence of Scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a Protestant , who rejects an infallible Judge , and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such Doctrines by Scripure . Good Catholicks are satisfied with the Authority of the Church , and Hereticks who reject such an infallible Authority , cannot be confuted and convinced by meer Scripture . 3. I ask again ▪ Whether the evidence of Reason in expounding Scripture be a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith ? if it be , then Protestants , who disown an Infallible Judge , may have a true Divine Faith without the Infallibility of the Church , and then we may be true Believers without being Roman-Catholicks ; and I should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a Iesuite , for there is good use to be made of such a confession : if Scripture as expounded by Reason without an Infallible Judge is not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith , then to what end does their disputing with Protestants from Scripture serve , if this cannot make them true Believers . 4. I ask once more , Whether the belief of the Scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the Authority of the Church ? whether any man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God without it ? if they cannot ( and I would be glad to hear the Iesuite say they can ) then I am sure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the Churches Authority , and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church . From hence I think , it evidently appears , that the Authority of the Scriptures , and the Authority of the Church , are not two distinct Arguments in the Church of Rome , for then I grant , they might use either way of proof , and dispute from Scripture against those , who deny the Authority of the Church ; but if the Authority of the Scripture as to us is resolved into the Authority of the Church , then the Scripture alone is no Argument , but the Authority of the Church is all . Whereforedo you believe the Scripture ? Because the Church tells me it is the Word of God ; Wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of Scripture ? Because the Church so expounds it : Is not this the true Resolution of the Roman Faith ? Is this Misrepresenting too ? But if it be the truth , does not every man see , that as to us the Scripture has no Authority , no sense , but from the Church , and therefore can prove nothing separated from the Authority of the Church . If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture separated from the Authority of the Church , then whether they will or no , they must allow of the Protestant Resolution of Faith ; that is , to resolve my Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures , as expounded with the best reason and judgment I have , in the careful use of all such means , as are necessary for the understanding that Holy Book : now if they will allow this to be a good Resolution of Faith , we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs , and give them leave to make us Converts to the Church of Rome by Scripture , if they can : but if they do allow of this , then we Protestants are in a very good way already as to the Resolution of our Faith , and so that Controversie is at an end ; and if they will not allow this , then they confess , that Scripture-proofs of themselves are not good , for if they were , we might certainly resolve our Faith as Protestants do , immediately into the Authority of Scripture . And thus much for Iohn and William and the Infallible Guide ; if Iohn has any Reasons independent on the Authority of his Guide , he may then try his skill upon William , who rejects his Guide , but if all his other Reasons are resolved into the Authority of his Guide , and are no good Reasons without it , then he may spare his Reasons till he has made William submit to his Guide . And this is the case between the Scripture and the Church , in the Church of Rome : the Scripture wholly depends both for its Authority and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church , and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing , but what the Church makes it signifie and prove . The Scriptures may be supposed to be the Word of God , and to have some sense antecedent to the Churches Authority , but no man can know this without the Church , and therefore as to us both the Authority and Interpretation of the Scripture depends upon the Authority of the Church , and is no Argument , to prove any thing by itself . But I cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant Answer the Iesuite gives to a very substantial Argument of the Footman , To prove that at least some Doctrines of the Church of Rome by their own confession , cannot be proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church , he shews that Petrus de Alliaco , Scotus , and Tonstal do confess , that Transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary Scripture-proofs , but on the Authority of the Church , for the Scripture might , and that very reasonably too , be expounded to another sense , had not the Church determined otherwise . Now what does the Iesuite say to this ? 1. He prevericates like a Iesuite in repeating the Argument , That the Words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered ; and that had not the Church ever taught that sense , one might believe otherwise , for all the letter of Scripture : for the Authors alledged by the Footman do not say , as the Iesuite makes them , that the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered that sense of Transubstantiation , which the Church of Rome now teaches ; but Tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited , That it was free for all men , till the Council of Lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the Presence . Which supposes , that this Doctrine was never determined by the Church till the Council of Lateran , and therefore not ever received , and delivered , and taught by the Catholick Church . 2. In a Parenthesis he adds , how truly ( this is said of the Catholick Divines , that they did affirm this ) it belongs not to my present purpose : very truly said , it is not to his purpose , but very much against it : but if he means , that he was not concerned to know , whether these passages are truly cited from these Authors , it seems he is not concerned to defend his Argument , for that is very much concerned in it , it is a plain confession he had nothing to say , and therefore would not be concerned about it : and will our Learned Iesuite confess , that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by Petrus de Alliaco , Scotus , and Tonstal ? or will he so easily give up such men as these , and let the ingenious Footman run away with them and his Argument together . 3. He answers , let it be so ; but what follows here ? but the necessity of an unerring Interpreter ? What follows ? why it follows , that they cannot prove Transubstantiation from Scripture without the Authority of the Church , and consequently that it is not Scripture but their Church they rely on for the proof of their Doctrines , which is the thing the Footman intended to prove by it , and has done it effectually : but how an unerring Interpreter follows from hence , I cannot see , unless it be to prove that to be in Scripture , which the most searching and inquisitive men cannot find there : and this indeed is the true use of an unerring Interpreter in the Church of Rome , to impose upon mens Faith to believe that to be in Scripture , which no man can see there ; for what men can see there , one would think they might believe to be there , without an unerring Interpreter . As for what he adds , that the Arians gave as natural a sense of 1 Iohn 5.7 , 8. as the Catholicks did , is to be answered at present only with abhorrence and detestation . But to proceed . In the next place , to shew them , how absurd it is to dispute even about an infallible Judge , I direct our Protestant to ask them , Whether the belief of an Infallible Iudge must be resolved into every man's private judgment ? Whether it be not necessary to believe this with a Divine Faith ? And whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Iudge ? To this the Jesuite answers ( Ans. p. ● ) There can be no Divine Faith without a Divine Revelation , nor a prudent one without a Moral Evidence in the Motives of Credibility , on which may be grounded the evident obligation to accept it . This he calls a Moral Infallibility , and shews by what steps , it may fasten on God's Veracity , and with a submission not capable of any doubt , embrace the revealed Truth . Now all this amounts to no more than Protestant certainty , void of all doubt , which the Church of Rome would never yet allow to be a Divine and Infallible Faith. But what is this to my Question ? Which was not , Whether a Divine Faith required a Divine Revelation , but whether there can be any Divine Faith without an Infallible Iudge ? which it seems , he durst not own , nor say one word to . And yet here lay the force of the Argument , as I told him in the same place , If we must believe the Infallibility of the Pope or Church of Rome , with an infallible Faith , there is an end of Disputing ; for no Reasons or Arguments , not the Authority of the Scripture itself ( which I hope he means by his Divine Revelation ) without an infallible Iudge , can beget an Infallible Faith , according to the Roman Doctors . For this Reason they charge the Protestant Faith with uncertainty , and will not allow it to be a Divine , but Humane Faith , though it is built upon the firmest Reasons , the best Authority , and the most express Scripture , that can be had for any thing ; but because we do not pretend to rely upon the authority of a living infallible judge , forsooth , our Faith is uncertain , humane , and fallible . This he knew to be true , and yet knew , that he could not build the belief of an Infallible Judge upon the authority of an Infallible Judge , unless he could find one Infallible Judge to give testimony to the Infallibility of another , and a third to give testimony to the second , and thus to dance round in a circle of Infallibility , without finding any beginning or end ; and therefore he slips this pretence of an Infallible Judge , and would found a Divine Faith upon revelation , or prudential motives of credibility , which indeed is to quit Infallibility , and to take up with a Protestant moral certainty , or moral infallibility as he calls it , that he may retain the name at least , when the thing is lost . Nay , he gives a substantial Reason against an Infallible Faith of the Churches Infallibility . For if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident , it were impossible , that any Heresie should be , the wisest word , that he has said yet , but I shall make him repent of saying it , before I have done ; for this is an evident demonstration against Infallibility . He says , we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church ; and if this be true , and our Faith be founded upon the Authority of the Church , then we can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the Truth of the Christian Religion , or any Article of it : for as I argued in that very place . Though the Iudge be Infallible , if I be not infallibly assured of this , ( if I have only a Moral Evidence of his Infallibility ) I can never arrive to Infallibility in any thing , ( or can never get higher than a Moral Certainty ) for I can never be more certain , that his Determinations are Infallible , then I am , that he himself is Infallible , and if I have but à moral assurance of this , I can be but morally assured of the rest , for the Building cannot be more firm than the Foundation is ; and thus there is an end to all the Roman Pretences to Infallibility . Though he slipt this at first Reading , I hope he may judge it worth Answering upon second Thoughts . But how he will get rid of his own Reason , I cannot guess , if the Infallibility of the Church were more than Morally Evident , it were impossible , that any Heresies should be : by which he either means , that de facto the Being of Heresies in the World is a sensible Argument , that there is no Infallible assurance of the Infallibility of the Church ; for an Infallible Proof cannot be resisted , and then all the World must believe the Churches Infallibility , and give up themselves to the Directions of the Church , and then there could be no Heresies : or else his meaning is , that since there must be Heresies in the World , as the Apostle tells us , therefore God has given us no more than a Moral Evidence of the Infallibility of the Church ; because an Infallible assurance of this would have prevented all Heresies , which God , it seems , for very wise Reasons , did not intend thus irresistibly to prevent . Now rightly to understand this Matter , I would desire to know why they say God has bestowed Infallibility on the Church ? Was it not to prevent Heresies and Schisms ? Is not this the Popish Objection against the Protestant Resolution of Faith , that for want of an Infallible Guide men fall into Errors and Heresies , and divide and disturb the Peace of the Church with Schisms ? Is not this the great Reason they urge for the necessity of an Infallible Guide to prevent all Heresies and Schisms ? and yet now it seems , there must be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church , that there may be Heresies : How often have they been told by Protestant Divines , that if God intend an Infallible Judge to prevent all Heresies , the Being of an Infallible Judge ought to be as evident and demonstrable , as that there is a Sun in the Heavens , that all men might see him , and believe him : and now they tell us , This Infallible Judge must not be thus Evident , that men might not know him , that there may be room for Heresies to creep into the World. Now methinks it is pretty odd , that there should be an Infallible Judge to keep Heresies out of the Church , and that the Being of this Judge should be no more than Morally Evident , that Heresies may creep into the Church . It seems the Romish Resolution of Faith leaves as great Scope for Heresies to come into the Church , as the Protestants does , and therefore from henceforward , all the Arguments for Infallibility from the necessity of keeping Heresies out of the Church , are given up ; and they must never more object against the Protestant Rule of Faith , that by this means Heresies get into the Church . His Argument , I confess , concludes fully against any Infallible Certainty of an Infallible Judge ; and the reason is to the full as good against an Infallible Judge , as against an Infallible way of knowing , that there is one , And now since I cannot be Infallibly assured of this Infallible Judge , I will trouble my head no further about him , and therefore leave his Preservative Considered , p. 13 , &c. to any Footman that pleases to answer it . His next Objection is much of the same nature . That Protestants cannot reasonably be disputed into Popery , as that signifies , resolving our Faith into the infallible Authority of the Church to believe whatever the Church believes , and for no other reason , but because the Church teaches it , and the reason , whereby I proved it , is , because no Arguments or Disputations can give me an infallible certainty of the infallibility of the Church . And this he has just now granted , that we cannot have an infallible certainty , but only a moral evidence for the infallibility of the Church , and if there can be no more than a moral evidence for this , then no Arguments can give us an infallible certainty of it , because this cannot be had . And what has he to say now ? a very shrewd Objection I assure you , and it is this : We saw Dr. Sherlock just now pleading for the Jews against St. Paul , ( that I have accounted for already ) now he reasons against Christ our God , blessed for ever more . His words prove that Christ , who owned himself infallible , did imprudently to Preach or work Miracles ; for since they could not give an infallible certainty , ( an evident one he means by his whole Discourse ) no prudent Jew , nor Gentile , could be disputed by him into Faith. Those who corrected his first Paper for him , which they have done in several places , as being sensible the Footman had great advantage of his loo●e way of Writing , have made some Alterations here in the Preservative Considered , p. 24. This Position proving , that Christ our Lord , who owned himself infallible , did imprudently to Preach or work Miracles , by which he exacted a certain firm Faith grounded upon his Infallibility in Teaching : for since his Preaching and Miracles did not give an evident infallible certainty of his Infallibility , ( and such an evident one Dr. Sherlock must mean , for the certainty we have of a real Infallibility cannot be in reality fallible ) no prudent Jew or Gentile could be disputed by Christ into Faith. This is expressed with greater art and subtilty than the first , but however they palliate it , it is equally absurd and sensless . The Fallacy lies only in this , that by an infallible certainty , they will have me mean only a certain firm faith , or an evident certainty , whereas I plainly mean such an infallible certainty , as the Church of Rome opposes to the certain firm faith , and evident certainty of Protestants . The Papists perpetually object against Protestants , that their Faith is uncertain ; we assert , that our Faith is not uncertain ; that we have all the evident certainty , that the thing is capable of : but this will not satisfie them , unless we can produce some such infallible certainty , as they pretend to have ; and by this Argument they perswade men to forsake our Communion , and to go over to the Church of Rome , that they may have the certainty of Infallibility for their Faith : This I tell our Protestants , they cannot be disputed into , because no Reasons or Disputations can give them an infallible certainty of the Infallibility of the Church , and yet unless they can be infallibly assured of that , they are no nearer to Infallibility in the Church of Rome , than in the Church of England : now had our Jesuite read this , as he ought to have done before he answered it , had it been possible for him had he not been a Jesuite , to have said , that by infallible , I meant evident ? for we Protestants pretend to evident certainty , and this we have , and Iews and Gentiles might have of Christ's Preaching and Miracles , and when I opposed this Infallible Certainty to Protestant Certainty , surely I meant as much more by it then Evident as Papists do , when notwithstanding all our Protestant Evidence , they charge us with the want of Infallibility . And yet for ought I can perceive now , they are contented to let Evident Certainty pass for Infallible , and the Corrector of F. Sabran's Sheet has given us a notable reason for it , for which Protestants are bound to thank him , for he has made them all infallible . For the certainty we have of a real Infallibility cannot be in reality fallible . That is to say , when the Object is infallibly true , our Faith or Assent to it , cannot be fallible : and thus before they can prove us Protestants to be fallible Creatures any more , they must prove , that what we believe , viz. the Holy Scriptures , and the Apostles Creed , are not infallibly true . Though I thought the Infallibility of Faith had not been owing to the Object of our Faith , but to the Evidence of it . This the Footman plainly saw , and therefore minds him of the difference between True Certainty and Infallibility . Doth Dr. Sherlock say , that the Jews could not be disputed into Faith , unless that Faith were infallible ? No , he leaves that to be talked of by you , who are the great Pretenders to it . The Jesuite is very angry at the Reverend Licenser for this . What do you own , that we only are to look on the Faith even as preached by Christ , to be necessarily infallible ? Is it no part of your belief that you are any way concerned in , that that certain Faith which Christ exacted from the Jews , St. Paul from each Christian , must of necessity be infallible ? Fair and softly ! we believe , whatever Christ and St. Paul taught to be infallibly true , but we know , that a fallible Creature , as all private Christians at least are , cannot believe with an infallible Faith ; that is , no man , who knows himself fallible , though he may be very certain of what he believes , can say he is infallible in his Faith , unless there be a Divine Promise , that he shall never err ; for if he be not infallible , he can be infallible in nothing . Protestants believe Christ to be an infallible Teacher , and the Christian Faith to be infallibly true , and this they believe with all the firmness and certainty of assent ; but this is not , what the Church of Rome used to call Infallibility , though the Jesuite ( if it be not meer want of understanding in him ) seems to be hammering out a new notion of Infallibility ; but it is but a rude and imperfect Embryo yet , we shall see , what they will make of it in time . And here I find my self obliged to look a little backwards , to see how he states the Churches Infallibility , for he mightily complains of Protestant Misrepresentations about it . Our Guide then , he tells us , is the Catholick Church , either diffusive in its whole extent , ( that is , as it contains or signifies the whole number of Christians all the World over ) or representative in its Head and Bishops , the Pope and a General Council . The Church diffusive , or the whole number of Christians on Earth , is most certainly the true notion of the Catholick Church on Earth ; is that Church , to which , most of the Promises made to The Church in Scripture , are made ; but how this Church diffusive should be our Guide , wants to be explained : if the Church diffusive , or the whole number of Christians , is the Guide , who is to be guided , unless the Guide is to be a Guide only to himself : However , I hope then every particular Christian will be allowed a private judgment of his own ; for the Church diffusive will be a very strange Guide , if it cannot use its own reason and judgment ; and how the whole , which consists of all particular Christians , should judge for itself , when no particular Christian must judge , is somewhat mysterious : that is , that all Christians must judge , and yet none must judge . But I will not dispute with him about this , but whenever he will collect the Votes of the Church diffusive , or of all the Christians in the World , I promise to subscribe to their Definitions The Representative Church , is the Head and Bishops , the Pope and a General Council . I thought , the Pope in Jesuits Divinity , had been the Church virtual , and a General Council the Church representative . But I have in a late Discourse proved , that the Pope is not the Head of the Catholick Church , nor a Council of Bishops the representative of it , and he may try his skill upon it , when he pleases . Now it seems , the Church diffusive has the keeping of the general faith of Christians , first received from Christ and his Apostles , and preserved by all Bishops in their respective Diocesses , and in the minds and actions of each faithful Believer in the whole Catholick Church . Strange ! that our Jesuite should now at last turn a meer Blackloist , or Traditionary Divine . This general Faith of Christians he compares to the common Laws of the Land , to shew I suppose his skill in the Law , and make the learned Gentlemen of the Temple to pity or scorn The Master's ignorance : well let that be as it will , for I pretend to no skill in Laws , but as for this general Faith of Christians , whatever it be like , I would gladly learn from the Church diffusive , what it is ; for I matter nothing else , but the General Faith of Christians ; but how to learn this , he has not told us ; it is preserved , he says , by all Bishops in their respective Diocesses , and in the minds and actions of each faithful Believer in the whole Catholick Church . Well then , must we examine all Bishops and every particular Believer about this ? this is impossible to be done : will any one Bishop , or any one particular Believer , ( since every Bishop , and every particular Believer has it ) suffice to tell us , what this general Faith of Christians is ? is this an infallible Conveyance of the Faith to depend upon the Tradition of Bishops and Christian People ? is there no faithful and authentick Record of this Faith , from whence we may learn , what Christ and his Apostles delivered to the Church ? So one would think by this Jesuit's account , who takes no notice of the Holy Scriptures , as if the common Faith of Christians could not be learnt from them , but from the tradition of the Church diffusive . Thus much for Common Law , but the Church has her Statute Laws too , and they are the Decisions or Canons of General Councils , declaring and applying to particular Instances the Common Law and Belief of the Church : but how does the Pope and a General Council , or the Church representative , as he calls it , come to have the power of declaring and applying the common Faith of Christians , which is in the keeping of the Church diffusive , and therefore one would think , could be declared by none else ? do the Pope and a General Council infallibly know the Sentiments and Opinions of all the Christian Bishops and People in the World ? This they must do , or else they cannot declare the common Faith of Christians , unless they can infallibly declare , what they do not know : If their Authority be only to declare the common Faith of Christians , how shall we know , that they declare nothing but the common Faith of Christians ? for if they do , their Decrees are not valid , for they declare that which is false . This Jesuit has greatly intangled and perplexed the Cause by laying the whole stress upon the declarative and applying Power . Had he said , that the Pope and a General Council had Authority to declare what is the Christian Faith , and though they declared that to be the true Faith , which the Church diffusive never heard of before , yet after their decision , it must be received as the common Faith of Christians , though it had not been so formerly , there had been some sense in this , though no truth : but when he says the Church can only declare what is , and always has been the common Faith of Christians , if I can find by ancient Records , that what the Council declares to be the common Faith of Christians now , was either not known or condemned in former Ages ; if I certainly know , that she declares that to be the Faith , which at the very time of the Council was so far from being the common Faith of Christians , that it was not the common Faith of the Council , but was contradicted by the wisest and best part of it ; then I certainly know , that the Council has not declared the common Faith of Christians , and therefore that its Decrees are of no Authority . But he proceeds . We hold , that this general Faith received from the Apostles , and preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church , explained upon occasion by the Church representative , is infallibly true , and this is all the Infallibility the Catholick Church pretends to . And there is no Protestant but will own this Infallibility . That the Faith at first received from the Apostles , the same Faith , which was delivered by the Apostles , preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church , and the same Faith explained upon occasion by the Church representative , so that it is evident after the explanation , that it is the same Faith still ; I say , every Protestant will acknowledge , that this Faith is infallibly true ; for we believe the Faith delivered by the Apostles to be infallibly true , and if it appears , that the same Faith is still taught by the Church , whether in or out of Council it matters not , it must be infallibly true still . But yet there is a little difference between us and the Jesuit ; He believes , and would have us believe , that the present Faith of the Church of Rome , viz. the Doctrine of the Council of Trent , is that Faith , which was received from the Apostles , preserved in all the Members of the Catholick Church and only explained upon occasion by the Council of Trent , which was the Church representative ; this we deny : this we know , this we can , and often have proved to be false . And I beseech you , what greater infallibility can any Church pretend to , than to have the World receive all her Decrees as infallibly true ? But they do not pretend , that either th● whole Church ▪ or any person , or persons in it , are held to possess any intrinsick Infallibility , which they own to be proper to God alone . Thank 'em for nothing , they do not believe , that the Church or Pope or Council are by nature infallible , for all the World would laugh at them , if they did . We do not say , ( as he adds ) that they cannot of themselves deceive us , but that God according to his Promise directing them by his infallible Spirit , it cannot possibly happen , that they should deceive us . The Modesty of a Jesuit ! who claims no more Infallibility for the Pope and General Council , than the Apostles had , and wonders any man should grudge them this , since they do not pretend to an intrinsick Infallibility , not to be infallible by Nature , but only by Grace . Thus he adds , that they do not pre●end to new Revelations and Lights , nor admit any new Article of Faith ; though where a doubt arises the Church-hath infallibly power to declare what hath been revealed by Christ to the Apostles , and preached by them , which perhaps some part of the Church might have had a less clear understanding thereof ; but this is done , not by making any new Article of Faith , but more clearly delivering what was ever believed by the Apostles , and all Catholicks from their time to this : That is to say , what ever the Church determines , though the Christian Church in former ages knew nothing of it , yet it must not be called a new Article of Faith , but a declaring what had been revealed by Christ to his Apostles , and preached by them , though the world had long since forgot it : whatever the Church determines to day , we must believe to have been the Faith of the Apostolick Age , though there are no other evidences nor symptomes of it , but because the Church which is infallible says so . And this is all the Infallibility the Church pretends too ! a very small matter to be denied her by Christians , it is only to believe whatever she says , without disputing or examining her Faith ; nay to believe that to be the old Faith , which the most authentick Records of the Church prove to be new . I have thus stept out of my way , to see what fine thing he had to say of the Churches Infallibility , which he promised a very favourable representation of ; but it is all the old cant still , a little disguised by some ignorant blunders , or artificial Non-sense ; as for his proofs of this Infallibility , I am not concerned with them at present , and after so many discourses on that Argument they need no answer . Another Argument whereby I proved , that no man can be disputed into Popery , which denies us the use of our own Reason and Judgment in matters of Religion , was this , Because it is impossible by Reason to prove , that men must not use their own Reason and Iudgment in matters of Religion : For to dispute is to appeal to Reason , and to dispute against the use of Reason in Religion , is to appeal to Reason against the use of Reason : in Answer to this he tells us , That men must use their Reason to come to this knowledge , that God hath revealed what they believe . Now I would desire no more but this to prove that we must use our Reason in matters of Religion : for no man at this day can know what is revealed without it . I do assert , and let him disprove me when he can , that since God has given us reason to judge of the truth or falshood of such things , as are knowable by the light of Nature , and a standing Rule of Faith and Manners in the writings of the Old and New Testament , for matters of Revelation , we must believe no Mans or Churches pretences to Infallibility , who either teaches any Doctrine , which plainly contradicts the light of Reason , or a standing revelation ; and therefore we must judge of mens pretences to the Spirit , by the Doctrines they teach , and therefore must particularly judge of their Doctrines too : This is the fair state of the Controversie between us , and here I leave it , and let him take it up again , when he pleases . And here he returns back to the Conference between a sturdy Protestant and a new Convert , which belonged to the former head , the design of which is to shew the new Convert , that by going over to the Church of Rome he has gained no more Infallibility , than a Protestant has , nay has lost some degrees of certainty , which he might have had before : for thus the Protestant tells him : You rely on your own reason and judgment for the Infallibility of your Church , and consequently of all the Doctrines of it , and therefore your infallible Faith is as much resolved into your own fallible Iudgment , as the Protestant Faith is : So that the difference between us is not , that your Faith is infallible , and ours fallible , for they are both alike , call it what you will , fallible or infallible — We have more rational certainty than you have , and you have no more infallible certainty than we . You think you are reasonably assured your Church is infallible , and then you take up your Religion upon trust from your Church , without , and many times against Sense and Reason , according as it happens . So that you have only a general assurance of the Infallibity of your Church , and that no greater than Protestants pretend to in other cases , viz. the certainty of Reason and Argument , but have not so much as a rational assurance of the truth of your particular Doctrines , that if you are mistaken about the Infallibility of your Church , you must be miserably mistaken about every thing else , which you have no other evidence for . But now we are in general assured , that the Scriptures are the Word of God , and in particular assured , that the Faith which we profess , is agreeable to Scripture , or expresly contained in it , and does not contradict either Sense or Reason , nor any other principle of Knowledge : so that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith , as you have of the Infallibility of your Church , and therefore at least have double and triple the assurance that you have . I have repeated this at large , that the Reader might see what the dispute is , and indeed the very repetition of it is a sufficient justification , for it carries its own evidence along with it . Now as to what I said , that we are in general assured , that the Scriptures are the Word of God. To this he answers , The conclusion would be this , Catholicks are as certain of the sense of Scripture , as Protestants are that they have the letter . Now I believe any Reader will be as much puzled to guess , how this comes in , or what relation it has to this dispute , as I am . I tell the new Convert , that his old Protestant Friend has as much certainty of his Religion as he has ; for tho' he flatters himself with the conceit of an infallible Church , yet his belief of the Churches Infallibility is founded only on Reason and Argument , as the Protestant Faith is , and therefore his Faith is no more infallible than the Protestant Faith is , and so far they are equal . But then I add , that the Protestant has at least as good assurance , that the Scriptures are the Word of God , as the Papists can pretend to have , that the Church is infallible , and so far they may be allowed equal still , that the one thinks he has an infallible Guide , the other an infallible Rule of Faith : Now how can the Jesuit's conclusion come in here ? Catholics are as certain of the Sense of Scripture , as Protestants are , that they have the Letter . For the comparison did not lie between the Sense and the Letter of Scripture , but between that Evidence Papists have of the Infallibility of their Church , and Protestants have , that the Scriptures are the Word of God ; both which is not infallible , but a rational Evidence , and therefore so far equal : and this he has nothing to say to . In the Preserv . Consid. p. 29. he represents it otherwise : This is the case ; On one side there is supposed an infallible Interpreter of the Christians great Law-Book , ( for thus Dr. Sherlock states the case ) on the other are some men ( far the greater part unlearned and weak ) who allow not any Sense to this Book , which seems to them to contradict their Sense or Reason , or any other principle of their Knowledge . And I am asked , Whether I proceed more prudently in receiving the Sense of the Law from that Interpreter ( which is actually supposed infallible ) or in proceeding by the second Method . Now this is as wide of the mark as t'other ; I never suppose an infallible Interpreter ; never make any dispute , whether I should submit to an infallible Interpreter , or follow my own Reason ; which were indeed a ridiculos question , supposing the Interpreter were actually infallible ; but our only dispute was , Whether a man , who by the appearing evidence of Reason , is perswaded to believe an infallible Judge , believes more infallibly than a Protestant does , who believes also upon the evidence of Reason and Argument ? This is the Question he cannot answer , and therefore would lose , if he could . But then I added , that Protestants had much the advantage of Papists , because besides that general assurance they had , that the Scriptures are the Word of God , and the infallible Rule of Faith , they are in particular assured , that the Faith they profess is agreeable to the Scripture , or expresly contained in it , and does not contradict either Sense or Reason , nor any other Principle of Knowledge ; whereas Papists have no other evidence for the particular Articles of their Faith , but the infallible Authority of their Church , which is the last resolution of their Faith , and that many times in contradiction to Sense , and Reason , and Scripture , as far as fallible men can judge of it : So that we have as much assurance of every Article of our Faith , as they have of the Infallibility of their Church : The meaning of which is , that we have a rational assurance of every Article of our Faith in particular , as they think , they have the assurance of Reason and Argument , that their Church is infallible . To which he answers , If he means , they have the same proofs for this , which Catholicks have for the Infallibility of the Church — it is false . No , Sir , I do not mean the same , for I hope they are better , but proofs of the same kind , i. e. from Reason and Argument , which are the only proofs they can pretend to , for the Infallibility of their Church ; and therefore our Assurance ( for that I said , not Proofs ) is of the same kind too , a moral rational Assurance , not infallible , for that they have not for Infallibility itself , as our Answerer confest above . But the Argument he hints in his Answer , p. 5. is so very new , and so very pretty , that I cannot pass it : If he means , they have the same proofs for this , which Catholics have for the Infallibility of the Church , that is , for the being of that Church which declares her self Infallible ( for a Church erring in such a point , would cease to be the Church of Christ ) then 't is evidently false . The Argument is this , that the Infallibility of a Church , which declares herself infallible , is as evident as the being of that Church ; for if she declares her self infallible , and is not infallible , such an Errour as this makes her cease to be the Church of Christ. So that the Church of Rome is either an infallible Church , or no Church : Well , for Argument's ●ake , we will say she is no Church , and try then , how he can prove her Infallibility . But he has another bold stroke in what follows : That the Christians of this Age have the same evidence of Her ( he must mean the Church of Rome ) being the Church of Christ , and of her teaching Truth , and consequently of her Infallibility , which she hath of Christ , viz. Prophesie , Miracles , &c. What will no less evidence serve his turn ? is it full as evident , that the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ , and speaks Truth , and consequently is Infallible ( which it seems every one that speaks truth must by consequence be ) as that there was such a person as Christ , the true Prophet and Messias ? I hope by Prophesies , he does not mean the Revelations of St. Iohn , nor by Miracles , the School of the Eucharist . His next exception is against that Argument : If you must not use your Reason and private Iudgment , then you must not by any Reason be perswaded to condemn the use of Reason ; for to condemn is an act of Iudgment , which you must not use in matters of Religion : So that this is a point which no man can dispute against , and which no man can be convinced of by disputing , without the reproach of self contradiction . Here our Jesuit is as pleasant as his wit would serve him ; the sum of his Answer is , That a man may be convinced by Reason , that he ought to choose a Guide , and not to trust his Reason in all things . I readily grant it , for this is to use our Reason ; but the inquiry is , Whether Reason can convince any man , that he ought to follow this Guide in contradiction to his own Sense and Reason : whether because Reason will direct a sick man to choose a Physician , it will direct him also to submit to this Physician when he certainly knows that he gives him Poison . The next Principle , which overthrows the use of common Sense and Reason ( for that is his charge against me ) is this , That we must allow of no Reason against the Authority of plain and express Scripture . This he allows to be a true Catholic Principle ; and therefore I hope the Principle does not overthrow common Sense , unless Catholic Principles may do it . But he does not like an instance or two I give of it in the first and second Commandments : I say , such an express Law is that , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . No reason in the World can justifie the worship of any other Being , good or bad Spirits besides God , because there is an express Law against it , and no Reason can take place against a Law. A rare consequence ( says the Jesuit ) to infer a Negative from an Affirmative antecedent . But I thought , Him only shalt thou serve , had signified thou shalt serve none but him ; and that I think excludes all other Beings from any share in our Worship . Now to take his own instance , were there such a Law , that a Subject should love his King only , this would exclude Father or Wife , or any other Friends or Relations from a share in our love . Here he begins to distinguish between that worship they pay to Creatures , and to God , and alleadges St. Austin's Authority for it ; but if he have a mind to renew that Dispute about the sense of the Primitive Fathers , as to Invocation of Saints , he knows his man , and had best keep to him , or at least do him right , before he engages any farther . It had been more to the purpose , to have examined that explication I gave of the first Commandment , and how I proved , that it is an express Law against the worship of any other Being , but the Supreme God , but what is most to the purpose , is seldom most to his purpose . The next instance I gave of this rule was the second Commandment : Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image ; and there the Jesuite stops with an &c. for he durst not trust good Catholicks , who might read his paper , though they will read nothing else , with the whole Commandment ; and this I affirmed ▪ and affirm still , is so express a Law against Image-Worship , that no reason must be admitted for it . What ( says he ) if you be told , that although the Iews had perhaps a command of making no graven Image , &c. again why not and not to worship it ; we do not say they were forbid to make any graven Image , but they were forbid to make them for worship ; and therefore his following instances of Bezaleel and Solomon , who made no Images or likenesses of things in Heaven or Earth for worship , are nothing to the purpose ; he adds , yet this being a positive Law , and not confirmed in the Gospel , doth not oblige us ; will this reason be admitted ? He answers for me , No ; but I answer yes , if it be true and he dare stand to it ; but this is no reason against an express Law , but an exception to the Law itself , as of no force . I do affirm , that if the second Commandment be still in force , it does so expresly condemn all Image-worship , that no reasons can justifie Image-worship against such an express Law ; but if it be a Law no longer , the case I confess is altered , and I desire to know , whether he will stand to this ; but he had best advise with some wiser men first , who understand the sense of the Church and of the Fathers , and of their own Divines a little better about this matter . But before they abrogate this Law , I would desire them to make it a Commandment by it self , and call it the second Commandment , as we do , for fear of abrogating the first Commandment with it , of which they make it a part : though the truth is , the Church of Rome could spare them both , and thank you too . His parting blow is a very terrible one . I direct Protestants never to admit any Arguments meerly from the usefulness , conveniency or pretended necessity of any thing , to prove that it is . As for instance : A supreme Oecumenical Bishop and an Infallible Iudge of Controversies , are thought absolutely necessary to the Vnity of the Church , and certainty of Faith , and confounding of Schisms and Heresies . — Now if I thought all this were true ( as I believe not a word of it is ) I should only conclude , that it were great pity that there is not an Vniversal Pastor , and Infallible Iudge Instituted by Christ ; but if you would have me conclude from these Premises , Ergo , there is an Vniversal Pastor and infallible Iudge , I must beg your pardon for that ; for these Arguments do not prove that there is such a Iudge , but that there ought to be one , and therefore I must conclude no more from them . This , he says , is not only to misuse humane Reason , but to deny Wisdom and Reason in God ; Alphonsus the Royal Mathematician , was ever looked on as guilty of a horrid Blasphemy , for having said he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did , at the first Creation . 'T is one of as deep a dye , to think God ought to have done , what we belive , that ●e hath not done . But do I any where say , that God ought to have done , what I believe he has not done ? do I any where say , that God ought by necessary and infallible means to have prevented Schisms and Heresies ? Dare our Author himself say this , who assigns this as the reason , why the Infallibility of the Church is no more than morally evident , because otherwise it were impossible that any Heresie should be : which at least supposes , that God did not intend to make it impossible , that there should be Heresies and Schisms ; and therefore though we should grant it absolutely necessary to prevent all Heresies and Schisms , that there should be an Oecumenical Pastor and Infallible Judge ; is this to grant it necessary , that there should be one , or to say , that there ought to be one , unless I had said also , that it were absolutely necessary that all Heresies and Schisms should be prevented ? Is there no difference between saying , that such a thing is absolutely necessary to such an end , and to say , that such an end is abfolutely necessary . But however , where do I say , that God has not done that which I believe he ought to have done ? is it the same thing to say , such a thing is not , and such a thing is not proved by such an Argument ? and yet this is the utmost that I say , that the supposed necessity of an infallible Judge , does not prove ▪ that there is such a Judge , but only that there ought to be one , and I must conclude no more from it ; and does this overthrow the use of Reason , to conclude no more from an Argument , than the Argument will prove ? whatever any man apprehends necessary , to be sure , he is mightily inclined to believe , but whoever will believe like a reasonable creature , must have good evidence for what he believes , and yet that we believe it necessary is no evidence , that it is ; not that God will not do , what is necessary to be done , but because that may not be necessary , which we vainly and presumptuously imagine to be so : which is the very reason I assign for it in the words immediately following . Indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning : because what we may call useful , convenient , necessary , may not be so in itself ; and we have reason to believe it is not so , if God have not appointed , what we think so useful , convenient , or necessary : which is a truer and more modest way of reasoning , than to conclude , that God has appointed such a Iudge , when no such thing appears , only because we think it so useful and necessary , that God ought to do it . Which is not to excuse a bad Saying with a good one , as the Jesuite pretends in answer to the Footman , ( Preservat . Consider . p. 36. ) but to justifie a good Saying with a good Reason . But if it were such blasphemy in Alphonsus to say , that he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation , let the Jesuite consider what it is , to mend what God has done in the work of our Redemption , upon a meer supposition , that it may be mended : for Popery is nothing else but a mending ▪ or more properly speaking , a corrupting the Gospel of Christ with a blasphemous opinion of mending it . And I think to say , that God has done , what there is no other proof he has done , but only that we think he ought to have done it , is to say , that God ought to have done , what it does not appear he has done ; and if not to be , and not to appear , be the same in this case , then this is equivalent to saying , that God ought to have done , what he has not done . And this I hope is sufficient for the Vindication of those Principles , which are pretended to overthrow the Use of Common Sense and Reason . SECT . II. The Principles pretended to make void all Faith vindicated . HE begins with proving the Protestant Faith , not to be a Divine Faith , because it is not a certain one ; which if it were true , is like proving a man not to live , because he is weak : for if there be as much certainty , as is absolutely necessary to the essence of Faith , it may be a true Faith , though weak , as a weak man is alive still : and Faith receives its denomination of Divine or Humane Faith , not from the Certainty or Uncertainty of it , but from the Authority on which it rests ; a Divine Authority makes a Divine Faith , Humane Authority an Humane Faith , and both these may be either certain or uncertain , or , to speak properly , strong or weak : so that to prove , that the Protestant Faith is not Divine , because it is not Certain , is like disproving the Essential Properties by Changeable Accidents , that a Man is not a reasonable Creature , because he is not strong : for there is no more necessary connexion between Faith being Divine , and being Strong or Certain , than between Reason and Bodily Strength ; a weak Man may be a reasonable Creature , and a weak Faith may be Divine , if it be founded on a Divine Authority . But I wish the Jesuite had told us , what that degree of Certainty is , which makes a Faith Divine , whether any thing less than the certainty of Infallibility can do it ; for this used to be the old Argument , that our Faith is not Divine nor Certain , because it is not infallible , but if they will abate any thing of Infallibility , we will vie all other degrees of Certainty with them , and that he very fairly quitted before , when he owned and proved , that there could be no more than Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of their Church , and then I am sure , they can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the rest of their Faith , which is all founded upon their Churches Infallibility . Well , having proved , that our Faith cannot be Divine , because it is not certain , he next undertakes to prove , that our Faith is not certain : because we cannot have an Act of Faith of any One Article , till our Rule of Faith proposes it , i. e. till we know certainly what Scripture teaches of it , not by any one Text , but by comparing all the Texts that speak of that Subject . Very well , we cannot believe any thing upon the Authority of Scripture , which is our Rule of Faith , till we know , that it is in Scripture ; wisely observed , and we grant it . Let us see , what follows . 1. Then a Protestant must certainly know , that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ . 2. That all those , he owns for such were really written by inspired Pens . The second we accept of , but there is no need to submit to his first Condition . That a Protestant must certainly know , that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ ; that is , he must be able to prove , that there never were any other Books written by the Apostles or other inspired Men , but what we receive into our Canon of Scripture ; which is to prove a negative , which is always thought unreasonable , and at this distance from the Apostolick Age is impossible , but whenever the Church of Rome will prove this of their Canon of Scripture , we will prove it of ours . In the mean time it is sufficient , that we reject no Books , which have been always acknowledged by the Universal Church , and that the Books we receive have been received for inspired Writings by the Universal Church ; and if ever there were any other Books written by the Apostles or Evangelists , which are now lost , we have reason to believe , that the Church does not need them , but has a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners without them ; for the Divine Providence would never permit , that the Church should want any necessary part of the Rule of Faith. He proceeds . 3 ly . And ( since the Letter kills ) that he understands the true sense of each Text which relates to the Object of that Act of Faith. 4ly . That he remember them all , so as comparing them , to see which is the clearer to expound the obscurer , and what is the result of them all , ( for any one he understands not , or hath forgotten , may possibly be that one that must expound the rest ) he cannot have one Act of Faith. Now , not to take notice of his ridiculous , not to say blasphemous , misapplication of Scripture in that Parenthesis , the Letter kills , by which St. Paul understands the Law , which he calls the Letter , or an External Administration , and the Ministration of Death , and of Condemnation , in distinction from the Gospel , which is the Ministration of the Spirit , and the Ministration of Righteousness , 2 Cor. 3.6 , 7 , 8 , 9. but our learned Jesuite understands it of the Letter of the Gospel as distinguished from the Sense of it , which is such a distinction as no men of sense ever thought of , till the Church of Rome found it necessary to distinguish the Letter and the Words of Scripture from the Sense of it , and to separate them too , which they have effectually done ; but yet how the Letters , which are very innocent things in all other Books , should be such killing things in Scripture , is worthy of the Wit and Learning of a Jesuite to unriddle : But I say , to let this pass , I grant a Protestant must understand the true sense of Scripture ( which must be done by venturing to understand the killing Letter of it ) before he can know , much less believe , what the Scripture teaches ; but that they should understand and remember every place of Scripture which relates to such a Subject , I see no reason for ; if we have one or two or more plain and express places for it , it is enough , at least for ordinary Christians , and a great deal more than the Church of Rome has for any of her new Articles of Faith. For we are sure , what is plainly and expresly said in one place cannot be contradicted by another ; and therefore if I had no more than that one plain Text , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve , I should think it a sufficient Proof against the Worship of Saints and Angels , though there were no other Text in the Bible against it . Now whatever Papists say ( for we desire to hear them prove as well as say ) this is so far from being impossible to any , or almost any man , that every considering Protestant has sufficient assurance of all this to found a Divine Faith on . Well , but what says Dr. Sherlock to give Protestants any certainty ? Truly not one word , for that was not my business to shew what positive certainty Protestants have , but to shew upon what vain pretences Papists charge the Protestant Faith with uncertainty . And 1. I observe , that could they prove the Protestant Faith uncertain , this is no sufficient reason to turn Papists , because Protestants are uncertain , does this prove the Church of Rome to be infallible , because the Church of England is fallible ? must certainty be necessarily found amongst them , because it is not found with us ? is Thomas an honest man , because John is a knave ? Yes , he says , if the stolen goods were found with John , an honest Iury he conceives would bring Thomas in not guilty . And if Protestant Uncertainty , and Popish Infallibility , were to be decided by an honest Popish Jury , we might guess pretty near at their Verdict . But he says , there is a true Faith , and consequently a certain Rule of Faith. Protestants on one side chuse one Rule , viz. the Holy Scriptures , for we have no other Rule ; Catholicks another ; therefore not the Holy Scriptures , for that is the Protestant Rule : but here he ignorantly misrepresents his own Church ; for the Church of Rome does own the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith , though not a compleat and perfect Rule ; but the dispute between Protestants and Papists , is not so much about the Rule , as about the Judge ; but he seems not to understand this distinction between the Rule and the Judge of Faith. But now for his conceiving ! I conceive then , that if the Protestant Rule be proved uncertain , ( that is , the Holy Scriptures ) 't is plain , the Catholick Rule must be the certain one . But when the Scriptures are proved uncertain , I fear , there will be no Rule at all . But however , his Argument is so far true , that if he could prove , that there are but two Rules , that one is false , and the other true ; then when he has proved one to be false , I grant without any more disputing , that the other is true : but now , though there can be but one true Rule , there may be a great many false ones , and then both the Rules in competition may be false and uncertain . In the Preservat . Consider . ● . 38. he endeavours to salve this ; and now does not put the question about two Rules of Faith , for that he says , we are agreed on . That the Scriptures are the Word of God , that if we understood the full extent of its sense and meaning , there would never be Error or Heresie amongst us . Which shews , that , as I observed before , he did not understand the difference between a Rule of Faith , and a Guide or Expositor , till some wiser m●n had told him of it . Well , now the thing in question is , by what method we ought to come to that knowledge , as far as it is necessary to a Christian. And I say , that all the methods are reduced to these two heads : that we are guided to the certain knowledge of what God hath revealed , either by a knowledge communicated to each of us , or by a knowledge communicated only to Guides appointed to direct the rest . What he means by this communicated knowledge I cannot tell ; for we think the Scriptures may be understood without either publick or private Enthusiasms , as all other Books are to be understood , by considering the use and signification of words , the scope and design of the place , and by comparing one Text with another , and the like : Thus the Guides of the Church must understand Scripture , and by their assistance thus private Christians may understand Scripture . This all Mankind confess to be one way of understanding Scripture , the same way that all men use to understand any Writing , nay the only natural way , that we know of : No , says the Church of Rome , there is another possible way , for God to direct the Guides , the Pope of Rome , or General Council by an infallible Spirit in expounding Scripture : right say I , this is possible indeed , for God can do it , if he pleases , but it does not follow , this is any way at all , till it appears , that God has revealed , that he will take this way : so that before there can be any competition between these two ways of expounding Scriptures , it must be proved , that there are two ways ; the Protestant way is acknowledged by all Mankind , for Nature teaches no other way of understanding Books , whether of Humane or Divine Composition ; that there is such a way as the Popish Method must be proved by Revelation , for it depends wholly upon the Will of God , and therefore can be proved only by Revelation : now to make a competition between two ways of expounding Scripture , before it is proved there are two ways is ridiculous ; and much more ridiculous to prove the certainty of the unknown and unproved way , from the uncertainty of the known way : if they can prove , the Protestant way of expounding Scripture , which is the only way we know of , to be uncertain , the consequence is , that there is no certain way of expounding Scripture , not that the Church of Rome is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture : and therefore any Protestant who is perswaded to own the Infallibility of the Church of Rome , because he is told , that the Protestant Faith is uncertain , is a very foolish Convert , and has so little sense and reason , that it were fit , he had an infallible Guide , if he were to be found . So that he is a little too forward , when he says , that all the Methods ( of coming to the knowledge of Scripture ) are reduced to these two heads , for we know , but of one way of expounding Scripture , till he proves another ; and when he can prove his infallible Guide , we will give up Protestant certainty , as I told him before , but till he has in another way proved the infallible Authority of his Church in expounding Scripture , though he could prove our Faith uncertain , this cannot prove his own to be infallible . In the next place I directed our Protestant to ask these Popish Disputants , what they meant by the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith. For this may signifie two things , either , 1. That the Objects of our Faith are in themselves uncertain , and cannot be proved by certain reasons . Or , 2ly , That our perswasion about these matters is uncertain and wavering . The Jesuite answers , that this is not a true di●ision , for there is a third thing also , to wit , that whatever Reasons there may be for a thing , he who believes it , hath for the motive of his belief those certain Reasons . — For he that believes in Christ only because his Mother hath taught him so , hath a very uncertain , and no Divine Faith. But suppose this Mother be the Church , and he believes it only , because the Church hath taught him so , Has this man a divine and certain Faith ? No doubt must our Jesuite say , because the Church is Infallible . But suppose this man can no more prove the Church to be infallible , than that his natural Mother is infallible ; What difference is there between those , who believe upon the Authority of the Church , and of their Mother ? I can assign none , and shall be glad to learn the difference from our Jesuite . He who believes the true Christian Faith , and lives in conformity to it , shall certainly be saved , or else I fear we must at least damn half the Christians in the World , whether Protestants or Papists , for want of understanding the reasons of their Faith. Nay I am afraid all Traditionary Christians must be damned , who believe this is the true Faith to day , because their Fathers and Mothers were taught so and believed so yesterday . So that I guess upon second thoughts our Jesuite will compound this matter with me , and let fall the third part of the division , and I am contented at present , till I hear farther from him . But he might have observed that I said , not only that the Objects of our Faith are in themselves certain , but that they may be proved by certain Reasons . And therefore for him to say , that they are indeed in themselves certain , but not to any Protestant , whose Rule of Faith cannot make him certain of any one Article , without offering to shew , that the Reasons , why we believe are uncertain , is to drop half of the first branch of the division , and then to complain of the want of it . When the Footman had minded him , that our Rule of Faith is the Scripture , and therefore if what he says be true , the Scripture cannot make us certain of any one Article of Faith , instead of answering this Blunder , his Superiors only correct his Words in a Parenthesis , Preserv . Consid. p. 40. The Protestant Rule of Faith ( considering the Method he applies it by ) cannot make him certain , &c. which is a plain confession , that the Footman was too hard for the Jesuite , but then he should have shewn us , how we had misapplied , and what the uncertainties of our Reasons are , but I suppose , he will take time to consider that . As for what he calls my Rule of Faith , which he says justifies Turk , Iew , and Gentile . We believe all that God hath revealed , and nothing else , is not all , that he hath revealed certain ? Though I grant a Divine Revelation is the only Rule of my Faith , yet here I spoke not of the Rule but of the Objects of my Faith , and challenge him to shew , that we do reject any thing that God has revealed in the Gospel of his Son , or believe any thing else ; and dare him , as I well might all professed Christians , to deny the truth or certainty of what is revealed in the Gospel : but Turks and Iews believe what they think in their judgments God hath revealed , that is their Rule , and 't is yours . And is there any fault to be found with this so far ? Do Papists believe , what they think in their judgments , God has not revealed , or what they think , he has revealed ? If they believe , what they think God has revealed , then they justifie Jews and Turks too , as much as Protestants . No says the Jesuite , Your own private judgments are on both hands your Guides , and not any authority established by Almighty God. Now I confess , I am not ashamed to own , that Turk and Jew and Gentile , that is all Mankind except Papists , agree with Protestants in this , that all men must believe with their own judgments , and that there is no other faculty to believe with : and much good may it do Papists , that they have found out a way to believe without judgment , wherein they differ from the rest of Mankind . As for their Authority appointed by God , on which they must rely without using their own Judgment , when they can prove any such Authority we will submit to it . I proved that the Articles of the Christian Faith , which Protestants believe , are certain and founded on certain Reasons , as they themselves must grant , unless they renounce the Christian Religion , for here Infallibility itself cannot help them out . For Infallibility cannot make that certain , which is in its self uncertain , an infallible man must know things as they are , or else he is mistaken and ceases to be infallible , and therefore what is certain he infallibly knows to be certain , and what is uncertain he infallibly knows to be uncertain ; for the most certain and infallible Knowledge does not change its Object , but sees it just as it is . Now this he says is notoriously false , since she ( the Church ) is not infallible by any light of her own , but by the guidance of the Spirit of Truth . Now this is nothing to the purpose by what light the Church sees , the Question is , Whether an infallible Church can know that to be certain , which is uncertain ? if she can , then she infallibly knows that which is not true . But were not the Apostles certain of what Christ told them , when they acknowledged him the Son of God before he gave them certain Reason for it ? But was not Christ's telling them so a certain Reason ? If they believed without Reason , I am of opinion ▪ how blind an impiety soever it be , that they believed too soon . I envy no Church the priviledge of believing infallibly without Reason or Evidence , but it is well for the Church of Rome if she have this priviledge , for unless she can be Infallible without Reason , nay in contradiction to it , I am sure , she is not infallible . But what tergiversation is here ? Does the Church of Rome infallibly know , that the Christian Religion is certainly true ? Does she infallibly know , that the certain Truth of Christian Religion is founded upon certain Reasons ? if so , then the Christian Religion is certain and founded on certain Reasons ; and then those who believe the Christian Religion for the sake of such certain Reasons have a certain Faith , whether they believe upon the Authority of the Church or not , unless a Faith built upon certain Reasons may be uncertain , or cannot be certain : for if the Church infallibly knows , that there are certain Reasons for the truth of Christianity , then there are certain Reasons distinct from the Infallibility of the Church , and they may be a Foundation for a certain Faith without the Churches Infallibility . I observed , that their great Argument to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith is , that there is a great variety of Opinions among Protestants , and that they condemn one another with equal confidence and assurance . He says , I should have added , thô they use the same Rule of Faith , and apply it by the same means . But there was no need of adding this , it was supposed in all the Arguments I used , which he answers only by saying , 'T is an unanswerable Argument against your Rule of Faith , and evidently proves it uncertain . What does it prove the Scripture to be uncertain ? for that is our Rule , or does he mean this of our Way of applying it , that is by using the best Reason and Judgment we have to understand it : and then his Argument is this , some men misunderstand Scripture , and therefore no man can rightly understand it ; some men reason wrong , and therefore no man can reason right ; some men are confidently perswaded , that they are in the right , when they are in the wrong , and therefore no man can be certain when he is in the right : an Argument which in all other cases mankind would hiss at . Some men believe they are awake , when they are in a dream , therefore no man can know , when he is awake : there are silly confident people , who are cheated with slight appearances of things , therefore no man can distinguish between appearances and realities . Or to put but one case , which will sensibly affect him : some men , nay the greatest part of Chris●ians , do not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome , and therefore no man can be certain , that the Church is Infallible : For here are all his Conditions , the same Rule , applied the same way , for he confess'd above that there can be no more than a Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of the Church . Now in Moral Evidence every man must use his own Judgment ; thus we do , we consider all the Arguments they alledge for the Infallibility of their Church from Scripture , from Promises , from Prophesies , from Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes of the Church , or whatever other Reasons and Arguments they use ; upon the whole we conclude , that the Church of Rome is not Infallible , they that it is : now if he will stand to his Argument , That variety of Opinions , when men use the same Rule , and apply it the same way , is an unanswerable Argument , that the Rule is uncertain , then it is impossible that they should have so much as a Moral certainty of Infallibility ; since all mankind besides are against them . His Answer to Dr. St.'s Arguments , to prove that the Scriptures may be a very certain Rule , though men differ in expounding them , are so very senseless , that I have no patience to answer them , especially since he grants all that the Dean intended to prove , that a Rule may be a certain Rule , though men , who do not understand it , may mis-apply it . But the principle he has laid down for mine , I confess , is very extraordinary and surprizing , that if two men have the Bible , read it , endeavou● to understand it , and believing they do , draw from the same Scriptures two different Conclusions , two opposite Articles of Faith , both are bound to stand to their private judgment , and to believe themselves in the right , though all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule , to have used a false One. I affirm , that one man may expound the Scripture right , and know , that he does so , though another expounds it wrong ; and he makes me say , that when two men expound the Scripture to different and contrary senses , they are both bound to believe , that they are in the right : this it is certain they will do , and there is no remedy against it , but what is worse than the disease , that men should not use their own Judgments , and then they dare not believe themselves when they are in the right , which is as bad , as to believe themselves in the right , when they are in the wrong : but that for this reason , all the World should accuse them in lieu of the true pretended Rule to have used a false one , is very senseless , unless by all the World he means the World of Roman-Catholicks , for no other men , as I have already shewn , nay not he himself , if he will stand to his own word , will accuse the Rule to be false , because men make a false judgment of it ; for to call every man's private judgment of the Rule his Rule , which is the substance of his following harangue , is to resolve neither to think , nor speak , like other men : for that no man thinks his own private judgment to be his Rule , is evident from hence , that upon better Information he alters his judgment , without changing his Rule . I concluded this Section concerning the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith with this observation , that this very Argument from the different and contrary opinions of Protestants to prove the uncertainty of the Protestant Faith , signifies nothing as to our disputes with the Church of Rome : for ask them , what they would think of the Protestant Faith were all Protestants of a mind ? would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the Protestant Faith ? then the Protestant Faith in opposition to Popery is very certain , for they all agree in condemning the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome . And thus I think they get nothing by this Argument : for if the dissensions of Protestants proves the uncertainty of their Faith , as to such matters wherein they differ , then by the same Rule their agreement in opposition to Popery , shews their great certainty in such matters . And this I suppose is no great inducement to a Protestant to turn Papist . Our Jesuit had so much Wit in his Anger , as to conceal the force of this Argument , and to represent it thus , Were all Protestants of a mind would their consent and agreement prove the certainty of the Protestant Faith. By which alone no man living could guess , what I was proving ; and to this he answers , Not at all , and I agree with him in it ; for meer agreement does not prove the certainty of Faith , no more then meer disagreement , or variety of Opinions proves the uncertainty of Faith. But they prove them both alike , as I observed , which he calls a ridiculous Inference , and as he has reported it , he has made it ridiculous enough , This is the same Rule , and their disagreement proves not their uncertainty . This is to mangle and transprose an Argument that it may not be understood : but to confute this he says , all Vnion is no Argument of the Spirit of God , for People may combine to do ill : But what is this to agreement in Opinions ? May not that argue the certainty of Faith , because some men agree to do ill ? for a general consent and agreement of mens understandings , may be an argument of the truth of what they consent in , though the agreement of their Wills may not be a vertuous but a wicked Combination . But yet St. Paul assures us , disunion and dissention is a certain mark of the absence of the Spirit of God , that is , Contentions and Quarrels and Schisms are indeed so far the Works of the Flesh. But when two men or two Churches differ in their opinions of things , can neither of them be in the right ? Is the Spirit of God with neither of them ? Is truth on neither side ? Then the Controversies between the Church of Rome , and the Church of England , prove that the Spirit of God is no more with the Church of Rome , then with the Church of England . The plain case is this ; our Roman Adversaries perswade Protestants , that they can have no certainty of their Faith , because Protestants are so much divided about it , and therefore they must go to the Church of Rome , which alone pretends to Infallibility . But say I , why should these differences among Protestants oblige them to go over to the Church of Rome , when Protestants have no difference about this matter , but are all agreed , that the Church of Rome is so far from being infallible , that she is a very corrupt Church : I do not say , that the differences of Protestants is a good Argument to prove the uncertainty of their Faith , nor their bare agreement to prove the certainty of it , but I say , one proves as much as t'other , and therefore 't is a better reason to Protestants not to turn Papists , that all Protestants are agreed , that the Church of Rome is not infallible , but has greatly erred , then it is for Protestants to go to the Church of Rome for Infallibility , because they differ in some things among themselves ; especially considering that many points they now differ about , will not be reconciled by their going to the Church of Rome ; for the same points are as fiercely disputed among them too , as to instance at present only in the Quinquearticular Controversie . CHAP. III. A Vindication of some Positions , which are pretended to make void all Scripture-proof , all use of Fathers and Councils , and of Civil Charity , and Moral Iustice to our Neighbours . AS for Scripture-proof : I was directing Protestant● what kind of Scripture-proof to demand for Transubstantiation : and having shewn that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does manifestly contradict the evidence of all our Senses and the most necessary principles of Reason , I told them , that it is but reasonable , that the evidence for Transubstantiation should at least be equal to the evidence against it , and therefore they must demand such a Scripture-proof of Transubstantiation , as cannot possibly signifie any thing else ; or else it will not answer that evidence which we have against Transubstantiation : for sense and reason pronounce Transubstantiation to be naturally impossible ; and therefore unless it be as impossible to put any other sense upon Scripture , as it is to reconcile Transubstantiation to sense and reason , there is not such good evidence for Transubstantiation , as there is against it . This he repeats after his usual manner , to take care that no body shall understand what it relates to , or see the force of the Argument ; and in answer to it he gives us a new instance of his good will to the Doctrine of the Trinity . He says , A Text which cannot possibly have another sense , doth not leave it in any one's liberty , who owns Scripture to be an Heretick ; therefore the Church produced no such Text against the Arians or Nestorians ; whence it evidently follows , that according to Dr. Sherlock , the Arians and Nestorians were not bound to believe the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ. But did I say , that nothing can be proved but by such express Texts , as it is not possible to understand otherwise ? I said , this was necessary to prove any Doctrine which sense and re●son declare to be absolutely impossible . And will he say the Doctrine of the Trinity is such a Doctrine ? No he says , Preservative Considered , p. 45. But they so appeared to the Nestorians and Arians , and that is the case put by Dr. Sherlock : but I put no case about meer appearing , but of such palpable contradictions as the sense and reason of all Mankind agree in : as Papists themselves cannot deny , and know not how to justifie , without pressing the Almighty Power of God to make good their absurd Imaginations . Now where there is only an appearance of contradiction , where a Doctrine only lies cross to mens natural reason , there such express Texts as do more evidently prove that Doctrine , then that Doctrine does evidently contradict reason , is a sufficient foundation for the belief of it , because in this case there is more evidence for it than against it : and did not the Church alledge such Scripture-proofs for the Trinity ? And are there no such Proofs to be alledged ? He thinks they did not , because then the Arians could not have continued Hereticks ; for a Text which cannot possibly have any other sense , doth not leave it in any ones liberty to be a Heretick . But I suppose , he will allow , that I spoke not of a natural but of a moral impossibility ; now a moral impossibility of interpreting Scripture otherwise is , when a man cannot reasonably do it without offering manifest violence to the words , and this a wilful and obstinate Heretick may do , how plain and self-evident , how uncapable soever the words are of any other possible sense to a reasonable and impartial Inquirer . This principle , I confess , makes void all Scripture-proof of such Doctrines as sense and reason pronounce absolutely impossible , but this is no injury , but the greatest right we can do the Scripture . But I cannot without some indignation observe , how the Doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity is upon all occasions introduced by these men as contradicting sense and reason , which would make one suspect , they kept it for no other reason but to justifie the absurdities and contradictions of Transubstantiation . As for the making void the use of Fathers and Councils to unlearned men , it is the thing I designed , and I am very glad if I have done it : but as for learned men they may make such use of them still , as such Writings are designed for ; not to make them the Rule of Faith , but either to learn what was the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in their days , or what their private Opinions were , or how they expounded Scripture and the like : that I call it squabling about the sense of Fathers , if the expression be undecent , it is owing to himself and some such late Scriblers , whose Disputes have been nothing else but Squables . But I cannot blame him , that he is so angry , that I direct the Protestant to inquire , Whether such Books were written by that Father , whose Name it bears , for he knows such an inquiry has very lately cost him dear , I was going to say a blush , but that is impossible . If such Questions as I ask cannot be answered to the satisfaction of learned men , they are of no more use to them , than they are to the unlearned , who cannot answer them themselves , and want the Learning which is necessary to make them capable of a satisfactory Answer , and this is all the Answer I shall return to this Charge . His next Charge is a dreadful one : Such Principles as make void all use of Civil Charity and Moral Iustice to our Neighbours . He lays it in the very last Section of the Preservative , Concerning Protestant Mis-representations of Popery . Wherein I shewed , how vain and silly this charge was , and he has not one word to say in defence of it . Among other things I observed , that these men , who complain so much of Mis-representing , endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines , as ever they can , as if there were little or no difference between them . — The truth is , the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this , to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices , to believe as Protestants do , and to do as Papists do . This I gave some few instances of out of the Representer , and shewed that their Faith , as he Represented it , came very near and in some cases was the very same with the Protestant Faith , but their Practice was Popish . How is this contrary to Civil Charity and Moral Honesty ? He says it is this , When a man 's exterior Actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning , and he ever and clearly declares , that it is his , yet to fasten upon him another opposite design and meaning . But how does this concern me , who fasten no meaning at all upon their Actions , but only barely relate , what they profess to believe , and what they practice . He instances in two , and let all the World judge , who makes void Civil Charity and Moral Honesty , He , or I. To insinuate , says he , that a Catholick thinks the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ , he tells you , that he says Ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster ; whereas all that I say is , He ( the Papist Represented ) believes it damnable , to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ , which is Protestant Doctrine . But yet he prays to her oftner than either to God or Christ ; says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster ; which is a Popish Devotion . Is here any breach of Moral Honesty in this ? is not all this true ? do I put any sense or interpretation upon this action ? I believe all men will think , that this does more than insinuate , what a belief they have of the power of the Virgin ; and this the Jesuite was sensible of , and therefore says , that I insinuate it , but I will leave it as I did at first , to what judgment all indifferent men will make of it . In the next place , he says , I charge the Catholicks with worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist : Hear my words again ; He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry , and most damnable to worship any Breaden God ; which is spoke like a Protestant : but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament , which is done like a Papist . Here is nothing about worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist : but whatever is the Sacrament , they worship , and must do so by the Doctrine of their Church ; if they can make a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ , without the visible Species , then according to their Doctrine , they need not worship the visible Species , if they can't , they must , for they must adore the Sacrament ; and if the Sacrament should prove to be Bread and Wine , not the natural Body and Blood of Christ , and it is strange , if it should not , then I need not tell them what they worship . But those matters have been debated often enough of late . He concludes with an advice to Protestants , urging the Argument against Scriptures , which I had before done against Fathers . Amongst Christians , there is not one in an hundred thousand , who understand all Scripture , and it is morally impossible they should ; and therefore certainly there must be an easier and shorter way to understand Christian Religion than this , or else the generality of Mankind , even of profest Christians , are out of possibility of Salvation . I grant every word of it to be true , if understanding all Scripture , as he puts it , were necessary to Salvation ; but the only easier and shorter way is to understand so much of the Scripture as is necessary to Salvation , and let him when he pleases , if he dare venture the Blasphemy of it , prove that this is morally impossible to the generality of Mankind , even of profest Christians . A VINDICATION OF THE SECOND PART OF THE Preservative against POPERY . HEre our Jesuite gives me a great many hard Words , but nothing of Argument ; He talks tragically of Calumnies and Misrepresentations , how much he proves of it , unless a bold Accusation must pass for a Proof , I dare leave to every ordinary Reader , who will compare my Book with his . He is much off of his byass here , for I did not dispute directly against any Popish Doctrines , but used such collateral Arguments , as are very evident and convincing to ordinary Readers , but so much out of the road , that the Jesuite could find nothing in his Common-place Book about it , and therefore does not pretend to answer any one Section of my Book ; but yet out of every Section he picks some single Sayings , and if he meets with an Argument , that he cannot answer , he takes some few words of it , and calls it Calumny and Misrepresentation ; the only way I have to write such an Answer to him , as may be fit to be read , is to give a short Abstract of each Section of my Book , and to take notice , where those Passages come in , which he calls Calumnies and Misrepresentations . SECT . I. Concerning Idolatry . I Shewed the great Design of our Saviour was more perfectly to extirpate all Idolatry . To this purpose he has more perfectly instructed us in the Nature of God. To this end he confines all Religious Worship to God alone . Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . It is his answer to the Devil , when he tempted him to fall down and worship him ; but he gives such an answer , as excludes all Creatures , not only good , but bad Spirits from any share in Religious Worship . For he does not deny to worship him meerly because he was the Devil , but because we must worship none but God. Which is as good a reason against the Worship of the most glorious Angels , as of the Devil himself . This he calls a Misrepresentation , and to make it so , first very sillily misrepresents my words , and says , that I charge the Church of Rome , that she doth not pay to God alone , that degree of Worship , which the tempting Devil demanded of Christ. But I say not one word there about the Church of Rome , tho' the application was obvious and he made it for me : but then I do not blame them , that they do not pay that degree of Worship to God , which the Devil demanded of Christ ; which was but an inferior degree of Worship , and therefore not proper for the Supreme Deity ; but that they pay any degree , how inferior soever , of Religious Worship to Saints and Angels , or any other Being besides God , for that is the import of our Saviour's Answer to the Devil , and answers the pretence of the Church of Rome , that she does not give latria , or that Soveraign Worship , which is due to the Supreme God , but only dulia , or an Inferior Worship to Saints and Angels ; whereas our Saviour's Argument proves , that no degree of Worship is to be given to any but God. He says farther , p. 64. That Christ , by refusing himself all Worship to God's Enemy the Devil , teaches us to pay none at all to God's Saints and Angels , is an inference that no one but Dr. Sherlock was ever able to make . Then it seems , I have the honour of inventing a good Argument , which this Jesuite dares not attempt to answer : let him shew me if he can , that to Worship none but God , excludes only the Worship of the Devil , not of Saints and Angels . As a farther proof of this , I add , Our Saviour denies to Worship him , though the Devil made no terms with him about the kind or degrees of Worship . He does not require him to offer Sacrifice to him , ( which is the only Act of Worship the Church of Rome appropriates to the Supreme God ) but only to bow down before him , as an expression of Devotion . This he calls a Misrepresentation , that Sacrifice is the only Act of Worship , which the Church of Rome appropriates to the Supreme God ; which is the first time this was called a Misrepresentation ; and yet he himself owns , p. 64. that Sacrifice is indeed the only exterior Worship inseparable from latria , and therefore never to be offered to any but God. And is not this what I said ? did I deny , that the Church of Rome paid any other Worship to God , but Sacrifice ? but I say , and so says our Jesuite , that there is no other external Act of Worship so peculiar to God , that it can be given to no other being , but only Sacrifice ; and therefore since the Devil did not demand of Christ to sacrifice to him , he did not demand of him that degree of Worship , which alone the Church of Rome thinks peculiar and appropriate to God , and yet Christ tells us of all other Acts of Worship , which the Church of Rome thinks may be separated from latria , and therefore given to Creatures , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . I added , that to prevent the Worship of Inferior Daemons , who were worshipped as Mediators to the Supreme God , God advances his own Son to be the Universal Mediator , and the Supreme and Soveraign Lord of the World , that all Mankind should make their Addresses and Supplications to him , and offer up their Prayers only in his Name , that in him they should find acceptance , and in no other Name . Hence he concludes , that I charge the Church of Rome , ( though I did not mention her ) that they offer not their Prayers only in the Name of Christ , that in him they may find acceptance . And this he calls a Misrepresentation ; and I will venture to be a Misrepresenter for once , and charge them with it : for if they pray to God in the Name and Merits of Saints and the blessed Virgin ; if they pray to them to intercede for them with God , as appears in all their Offices , then they do not pray only in the Name of Christ , nor expect to be accepted only for his sake . I summed up this Argument thus : Now this being so apparently one end of Christ's coming into the World to suppress the Idolatry of Creature-Worship , and to confine all Religious Worship to one Supreme Being , in opposition to the many Gods of the Heathens , and to teach us to make our Applications to this One God , by One Mediator , ( this , he says , is another Misrepresentation , that they make not their Applications to One God by One Mediator , which is true , if by One he means only One , for they have Many ) in opposition to the Worship of inferior Deities ; can any man imagine , that the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary , can be any part of the Christian Religion ? which is not a direct Proof against the Worship of Saints and Angels , but an Argument from what is likely , fit and congruous , and consistent with our Saviour's design , to root out all remains and all appearances of Idolatry ; which makes it improbable and incongruous to the utmost degree , that Christ should permit the Worship of Saints and the Virgin Mary , as it is practised in the Church of Rome ; with Temples and Altars and Images , with Solemn Prayers and Vows , and Solemn Processions , which has so much the external appearance of that Idolatrous Worship , which the Heathens paid to their Gods , that there is no visible distinction between them . And if Christ intended to root out Idolatry , it is highly improbable , that he would allow , so much of the external pomp and shew of it , if it were no more : Those who think this may be , may believe the Worship of Saints and Angels to be a Gospel-Doctrine , notwithstanding this Argument ; but such Arguments as these are thought by most men to have some weight in them ; as for instance , That a Man , who is very curious to preserve his Wives Chastity , will not suffer her to receive all Amorous Addresses and Courtships from Strangers , no not from his dearest Friends ; That a Prince , who is so jealous of any Rivals and Partners , as to make it Treason to usurp the meanest of the insignia Majestatis , will not suffer the greatest Favourite to wear the Imperial Crown , nor to sit on his Throne , and receive the Addresses and Homage of his Subjects upon the knee . As I observed before , that how dear soever the Saints are to God , they are but his Creatures , and if Soveraign Princes will not receive their greatest Favourites into their Throne , much less will God. This is another of his Misrepresentations , that I say , the Papists , by their worshipping Saints , Angels , and the Virgin Mary , put them in the Throne of God ; but this I do not say , but only that God will not take any of his Creatures into his Throne . But yet if giving Religious Worship placed the Heathen Deities in God's Throne , I would gladly be satisfied , why the Worship of Saints and Angels should not be thought to do the same : I am sure to worship Saints in the same Temple and at the same Altar , and with the same humble Prostrations , and in the very same Prayers , that we worship God , looks very like placing a Favourite on the same Throne with his Prince ; but yet this is not the dispute , whether they do so or not , but whether it be not so like it , that it is unreasonable to think , that Christ , who came to root out all Idolatry , will allow or command it . Another kind of Idolatry the Heathens were fond of , was , the Worship of Images and Pictures , whereby they represented their Gods as visibly present with them . For they wanted some material representations of their Gods , in which they might , as it were , see them present , and offer up their Petitions to them , and court them with some visible and sensible honours . To cure this kind of Idolatry under the Law , though God forbad the Worship of Images , yet he appoints them to erect a Tabernacle or Temple , where he would dwell among them , and place the Symbols of his Presence , the Mercy-seat , and the Cherubims covering the Mercy-seat ; which was a symbolical Representation of God's Throne in Heaven , where he is surrounded with Angels , as the Holy of Holies itself was the Figure of Heaven . Thus under the Law to give them assurance of his presence with them , though they could not see him , he had a peculiar Place for Worship , and peculiar Symbols of his Presence , but no Images to represent his Person , or to be the Objects of Worship . And here I took notice of that Pretence of the Church of Rome for Image-Worship , that the Cherubims were worshipped by the Iews , and particularly answered the Arguments of the late Bishop of Oxford to prove it , and it had been worthy of the Jesuite to have made some reply to this , but he was wiser than to meddle with it : among other things , the Bishop had urged David's Exhortation to the People to Honour the Ark , Bow down to or worship his Foot-stool , for it ; or he is holy , 99 Psalm , to prove , that the Iews worshipped the Cherubims ; this I said , was very strange , when he himself , four Pages before had told us , that the Ark was God's Foot-stool , and the Cherubims his Throne ; now suppose David had exhorted the people to Worship the Ark , which , as he says , is God's Foot-stool , how does this prove , that they must Worship the Cherubims , which are God's Throne : this he calls a misrepresentation , and so it is indeed , and a very gross one too , but it is his own ; for he represents this as my Argument against the Worship of the Cherubims , that they were commanded indeed to Worship the Ark , which was God's Foot-stool , but not the Cherubims , which were his Throne : whereas I never granted , that by the Foot-stool of God was meant the Ark , but all that I said was , that if the Ark , as the Bishop affirmed , was meant by God's Foot-stool , and the Cherubims were his Throne , then though there had been such a Command to 〈…〉 God 's Foot-stool , this could not prove the worship of the ●●erubims , which in his Divinity were not the Foot-stool , but the Throne of God. This he could not be ignorant of , because I expresly proved , that by the Foot-stool of God could not be meant the Ark , for the Ark was in the Holy of Holies , which was a figure of Heaven ; and neither the Heaven , nor any thing in it , but the Earth is in Scripture called God's Foot-stool ; as the Psalmist expresly applies it to Zion and the Holy Hill. And this I observed , is a sufficient confutation of his Exposition of the words , to bow down to , or worship his Foot-stool ; for Mount Zion or the Holy Hill was not the Object of Worship , nor Symbol of God's Presence ; but there God was present , and that was reason enough to worship him at his Foot-stool , and at his Holy Hill , as our English Translation reads it . I added , Suppose the Jews were to direct their Worship towards the Mercy-seat , which was covered by the Cherubims , where God had promised to be present , how are the Cherubims concerned in this Worship ? the Worship was paid only to God , though directed to God , as peculiarly present in that place , which is no more than to lift up our eyes and hands to Heaven , where the Throne of God is , when we pray to him : but , he adds , the very Image ( for example ) of Christ crucified , is the Object of the Worship of Papists , which is certainly true ; but he should have given my own words . The Bishop had said , that bowing to or towards any thing , was the same thing ; this I granted , if they bowed to or towards any thing as the Object of Worship ; and therefore had the Iews either bowed to or towards the Cherubims as the Objects of their Worship , as the Papists bow to or towards their Images , they had been equally guilty of Idolatry , and the breach of the Second Commandment ; but when bowing to signifies bowing to an Object of Worship , and bowing towards signifies bowing to this Object of Worship , only towards such a place , where he is peculiarly present , this makes a vast difference . And this he calls a Misrepresentation , that I say , Papists bow to their Images as Objects of Worship ; but this has been so often proved upon them in the several Answers to the Representer and M. de Meaux and his Vindicator , that it would be as foolish in me to prove it again , as it is impudent in him to deny it . But I observed farther , that in the Gospel God has provided a more effectual remedy against Image-Worship in the Incarnation of his Son. Mankind have been always fond of some visible Deity , and because God cannot be seen they have gratified their superstition by making some visible Images and Representations of an invisible God : Now to take them off from mean corporeal Images and Representations , which are both a dishonour to the Divine Nature and debase the Minds of Men , God has given us a visible Image of himself ; has clothed his own Eternal Son with Humane Nature , who is the brightness of his Father's Glory , and the express Image of his Person . — Now when God has given us a visible Image of himself , his eternal and incarnate Son , whom we may worship and adore , can we think he will allow us to worship material and sensible Images of Wood and Stone ? And here the Jesuite finds another Misrepresentation , that by the Incarnation God is visibly represented to us in our nature , but the Papists not contented with this contrary to the design of God , made man , make and adore other Images of God. Here he has concealed what my Argument was , but the thing is true : that though God gave us a visible Image of himself to cure the Idolatry of Image-Worship , yet this is still retained and practised in the Church of Rome . In summing up this Argument , I said , Since it was one main design of Christ's appearance to root out Idolatry , is it credible , that the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary , the Worship of Images and Reliques , as it is practised in the Church of Rome , should be any part of the Christian Worship , or allowed by the Gospel of our Saviour ? if Creature-Worship and Image-Worship were so offensive to God , here is the Worship of Creatures and Images still , and therefore all the visible Idolatry , that ever was practised in the World before . This is another of his Misrepresentations , but very true . No understanding Papist , that has any modesty , can deny , that they worship Creatures and Images , for that they should be worshipped is determined by their own Councils ; now if there be any salvo to deliver the Church of Rome from the guilt of Idolatry in worshipping Creatures and Images , when the Heathens were Idolaters for doing it , yet here is the visible Worship of Creatures and Images , that is , all that was visible in the Idolatry of the Heathens . This was my Argument to shew how improbable it was , that Christ , who came to extirpate all Idolatry , should still allow the external and visible Worship of Creatures , which if it be not Idolatry , yet is all that was visible in the Idolatry of the Heathens : and it had better become him to have answered this Argument , than to have called it a Misrepresentation . I observed farther . That the great difference the Papists can pretend between their Worship of Saints and Images , and what the Heathens did , whereby to excuse themselves from Idolatry , notwithstanding they worship Creatures and Images as the Heathens did , is that they have better Notions of the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images than the Heathens had ; but I said , whether they had or no , would be hard to prove : The Pagan Philosophers made the same Apologies for their Worship of Angels and Daemons , and Images , which the learned Papists now make , and whether unlearned Papists have not as gross Notions , about the Worship of their Saints and Images , as the unlearned Heathens had is very doubtful , and has been very much suspected by learned Romanists themselves . This he puts down for another Misrepresentation , though all learned men know it to be true . Had he ever read Origen against Celsus , he would have known , that that Philosopher had taught the Roman Doctors , how to defend the Worship of Saints and Images , and that the Father had confuted them long since ; and had he looked into Vives upon St. Aust. de Civitate Dei , he would have found that learned Man make n● great difference between unlearned Christians and Heathens as to th●se m●tters , to name no more at present . I added , Can we think , that Christ , who came to make a more perfect reformation , should only change their Country-Gods into Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary , and give new Names to their Statues and Images ? This he calls a Misrepresentation too , tho' it neither represents nor misrepresents any body , that I know of , but only argues , what Christ was likely to do . For had Christ only forbad the Worship of Pagan Gods , and set up the Worship of Saints , it had not been to extirpate Creature-Worship , but only to change those particular Creatures , who were to be Objects of Worship , and instead of the Images of Iupiter and Bacchus to set up Images to Saints . Thus I have considered the Misrepresentations charged upon the first Section of the Preservative ; as for his own representation of the Faith and Practice of the Catholicks , as to their Worship , I am not concerned with it . There are a great many late Treatises , wherein those Matters are fully debated . Such as , The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented . The Object of Religious Worship . The Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery . The late Answers to M. de Meaux and his Vindicator ; and a Book , which this Jesuite has some reason to know , The Primitive Fathers no Papists . And to these I refer my Reader , who needs any farther satisfaction . SECT . II. Concerning the great Love of God to Mankind , &c. HE has found but six Misrepresentations and Calumnies in this Section , which is pretty moderate ; and some few Arguments against Purgatory , and our recourse to Saints for their Prayers ; which he says he has collected , ( not one omitted ) but when I read them over , I could not find any one of them : I confess , it is a very dull and troublesom task to answer him ; for he transcribes several Passages out of my Book , without representing their connexion with what goes before or what follows , or without telling , what their fault is , or offering one word to confute them : that whoever will but take the pains to put every Sentence into its proper place , will need no other answer . And this I shall do , as briefly as I can . Having shewn , what great assurance the Gospel of our Saviour gives us of the love of God to sinners , I came to shew , how irreconcilable the Doctrine of Purgatory , and the Invocation of Saints and Angels , as our Mediators with God , is with the Gospel-Notion of God's Love , and that Security it gives us of Pardon , through the Merits and Intercession of Christ. 1. The Doctrine of Purgatory , where the Punishments are as severe as in Hell itself , only of a less continuance , and yet they may last some thousand Years , unless their Friends or the Priests be more merciful to them . This I said was a barbarous Doctrine , and so inconsistent with the Gospel-Account of God's Love , that it is not reconcilable with any Notion of Love and Goodness ; you may call it Iustice , you may call it Vengeance , if you please , but Love it is not . These words he cites as an Argument against Purgatory , without representing on what it is founded , viz. that glorious discovery of God's love to sinners in the Gospel of Christ : now if to damn men , whose sins are pardoned , for a thousand or two thousand Years , ( for so long sure a man may lie in Purgatory , or else the Pope is a great Cheat for selling Pardons for ten and twenty thousand Years , if no man be in danger of lying one thousand Years in Purgatory ) I say , if this be not reconcilable with the Gospel-Notion of God's Love , then Purgatory can be no Gospel-Doctrine . This Argument he never mentions , and never pretends to answer in his Catholick Doctrine of Purgatory . He says the Doctrine of Purgatory is God's Iustice , tempered with Infinite Mercy : but I desire him to shew me , where this Infinite Mercy is , to torment a humble , penitent , pardoned sinner for some thousand Years in Purgatory ? I believe I spoke the sense of Mankind , when I said , I should rather chuse to fall into nothing , when I die , than to endure a thousand Years torments to be happy for ever ; for humane nature cannot bear the thoughts of that : This he severely censures , and says , that man is unworthy ever to see the face of God , who declares with Dr. Sherlock , that did God offer him the eternal possession of himself on this condition , that he should first suffer a thousand years , he would absolutely refuse it . I wish he had kept to my own words , for I never would suppose so much Blaspemy , as that God should offer the enjoyment of himself upon such terms , but I am of the same mind still ; though I prefer the enjoyment of God before all the World , and would suffer all the Miseries and Calamities of this Life to obtain it , yet a thousand years torment in Purgatory , which is as intolerable as Hell , is a temptation to big for humane Nature ; and if most men think as I do , I believe most men will be at a loss to find out the infinite Mercy of Purgatory . I observed , that there are two extravagant Notions whereon the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded . 1. That God may forgive sins , and yet punish us for them , for no man can go into Purgatory according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , whose sins are not already forgiven , and I appealed to all mankind , how irreconcileable these two are , to forgive and to punish . For what is it men are afraid of when they have sinned ? Is it not that they shall be punished for it ? What is it , men desire , when they desire pardon ? Is it not , that they may not be punished ? Which shews , that no man thinks , he is forgiven , when he is punished . Here he represents me to say , That men desire nothing when they ask pardon , but meerly not to be punished ; which declares , that they value not God's love and favour as Children , but meerly fear the lash like Slaves . But I never said any such thing . Does it follow , that because all men , who desire pardon , desire not to be punished , that therefore they desire no more ? and yet pardon in its strict notion signifies only the remission of punishments ; that pardoned Sinners shall be rewarded too , is the abundance of Grace through Jesus Christ : but yet I say , the first act of God's love is not to punish , and he who values God's love and favour , in the first place desires not to be punished : for this was the Argument I insisted on , that such a Notion as this , that God pardons Sinners , and yet punishes them some thousand years in Purgatory , is inconsistent with God's goodness declared by his Son Jesus Christ ; for no man thinks such a pardon an expression of love , which does not remit the debt nor the punishment . That it is in our power , as he says , to attain Salvation without suffering in Purgatory , makes Purgatory no more an act of goodness , than Hell is , which it is in our power by the Grace of God to escape too : but the best account he gives of God's goodness with respect to Purgatory is this : That God restores his favour to us , before our hearts be as perfectly converted to him , as his justice might well require : that is , he takes us into his favour , before we have thoroughly repented of our sins and reformed them , but then Purgatory-fire must expiate the defects of our repentance and reformation : now this is a great deal more and a great deal less than the Gospel teaches us of God's love to Sinners . For the Gospel promises no mercy to any , but to true penitent and reformed Sinners , and therefore to receive men into favour before their hearts are thus perfectly converted , ( which I suppose he means of an Evangelical not of a Legal Perfection of Conversion , that is , true and sincere Repentance ) is more mercy than the Gospel promises ; and to torment such men in Purgatory , who are received to favour , is a great deal less ; and it is somewhat hard to understand the favour of a thousand years punishment , though it may be thought favour to receive Sinners , before they are perfectly converted . And yet he has told the plain truth of the case ; for this is the only thing , that can reconcile men to the thoughts of Purgatory , or make them think it an Act of Grace , that it is in exchange for the pleasures of Sin , which they are so very fond of ; and those who will venture Hell to enjoy their Lusts , may well think it an Act of Grace to turn Hell into Purgatory : but this is not the Gospel representation of God's love to Sinners ; which is to pardon none but true Penitents , and not to punish those in the next World , who are actually pardoned . I granted , it is something , To exchange the eternal punishment of Hell , which is due to sin , into the temporal punishment of Purgatory , but askt , Whether it would not have been a more perfect expression of love and goodness to have remitted the temporal punishment also of , it may be , some thousand years torment in Purgatory ? Whether this might not have been expected under a Dispensation of the most perfect Love ? And from that God , who sent his only begotten Son into the World to save Sinners ? This is the force of the Argument , which the Jesuite conceals , that though Purgatory be more mercy than Hell , yet it does not answer that representation the Gospel makes of God's infinite love and compassion for penitent Sinners through Jesus Christ. 2. I observed , that in Purgatory , God does not only punish those whom he has pardoned , but he punishes for no other reason but Punishments sake . For thus the Roman Doctors tell us , that the Souls in Purgatory are in a state of Pardon , and in a state of perfect Grace , that they suffer the pains of Purgatory not to purge away any remains of Sin , or to purifie and refine them , and make them more fit for Heaven , but only to bear the punishment due to Sin , for which they had made no satisfaction while they lived : now I dare boldly affirm , this is irreconcileable with any degree of love and goodness : a just punishment respects the guilt of Sin , but there is no guilt when the Sin is pardoned ; to make it an Act of Goodness , it must respect the reformation of the Sinner , which cannot be , when he is in a perfect state of Grace and needs no amendment ; and such punishments as neither respect the guilt of Sin , nor the reformation of the Sinner , are neither just nor good , which is the exact Notion of Purgatory . This he sets down as a Mis-representation ( p. 68. ) but does not tell us why : this Doctrine is taught by Roman Divines , as I suppose he knows , or if he don't , let him consult Bellarmin or such good Catholick Writers . I summed up this Argument thus : Our Protestant need not dispute much about Purgatory ; let him only ask a Popish Priest , How the Doctrine of Purgatory can be reconciled with that stupendious love of God declared to penitent Sinners in his Son Jesus Christ ? For it is a contradiction to the Notion of Goodness among men , to inflict such terrible punishments in meer Grace and Love , even when the sin is pardoned and the Sinner reconciled , and no longer in a state of discipline and trial . This is the force of the Argument , and here the Jesuite , if he likes it , may try his skill . Secondly , Another Argument I urged against Purgatory was this , that it destroys or weakens that security the Gospel hath given Sinners of their Redemption from the Wrath of God , and the just punishment of their Sins . And that upon two accounts . 1. As it destroys mens hopes in the Merits of Christ , and the Atonement and Expiation of his Blood. For if the Blood of Christ does not deliver us from the punishment of Sin , what security is this to a Sinner ? Yes , you 'll say , Christ has redeemed us from eternal , though not from temporal punishments , and therefore penitent Sinners shall not be eternally damned . This he puts down as a Mis-representation , p. 67. and says , p. 73. That Christ truly obtained remission from all temporal as well as eternal pain , and that whoever is regenerated by Baptism , he not only is not adjudged to eternal torments , but neither doth he suffer after death any Purgatory pains , if he die in that state of recovered innocency . This I grant they own , that unless men sin after Baptism , they are neither in danger of Hell nor Purgatory ; and yet it is evident they deny that Christ has expiated the temporal punishments due to sin either in this World , or in Purgatory ; for if he had , there were an end both of the Popish Sacrament of Penance and Purgatory : and if Christ by his death had expiated the temporal punishments of sin , I would desire to know , why the temporal punishment of sin is not as well remitted by the Sacrament of Penance , as by Baptism ; since the expiation of Christ's Blood , as they pretend , is applied to us in both : and therefore this is a meer fallacy ; for though a Sinner in Baptism is delivered from all punishment due to sin , yet he is not in a proper sence delivered from what they call the temporal punishment of sin , for there was no such punishment due to sin before Baptism . Hell , not Purgatory , is the punishment of all sin before Baptism , and therefore a baptized Person is delivered by Christ from Hell , which is the only punishment due to Sins before Baptism ; and if he die before he commits any actual sin after Baptism , he escapes Purgatory and goes immediately to Heaven , not because Christ's death has delivered him from the temporal pains of Purgatory , but because he had done nothing to deserve it . For what they call the temporal punishment of sin is only the pains of Penance , and no man is capable of the Sacrament of Penance , who is not a baptized Christian ; and yet Purgatory is of the same nature with the pains of Penance , for there men compleat the expiation of their sins by enduring the pains of Purgatory , which was wanting to perfect their Penance in this World. And therefore Baptism does not remit the temporal punishment of sin , because there is none due till men sin after Baptism : it can no more remit the temporal pains of Purgatory , than the temporal pains of Penance , which none but a baptized Sinner is obnoxious to : and therefore it is false ( according to their Doctrine ) to say , That Christ obtained remission from all temporal , as well as eternal pain , unless they will say , that Christ obtained remission of the pains of Penance , and then farewel Penance and Purgatory together . And this very bottom our Jesuite sets it on , p. 75. where he tells us , Those who say , that it were a greater mercy in God to remit all the punishment due to sin , blame Christ for Preaching Penance , and account him on that score less merciful : which justifies what I said , that the pains of Purgatory answer the pains of Penance , and therefore this temporal punishment of sin , was not expiated by the Death of Christ no more then Penance is : and when he can prove , that Christ Preached such Penance as this , we will acknowledge Purgatory . But to return ; I desired to know , how any man can be satisfied from Scripture , that Christ by his death has delivered us from eternal punishments , if he have not delivered us from the temporal punishments of sin in the next World. For if those Texts which prove our Redemption by the Death of Christ , do not prove , that Christ has redeemed us from the whole punishment d●e to sin in the next World , they prove nothing , and then there is not one place of Scripture to prove , that Christ has redeemed us from eternal punishments . For if Christ's dying for our sins , making atonement for sin , being a propitiation through faith in his blood ; if remission and forgiveness of sins , being justified , having peace with God , being reconciled to God , and saved from wrath , do not signifie taking away the punishment of sin , I desire one Text to prove , that a Sinner who is pardoned and justified shall not be eternally punished for sin : and if they do signifie taking away the punishment of sin , how can a Sinner , who is pardoned and justified be punished for his sins , so that these Scriptures either prove , that there is no Purgatory , or they cannot prove , that we shall be delivered from Hell. This Argument he slightly mentions , p. 69 , but has so much wit as to say nothing to it . I asked farther , whether there are two kinds of punishments due to sin , temporal and eternal , of such a distinct nature that the promise of forgiveness does not include both , nay that God cannot forgive both , that God can only forgive eternal punishment , but the Sinner himself must endure the temporal . If this were the case , I would grant , the promises of forgiveness could extend only to eternal punishments ; but if the Curse of the Law be eternal death , and all other punishments are only parts of the Curse and a partial execution of it , then to forgive eternal punishments must include the forgiveness of temporal punishments as parts or branches of it : and this I shewed was the case here , that there is no other threatning in all the Gospel against sin , but eternal death , and therefore all other punishments are inflicted by vertue of this Law , as included in it ; and consequently he who is delivered from this Curse of the Law , from eternal punishments , is delivered from the whole punishment due to sin , though not from correction and discipline , which is not properly the Curse of the Law , nor the Wrath of God. A little piece of this he cites , p. 69 , but without an answer . In his following harangue indeed for Purgatory , he endeavours to prove by some examples of God's punishing those , whose sins were forgiven , and by some Sayings of the Fathers , that after the guilt of sin is forgiven , there remains an obligation to undergo punishment ; but these have been answered often enough , and are no Answer to the Argument of the Preservative , and therefore I am not concerned about them . I asked farther , why they call Purgatory , which is a place of punishment in the other World , a temporal punishment ? which is an abuse of the Language of Scripture , which makes this World temporal , and the next World eternal . The things which are seen are temporal , but the things which are not seen are eternal : and therefore temporal punishments signifie the punishments of this World , but the unseen punishments , as well as the unseen rewards , of the next World are eternal ; which is a demonstration , that there is no Purgatory , unless it be eternal . This he thus repeats , p. 69. The things which are seen ( that is , of this World ) are temporal ; but the things , which are not seen ( that is , of the next World ) are eternal . This is a demonstration , that there is no Purgatory : which is both to conceal the force of the Argument , and to pervert it ; for he should at least have added , there is no Purgatory , unless it be eternal . But his answer to this is extremely pleasant , p. 76. St. Paul never taught that all things , that are not seen , or of another World , are eternal , or else God would be eternally judging , and so never rewarding his Servants , or punishing his Enemies . But it is plain the Apostle by things that are seen , or not seen , signifies things which are to be enjoyed or suffered by us , not any transient Acts of God or Creatures ; and thus if there be any such thing as Purgatory in the other World , it must be eternal . To this I added ; The state of the next World is called either life or death , eternal life , or eternal death . Those who believe in Christ shall never die . Now I desire to know the difference between living and dying and perishing in the next World. For bad men do not cease to be , nor lose all sense in the next World , no more than good men ; and therefore life can only signifie a state of happiness , and death a state of misery . Now if good men must not perish , must not die in the next World , they must not go to Purgatory , which is as much perishing , as much dying , as Hell , though not so long . This he thus recites , p. 69. Who believes in Christ , shall never die ; therefore good men must not go to Purgatory , which is as much perishing and dying as Hell , but not so long . Which you see , is still to conceal the force of the Argument , but the comfort is , he says nothing against it , unless his repeating it must pass for a confutation . But he immediately adds , as if it were in the same period ; otherwise Purgatory may be everlasting life for all I know , and so the pains of it eternal . But this is several periods off . In summing up this Argument I inquired , how a Papist , who believes a Purgatory-fire , wherein he shall be tormented ( God knows how long ) for his sins , can prove , that a penitent sinner shall not be damned for his sins ▪ After other proofs , which , I thought , it was reasonable for them to urge , ( and I am sure they can urge no better ) I alledged this in their behalf ; that Christ has promised , that those who believe in him , shall not perish , but have everlasting life : and that proves , that the pains of Purgatory cannot be for ever , for then Christ could not perform his promise of bestowing everlasting life on them : To this I answer , So I confess one would think , and so I should have thought also , that when Christ promised , that such believers should not perish , and should never die , that he meant , that such men should not go to Purgatory : but if falling into Purgatory , he not perishing and not dying , it may 〈◊〉 ●verlasting life too , for ought I know , and then the pains of Purgatory may be eternal . I hope the Reader is by this time sensible , how easie it is to render any Discourse ridiculous by taking half Sentences , and joyning those passages together , which have no connexion and dependance . I observed farther , That the Doctrine of Purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the mediation of Christ , as it represents him less merciful and compassionate or less powerful than the necessities of sinners require him to be . 1. As for his Compassion . It is no great sign of tenderness and compassion to leave his Members in Purgatory-fire , which burns as hot as Hell. Could I believe this of our Saviour , I should have very mean thoughts of his kindness , and not much rely on him for any thing — it is a wonderful thing to me , that when a merciful man cannot see a Beast in torment without relieving it , it should be thought consistent with the mercy and compassion of our Saviour , to see us burn in Purgatory for Years and Ages . Part of this he repeats , and I suppose thought all the World would take it for an ill saying , and therefore leaves it , as he found it ; but I shall stand to it , till he confutes it . 2. If it be not want of Compassion , it must be want of Power in our Saviour to help us : — and if he want Power to deliver from Purgatory , I should more question his Power to deliver from Hell ; for that is the harder of the two : if his Blood could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin , which the Merits of some superer●gating Saints , or the Pope's Indulgencies , or the Priests Masses can rede●m us from , how c●uld it make expiation for eternal punishment ? i● h●s int●r●st in the Court of Heaven cannot do the less , how can 〈◊〉 do the greater ? This he calls a Misrepresentation , and truly as he has recited it , it is a very great one . P. 68. That the Blood of Christ could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin , which the Merits of some supererogating Saints , or the Priest's Masses , or Pope's Indulgencies can redeem us from ; how then can that Blood make expiation for eternal punishment ? I say , if it cannot do one , which is the greater , mu●h less can it do the other , which is the less ; he makes me say , that it cannot do one , which is the less , and therefore cannot do the greater : This is Popish Liberty of Conscience with a witness . From the Doctrine of Purgatory , I proceeded to the Invocation of Saints and Angels , 〈◊〉 our Mediators ; whether this does not also disparage the Gra●● of the Gospel , the Love of God , and of our Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ , to penitent sinners . Now I observed 1. with respect to God ; That no man can believe , that God is so very gracious to sinners for the sake of Christ , who seeks to so many Advocates and Mediators to intercede for him with God. To imagine , that we want any Mediator with God , but only our High-Priest , who mediates in vertue of his Sacrifice , is a reproach to the Divine Goodness . This the Jesuite recites , but what he has to say to it , he does not tell us . I there shewed at large , that God does not want Entreaties to do good , though his Wisdom and Justice may require a Sacrifice and a High-Priest to make atonement for sin . To prevent that obvious Objection , that God commands us to Pray for one another on Earth ; I observed , that this is not by way of Interest and Merit , as the Church of Rome pretends the Saints in Heaven Pray for us , but by Humble Supplications , which I shewed was very reconcilable with the Wisdom and Goodness of God ; from those excellent ends it serves in this World ; this he calls a Misrepresentation , p. 68. but I pray why ? do not they Pray to God in the Name and Merits of the Saints ? are not all their Offices full of such Prayers ? do they think the Saints in Heaven Pray only as humble Supplicants , when the very reason the Council of Trent gives , why they should fly to their Aid and Succors , is , that they Reign with Christ ? do they not , as he adds , take the Virgin Mary , Angels and Saints for Mediators to incline God to be good to peculiar persons ? which he calls another Misrepresentation ; why then do they Pray so frequently and devoutly to them ? why do they tell of so many miraculous Deliverances wrought by the Virgin Mary in favour of her Clients , and of other Saints in favour of their Devotoes ? English Protestants know these things too well , to be imposed on at this time of day by the bawling and confidence of an ignorant Jesuite . 2. I observed , That it is not less injurious to the Love of our Saviour to fly to the Prayers and Aids of Saints and the Virgin Mary ; as if Christ either wants interest with God , or wants kindness to us , and either will not intercede for us at all , or will not do it unless he be prevailed with by the Intercession of Saints , or the Entreaties or Commands of his Mother . And having shewed what assurance we have of the Love and Compassion of our Saviour , I added , This one would have thought should have given the greatest security to sinners of his readiness to help them . But it seems Christ is not merciful and pitiful enough : his Virgin Mother has softer and tenderer Passions , and such an interest in him , or authority over him in the right of a Mother , ( as some of them have not without blasphemy represented it ) that she can have any thing of him ; and thus they suppose the other Saints to be much more pitiful than Christ is , and to have interest enough to protect their Supplicants , or else it is not imaginable , why they should need or desire any other Advocates . This he calls another Misrepresentation , and makes me ●ay , that the Church of Rome professes to believe all this ; but I say no such thing , but only this is the natural interpretation of their seeking other Advocates and Mediators besides Christ : when he can give a better account of this Practice , I will acknowledge , I was mistaken in my Argument , but am no Misrepresenter ; for to Argue ill , and to Misrepresent , are two things , as the Representer himself , I suppose , has learnt by this time . SECT . III. An Answer to the Thirty Misrepresentations and Calumnies , and some Fanatical Principles said to be offered in the Third and Fourth Sections . HEre our Jesuite foams and rages ; and I will make him rage a little more , before I have done with him . For bad Spirits are apt to rage most , the more they feel the power of Exorcism , and then there is no way to make them quiet , but to cast them out . The third Section of the Preservative concerned the Nature of Christian Worship , what Christ has reformed in the Worship of God , and what Worship he has prescribed . 1. As for the first , I said , that Christ has taken away every thing that was meerly external in Religion ; not external Acts , nor the necessary external Circumstances of Worship , but such exernal Rites , as either by the Institution of God , or Superstition of Men , were made Acts of Religion , to render us more acceptable to God. This I shewed was agreeable to the nature of Christian Religion , which has none of those ends to serve , for which these external Rites were instituted by God under the Jewish Law , or invented by Men. For 1. There is no Expiation or Satisfaction for Sins under the Gospel , but only the Blood of Christ , and therefore there is no place now for any Expiatory Rites and Ceremonies . 2. The Gospel makes no difference between Legal Cleanness and Uncleanness , and therefore distinctions of Meats and External Washings and Purifications are now out of date . 3. Nor is there any Symbolical Presence of God under the Gospel , which puts an end to the Legal Holiness of Places and Things . 4. Nor are Material and Inanimate Things made the Receptacles of Divine Graces and Vertues , to convey them to us meerly by Contact and External Applications , like some Amulets or Charms to wear in our Pockets , or hang about our Necks . 5. The Christian Religion admits of no External or Ceremonial Righteousness — Now this cuts off every thing , which is External in Religion at a blow , because it cuts off all hopes and relyances on an External Righteousness . 6. Hence it appears , that the Christian Religion can admit nothing , that is External , but only some Faederal Rites ; such as the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are . — And such Rites as these are necessary in all instituted Religions , which depend upon free and volunta●●●●venants . For since Mankind has by sin forfeited their natural rig●t to God's favour , they can challenge nothing from him now , but by Promise and Covenant , and since such Covenants require a mutual stipulation on both sides , they must be transacted by some visible and sensible Rites , whereby God obliges himself to us and we to him . This he calls a Fanatical Principle , but why I know not . And says , that this is destroyed by my former Principle of taking away all Rites that are Acts of Religion . This is a severe Man , who will not allow me to make one Ex●eption from a General Rule , which no man yet was ever denied ; especially when I give such a peculiar reason for the Exception , as is applicable to nothing else : that an instituted Religion is and must be founded on a Covenant , that a Covenant must be transacted by visible and sensible Rites ; for there cannot be a visible Covenant , nor a visible Church founded on this Covenant without visible and sensible Rites . And this I suppose he will think a sufficient Answer to what he says . That on this Principle I ought to teach , that the mutual stipulation betwixt God and us must be made by his interior Graces , and our interior Worship , because God must be worshipped as a meer Spirit . That God must be worshipped as a meer Spirit , and therefore without any external Acts of Worship I never said , much less did I assign it as my reason here against a meer external Worship , that God must be worshipped as a meer Spirit , but that the nature of the Christian Religion will not admit of such an external Worship . And yet if he can tell me , how this Stipulation or Covenant can be made betwixt God and us by interior Graces without some visible covenanting Rite , how the Christian Church , which is a visible Society distinguished from the rest of the World by a visible Covenant , can be thus visibly incorporated by interior invisible Graces , I will confess then , that there had been no need , had Christ so pleased , of any visible Sacraments . He adds , upon whatever account that interior Covenant ( but we speak of an external visible Covenant , which requires visible Pledges and Seals ) requires a visible sensible Mark , and our actual Communion with Christ another , all the Communications of God's Graces to us , all our return of Worship and Adoration will equally admit of sensible Signs and Rites . Let us apply this then to those Instances I gave of this external Worship , and see whether there be the same reason for that , as there is for some visible signs of a visible Covenant . The same reason and necessity , for instance , of some external Rites to expiate sin ; now the Gospel declares , there is no expiation of sin , but the Blood of Christ , that there is of Gospel-Sacraments to apply the expiation of Christ's Death to us . The same necessity of external Washings and Purifications , distinction of Meats , &c. Now the Gospel has put an end to all legal Uncleanness , as there is of Baptism to wash away our Sins , or of the Lord's Supper to strengthen and refresh our Souls by a Spiritual feeding on the Body and Blood of Christ : the same external holiness of Places to sanctifie our Worship , now God has declared , that he has no symbolical Presence on Earth , the same necessity of material and inanimate receptacles and conveyances of Divine Graces and Vertues , the same necessity of an external and ceremonial Righteousness , which is such a contradiction to the whole design of the Gospel , as there is of the Gospel-Sacraments to receive us into Covenant , and to convey the Blessings of the Covenant to us . As for external Acts and Circumstances of Worship and Adoration , I allowed the necessity of them under the Gospel , but these are very different things from external religious Rites , and if he knows no reason , why the conveyances of Grace should rather be confined to the two Gospel-Sacraments , then to Holy Water , or Agnus Dei's , or the Reliques of Saints , or such other Popish Inventions , I will tell him one : because the Spirit of Grace is the Spirit of Christ and derives his influences only to the mystical body of Christ , all our Graces are the immediate influxes of the Divine Spirit , and nothing can intitle us to the Graces of the Spirit , but being Members of Christ's Body , and there are no visible Sacraments of Union to Christ , but Baptism and the Lord's Supper , and therefore no visible Rites of conveying the Graces of the Divine Spirit to us but these . Again , As our Spiritual Life consists in our Union to Christ , so this Union makes us New Creatures , for he that is in Christ is a New Creature : Now there are but two things necessary to a New Creature , a new birth , and a constant supply of nourishment for its increase and growth . Baptism is our Regeneration or New Birth , whereby we are incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body , and receive the first Communications of a Divine Life from the Holy Spirit ; the Lord's Supper is the constant Food and Nourishment of our Souls , wherein we receive fresh supplies of Grace , as our Natural Bodies do new Spirits from the Meat we eat . Now let any man tell me , what more is necessary to a New Creature , than to be born and to be nourished by fresh supplies of Grace , till it grow up to a perfect man in Christ Jesus : all this is done for us by Baptism and the Lord's Supper , and if all Divine Grace must be derived to us from our Union to Christ as the Members of his Body , nothing can be more congruous than that the Sacraments of our Union to Christ , should be the only visible and external Rites of conveying all supernatural Grace to us : so that unless Holy Water and Relicks , &c. be new Sacraments of our Union to Christ , they can be no Gospel conveyances of Grace ; and by the way , whoever well considers this , will think it little less than a demonstration , that there can be but two Gospel Sacraments , because there are no other visible Rites of uniting us to Christ , and consequently of conveying supernatural Grace to us , which is the Notion of a Sacrament . But to proceed , I came to apply this Discourse to Popish Worship to see , how consistent it is with that Reformation Christ had made of the Worship of God under the Gospel . And I observed in general , that whoever only considers the vast number ▪ of Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of Rome , must conclude it as Ritual and Ceremonial a Religion as Judaism itself : the Ceremonies are as many , more obscure , unintelligible and useless , more severe and intolerable than the Iewish Yoke itself , which St. Peter tells the Iews neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear . The first part he has nothing to say to , and by his silence confesses , it to be true , and that is proof enough , that it is no Christian Worship . But he will by no means allow , that they are as severe and as intolerable as the Iewish Yoke : this he calls a Mis-representation , and looks about to see , what it should be , that is so intolerable ; he suspects I mean their Fasts in Lent , or on Fridays and Saturdays , but he is much mistaken ; I know all these are very easie and gentle things in the Church of Rome ; or that Prayer and Almsdeeds may be these terrible things . And here he comes pretty near the matter , for I look upon it very intolerable to say over so many Prayers and Masses every day without understanding one word they say , which is the daily Task of many thousand Priests , who understand no more what they say , than the People do . To part with their real Estates , many times to the great damage of their Families , out of a blind Devotion to deliver their Souls from the imaginary Flames of Purgatory , which they call Almsdeeds : to whip and macerate their Bodies ( if they be so blindly devout ) with severe Fasts ( for men may fast severely in the Church of Rome if they please ) with long Watchings , hard Lodging , tedious and expensive Pilgrimages , not to cure , but to expiate their sins . He says , If the Ceremonies used in the Liturgy , he should have said in their Mass-Book and Rituals , and Breviaries , be a burden , surely the Clergy or Religious must feel the weight of it , yet I am sure not one ever owned it . Is he sure of this ? Has he confessed all the Nuns and Monks ? but if they have not owned it , Have they never felt it neither ? Will he himself say this ? but suppose they neither felt nor owned it , May it not be as intolerable as the Jewish Law ? Did the Scribes and Pharisees , who were so fond of the Rites of Moses , own it to be a heavy Yoke ? And yet does not St. Peter say it was so ? Superstition will bear very heavy yokes of external Rites and Ceremonies without complaining , to be delivered from what they think a more terrible yoke of mortifying and subduing sin , but yet they are very unsupportable Yokes still to ingenuous and vertuous Minds . Hence I proceeded to a more particular consideration of their Worship . 1. That most of their external Rites are professedly intended as expiations and satisfactions for sin . This he durst not deny , and therefore all their expiatory Rites are no part of Christian Worship , which allows no expiation for sin , but the Blood of Christ. Secondly , Those distinctions between Meats , which the Church of Rome calls fasting ( for a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food , but from such Meats as are forbid on fasting days ) can be no part of Christian Worship , because the Gospel allows of no distinction between clean and unclean things , and therefore of no distinction of Meats neither ; For meat commendeth us not to God , 1 Cor. 8.8 . Here is another Mis-representation ; That a Canonical Fast is not to abstain from Food . Does he deny this ? Yes he says , this is most false , but one Meal being allowed of on Fasting days . A terrible Penance this ! which most of our Merchants , and Citizens endure all the year round , and eat later too generally than they do on fasting days : But is there no Repast of Wine and Sweetmeats to be had at night for those who can purchase them ? I added , There is no imaginable reason , why it should be an Act of Religion , meerly to abstain from Flesh , if Flesh have no legal uncleanness ; and if it had , we must all have been Carthusians , and never eat Flesh more : for how it should be clean one day , and unclean anoth●r , is not easie to understand . This is another of his Mis-representations ; for that is the word , right or wrong . He says , I would insinuate that they Iudaize . Whereas I expresly said , that they did not Judaize , but did something more absurd : for they do not make such a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts , as the Law of Moses did , and therefore are the more absurd , in forbidding to eat Flesh , or any thing that comes of Flesh. But , he says , when God by Ieremy praises the Rechabites for abstaining from Wine , was it because Wine was held by them to have a legal uncleanness ? No , nor is Wine Flesh. But , Is taming of the flesh , the curbing of sensuality , no reason at all for abstinence ? And does abstinence consist meerly in abstaining from Flesh ? Will not good Fish and good Wine pamper the Flesh too ? To place abstinence in delectu ciborum , as in abstaining from Flesh , is a senseless piece of Superstition : if it serve the ends of Mortification , it is well ; if it be made essential to a Religious Fast , it 's absurd , and no part of Christian Worship . Thus I shewed , 3ly , that the Church of Rome has infinitely out-done the Jewish Law , in the Religion of holy Places , Altars , Vestments , Utensils , &c. which he passes over silently . 4ly . That they attribute divine Vertues and Powers to senseless and inanimate things , as is evident from that great Veneration they pay to Relicks , and those great Vertues they ascribe to them : from their consecrations of their Agnus Dei's , their Wax-Candles , Oyl , Bells , Crosses , Images , Ashes , Holy Water , for the health of Soul and Body , to drive away evil Spirits , to allay Storms , to heal Diseases , to pardon Venial and sometimes mortal Sins , meerly by kissing or touching them , carrying them in their hands , wearing them about their necks , &c. — These things look more like Charms than Christian Worship . — Indeed they argue , that such men do not understand what Grace and Sanctification means , who think that little Images of Wax , that Candles , that Oyl , that Water and Salt , that Bells , that Crosses , can be sanctified by the Spirit of God , and convey Grace and Sanctification , by the sight , or sound , or touch , or such external applications . — He who thinks that inanimate things are capable of the Sanctification of the Spirit , or can convey this Sanctification to us by some divine and invisible effluviums of Grace ; may as well lodge Reason , and Understanding , and Will , and Passions , in senseless matter , and receive it from them again by a kiss or touch . Here are three of his thirty Mis-representations all together ; and yet the Jesuit is more tame , than the Devil is usually represented to be , when he is frighted with Holy Water . But let us hear him : All these are Mis-representations of our Faith , which teaches us nothing of all this . Well , however this is pretty moderate ; here is no Hectoring yet ; no Minister Oates , and Minister Sherlock . What we believe , is , that nothing can free us from the guilt of any sin , which is external , and doth not affect and change the heart . But this is not the Question , Sir , but whether Agnus Dei's , Holy Water , &c. can deliver from the guilt of sin , and drive away the Devil , and work a great many Deliverances for us ; whether with or without the change of heart : if they can affect and change the heart , that is the better way ; and then they effectually convey Grace , which is the thing I said , and which he dares not deny : if they cannot forgive sin , I desire him to tell his People so , who like that better than changing the heart ; and then they will purchase no more Agnus Dei's , nor trade in such Roman Merchandize . But they believe , That all Creatures of God are good , and that they are sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer . What! to forgive Sins , to give Grace , to allay Storms , to drive away Devils ? Was this the Apostle's meaning in those words ? Is there any word of Promise in the Gospel for this ? Which is the meaning of being sanctified by the word . Neither doth Faith teach us , that any material thing hath any other than moral connexion with Grace , either obtained for us by the Prayers of the Church , offered for us at the blessing of those things , or of those blessed Saints whom we honour , and call upon by that Veneration , or by the Sacraments , according to the Institution and Covenant of Christ ; but we do not believe , that God's Grace is inherent , but in the Souls of the Faithful , or that any sin is remitted , without a due disposition in a repentant sinner . As for the Sacraments , I have already given an account of their Vertue and Efficacy , that they are instituted signs and means of our Union to Christ , and that intitles us to the influences of the divine Grace : Whether it be a natural or moral connexion between Grace and such inanimate things , is not the Question , but it seems Grace is annexed to them ; which is all I affirm : But however Grace is annexed to them , the conveyance of Grace from them to the Soul , by meer external applications , as by lighting up , or carrying a consecrated Taper , by sprinkling Ashes on our heads , by sprinkling our selves with Holy Water , by wearing an Agnus Dei , or some Relicks about us , &c. look as if it was done , not by a moral but a natural efficacy ; for what moral efficacy can such things have upon our minds ? But let it be done how it will , it seems such divine Vertues and Powers are naturally or morally annexed to inanimate and senseless things , and naturally or morally conveyed from them to the Soul , by external applications , and I desire him to shew me the difference between such Observances and Pagan Charms . He has confessed enough , and as much as we could desire of him , when he adds , Or any Vertue to be now-a-days communicated otherwise by insensible things , than it was to the woman that touched the hem of Christ's Garments , ( for Christ felt Vertue to pass from him , and therefore it was a very real Communication ) or by the handkerchiefs of St. Paul , or shadow of St. Peter : And here were real and sensible effects , without any moral , but only natural or rather supernatural efficacy upon the Patient . And if Holy Water , and Agnus Dei's convey Grace at this rate , I assure you , they are very notable things . His undertaking at last to prove , Whenever required , that they use no other blessings ( or Consecrations of such inanimate things to such spiritual purposes ) but what they find in the Records of the Primitive Church to have been ordered by the Apostles , is bold and brave , and I here challenge him to make it good ; but I hope he will produce better Records for it , than his Homily of St. Austin of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin. 5 ly . I observed farther , that all this encouraged men to trust in an external Righteousness . For , 1. Such external Rites are very apt to degenerate into Superstition . Especially , 2. When they are recommended as very acceptable to God , as satisfactions for our sins , and meritorious of great Rewards . And this is that use they serve in the Church of Rome : They assert the necessity of humane satisfactions ; and what are these satisfactory works ? Fastings , Whippings , Pilgrimages , &c. all which men may do , without the least sorrow for sin , without any true Devotion to God , without mortifying any one Lust. To make this a Mis-representation , he repeats it thus : They account satisfactory works , Fastings , Acts of Penance , Prayers , Alms , though done without the least sorrow for sin , &c. Whereas I say , they account these satisfactory works , and they may be done without the least sorrow for sin . Now are not these satisfactory works ? That he dares not deny . May not all these be done , without sorrow for sin ? That he dares not deny neither . And this is all I said ; but then he will not allow , that they are satisfactory works , without sorrow for sin : I would to God he could perswade all the Members of his Church of the truth of this . But let me ask him one Question : Are these Acts of Penance in the Church of Rome intended as expressions of sorrow for sin , or as satisfactions for the punishment due to it ? Are they necessary , before Absolution , to qualifie men to receive the pardon of their sins , as the signs and demonstrations of a sincere repentance ? or to be performed after the sin is forgiven , not to express our sorrow for sin , but to undergo the punishment of it ? Are they always the voluntary choice of the sinner , as the expressions of a hearty sorrow are , or the sentence of a Judge , imposed by the Priest upon Absolution , or by the fears of Purgatory ? Now if such Acts of Penance are only intended to satisfie for the punishment , I think to undergo punishment , whether with or without sorrow for sin , does satisfie for the punishment of sin : Sorrow may be necessary to Absolution ; but when the guilt of sin is pardoned , if men can undergo their penance without sorrow , the satisfaction is never the less : and should he promote this Doctrine , that the works of Penance avail nothing , unless they be done with a hearty sorrow for sin , men would not be so easily perswaded to undergo their Penances , especially if the Priest be fevere . I observed farther , that the true reason why any thinking men are so fond of an external Righteousness , is to excuse them from true and real Holiness of Life — All men know , that in the Offices of Piety and Vertue they can never do more than is their duty ; and therefore as nothing can be matter of merit , which is our duty , So the true intention of all merits and works of Supererogation , are to supply the place of Duty , and to satisfie for their sins , or to purchase a Reward , which they have no title to by doing their duty : that is , because they do not their duty . But then the Jesuit represents it , as if I said , They could have no reward for doing their duty , and therefore they add works of Supererogation ; which is Jesuit like : they may be rewarded for their duty , if they would do it , though they cannot merit by doing their duty . 3ly . I observed , that to make these meritorious and satisfactory Superstitions more easie , one man may satisfie for another , and communicate his Merits to him : this the Jesuit confidently says , is a sham ; for each man is bound to satisfie for himself , fulfilling the Penances imposed on him . Now suppose that men are bound personally to perform those Penances which are imposed on them by their Priests in Confession , what I said was not confined to Penances imposed in Confession ; and I presume he will grant there are other satisfactions and penances necessary besides these . Did he never hear of men , who have been hired to whip themselves for some rich and great sinners ? to say such a number of Ave-Maries for them ? If one man cannot satisfie for another , what becomes of their Indulgences , which are the application of the Merits of Supererogating Saints to those who need them ? Another Mis-representation is , that I say , They pay for Indulgences with Money , and buy Satisfactions and Merits . But though Indulgences are not to be had without Money , it is a sad Mis-representation to call this Buying , which should only be called Alms-deeds : but the thing is the same , let them call it what they will ; Alms-deeds , if they will call them Alms-deeds , and that at a set rate and down-right Bargain , are the price of Indulgences and Satisfactions ; and if this were the reason of giving Alms , were there such an express Bargain and Sale in the case , I am of his mind , that every Alms-giver might with as much justice be accused to have bought of God his Grace and Pardon for a sum of money . From hence I proceeded to shew , what kind of Worship Christ has prescribed to his Disciples , and the general account we have of it . 4 John 23 , 24. But the hour cometh and now is , when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth , for the Father seeketh such to worship him : God is a spirit , and they that worship him , must worship him in spirit and in truth . In which description of Gospel-Worship , there are three things included . 1. That we must worship God under the notion of a pure and infinite Spirit : 2. under the character of a Father . 3. With the Mind and Spirit . But he has found little here to except against , only two or three Fanatical Principles , which shall be briefly considered . The first . God being a Spirit , must not be sought for in Houses of Wood and Stone : because he must be worshipped in Spirit ( as a Spirit it should be , which differ greatly ) he must not be worshipped by any material or sensible Representations ( by material Images and Pictures ) those words except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees , you shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven , cuts off every thing , that is external in Religion . Here he has jumbled things together of a different nature . I shall begin with the last first , because it concerns what I have already accounted for . That the Christian Religion admits of no external nor ceremonial Righteousness : the great design of the Gospel being to make us truly good , that we may be partakers of the Divine Nature . There is nothing our Lord does more severely condemn than an external and Pharasaical Righteousness — Except your Righteousness exceed the Righteousness , &c. Now this ( not these words meerly , but this rejecting an external Righteousness ) cuts off every thing that is external in Religion at a blow , because it cuts off all hopes and reliances on an external Righteousness , and I believe men will not be fond of such Superstitions , when they know , they will do them no good . Now what is the fault of this ? do not these Principles remit all Christians to the silent Meetings of Quakers ? exclude singing of Psalms ? that is , because it excludes an external Righteousness , it excludes all external Acts of Worship . Well rhymed Father , Brains and Stairs . Since God will be worshipped as a Spirit , he will now confine his peculiar Presence to no place , as he formerly did to the Temple at Ierusalem , — for though for typical reasons he had a typical and symbolical presence under the Iewish dispensation , yet this was not so agreeable to his nature , who is a Spirit , and will now be worshipped as a Spirit , and therefore must not now be sought for in Houses of Wood and Stone : This , says he , excludes the use of Churches rather than Barns . That is , because God does not confine his presence to one place , because he has no symbolical presence , therefore there must be no places set apart from common uses for Religious Worship . Thus God will be worshipped as a Spirit , and therefore not by Images , or material Representations , which are so unlike a Spirit ; that is , says he not by such material Representations as singing of Psalms . Well guess't for a Jesuite ! The second Fanatical Principle is this . God and Christ are not present in the Assemblies of Christians by a figurative and symbolical Presence : There is no symbolical Presence of God under the Gospel . Though God fills all Places , it is a great absurdity to talk of more symbolical Presences than one : for a symbolical Presence confines the unlimited Presence of God to a certain place , in order to certain ends , as to receive the Worship , that is paid to him , and to answer the Prayers , that are made to him ; now to have more than one such Presence as this , is like having more Gods than one . To which he answers , to say nothing of the absurdity of this Discourse , which makes that Christian an Adorer of two Gods , who by Faith adoring God in Heaven and in his own Soul , worships him in both places . Truly he had better have said nothing , than nothing to the purpose ; for is God symbolically present in Heaven , or in the Souls of Men ? in Heaven he is really present , in the Souls of Men he is present by his Grace and Spirit , but in neither by Symbols and Figures of his Presence , as he was present in the Temple . But he has a terrible Argument to come . Doth not this destroy the very essence of your Sacrament , the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper , which you own to be a symbolical Presence of Christ ? but no Place nor Object of Worship . And yet though we grant the Eucharist is a Symbol and Figure of Christ's Body and Blood , it is no Symbol of Christ's bodily and personal Presence , unless it be a Symbol of Christ's bodily Presence on the Cross , for it is a Symbol only of Christ's broken Body and of his Blood shed for us ; and the intention of it is not to represent Christ bodily present with us , but to be a Memorial of him in his bodily absence , and therefore it is no symbolical Presence of Christ ; for the Figures and Symbols of his Body and Blood , if they be a symbolical Presence , must be the Symbols of his bodily Presence . His third Fanatical Principle is this . If God be better worshipped before an Image than without one , then the Worship of God is more confined to that place , where the Image is . I cannot see , how to avoid this , whereas there is no appropriate place of Worship under the Gospel : and 't is the same case , tho' the Image be not appropriated to any place , but carried about with us ; for still the Image makes the Place of Worship . Most of these are my words , but he has transplaced them so , as to lose the Argument . The force of the Argument is this . If the Worship of God must not be confined to any Place or symbolical Presence , then he must not be worshipped by an Image , for an Image is a representative Presence of God , or of the Saints , and Men go to Images as to Divine Presences to Worship ; so that where-ever the Image is , which is a symbolical Presence , whether fixt in a Church , or carried from one place to another , it makes it a peculiar place of Worship , as having a symbolical Presence . So that the whole force of the Argument , lies upon an Image being a symbolical Presence . And this he tells us is an Argument for all Dissenters against a Liturgy , or Set-Form of Prayer , ( I suppose he means the Book of the Liturgy , or Forms of Prayer ) for if God be better worshipped by a Set-Form of Prayer , than without it , then the Worship of God is more confined to that place , where that Set-Form of Prayer , that Set-Liturgy is used ; and 't is the same tho' no set place be appointed for that Set-Form of Prayer . The Parallel is exact . It is so indeed , if he can prove the Common-Prayer-Book to be a symbolical Presence of God , as an Image is , but till then it is ridiculous . At the conclusion of this Section I observed , that to worship God in Spirit , is to worship him with our Mind and Spirit . And from hence I shewed the absurdity of Praying to God in an Unknown Tongue , when neither our Understandings , nor Affections can joyn in our Prayers . For I suppose no man will say , that to pray to God or praise him in words which we do not understand , is to worship God in Spirit , unless he thinks , that a Parrot may be taught to pray in the Spirit . This he calls a Calumny . He would insinuate , that Catholicks when they assist to ( present he should have said at ) Prayers , which they do not understand , are not commanded to pray in Spirit by devout Thoughts and pious Affections . Now I insinuate no such thing : when they are present at Prayers which they do not understand , they may have other devout thoughts for ought I know , but I say they cannot offer those Prayers to God with their understanding , which they do not understand , and in such Prayers they do not pray with the Mind and Spirit , and therefore all such Prayers are absurd , and contrary to the nature of Christian Worship , which is to worship God in Spirit . But my work is not at an end yet ; there are some other Misrepresentations and Calumnies , which he has picked out of the fourth Section of the Preservative , which must be considered . The fourth Section concerns the reformation and improvement of Humane Nature , which I shewed to be the great design of the Gospel , and that particularly with respect to Knowledge and Holiness ; and I examined how far the Principles and Practices of the Church of Rome did comply with this great Gospel Design . 1. As for Knowledge , I supposed , neither the Church of Rome nor any one for her would pretend that she is any great Friend to Knowledge , which is so apt to make men Hereticks . That knowing Papists are not beholden to their Church for their Knowledge , which deprives them of all the means of Knowledge ; will not allow them to believe their senses , but commands them to believe Transubstantiation , which is contrary to the evidence of sense ; forbids men the use of Reason in matters of Religion ; suffers them not to judge for themselves , nor examine the Reasons of their Faith ; and denies them the use of the Bible , which is the only means to know the revealed Will of God : and when men must neither believe their Senses , nor use their Reason , nor read the Scripture , it is easie to guess , what knowing and understanding Christians they must needs be . Against this it may be objected , that the Church of Rome does instruct her Children in the true Christian Faith , though she will not allow them to read the Scriptures nor judge for themselves , which is the safer way to teach them the pure Catholick Faith without danger of Error or Heresie . To this I answered , This were something , did the Church of Rome take care to instruct them in all necessary Doctrines , and to teach nothing but what is true ; and could such men , who thus tamely receive the dictates of the Church , be said to know and to understand their Religion : so that here were two Inquiries , 1. Whether the Church of Rome instructs her Children in all necessary truth , and nothing but the truth . 2. Whether she so instructs them , that they may be said to know and understand . How far the Church of Rome is from doing the first , I said , all Christians in the World are sensible but themselves , but that is not our present Dispute . But our Jesuite it seems will make it the Disp●te , or it shall pass for a perfect Slander , for thus he repeats it , they take no care to instruct m●n in all nec●ssary Doctrines . Which I did not positively affirm , b●t since he will have it so , I do now affirm , That they do not instruct men in all necessary Doctrines , and that th●y teach them a great many false Doctrines . But then he must remember , what I mean by instructing , it is not meerly to teach them to repeat the Articles of their Creed , but to give them the true sense and meaning of them ; and I do affirm , and am ready to prove it , and possibly may do so , when leisure permits , that they do not rightly instruct men in the great and necessary Doctrine of forgiveness of Sins in the Name of Christ , nor in the nature of Christ's Mediation and Intercession for us , nor in the nature of Justification , or of Gospel and Obedience , but teach such Errors as overthrow the true Gospel notion of these great and necessary Doctrines . Then as for their manner of Teaching , to require men to believe what they say meerly upon the Authority of the Church , without suffering them to examine , whether such Doctrines are taught in Scripture , or to exercise their own reason and judgment about it , can make no man a knowing and understanding Christian. For no man understands his Religion , who does not in some measure know the reasons of his Faith , and judge whether they be sufficient or not ; who knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error , who has no Rule to go by , but must take all upon trust , and the credit of his Teachers , who believes whatever he is told , and learns his Creed as School-boys do their Grammar , without understanding it : this is not an active , but a kind of passive knowledge : Such men receive the impression that is made on them , as Wax does , and understand no more of the matter . These Sayings that are marked out , are more of his Misrepresentations , which need no other Vindication , but to be shewn in their own light , and proper places . And yet I did not deny , but some men might be so dull and stupid , as to be capable of little more than to be taught their Religion as Children , but certainly this is not the utmost perfection of knowledge , that any Christian must aim at : which he thus represents , With them this is the utmost perfection of Knowledge , that any Christian must aim at . This I did not say , but this I say , that it is the utmost perfection of Knowledge , which any man can attain to , who will be contented with the Methods of the Church of Rome , not to examine his Religion , but to take all upon the credit of the Church . Well , How does our Jesuite confute this heavy Charge and perfect Slander ? Does he shew , that they teach all necessary Truths , and nothing but Truth ? Does he prove that men may be very knowing Christians without understanding the Reasons of their Faith ? Not one word of this , which alone was to his purpose ; but he says , hundreds of thousands of Religious men are employed in instructing the Ignorant , and teaching Children ; and whoever denied this , that they do teach Men and Children after their fashion ? But does this prove , that they teach them all necessary Truths , and nothing but truth ? Or that they make them ever the wiser for their teaching ? As for those ignorant Protestants he has had to deal with , if he made Converts of them , I believe they were very ignorant ; otherwise if there were Ignorance between them , it was as likely to lie on the Jesuite's side . Having laid down this as a Principle , that one great design of the Gospel is to improve the Knowledge of Mankind , I hence inferred , 1. That to forbid People to read and meditate on the Word of God , can be no Gospel Doctrine , unless not to read the Bible be a better way to improve Knowledge than to read it . 2. This is a mighty presumption also against Transubstantiation , that it is no Gospel Doctrine , because it overthrows the very fundamental principles of Knowledge , as I shewed at large , and wonder he has not one word to say for Transubstantiation . 3. The Authority of an Infallible Judge , whom we must believe in every thing , without examining the reasons of what he affirms , nay though he teaches such Doctrines as appear to us most expresly contrary to Sense and Reason and Scripture , is no Gospel-Doctrine , because it is not the way to make men wise an● understanding Christians , for to suspend the exercise of Reason and Judgment , is not the way to improve Mens Knowledge ; and here I distinguish between an infallible Teacher and an infallible Judge . The first teaches infallibly , but yet he that learns , must use his own Reason and Judgment , unless a man can learn without it . But the Second usurps the Office of every Man 's private Reason and Judgment , and will needs judge for all Mankind , as if he were an universal Soul , an universal Reason and Understanding , which is to unsoul all Mankind in matters of Religion . And therefore though there have been infallible Teachers , as Moses and the Prophets , Christ and his Apostles , yet none ever pretended to be infallible Judges but the Church of Rome . — Though there may be an infallible Teacher , there never can be an infallible Iudge , to whom I must submit my own Reason and Judgment without examination , because I cannot know , that he teaches infallibly , unless I am sure , that he teaches nothing , that is contrary to any natural or revealed Law , and that I cannot know , unless I may judge of his Doctrine by the light of Nature and Revelation : for he is not infallible , if he contradicts any natural or revealed Laws . I gave an instance of this in Moses and the Prophets , and in Christ himself : for when Christ appeared , there was a written Law , and all the Miracles he wrought could not have proved him a true Prophet , had he contradicted the Scriptures of the old Testament . And therefore he appeals to Moses and the Prophets to bear testimony to his Person and Doctrine : and then Miracles gave Authority to any New Revelation he made of God's Will , when it appeared , that he had not contradicted the Old. The Law of Nature and the Law of Moses were the Laws of God , and God cannot contradict himself ; and therefore the Doctrine of all new Prophets , even of Christ himself was to be examined , and is to be examined to this day by the Law and the Prophets ; and therefore though he was certainly an infallible Teacher , yet men were to judge of his Doctrine , before they believed ; and he did not require them to lay aside their Reason and Iudgement , and submit to his infallible Authority without examination . This our Jesuite makes a horrible outcry about , which has made me transcribe the whole of this Argument . He will hardly allow either the Author , or the Licenser to be Christians , and reserved this for the concluding Blow to end his Pamphlet with : What Iesus our God blessed for evermore , even when owned the Son of God , even from us Christians , cannot exact a submission to his infallible Authority , without examining the truth of what he says , by comparing it with the principles of humane reason : this is the sum of all his Answer , the rest is raving and senseless harangue . But the fallacy of all this lies in a few words , Iesus the Son of God blessed for evermore , even when owned the Son of Son , even by us Christians . For those who own him the Son of God , no doubt will submit to his infallible Authority , and therefore all profest Christians must do so ; but that which I said is this , that no man could , nor to this day can own him , upon wise consideration , to be a true Prophet , and the Son of God , till he is satisfied that he neither contradicts the plain light of Nature nor the L●w of Moses ; and therefore thus far we are to examine his Doctrine ; but when it is evident he contradicts no former Revelations , and confirms his Authority by Miracles , then we are to believe any new Revelations he makes upon his own Authority . And therefore in my own Name , and the Name of the Licenser , I here profess , that when by examining the Doctrine of Christ by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses , I find he has contradicted neither , and by the great Miracles he wrought , I am satisfied he is an Infallible Teacher , then I own him for such an Infallible Teacher ( or Judge if he pleases ) that I must not judge of his Doctrine ( excepting the case of the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses ) but believe it , and submit to him ; and in these cases , I submit to his Infallible Authority without examination ; I receive all his Dictates as Divine Oracles . I do not wonder the Jesuite is so much disturbed at this , for if it appears , that Christ himself did not pretend to be such an Infallible Judge , as he would have us believe the Pope or Church of Rome to be , they must for shame give up this kind of Infallibility : and therefore if he has a mind to Confute this Principle thoroughly , that he may understand my mind plainly , I will reduce all to some few Propositions , which he may try his skill upon , when he pleases . 1. That no Prophet is to be believed in contradiction to such plain and evident Principles of Nature , as all Mankind agree in . 2. That the first Prophet , who appears in the World , before any revealed Law , and confirms his Authority by plain and evident Miracles , is to be believed in every thing he says , while he does not contradict the plain and evident principles of natural Knowledge . And for that reason Moses was to be believed in every thing , which did not contradict the light of Nature , because he was the first Prophet , who made a Publick Revelation of God's Will to the World. 3. That succeeding Prophets , who confirm their Authority with Miracles , are to be believed in all new Revelations they make , which neither contradict the Light of Nature , nor any former Revelations ; and therefore Christ is absolutely to be believed , when it appears , that he neither contradicted the Light of Nature , nor the Law of Moses . 4. When the Revelation is compleat and perfect , and has no new additions to be made to it , ( as the Gospel-Revelation is ) how infallible soever any Teachers may be , we must believe them in nothing , which either contradicts the light of Nature , or the standing Revelation , or is not contained in the Revelation . And this shews us , how far we are to submit our own Reason and Judgment to an infallible Teacher ; that is , when we are convinced of his infallibility , we must then believe him upon his own word , but not till then . And therefore we must of necessity judge of all Prophets , till we can prove them true Prophets , and then we must believe them without judging . The Miracles Moses wrought were a sufficient reason to believe him to be a true Prophet , while he did not contradict the Laws of Nature , and thus far all men were to judge of him , and not to rely upon his Authority ; but when by his Miracles and the agreement of his Doctrine with natural Principles , they were satisfied , he was a true Prophet , they were to judge no farther , but to receive every thing else upon his Authority . When Christ appeared in the World , men were to judge of him , before they believed , and that not only by Miracles , and the Conformity of his Doctrine to the Light of Nature , but by his Agreement with the Law of Moses , which was a standing Revelation : and when by these Marks he was known to be the true Messias , they were to believe every thing else he said upon his own Authority . But Christ having now given us a perfect Revelation of God'● Will , to which no additions must be made ; we are to believe no men , how infallible soever , any further than they agree with the Gospel-Revelation , and therefore must judge for our selves both of the sense of Scripture , and the Doctrine they teach ; which is a plain demonstration , that as there never was such an infallible Teacher , whom we must in all cases believe without examination , ( which is what the Church of Rome means by an infallible Judge ) for Moses his Doctrine was to be examined by the Light of Nature , and Christ's by the Light of Nature and the Law of Moses ; so now especially can there be no such infallible Judge , because the Gospel is the entire and perfect Rule of Faith , and we must believe no man , against or beyond the Gospel-Revelation ; and therefore must judge for our selves , and compare his Doctrine with the Rule ; which confounds the Infallibility of the Church of Rome . This is the Scheme of my Principles ; and now he knows , what he has to answer , when he has a mind to it . 4 ly . I observed farther , To pretend the Scripture to be an obscure or imperfect Rule , is a direct contradiction to the design of the Gospel , to improve and perfect Knowledge . He says nothing about the Obscurity of the Rule , as for the Imperfections of it , I observed , they pretended to supply the Defects of Scripture by Unwritten Traditions . The first Answer I gave to this , which alone he pretends to say something to , was this . If the Sriptures be an imperfect Rule , then all Christians have not a perfect Rule , because they have not the keeping of unwritten Traditions , and know not what they are , till the Church is pleased to tell them ; and it seems it was a very great while before the Church thought fit to do it : for suppose all the new Articles of the Council of Trent , were unwritten Traditions , fifteen hundred Years was somewhat of the longest to have so considerable a part of the Rule of Faith concealed from the World. Which the Jesuite thus repeats ; The Catholicks by unwritten Traditions , that make up a part of their Rule of Faith , mean such things as may be concealed from the World for 1500 Years , never heard of before in the Church of God , kept very privately and secretly for several Ages , and totally unwritten . Whereas I said nothing at all of this , but that if the Twelve new Articles of Pope Pius his Creed in the Council of Trent , be pretended ( as they do pretend ) to be the Tradition of the Church , then de facto this Tradition was concealed for near 1500 Years , for there was no such Tradition known before , nor at the time of the Council of Trent , as has been proved as to several Articles , by the learned Dean of St. Pauls ; and , when our Jesuite pleases , he may try to confute him . 5 ly . I observed , that an implicit Faith , or believing as the Church believes , without knowing what it is we believe , can be no Gospel Doctrine , because it is not for the improvement of Knowledge . And here I observed , that some Roman Doctors think it sufficient , that a man believes as the Church believes , without an explicite knowledge of any thing they believe ; but the general Opinion is , that a man must have an explicite belief of the Apos●les Creed , but as for every thing else it suffices , if he believes as the Church believes . That is , as I inferred , it is not necessary men should so much as know , what the new Articles of the Trent Faith are , if they believe the Apostles Creed , and in other things resign up their Faith implicitely to the Church . From whence I concluded , that by their own confession all the Doctrines in dispute between us and the Church of Rome are of no use , much less necessary to salvation , for if they were they would be as necessary to be known , and explicitely believed , as the Apostles Creed ; and therefore Protestants who believe the Apostles Creed , may be saved without believing the Trent Creed , for what we need not know , we need not believe . What does our Jesuite say to this ? is an implicite Faith no Doctrine of their Church ? have I misrepresented their Doctrine ? he says nothing of this . But this Calumniator ( he says , meaning poor calumniated me ) confounds what is to be known necessitate medii , so that he who through no fault of his hath not learned it , is however uncapable of salvation ( which is all contained in the Creed ) with what must be known necessitate praecepti , because God hath commanded all those who are in the occasion and in the capacity of being instructed in it , to learn it . Whatever I confounded , I am sure , this is a distinction would confound any man to reconcile it with an implicite Faith. Some things are so neces●ary to be known , that a man shall be damned meerly for not knowing them , though he had no opportunity to know them ( which some will say is very hard ) other things are necessa●y to be known to those who have opportunity to know them , for that I suppose he means , by occasion and capacity , or he means nothing but a trick ; and what place is here for an implicite Faith ? when they must know all that is a necessary means of salvation , at the peril of their salvation , and must know every thing , as far as they have opportunity of learning it ; and therefore must never take up with an implicite Faith. He says , Each man is not bound to know all that Christ hath taught , but yet all that Christ has taught as necessary to him in his station : So that if all Christians are not bound to have an explicite belief and knowledge of any thing but the Apostles Creed , then the knowledge of all the peculiar Doctrines of Popery , it seems , are not necessary for them in their station ; and if they be not necessary for all Lay-Christians suppose in their station , they are necessary for no body but the Pope and his Clergy ; and that is the truth of the story : for they are the only people that get any thing by them , and it concerns them only to know these matters . Secondly , I proceeded to Holiness and Vertue , the promoting of which is another great Gospel-design ; and shewed how many ways this is hindred in the Church of Rome . I observed , That great value the Church of Rome sets upon an external Righteousness , is very apt to corrupt mens notions of what is good , to perswade them that such external Observances are much more pleasing to God , and therefore certainly much better in themselves , than true Gospel-Obedience , than Moral and Evangelical Vertues : for that which will merit of God the pardon of the greatest Immoralities , and a great Reward , that which supplies the want of true Vertue , which compensates for sin , and makes men great Saints , must needs be more pleasing to God , than Vertueit self . This he cites as a great Mis-representation , and so it is , as he puts it ; for he makes me say , that they teach all this : whereas all that I say is , that these are natural inferences which men draw from that great value the Church of Rome puts upon an external Righteousness , and that such Conceits as these are very apt to make men careless of a holy life . Thus he makes me say , The Roman Church teaches , that men need take no care of venial sins , and that they may keep clear of mortal sins , without any great attainment in Vertue . But I never said , the Roman Church taught this . I say , The Doctrine of venial sins , which cannot deserve eternal punishments , how many soever they are , is apt to give men very slight thoughts of very great evils : that wdile this distinction lasts , men have an excuse at hand for a great many sins , which they need take no care of . What! because the Church teaches , that they need not avoid venial sins ? By no means ! But because they shall not be damned for them , which is encouragement enough to most men to be careless about them : If they keep clear of mortal sins , they are safe , that is , as to eternal damnation ; and that men may do without any great attainments in Vertue : which is certainly true , whoever teaches it , according to the Roman distinction between venial and mortal sins . I shewed farther , that the Church of Rome makes void most of the Gospel Motives to a holy life . The second was the Holiness , and Purity , and inflexible Justice of the divine Nature , which enforces the necessity of Holiness , because a holy God cannot be reconciled to wicked men , nor forgive our sins , unless we repent and reform . But the force of this Argument is lost in the Church of Rome by the Iudicial Absolution of the Priest. For they see daily the Priest does absolve them without forsaking their sins , and God must confirm the Sentence of his Ministers ; and therefore they are absolved , and need not fear that God will not absolve them : Which must either destroy all sense of God's essential Holiness and Purity , and perswade them , that God can be reconciled to Sinners , while they continue in their sins ; or else they must believe that God hath given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not have absolved himself . This he thus repeats : They teach ( for this must always come in to make me a Mis-representer ) that when a Priest absolves men that forsake not their sins , God must confirm the Sentence of his Minister , and therefore they are absolved , and need not fear ; whence they believe that God can be reconciled to sinners , whilst they remain in their sins ; and therefore they must believe that God hath given power to his Priests to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself . How unlike this is to what I said , I need not tell any man ; but he has not only mis-represented my words and sense , but has made non-sense of it too , which is a little too much at once : for if they believe that God can be reconciled to sinners , while they continue in their sins , they need not believe that God had given power to the Priest to absolve those whom he could not absolve himself , that is , unreformed sinners ; for if God can be reconciled to such men , who continue in their sins , he may absolve them too , as well as the Priest. But I must not part with this point thus . I said , that de facto men saw that they are every day , or as oft as they please to go to confession , absolved by the Priest without forsaking their sins ; is not this true ? That they are taught that God confirms the Sentence of his Ministers , and when they are forgiven by the Priest , they are forgiven by God : That the Priest is a Judge and absolves as a Judge , by a true judicial , not a meer declarative power : Is not this true ? And is not this reason enough for them to believe that when they are absolved by the Priest , without forsaking their sins , they are absolved by God ? And does not this destroy that Argument from the holiness and justice of God , that he will not forgive our sins , unless we forsake them ? But he says , They teach , that to receive absolution without a real forsaking of our sins , in lieu of forgiveness of them , adds a hainous Sacriledge . But how do they teach this , by words or actions ? Their actions teach quite otherwise , for they absolve men over and over , who do not forsake their sins , though they know that they do not ; and if such Absolutions do not avail to the forgiveness of sins , what greater security is there in the Popish judicial , than in the Protestant declarative Absolution ? Nay , why do they cheat people out of their Souls , and lull them into security by such void Absolutions ? Nor do their words teach any necessity of mens forsaking sin , to make their Absolution valid : Contrition is the most that is required to Absolution . Now suppose Contrition signifie a sorrow for sin , and a resolution to forsake it , yet Contrition is not forsaking sin , is not holiness of life ; and if Absolution upon Contrition puts men into a state of salvation , then men may be saved by the Sacrament of Penance , without an actual forsaking of sin ; for if they sin again , it is only repeating the same Remedy , the Sacrament of Penance , with the Absolution of the Priest , will restore them to the favour of God , and a state of salvation again . Which shews that the Church of Rome does not teach what he pretends ; I wish she did , or that he would teach it for her , that the Absolution of the Priest will avail no man who does not actually forsake his sins , and reform his life , and then we should see what value men would have for their Judicial Absolution . A third Gospel-Motive to Holiness , is the Death and Sacrifice of Christ , because his Bloud is the Bloud of the Covenant , and the efficacy of his Sacrifice , extends no farther than the Gospel-Covenant ; that is , no man can be saved by the Bloud of Christ , but those who obey the Gospel . This I observed the Church of Rome seems very sensible of , that the Sacrifice of the Cross will avail none but penitent and reformed Sinners . But then the Sacrifice of the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead , to expiate those sins , which are not expiated by the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross , and that by the bare opus operatum , by the offering this Sacrifice of the Mass it self , without any good motion in the person for whom it is offered . These are some more of his Mis-representations , to which he adds , That when Christ was sacrificed upon the Cross , he expiated only for the eternal punishment of sin ; when sacrificed in the Mass only , for the temporal . What has he to say to this , only three loud Calumnies . We teach , that Christ on the Cross gave himself a full Redemption for all the guilt and debt of sinners , who apply to themselves that precious Bloud by the means appointed by Christ. Very tender this ! But did Christ expiate the sins only of true penitent and reformed sinners ? Is that the only means of applying his precious Bloud to us ? That by the Sacrifice of the Mass , as also by any good Christian Prayers for obdurate sinners , such Graces may be obtained as shall work in them their salvation ; but that no sin is remitted to an impenitent sinner . Very artificial and trickish still ! Does the Sacrifice of the Mass expiate sins , or not ? Do other good Christian Prayers expiate sin ? Why then does he joyn the Sacrifice of the Mass , and other good Christian Prayers , as if they attribute no more expiation to the Mass , than to Christian Prayers ? Is the Sacrifice of the Mass to obtain Grace for sinners , or to expiate sin ? Pray what Grace is obtained by the Sacrifice of the Mass for those who are dead ? or is the Sacrifice of the Mass available for obdurate sinners , or for those only who are in a state of Grace ? But pray , why not one word to ●he main case , that the Mass expiates those sins , for which the Sacrifice of the Cross made no Expiation ? What he adds , That no sin is remitted to an impenitent sinner , is nothing to the purpose ; the question is , Whether no man shall be pardoned , who does not reform his sin , and live a holy life ? These are two things in the Church of Rome , where men receive Absolution upon their Contrition , as is pretended , who never reform their lives . But as for the Opus Operatum he tells us , It hath no reference to him , who receives the Sacraments , — but to those who administer the Sacraments , from whose Piety they take not their force . This I know Cassander and some other moderate Romanists would have to be the sense , but in contradiction to the Doctrine of their Church : I shall not enter into that Dispute now : our present case is very plain . For the Mass is offered for the living and the dead , for those who are absent and know nothing of it , and therefore cannot joyn in the Oblation of this Sacrifice ; that if it have any vertue it must be its own , the bare Opus Operatum , without any good motion of him , for whom it is offered . A Fourth Gospel Motive to Holiness is the Intercession of Christ for us at the right hand of God. Because he mediates and interceeds only for true penitent Sinners ; which obliges us , as we hope for any benefit from the Intercession of Christ , heartily to repent of our sins , and live a new life : but the Church of Rome has found out a great many other Advocates and Mediators , who by their great Interest in Christ , or favour with God , may obtain that pardon , which otherwise they could not hope for : and that this must be the meaning of their Addresses to Saints and the Virgin Mary , I proved , because there is no other account to be given of it ; for will they say , that Christ wants Will or Power to undertake our Cause , if we be such , as according to the terms of the Gospel it is his Office to interceed for : I confess'd , it was hard to think , that they should imagine , that the Intercession of the Virgin Mary , or the most powerful Saints can prevail with our Saviour to do that , which according to the Laws of his own Mediation , they know he cannot and will not do . But yet so it is , that is , thus they do , and there is no other account to be given of it but this . This he says is a bare-faced Calumny ! But what is the Calumny ? that they do pray to Saints and the Virgin ? or that such vile Wretches hope to be hea●d by them , who could not reasonably expect , that Christ would hear them upon their own account ? Let him have a care of calling this a Calumny ; there are many fine Stories , how gracious the Blessed Virgin has been to the most profligate Villains , which I suppose are related for this purpose to make such Wretches great Devotoes of the Virgin. What he says , That the blessed Saints only joyn their Prayers to ours to obtain mercy of Christ , is nothing to our present purpose : the Question is , Why those who have so mercifuland compassionate an High-Priest , should make such frequent Addresses to other Advocates , if they did not hope to find them more pitiful and compassionate , to obtain that for them of their Saviour by their Interest and Intercession , which good men know , they may have of Christ for asking , without applying to other Advocates . A Fifth Gospel Motive to a Holy Life is the hope of Heaven and the fear of Hell ; but then the terror of Hell is mightily abated by the Doctrine of Purgatory , for though Purgatory be a terrible place , yet it is not eternal ; — especially considering how many easie ways there are for men to get out of Purgatory : those who can buy Indulgencies , while they live , or Masses for their Souls , when they die , need not lie long there , if the Priests are not out in their reckoning . Here he finds three Calumnies . The first , That Catholicks exempt Sinners from Hell , who in the Protestant Doctrine would be condemned to it . No unrepented mortal sin is lodged in Purgatory , or escapes Hell. Now I confess , though I did not say so , yet I think they do ; and I grant it is a true consequence of my Argument : That all impenitent Sinners shall go to Hell , we both agree ; but then we make the reformation of our lives essential to repentance , and how sorrowful soever men are for their sins , if they live after such sorrow and do not reform their lives , they shall go to Hell. In the Church of Rome , at most contrition or sorrow for sin is all that is necessary to Absolution , and that keeps them out of Hell , and such men must expiate their sins by Penance in this World , or in Purgatory in the next , but though they do not reform their sins , if they be cont●ite and absolved again , they are restored to a state of Grace again , and so toties quoties . Now such Penitents as are sorry for their sins , but do not reform them , are condemned to Hell 〈◊〉 the Protestant Church , and only to Purgatory in the Church of Rome : and therefore the First is no Calumny . The Second is , That Indulgencies may be bought for Money , this is no Calumny as I have already shewn , or avail a Soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them , through want of contrition , the guilt of sin not being before remitted . This I never said , and therefore is no Calumny of mine . The third , That Masses said for any Soul in Purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy . This I take to be nonsense according to the Doctrines of their own Church . For certainly those Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory , have merit enough to receive the benefit of Masses . Another Gospel-Motive to Holiness are the Examples of Good Men , but in the Church of Rome the extraordinary Vertues of great and meritorious Saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of Merits . The more Saints they have , the less need is there for other men to be Saints , unless they have a mind to it , because there is a greater treasure of Merits to relieve those who have none of their own — and if one man can merit for twenty , there is no need there should be above one in twenty good . Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Merit , as it relates to a reward , or as it expiates the punishment of sin . In the first sense he says Merit is personal , not communicative ; but if it be communicative in the second sense , that one man may be delivered from punishments by the Merits of another , ( and if it be not , there is an end of the gainful trade of Indulgencies ) that is sufficient to my Argument , and will satisfie most sinners , who are not concerned about degrees of glory , if they can escape punishment . Lastly I shewed , that the Gospel-Means and Instruments of Holiness , do not escape much better in the Church of Rome : among others I instanced in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper , which besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace , which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution , is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness — but in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew , which no body can be edified with , or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead , which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life . Here he says , there are three crying Calumnies . 1. That the Sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice , whereas they very often receive it ; and did I say the Sacrament was never received in the Church of Rome ? 2. That they require the practice of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament , whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare for the Eucharist . But I spoke of those Vertues which were to be exercised in receiving , which there are not such advantages for in the Church of Rome , where the Office is not understood , and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant Ceremonies . 3. That our exposing the blessed Sacrament , is a dumb shew , and so we assist at holy Mass. And whether it be or no , let those judge , who have seen the Ceremony . How much the Sacrifice of the Mass encourages Vertue , we have already seen . I doubt not but our Jesuite can give as good an Answer to this Vindication , as he did to the Preservative , and I as little doubt but he will ; unless Mr. Needham's Name to the License may be my security , for he has threatned , it shall be to him a sufficient Note and Character of a Book , not worth the Reading , much less the Censuring , where-ever he sees , that Reverend Person has opened it the Press : and I commend him for it , for he has had very ill success with such Books of late : but though I never grudge my pains in answering an Adversary , who gives occasion for any useful and material Discourse , ( for I desire whatever I say , should be sifted to the very bottom , and am as ready to own any Error , I am convinced of , as to vindicate the Truth ) ▪ yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great Book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse Comment , which has been my present Task : Thus any Book may be answered , by a man , who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it : and such Answers may be easily answered again by men , who have nothing else to do ; but if this trade grow too common , they must be very idle people indeed , who will find time to read them . And therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future , before I take leave of my Adversary , I will venture to give him a little good Advice , which may stand him in stead against the next time . 1. That he would be more modest and sparing in his Title-page ; not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous : it is a little too much to talk of Principles which destroy all right use of Reason , Scripture , Fathers , Councils , undermine Divine Faith , and abuse Moral Honesty . Or Forty malicious Culumnies and forged untruths , besides several Fanatical Principles , which destroy all Church Discipline , and oppose Christ's Divine Authority . If such things be proved against any Book , I assure you it is very terrible , though there be nothing of it in the Title , but the World has been so long deceived with Titles , that commonly the more the Title promises , the less they expect in the Book . Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill , othe●s , the Man raves , and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther , the disappointment they meet with , provokes their scorn , or indignation . The bare name of an Answer to a Book , which is commonly known and approved , is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it , but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the Readers by a frightful Title . 2. That he would not think , he has confuted a Book by picking out some sayings , which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious , but in which the main Argu●ent of the Book is not concerned : this is the case in many passages he has objected against the Preservative , for though there is never a one , but what is very defensible , and what I have defended , yet there are many , that if they could not be defended , the main Argument of the Book is never the worse : This is as vain , as to think to kill a man by laun●hing a Sore , while all his Vitals are sound and untoucht . 3. That he would not boast of confuting a Book , without bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it . I know in his Postscript , he says , that he omitted nothing in Answer to the First part of the Preservative , that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument ; that all the rest , which he did not answer in his single sheet , was only swelled up with words , but void of Sense and Reason . A strange Tympany this poor Preservative was sick of , that when the wordy swelling was taken down , that and the Answer too could be reduced to a single sheet . But the Prefacer he says , should have pointed at some pretended proofs , which he slighted to expose , or have praised him for not wearying his Readers with a dull prolixity . But the Prefacer pointed him to the Book , and that was enough , unless he would have had him transcribe the Book again , and concluded every entire Argument , with this is not Answered by the Iesuite . For I know not any one paragraph , that he has pretended to answer , though some single sayings he has nibled at , and little pieces of Argument , as appears from this Vindication , and that so dully too , that there was no need of more prolixity to tire his Readers . Our Author little thinks , how he exposes his Reputation among our people by such vain brags as these : They can find a great many Arguments , which he has not medled with , and therefore conclude the Jesuite to be very blind , or very impudent in pretending to have answered all he could find , or ( which it may be is the truth of the case ) that he was not trusted to read the Preservative , but had some sayings picked out for him to answer , and he mistook them for the whole . 4 ly , That when he talks big of Calumnies and Misrepresentation , he woul● not only say but prove them to be so : that is , that I attribute any Doctrines to them , which are not taught by their own Councils and Doctors , or impute such Practices to them , as they are not guilty of : for this Cry of Misrepresenting is grown so familiar now , and that Charge has been so often bafled of late , that our People will not take his Word for it , nor allow every Argument he cannot Answer , to pass for a Misrepresentation . 5 ly , I would advise him to have a care , that he do not Confute his own Church , while he is zealous to Confute his Adversary ; this often happens , and has done so to him in this very Dispute : especially in his Talk of Moral Infallibility , which has effectually given up the Roman pretences to Infallibility , as I have shewn above . 6 ly , If he resolves to Write again ; I desire him to take but any one Chapter or Section in the Preservative , and try his skill on it ; not to pick out a single Saying or two , but to Answer the whole Series of Argument● , as they lie there ; and if he can make any work of it , I promise him a very grave and modest Reply . But if he skips about from one Page to another , and only hunts for Calumnies and Misrepresentations as he calls them , which he first artificially makes , by changing Words and Periods , and joyning Sentences , which have no relation to each other , and then triumphs over his own Creatures , I shall leave him to be answered and chastized by any Footman , who pleases to undertake him , and I wish the next may not be so much his Over-match , as the first was . I have taken no Notice of his Postscript in Answer to the Preface to the Protestant Footman's Defence of the Preservative . That Author is able to Answer for himself , if he thinks fit ; but I presume he looks upon that Dispute as at an end , if Disputes must ever have an end : for when all is said , that a Cause 〈◊〉 bear , and the same Arguments and the same Answers come to be repeated over again , it is time then for a modest man to have done , and to leave the World to judge ; unless Disputing be only an Art of Scolding , where the last Word is thought the Victory . THE END . Books Printed for , and are to be Sold by W. Rogers . Bp Wilkins his Fifteen Sermons . Octavo . Dr. Wallis of the Necessity of Regeneration : In Two Sermons to the University of Oxford . Quarto . — His Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions ; particularly those of Iuly , 1670. In Answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder . Quarto . The Necessity , Dignity and Duty of Gospel-Ministers , discoursed of before the University of Cambridge . By Tho. Hodges , B.D. Quarto . The Peaceable Christian. A Sermon . Quarto . Price , 3 d. A Treatise of Marriage , with a Defence of the 32 d Article of the Church of England , viz. Bishops , Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law , either to Vow the State of Single Life , or to Abstain from Marriage , &c. By Tho Hodges , B. D. Octavo . History of the Affairs of Europe in this present Age , but more particularly of the Republick of Venice . By Battista Nani Cavalier , of St. Mark. Fol. Sterry's Freedom of the Will. Folio . Light in the Wa● to Paradise , with other Occasionals . By Dudley the 2 d , late Lord North. Octavo . Molins of the Muscles , with Sir Charles Scarborough's Syllabus Musculorum . Octavo . A Collection of Letters of Gallantry . Twelves . Leonard's Reports , in Four Parts . The Second Edition . Folio . Bulstrode's Reports in Three Parts , the Second Edition Corrected ; with the Addition of Thousands of References . 1688. Fol. The Compleat Clark ; containing the best Forms of all sorts of Presidents , for Conveyances and Assurances ; and other Instruments now in . Use and Practice . Quarto . Sir Simon Degges Parsons Counsellor , with the Law of Tithes and Tithing . In Two Books . The Fourth Edition . Octavo . An Answer to the Bishop of Condom ( now of Meaux ) his Exposition of the Catholick Faith , &c. wherein the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is Detected , and that of the Church of England Expressed , from the Publick Acts of both Churches . To which are added Reflections on his Pastoral Letter . THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome , ●ruly Represen●ed ; in Answer to a Book , intituled , A Papist Misrepresented , and Represented , &c. Quarto . Third Edition . An Answer to a Discourse , intituled , Papists protesting against Protestant Popery ; being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants : And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux , late Bishop of Condom , his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , in the Articles of Invocation of Saints , Worship of Images , occasioned by that Discourse . Quarto . Second Edition . An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences , between the Representer and the Answerer . Quarto . A View of the 〈◊〉 ●ontroversie , between the Representer and the Answerer ; with an 〈◊〉 to the Representer's last Reply ; in which are ●id open some of the Methods , by which Protestants are Misreprensented by Papists . Quarto . The Doctrine of the Trinity , and Transubstantiation , compared as to Script●●●●eason , and Tradition ; in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist , the 〈◊〉 Part : Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation , in the Books called , Consensus Veterum , and Nubes Testiu● &c. Quarto . The Doctrine ●f the Trinity , and Transubstantiation , compared as to Scripture , Reason , and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist , the Second Part : Wherein the D●●●rine of the Trinity is shewed to b●●greeable , to Scripture and Reason , ●nd Transubstantiation repugnant to both . Quarto . An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part , in the first Dialogue , between him and his Lay-Friend . Of the Authority of Councils , and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality : With an Answer to the Eight Theses , laid down for the Tryal of the English Ref●●mation ; in a Bo●k that came lately from Oxford . Sermons and Discourses , some of which never before Printed : The Third Volume . By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson , Dean of Canterbury ▪ 8 o. A Manual for a Christian Souldier , Written by Erasmus , and Translated into English. Twelves . A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book , whereby one ( who hath a good Voice and Ear ) may without other help , learn to Sing true by Notes . Design'd chiefly for , and applied to , the promoting of Psalmody ; and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts , with Directions for that kind of Singing . Octavo . A Book of Cyphers , or Letters Reverst : being a Work very pleasant and useful , as well for Gentlemen 〈◊〉 all sorts of Artificers , Engravers , 〈…〉 Price 〈…〉 〈…〉 Communion in the 〈…〉 of C●●terbury . In Octavo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 ag●●nst Transubstantiation . In Octavo . Price 3 ● . The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began , as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Iulius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book . 4 o. A Letter to a Friend , Reflecting on some 〈◊〉 in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of 〈…〉 to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Fri●nd , against the 〈◊〉 Assaults of Mr. I. S. in his second Catholic Letter . In 〈◊〉 Dialogue 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolat●● : in which 〈◊〉 Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolat●● Considered 〈◊〉 Confuted . 4 o. The Protestant Resolv'd : or , a Discourse , ●hewing the ●●●easonableness of his Turning Roman Catholick for Salvation . Second 〈◊〉 8 o. The Absolute imp●●●●●ility of Transubstantiation demonstrated . 4 o. The Practical Believer : or , the Articles of the Apostles Creed . Drawn out to form a True Christian's Heart and Practice . In two Parts . 4 o. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy , D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence-Iury , Lond , Ian. 7th , 1685 / 6. 4 o. A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick Communion , from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome . In Answer to a late P●●●phlet , Intituled , An Agreement 〈…〉 Church of England and the Church of Rome , evinced from the 〈…〉 of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters . 2d Edition . A 〈…〉 against Popery ; being some Plain Directions to Unlearne● 〈…〉 to Dispute with Romish Priests . The First 〈◊〉 The Fourth 〈…〉 . T●● Second Part of the Preservativ●●gainst Popery : shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion . Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearn●● Protestants . The Second Editio● . A Discourse concerning the Nature ▪ Unity and Communi●●●● 〈…〉 Catholick Church : wherein 〈…〉 Controversies 〈…〉 the Church are briefly and plai●●y 〈…〉 The First Part. These Five last by 〈…〉 D. D. Master 〈…〉 Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A59899-e490 Answer to Preservative p. 4. Ibid. Answer p. 4. Answer , p. 4. Answer , p. 4. Preserv . p. 9. Answer to Pres. p. 4. Preservative Considered , p. 11. Preservative , Part ● p. 11. Answer to Preser . p. 5. Defence of Pr●s . p. 7. Preservat . Consider . p. 13. A Discourse conc●rning the Nature and Vnity of the Catholick Church . Answ. to Preserv . p. 6. Preserv . Part 1. p. 44 , 45. Answer to Prese●v . p. 6. Preservat . p. 79. Preserv . p. 80. Answer , p. 7. Preservat . Considered , p. 40. Preserv . Considered , p. 42. Pres. p. 72. Answer p. 2. Notes for div A59899-e6100 4 Matth. 10. Preserv . Consid . p. 61. Preserv . Consid . p. 68. Ibid. p. 70. Ibid. p. 70. 2 Cor. 4.18 . 11 John 25 , 26. Preserv . Consid . p. 86. P. 80. P. 80. Ibid. Pag. 19. Pag. 79. Pag. 81. Pag. 79. Pag. 85. Ibid. Pag. 81. P. 87. Pag. 87. Pag. 77. Pag. 82. Pag. 78. Pag. 79. Pag. 78. Pag. 82. Pag. 83. 


id: A61561
fulltext:
   The Jesuits loyalty, manifested in three several treatises lately written by them against the oath of allegeance with a preface shewing the pernicious consequence of their principles as to civil government. 1677 Approx. 405 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 100 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A61561 Wing S5599 ESTC R232544 12131586 ocm 12131586 54736 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61561) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 54736) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 880:3) The Jesuits loyalty, manifested in three several treatises lately written by them against the oath of allegeance with a preface shewing the pernicious consequence of their principles as to civil government. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. [2], 48, [2], XIV, 132 p. Printed by E. Flesher, for R. Royston ..., London : 1677. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Attributed (in part) to Bp. E. Stillingfleet. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Jesuits -- Great Britain. 2004-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-03 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-04 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2004-04 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE Jesuits Loyalty , Manifested in Three several TREATISES Lately written by them against the OATH of ALLEGEANCE : WITH A PREFACE , SHEWING The Pernicious Consequence of their Principles as to Civil Government . LONDON , Printed by E. Flesher , for R. Royston , Bookseller to His most Sacred MAJESTY , 1677. TO THE AUTHOURS Of the following TREATISES . Gentlemen , I Hope you will forgive me the not setting your Names before this Address , although I am not wholly a stranger to them : for however it be against the usual custome , yet you have reason to take it more kindly from me . I assure you , my design is , not to doe any injury to your Persons , but onely to let you and the world know , we are not altogether unacquainted with your present Principles , or Practices . And although , like the Plague , you walk in darkness , and doe mischief ; yet I intend onely to set such marks and characters upon you , that when others see them , they may take the wind of you , and avoid the Infection . It may be , men of your retirement and modesty may be somewhat surprised , to see themselves in print against their wills : but I hope you will pardon this presumption , and absolve me as soon as I have confessed my fault . For it is very agreeable to your Casuistical Theology so to doe , without staying for the performance of Penance ; and the contrary Doctrine is accounted one of the Heresies of Iansenism , which I know you love as little as the Oath of Allegeance . I find in a Supplication to the late Pope Clement X. That to assert the necessity of Penance before Absolution , is to charge the Church with a dangerous Errour for four or five of the last Ages , and to revive an Opinion condemned by the Head of the Church . ( Which are the very same Arguments used in the First Treatise , for the Pope's Power of deposing Princes . ) You need not therefore wonder , if it be with me as it is with thousands of others , that when Absolution may be had at so easy a rate , I presume to offend . If I may be said to offend , in obtaining that for you , which you sometimes sadly complain of the want of , viz. a Liberty of printing your Books . You may by this see how frankly we deal with you , in that we do not onely suffer , but procure the coming abroad of your most mischievous Treatises . It may be you will be ready to ask me , if I account these Treatises such , why I venture to publish them . Because some Poisons lose their force when they are exposed to the open air : And it may doe good to others , to let them understand what Doses you give in private to your Patients . We are to hear of nothing from you , but Professions of the utmost Loyalty and Obedience to Government ; and that it is nothing but a little squeamish Scrupulosity of Conscience which makes any of your stomachs check at the Oath of Allegeance : the Ingredients are a little too gross and fulsome for you to get it down ; but if they were neatly done up in Pills and gilded over , to prevent the nauseousness of them , you could swallow them all , and they would work kindly with you . We have been told over and over , that you onely stick at some inconvenient Phrases and Modes of expression ; but for what concerned any real Security to the Government , you would be as forward and ready to give it , as any of His Majestie 's Subjects . If this really were the Case , you deserved both to be pitied and considered . But we thank you , Gentlemen , for the pains you have taken in these Treatises , to make us understand that this is not your Case . For it is easy to discern by them , what lies at the bottom of all , viz. the unwillingness to renounce the Pope's Power of deposing Princes . Which the Authour of the First Treatise , like an open plain-hearted man , avows and maintains : and the other two more craftily insinuate . I shall therefore deal freely with you in this matter , by endeavouring to prove these two things . 1. That if you do not renounce the Pope's Power of Deposing Princes , and Absolving Subjects from their Allegeance , you can give no real Security to the Government . 2. That if you do renounce it , you have no reason to stick at the Oath of Allegeance . 1. That if you do not renounce the Pope's Power of Deposing Princes , and Absolving Subjects from their Allegeance , you can give no real Security to the Government . I shall not insist on any of the beaten Topicks to prove this ; but onely make use of this Argument , That it is allowed by all Friends to our King and His Government , that the Commonwealth-Principles are destructive to it , and that none who do own them can give sufficient Security for their Allegeance . If I therefore prove , that all the mischievous Consequences of the Republican Principles do follow upon the owning the Pope's Power of deposing Princes , I suppose you will grant I sufficiently prove what I intend . Now the Mischief of the Commonwealth-Principles lay in these things : 1. Setting up a Court of Judicature over Sovereign Princes ; 2. Breaking the Oaths and Bonds of Allegeance men had entred into ; 3. Justifying Rebellion on the account of Religion . Every one of these I shall prove doth naturally follow from the Pope's Power of deposing Princes . 1. Setting up a Court of Iudicature over Sovereign Princes ; or , if you please , a Spiritual High Court of Iustice at Rome ; where Princes are often condemned without being heard , because they have no reason to acknowledge the Jurisdiction of the Court. It is no satisfaction , in this case , to distinguish of a direct and indirect Power : For however the Power comes , the effect and consequence of it is the same : as a man may be as certainly killed by a back blow , as by a thrust or downright stroke . But the Question is not , how the Pope came by this Power , which , I easily grant , was indirectly enough ; but whether he hath any such Sovereignty over Princes , as to be able by virtue thereof to depose them . And the Commonwealths-men do herein agree with you . For they do not say , that the People have a direct Power over their Princes ; ( which were a contradiction in it self , for Subjects to command their Sovereigns ; ) but onely , that in case of breach of Trust , the People have an indirect Power to call their Princes to an account , and to deprive them of their Authority . But are the Commonwealth-Principles the less mischievous to Government , because they onely assert an indirect Power in the People ? Why then should the same distinction be of less pernicious consequence in this case ? The main thing to be debated is , that which doth immediately concern the just Rights of Sovereignty , Whether Sovereign Princes have a Supreme and Independent Authority inherent in their Persons or no : or whether they are so accountable to others , that upon Male-administration they may be deprived of their Government . This is the first and chief Point : and the Republicans and Asserters of the Pope's Deposing power are perfectly agreed in the Affirmative of the latter Question , and onely differ as to the Persons in whom the Power of calling Princes to an Account doth lie ; whether it be in the Pope , or the People . And even as to this , they do not differ so much as men may at first imagine . For , however the Primitive Christians thought it no Flattery to Princes , to derive their Power immediately from God , and to make them accountable to him alone , as being Superiour to all below him , ( as might be easily proved by multitudes of Testimonies : ) yet , after the Pope's Deposing Power came into request , the Commonwealth-Principles did so too , and the Power of Princes was said to be of another Original , and therefore they were accountable to the People . Thus Gregory VII . that holy and meek-spirited Pope , not onely took upon him to Depose the Emperour , and absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance ; but he makes the first constitution of Monarchical Government to be a meer Vsurpation upon the just Rights and Liberties of the People . For he saith , That Kings and Princes had their beginning from those , who , being ignorant of God , got the power into their hands over their equals , ( through the instigation of the Devil , ) and by their pride , rapine , perfidiousness , murther , ambition , intolerable presumption , and all manner of wickedness . This excellent account of the Original of Monarchical Government we have from that famous Leveller Gregory VII . that most Holy and Learned Pope , who , for his Sanctity and Miracles , was canonized for a Saint ; as the Authour of the First Treatise notably observes . Did ever any Remonstrance , Declaration of the Army , or Agreement of the People , give a worse account of the beginning of Monarchy then this Infallible Head of the Church doth ? What follows from hence , but the justifying all Rebellion against Princes , which , upon these Principles , would be nothing else , but the People's recovering their just Rights against intolerable Usurpations ? For shame , Gentlemen , never upbraid us more with the pernicious Doctrines of the late Times as to Civil Government . The very worst of our Fanaticks never talked so reproachfully of it , as your canonized Saint doth . Their Principles and Practices we of the Church of England profess to detest and abhorre : but I do not see how those can doe it , who have that Self-denying Saint Gregory VII . in such mighty veneration . I pray , Gentlemen , tell me what Divine Assistence this good Pope had , when he gave this admirable Account of the Original of Civil Government : and whether it be not very possible , upon his Principles , for men to be Saints and Rebells at the same time . I have had the curiosity to enquire into the Principles of Civil Government among the fierce Contenders for the Pope's Deposing power ; and I have found those Hypotheses avowed and maintained , which justifie all the Practices of our late Regicides , who when they wanted materials , and Examples of former Ages , when they had a mind to seem learned in Rebellion , they found no Smith in Israel , but went down to the Philistins , to sharpen their fatal Axe . Else , how came the Book of Succession to the Crown of England to be shred into so many Speeches , and licensed then by such Authority as they had , to justify their Proceedings against our late Sovereign of glorious Memory ? Wherein the main design is , to prove , That Commonwealths have sometimes lawfully chastised their lawfull Princes , though never so lawfully descended , or otherwise lawfully put in possession of their Crowns : and that this hath fallen out ever , or for the most part , commodious to the Weal-publick ; and that it may seem that God approved and prospered the same , by the good Success and Successours that ensued thereof . These were the Principles of the most considerable men of that Party here in England at that time . For it is a great and common mistake in those that think the Book of Succession to have been written by F. Parsons alone . For he tells us , that Card. Allen , Sir Francis Inglefield , and other principal persons of our Nation , are known to have concurred to the laying together of that Book , as by their own hands is yet extant ; and this to the publick benefit of our Catholick Cause . First , that English Catholicks might understand what special and precise Obligation they have to respect Religion , in admitting any new Prince , above all other Respects humane under heaven . And this is handled largely , clearly , and with great variety of learning , reasons , doctrine , and examples , throughout the First Book . This was purposely intended for the Exclusion of His Majestie 's Royall Family , K. Iames being then known to be a firm Protestant : and therefore two Breves were obtained from the Pope to exclude him from the Succession ; which were sent to Garnet , Provincial of the Iesuits . One began , Dilectis Filiis , Principibus , & Nobilibus Catholicis ; the other , Dilecto Filio , Archipresbytero , & reliquo Clero Anglicano . In both which the Pope exhorts them , not to suffer any person to succeed in the Crown of England , how near soever in Bloud , unless he would , not barely tolerate the Catholick Faith , but promote it to the utmost , and swear to maintain it . By virtue of which Apostolical Sentence Catesby justified himself in the Gun-powder-Treason : For , saith he , if it were lawfull to exclude the King from the Succession , it is lawfull to cast him out of Possession ; and that is my work , and shall be my care . Thus we see the Pope's Deposing power was maintained here in England , by such who saw how necessary it was for their purpose to defend the Power of Commonwealths over their Princes , either to exclude them from Succession to the Crown , or to deprive them of the Possession of it . The same we shall find in France , in the time of the Solemn League and Covenant there , in the Reigns of Henry III. and IV. For those who were engaged so deep in Rebellion against their lawfull Princes , found it necessary for them to insist on the Pope's Power to depose , and the People's to deprive their Sovereigns . Both these are joyned together in the Book written about the just Reasons of casting off Henry III. by one who was then a Doctour of the Sorbon : wherein the Authour begins with the Power of the Church ; but he passes from that , to the Power of the People . He asserts * the Fundamental and Radical Power to be so in them , that they may call Princes to account for Treason against the People ; which he endeavours at large to prove by Reason , by Scripture , by Examples of all sorts , forrein and domestick . And he adds , That in such cases they are not to stand upon the niceties and forms of Law ; but that the necessities of State do supersede all those things . If this man had been of Counsel for the late Regicides , he could not more effectually have pleaded their Cause . The next year after the Murther of Henry III. by a Monk , acted and inspired by these Rebellious Principles , came forth another virulent Book against Henry IV. under the name of Rossaeus ; but written by W. Reynolds , a furious English Papist , who , with his Brethren , contributed their utmost assistence to the Rebellious Leaguers in France ; as appears by the Books then written . This man proceeds upon the same two Fundamental Principles of Rebellion , the Power of the People , and the Deposing power of the Pope . He makes all Obedience to Princes to be so far conditional , that if they doe not their duty , their Subjects are free from their obligation to obey them : and saith , that the contrary opinion is against the Law of Nations , and the common Reason of Mankind . And with great vehemency he pleads for the Supreme Power over Princes to lie in the Body of the People , or their Representative : Which he endeavours to prove by the consent of Nations . And it is observable , that he makes the Right of Succession by nearness of Bloud to be a Calvinistical Doctrine . For , he saith , Those pretended Catholicks who pleaded for the Right of the King of Navarre , though of a different Religion , had onely the name of Catholicks , but were in truth impudent Calvinists . The good Catholick Doctrine which he asserts , is , that no Obedience is due to an Heretical Prince : Which he goes about to prove with more then fanatick zeal . But whereas the Fanaticks had onely the Power of the People to justify themselves by ; he calls in the Deposing Power of the Pope too ; upon which he largely insists . Yet this is the Book so highly commended in France by Clement VIII 5 Nuncio , the Cardinal of Placentia . By which we see , how well the Republican Principles do agree with the Pope's Deposing power . Which may be better understood , when we consider , that these were the common Principles of the whole Party of the League ; as might be proved from several authentick Testimonies , if it were needfull . And he is a mighty stranger in History , that doth not know how that Party was encouraged and abetted by the Court of Rome ; and how Sixtus V. made a Fanatick Oration in the Consistory at Rome , upon the Murther of Henry III. by a Iacobin Frier , after eight days fasting and prayer to prepare himself for so holy an Act , and celebrating Masse , and commending himself to the prayers of others ; as one tells us who well knew all the circumstances of that horrid Murther . This Oration is now stoutly denied by persons of greater zeal then knowledge ; but Will. Warmington , a Romish Priest , not onely assures us that he had seen the Copy printed at Paris 1589. the year of the King's death , with the Approbation of 3 Doctours of the Faculty of Paris , ( whereof one , viz. Boucher , was the Authour of the Book of The just Abdication of Henry III. ) but he saith , that being then at Rome , he sent it to William Reynolds , ( the Authour of the other Treatise , ) who looked on it as an Approbation of the Frier's fact ; and said , he could not have been gratified by any thing more , then by sending him the Approbation of the See Apostolick , because he was then writing his Book . This Speech was published from the Notes of Card. Allen , as Warmington saith , who was then one of his Chaplains , imploy'd by him in transcribing it ; and the Pope himself acknowledged it to be his own Oration . Let the World then judge , whether the Regicides Doctrine doth not very well agree with the Maxims of the Roman Court. So true is that saying of Spalatensis , that the Popes and their followers make it their business to lessen the Authority of Princes , and to make it as mean and contemptible as they can . And the countenancing the Proceedings of the Covenanters in France against Henry IV. by the successive Popes was so open and notorious , that the necessity of his Affairs drove him to the Change of his Religion : but because he was not a Persecuter of Hereticks to that degree they desired , after several attempts upon his Person , by men of these Principles , we all know it cost him his Life at last . And I have it from a very good hand , that Ravilliac himself confessed , that the Reason which induced him to murther his Sovereign was , because he did not think him obedient enough to the Pope . Thus we find the most mischievous Commonwealth-Principles have been very well entertained at Rome , as long as they are subservient to the Pope's Deposing power . But if we enquire farther into the Reason of these Pretences , we shall find them alike on both sides . The Commonwealths-men , when they are asked , how the People , having once parted with their Power , come to resume it ; they presently run to an implicit Contract between the Prince and the People , by virtue whereof the People have a Fundamental Power left in themselves , which they are not to exercise but upon Princes violation of the Trust committed to them . The very same Ground is made the Foundation of the Pope's Deposing power , viz. an implicit Contract that all Princes made when they were Christians , to submit their Scepters to the Pope's Authority . Which is so implicit , that very few Princes in the world ever heard of it , unless they were such who took their Crowns from the Popes hands , after they had resigned them to them ; which few besides our King Iohn were ever so mean-spirited to doe . I reade indeed that Albertus , Archduke of Austria , in late times accepted the Government of Flanders with Isabella Clara Eugenia , upon these terms , That if any of their Posterity were declared Hereticks by the Pope , they should lose all their Right to those Provinces ; and that the People should be no longer bound to obey them , but to take the next Successour . This is a very unusual Condition , and I leave it to the Politicians to dispute how far such a Condition can oblige a Sovereign Prince ; since it is declared in the case of King Iohn , that the Resignation of the Crown to the Pope is a void Act : and so consequently will the imposing any such Condition be as inconsistent with the Rights of Sovereignty . But in the general case of Princes , nothing is pleaded but an implicit Contract , where by Princes being Excommunicated by the Pope , must lose all that just Authority over the People which they had before . But who made such Conditional Settlements of Civil Power upon Princes ? Who keeps the ancient Deeds and Records of them ? For all the first Ages of the Christian Church , this Conditional Power and Obedience was never heard of . Not when Emperours were open and declared Infidels or Hereticks . What reason can be supposed more now , then was in the times of Constantius and Valens , that were Arian Hereticks ? Yet the most learned , zealous and orthodox Bishops of that time never once thought of their losing their Authority by it : as I could easily prove , if the design of this Preface would permit me . Suppose there were an Escheat of Power made , how comes it to fall into the Pope's hands ? If it be by virtue of Excommunication , every Bishop that hath Power to Excommunicate , will likewise have Power to Depose Princes : and what a fine case are Princes in , if their Power lies at the mercy of every insolent or peevish Bishop ? If it be not by the Power of Excommunication , by what Power is it that the Prince is Deposed by the Pope ? Is it by virtue of Pasce oves , and Dabo tibi Claves ? That Prince's case is extremely to be pitied , that hath no better Security for his Power , then what the Pope hath for his from those places , in the judgment of the most ingenuous persons of the Roman Communion . And it seems a very hard case , that Princes should lose their unquestionable Rights for the sake of so doubtfull an Authority , at best , as that of the Popes , especially over Princes , is . And it is so much the more hard with them , because no private person loses his Estate by Excommunication ; and yet Princes must lose their Kingdoms by it . This is indeed no Court Holy-water , nor a design to flatter Princes ; but such horrible Injustice and Partiality , that it is a wonder to me , the Princes of Christendom have not long since combined together to dethrone him , who thinks it in his power to depose them , thereby making himself the Caliph of the Western Babylon . And so , no doubt , they would have done , had it not been for the difference of Interests among Christian Princes , that have made some therefore side with and uphold the Papal Monarchy , because others opposed it ; and every one hopes , at one time or other , to make use of it for his own turn . But yet methinks it is their common Interest , to secure themselves against the prevalency of this dangerous Doctrine on their own Subjects : for all those who believe it , are but Conditional Subjects to their Princes , for their Obedience depends on the Will and Pleasure of another , whom they think themselves bound absolutely to obey , and yet not bound to believe he did right in Excommunicating and Deposing their Prince . For they dare not say he is Infallible in his Proceedings against Princes : so that right or wrong they must obey the Pope , and disobey their lawfull Sovereign . If the Pope through Pride , or Passion , or Interest , or Misinformation , thunder out Excommunication against a Christian Prince , ( all which , they say , he is capable of in pronouncing this dreadfull Sentence , ) then all his Subjects are presently free from their Allegeance , and they may doe what they please against him . And what a miserable condition were Sovereign Princes in , if all Christians were such Fools , to think themselves bound to obey an unjust Sentence of the Bishop of Rome against their just and lawfull Prince ? For upon these Principles , though the Popes be never so much Parties , they must be the onely Iudges in this case . And what redress is to be expected there , where it is so much the Interest of the person concerned , to have it believed he cannot erre ? If these were really the terms of Princes being admitted to Christianity , it would make the most considerable Argument to perswade them to Infidelity . For what have they to doe to judge them that are without ? But Princes have no cause to be afraid of being Christians for the sake of this Doctrine : For if Christ and his Apostles were the best Teachers of Christianity , this is certainly no part of it . For the Religion they taught never meddled with Crowns and Scepters , but left to Caesar the things that were Caesar's , and never gave the least intimation to Princes of any Forfeiture of their Authority , if they did not render to God the things that are God's . The Christian Religion left mankind under those Forms and Rules of Civil Government in which it found them : it onely requires all men , of what rank or order soever , to be subject to the Higher Powers , because they are the Ordinance of God ; and bids all Christians pray for them in Authority , that under them they may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty . Thus far the Christian Religion goes in these matters , and thus the Primitive Christians believed and practised , when their Religion was pure , and free from the Corruptions and Usurpations which the Interests and Passions of men introduced in the following Ages . And how then come Princes in these latter times to be Christians upon worse and harder terms then in the best Ages of it ? But how doth it appear that Princes do become Christians upon such Conditions , that if the Pope Excommunicate them , they lose their Crowns ? What Office of Baptism is this contained in ? Did their Godfathers and Godmothers undertake this for them ? No , that is not said , but that it is implied in the nature of the thing . How so ? Is it because Dominion is founded in Grace ? No , not that neither . But in my mind there is very little difference , between Dominion being founded in Grace , and being forfeited for want of it . And so we are come about to the Fanatick Principles of Government again ; which this Deposing power in the Pope doth naturally lead men to . But this is not all the Mischief of this Doctrine ; For , 2. It breaks all Bonds and Oaths of Obedience , how sacred and solemn soever they have been . That we may the better apprehend the pernicious consequence of this Doctrine , we are to consider , ( 1. ) That there is a mutual Duty owing between Princes and Subjects , on the account of the Relation between them , such as doth naturally arise from it , and antecedently to their embracing the Christian Religion . For without an obligation to Obedience on the Subjects part , the Authority of a Prince is an insignificant thing , and the publick good of the Society cannot be obtained . ( 2. ) That when Subjects are Absolved from their Oaths of Allegeance by the Pope , they are thereby declared free from that natural Duty they were obliged to before . For Allegeance to Princes doth not flow from the Relation between them and the People as Christians , but as Members of a Civil Society ; and therefore the Absolving Subjects from that , is in plain terms nulling the Obligation to a natural Duty , and taking away the force of Oaths and Promises . ( 3. ) That all mankind are agreed , that it is a Sin to break a lawfull Oath ; and the more solemn and weighty the Oath is , the greater the Perjury : but in case of the Pope's Absolving Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance , it must be said , that that which otherwise would be a Sin , becomes none ; and a notorious Crime becomes a Duty , because done by virtue of the Pope's Authority . This is that now we are to understand , if possible , what Authority that is in the Pope which can turn Evil into Good , and Good into Evil ; that can make Civil Obedience to Princes to be a Crime , and Perjury to be none . This is an admirable Power , and greater then the Schoolmen will allow to God himself , where there is intrinsick Goodness in the nature of the thing , and inseparable Evil from the contrary to it . For , say they , Divine Providence being supposed , God cannot but forbid those evil actions which natural reason discovers to be evil : for how can the Hatred of God , or a wilfull Lie , be any other then evil ? The same I say of Disobedience to Parents , and violation of Oaths lawfully made ; which are things evil in their own nature . The Question now is , whether the Pope can doe that which they say God himself cannot , viz. make Perjury not to be a Sin. For an Oath of Allegeance cannot be denied to be a lawfull Oath , and a lawfull Oath lays an obligation on Conscience to the performance of it , and gives another a just right to challenge that Allegeance as a Duty by virtue of his Oath ; and where-ever there is a necessary Duty , God himself , saith Aquinas , cannot dispense : for then ▪ he would act contrary to the Rule of Eternal Righteousness ; which he can never doe . It is true , they grant , that God , in regard of his Supreme Dominion , can alter the matter or circumstances of things ; as in Abraham's sacrificing his Son upon God's particular Command , which in those circumstances was not Murther : but this , they say well , is no Dispensation with the Law , nor any act of Iurisdiction as a Legislator ; but onely an act of Supreme Power . But our Question is onely , about Dispensing with the force and obligation of a Law of Nature , such as keeping our Oaths undoubtedly is . And since God himself is not allowed the Power of dispensing , it seems very strange how the Pope should come by it ; unless it were out of a desire to exalt himself above all that is called God. Thomas Aquinas saith , that there can be no Dispensation to make a man doe any thing against his Oath ; for , saith he , keeping an Oath is an indispensable divine precept : but all the force of a Dispensation lies in altering the matter of an Oath , which being variable may be done . To clear this , in every Oath are three things to be considered : ( 1. ) the Obligation upon the person to perform what he swears to ; ( 2. ) the Right which the person hath to challenge that performance to whom the Oath is made ; ( 3. ) the interest which God hath , as Supreme Judge , to see to the performance , and to punish the breakers of it . Now which of these is it the Pope's Dispensation in a promissory Oath doth fall upon ? Surely the Pope doth not challenge to himself God's Supreme Power of punishing or not punishing Offenders ; so that if men do break their Oaths , if they have the Pope's Dispensation , they do not fear the punishment of Perjured persons . I am willing to believe this is not their meaning . It must therefore be one of the former . But then how comes the Pope to have power to give away another man 's natural Right ? A man swears Allegeance to his Prince , by virtue of which Oath the Prince challenges his Allegeance as a sworn Duty : and so it is according to all Rules of common Reason and Justice . The Pope he dispenseth with this Oath , and absolveth the person from this Allegeance ; i. e. the Pope gives away the Prince's Right whether he will or no. Is not this great Justice , and infinitely becoming God's Vicar upon earth ? But how came the Pope by that Right of the Prince which he gives away ? The Right was a just and natural Right , belonging to him on a meer civil account : what Authority then hath the Pope to dispose of it ? May he not as well give away all the just Rights of men to their Estates , as those of Princes to their Crowns ? The very plain Truth is , the Defenders of the Pope's indirect Power are forced to shuffle and cut , and make unintelligible distinctions , and in effect to talk non-sense about this matter . The onely men that speak sense are those who assert the Pope in plain Terms to have a direct Temporal Monarchy , and that all Kings are their Subjects and Vasalls ; and therefore they may dispose of their Crowns , and doe what they please with them . We know what these men would have ; and if Princes be tame enough to submit to this Power , they own the Pope as their true Sovereign Lord , and must rule , or not rule , at his Pleasure . But it is impossible for those who contend onely for Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Pope , to defend his Power of Absolving Subjects from their Allegeance to Princes , since this Power of altering the matter is not an act of Iurisdiction , but of meer Power , as was said before as to God himself in the case of Abraham . Therefore those who contend onely for the Pope's dispensing with Oaths of Allegeance on the account of his Spiritual Jurisdiction , can never justify the giving away the natural Rights of Princes ; for that is an act of Power , and not of Iurisdiction . And Cajetan well observes , that the relaxation of an Oath by altering the matter , is an act of direct Power , because the thing it self is immediately under the power of the person ; as in a Father over his Son , or a Lord over his Vassall : and therefore the Dispensing with the Oath of Allegeance cannot be by the alteration of the matter , unless a direct Power over Princes be asserted . Cajetan laies down a good Rule about Dispensing with Oaths , that in them we ought to see that no prejudice be done to the person to whom and for whose sake they are made : and therefore , he saith , the Pope himself hath not that Power over Oaths , which he hath over Vows . And yet Maldonat saith , that neither the Pope , nor the whole Church , can dispense in a solemn Vow : and that a Dispensation in such cases is no less then an Abrogation of the Law of God and Nature . Dominicus à Soto saith , that although the Pope may dispense in a Vow , yet he cannot in an Oath . For , saith he , the Pope cannot relax an Oath which one man hath made to another of paying to him what he owes him ▪ which ariseth from the nature of the Contract which is confirmed by an Oath . The Pope having not the Power to take away from another man that which doth belong to him ▪ cannot doe him so much injury as to relax the Oath which is made to him . And in the loosing of Oaths , care ought to be taken that there be no injury to a third person . Afterwards he puts this case , whether if the Pope dispenseth with an Oath without just cause , that Dispensation will free a man from Perjury . Which he denies , for this Reason , because a Dispensation cannot hold in the Law of God or Nature . Therefore since it is a Law of God , that a man should perform what he swears , although that Bond doth arise from the will and consent of the party , yet it cannot be dissolved without sufficient Reason . But what reason can be sufficient , he determines not . However , we have gained thus much , that the Pope cannot take away the Right of a third person ; which he must doe , if he can Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance to their Prince , which is as much due to him , as a summe of money is to a Creditor . I grant , after all this , that Cajetan and Soto both yield to the common Doctrine of their Church , about Dispensing with Oaths made to Excommunicated persons , by way of punishment to them : but they do not answer their own Arguments . And Cajetan saith , that caution is to be used , lest prejudice be done to another by it : i. e. they durst not oppose the common Opinion , although they saw sufficient Reason against it . Cardinal Tolet seems to speak home to our case , when he saith , that an Oath made to the benefit of a third person cannot be dispensed with , no not by the Pope himself , without the consent of that person ; as the Pope cannot take away another man's goods . One would have thought this had been as full to our purpose as possible ; and so it is as to the Reason of the thing . But he brings in after it a scurvy exception of the case of Excommunicated persons , without offering the least shew of Reason why the common Rules of Iustice and Honesty ought not to be observed towards persons censured by the Church : Nor doth he attempt to shew , how the Pope comes by that Power of Dispensing with Oaths in that case , which he freely declares he hath not in any other . Gregory Sayr thinks he hath nicked the matter , when with wonderfull subtilty he distinguisheth between the free act of the will in obliging it self by an Oath , and the Obligation following upon it , to perform what is sworn . Now , saith he , the Pope in Dispensing doth not take away the second , viz. the Obligation to perform the Oath , the Bond remaining , for that were to go against the Law of God and Nature ; but because every Oath doth suppose a Consent of the will , the Dispensation falls upon that , and takes away the force of the Oath from it . If this Subtilty will hold , for all that I can see , the Pope may dispense with all the Oaths in the world , and justify himself upon this Distinction : for , as Azorius well observes , if the Reason of Dispensing be drawn from the Consent of the will , which is said to be subject to the Pope , he may at his pleasure dispense with any Oath whatsoever . Sayr takes notice of Azorius his dissatisfaction at this Answer , but he tells him to his teeth , that he could bring no better ; yea , that he could find out no Answer at all . Azorius indeed acknowledges the great difficulty of explaining this Dispensing power of the Pope as to Oaths ; and concludes at last , that the Bond of an Oath cannot be loosed by the Pope , but for some Reason drawn from the Law of Nature ; which is in effect to deny his Authority : for if there be a Reason from the Law of Nature against the obligation of an Oath , the Bond is loosed of it self . Others therefore go the plainest way to work , who say , that all Oaths have that tacit Condition in them , If the Pope please . But Sayr thinks this a little too broad ; because then it follows evidently , that the Pope may dispense as he pleases without cause ; which , he saith , is false . Others again have found out a notable device of distinguishing between the Obligation of Iustice ▪ and of Religion , in an Oath ; and say , that the Pope can take away the Religious Obligation of an Oath , though not that of Iustice. This Widdrington saith was the Opinion of several grave and learned Catholicks in England ; and therefore they said they could not renounce the Pope's Power of absolving persons from the Oath of Allegeance . But he well shews this to be a vain and impertinent Distinction , because the intention of the Oath of Allegeance is , to secure the Obligation of Iustice ; and the intention of the Pope in Absolving from that Oath is , to take it away : as he proves from the famous Canons , Nos Sanctorum , and Iuratos . So that this Subtilty helps not the matter at all . Paul Layman confesseth , that a promissory Oath made to a man cannot ordinarily be relaxed without the consent of the person to whom it is made : because by such an Oath a man , to whom it is made , doth acquire as just a right to the performance , as he hath to any of his Goods , of which he cannot be deprived . But from this plain and just Rule he excepts , as the rest do , the publick Good of the Church ; as though Evil might be done for the Good of the Church , although not for the Good of any private person : whereas the Churche's Honour ought more to be preserved by the ways of Iustice and Honesty . Wo be to them that make good evil , and evil good , when it serves their turn ; for this is plainly setting up a particular Interest under the name of the Good of the Church , and violating the Laws of Righteousness to advance it . If men break through Oaths , and the most solemn Engagements and Promises , and regard no Bonds of Iustice and Honesty , to compass their ends , let them call them by what specious names they please , the Good Old Cause , or the Good of the Church , ( it matters not which , ) there can be no greater sign of Hypocrisy and real Wickedness then this . For the main part of true Religion doth not lie in Canting phrases , or Mystical notions , neither in Specious shews of Devotion , nor in Zeal for the true Church : but in Faith , as it implies the performance of our Promises , as well as belief of the Christian Doctrine ; and in Obedience , or a carefull observance of the Laws of Christ , among which , Obedience to the King as Supreme is one : Which they can never pretend to be an inviolable Duty , who make it in the power of another person to Absolve them from the most solemn Oaths of Allegeance ; and consequently suppose , that to keep their Oaths in such case , would be a Sin , and to violate them may become a Duty : which is in effect to overturn the natural differences of Good and Evil , to set up a Controlling Sovereign Power above that of their Prince , and to lay a perpetual Foundation for Faction and Rebellion ; which nothing can keep men from , if Conscience and their solemn Oaths cannot . 3. Therefore the third Mischief common to this Deposing power of the Pope and Commonwealth-Principles , is , the Justifying Rebellion on the account of Religion . This is done to purpose in Boucher and Reynolds , the fierce Disputers for the Pope's and the People's Power . Boucher saith , that it is not onely lawfull to resist Authority on the account of Religion ; but that it is folly and impiety not to doe it , when there is any probability of success . And the Martyrs were onely to be commended for Suffering , because they wanted Power to resist . Most Catholick and Primitive Doctrine ! And that the Life of a Wicked Prince ought not to be valued at that rate as the Service of God ought to be : That when Christ paid tribute to Caesar , he did it as a private man , and not meddling with the Rights of the People : That , if the People had not exercised their Power over the lives of bad 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 all I commend your Conclusion , That if this Doctrine be an Errour , the Church of Rome for several Ages was a wicked and blind Church , and a Synagogue of Satan : and 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 Friers 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 . Bravely spoken , and like a true Disciple of Hildebrand ! Hear this , O ye Writers of Controversial Letters , and beware how ye fall into these mens hands . You may cry out upon these Opinions as long as you please , and make us believe your Church is not concerned in them : but if this Good man may be credited , you can never find Authority enough to make your Opinion so much as Probable . A very hard case for Princes , when it will not be allowed so much as probable , that Princes should keep their Crowns on their Heads , if the Pope thinks fit to take them away ; or that Subjects should still owe Allegeance to Princes , when the Pope absolves them from it ! Very hard , indeed , in such an Age of Probable Doctrines , when so small Authority goes to make an Opinion Probable , that this against the Pope's Deposing power should not come within the large sphere of Probability . Hear this , ye Writers of Apologies for Papists Loyalty , who would perswade us , silly people of the Church of England , that this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes is onely the Opinion of some Doctours , and not the Doctrine of your Church ; when this Learned Authour proves , you have as much Reason and Authority to believe it , as that Transubstantiation is the Doctrine of it ; and Father Caron's 250 Authours cannot make the contrary Opinion so much as Probable ; this having been for some Ages ( one at least ) the common Belief , Sense and Doctrine of the Church , as our Authour saith . From whence it follows , it must have been always so ; or else Oral Tradition and Infallibility are both gone . For how could that be the Doctrine of one Age which was not of the precedent ? What ? did Fathers conspire to deceive their Children then ? Is it possible to suppose such an alteration to happen in the Doctrine of the Church , and yet the Church declare to adhere to Tradition at that time ? If this be possible in this case , then , for all that we know , that great Bugbear of Transubstantiation might steal in in the dark too . And so farewell Oral Tradition . But how can Infallibility stand after it , when the Church was so enormously deceived for so long together , as this Authour proves it must have been , if this Doctrine be false ? If the Blackloists in England and Irish Remonstrants do not all vanish at the appearance of this Treatise , and yield themselves Captives to this smart and pithy Authour , I expect to see some of them concerned for their own Vindication , so far , as to answer this short Treatise : but I beseech them then , to shew us the difference between the coming in of Transubstantiation and this Deposing doctrine , since the same Popes , the same Councils , and the same Approbation of the Church , are produced for both . This is all I have to say of this First Treatise , whose Authour I do highly commend for his plain dealing ; for he speaks out what he really thinks and believes of this Doctrine of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes . But I am no sooner entred upon the Second Treatise , but I fansy my self in Fairy-land , where I meet with nothing but phantastick Shows and Apparitions : when I go about to fasten upon any thing , it is immediately gone ; the little Fairy leaps up and down , and holds to nothing , intending onely to scare and affright his party from the Oath of Allegeance ; and when he hath done this , he disappears . The Substance of the Oath ( saith the Authour of the Questions , whom he pretends to answer , ) is , the Denying and Abjuring the Pope's Power of deposing Princes . This is plain , and home to the purpose ; what say you to this ? Is this Doctrine true , or false ? may it be renounced or not ? Hold , say you ; For my part , it is as far from my thoughts , as forein to my present purpose , to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power . Is it indeed forein to your purpose , to speak to the Substance of the Oath ? No , say you , the Substance of the Oath is contained in this Question , Whether a Catholick may deny by Oath , and universally abjure , the Pope's Power to depose Princes : not , Whether he may deny it , but , Whether he may deny it by Oath . And the great Argument to prove the Negative is , that it hath been a Question debated for 500 years , and no clear and authoritative Decision of the Point yet appeareth , to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce . Where are we now ? Methinks we are sailing to find O Brasil . We thought our selves as sure as if we had got the Point , in the First Treatise , a good firm , solid , substantial Point of Faith ; and now , all of a sudden , it is vanished into clouds and vapours , and armies fighting in the air against each other . Is it possible for the Sense , Belief and Doctrine of the Church , as the First Authour assures us it was , to become such a Moot-point , always disputed , never decided ? This hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines , Casuists , Canonists , from first to last , ( afore Calvin 's time , ) in all the several Nations of Christendom , yea even in France it self ; and neither Barclay , nor Widdrington , nor Caron , nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet , hath been able yet 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 . Thus the Authour of the First Treatise . Since it is but more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish , and that Experience , the easiest and clearest of Arguments , puts it too sadly beyond dispute , that this grand Controversie , Whether the Pope hath any Power or Authority to depose Princes , for any cause , pretence or exigency whatsoever , hath been for divers Ages , from time to time , disputed in the Schools by Speculative men , and is to this day , among Catholick Controvertists , and Catholick Princes too ; as the Authour of the Second Treatise confesseth . What shall I say to you , Gentlemen , when you thus flatly contradict each other ? How come you to be so little agreed upon your Premisses , when you joyn in the same Conclusion ? There is some mysterie in this , which we are not to understand . This I suppose it is . Among those who may be trusted , this is an Article of faith , and for such the First Treatise was written . But for the sake of such who would see too far into these things , we must not own it , for fear we lose some Residences , and Patrons of the Nobility and Gentry : therefore among these we must not own it as an Article of faith , but as a Controverted Point . How then , say some of the Fathers of the Society , shall we keep them from taking the Oath of Allegeance ? and if we do suffer them to doe that , farewell to our Interest in England ; P. W. and the Blackloists will prevail . Come , come , saith Father W. never fear , I have a Topick will scare them all , though we own it as a Controverted Point . What is that ? say they with great Joy. Let me alone , saith he to them , I will prove them all guilty of Perjury , if they take the Oath , because it is a Controverted Point . Excellent ! they all cry , this will doe our business in spite of them . Let us now come near , and handle this mighty Argument , that we may discern whether it be a mere Spectre , or hath any flesh and bones . The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath , partly assertory , and partly promissory . In an Assertory Oath it is essentially requisite , that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true . Very well ; but suppose a person doth in his conscience believe that the Pope cannot Depose Princes , nor Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance ; may not such a man swear it without Perjury ? No , says our good Father ; A man may swear against his Conscience , not onely when he doubts , but when he hath just cause to doubt . How is that ? good Sir ; when other men see that he hath cause to doubt , or when himself sees it ? If he sees himself that he hath cause to doubt , he doth not believe in his Conscience that to be so as he swears it is ; for how can a man firmly believe that , which he sees cause to doubt ? If he sees none himself , what is that to his Conscience , if others think they do ; if he does not think his Conscience bound to be swayed by their Authority ? But the Mysterie of this Iesuitism is , that no Gentlemen ought to have judgments of their own in these matters , but to be swayed by the extrinsick Authority of their Teachers . And therefore if they say , they have cause to doubt , they must doubt , whether they do or no. If Gentlemen of freer understandings and education allow themselves the liberty to enquire into these matters , they presently see through all this Tiffany Sophistry , and find the thing still carried on is meer blind Obedience ; although in following the conduct of such self-interested Leaders they run themselves into continual Difficulties . If a man be satisfied in his Conscience , the Pope hath no Deposing power , according to the Rules of their own best Casuists , he may lawfully abjure it . The truth required in an Oath , saith Cardinal Tolet , is , that by which a man speaks that which he thinks in his heart ; and to swear falsly is , to swear otherwise then one thinks . And to swear otherwise then a thing really is , provided he think it to be so , is neither mortal nor venial sin ; but ( 1. ) in case a man hath not used diligence to enquire ; and to this he doth not require the utmost , but onely some and convenient diligence : ( 2. ) if he be doubtfull in his mind when he swears , and yet swears it as certain : ( 3. ) when he is ready to swear , although he knew the thing to be otherwise . Suarez saith , that in an Assertory Oath , the Truth confirmed by it lies in the conformity of the Assertion to the mind of the Speaker , rather then to the Thing it self ; so that if a man thinks it false which he swears , although it be really true , he is guilty of Perjury : and so on the contrary , if a man swears a thing really false , which he invincibly thinks to be true , he is not guilty of Perjury , but swears a lawfull Oath , according to the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas . By invincibly , Suarez means no more then Tolet doth by thinking so after convenient diligence . For Suarez lays down this Rule afterwards , that , When a man swears what is really false , but he thinks it true , if his thinking be joyned with sufficient care , and a probable opinion of the truth , ( mark that ) he is free from the guilt of Perjury . This he saith is the common and express Doctrine , and built upon this ground , Because the Truth and Falshood of an Oath doth not so much relate to the Matter sworn , as to the Mind and Conscience of him that swears . Dominicus Soto determines this case very plainly : If a man swears that to be true , which he thinks so , after due enquiry , though it be false , he doth not sin at all . And the measure of diligence he proportions to the nature and quality of the Thing , which is therefore left to prudence and discretion . Iacobus de Graffiis hath this Assertion ; He that swears a thing to be true , which he thinks so , although it be really false , sins not , unless he neglected to use that diligence which he was bound to use : and according to the greatness of that neglect , the measure of his sin is to be taken . Greg. Sayr saith , that to a lawfull Assertory Oath no more is required , then the agreement of what a man saith with the inward sense of his mind , according to the reasonable judgment a man passes upon what he swears . Which words are taken out of Gregory de Valentia . Qui non videt , vel dubitat esse falsum quod jurat , perjurus non est , saith Vasquez ; He that doth not see , or doubt that to be false which he swears , is not guilty of Perjury . Which words are quoted and approved by Layman ; because all Perjury must have its foundation in a Lie. And , saith he , he that swears in an Assertory Oath , doth not affirm the certainty of his own knowledge , but directly the very thing which he swears . Nay he farther saith , that where the Matter sworn is capable of no more then Probability , a man may lawfully swear the truth according to that degree of certainty which the thing will bear ; although it should happen to be otherwise then he thinks . So that , according to the common and received Doctrine of their own Casuists , the foundation of this Second Treatise is false , ( as might be shewed by many more testimonies , if these were not sufficient , ) which is , That since this Doctrine about the Pope's Deposing power hath no infallible certainty in it , a man cannot attest the truth or falshood of it by an Oath . Which was the more surprising to me , considering how usual it is among your selves , to swear to such Opinions of which you cannot pretend to infallible certainty by any evidence of Faith , or authoritative Decision of the Church . What think you of the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas ? are there no mere Opinions , undecided by the Church , in his Works ? is there infallible certainty in of all them ? I do not think any Iesuit in the world will say so , for a reason every own knows ; because his Order holds the direct contrary in 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 declare otherwise , what think you then ? Will you then own him to be lawfull King , in spite of the Pope's Excommunication , and Sentence of Deposing ? Speak out , Gentlemen ; why do you draw in your breath , and mutter to your selves ? will you ? or will you not ? If you will , why do ye stick at the Oath of Allegeance ? If you will not , is not His Majesty much obliged to you , that you will own Him to be lawfull King as long as the Pope pleases ? But you go on , That you renounce all Power whatsoever , Ecclesiastical or Civil , domestick or forein , repugnant to the same . What doth this same relate to ? to his being lawfull King , or to your acknowledgment of it ? If you meant honestly without reservation , why could ye not speak plainly , in saying , that ye renounce all Power of the Pope as to the Deposing the King , and Absolving His Subjects from their Allegeance ? If this be not your meaning , it is a falsity to say , you swear without any Mental reservation , when in the mean time you reserve the Pope's Power to depose the King , and then he is no longer a lawfull King to you . So that till you in plain terms renounce this Power of the Pope , all other Forms are mere shuffling , and full of tricks and equivocations , on purpose to amuse the unwary Reader . But you would have us think you come home to the point in the last Clause , wherein you 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 , say you , let any one judge , Protestant or Catholick , whether these foremention'd Clauses are not more , at least as expressive of Civil Allegeance , as the ordinary Oath is . Not too fast , good Sir ; the world is not so easily cheated as it hath been . Would you indeed have us believe this to be as good Security as the Oath of Allegeance , when some of the greatest Defenders of the Deposing power would say as much as this comes to , that it is impious and abominable for a private Subject to kill or murther his Prince ? But when the Pope hath Deposed a Prince , those that were Subjects before , according to your Opinion , cease to be so : and the same person may lawfully kill or murther his Prince , although not the same Subject , because the relation is alter'd , by virtue of the Pope's Sentence . Besides , this reaches onely to the case of a private Subject , and not to the Power of the People or the Pope . That may be thought unlawfull to be done by a private person , without power and commission , which may be thought lawfull when he doth it by Authority derived from others . So that this Form can give satisfaction to none but such as will be satisfied with any thing . For it doth not at all touch upon the main business ; but is in truth an equivocal , deceitfull and sophistical Form. For , as the Authour of the Reflections saith very well , Princes are little advantaged by such an Oath , wherein the Swearers say , Princes may not be murthered or killed by their Subjects , unless they say withall , they may not be Deposed ( by the Pope : ) For whosoever hath a Supreme just Right upon any pretence whatsoever to Depose Princes , hath thereby Right to cause them to be killed , in case they by arms oppose the execution of the Sentence . And can it be imagined , that any Prince , judged an Heretick or otherwise guilty by the Pope , and by him sentenced to be Deposed , will thereupon quietly descend out of his Throne , and yield up his Scepter to one of a contrary Religion ? Or rather , is it not most certain , that they will not , but , on the contrary , bring with them many thousands of their armed Subjects , to resist the execution of such a Sentence , all which together with them must be killed or murthered , before it can have its full effect ? But this is not the onely thing wherein you design to put tricks upon your Readers ; it would take up too much time for a Preface to lay them all open ; yet some of them are too gross to be passed by . As when the Authour of the First Treatise would have his Reader believe the Publisher of the Fasciculus rerum expetendarum & fugiendarum to have been a Protestant ; when any one that looks into the Book may find , it was set forth by Ortwinus Gratius , a known and fierce Papist : and when the Authours of the two other Treatises both assert , that Sanctarellus his Book was condemned at Rome before it was condemned at Paris . I stood amazed at the impudence of this assertion , when I read it in the Second Treatise ; but much more when I saw it confirmed in the Third . I looked once and again on the Roman Index Expurgatorius , and examined the Decrees of the Congregation ; but I could find no Sanctarellus ever condemned there . But looking into Sanctarellus himself , I found the Book so far from being condemned , that it came forth with the Approbation and special Licence of Mutius Vittelescus , then General of the Iesuits Order , bearing date at Rome May 25. 1624. I pray mark it , Gentlemen ; the General of the Iesuits at that time gave this Licence to a Book written by one of that Order , wherein he shews , that Princes may be Deposed , not onely for Heresie , but for other Faults , for Negligence , if it be Expedient , if they be thought Insufficient , if Vnusefull , or the like . And yet you would bear us down , that your Order , many years before , was prohibited writing or teaching any thing about this matter . Some such temporary Order is talked of in the time of Claudius Aquaviva , when the clamours were so great against the Iesuits for asserting this Doctrine . Yet that Prohibition extended no farther , then to teaching it to be lawfull for any person to kill Princes under a pretence of Tyranny . What is this but meer artifice and collusion ? It is not to be taught ; but they may think as they please : not lawfull for any person ; but it doth not deny it to be lawfull to persons authorized by the Pope , after he hath Deposed them . So that there never was any Prohibition of teaching the Pope's Deposing power as to Princes . But suppose there were , you very well know of how little force such an Order is , when that General is dead , and another succeeds ; as appears by this very Licence of Mutius Vittelescus . Have a little pity upon us , Gentlemen , and tell somewhat more probable Untruths then this , that your Order is forbidden to meddle with these Points . So it seems indeed by the Authour of the First Treatise , who was under some very strict Prohibition , without doubt , which made him , out of the crosseness of humane nature , so free to vent his opinion . But to give you a little more satisfaction about this Book of Sanctarellus : It was not onely approved by the General of the Iesuits , but by Alexander Victricius and Vincentius Candidus , and printed by Order of the Master of the Pope's Palace . Call you this the Condemning of it at Rome ? But for all this , the Authour of the Third Treatise quotes Spondanus for it . The plain truth of the story is this : Sanctarellus his Book coming to Paris , met with so ill reception there , that it was condemned by the Sorbon , burnt by Order of the Parliament , and the Iesuits hard put to it upon very strict Examinations , wherein they shuffled and shewed all the Tricks they had : but these would not serve their turn , they are commanded to disown and confute this Doctrine . Pierre Coton , upon whom the main business lay , being too hard set , made a shift to escape the difficulty of his Province by dying . Notwithstanding this , the Doctours of Sorbon would not let the business die with him , but renewed it the beginning of the next year : upon which the King sent the Bishop of Nantes to them , to let them know they had done enough in that matter , the Book being condemned , and the Pope having forbidden the sale of the Book at Rome . A very wonderfull Condemnation of it , that a Book should be forbidden to be sold , and at Rome too , and that so long after the publishing of it , and when all that had a mind to it were provided already ; without any Censure upon the Authour or Doctrine ! Who dares talk of the Severity of the Court of Rome ? Could any thing be done with greater Deliberation , and more in the spirit of Meekness , and to less purpose , then this was ? But after all , this doth not to me look any ways like the Condemning of it at Rome , before it was burnt at Paris ; and I suppose upon second thoughts you will be of my mind . But you will tell me , you did not expect to hear of these things in print . That may be , for we live in an Age wherein many things come to pass we little thought of . For I dare say , you never thought these Papers would have come into my hands : but since they did so , I could not envy the publick the benefit I receiv'd by reading of them ; hoping that they will contribute much to the satisfaction of others , at least in this one point , that you hold the very same Principles about the Pope's Power of deposing Princes , and absolving Subjects from their Allegeance , that ever you did . And therefore I conclude , it would be great weakness to recede from our Legal Tests against the men of such Principles , for any new Devices whatsoever . Feb. 13. 1676 / 7 ▪ THE JESUITS LOYALTY . THE FIRST TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE . The Conclusion to be proved . 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 . The Proof . MY Reason is , Because the Opinion that the Pope hath no such Power is Erroneous in faith , Temerarious , and Impious . Which I prove thus . That Opinion which must suppose that the Church hath at some time been in a damnable Errour of Belief , and Sin of Practice , is Erroneous in faith , Temerarious , and Impious . But this Opinion is such . Ergo. The Major , I suppose , will not be denied by any Catholick : because that were to suppose that the Church hath at some time ceased to be a Catholick and Holy Church : which were Heresy to suppose possible . The Minor is proved . If the Church at some time hath believed , and supposed as certain , that the Pope hath such a Power in some case , and upon that belief and supposall hath exercised it in her supremest Tribunals ; and if her Errour ( supposing she erred in it ) was a damnable Errour , and her Practice ( if unlawfull ) a mortal Sin : then this Opinion must suppose , that the Church hath , &c. But the Church hath at some time so believed and practised , and ( if amiss ) it was a damnable Errour and Practice . Ergo. The Sequele of the Major is evident in terminis . The second part of the Minor is likewise evident : because it was a Doctrine enormously injurious to the Right of Princes , ( to withstand which is a damnable sin , Rom. 13. ) and 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 . For the first part of the Minor , if I shew , 1. That Popes have taught it as sound Doctrine , proving 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 : 2. That Popes have , in the highest Tribunals of the Church , deposed Sovereign Princes , and absolved Subjects from their Allegeance ; and this with the advice and assent of their Councils , and not onely Patriarchal , but sometimes even General : 3. That Popes , and General Councils by them confirmed , have denounced Excommunication to such as should obey their Princes after such Sentence of Deposition , and Absolution of their Subjects from their Allegeance : 4. That a General Council , confirmed by the Pope , hath made a Canon-Law , regulating the manner of Deposing Princes in some case , and Absolving their Subjects from their Allegeance : 5. That all Catholick Divines and Casuists that have treated of it , from the first to the last , ( afore Calvin's time ) in all the severall Nations of Christendom , have asserted this Power of the Pope , without so much as one contradicting it in all that time : 6. That all Catholick Emperours , Kings , ( yea even they that were deposed , ) States , Magistrates , and Lawyers , and finally all the Catholicks in the world for the time being , have ( by tacit consent at least ) approved and received this Doctrine of Popes , Divines , and Casuists , and these Censures , Canons , and Practices of Popes and General Councils : I say , if I shew all this , I hope it will be granted a sufficient Proof , That the Church hath at some time so believed , taught , and practised . Now to shew this , among a multitude of Instances , I shall name some few of the principal . As , 1. In Anno 1074. S. Gregory VII . ( a most holy and learned Pope , who , for his Sanctity and Miracles was canonized for a Saint b , ) threatned Philip the French King , that unless he abstained from his Simoniacall selling of Bishopricks , he would excommunicate him , and all his Subjects that should obey him as King ; which he counted none would , after such Sentence , but Apostates from Christianity c . And that King hereupon submitted to the Pope , and amended his fault d . 2. In Anno 1076. the same holy Pope , in a Patriarchal Council of Rome , wherein were present 110 Bishops , with the advice , and upon the importunity , of the whole Synod , deposed Henry IV. King of the Germans , and absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance to him b . And did it ex Cathedra , as Vicar of Christ , and Successour of S. Peter , in virtue of the Power of binding which Christ gave to him in S. Peter c . And this Sentence he published in a Breve , to all the Princes , Prelates , and people of the Empire a . And it was published by his Legates in several Nations of Christendom b ; and confirmed afterward in divers National Councils c . And after his death , was confirmed by the three Popes that succeeded him , during that King's life d . And the Catholick Subjects of that King obeyed it ; and such as denied the Pope's Jurisdiction to depose the King , were by the Catholicks called Hereticks and Schismaticks , and had the name of Henriciani * . Yea , even the King himself , in his Letter to the Pope , wherein he complained of the Sentence , denied not the Pope's Jurisdiction to depose him if he had been an Heretick ; but pleaded he was no Heretick , in which case alone the tradition of holy Fathers ( as he said ) allowed the Deposition of Kings by the Pope f . Nay , and even that Cardinal Villain , Beno , ( Ring-leader of the Schismaticks ) in that Libell against the Pope , wherein he raked together all the matters he could to make him odious , and particularly accused his deposing the King , yet accused it not for being done without Jurisdiction , but onely that he did it contra ordinem juris g . Finally , in a Diet of the Empire , called on purpose to decide , by the Canons of the Church , which had the juster cause , the Pope or the King , where met the wisest of the Princes and Prelates of the German nation , of both parties , the Archbishop of Saltzburg ( Prolocutor of the Pope's party ) alledged , and shewed by the Canons , that the Deposition was just . To which was answered by the Archbishop of Mentz , ( Prolocutor of the King's party ) that the Pope and Princes had done the King injury , in that he being at Rome , performing his penance injoyn'd him by the Pope , they had set up another King ( Rodulph ) against him . And he added , that by the Canons , the King being spoliatus , could not be condemned , or cited , till he were restored to possession h . So here was no plea then against the Pope's Jurisdiction , no not by the King 's own Advocates . 3. The same holy Pope did not onely believe , and suppose this Doctrine to be most certainly true and sound , ( as he shewed by his practice of it ; ) but did formally teach it to the Church , by Canons published in a Patriarchal Council at Rome a , and to the German Prelates that consulted him of it , and prove it to them from Scripture and Tradition b ; and by S. Peter's authority , exhorted and required all Subjects of the Empire , to obey and execute the Sentence , by resisting the deposed King : putting them in mind , that it is a sin as bad as Idolatry , to disobey S. Peter's See c : and termed it no less then wicked and damnable folly and madness , to deny that Power to be in the Pope . 4. In Anno 1215. the Council of Lateran ( an undoubted General Council , and the greatest for number of Prelates that ever was ) settled a Rule to be observed in the deposing of Princes , and absolving their Subjects from their Allegeance , in case they be negligent in purging their Land from Hereticks a . And the Canon was made in the presence , and with the consent of both the Emperours , ( Greek and Roman ) and the greatest part of the Kings and Princes of Christendome , and of the Embassadours of the rest . Answ. 1. Those that goe under the name of the Canons of this Council , were not decreed by the Council , but onely published for Canons of it by Gregory IX . Repl. It is against reason to imagine , that Holy and Learned Pope would commit so gross a forgery , and in matters of that high concern , and at a time so soon after the Council , as the greatest part of the Prelates that assisted at it were living , to confute it , and protest against it ; the Decretals of that Pope being published within twelve years after that Council . Answ. 2. All Historians of those times testify , no Canons were made in that Council , except one or two about the Recovery of the Holy Land , and the Subjection of the Greek Church to the Roman . Repl. Not one Historian testifies any such negative . Answ. 3. This Decree was not found among the other Acts of the Council for 300 years . Repl. It was always among the other Canons in the Decretals of Gregory IX . published within twelve years after the Council : and in the first Copy that was printed of the Canons of that Council , this was one ; and Cochleus , that sent the Copy of it to the Printer , said , it had been long agoe written out of an ancient Book . Answ. 4. This Canon names not Sovereign Princes , but Lords onely . Repl. It names Lords , qui non habent Dominos principales , which can be none but Sovereign Princes . 5. In Anno 1245. Pope Innocent IV. in a General Council at Lyons , by a formal definitive Sentence , published in the Council , and approved by all the Prelates , deposed the Emperour Frederick II d. and absolved all his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance : and not onely that , but by his Apostolick authority , inhibited them to obey him as Emperour or King , and not to advise or aid him as such , under pain of Excommunicatio latae sententiae . And he grounded his authority for it upon that Text , Quodcunque solveris , &c . And it was afterward inserted into the Canons of the Church . And it was not given precipitately , or in passion , but upon consult first had with divers of the most able Divines , that were at the Council , and after mature debate in divers Consistories , in which some of the Cardinals pleaded as Advocates for the Emperour , and others answered them ; insomuch as the Pope could not remember that ever any cause was discussed with more exactness and longer deliberation . And they proceeded to the Sentence with much unwillingness , and forced by necessity , ( because they saw no other way , without offending God , the Church , and their own consciences , ) and condoling his misery that was sentenced . All which the Pope himself wrote in a Letter to the Cistertian Abbots here in England b . And when the Pope objected in Council to the Emperour the Crimes for which he proceeded against him ; the Emperour's Advocate ( a wise and eloquent man , Doctour of both Laws , and Judge in the Emperour's Court ) pleaded to it , ( not that the Pope had no Jurisdiction to depose the Emperour , but , which acknowledged the Jurisdiction ) that the Emperour was not guilty of the Crimes objected , and namely , not of Heresie : and prayed respite for the Emperour , to make his defence in person . And the Embassadours of the Kings of France and England seconded his Petition , ( which also was an acknowledging by them of the Pope's Jurisdiction to depose the Emperour : ) and thereupon two weeks respite was granted . And when the Emperour heard of it , he refused to appear , ( not because they had no Jurisdiction in the cause , but ) because they appeared to be his Adversaries c . And upon that and other pretexts , appeal'd from that , to the next more General Council d . And this Sentence was ( as I said ) published with approbation of all the Prelates present in the Council , ( which were to the number of 140 Archbishops and Bishops . ) And 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 f , 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 g ; and the French King took upon him the protecting of the Pope's cause against the Emperour h . 6. In the same General Council of Lyons was made a Canon i , 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 to the Substance of the Oath , taking for the measure of its Notion the rule and standard the Authour of the Questions hath already given us , saying that the Substance of the Oath is the Denying and abjuring the Pope's power to depose Princes . Here then lies the grand Case , here is the principal Question , Whether a Catholick may ( I do not say barely deny , but ) deny by Oath , and universally abjure , the Pope's power to depose Princes . Concerning which Question , first , as I meet with nothing either in the Authour or Publisher of the Questions which in my judgement does in the least evince the affirmative : so , secondly , I think enough is said by both to conclude manifestly for the negative , to wit , That no Catholick can safely admit of and take the Substance of the Oath , even as the case is understood , and stated in the Authour 's own terms . This I shall endeavour with all possible clearness and brevity to make out in the first place ; and afterwards set down and answer the Grounds the Authour of the Questions proceeds on , which are principally three . 1. The Censure of many famous French Universities , denying , rejecting and condemning the Doctrine of the Pope's Deposing power , as new , false , erroneous , contrary to the Word of God , pernicious , seditious , and detestable . 2. The Subscription of the French Iesuits to two of the most remarkable of these Censures . 3. The Practice of the Clergy , the religious and the wiser sort of the Laiety in other Countries , when the Pope makes war , or any other way contends with their Sovereign Princes or States . All which being put together , to the end it may appear how far the Argument even in its full and united strength is from reaching our Case , let it be once more remembred , that the state of our Question is not , Whether a Catholick may deny , reject , censure and condemn the Pope's Power to depose Princes , ( which yet is the utmost that can be proved by warrant of these forrein Precedents ; ) but , Whether he may safely deny , reject , censure , and condemn by his Oath , and universally abjure , this Deposing doctrine : This is that which the Authour of the Questions affirms ; that which he calls the very Substance of the Oath ; and that for which I am sure no French University , quoted by him , no Subscription of the Iesuits , no Practice of the Clergy , the religious and the wiser sort of the Laiety in other Countries , afford us so much as any single instance . CHAP. II. Why it cannot be safe either to swear to the Deposing doctrine as true , or to abjure it as false . SInce it is but even more undeniably evident then all good men have cause to wish , and that experience , the easiest and clearest of arguments , puts it but too sadly beyond dispute , that this grand Controversy , ( Whether the Pope hath any Power and authority to depose Princes for any cause pretence , or exigency whatsoever , ) hath been for divers Ages from time to time disputed in the Schools by speculative men in their subtile and notionall way of reasoning : And what * Trithemius recorded to posterity above 500 years agoe , ( that Scholastici certant , & adhuc sub Iudice lis est , utrùm Papa posset Imperatorem deponere , ) may , for ought we know , 500 years hence be as much a question , and as far from ending , as now it is ; whereas even in our days the Controversy finds but too many stirr Champions and Abettors to maintain the quarrell , and keep life in the debate by their warm and smart contests ▪ no clear and authoritative decision of the Point yet appearing to which both sides think themselves obliged to stand and acquiesce : Since likewise , when a Point is thus in dispute amongst Catholick Princes , ( some of them peremptorily denying and hotly opposing what others as positively assert and vigorously maintain , and this openly , avowedly , and in the face of the world , ) no one can determinately swear to either side of the point in dispute as true , nor warrantably abjure the other as false ; for this were to swear a thing as true , or to abjure it as false , which is confessedly in dispute whether it be so or no , which is never lawfull : From hence I conceive , that for the deciding of our Question , ( Whether a Catholick may lawfully abjure the Pope's Deposing power and authority , ) there needs no more then barely to suppose , that it is a Question whether the Pope hath any such Power and Authority or no. For here one Question resolves the other : grant this second to be a Question , the first will be none . For if it be a Question whether the Pope hath any such Power and Authority or no , no man can safely swear , that without all question he hath none ; I say , without all question , because what we swear as true ought to be unquestionably such , otherwise we fall under the guilt and sacrilege of Perjury . For a more full evidence and farther clearing of this so important a Truth , ( namely , That the swearing or abjuring a controverted doctrinall Point unavoidably draws upon us the execrable guilt of Perjury , ) let us consider the difference of Oaths in generall , and the different parts of the Oath of Allegeance in particular . Of Oaths some are assertory , others promissory . An assertory Oath is , when we positively say such or such a thing is true or false , and then bind this saying of ours with an Oath : A promissory Oath is that whereby we engage to doe what we promise , or to leave undone what we promise not to doe , and thereupon give our Oath as a bond of performance . The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath , partly assertory , ( as where it is affirmed that the Pope hath not any Power or Authority to depose the King , or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries , or to discharge any of his Subjects from their Allegeance , &c. ) partly promissory , ( as namely , where the Swearer engages that , notwithstanding any Declaration , or Sentence of Excommunication , or Deprivation , made or to be made against the King , his Heirs or Successours , he will bear faith and true allegeance to them , he will defend them to the utmost of his power against all conspiracies or attempts whatsoever . ) That which here principally falls under consideration is the nature of an assertory Oath : in which Oath it is essentially requisite , that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true ; and all little enough for the securing us against God's and Truth 's sworn enemy , Perjury , which abominable sin is defined by the * Schools to be a Lie confirmed by Oath : And to lie , saith † St. Austin , is to speak against that which a man thinks in his mind or conscience , or , as we usually express it , when a man speaks not as he thinks ; viz. when there lies a secret check and contradiction in the breast to what is uttered by the mouth . Put these two together , and the case stands thus : To speak contrary to what a man thinks in his conscience , is , according to true morals , the definition of a Lie ▪ and , to swear contrary to the inward dictates of his conscience , is that wherein consists the formall notion and malice of Perjury . Now this Swearing contrary to what a man thinks in his conscience may happen two ways : not onely when he is conscious to himself , and knows that what he swears is not true ; but also when he knows not , and therefore doubts , or hath just cause to doubt , whether it be true or no : in which case if he chance to swear , it is at the perill of his Soul , and contrary to the secret information of his Conscience , which must needs check at the act , and inwardly protest against it . For it is a folly beyond dotage , and carries with it the prejudice of the highest self-condemnation imaginable , for a man to say , I will swear such a thing is true , and yet I know not , I doubt , or have just cause to doubt , whether it be so or no. CHAP. III. An Objection answered ; with a farther display of the former Evidence . IF any one shall here pretend , that he for his part is so far from doubting , that he is already fully perswaded , and thinks verily in his conscience , the Pope hath not any Power or Authority to depose Kings ; and why then may not he safely swear as he thinks , because no more is required of him then onely to swear according to the best of his knowledge ? Let him who pretends this please to remember , that neither is less required of him then to swear according to a true knowledge ; that is , that he be sure or certain , and have no just cause to doubt of the truth of what he swears . Let Knowledge then signify Knowledge ; let it not be a meer term , or the abuse of a term : let not , I think , but , I know ; not , I am perswaded , but , I am certain , be the ground of his Oath , and he is secure . But if his knowledge signify no more then his uncertain perswasion and judgment that the thing is so or so , then the best of his knowledge is to him no better then ignorance ; and to swear according to the best of his knowledge , will be the same as to swear according to the best of his no-knowledge : And it is this want of knowledge will arraign , convict and condemn him at the bar of his own heart for a forsworn man. Thus if a Witness in any publick Court of justice should offer to swear a thing as true , and yet , being ask'd if he were sure of it , should answer , No ; though we should suppose that he verily thinks it true , yet if he be not certain of it , 't is manifest it may be as well false , as true , for any thing he knows ; for thinking is one thing , and knowing another . And therefore if upon no better ground then his thinking it to be true , he should offer to swear it is so , no honest man would stick to say , this Witness owes a forfeiture to the Pillory , and satisfaction to God and man for so foul a scandal , in offering to swear a thing to be true , which he knows not whether it be so or no. True it is , where an Oath is tendered requiring no more but onely to swear a man's perswasion and judgment , ( not absolutely what is or is not true , but onely what he thinks is or is not true , ) there indeed a man may swear according to true knowledge , in regard the familiar converse and intimacy with his own thoughts may give him a sufficient assurance and certainty of the truth of what he is to swear ; because in this supposition he is to swear no more then what he thinks : but if any one should goe about to transfer this qualifying gloss and milder exposition to the Oath of Allegeance , as an expedient to prevent the sad danger and heavy charge of Perjury , in abjuring the controverted Doctrine of the Deposing power , as if no such abjuring was intended by the Oath ; ( which yet the Authour of the Questions terms the very Substance of the Oath ; ) let him who either makes or values this gloss but cast an eye upon the first , the middle and the last Branches of the Oath , and he will plainly perceive , this is onely an exchange of one Perjury for another : it alters indeed the mode , but shuns not the guilt ; and by striving to weather out one Rock , splits upon another . For first , in the beginning of the Oath the Swearer solemnly calls God and the world to witness the truth of what he is about to acknowledge , profess , testify , and declare in his conscience ; and then , having uttered all he has to say , ( and particularly , in one of the middle clauses , having not onely abjur'd the Pope's Deposing power , but also abjur'd it as hereticall , ) in the end concludes thus , [ And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken , and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words , without any equivocation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever . ] By which last clause he again ratifies and binds afresh all his former asseverations and already-sworn engagements , by a repeated and reflex Oath looking universally back upon the premisses : And all these things ( says he ) I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear . Now amongst all these things which he doth thus plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear , the chief and principal of all others was , That the Pope hath not any such Power and Authority as we speak of . And he farther adds , that he swears this according to the express words by him spoken , without any equivocation , mental evasion , or secret reservation ; that is , without any farther gloss or comment upon his own thoughts or words whatsoever . Whereas on the contrary , if we should suppose , that , whilst he expresly abjures the Deposing doctrine , and absolutely swears that the Pope has not any such Power and Authority , he yet reserves in his mind a mental evasion and secret meaning of his words , ( viz. that he onely thinks and is perswaded he hath no such Power and Authority ; ) then directly he forswears himself in swearing otherways then what he professes to swear , that is , in swearing not according to his express words , but according to an unexprest meaning of his words , which thing he utterly disavowed and renounced by his Oath . And is not this a remedy as bad as the disease , and a rare expedient to prevent the danger of Perjury , to make a man forswear himself for fear of being forsworn ? Let us make the best hand of it we can ; here is onely choice of Perjuries for the comfort and relief of the Swearer , whether he do or do not abjure the Deposing power . For if he pretend not to abjure it , this is contrary to his express words , according to which he professeth to swear , and by which he doth expresly swear that the Pope hath not any Deposing power ; and so he is perjur'd , by pretending to swear one thing , and actually swearing another ; which is as much as to swear two Oaths in one , the one directly cross and contradictory to the other . But if he do abjure , ( as absolutely he doth , if he takes the Oath , ) this same abjuring is the very charge of Perjury which is now under my pen , and , as I conceive , inevitable , by reason that the necessary knowledge , certainty and assurance of the truth of what he swears , or of the falsehood of what he abjures , ( without which every such assertory Oath necessarily ends in Perjury , ) is not to be had nor expected , whilst this speculative Point remains under dispute ; a dispute ( as experience too clearly testifies ) not yet effectually determined by any publick , nor , I am sure , determinable by any private authority , as shall appear yet more fully in the next Chapter . CHAP. IV. A Continuation of the former Discourse , shewing the manifest unlawfulness , as of Swearing , so of Abjuring the Deposing power . A Duty we owe to the Pope , ( saith the * Authour of the Questions , ) a Duty to the King ; both commanded by God , both obliging under sin , yet both confined to their proper limits : too much of the Temporal may be ascribed to Popes , too much of the Spiritual to Kings , too much may be challenged by both . All which is most true ; but the difficulty is , when these two Supreme Powers contest ( as actually they do ) concerning Power in Temporalls , who shall then be Judge ? The Pope claims a Deposing power , the King denies it : if the Pope be Judge , the Deposing power will carry it ; if the King , it will be cast . If we consult or appeal to the authority of the Learned , and bring the cause to their bar , there is nothing but noise , censures , and loud disagreements . Bellarmin and Suarez write for the Deposing power , and are condemned at Paris : Barkly and Withrington appear against it , and are condemned at Rome : the Censurers all this while on both sides professing a previous , mature and impartial examination of the Books and Doctrines they condemn . Caron , the laborious defender of the first Remonstrance , in his loyalty asserted what betwixt Canonists and Divines , Schoolmen and Fathers , Popes , Councils , Universities and Kingdomes , is said to have made a catalogue of more then 250 Opposers of the Deposing doctrine . On the contrary , what number of favourers and abettors there are for it , may appear by this , that even the Authour of the 8 th Controversial Letter tells us , ( pag. 5. ) that the face of Authority is on that side ; and again , ( pag. 7. ) that of Learned men , those who write of this subject , write generally in favour of it : as likewise the Authour of the Questions , in his Preface , acknowledgeth the Maintainers of the Deposing power to be the more numerous party , and that he himself sides with the few against the many ; and withall granteth , ( pag. 24. ) that this act of Deposing Kings hath not onely been done by Popes , but approved by Councils . If we step over into France , there we are strangely surprized with instances on both sides . Behold in the year 1626. Eight Universities of that Realm declare smartly against the Deposing power : and yet but a few years before , viz. in the year 1614. in the General Assembly of the Three Estates , ( in which were present 5 Cardinals , 7 Archbishops , and 47 Bishops , besides many other learned Ecclesiasticks and Dignitaries of the Gallican Church , ) two parts of three of this great Representative of that Kingdome were of another mind , and so far from hearkening to or countenancing the hot Proposalls that were made against the Deposing doctrine , that they left it in possession , as they found it , of whatsoever right or title it could pretend to . What now shall the private Christian and loyal Subject doe , who passionately desireth to share himself in all humble duty between God and Caesar ? what , I say , shall he doe in this unfortunate competition of the two grand Powers ? Shall he by his single sufficiency dare to assume to himself the right of judicature , and boldly swear either for or against the Deposing power , and to pass a decisive sentence under Oath , that the Pope hath , or hath not , the Power in contest ? Were I worthy to offer my advice in this particular , I should conceive it much more pertinent and proper for him seriously to consider with himself , whether an act of this nature be not the same , or rather indeed much worse then if a stander by , upon hearing an Assembly of grave Divines or Counsellours learned in the Law , all of them much above his size and abilities in their respective professions , warmly debating a perplext Law-case , or sturdy knot in Divinity , should by a rash and unlicensed confidence take upon him the Umpirage of the cause , and without any more adoe bluntly swear these men are in the right , and the other in the wrong , or the others are in the right , and these in the wrong : And whether he proceed not upon as meer a blind peradventure , whatever part of the contradiction he swears in this last case , and that it be not as slippery a piece of pure contingency in him , whether he hit or miss ; as if upon the sight of an handfull of Guinnies , he should all at a venture swear odde or even for a wager ; since that he hath no true knowledge for his guidance , nor the least degree of certainty to steer by or fix him . CHAP. V. A farther confirmation of the premisses . ALL this which I have hitherto discoursed is no more then what is evidently deducible from and throughly grounded in the Principles and Concessions of those Learned persons who utterly deny the Pope hath any Power to depose Princes ; who yet neither do , nor can , make out a title and claim for their Doctrine to any higher pretence or degree then that of Opinion : and in this , I presume , I shall speak the sense of all , if I say , it is never lawfull , nor justifiably safe , to swear to an Opinion as true , nor to abjure an Opinion as false , ( speaking , as here I do , of such free and debatable Tenets as are openly and avowedly held and taught by Catholick Divines , divided amongst themselves in their private sentiments and School-disputes , ) because no one of these Opinions can sufficiently answer for its own truth , nor secure the officious Swearer , who lends it his Oath , that he goes Christianly and groundedly to work , whether side soever of the Opinion he makes choice of to be sworn or abjur'd . For it is not in Opinions as in things which we know by clear and certain evidence , as it happens in those early and fair Notions implanted in us by nature from the first glimmering of Reason , called First Principles , as , that Every whole is greater then a part of the whole ; It is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time , &c. which great Maxims of Nature sufficiently speak for and evidence themselves , without the help of Syllogisms , moods , or figure ; and are no sooner understood , then readily and necessarily assented unto . Nor is it in Opinions as in certain scientifical Deductions and demonstrative Conclusions , partly flowing connaturally by a train of immediate consequences , partly drawn and hammered out with much pains , study and speculations from the abovesaid Principles : which Deductions ▪ and Conclusions are called Sciences , whose chiefest property and richest piece of satisfaction , whereby they gratifie the Understanding of man , is their clear and convincing Evidence , placed beyond all contradiction from Sense or Reason . Nor , lastly , is it in Opinions as in those supernaturall Truths made known unto us by Divine revelation , and are of Faith ▪ where there is absolute Certainty , though without Evidence : for Faith wears a scarf before her eyes , and believes what she sees not . Both which , to wit Faith and Science , as they justly command and challenge , so withall they fully secure our assent from all danger , and suspicion of errour , the one by its Evidence , the other by its Certainty ; the one interessing the light and patronage of the First Principles , the other engaging a Divine and infallible Authority for the truth of their Proposalls . But in Opinions it fares quite otherwise : for an Opinion having neither the Evidence of Science , nor the Certainty of Faith , nor indeed any other inferiour degree of Certainty , physicall or morall , ( as the Schools speak , ) but onely the slippery knot of Probability to hold by , leaves the considering Opiner in a state of suspence and indetermination , not daring , nor indeed knowing how , to yield any more then a faint and timorous assent to either side of the Tenet , seeing that neither side is any more then onely probably true , or probably false . And because true , and onely probably true , false , and onely probably false , are not the same , but two very different things , and at so great a distance , that no art or law of consequence can ever bring them together , or convincingly argue from the one to the other ; hence it is , that what is onely probably true , is not therefore true , and what is onely probably false , is not therefore false : from whence it is finally and manifestly concluded , that neither side of an Opinion is lawfully attestable by Oath as simply true , nor safely abjurable as simply false . To come now to the particular Tenet which denies the Pope's Deposing power in all cases , circumstances and emergencies whatsoever . If we address our selves to the Maintainers and Abettors of this Tenet , if we consult the Authour and Publisher of the Questions , if we propose the Case to the Sorbon Doctours and the Faculty of Paris , we shall find all their answers concurring in this , That their negative Tenet is no more then an Opinion . For , first , the Publisher of the Questions coming to speak of the difference between the Deniers and Abettors of this Power , and the nature and quality thereof , plainly professeth , that this difference is no difference of Faith , but onely of Opinions : and the Authour of the Questions calls it an Opinion ; a safe Opinion indeed , but no more or other thing then an Opinion : an Opinion also the Sorbon Doctours take it for ▪ nor is their own Censure or Doctrine any more then their Opinion . Neither do they , nor indeed could they with any shew of reason , or coherence to their own principles , discourse at any other rate , or ever intend to screw it up any higher then an Opinion . For it is not to be imagined , that those grave , learned and prudent Divines , who in their publick Articles concerning Papal and Regal Authority ( in the year 1663. ) do not own or look upon any Censures , Decrees or Definitions of Rome , ( antecedent to , and abstracting from , the joynt consent or acceptation of the Church as inerrable , ) would ever goe about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon , and deliver their Doctrine either as a Point or Article of faith in it self , or as a Rule of faith to others , but onely as a Rule of Opinion , ( if you please ) and a Judgment whereby such as were under their charge might remember to frame and regulate ( not their Faith , but ) their Opinions : which are the express words of the Decree it self . Since then the deniall of the Pope's Deposing power neither doth nor can pretend any higher then an Opinion , admit that its being the Opinion of so many Learned Divines might render it safe to hold and embrace it ; yet it s being but an Opinion , though of Learned Divines , renders it unsafe to swear it , and no less unsafe to abjure what is contrary to it . The Reason I have already given , Because nothing can lawfully be sworn as true which is not more then meerly probable or probably true , that is , which is not either certain or infallible : now all the Learned know , that a certain or infallible Opinion is as great a bull as an uncertain fallible Article of faith ; so that to swear to an Opinion as certainly true , is as much as to swear an Opinion is no Opinion , and the Swearer doth thereby at one breath intangle himself in his own words , his Reason in a Contradiction , and his Soul in Perjury . CHAP. VI. A particular Danger of Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power according to the form set down in the Oath of Allegeance . I Shall here annex a particular consideration of the wofull Snare those souls run themselves into , and apparent Danger of Swearing they know not what , who venture to abjure the Deposing power as it lies expressed in its several Branches in the Oath of Allegeance ; whereas those Learned persons who undertook to defend and explain the Oath render it not onely difficult , but next to impossible , to understand what it is that is to be abjured . I think I may take it for granted , that no person of integrity and candour can ever conceive it lawfull for him to swear , without first endeavouring to gain a right understanding of what he is to swear : for to swear what a man understands not , is blindly to rove at a venture , and to swear he knows not what , wilfully abandoning the conduct , and slighting the inward upbraidings and reproofs of his Reason : and , which is worse , it bewraies a feared Soul , a wretched and sinfull preparednesse of mind to prostitute an Oath to the attesting of any thing that comes next to hand , where Self-indemnity or other secular ends and advantages are proposed as the accursed purchace or reward of Perjury . In the Oath of Allegeance it is required of us to abjure the Pope's Deposing power in all and every its respective Branches therein expressed : one of which Branches is , That the Pope hath not any Power to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy the King or his Countries . Which Branch ( by the way ) the Authour and Publisher of the Questions in the form of the Oath set down by them have wholly omitted in both Editions , as well that of the year 61. as the other of this present year 74. through what mistake or how occasioned I know not . It is not easily to be conceived what subtle Obscurities and learned Intricacies Roger Withrington , one of the greatest Champions that ever appeared for the Oath , and his friend C. I. ( who confesseth to have compiled his * Book out of Withrington's expresse Grounds and Doctrine , ) plunge themselves and their reader into , in descanting upon this one point of the Oath . † They tell us , that by this clause is not denied the Pope's Authority to command ( but onely his Power to authorize ) in Temporals , in order to a Spirituall good ; or , to declare that they who have Authority to depose , or to make war , are bound to use their Temporal Authority , and to draw the Temporal sword , when the necessity of the Church and Spiritual good of Souls shall require the same : for that this Authority to declare and command doth not exceed the limits of a Spiritual power . Thus these Learned Persons . Let me here intreat the courteous Reader to lend me his eyes and attention to help me out . For if Temporal Princes , as is here supposed , have Power and Authority to invade or annoy forrein Princes or their Countries , nay to depose them , when the good of Souls and necessity of the Church shall require it ; if the Pope is to be Judge of this necessity , and to declare when , against whom , and upon what occasion the Temporal sword is to act its part by invading or annoying the delinquent Prince his Person or State ; if , I say , the Pope hath Power ( though not to authorize , yet ) to declare , and not onely to declare , but to command the doing of all this , as being in the line of Spirituality , and within the vierge of an Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction : truly my opinion is , ( and I think every sober and disinteressed Judgment will upon due reflexion subscribe to the same , ) that this Doctrine , as it contributes little to the Security of Princes , and as little to the satisfaction of intelligent Readers ; so it is not every one can easily understand , or be able to reconcile it to truth and its self : for , if I mistake not , it foully clashes with both . For , ( since we are here treating of the Legality or Illegality of an Oath , and what we may or may not safely swear or abjure , ) what can seemingly have more of the Riddle , or less to the purpose in it , then to be gravely told for our instruction , and the quieting of our Consciences , that we may lawfully abjure the Pope's Power of Authorizing , but not in any wise abjure his Power of Commanding a forrein Prince to invade or annoy His Majesty or His Kingdoms ? Again , that we may safely swear the Pope hath no Power to Depose Princes , but that we must not abjure his Power of Commanding others to depose them ? Alas ! and is not this a much mistaken favour , a mere mock-pretence of Security to Crowned heads , and of ease and relief to troubled Consciences , wholly built upon this nice and ambiguous Distinction , of Authorizing , and Commanding ? A Distinction in this case so subtile , that it is impossible to find where the difference lies , and is therefore in very deed no Distinction at all ; either in respect of the King , to whom it is all one , ( and His perill or ruine undistinguishably the same , ) whether He be invaded and deposed by the Pope's Authority , or onely by his Command . Neither is it any Distinction in respect of the Swearer , who cannot securely , nor without a self-contradiction , ( from which this Distinction can never clear him , ) swear that the Pope hath not any Power and Authority to depose Princes , if he have Power and Authority to command others to depose them : because this authoritative injunction of his is enough to intitle him to the fact ; and his very Commanding others to depose , both makes and denominates him the Deposer . Besides all this , if it be true what these Authours assume , that Temporall Princes have ( when the good of Souls and the necessity of the Church requires it ) Power to depose one another , how can any man , being of this opinion , lawfully swear the Pope hath not any such Power , who , as we all know , is a mixt person , and as well a Temporal Prince as a Spiritual Pastour ? and therefore it would argue great partiality in this Doctrine , wholly to exclude him , at least as he is a Temporal Prince , from his share in the Deposing power : from whence it would finally follow , that the Oath could not be taken without a distinction of different formalities in the same person , that is , without distinguishing the Pope as Pope from himself as he is a Temporal Prince ; and then also the two formalities being at odds , the Temporal Prince would be the more powerfull Pope of the two . These and the like entangled Positions I take to be clearly consequential , and absolutely necessary inferences from the aforesaid dark and perplexed discourse of these Authours . Now the use and advantage the Reader may please to make hereof is this sober and wholesome reflexion , That since Withrington , who bestowed much pains , and since large and learned Comments , upon the Oath , since he , I say , whilst he pretends to explain one of the Branches of that very Point wherein the Substance of the Oath consists , ( according to the Authour of the Questions , ) leads us into such a Labyrinth of thorny and insignificant Distinctions , cross and thwarting Niceties of words , as that a more then ordinary clue of reason and attention is necessary to wind us out ; what consciencious and considerate person of less leisure , industry , learning , and other abilities , then Withrington was , seriously pondering this Oath , shall hope he understands what he is to abjure , or dare to abjure what he understands not ? CHAP. VII . The just Plea of Conscience in refusing to abjure the Deposing doctrine consider'd with the like reference to the Depositions of Popes as of Kings . I Am much taken with the seasonable advice and wholesome caution I find in the Fourth of the Controversial Letters , which I shall elsewhere have occasion to quote more at large : Princes and Bishops , saith this Gentleman , ( pag. 8. ) are both sacred ; let what belongs to them be so too , and not touched without the excuse of necessity , or obligation of duty . It was under the warrant of this apology to my own thoughts , and the confidence of my Reader 's candour , that I first engaged in this Discourse ; and that now , for his farther satisfaction , ( to shew that there is nothing of any Popishly-affected partiality in the refusing this abjuring Oath , but that our Recusancy is wholly grounded upon sound Reason and upright Conscience , ) I shall compare the unlawfulness of abjuring the Pope's Deposing power , with the like unlawfulness of abjuring the Power of deposing Popes ; both these Powers· being alike controvertible amongst some of the Learned , whereof divers do freely and openly teach that Popes may be deposed as well as Kings , and for the like cause . For which end I shall here advance and confront in their severall instances two Propositions of a more large and comprehensive nature in relation to the Deposing power : as first , That there is absolutely no Power or Authority upon earth , either Spiritual or Temporal , to depose Kings , let the cause or pretence be what it will ; secondly , That there is absolutely no such Power or Authority upon earth , Spiritual or Temporal , to depose the Pope . The first of these Propositions is that which in the year of our Lord 1614. the House of Commons in France , in the General Assembly of the Three Estates , would have been at , and offered not onely to own and swear to it themselves , as a fundamental and holy Law , but also passionately endeavoured that others should be compelled by rigorous penalties to doe the like . But the project was stifled in the birth , and the abortive Bill laid aside by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal , who , well weighing the controverted nature of the case , were more considerate , and tender of their Oaths , then to venture them upon a foundation which , take whether side they pleased , must needs fail , and betray the Swearer to an active sin and shame . But what shall we say to the second Proposition ? may we not strain a little farther for the Pope then the King ? will not Religion bear us out , if we adventure to swear , that there is not any Power upon earth , Spiritual or Temporal , to depose the Pope ? To which I answer , It is neither Religion , Veneration , Duty , or Awe to the See of Rome , which ought either to perswade or extort , any more then it can legitimate , such an Oath ; which it can never do , in regard of the publick and unreproved disputableness of the case . For whether we consider matter of fact or right , it is no news amongst Catholick Divines , that if the Pope should become an Heretick , ( and they grant the [ If ] to be no impossible supposition , ) he then forfeits his right to the Apostolical Chair , and thereupon may lawfully be judged and deposed by the Spiritual power of the Church . And this is a Doctrine which hath been long publick to the world ; a Doctrine pretending a Canonical Constitution and a Conciliary Act for its ground and support ; a Doctrine not unknown to Italy , yet uncensured at Rome , nay , held and taught by some who lived and wrote even at the Pope's feet . Where , by the way , our impartiall School-men seem at least to clear themselves from all sinister prejudices of Favour and Flattery , and the stale imputation of framing and modelling their Doctrines to the humour and interest of the Court of Rome ; whereas we here see that some of them , and those of eminent note , make as bold with the common Father of the Church , the Pope himself , and even run him down with their Speculations as confidently , and with as much show of zeal , as at other times they set themselves to unthrone the meanest Prince in Christendome , upon the same pretence . And though his Holiness knows that Popes sit not so fast , nor are so firmly rivetted to their Thrones , but that divers of them have been deposed ; and sees withall this particular Deposing doctrine , threatning Popes no less then Princes , taught under his very eyes , and for the same cause , and that cause Heresy , and that Heresy hath even by Catholicks been charged more then once against some of his Predecessours : yet ( notwithstanding this concurrence and complicated pretence of Fears and Jealousies ) he never goes about to establish his Rights , Person and Authority , by any such assertory Oath as ours is ; but chuseth rather to trust Providence with his concerns , then that the Triple crown should owe any part of its Security to an illegal and unnecessary Oath , or his people be compell'd needlesly to swear away the peace of their Conscience , for securing that of the Common-wealth . But to draw the case yet to a nearer parallel , and to close more particularly with the Oath of Allegeance , wherein we are commanded to swear , that the Pope neither of himself , nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome , nor by any other means , with any other , hath any Power or Authority to depose the King ; ( and this to be understood as to comprehend all causes , cases or pretences possible . ) Let us spell the Oath backwards , and reade Pope for King , and King for Pope ; and then suppose we were injoyned to swear , that no King or Prince , either of himself or by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome , or by any other means , with any other , hath in any possible case any Power or Authority to depose the Pope ; let us see what the Schools and the publick and currently-allowed Tenets of Divinity will award as to the taking or refusing this Oath . It is acknowledged on all hands , there are divers instances from history of Depositions of Popes by Temporal Princes , as well as of Temporall Princes by Popes , which yet our Divines seem to restrain to the common case of Heresy : and therefore the otherwise-pious and godly Emperour Otho incurred at least the mild censure and reprehension of such pens as record the fact , for deposing Pope Iohn the XII . because ( though he was one of the worst of Popes , yet ) by the crime of Heresy he was wanting in the black list of his Offences to fill up the measure of his crying Misdemeanours , and justify the Sentence and severity of his Deposition ; though even taking the case as it was , not onely the pious Emperour ( saith Bellarmine ) conceived this Pope might be deposed , but many Doctours thought so as well as he . But however , nothing is more certain , then that it is a common and allowed Opinion of divers Divines , that in case of Heresy the Pope may be judged and deposed by the Church . Some of which carry it yet a step farther , adding [ ought ] to [ may , ] that is , that he not onely may , but ought to be deposed : and that this may and ought is not onely the Churche's right , but her obligation , and she thereby bound to proceed to due execution thereof , to the utmost of her power : and if the Pope , who is to be deposed , should chance to resist , oppose and stand in defiance of the Churche's judgment , and she not in a condition to call his obstinacy to an account , and to turn him out of his Chair by virtue of her Spiritual arms alone , and yet her duty still supposed incumbent and pressing upon her , to discharge and free her self and her Children from the thraldome of an Usurper ; then these Authours will tell us , that the Law of Nature , or that which is a Law to it self , Necessity , ( which even in causes Ecclesiastical takes upon her to justify force , when nothing but force will serve , for the compassing a just and necessary end , ) will prompt the Church , as is usual in some other cases , to have recourse to the Temporal Power , and call in the assistence of the Secular arm to her succour . In which juncture , no doubt , any King , Prince , or zealous Otho , who would please to interest himself in and espouse the Churche's quarrel , might both deserve and receive her Commission and thanks , to act with authority , as a welcome auxiliary in the Holy war , even to the Deposing of the Pope , and placing another in his Throne , in order to the good of Souls , and the just recovery of the Ecclesiastical liberties and Spiritual rights . Here then being a Case confessedly possible , and an Opinion which Authority renders probable , in which Case , and according to which Opinion , Kings and Princes have , at least by Authority of the Church , and with others , Power and Authority to depose the Pope , I see no objection offer it self , but the way open and fairly smoothed to this Resolution of the Case , That no Catholick can safely take this counter-Oath , nor securely swear , that no King or Prince , either of himself , or by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome , or by any other means , with any other , hath ( in any possible case ) any Power or Authority to depose the Pope . And therefore comparing the two Oaths together , this and the Oath of Allegeance , I think that , as no man could rightly be accounted a bad Catholick at Rome , for denying to take this , so neither can he justly be reputed a bad Subject in England , for refusing the other ; because this Recusancy is equally blamable in either of the two cases , or absolutely unreprovable in both , the ground of both being one and the same , which indeed is neither favour nor fear of man , but rather a just fear of incurring God's disfavour , and the inviolable duty we owe to Truth , and an upright Conscience , which lays an indispensable tie of Recusancy upon us , so far as never to take any assertory Oath , requiring of us to swear or abjure any speculative controverted Doctrines , though we suppose the Oath to be as much in favour of the Pope , as our Oath of Allegeance is conceived to be of the King. CHAP. VIII . Abjuring the Deposing doctrine neither is , nor can be any part of the Oath , as it is an Oath of Allegeance ▪ and therefore not at all necessary to a true Oath of Allegeance . More Allegeance may be sworn , and better Security given to Princes , by abjuring all Discourses and Disputes in favour of the Deposing doctrine , then by abjuring the Doctrine it self . I Have seen , and taken some pains to peruse , a * Book of Oaths , and the several terms thereof , ( above two hundred in all , ) both ancient and modern , forrein and domestick , out of sundry authentick Books and Records , wherein , amongst so many Oaths of Fealty , Service and Duty , as are mentioned there , ( which generally run in the promissory strain , ) I find not one that injoyns the swearing or abjuring of any controverted Doctrine , save onely our two Oaths of Allegeance and Supremacy ; which upon that account lie under the just exception ( as I think ) of being singular and without precedent in their kind : wherefore what the Authour of the Questions so expresly assumes , ( my self also , for his and the Argument's sake , having been willing hitherto to goe along with him in his own supposition , ) viz. that the Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power is the Substance of the Oath , cannot be strictly made out without the help and allowance of a distinction , nor regularly understood but onely of the assertory part : for otherwise , if we speak properly , it is so far from being the Substance , that it is not so much as a Part of the Oath , as it is an Oath of Allegeance , and a Bond of Duty from the Subject to his Supreme Lord. And of this there will need little proof , when it is considered , that the Bond of an Oath is in reference to something which is to be performed for the future ; and therefore cannot appertain to an assertory Oath , ( which is a thing present or past , ) but belongs onely to a promissory Oath . Wherefore since it is plain , that this abjuring the Pope's Deposing power is an assertory Oath , there can be no doubt , that it being in it self , and in the nature of the thing , no Bond at all , it can be no Bond of Allegeance , and therefore also no part of the Oath as it is an Oath of Allegeance . And if the forbearing all Disputes and Discourses any ways favouring the Deposing power may be ( as I think it is ) look'd upon as part of our Allegeance ; then it follows likewise , that more Allegeance may be sworn by the promissory Oath , in abjuring all such Disputes and Discourses in favour and defence of the Deposing doctrine , then by abjuring the Doctrine it self ; because this last Oath of abjuring the Doctrine it self , being purely assertory , contains no Promise , Bond , or Tie at all : so that in fine it is the promissory Oath alone that is the true Oath of Allegeance , and the sole Bond of Duty from the Subject to his Prince . This I take to be the reason why some learned Catholicks , who understood both themselves , the difference of Oaths , and the nature of Allegeance , full well , having upon sundry emergent occasions exhibited to the publick several Oaths of fidelity for the quieting of all State-jealousies and fears from the Pope's Deposing power , have wholly confined themselves to the promissory form . Thus 13 Catholick Priests made a solemn Protestation of their Allegeance to Queen Elizabeth by a publick Instrument the last day of Ianuary , and the last year of Her Majestie 's reign , wherein , after having acknowledged the Queen ( though divided from the Church of Rome in Communion ) for their true and lawfull Sovereign , they promised that they would yield to Her Majesty all Obedience in Temporal causes , notwithstanding any Authority or any Excommunication whatsoever denounced , or to be denounced , against Her Majesty or Her Subjects . The like Declaration and Acknowledgment Mr. Iames Haughton , ( aliàs Mr. Thomas Green , ) Professour of Divinity of the holy Order of Saint Benedict , gave under his hand to the then Lord Bishop of Durham , the 5. November An. 1619. and did promise and vow to be a true and faithfull Subject to His Majesty and His Successours during his life , notwithstanding any Sentence from the Pope whatsoever of Excommunication , Deposition , or Absolution of His Majestie 's Subjects from their natural Obedience to Him or His Heirs . There hath of late years been often reprinted a brief Explanation of the Roman Catholick belief concerning their Church-worship , justification , and Civil government , in the last clause whereof are these express words : We are ( say they ) most strictly and absolutely bound to the exact and entire performance of our Promises made to any person of what Religion soever , much more to the Magistrates and Civil Powers under whose protection we live , whom we are taught to obey by the Word of God , not onely for fear , but Conscience sake , and to whom we will most faithfully observe our Promises of Duty and Obedience , notwithstanding any Dispensation , Absolution , or other proceedings of any forrein Power or Authority whatsoever . And this they sincerely and solemnly professed in the sight of God , the Searcher of all hearts , without any equivocation or mentall reservation whatsoever . The Objection which some offer against the sufficiency of these or the like forms , grounded upon the difference which the Objectours make between [ Will not ] and [ Cannot , ] is , in my opinion , wholly groundless : what they pretend with so much solicitude in behalf of the State being onely this , That it is not enough for a man to swear he Will not , unless he swear also he 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 Rome 1625. having in the 30. and 31. Chapters found these Propositions , That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes , depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms , for the crime of Heresy , and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them ; and that this custome hath been alwaies practised in the Church , &c. and on the 4. of April 1626. censured these Propositions of that pernicious Book , and condemned the Doctrine therein contained as new , false , erroneous , contrary to the Word of God , rendring odious the Papal dignity , opening a gap to Schism , derogative of the Sovereign Authority of Kings , which depends on God alone , retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes , disturbing the publick Peace , tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks , diverting Subjects from the Obedience due to their Sovereigns , precipitating them into Faction , Rebellion , Sedition , and even to commit Parricides on the Sacred Persons of their Princes : The University of Paris in their General Assembly on the 20. of April 1626. decreed , that this Censure should be publickly read every year ; and that if any Doctour , Professour , Master of Arts , or Scholar , should resist , disobey , or make any the least opposition against the said Censure , he should immediately be expell'd , and deprived of his Degree , Faculty and Rank , without hopes of re-admittance . The like Decrees on the same occasion , the same year , against the same Doctrine , were made by Seven other Universities of France . Likewise the French Iesuits subscribed the Sorbon Censures , as the Authour of the Questions tells us . And that this was actually done , he is confident will not be denied : that it was commanded , we need no farther evidence ( says he ) then the Arrest it self of the Parliament of Paris , dated the 17. of March 1626. wherein it is ordered , that the Priests and Scholars of Clairmont , and of the other two Houses which the Iesuits have in Paris , should within three daies subscribe the Censure made by the Faculty of Sorbon . This the Authour of the Questions ; who needed not have been so confident of this last evidence drawn from the Arrest of the Parliament , which doubtless must needs be a mistake : for otherwise , ( unless we be resolved to rob the Year 1626. of some more daies then were thrown out of the Year 1582. for the Reformation of the Calendar , ) it will be a little hard to understand , how the Iesuits should be commanded , by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. to subscribe the Sorbon Censures within three daies , whereas the first of these Censures was not made before the 4. of April 1626. and the other not before the 20. day of the same month and year , even according to his own computation . The occasion and ground of the mistake , I conceive , was this ; In the month of December 1625. the Sorbon issued out a Censure against another Book , entituled Admonitio ad Regem ; and it was the single Censure against this Book , and not the two other Censures against Santarellus his Book , ( as our Authour mistakingly supposed , ) which the Iesuits were commanded to subscribe within three daies by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. and looking back to December 1625. This very quotation and copy of the Censure of the 4. of April is not free from its mistake , or at least of begetting a mistake in others , and making them think the Censure more clear and home to the point then possibly it is . For amongst the Propositions and Doctrines which the Faculty of Theology had found in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Santarellus his Book , the Authour of the Questions having onely set down these , That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes , depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms , for the crime of Heresy , and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them , and that this Custome has been alwaies practised in the Church — here he cuts off what follows , and defeats his Reader of his full information with an unreasonable [ &c. ] as if these Propositions were the onely , or at least the principal , object of the Censure : which yet may justly be doubted , for the Faculty goes on in the charge against Santarellus , as teaching in the foresaid Chapters , That Princes may be punished and deposed , not onely for Heresy , but for other causes ; ( 1. ) for their faults , ( 2. ) if it be expedient , ( 3. ) if they be negligent , ( 4. ) if their persons be insufficient , ( 5. ) if unusefull , and the like ; and then follows the Censure it self , not singly and separately upon each Proposition by it self , ( which yet is the usual method of the Faculty , ) but upon the whole taken in gross : which puts a quite different face upon the matter from what our Authour had given it , and renders it doubtfull whether the Faculty would have pronounced so severe a Judgment against the first part of the Doctrine , had not those last Propositions proved to be the aggravating circumstance ( or rather cause ) that deservedly occasioned and sharpened the Censure . As to the Subscription of the Iesuits , the true account of that action stands thus : Santarellus his Book had been condemned at Rome , which it was not for our Authour's purpose to take notice of , and his Doctrine generally cried down , and disavowed by all good men , before ever it fell under the brand of the Sorbon Censures : all which notwithstanding , such and so eminently singular was the caution and zeal of France against this ( though already sufficiently supprest ) mischief , that upon the 14. of March 1626. the Principal of the French Iesuits , with three Superiours , and three other ancient Fathers , being summoned to appear before the Parliament of Paris , and being asked what they held as to the Points noted in Santarellus ; Father Cotton , the then Provincial , ( having in the name of the rest of his Order disclaim'd all singularity of Opinions different from other Divines , ) answered , That the Doctrine of the Sorbon should be theirs , and what the Faculty of Paris should determine and subscribe , they were ready to subscribe also . And this indeed may pass for a Subscription to the Sorbon Censures , even before they were made . But from this Subscription of the French Iesuits our Authour runs into another mistake , seeming to wonder why the English Iesuits should scruple a downright Oath , which is exacted of us , any more then the French Iesuits did a simple Subscription , which was onely required of them : And then taking upon him a sober and grave style to open the mystery of ( this particular ) Iesuitism , he attempts it in these very terms . Now were I demanded a reason , ( says he ) why so circumspect and wise a Body should act so differently in the same Cause , but different Countries , I could onely return this conjectural answer , That , being wary and prudent persons , they could not but see the concerns they hazarded in France , by refusing to subscribe , far more important then what they ventured at Rome , by subscribing ▪ whenas in England all they can forfeit by declining the Oath of Allegeance ( being themselves but few , and without the engagements of Colledges and Foundations , ) is perhaps of less esteem with them , then the interest of their universall Body at Rome , whence so many advantages are continually derived to the rest of their Society . This is to a tittle his full discourse upon this subject . And now were I demanded a reason , why this Gentleman should thus freely let loose to a weak and meer conjecturall descant upon the very thoughts and secret intentions of religious men , ( as if any temporal interest were or could be more dear to , or sway more with them then Loyalty to their King and Country , ) my charity would prompt me to ascribe it to something of a too precipitate and mistaken zeal , or sinister preoccupation of judgement , which is too easily taken up at unawares in this Age of ours , and oftentimes fostered to the great prejudice of the innocent , even by persons otherwise of a sober and no immoderate temper ; who might doe a great deal of right , no less to themselves then others , would they be pleased to consider , that this is a great breach of Christian Charity , and is one day sadly to be reckoned for , when an impartial and all-knowing Justice shall sit upon the Bench to judge between man and man. Neither is the strength of the Gentleman's Discourse , nor the depth of his Politicks , such , but that a very common reason and an easy reflexion ( bating passion and prejudice ) may be Machiavil enough both to fathome and answer him . For if the Cause of the French and English Iesuits were the same , ( as he pretends it is , ) and withall they supposed to be those circumspect , wise , wary , prudent persons , as he is pleased to character them in this place ; then the English Iesuits must needs see , that by writing after the copy which the French Iesuits have set them , they could not in any likelihood hazard any of their publick concerns at Rome , nor justly fear the endangering the interest of their universal Body there , by acting no more then the French had done in the same Cause without any known check or censure from the See Apostolick to this day . And the Authour of the Questions affords me a convincing proof of this in his second Question , from whose mouth I take the words , and argue thus ; That if there be Reasons enough to turn the eye of Authority quite away from seeing what the French ( Iesuits ) so openly avowed in the face of the world , are there not enough to connive at the English ( Iesuits , ) who are but a few , and act privately , and not without the excusing plea of extreme necessity ? The Argument cannot be disliked , because it is perfectly his own . Wherefore if ( as he saith ) the Cause of the English and French Iesuits be the same , I conceive our Authour was much mistaken in his conjectural answer , as to the reason he assigns of their different Actings in the same Cause . For if the Cause be not the same , ( as plainly it is not , ) then this mistake is much the greater , and his charity the less . Had he produced a Censure against the Pope's Deposing power ( equal to that of the Sorbon ) drawn up , signed and assented to by the generality of Seculars and Regulars here in England , ( for the satisfaction of the State , demanding as a Test of our Allegeance the Subscription of such a Censure , ) and the Iesuits alone should stand out , and refuse to subscribe and set their hands to it ; or if he had given us an Oath of Allegeance , exactly parallel to ours , taken by the French Iesuits , and declined by the English ; then indeed the Cause of both had been the same , and their Actings different : but these two conditions both failing , that is , the French Iesuits having no such Oath of Allegeance to take as ours , nor the English any such Censure to subscribe as the French ; evidently the Cause of the one and the other is not the same , and so it will be no wonder to an impartial . Considerer they should act differently in different Causes : though I shall shew afterwards , that nothing can difference either their Principles or Practices , where the Cause will bear it . Another mistake of the Authour of the Questions is , the very reason given by him why he conceiveth the distinction between a simple Subscription and a down-right Oath to be a meer unnecessary Scruple ; because ( saith he ) no sincere and generous honesty will solemnly and deliberately attest under his hand , what he will not in due circumstances swear to be true . How ? swear to be true ? and yet this Gentleman knew full well ( had he but reflected on it ) that the onely Question here is , of Swearing or Abjuring Opinions . Wherefore had this Reason of his faln under Montalt's hands , and that he had catcht it dropping from a Iesuit's pen , how he would have answered it I know not : but I am sure , the daily practice of the Church , in a free and unoffensive Subscribing of Opinions , abundantly confutes it : for what more usuall amongst our greatest Divines , in resolving Cases of weight and concern , then to deliver and attest their Opinion under their hand ? And was it not thus that the Faculty of Theologie delivered and subscribed their Censure , as a Judgment for others to remember to frame and regulate their Opinions by ? Again , doth not our Authour himself , in his Preface , reason the case in this very manner , that if three or four Doctours , nay perhaps one , who hath well studied the point , can make an Opinion safe , how much more where a greater number and whole Universities engage their Judgment ? And if then the French Iesuits , submitting their own , subscribed to the Judgment of the University of Paris , and by it were willing to frame and regulate their own Opinions ; let any friend of our Authour , or his Principles , speak wherein or what was their trespass . For if , as he argues , the Authority of so many Catholick Doctours rendered their Opinion safe ; sure it could not be unsafe in the Iesuits to subscribe it as such . But now , to draw a generall consequence from a simple Subscription to a down-right Oath , as our Authour doth , and to conclude , that a sincere and generous honesty will oblige a man , in due circumstances , to swear every thing he attests under his hand to be true ; this , in other terms , is to conclude , that a sincere and generous honesty will oblige a man in some circumstances to act against Reason and Conscience , by swearing an Opinion to be true : which kind of Oath is a gross offence both against Logick and Divinity , and no less then Sacrilege and Self-contradiction , as hath been already proved in the Fifth Chapter . The last mistake ( waving many others ) I shall concern my self with at present is found in the Authour's Fourth Question , where he informs his Reader , that the Iesuits are the strictest of all Religious in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives . This he gives and attests under his hand in print : but I hope his sincere and generous honesty would have been loth deliberately to swear it to be true : for as I question not but he was too good a Christian deliberately to swear an untruth ▪ so I think he was too much a Scholar deliberately to take this for a truth . For let any learned and unprejudiced person but compare Bellarmine , Suarez , or any other Writer of the Society , not onely with the loose and exorbitant Fantasies of Carerius , Musconius , or Zecchius , but with other grave Religious men , with Panormitanus , Alvares Pelagius , Augustinus Triumphas , Bosius , and too many others to be listed here ; and then let him freely judge and speak as he sees cause , which of these Religious are the strictest in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives . I am sure Io. Barkley , one of Bellarmine's greatest adversaries , was yet so just to him , as to let the world know , that Sixtus Quintus expressed his great displeasure ( and it was near passing to a Censure ) against the Learned Cardinall , not for extending , but rather for clipping the Pope's Prerogatives , by disputing and writing so much as he did against the direct Power , and so giving less to the Pope then the Pope himself claimed , and other Religious men asserted as his due . Besides , how can it be averred with truth , that the Iesuits are the strictest Religious in maintaining and extending the Prerogative of the Deposing power , who of all Religious are the onely persons that , by especiall Precept and Decree , ( which was first made by themselves , and afterwards renewed at the instance of the Parliament of Paris , ) have silenced this Doctrine in their Pulpits , shut their School-doors against it , banished it from their publick Disputes , and suffer not so much as the mention of it to pass under their Pens , unless where necessity or duty make it a Crime to be wholly silent ? Lastly , how far the Iesuits are from being the strictest in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives by any particular Doctrine of their own , and how ready they are to disavow and renounce all singularity in this kind , both England and France afford us a fair instance , in a very observable ( and , I think , unexceptionable ) harmony of professions and acting between the English and French Iesuits in point of Allegeance . For as father Cotton , the mouth and speaker of the rest of his Order in France , freely offered , that the Doctrine of the Sorbon should be theirs , and that what the Faculty of Paris should determine and subscribe , they were ready to subscribe also : so in the year 1661. ( the very year wherein these Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance first came to light ) an English Iesuit , in the behalf of the rest of his Brethren , offered in print , that what Oath of Allegeance the English Clergy and other Religious should agree upon , that they would most readily take themselves , and willingly invite all others to take it . An evidence then which I think a greater cannot easily be given , how far they are from any particular kindness to any less allowable Doctrine of their own , who shew so much of submission and deference to others Judgments , as best suiting with the modesty and humility of Religious men . CHAP. X. The rest of the Answer to the Authour of the Questions . AFter a carefull survey , and a no less impartial then particular and due examination , of his small Treatise , I find the main Question throughout the whole so generally mis-stated by him , even contrary to his own expresse assertions , and the very terms wherein he first proposed , and thereby engaged to dispute it , ( which I set down in the First Chapter , and purposely stated the principall Controversy out of him , with this previous and particular Observation , That our present Question was not , Whether a Catholick may safely deny , but , deny by Oath , ( that Deniall also being the very Substance of the Oath , ) and universally abjure the Pope's Power of deposing Princes : ) which point he hath treated so cursorily , and spoken so little directly to it , that the onely application of my former discourse by way of Answer to his few proofs , will be all the Answer which the rest of his Book can justly claim , and the discovery of his Mistakes will be the refutation of his Arguments . As first , where he endeavours to fetch the parallel over from France to England , arguing from the Censures and Judgment of the French Divines , and pressing the Question home , why we may not safely and uncensurably profess as much as they . To which is answered from the foresaid grounds , That though we might safely and uncensurably profess as much as they , yet 't is one thing to profess as much as they , and another to swear as much as they profess ; and that though the first might , yet the second cannot be safely and uncensurably done : and this for the same reason which by repeated instances I have often inculcated , that where Catholick Divines teach differently , some one way , some another , there can be no safe ground for an assertory Oath in either way , because , chuse which of the two ways you please , it will still be a Question amongst the Learned , whether Truth lies in that way or no ; and it is this Questionableness of the Point ( till the Church interpose for the decision of the Case ) will rise up in judgment against the Swearer , and make out the charge of Perjury against him . And truly , were there no more in taking the Oath of Allegeance , then in Subscribing the Sorbon Censures , I would gladly ask this Question of the Authour or Publisher of the Questions , That whereas the said Oath hath been long since translated , and hath now travelled abroad in the Latine tongue for some more then one or two scores of years , how it comes to pass that so many famous French Universities , which so unanimously and solemnly and deeply condemn this Position of the Pope's Deposing power , ( and all this , as the Authour of the Questions observes , without constraint , voluntarily delivering their free Judgment , unmenaced by their King , unconcerned in Self-preservation , ) should not ( at least out of a common concern for Religion , whose credit is at stake , or out of a sense of Compassion to us their suffering Brethren in England , where our Laws so threatningly command , and our All is so near concern'd ) voluntarily deliver their free Judgment , and unanimously subscribe our Oath , and by their Subscribing encourage us to the taking of it ; if it were really true , that the taking of the said Oath amounted to no more then the denying or condemning of this Position of the Pope's Deposing power , or that a simple denying and denying by Oath , or condemning and abjuring , were all one . Then for his next Argument , ( That however the Deposing power may by some be held speculatively probable ; yet , as to any execution , it is practically no Power at all against one in possession , and consequently may be abjured as such ; ) This , I say , seems too plainly to beg the question , and to take that for an uncontrovertible truth , which hath been already shewn ( and is necessarily implied in the very state of the Question ) to be the chief , or rather the onely point in controversie , between the Deniers and Assertors of the Deposing power . For , that this Deposing doctrine hath been held by Popes and other Learned Divines , not onely as speculatively probable , but also as safely practicable , even against one in possession , appears manifestly , not onely by their open pretence and claim , but also by their frequent and publick Sentence of Deposition against severall Sovereign Powers , ( all of them actually in possession , ) even from the time of the Emperour Hen. IV. to the days of King Hen. IV. of France , the first and last of Christian Princes who stand as instances upon record , and sad testimonialls , of Papal Deposition ; the one having had the Sentence of Deprivation passed against him by Pope Gregory VII . the other by Sixtus V. England in particular hath cause to remember and deplore the lamentable effects of the like Sentence pronounced by Paulus Tertius against King Hen. VIII . and of Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth . Likewise I have already , in the Fourth Chapter , quoted the testimony and free acknowledgment of the Authour of the Questions , that this act of deposing Kings hath not onely been done by Popes , but approved by Councills . All which I do not produce ( any more then he himself doth ) with the least intention or design to interest my self in the decision of that Question , or to prove that the Doctrine is in it self practically probable ; but onely that it was held so by Popes , Councils , and Learned Divines ; and therefore , as being a controverted Point of doctrine , can be no due and immediate object of an assertory Oath , nor safely abjurable ( even by those who otherwaies hold it safely deniable ) as practically no Power at all . There followeth another Argument , which the Authour of the Questions , in pursuance of his usual way of arguing , and conformably to the title of his Work , proposeth by way of Quere . Let them tell me , ( saith he , pag. 25. ) are they not ready to swear they will faithfully serve their King whiles they live , and that notwithstanding any Papall Dispensation , or whatever other proceeding to the contrary ? What signifies this but an express renouncing all Obedience to the Pope in these Points ? True , say they , we renounce Obedience , but not the acknowledgment of his Power : we will adhere to the King , though the Pope should depose him ; but will not say he cannot depose him . What wise and reall difference ( as to Government and the practicall part of humane life ) can we imagine between these two , I 'll swear never to obey my Commander , and , I 'll swear he has no Power to command me ? The summe of the first part of this Discourse ( which is quite besides the Question ) in a short word is this , either deny the Pope's Authority , or obey it : so that if those good Subjects , who are ready to swear they will adhere to the King , though the Pope should depose him , will but say ( though not swear ) he cannot depose him , ( which is no more then with the French Divines to deny the Deposing power , ) then the Gentleman and the first part of his Argument are satisfied . Now to his Question that follows , ( which is the second , and indeed the onely pertinent part of his Argument ; ) what wise and real difference ( as to Government and the practicall part of humane life ) there is between these two , I 'll swear never to obey my Commander , and , I 'll swear he hath no Power to command me ; they will easily answer , that the last of these two Oaths is an assertory Oath , and swears to a disputable piece of Doctrine as to an absolute Truth , which is down-right Perjury , as hath been proved already in the 2.3.4 . and 5. Chapters : the other ( I 'll swear never to obey my Commander , to wit , the Pope , in this particular case of Deposing the King , ) being a promissory Oath , and tending wholly to practice , engages not for the absolute truth of any Doctrine , but onely for the Swearer's Allegeance and Loyalty , and therefore requires no absolute certainty to build on , but onely a safe and practically-probable Opinion , as a sufficiently-strong principle of action , such as the Authour of the Questions every-where designedly maintains the Deniall of the Pope's Deposing power to be ; from whence they will lastly conclude , that there is as much difference between these two Oaths as between Perjury and Loyalty : and sure that is difference enough , even as to Government and the practical part of humane life . In the last place comes his conjectural proof , or rather his meer affirmative presumption , That our glorious Ancestours , who refused , and suffered for refusing , the Oath of Allegeance , would certainly have changed their judgment , had they but seen , read , perused , examined , and throughly considered , all those many particulars which he dilates upon in a large flourish of words . To all which my Fifth Chapter may serve for a Reply , and a sufficient evidence , that had these worthy Predecessours of ours seen the unanimous Judgment of so many Universities , and the publick Subscriptions of so many eminent Regulars , ( they are the words of the Authour of the Questions ; ) had they examined the sense of Antiquity towards Sovereign Princes , which acknowledge them Supreme in Temporals , and accountable to none but God ; had they read the learned Treatises composed by Catholick Writers , both of our own and other Nations , where this King-dethroning Power is absolutely disavowed ; had they perused the Declarations of the Kings in France , and Arrests of Parliaments there ; had they , I say , done all this , and more then this ; yet after all , they could have found the Opinion denying the Deposing power to be no more then an Opinion . Neither the Judgment of the French Universities , nor the learned Treatises of both the Barkleys , father and son , nor Withrington's Gloss and Exposition , together with the Apologetical answer , his Theological Disputation , and whatever else he wrote against Suarez , Lessius , Fitzherbert and Skulkenius , can prove it to be any more then an Opinion , in the opinion of the Authour and Publisher of the Questions . And since that enough hath already been said to prove , that an opinionative assent cannot safely ground a consciencious Oath , asserting the truth or abjuring the falsehood of the thing that is sworn , I shall now pass to this final conclusion of my Discourse , That whereas it is the voice and Law of Nature , that Protection claims Allegeance , and that perfect Subjection to Civil Powers under which we live is the strict injunction no less then dictate of Reason , whereby it comes to pass that nothing is or ought to be more inviolably dear to a loyal heart , nor more highly and justly valuable in it self , then to be and to bear the name of a good Subject ; ( life and fortunes are nothing to it : ) yet since that to take the Oath as it lies , were to over-buy that precious title , by making Perjury the price of it , and laying out our very Souls upon the purchace , whenas it is to be had at a much cheaper rate , and as with more ease to the Conscience of the Subject , so with no less Security to the Prince ; we must conclude upon the whole , that it can never be lawfull thus to rob God of the things that are God's , under pretence of rendring unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's , nor to ground our Allegeance to the King upon the forfeiture of our Loyalty to the King of Kings . THE THIRD TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE . Several Considerations proposed for the satisfaction of such Catholicks as desire to be informed concerning the Oath of Allegeance , Enacted Tertio Iacobi , Capite quarto . 1. COncerning the Lawfulness of an Oath in general ; Consider , First , that ( as all do confesse ) three Conditions are requisite for the Lawfulness of an Oath , viz. Truth , Iustice , and Necessity . So that an Oath wherein any thing whatsoever contained , though never so little , is either unjust , false , or doubtfull , or if the taking of it be not necessary and effectual to some good end , is unlawfull , and ought to be refused . Secondly , Consider , that any Oath whatsoever , wherein any of the forementioned Conditions is wanting , is , according to the constant sentiment of Divines , intrinsecally evill , and such as cannot be justified in any case possible , though never so great good be hoped for by taking it , or never so great evill be feared by refusing it . Thirdly , Consider , that whoever takes any Oath , though in it self never so just , without a due previous Consideration , swears rashly , and commits a grievous Sin. To this all do agree . Whence I conclude , That to the end one may lawfully take this Oath , it is necessary that , after a serious Consideration , he finds nothing therein unjust , nothing false , nothing doubtfull , and that he judges the taking thereof to be requisite and effectuall for some good intent . 2. Concerning the Unlawfulness of this Oath , deduced from the Briefs of Popes issued forth against it , Consider , First , that the Unlawfulness of this Oath has been declared by * three several Briefs of Popes . The First was issued forth by Paul the V. September 21. 1606. the Second by the same Pope September 21. 1607. the Third by Pope Vrban the VIII . May 30. 1626. This neither Protestants nor Catholicks deny . Secondly , Consider , that several things are contained or involved in this Oath , the decision whereof appertains onely to the Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Court ; viz. How far the Spirituall Power extends it self , What Authority Christ left to the Supreme Spirituall Pastour as such , What are the effects of an Excommunication , What Propositions are Hereticall : and the main debate about this Oath is , Whether it be Sinfull or not . The decision of all which things , ( wherein consists the chief difficulty of this Oath , ) according to the unanimous consent of both Catholicks and Protestants , belongs onely to the Ecclesiasticall Court. Withrington , the great Stickler for the Oath , made his † humble address to the Pope concerning this matter , representing unto him his Reasons for the Lawfulness thereof , and earnestly beseeching him , that , laying aside the Misinformation of others , he would be pleased to give his Judgment therein according to his own knowledge . Which certainly he would never have done , had he not been perswaded that there was something contained in this Oath , the Judgment whereof did appertain to the Pope and to the Ecclesiasticall Court. Moreover , the same Authour , with other Catholicks who have written in defence of the Oath , do plainly professe , that , were the Unlawfulness thereof declared by a General Council , they would think themselves bound to submit . And yet neither in that case would they be bound to submit , were not the Cause Ecclesiasticall ; for such Causes onely appertain to Councills . 3. Consider , Thirdly , that the Pope is Supreme Governour in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affairs : which no true Catholick can question . Fourthly , that an exteriour * Obedience at least is due to the Sentence or Judgment of all Supreme Governours , in all matters appertaining unto them , and so far as they do appertain unto them ; which all do grant who grant any Government : and consequently , that an exteriour Obedience at least is due to the Orders or Prohibition of the Pope in all Ecclesiasticall matters . And this all must confess , who confess him to be Supreme Governour in such matters . Fifthly , Consider , that it is unlawfull to deny any Obedience or Compliance that is due , as is manifest ; and by consequence , that it is unlawfull to deny an exteriour Obedience to the Orders or Prohibition of the Pope in all matters appertaining unto him , and no farther then they appertain unto him , or in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters . Sixthly , That the Popes have prohibited this Oath , by reason of the Clauses it contains relating to the Ecclesiasticall Court , and for Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall respects onely : viz. for † containing things contrary to Faith and Salvation ; or , for being noxious and sinfull . For such Motives , and no other , are exprest in the forementioned Briefs . And consequently , that they have prohibited this Oath upon the account of matters appertaining unto them , and no farther then they do appertain unto them . Lastly , Consider , that whoever takes this Oath denies an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Prohibition contained in the Briefs . For he exteriourly takes an Oath , which the Pope in such Briefs prohibits to be taken ; as is evident . 4. Hence I frame this Argument , to conclude the Unlawfulness of the aforesaid Oath : Whoever takes this Oath , denies an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Prohibition in matters appertaining unto him , and no farther then they appertain unto him . But it is unlawfull to deny an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Prohibitions in matters appertaining unto him , and no farther then they appertain unto him . Therefore it is unlawfull to take this Oath . 5. If it be objected , First , That the Pope's Briefs are of no force here in England without the King's approbation , ( which these Briefs have not , ) according to the Statutes 25. of Edward the Third , and 16. of Richard the Second , made in Catholick times ; and that it cannot be unlawfull to deny Obedience to a Brief where it is of no force ; neither is there any reason why the present Catholicks of England should not have the same liberty to refuse the Pope's Brief , not approved by the King , as the ancient Catholicks had : 6. In Answer to this Objection , Consider , First , that what is alledged out of the forementioned Statutes , does not prove that Briefs brought into England without the King's licence are void and of no force ; but onely that those who procure them and bring them hither without the King's approbation , are liable to a Praemunire , and other Penalties : which is very different . For though it be punishable to doe a thing , yet the thing once done may be valid . Those who contract a clandestine Marriage here in England are liable to the Penalties enacted by the Canons in such cases : yet the Marriage so contracted is valid and obligatory . 7. Consider , Secondly , that should we grant ( as we do not ) that such Statutes render the Briefs they speak of void and of no force ; they are to be understood either of Briefs which import an absolute Power in the Pope to defeat and avoid at his Will the Laws and Statutes of this Realm , and consequently touch the King's Regalities , as the Statute expresses it , and destroy His Sovereignty in Temporals ; which the Briefs we produce do not ; for they onely enjoyn a meer forbearance of this Oath , which certainly does not dethrone His Majesty of his Sovereignty in Temporalls ; as will appear by what hereafter shall be added : or else of Briefs Enactive , ( as in other Kingdoms the like Statutes are understood , ) whereby some new Law is enacted , or some new thing ordained , relating to the External Government of the Church ; as the Presentments to Churches or Benefices , or the Translation of Bishops or Bishopricks , and such like things which are mentioned in the Statutes : but not of Briefs Declarative , whereby such a Doctrine is declared Erroneous or Hereticall , such an Action Sinfull and destructive to Salvation . As , for instance , the Declarative part of the Councill of Trent , though never admitted in England by publick Authority , does oblige all English Catholicks ; but not the Enactive part thereof . Now the Briefs we speak of are not Enactive , as is manifest , but Declarative : For they do not make this Oath unlawfull , but onely declare it to be so . 8. Consider , Thirdly , whether , should it be admitted , that these Statutes in their primary institution did extend to all Briefs whatsoever , it can prudently be thought , that they were ever intended by the Catholicks that made them for the condition wherein we now are in England ; viz. of an open Rebellion against the Pope and the Church of Rome ; when no Brief , though never so just , nor nothing else that comes from Rome in order to our Spirituall direction , is admitted by publick Authority . Suppose that before the late Civil Wars it had been enacted by the King and Parliament , ( perhaps there is some such Act , ) that no Commission sent by His Majesty to any particular person should be of force , unless it were delivered unto him by the Lieutenant of the County where he resided : could we prudently think , that such an Act was ever intended by loyal Subjects , that voted it , for the case of a publick Rebellion , when all the Lieutenants were manifest Rebells against the King , and resolved to pass nothing in His favour , and , consequently , to deprive thereby His Majesty of all Power to send Orders to His loyall Subjects remaining in England , in a time when He had most need of their Assistence ; or that whoever should refuse to obey His Majestie 's expresse Commands , under such a pretence , could be esteemed a faithfull Subject ? 9. Consider , Fourthly , whether , should these Statutes be taken in the latitude the Opponent pretends , all intercourse between the Pope and the English Catholicks , and all direction from him in order to their Spiritual conduct , would not be quite cut off in a time when they had greatest need thereof , ( such is the time of Persecution ; ) and all Dispensations , Indulgences and Faculties , and all Powers or Prohibitions whatsoever , that come from Rome , ( for they all come in Bulls , Briefs , and such like Instruments , ) would not be rendered void and of no force . 10. Consider , Fifthly , whether this be not against the common perswasion and practice of the English Catholicks , not excepting even those who defend the Lawfulness of this Oath ; who , without any scruple , use their Faculties sent to them from Rome ; who procure thence , as occasion requires , Dispensations , Indulgences , and other Powers ; who make their application to Rome in severall Emergencies , ready to submit to the Pope's Judgment : and whether it would not be very ridiculous , both for them to procure such things , and for the Pope to grant them , were it true what this Objection pretends , viz. That no Brief or Grant brought from Rome without the King's approbation ( which in this conjuncture of affairs cannot be hoped for ) is here of any force . 11. Consider , Sixthly , whether it be reasonable that there should be the same liberty to treat with , ( as the Opponent pretends ) or the same obligation to depend of Princes who are out of the Church , as of those who are in the Church , in order to Ecclesiasticall affairs : such is the admission or refusall of the Pope's Bulls or Briefs : and consequently , whether the present Catholicks of England ought to have the same dependence of their Prince ( who is no Catholick ) in order to Ecclesiastical matters , as the ancient English Catholicks had of their Princes , who were Catholicks . Certainly no body will say , that we have the same obligation to depend of Governours who are Rebells in order to Civill concerns , as of those that are faithfull ; or that there ought to be the same liberty to treat with persons infected , as with persons who are not infected . It was no absurdity for the ancient Catholicks of England , to make their Application to their Catholick Princes , for leave to get such a Grant from the Pope ; whereas now it would seem very absurd , should they make any such Application to His Majesty . For though we do acknowledge our selves to be as much bound to obey His Majesty in all Civill and Temporall concerns as the ancient Catholicks were bound to obey their respective Catholick Princes ; yet hence it does not follow , that we are so much bound to depend of His Majesty that now is ( so long as he is of a different Religion from us ) in order to Ecclesiasticall Discipline , as the ancient English Catholicks did depend of their Princes . 12. Consider , Lastly , that in the above-mentioned Statute of Richard the Second express mention is made of the Sentence of Excommunication ; yet all Catholicks , even those who deny the Pope to have any Power to Depose Kings , do unanimously grant him a Power to Excommunicate Kings , if they become Hereticks , and remain obstinate : nay , King Iames refused to oblige His Catholick Subjects to renounce such a Power in the Pope . Now , according to this Objection , no Sentence of Excommunication fulminated against any English King ( the same is of any of his Subjects ) is of any force here , unless approved and submitted unto by himself : and if he submits unto it , he is not obstinate , and by consequence does not deserve to be Excommunicated . So that if what this Objection pretends be true ▪ the Pope has no power to Excommunicate any Hereticall King of England , unless in a case wherein he deserves it not : which is , to have no power at all to Excommunicate him . 13. If it be objected , Secondly , That the Pope with a Generall Councill is above the Pope without it ; that with it he is Infallible , without it Fallible ▪ and that therefore we are not bound , with our own prejudice , to stand to his Decrees which are issued out without a Generall Councill , as these Briefs are , nor to forbear taking this Oath , till the Unlawfulness thereof be declared by a Generall Councill , the Supreme Judge of Controversies , which hitherto has not been done : That the Pope may be , and was mistaken and misinformed concerning this Oath , thinking that therein are contained severall things repugnant to Faith and Salvation , though he specifies none of them ; and that thereby is abjur'd implicitly a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate Princes , and his Supremacy in Spiritualls ; all which is false ; and we are not bound to submit to Briefs grounded upon mistakes and misinformations : That the Pope is a Party in this Debate , and by consequence ought not to be Judge in his own Cause : That he must give Sentence according to the Canons or Rules prescribed him by the Church ; which he does not observe in the Prohibition of this Oath : Finally , That we ought not to take notice of the Prohibitions or Commands of the Pope , when the Compliance with them may be a cause of great Disturbance in the Church , or is prejudiciall to the Right of others , especially of Sovereign Princes , and to the Duty due unto them , to which God and the Law of Nations obliges us ; all which Inconveniences intervene in the Prohibition of this Oath : 14. Concerning the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope , contained in the Objection ; Consider , First , that though the King and Parliament be above the King out of Parliament ▪ yet we are bound to submit , even against our own Interest , to the Orders of the King and His Councill in Civill matters , till the contrary be decreed by Parliament ; which at least is enjoyned us by such Parliaments as command us to bear due Allegeance to His Majesty as our Sovereign in all Civill matters : and that , in like manner , we are bound to submit to the Pope's Ordinances in Ecclesiasticall matters , even against our Interests , notwithstanding the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope , till the contrary be defined by such a Councill ; which at least is asserted in such Councills , and by such Fathers , as recommend unto us due Obedience to the Pope , as our Supreme Pastour in Spiritualls . For the Pope is as Supreme in Spiritualls out of a Councill , as the King is in Temporalls out of a Parliament ; and consequently requires the like submission to his Ordinances . 15. Consider , Secondly , that the Reasons one may seem to have either against the Pope's Decrees out of a Councill , or the King's Ordinances out of a Parliament , cannot justify the refusing an exteriour Compliance with them ; but onely may give one ground to make his Addresses to the Councill or Parliament when assembled , to have such Decrees or Ordinances repealed : and that what we require in our present case , is onely , that we should forbear the taking this Oath till the Lawfulness thereof be declared by a General Council , to which we may apply our selves , when convened , to have this matter declared . 16. Concerning the Fallibility of the Pope , and the Infallibility of a General Council ; Consider , First , that if it be warrantable to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Decrees in Ecclesiastical matters , because Fallible ; upon the same account it will be lawfull to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Orders of Kings and Princes in Civill affairs ; for doubtless they are all Fallible , and may be mistaken and misinformed : and so farewell all Government . Secondly , Consider , that even those Catholicks who affirm the Pope to be Fallible out of a General Council , do notwithstanding confess that an exteriour Obedience is due to his Commands in Ecclesiastical matters : as the like Obedience is due to the Ordinances of Sovereign Princes in Civil affairs , though Fallible . And in this present Case no more is required , then a meer exteriour Compliance with the Pope's Prohibition . Thirdly , Consider , that even Protestants also , who confesse their whole Church , and not onely the particular Pastours thereof separately , to be Fallible , do yet affirm , that an exteriour Obedience is due to their Ordinances . And it seems somewhat odde , that Catholicks should deny the Pope that Obedience under pretence of Fallibility , which Protestants assert to be due to the Pastours of their Church though Fallible . 17. Lastly , Consider , that the difference between a General Council and the Pope , supposing the Infallibility of the one , and the Fallibility of the other , is , that the Decrees and Declarations of the Pope do oblige onely to an Exteriour Obedience , but those of a General Council to an Interiour Assent also . 18. Concerning the capacity of the Pope of being misinformed , and the pretended Mistakes in this present matter ; Consider , First , that between the publishing of the first and the last Brief against the Oath , there past Twenty years : That in this time the present Question concerning the Lawfulness thereof was canvased on both sides by Learned men , both English and Forreiners : That Withrington ; the chief Defender of the Oath , and who brings all that is material for it , represented in this interim to Paul the Fifth his Reasons for the Lawfulness of it , and his Answers to what had been objected against him : That the Popes , in the forementioned Briefs , use as significant terms to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation , Mistakes and Inconsiderateness , [ as , Motu proprio , Ex certa nostra scientia , — Post longam gravémque deliberationem de omnibus quae in illis continentur adhibitam — Haec mera , pura , integráque voluntas nostra est , &c. ] as are used in any Briefs or Instruments whatsoever , in order to that intent . And if this be so , as certainly it is , then Consider , Secondly , that if all these diligences and preventions be not thought sufficient to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation , Mistakes , and Inconsiderateness , what Brief , or what Decree , Ecclesiastical or Civil , is there that the party therein condemned may not ( under pretence of the like Flaws ) reject and disobey ? Such liberty as this , to reject the Ordinances of our Sovereigns , both Spirituall and Temporall , must needs induce a perfect Anarchy . 19. Consider , Thirdly , that it belongs to the Pope to determine , whether this Oath does contain any thing contrary to Faith and Salvation , or destructive to his Sovereignty in Spiritualls , or no. For the determination of such Questions belongs to the Spiritual Court , as has been above insinuated ; as it belongs to the King , and the Civil Court , to determine whether such a thing be contrary to the Civil Laws , and publick welfare of the Kingdome , or destructive to His Sovereignty in Temporalls , or not . And since the Popes , after so much diligence used to be informed of the Truth , have severall times declared , that this Oath contains many things destructive to Faith and Salvation , and upon that account have prohibited the taking thereof ; we are bound to afford at least an exteriour Compliance to this Prohibition . 20. Consider , Fourthly , that as to prohibit a Book , 't is not necessary to point out the particular Propositions for which it is prohibited , as appears by several publick Prohibitions of Books and Pamphlets , issued forth either by Civil or Ecclesiastical Authority ; neither would it be prudence , to design alwaies the particular Propositions for which a Pamphlet is prohibited , when they are scandalous and offensive : so neither was it necessary , for the Prohibition of this Oath , that the Pope should assign the particular Propositions which he looked upon as repugnant to Faith and Salvation . The Prohibition of Suarez his Book , made by the Parliament of Paris , as containing things destructive to the Honour due to the Kings , does not express , at least as it is related by Withrington , what those particular Things or Propositions are , contained in that Book , which are destructive to the Veneration due to Kings : and yet no body upon that account does quibble at such a Prohibition . Why therefore might not the Pope prohibit this Oath , as containing things destructive to Faith and Salvation , without setting down in particular which those Things are ? 21. Consider , Lastly , whether , whoever takes this Oath , does not implicitly deny , either that the Pope has any Power to Excommunicate an Heretical King , which Power is inherent in the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church ; or at least , that though he should Excommunicate such a King , the Excommunication would have in the person Excommunicated these Effects , viz. to deprive him of all civill Communication with others , &c. which are assigned in Scripture , in those places whence the Power in the Pope to Excommunicate is deduced . 2. Joan. 1. Neque Ave ei dixeritis . 1 Cor. 5. cum hujusmodi nec cibum sumere . For sure a King who is deprived of all Civill Communication with others , is deprived of all Civill Government , in order to the exercise thereof ; which is a certain kind of Deposing . And if some persons , though Excommunicated , are excepted from these effects , either by the Indulgency of the Pope , or otherwise , whether it does not belong to the Pope to determine which those persons are ; and whether he has excepted Princes . 22. Concerning the Pope being a Party in this debate , and not proceeding according to the Canons ; Consider , First , that Supreme Governours , whether Spirituall or Temporall , in Debates wherein their Prerogatives are concerned , either are not styled properly Parties ; or if they be Parties , they are also Iudges . Otherwise we should not be bound to stand to the Decision of a Generall Councill , in matters relating to the Authority of the Church or Generall Councills ; nor to the Determination of the King and Parliament , in matters relating to the Authority and Prerogatives of His Majesty or His Parliament . Consider , Secondly , that if the Pope is not to be hearkened unto , when he prohibits the taking of this Oath , because he is the Party concerned in the not-taking thereof ; neither the King , upon the same account , is to be hearkened unto , when He commands us to take the Oath , because He is the Party concerned in the taking thereof . 23. Consider , Thirdly , that as * there are Canons and Rules prescribed for the proceedings of Popes ; so there are , in the like manner , Rules prescribed for the proceedings of Kings , of Councills , and of Parliaments . But as the King , or Councill , or Parliament , must be their own Judges , whether they have proceeded , in such a Decision or Determination , according to the respective Rules prescribed unto them , and not any particular person or Subject : so must the Pope be his own Judge , and not any particular Doctour , whether he hath observed , in the Prohibition of this Oath , the Rules and Canons prescribed unto him in such cases . And since the Popes have sufficiently declared , that in the Prohibition of this Oath they have proceeded according to the Canons for such cases , it is not reasonable , that under pretence that they have not observed such Canons , we should deny an exteriour Obedience to their Prohibitions . 24. Concerning the Disturbance of the Church , which the Opponent pretends may follow from the submission to the Briefs , and the prejudice created thence , or pretended to be created , to the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes ; Consider , First , that if the Defenders of the Oath would be quiet , we might enjoy the same peace and tranquillity , in relation to this point , which we have enjoyed for many years . For the Oppugners of the Oath have not printed any thing for a long time , contenting themselves with the Sentences which the above-mentioned Popes have been pleased to issue forth in their favour : And consequently , the Disturbance , if any follow , is rather to be attributed to the Defenders of the Oath , then to the Oppugners . 25. Consider , Secondly , that if the Pope ( whose Office it is to declare the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of an Action , especially if he be required thereunto , and the inconsistency thereof with Faith and Salvation ) should forbear to declare such an Action unlawfull , for fear of some Disturbance , or Persecution , by the contrivance of some obstinate and discontented persons : upon the same account the Councill of Nice should have forborn to have declared against the Arrians , the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father ; and other Generall Councills , in the like manner , should have waved the Definitions of severall other Doctrines ; because some malicious men , taking occasion thence , have raised severall Disturbances and Persecutions . Nay , our Saviour , and the Apostles , should , upon the same score , have forborn the preaching Christian Religion , since they foresaw , that many Calamities , Disturbances and Persecutions would arise , by the malice and obstinacy of men , upon the account of Christian Religion . And therefore Simeon foretold , that the coming of Christ would be the occasion of the ruine of many . Ecce hic positus est in ruinam , & resurrectionem multorum in Israel , & in signum cui contradicetur . Luc. 2.34 . 26. Consider , Thirdly , that though it be not the intention , neither of Popes , nor of Generall Councills , that their Enactive Decrees , in some extraordinary and extravagant cases , should oblige , when the compliance with them is very prejudiciall ; or at least they are supposed to have dispensed for such cases ; as appears in the precept of Fasting , or such like : yet this cannot reach to their Declarative Decrees , such as the present Decree against the Oath is . For it cannot be their intention , neither can they dispense in any case whatsoever , that we may lawfully doe what they have declared , and do declare , to be of it self unlawfull . 27. Consider , Fourthly , whether what the Popes enjoyn in the above-mentioned Briefs , can be prejudiciall to the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes . For though Popes be as jealous of their Prerogatives , as Kings are of theirs ; yet they do not enjoyn us in these Briefs to swear , that the Pope has any Power or Authority to Depose Kings , or to swear any thing else contrary to any Clause contained in this Oath : but onely not to take the Oath , or not to swear positively , that the Pope has no such Power ; leaving things in the same condition wherein they were ( in order to any such Obligation ) before this Oath was framed . For although as long as there is a debate whether such a thing belongs to me , or another , I cannot lawfully take the possession of it ; yet I may lawfully hinder my Adversary from taking it . Neither do they prohibit us to take other Oaths of Allegeance , wherein all Civill Allegeance is contained in as , or more expressive terms , then in the present Oath ; as shall be made appear hereafter : nay , nor to take those Clauses of the Oath , which do manifestly contain no more then meer Civill Allegeance . Neither do they in rigour oblige us to give an interiour assent to the Reasons why they prohibit this Oath . For even the Decrees of Generall Councills , according to the common sentiment of Divines , do not oblige us always to believe the Reasons for the framing such Decrees , inserted in them , to be good and solid . As in the Second Councill of Nice it was declared , That Angels may be painted , because they have Bodies . The Declaration is good , but the Reason is false . So that though one refuses the Oath in compliance to the Pope's commands , it does not follow , that he does not think the Oath in it self , and speculatively speaking , to be lawfull : and consequently , if he thinks that the Acts therein contained do concern meer Civill Allegeance , he is bound , as long as he remains in such a persuasion , to comply with those Acts , whether he has taken this Oath or not . For a Subject is bound to Civill Allegeance by the Law of God and Nature , antecedently to all Oaths . Finally , the Popes do not forbid us in these Briefs an Act of Loyalty , or Civill Allegeance : For the taking of this Oath , which is onely forbidden us in these Briefs , is not ( properly speaking ) any Act of Civil Allegeance , but onely a Security thereof , ( and how little trust is to be put in such a Security , does appear by the sad experience of the late Wars ; ) as a Bond for the payment of such a sum of money is no part of the payment , but onely a Security for it , if the Debtor denies it . Nay , a Subject may be obliged to his Civill Allegeance , and equally punished for his not-complying therewith , or for being a Traitour , whether he has taken the Oath or not . Whence I conclude , that , since the Briefs do not forbid us any Act of Civill Allegeance , it is manifest , that the Compliance with such Briefs cannot be inconsistent with the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes ; which reaches no farther then to all Acts of Civill Allegeance . 28. Consider , Lastly , whether those who reject the forementioned Briefs of the Popes , published after so long and so serious deliberation , under such frivolous pretences as we have already seen , and shall see hereafter , do not open a way for Subjects to resist , and disobey the express Commands or Prohibitions ( if they be condemned therein ) of their respective Sovereigns , though issued forth after never so serious a debate , pretending that they were grounded upon Inconsiderateness , Misinformation , and Mistakes , in thinking , that such a thing was contrary to the Laws of the Realm , and the Prerogatives of His Majesty ; or that the King did not proceed therein according to the Rules prescribed in such cases ; or that His Majesty was a Party in the debate , and that consequently He ought not to be Judge ; or , finally , that such Prohibitions and Commands are prejudiciall to the Liberty of the people and common Welfare of the Nation , and that they may be occasion of great Disturbances in the Kingdome . And whether , if such Exceptions as these be warrantable , and not to be decided by the Sovereigns themselves , they do not render the Authority of Kings ( though our Adversaries , who make use of them , will needs seem to be stout Champions for Regall Power ) very weak and insignificant , as in effect they do render the Authority of the Pope . 29. If it be objected , Thirdly , That to refuse this Oath , when we are required to take it by the King , is sinfull , inductive to Schism , and scandalous to our Religion , as if the Principles thereof were inconsistent with Civill Allegeance due to Princes ; and in such matters no man is bound to obey the Pope's Decrees , but rather to the contrary : That should the Pope declare it Sinfull to bear His Majesty Civill Allegeance , ( which is due unto him by the Law of God and Nature , ) certainly we should not think our selves bound to submit to such a Declaration : That this Oath contains onely a meer Civill Allegeance , as our Kings have declared , and to them it belongs to declare what is meer Civill Allegeance , and not to the Pope , whose Jurisdiction extends onely to Spiritualls : That we are bound to obey our Sovereign's Commands in all probable matters , and which are not manifestly sinfull , as the taking of this Oath is not : That since it is doubtfull at least whether the Things contained in this Oath ( wherein the difficulty thereof consists ) appertain to the Spirituall or Civill Court , why should the Pope decide it rather then the King ? And since the King commands us to take the Oath , and the Pope prohibits us to take it , the thing being of it self doubtfull , and not manifestly sinfull on either side , why should we submit rather to the Pope's Ordinance then to the King's ? That the King may confine the Pope's Power , and declare , that he has not a direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome in Temporalls , or to vacate the Civill Laws thereof at his pleasure ; and consequently , that it is not proper for the Pope to declare how far his Spirituall Authority does extend it self in all Causes : Finally , that the like Argument may be made to shew the Refusall of this Oath to be unlawfull , as we made above to prove unlawfull the Taking thereof , in this manner ; Whoever of His Majestie 's Subjects refuses this Oath , being required thereunto , denies an exteriour Obedience to the King's Ordinance in matters appertaining unto him , and no farther then they appertain unto him : But it is unlawfull to deny such an Obedience to the King's Ordinance , and in such matters : Therefore it is unlawfull for any of His Majestie 's Subjects , when required thereunto , to refuse this Oath : 30. Concerning the Sinfulness of the Refusall of this Oath , objected against us ; Consider , First , whether this Objection be not against all or most of those Catholicks who defend the Lawfulness of this Oath ; whose aim onely is , to shew , not that it is a Sin to refuse this Oath , but that it is no Sin to take it . Secondly , Consider , whether the refusall of this Oath can be sinfull , unless the taking thereof be absolutely obligatory : and if not , then consider , whether there be any absolute obligation to take this Oath , since the taking thereof is no part of Civill Allegeance , as has been already shewn . Neither does His Majesty absolutely require of us the taking of this Oath , but onely conditionally , if we will enjoy such and such Employments or Priviledges ; which we are not bound to accept of . And though those who refuse the Oath in many circumstances are liable to some Penalties enacted against Roman Catholicks ; yet they are punished even in that case , not so much for refusing the Oath , but because , by refusing it , they are suspected to be Popishly inclined . Whence therefore can there be proved any absolute obligation to take this Oath , especially since the Pope hath expresly prohibited the taking thereof ? 31. Consider , Thirdly , whether , according to the common persuasion of Divines , we are not bound to obey the Commands of our lawfull Superiour in probable matters appertaining unto him , and which are not manifestly Sinfull : And whether it can prudently be presumed , that the meer forbearance of this Oath , ( the thing that is onely required of us , ) which has been enjoyned three severall times , in terms so significant , by Two different Popes , who are the onely competent Judges of what is Sinfull , and what not ; which has been , and is still maintained by so many grave , learned and consciencious men , against their own Interest ; which hath been authorized with the Imprisonment , or Death , of several persons , [ Fifty eight were put in Prison at York , in the time of Arch-bishop Matthews , for refusing this Oath , and Forty of them died in Prison , ] who rather chose to undergoe those Punishments then take this Oath ; is notwithstanding manifestly Sinfull . 32. Concerning the Schism objected against us ; Consider , First , that it is impossible , that those who refuse the Oath should upon that account , and for complying therein with the Ordinances of the Supreme Head in Ecclesiasticall matters , become Schismaticks ; as it is impossible that a Subject , for complying with the Commands of his King , should become a Traitour or Rebell . For as Rebellion implies a Disobedience to our Sovereign in Temporall affairs ; so Schism necessarily imports a Separation from or a Disobedience to the Pope , Supreme Head in Ecclesiasticall matters . Hence it follows , that should all the English Catholicks joyn in taking the Oath , they would not therefore be less Schismaticks , but rather more in number ; as the more the Rebells are , they are not therefore less Rebells . 33. Consider , Secondly , that since Union amongst Catholicks here in England , in order to this Point , may be obtained in either of Two manners , viz. if All take the Oath , or if All refuse it ; it is far more easy to obtain it , and far more warrantable to procure it , the latter way , then the former : Because those who refuse it are far more numerous then those who take it ; and it is far more easie , and more warrantable , that the minor part should conform to the major , then on the contrary ; especially whenas by refusing it we unite with our Head , and Supreme Pastour , and by taking it we separate from him . And there can be no true Ecclesiasticall Union , without a Conjunction with the Ecclesiasticall Head. And sure it is more rationall , that the Members should submit to the Head , then the Head to the Members . 34. Consider , Thirdly , that hitherto the far greater part of English Catholicks have thought it better to conserve an Union among themselves , in relation to this Point , by refusing the Oath , then by taking it . And certainly , if ever there was any reason for Catholicks to take this Oath , there was more reason for it heretofore , when it was first enacted , then now . For a little before had been contrived that horrible Plot of Gunpowder-Treason , whereunto concurred some Catholicks ; but it was fathered , though unjustly , upon the whole Body of Catholicks then living . But now there is no Catholick alive that could be Actour or Contriver in that Plot , or that is suspected to have contrived any Plot whatsoever against His Majesty , much less such a detestable Plot as that was : and consequently , the present Catholicks of England have far less obligation ( or rather no obligation at all ) to wipe off any suspicion of Disloyalty by taking the Oath , then the ancient Catholicks had . Those Catholicks who then lived , had not given so universall and so signall proofs of their Loyalty to the then present King , as Catholicks now alive have done to His Majesty and His Royall Father : and by consequence , there is less reason why they should be forced to give in Security , or testimony of their Loyalty by Oath . Then there had not been issued forth so many several Briefs , and after so long a deliberation , condemning this Oath , as since have been published , nor the Question so much discussed ( the major part sticking alwaies to the Negative ) as since it has been : which had those Catholicks seen who first took the Oath , very probably speaking , many of them would have refused it . Some of those Thirteen Priests who in the time of Q. Elizabeth subscribed an Oath of the like tenour , having seen afterwards the Pope's Briefs , refused this Oath ; and two of them , viz. Robert Drury and Roger Cadwallader , were put to death upon that account . 35. Neither are there now greater Advantages for Catholicks who take the Oath then there were in those times ; nay , the conveniency now in taking it is so inconsiderable , that no Catholick is thereby alone rendered capable so much as to enter into White-Hall or St. Iames's Park . And though the Catholick Lords , who take the Oath , may sit in the House , and those who refuse it may not : yet how long will this ( besides that it comprehended also those ancient Catholick Lords , ) probably last ; seeing that scarce had some Catholick Lords , upon that account , taken the Oath , when it begun to be agitated in the Parliament , how another Test might be framed to exclude all Catholicks ? And the Sitting of the Catholick Lords in the House , as things now stand , is ineffectual to carry any thing in favour of Catholicks ; the far major part being against them , nay and against their Sitting too in the House . For had the major part effectually desired the concurrence of the Catholick Lords , it would never have been carried , that all the Lords should be put to the Oath , if they intended to sit in the House . For such a Vote would in all probability force all the Catholick Lords ( or at least some of them ) to forbear coming to the House . So that , were not the House against the Sitting of the Catholick Lords , they would never have Voted , that all those who would sit should take the Oath . And if they be against their Sitting , though all the Catholick Lords should take it , they will find out some other way to exclude them . Moreover , if things be well sifted , perhaps many will find no little conveniency in having so handsome an occasion as this is for any Catholick for not coming to the House , especially since they are not therefore debarred from Voting by their Proxies . Wherefore if , notwithstanding the Reasons above alledged , the ancient Catholicks of England , or at least the far greater part of them , as even our Adversaries confess , preferred to conserve union amongst themselves by refusing the Oath ; why should not the present English Catholicks follow , in this point , their Ancestors , and take the same way of conserving union ? 36. Concerning the Scandal objected ; Consider , First , whether the Scandal ( if any lies upon Catholicks or their Religion in order to Civil Allegeance , after so many signall proofs given of their Loyalty in the late Civil Wars , ( and , sure , works are better proofs of Loyalty then words , ) after so many publick Declarations thereof made by His Majesty in His gracious Speeches , and by many other 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 Disloyalty . 44. Consider , Secondly , whether , since it is manifest that an Oath , though styled an Oath of meer Civil Allegeance , may contain some things not appertaining to Civil Allegeance , but to Spiritual Jurisdiction , as the forementioned Oath , denying a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate ; whether then ( I say ) the Pope , to whom the Supreme Spirituall Jurisdiction belongs , and not the King , whose Jurisdiction is onely Civil , may not judge of such an Oath , so far as it contains things appertaining to Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction . And if so , whether , since this present Oath contains such things , as has been declared above , the Pope may not judge of this Oath , as far as it contains such things , though it be pretended by some that it contains meer Civil Allegeance : and whether we are not bound to stand rather to the Pope's Judgment , in order to such things , then to the King's Declaration . 45. Consider , Thirdly , that there is this difference between the King commanding us to take this Oath , ( supposing he does command it , ) and the Pope prohibiting us to take it ; that to the end the King may command us to take it , 't is necessary , that there be nothing therein contained which does not belong to the Civil Power , since we acknowledge His Majesty to be our Sovereign onely in Civil matters : but to the end the Pope may prohibit us to take this Oath , 't is enough , that any thing whatsoever therein contained belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court , whose Head the Pope is , and that he judges such things to be unlawfull . So that far less is required , or sufficient , to prohibit an Oath , then to command it . Neither does the Pope prohibit each part of the Oath by it self , and separately taken ; but he prohibits us to take the whole Oath : and to prohibit the whole , 't is enough , that any part thereof whatsoever be unlawfull , according to that Maxime , Bonum ex integra causa , Malum ex quocunque defectu . 46. Consider , Fourthly , that we are bound to submit to the King's Commands onely in Civil matters , as to the Pope's Ordinances onely in Spiritual ; since , as we acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy onely in Spirituals , so we acknowledge the King's Supremacy onely in Temporals . And since this Oath contains , as has been proved , some things not appertaining to the Civil Jurisdiction , we do not think our selves obliged to submit to His Majestie 's Orders , wherein he commands us to take this Oath as it lies : as upon the same account we are not bound to take the Oath of Supremacy , though His Majesty commands His Subjects as much to take the one as the other , and Penalties are enacted against the Refusers of both . Nay , if the thing commanded by the Pope be a Civil matter , though it should be lawfull , we are not bound to submit to such a Command , since the Pope's Jurisdiction extends onely to Spirituals : So if the thing commanded by the King be Spiritual , though it should be lawfull , we are not bound to submit to such a Command , because the King's Jurisdiction extends onely to Temporals . Whence appears , that the Major Proposition of the Argument , framed in the Objection , to prove the Refusal of the Oath unlawfull , is false and of no force . For since this Oath contains things not appertaining to Civil Jurisdiction , the King , by commanding us to take this whole Oath as it lies , commands us things not appertaining unto Him : But the Pope , by prohibiting us to take this Oath , by reason of things appertaining unto Him contained therein , and not farther then they appertain unto him , does not exceed his Jurisdiction ; and it is unlawfull to deny Obedience to the Commands of a Superiour in matters appertaining unto him , and no farther then they do appertain unto him . 47. Consider , Fifthly , that though we should grant , as we do not , that it is doubtfull , whether the matters contained in this Oath , ( wherein the main difficulty thereof consists , ) considered in themselves , do appertain to the Ecclesiastical or Civil Court : yet since the Pope's and the King's Orders in this point do contradict one another , we ought rather to submit to the Pope's Prohibition , then the King's Command , in this Case . First , Because , though the Pope and the King be both Supreme , the one in Spirituals , the other in Temporals ; yet the Pope's Supremacy ( the End whereof is Eternal Bliss ) is of a higher Hierarchy then the King's Supremacy , ( the End whereof is Temporal Felicity onely . ) And certainly , when Two Supreme Governours clash one with the other , so that we cannot obey them both , but must obey one of them , ( as in our present case , we must obey either the Pope , forbidding the Oath , or the King , commanding it ; ) we are bound , caeteris paribus , to submit rather to him , whose Jurisdiction is of a higher Hierarchy , then to the other , and to our Spiritual Governour , then to our Temporal . Neither will the Protestants deny this Doctrine to be true , when it happens that the Spiritual and Temporal Powers do thwart one another , all other Circumstances being equal . Secondly , Because , according to the common sentiment of Divines and Canonists , when it is doubtfull , whether such a matter , considered in it self , does appertain to the Spiritual or Temporal Court , it belongs to the Spiritual Judge to decide to which of these two Courts it does appertain : For , other Circumstances being equall , the Spiritual Judge is to be preferred before the Temporal : neither is there any other commodious way to decide the Question . Thirdly , Because the Pope requires less of us then the King. For the Pope onely requires , that we should not take this Oath ; not , that we should swear any thing contrary to it : but the King requires , that we should positively take this Oath as it lies ; which is far more . And when Two Precepts contradict one another , we ought to submit to that Precept of the two , caeteris paribus , wherein least is required of us . Fourthly , Because the Pope's Precept in this matter is Negative , but the King's Precept is Affirmative : and when Two Precepts oppose one another , we ought rather , all other Circumstances being equall , to embrace the Negative Precept then the Affirmative , according to the common opinion of Divines . 48. Consider , Sixthly , that the Pope does not expresly condemn , as the Opponent seems to suppose , any of the Points under debate , contained in this Oath ; neither does he require of us , that we should swear , that he has any Power to depose Kings ; but onely , that we should not swear , that he has not any such Power : which is what the King requires of us . So that the King , and not the Pope , decides the Point under debate in his own favour , requiring us to swear positively the part favourable unto Him. Since therefore Withrington and his other Catholicks , who defend the Oath , do confess , that this Question , Whether the Pope has any Authority to depose Kings , is yet under debate between Popes and Kings , Certant Scholastici , & adhuc sub judice lis est , as they alledge out of Trithemius and others ; why should the King decide the Question 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 constantly deny the Pope to have any Authority or Power , direct or indirect , to Depose Kings ; and finally , of the French Iesuits , who subscribed the Censure and Condemnation of some Books wherein that Power was defended ; and why may not the Catholicks of England have the same liberty as the Catholicks of France have ? 53. Concerning the Authority of France , for this Oath , objected against us ; Consider , First , that though in an Assembly * held in France of the Three Estates , Ecclesiasticks , Nobility , and Commons , in time of Cardinall Peron , there was drawn up ‖ an Oath by the Third Estate , or Commons , wherein is affirmed , † That there is no Power on earth , either Spirituall or Temporall , that hath any Right over his Majestie 's Kingdome , to Depose the Sacred Persons of our Kings , nor to dispense with or absolve their Subjects from their Loyalty and Obedience which they owe to them ; for any cause or pretence whatsoever : yet the Two chief parts of the Assembly , viz. the * Spirituall and Temporall Lords , were so much against this Article of the Oath , that they were resolved , especially the Spirituall Lords , to die rather then take it ; and the Third Estate , or Commons , who had drawn it up , after they had heard Peron's Oration against it , laid it aside , which is as much as handsomely to recall it . And how can we reasonably say that the Kingdome of France is for an Oath , which the Two principall parts of the Assembly , representative of that Kingdome , were so eager against , and which the Third part , after serious consideration , laid aside ? 54. Consider , Secondly , that rather we may alledge the Kingdome of France for the Negative , or against the Oath , according to what happened in the Assembly . For it is a certain kind of Argument against a thing , when , having been proposed and debated in an Assembly , it was not carried , but rather rejected . Neither has there been since enacted by any other Assembly of France any Oath of this kind , to be tendred unto all , ( neither do our Adversaries pretend , that any such thing has been done , ) as our Oath of Allegeance was enacted for all sorts of people , by our Parliament , which corresponds to the Assembly in France . Neither is there in France any other Oath , wherein is expresly denied the forementioned Power , established by the King or any Parliament , or any other ways , for to be taken by all such who swear Allegeance to his most Christian Majesty . And the English Catholicks are ready to take the Oath of Allegeance to His Majesty which is generally tendred in France . And why may not His Majesty be content with the same kind of Civil Allegeance from his Subjects , which the French King and other Sovereigns require from their Subjects ? All which shews , that France cannot reasonably be brought as a precedent in the Cause we treat of . 55. Consider , Thirdly , that since the Representative of France has so much favoured the Negative , though we should grant , ( and whether it must be granted or not , we shall see by and by , ) that some other particular Tribunall or Society of that Kingdome have favoured the contrary ; yet because the Assembly or Representative of France is far above those particular Societies , we ought to conclude , that France rather countenances the Negative , then the Affirmative . Should we see that our Parliament did countenance so much the Negative of an opinion , as the forementioned Assembly of France did countenance the Refusall of that Oath ; though some particular Court at Westminster , or the University of Oxford , should countenance the contrary ; we ought to say that England rather stood for the Negative , then the Affirmative . 56. Concerning the Authority of the Parliament and Vniversity of Paris in this Point ; Consider , First , that neither that Parliament , nor any other Parliament of France , neither that University , nor any other University of that Kingdome , have ever yet made any publick and authentick Act wherein they approve our present Oath of Allegeance as it lies , and all its Clauses wherein the difficulty thereof consists ; neither do our Adversaries pretend any such thing : but onely that the Parliament and University of Paris , with some other Parliaments and Universities of France , have made Decrees , wherein they deny the Pope to have any Power whatsoever to Depose Kings , or to Absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them , for any cause or under any pretence whatsoever . Yet hence does not follow , that the Parliaments or Universities of that Kingdome do approve this Oath . For to approve an Oath , 't is necessary to approve all and every part thereof : and who onely approves one part , does not therefore approve the whole . So that whosoever argues hence , to shew the Lawfulness of this Oath , his Argument must run thus : The University and Parliament of Paris approve some Clauses of this Oath , whereat severall persons do scruple : Therefore they approve the whole Oath . Which Argument is inconclusive , as is manifest . 57. Consider , Secondly , that though the Authority of the Parliament and University of Paris may work so far with some , as to perswade them that this Oath ought not to be refused upon the account of any just Scruple concerning the Power in the Pope to depose Kings , or absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them ; yet it does not therefore follow , that the same Authority ( which does not concern it self at least in any publick Decrees about other Difficulties of the Oath ) should perswade them not to refuse at all this present Oath , since there are severall other respects , not taken notice of by the Parliament or University of Paris , in their publick Decrees alledged by our Adversaries , for which many refuse it . Some , though satisfied that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings , yet they have a great difficulty about the word Hereticall : for it seems hard unto them , to censure the Doctrine which maintains , that Princes Excommunicate or deprived by the Pope , may be deposed by their Subjects , for an Heresie , or for as bad as an Heresie ; and the Defenders thereof for Hereticks , either materiall or formall , as invincible ignorance does or does not excuse them , or at least for as bad as such ; and to swear that they detest them in the like manner , either for such , or as bad as such . 58. Others think , they cannot swear with Truth , that neither the Pope , nor any other whatsoever , can absolve them from this Oath , or any part thereof , in any case imaginable ; since the King himself may absolve His Subjects from such an Oath , either all of them , by laying down the Government with consent of the Kingdome , as Charles the Fifth did ; ( and it is hard to oblige one to swear , that a King of England in no case possible can doe the like ; ) or at least some of them , by passing a Town under his Jurisdiction to another King , as His Majesty passed Dunkirk to the French King , and consequently absolved from the Oath of Allegeance the Inhabitants who had taken it . Moreover , they do not see how they can swear , that it is impossible , that , in any case whatsoever , a King of England may be justly conquered . For if he be justly conquered , then he is justly deposed ; and if justly deposed , then his Subjects are absolved from their Oath of Allegeance : for no body is bound to pay Allegeance to one who is no longer his King or Sovereign . 59. Others cannot swallow that term [ Heartily ] inserted in the Oath , nor swear , that all they must swear , if they take the Oath , they swear heartily , according to the plain and common sense of the words by them spoken . For to swear heartily is more then to swear onely with a meer power not to swear . A Merchant , who throws out his goods into the Sea onely to save himself and his ship , cannot be said to doe it heartily ; which signifies , to doe a thing without a reluctancy of mind ; but rather with an inclination and propension of mind thereunto . And how ( say they ) can we swear , that we take this Oath heartily , and without any reluctancy of mind , but rather with a great inclination thereunto , when we are forced to take it to conserve our privileges or employments , or not to undergo severe penalties enacted against those who refuse it ? and when we see that so many great Difficulties have been started against this Oath , and pursued with so much vigour ; that so many Learned and Consciencious men are against it ; and that the Supreme Pastour of the Church has so often and so severely prohibited it ? All which ( say they ) cannot but create , in any tender Conscience , some regret and reluctancy of mind to take the Oath . 60. Others are deterred by the Title of the Act wherein this Oath is inserted , An Act for the Discovering and Suppressing of Popish Recusants : whereby it seems to be insinuated , that the taking this Oath is made a Denial of the Roman Catholick Religion , or of Popery . For though other things are contained in the Act , which do contribute to the Discovery of Popish Recusants ; yet this Oath is inserted among the rest , and compleats the Discovery of them . And it is not lawfull to doe any thing which is made by Publick Authority a Denial of the true Religion , or a distinctive Sign of a false Religion . 61. Others , though they are satisfied concerning the Substance of the Oath , yet are gravelled at some ambiguous Expressions . The Authour of the Reflexions upon this Oath , though he be very fierce against the Pope's Power to depose Kings , yet he seems dissatisfied with the Oath , by reason of several ambiguous Expressions therein contained ; as appears by what he says pag. 76 , 77. and an Oath must not be ambiguous . Nay , the Authour of the Questions concerning the Oath , though so eager for the Lawfulness thereof , does notwithstanding confess , ( pag. 26. ) that it is drest up unhappily with some odde Expressions , at the first sight ; and therefore he heartily wishes that another form of Oath were framed , which might not trouble with Scruples the less-instructed Conscience of any . 62. Others , though they believe that what-ever is contained in the Oath is true , and are ready to swear that they believe it , yet they cannot be brought to swear positively , that what-ever is asserted in the Oath is true : which is very different . Others , finally , though they be satisfied concerning the Substance of the Oath , and the Expressions too , yet see no Necessity of swearing , or any good they get by taking the Oath : and an Oath , amongst other Conditions , must be necessary . All such persons as these , though they be fully satisfied , either from the pretended Authority of France , or otherwise , that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings ; yet those Decrees of France , which our Adversaries produce , do not clear , nor so much as touch , the forementioned Difficulties ; and consequently are not alone able to induce the aforesaid persons to take the Oath , or to justify the taking thereof . Whence it follows , that because one refuses the Oath , it cannot in rigour be inferred , that he denies such a determinate Clause thereof , let them take which they please ; since some dislike one thing , and some another : nay , nor that he does not assent to the whole Substance of the Oath , and to its Expressions also . And much less can it be thence inferred , that such an one who refuses the Oath does deny Civil Allegeance to His Majesty . 63. Consider , Thirdly , that the Decree of the Parliament of Paris published the 27. of Iune 1614. quoted by Withrington in the place above mentioned , whereby was prohibited Suarez his Book , intitled Defensio Fidei Catholicae , &c. is to be understood onely , as appears by the Chapters cited in the Decree , and by the tenour thereof , in order to the Prohibition of that Doctrine , which maintains the Temporal Authority of the Pope over Kings : but it does not concern it self at all with other Difficulties , which Suarez and other Authours raise about the Oath : which notwithstanding must be cleared , before we can take it . 64. Consider , Fourthly , that it is one thing to prohibit the teaching or preaching that the Pope has any Power to depose Kings , or to command one to teach and preach the contrary ; which is all our Adversaries can prove from the forementioned Decrees , or any other , of the Parliaments and Universities of France ; and another thing to command one to swear positively , that the Pope has no such Power , and to abjure the Affirmative as Heretical , which the King commands us to doe when He commands us to take this Oath . So that the Argument our Adversaries draw from such Decrees of France is this ; The Parliament or University of Paris prohibits any one to teach , that the Pope has Authority to depose Kings , or commands some to teach the contrary : Therefore the King may command us to swear positively , that the Pope has no such Authority , or to abjure the contrary as Heretical . Which consequence is null , as is manifest . For what University is there , wherein the Members thereof are not prohibited to teach certain Opinions , or are not commanded to teach the contrary ; many of which Opinions are meer Scholastical and Philosophical Questions , either part being probable ? But yet they are not therefore commanded to swear positively , that such Opinions are true , neither can they in Conscience many times swear it : For one may teach such an Opinion to be true , though he cannot swear it to be so ; more being requisite to swear a thing to be true , then to teach that it is so . 65. Consider , Fifthly , that what was resolved by the Parliament of Paris , in that Decree concerning the Iesuits , was , That the Rectour , with some others of the principal Fathers , should be summoned to appear in the Court at such a day : That they should be told , that , contrary to the expresse Order of their own General , issued forth in the year 1610. this Book of Suarez had been printed , and brought into that Kingdome : That they should procure the same Prohibition to be renewed by their General ; and that they should exhibit an authentical Copy thereof within three months : finally , That they should exhort the people , in their Sermons , to embrace the contrary Doctrine to the Propositions they had prohibited . But from all this it cannot be inferred , that the French Iesuits did , or would have sworn positively , That the Pope has no Power , in no case whatsoever , to depose Princes ; nor that they did exhort the people to swear any such thing ; nor that they were commanded by the Parliament so to doe . One may exhort another to embrace an Opinion , which notwithstanding he will not nor cannot positively swear to be true , nor exhort the other to swear it is so . And yet whoever exhorts any one to take the Oath , he must exhort him to swear positively , that the forementioned Opinion , viz. That the Pope has no Power to depose Kings , is true . Much less can it be inferred from the aforesaid Decree , that the French Iesuits did approve , or were commanded to approve , of all the other Clauses contained in the present Oath . And consequently , their Authority cannot be alledged for the Lawfulness thereof . For though the Clauses relating to the Pope's Power to depose Princes may seem to some to contain the main Difficulty ; yet this to others seems no Difficulty at all : and there are several other Difficulties involved in the Oath , as has been shewn . And to the end we may lawfully take an Oath , 't is necessary to be satisfied concerning all , and every Difficulty and Clause thereof . For to swear any thing either false , or doubtfull , though never so little in it self , is a grievous Sin. 66. Concerning the Authority of the Vniversity of Paris in particular , for the Lawfulness of the Oath ; besides what already has been said in general , Consider , First , that though we should grant , ( as we do not , ) that the Universitie of Paris , and other Universities of France , are for the Oath : yet even our Adversaries confess , that the Universities of Spain are against it , where , beyond debate , there are many Learned and Consciencious men , and as zealous for the Honour and Safety of their Kings as any in France ; and they have as many Prerogatives relating to the Security of their Sovereigns against the Usurpations of any Ecclesiastical Prince , as in any Countrey whatsoever . So that , admitting that on both sides there are grave Authours , yet the Negative , in the present debate , has the advantage of the Affirmative , That the Pope , who is the competent Judge in these affairs , ( as above has been proved , ) and to whom both parties made their address , has given his express Sentence for the Negative ; and among other things which render an Opinion , before probable , practically or in practice improbable , one is , an authentick Declaration or Sentence of a competent , especially Supreme , Judge to the contrary . 67. Suppose that in a Plea before the King and His Councill , there are many brave Lawyers on both sides , who produce several pregnant Arguments , and excellent Precedents , in favour of their respective Clients , which render the Cause doubtfull ; yet that party must needs carry it , for whom the King and His Council gave their definitive Sentence : neither is it longer lawfull for the party condemned to stand out , because many learned Lawyers are on his side , or to retrive the former Arguments produced for his right ; which signifies no more then to plead after the Suit is lost . Neither would the party who had gained the Cause concern himself any farther with what the Lawyers of the contrary side object against him . The same happens in our present Case . There are many grave and learned Authours against the Oath : suppose there are also many for it : yet since the Impugners of the Oath have obtained several express Sentences of the Supreme Judge in their favour , they do not think themselves obliged to take any farther notice of what the Defenders of the Oath produce against them , which cannot excuse them from an exteriour Compliance with the Judge's express Sentence , as long as it is authentick . And this is the Reason , why the Impugners of the Oath have not in a long time printed any thing against it . For what more can they pretend by their writings , but that the Oath be condemned by the Pope ? which has been already done . But the Defenders of the Oath continue still to write , after they have lost the cause ; according to the common saying , Losers must have leave to talk , or at least they will take it . 68. Consider , Secondly , that among other Oaths , which those who desire to be incorporated in the University of Paris are to take , one for the Degree of Bachelour is , That they will hold the Articles of the Faculty of Paris to be true ; and that , when occasion offers , they will defend them to be agreeable to Faith and Religion : which is a promissory Oath ; the truth whereof onely requires , that he who swears has a sincere intention to doe what he promises : and ( as we have already seen ) one may promise , even under an Oath , that he will defend such an Opinion to be true , when occasion offers , though he does not , nor cannot lawfully , many times , swear positively that it is true . For these two Oaths are very different , Before God , I judge that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings , and I promise to defend it , when occasion requires ; and , Before God , he has no such Power . The immediate object of the former Oath is onely our own Judgment , or Intention ; whereof every one is certain : and consequently , to call God for witness that he has such a Judgment , being certain that he has it , is not to expose God to be a witness to a Falsity . But the immediate object of the latter Oath is the Matter it self , which probably may be otherwise : and to call God for witness of a thing that I know probably may be otherwise , is to expose him to be witness of a Falsity ; which , let the matter be never so little , is a great affront . And therefore it is a common way of speaking among consciencious people , I think such a thing is true , but I will not swear it is true . Hence it follows , that the immediate object of Oaths is not alwaies the Judgment of the person who takes them : otherwise it would be impossible that one should ever swear false , judging that he swears true , since every one is conscious of his own actual Judgment ; neither can one think that he judges actually , when he does not : And yet certainly it is possible that one should swear false , thinking that he swears true . So that though we should grant that the University of Paris does oblige her Members to swear , that they will defend , that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings ; it does not therefore follow , that they can be , or are , bound to swear positively , that the Pope has no such Power : which notwithstanding we must swear , if we will take this Oath . Neither , because they are bound to swear , that they will defend the Articles of the Faculty of Paris to be agreeable to Faith and Religion , does it therefore follow , ( as some do seem to pretend , ) that they are bound to defend them as Articles of Faith. For the common Approbation of Theological and Spiritual Books , is , that they contain nothing which is not agreeable to Faith and good manners : and yet , sure , those who give such Approbations are far from approving all that is contained in such Books , as Articles of Faith. 69. Consider , Thirdly , that among other Articles of the Faculty of Paris , one is , ( upon which chiefly our Adversaries seem to have had an eye , ) That it is not the Doctrine of the Faculty , that the Pope has any Authority over the Temporals of his most Christian Majesty ; and that the Faculty has alwaies resisted those who affirm this Power to be onely indirect . Now to infer hence , that the Faculty of Paris does approve our present Oath , even in this Point , concerning the Pope's Power over the Temporals of Princes , is to argue thus ; The Faculty of Paris does not teach , that the Pope has any Authority over the Temporals of Princes : Therefore , according to the opinion of that Faculty , we may swear positively , that he has no such Power or Authority . Which consequence doubtless is very weak : For it is one thing , not to teach such a Doctrine , or to punish and resist those that do teach it ; and another thing , to authorize one to swear positively , or to teach the contrary . They might , in the like manner , quote all the Iesuits who now live , or have been alive for many years , though they are lookt upon as the greatest sticklers against the Oath , in favour of it . For they have been prohibited many years agoe , and under Excommunication , to teach or preach , that the Pope has any Authority whatsoever to depose Kings ; and whoever among them should teach any such Doctrine would be severely punished : whence it manifestly follows , that it is not the Doctrine of the Iesuits , that the Pope can Depose Kings . Will our Adversaries therefore infer hence , that it is the Doctrine of the Iesuits , that we may positively swear that the Pope has no such Power ? 70. In the same Article is contained , That it is not the Doctrine of that Faculty , that the Pope is above a General Council , nor that he is Infallible without the consent of the Church . And sure hence cannot be deduced , That it is the Sentiment of the aforesaid Faculty , that we may positively swear the contrary Tenets to be true . And though in another of their Articles it be affirmed , That it is the Doctrine of that Faculty , that his most Christian Majestie 's Subjects cannot be dispensed with , under any pretence whatsoever , in their Loyalty due unto him : yet they are not therefore obliged to swear it . 71. Moreover , among other Oaths , which the Members of the University of Paris are bound to take , they must swear , that they will hold , that the B. Virgin Mary was preserved in her Conception from Original Sin : yet they are not therefore obliged to swear it , and much lesse to abjure the contrary Doctrine as Heretical . For there is a vast difference between swearing that we will defend such a Doctrine to be true ; and swearing that it is true , or abjuring the contrary Doctrine as Heretical . 72. Consider , Fourthly , concerning a certain Decree made by the University of Paris the 20. of April 1626. ( whereof our Adversaries make so great an account , ) condemning several Propositions of Sanctarellus his Book as erroneous , seditious , contrary to the Word of God , &c. according to a common interpretation of those words of the Oath , I abjure as impious and Heretical , &c. given by our Adversaries , that such a Decree or Prohibition is void , and of no force . For , according to that interpretation of our Adversaries , the forementioned words of the Oath are to be taken comparatively , not assertively ; that is , not for abjuring that Doctrine for Heretical , but onely for as bad as Heretical : in the same manner as is commonly said , that we detest such an one as the Devil , knowing full well , that he is not the Devil . So that , according to this acception , 't is not necessary , that who takes the Oath should think that the Doctrine there abjured is either impious , or Heretical ; nay , he may fully be persuaded that it is neither impious , nor Heretical : and he must think so , if those words must be taken comparatively , as some will have ; for all comparison is between distinct things . All which , I confess , does seem somewhat strange to me . Neither do I see how , with truth , without Hyperbole , and according to the plain Sense of the words , one can look upon a Doctrine which is not Heretical , for as bad as if it were Heretical ; since Heresy is the blackest Censure , and what-ever Proposition is not Heretical , is less then Heretical . But my present design is not to impugn the aforesaid Interpretation : what I affirm is , that if such an Interpretation be warrantable , yet it cannot be gathered from the above-mentioned Decree , wherein the like expression is used , viz. as erroneous , and contrary to the Word of God , that the Doctours of Paris did hold the Propositions condemned in that Decree to be erroneous , seditious , or contrary to the Word of God. Nay , notwithstanding that Decree , they might , and must think those Propositions to be neither erroneous , nor seditious , nor contrary to the Word of God. And if so , of what force is this Decree , to prove that we may positively swear , that the Pope has no Power to depose Princes ? 73. Consider , Fifthly , that since the Censures contained in the forementioned Decree are several , and the Propositions therein condemned are also several , it does not well appear which Censures fall upon which Propositions ; or whether every Censure falls upon every one of them . It seems incredible , that those Learned men should censure as erroneous , seditious , and contrary to the Word of God , &c. this Proposition , which is mentioned in the Decree , The Pope may with Temporal punishment chastise Kings and Princes for the crime of Heresy : since 't is manifest , that should an Heretical Prince be reconciled , the Pope , or any other Confessarius who should reconcile him , might impose upon him for the crime of Heresy some corporal and temporal penance or punishment , enjoyning him to give an Alms , to build an Hospital , or some such other work . 74. Consider , Sixthly , that the forementioned Book of Sanctarellus was prohibited at Rome by the Pope before it was prohibited at Paris , as Spondanus , a French Authour , relates ; who also says , that the animosities of the University of Paris against this Book did arise from some hidden seeds of Schism . Now our Adversaries do not so much as pretend , that the Pope is for the Lawfulness of this Oath , or of opinion , that we may positively swear , that he has no Power whatsoever to depose Kings ; though he prohibited that Book . Why therefore do they infer , that the University of Paris , because it prohibits the same Book , is for the Oath ? 75. Consider , Seventhly , whether the Censures contained in the above-mentioned Decree may not be understood to condemn onely a Power in the Pope to depose Princes , either by reason of some Civill Insufficiency in the Prince to govern , or some light cause mentioned by Sanctarellus , or upon the meer account of Heresy or Apostasy , though they should permit their Subjects to enjoy Liberty of conscience : which seems to have been the Doctrine of Sanctarellus . If so , then our case is very different concerning the present Point . For neither Bellarmine , nor Peron , ( against whom our Adversaries do so hotly inveigh , ) do speak of a meer Civill Insufficiency ; neither do they affirm , that a Prince may lawfully be deposed , meerly because he is an Heretick , unless moreover he forces his Subjects to be so too , by persecuting them . And yet , in the Oath , we are bound to swear , that the Pope has not any Power whatsoever , in any case possible , to depose an Hereticall Prince , whether he persecutes his Subjects or not . 75. Consider , Eighthly , that though in the forementioned Decree , Sanctarellus his Propositions be condemned as contrary to the Word of God ; yet this is not properly to condemn them ( as our Adversaries pretend ) for Hereticall , unless they be declared as such by the Church : as , to approve a Proposition as agreeable to the Word of God , is not to approve it as an Article of Faith , according to what above has been insinuated . And there is scarce any Scholasticall Question of Divinity , wherein the Defenders of either side do not endeavour to prove their Opinion out of Scripture ; and consequently , they look upon the opposite Sentence as contrary to the Word of God : yet they are far from censuring it therefore as Hereticall , and often prohibited so to doe . Nay , Protestants , who affirm those Tenets wherein we differ from them to be repugnant to Scripture , and pretend to prove they are so ; yet they do withall confess , that they are no Heresies . So that as well Protestants as Catholicks , according to the plain and common sense of the words , understand somewhat more by an Hereticall Opinion , then an Opinion contrary to the Word of God. 77. Concerning other things relating to the Authority of France , contained in the Objection ; Consider , First , that the Authour of a Book entitled Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance , page 8. sets down an Arrest of the Parliament of Paris , wherein the Iesuits were ordered ( as he pretends ) to subscribe the forementioned Decree or Censure against Sanctarellus his Book . But this is a great Mistake , if the Arrest be understood of that Decree . For that Decree was made upon the 20. of April 1626. and the Arrest was dated the 17 th . of March 1626. wherein the Iesuits were commanded to subscribe within three days ; so that , according to this account , they were to subscribe a Decree 37 days before it was made : and the Censure of the Sorbon mentioned in the Decree was passed the 4 th . of April 1626. so that , were the Arrest to be understood of this Censure , they were to subscribe 15 days before it past : which is ridiculous . Besides , should we grant , that the Iesuits had subscribed the forementioned Decree and Censure , we have already seen how little that Decree , or the Censure therein contained , does favour the Lawfulness of this Oath : and consequently , neither can the Subscription of the Iesuits to such a Censure and Decree help much thereunto . For they would not therefore subscribe or approve the Oath as it lies , nor affirm , that one might positively swear , that the Pope has no Power whatsoever to depose Princes ; and much less , that one might swear , that he abjures the contrary as Hereticall : ( all which is required in the Oath : ) since the University or Parliament of Paris never required any such Oath or Subscription . Nay , one's Subscription signifies no more , but that he thinks the thing he subscribes to be true : yet one may think a thing to be true , though he will not swear , nor counsell any other to swear it is so . 78. Consider , Secondly , that there are some other Propositions alledged out of France in favour of this Oath , which are commonly held in that Kingdome ; viz. That his most Christian Majesty does not receive his Kingdome but from God , and his Sword — That he does not acknowledge any other Superiour in his Kingdome , but onely God : ( which is to be understood in Temporalls ; for he acknowledges the Pope to be his Superiour in Spiritualls . ) Now , even those who refuse the Oath do confess the same of His Majesty . Neither is an indirect and conditionall Power to depose Kings ( which some ascribe to the Pope in certain cases ) inconsistent with such Prerogatives . For every King has an indirect and conditionall Power or Right to wage war against any other Sovereign , though he receives his Government immediately from God ; and to depose him too , in case he injures such a King or his Subjects , as it is possible he may , and refuses , when required thereunto , to give any reasonable satisfaction . What good English Subject is there , who , in the late Dutch War , ( which we suppose to have been just on our side , ) would have sworn , that His Majesty had not Right and Power to Depose the States Generall , ( whom we acknowledge to be Sovereign , and to depend of God alone in Temporalls , ) and consequently , to absolve their Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance made to them , in case they had persisted to refuse to give His Majesty the satisfaction that was due ? and what satisfaction was due , His Majesty was to be judge . So that , were this indirect Deposing power inconsistent with the Sovereignty of Princes , there would be no Sovereign Prince at all . And since the Pope is Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome , and its adjacent Territories , as even Protestants confess ; he must have the like indirect Deposing power , or right , which is inherent in every Sovereign Temporall Prince , as even our Adversaries will not deny . And yet , if we take the Oath , we must swear , or testify before God , ( which certainly is to swear , ) That the Pope , neither of himself , nor by any Authority of the Church of Rome , has any Power to depose Kings ; that is , neither Temporall nor Spirituall , neither direct nor indirect : for the Proposition is Negative , and by consequence denies all Power whatsoever . 79. And here I cannot but ask our Adversaries a question ; which is , Whether either they or Protestants do affirm , that all Wars whatsoever undertaken by Christian Princes , ( whereof some are styled Defenders of the Faith , others Catholick Majesties , others most Christian Majesties , ) in Defence of the Orthodox Religion , against another Prince , a Persecutour of the true Church , and declared to be such by a lawfull and competent Judge , whether ( I say ) they affirm , that all such Wars are unjust and unlawfull : and if not , whether the Pope may not declare a Sovereign Prince to be an Heretick , and a Persecutour of the Church , if really he be such : and whether , if he may make such a Declaration , ( as being a lawfull Judge in matters of that nature , according to the unanimous consent of Catholicks , ) he may not also in that case invoke the help of some pious and powerfull Christian King , ( which is what is understood by authorizing him , ) to stave off by arms the manifest injury done to his Sheep in Spiritualls : and if he may in that case invoke the help of some Christian King to that effect , ( since it is manifest , that Ecclesiasticks may in some cases invoke the help of a Secular Power , ) whether then the King so invoked may not condescend to the Pope's request , and compell the Hereticall Prince , and Persecutour , by force of arms , to desist from seducing his Subjects ; and in case of refusall , to prosecute the War ( as he may all other just Wars ) till he has deposed , him and consequently absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance . And if they grant all this , how can they counsell us to swear , that the Pope neither by himself , nor with any other , has any Power to depose Kings , or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy them , or their Countries ? All which is involved in the Oath . 80. Consider , Thirdly , that because the Gallican Church has such Privileges or Liberties granted unto it , either by some particular Concessions of the Pope , or by some Contract , or otherwise ; it does not therefore follow , that every other Church or Kingdome does enjoy the same Privileges or Liberties . For one Kingdome may have some particular Privileges which another has not : and perhaps we had here some particular Privileges , granted unto us from Rome , which were not granted in France . Among the Propositions alledged out of France concerning the Pope's Authority , another is , ( which seems to be held in France , ) That the Pope cannot put an Interdict ( which is a meer Ecclesiasticall Censure , as an Excommunication is ) either upon the French King , or his Kingdome : and moreover , the Members of the University of Paris do swear , that they will defend , among other Articles , that the said University does not approve , that the Pope may depose Bishops , or deprive them , though Ecclesiasticall persons , of their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction , contrary to the Liberties and Canons of the Gallican Church , commonly received in that Kingdome . And yet , sure , even those Catholicks who stand so much for the Oath , would think it somewhat harsh , if the Parliament should force them to swear , that the Pope cannot depose a Catholick Bishop of England , ( were there any such Bishop , ) that deserved to be deposed ; or that he cannot put an Interdict upon this Kingdome : since they onely pretend to deny the Pope any Jurisdiction over the Temporalls of the Kingdome , or to inflict Temporall punishments ; but not over the Spiritualls thereof , or to inflict Ecclesiasticall punishments , such as an Interdict is . Wherefore this consequence is null ; Such a Practice , or such a Doctrine , is allowed of in France , or for France ; Therefore the same Practice , or Doctrine , must be allowed of in England , and for England . Besides that the liberty which the French have concerning our present Debate is onely , that they may defend , that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings : which liberty is also given to our English ; since the Pope in the above-mentioned Briefs does not declare expresly , ( as our Adversaries falsely suppose he does , ) that he has any such Power , or forbid us to hold or defend the contrary . 81. Consider , Fourthly , whether , should we grant , ( which we do not ) that there were in France a publick Oath for all sorts of people , wherein they do positively swear , that the Pope has not any Power to depose his most Christian Majesty , whether ( I say ) there would not be severall particular Reasons to refuse such an Oath as our present Oath is in England , considering the present condition thereof , which are of no force in France , to refuse the like Oath . For we may prudently suspect here in England , that since the Framers of this Oath were mortall Enemies to the Pope and See of Rome , they have made such frequent mention therein of the Pope and See of Rome ( without specifying any other Sovereign Temporall Prince , nay not so much as containing them in generall terms ; though there be as much need for His Majesty to secure the Loyalty of his Subjects against other Sovereigns , as against the Pope ; ) out of hatred and contempt of the Roman Church , the Papall Dignity , and the Pope's Supremacy in Spiritualls : and since they could not so easily bring Catholicks to deny it explicitly by taking the Oath of Supremacy , they intend to make them deny it implicitly , and under a colour of Civil Loyalty , inducing them to take this Oath of Allegeance . And that this was the design of the Parliament , is manifest . For they would have inserted in the Oath a Renunciation of the Pope's power to Excommunicate ; whereby they would implicitly , even according to our Adversaries judgment , have denied the Pope's Supremacy . And though they left out that Clause at King Iames his request , yet there remains enough to make us prudently suspect , that the Oath was contrived in contempt of the Papall Dignity . Now it is a constant opinion among Divines , that when any thing , though it should be indifferent of it self , is required of us in contempt of any lawfull Dignity , we are bound to refuse it , though otherwise we might submit unto it . It is related of some ancient Christians , that they would rather die then swear by the Fortune of Caesar ; because such an Oath was required of them by the Pagan Emperours in contempt of the True God , to the end that they who took it might be thought to acknowledge implicitly thereby , that Fortune was a Goddess : yet Christians may , if it be necessary , swear by the Fortune of their Princes , who are Christians . In like manner , should an Arrian King require of his Subjects , that they should swear or subscribe this Proposition , Christ is a Creature , they might justly refuse it , though that Proposition in rigour be true ; because they might prudently suspect , that the Arrians did require of them such an Oath , or Subscription , in contempt of the Divinity of our B. Saviour ; which they denied , and endeavoured to prove their Assertion , because he was a Creature . Now nothing of this could be suspected in France , where they are Roman Catholicks , and own the Pope's Dignity and Supremacy in Spiritualls . 82. Moreover , the very Title of the Act wherein this Oath is inserted , as above has been hinted , does insinuate , that it was instituted by publick Authority , as a distinctive Sign , for to discover Roman Catholicks by the Refusall thereof . Neither can it be said , that the Framers of this Oath intended thereby onely to distinguish Loyall Catholicks from those who are not such : First , Because the Title makes no such distinction ; and I suppose that the Title was put in by those who framed the Act , and intended thereby to declare their intention . Secondly , Because we might say the same of distinctive Signs of Christians instituted by Pagan Emperours , viz. That they were instituted by them onely to distinguish Obedient and Loyall Christians from others who were not such . For Christians , who were put to death by the Emperours for not submitting to the publick Tests ordained by them , were said to be put to death for Disobedience to the Emperours Edicts : and many of the Pagan Emperours did feign that they could not be secure of the Christians ; as some Protestants feign that they cannot be secure of Papists : and consequently , those Pagan Emperours might in the like manner have required a compliance with those Tests , in order to their Security ; as Iulian , the Apostata , required his Christian Souldiers to doe homage to his Standard , ( where he and Iupiter were painted , ) under pretence of the Respect due unto him . Thirdly , Because Protestants are perswaded , that the very Principles of our Religion are inconsistent with Civil Allegeance ; and therefore in the beginning of the forementioned Act , they look upon this Inconsistency as an infection drawn from our Religion : and consequently , they intend this Oath for to distinguish Roman Catholicks from not Roman Catholicks ; or ( which is the same ) Catholicks who stick to their Principles , as by them understood , from those who do not . So that whoever takes this Oath , does , according to the Protestants Sentiment , renounce or deny some Principle of the Roman Religion ; though they require somewhat more for a perfect Conformity to their Religion . 83. Now 't is certain , according to all Divines , that it is never lawfull to comply with the distinctive Sign of a false Religion , though the thing of it self should be lawfull or indifferent ; as with the eating of Swines-flesh in time of the Iews , and the burning of Incense before an Idoll ; which might have been instituted as an affront : for such Signs are onely arbitrary . And yet should there have been the like Oath enacted in France , we could not prudently suspect , that it would ever have been intended for a distinctive Sign of Catholicks from not Catholicks . 84. Again , our present Oath has been prohibited by several Briefs of the Pope particularly directed to the Catholicks of England : which is sufficient to perswade any good English Catholick to acquiesce , and forbear the taking thereof . But supposing that the Oath framed by the Third Estate of France had past ; yet had it not been prohibited by the Pope , there would not have been the same reason to refuse it in France as here . And sure the French are so addicted to the Pope , that had * he expresly prohibited them to take such an Oath , or to defend such a Doctrine , they would have submitted thereunto : since we see that they submitted to the Bull of Innocent X. wherein the Five Propositions of Iansenius are condemned , and assented unto it , without expecting the Determination of a General Council , and though severall persons in France are suspected to have adhered to those Propositions . 85. The better to explicate this Doctrine , let us suppose , that two persons possess their respective Lands upon the same Title , and that one of them has been condemned by his lawfull Judge , as possessing such Lands upon an unjust Title : The other , who is not personally condemned , though his Title be no better , is not bound to take notice of such a Condemnation , nor to deliver up his Lands , till he be personally condemned . In the like manner , though the English are bound to forbear to take this Oath , because they are prohibited particularly to take it : yet the French , supposing they have the like Oath , or teach the Doctrine contained in our Oath , as they do not , would not be bound to take notice of such a Prohibition , as not being directed unto them . Wherefore as it is not reasonable , that the same liberty should be permitted to them who live in places infected , as to others who inhabit places free from infection ; to them who are in a tempest , as to those who enjoy fair weather : So neither is it reasonable , that we English , who live in a Kingdome infected with Heresy , and under a Persecution , should be permitted to have the same liberty as they have in France , where they publickly profess the Catholick Religion , and the Magistrates are free from the infection of Heresy , and obedient Sons to the Church ; and consequently , what they determine concerning the Pope's Authority , cannot be suspected to proceed from hatred to the Papall Dignity : whenas , on the contrary , since our Magistrates are implacable Enemies to the Pope , what they resolve concerning the Pope's Power , may prudently be thought to proceed out of indignation against him , and with design to bring off Catholicks by little and little from their Obedience to the Pope . And certainly , we ought to trust rather a Friend , and to give him more liberty , then an Enemy . Whence I conclude , that whatever our Adversaries produce out of the publick Acts or Decrees of the Parliaments and Universities of France , is of little or no force to justifie the taking our present Oath . 86. Consider , Lastly , that though our Adversaries do boast , that some Doctours of the Sorbon , being consulted about this Oath , have approved it as it lies ; yet I have never seen their Subscriptions produced : and the Authours who have written hitherto for the Oath , make mention onely of those publick Acts above quoted . I remember , that those who heretofore defended the Nullity of the Marriage between Henry the Eighth and Queen Katharine , pretended to have Subscriptions from the Doctours of Paris in their favour ; yet all Catholicks now confess that the forementioned Marriage was valid , though the validity thereof has never been declared by a General Council , but onely by particular Bulls or Briefs ; as the Unlawfulness also of this Oath has been declared . Moreover , admit that some Doctours of Paris have approved this Oath as represented unto them ; yet we ought to consider how the Case was stated . For every one is not able to state rightly a Case ; and several times are left out some Circumstances very material , which change the nature thereof . And particularly we ought to consider , whether the several Differences assigned above between England and France , in relation to the present Debate , were taken notice of , wherewith French Divines might probably be unacquainted : and perhaps some of them were ask'd onely concerning the Pope's Power to depose Kings ; which because they denied , those who proposed the Quere presently inferred , that they approved the whole Oath : which inference is ridiculous , as has been shewn . Now 't is certain , that the same Case differently stated requires a different Solution . Neither does it appertain to a Divine , when he gives his opinion of a Case so stated , to examine whether it be rightly stated or not . Some French Divines , having been asked , whether it be lawfull for Catholicks in England to frequent the Protestant Churches , have answered in the affirmative , because it is lawfull in France for Catholicks to goe to the Huguenots Churches : yet afterwards , being more particularly informed of our Laws and Customes , and of the Pope's Brief prohibiting English Catholicks to frequent such Churches , ( which he has not prohibited to the French , ) they have answered and subscribed the contrary . 87. Besides , should we see the Subscriptions of those Doctours in favour of the Oath , if there be any , probably we should find them to be liable to the same Exceptions as the publick Acts of France , which are produced by our Adversaries to the same intent . Finally , concerning the Sentiment of the ancient French Divines about this Point , I refer the Reader to the learned Oration of Cardinal Peron , delivered before the Third Estate of France . And admitting that some modern French Divines do seem to favour the Oath : if the ancient Divines be of the contrary Opinion , why should we acquiesce rather to the Sentiment of the former then of the latter ; especially since the Opinion of the latter has been seconded by the Pope's Briefs condemning the Oath ? I have been longer about this Point , because I find that the chief or onely inducement of several persons , to believe that the Oath may lawfully be taken , is this pretended Authority of France . 88. If it be Objected , lastly , That many learned English Divines have and do defend the Lawfulness of this Oath : That several English Catholicks , Consciencious men , have taken it : That the ancient Fathers of the Church were against the Pope's Power to depose Kings : That so great an Authority as this is for the Lawfulness of the Oath cannot but make the Affirmative probable ; and if it be probable that the Oath may be taken , why may we not take it ? especially since it is practically improbable , that it is lawfull to deprive a man of what he possesses , viz. a King of his Kingdome , upon a meerly probable Opinion ? That it is no Article of Faith , that this Oath is unlawfull , or that the Pope has any Power to depose Princes ; and if so , why may we not take the Oath , and swear positively , that the Pope has no such Power ? Finally , That those who impugn the Oath are for the greater part Priests and Iesuits , who depend of the Court of Rome , who are carried away with Passion and Interest , and who have never seriously considered the merits of the Cause ; and consequently , are not to be consulted , nor hearkned unto , in this matter . 89. Concerning the Divines , and other Authours , who defend or have defended the Lawfulness of this Oath ; Consider , First , what Character Vrban the Eighth gives of them , in the Brief he published against this Oath , the 30. of May 1626. in these words ; They who persuade you otherwise , ( speaking to English Catholicks , ) prophesy unto you a lying Vision and a fraudulent Divination . For sooner ought the sword of the mighty to take from a Christian his life , then his Faith. Yea , if an Angel from Heaven teach you otherwise then the Apostolick Truth , let him be accursed , Anathema sit . And whether , should His Majesty give the like Character of one of his Subjects , in order to prevent the rest from consulting him , or following his Counsell in a certain civil matter , he would deserve to be held for an obedient Subject , who , notwithstanding His Majestie 's Prohibition , should follow such a man's counsell in the very thing prohibited . 90. Consider , Secondly , that actually the Superiours of the Clergy and of the Religious Orders here in England , with several others of their respective Subjects , learned , consciencious and grave men , unanimously judge , that the Oath ought not to be taken , and publickly profess , that they are of this Judgment ; whenas the Priests , who are of the contrary Opinion , ( excepting one , who is in actual Disobedience to his Superiours , to whom he has made a vow of Obedience , and who for his Disobedience has been excommunicated , ) do not dare publickly to declare themselves , though the disadvantage ( if any ) lies here upon those who are against the Oath . 91. Consider , Thirdly , that whoever is against any Part or Clause of this Oath , may justly be alledged against this Oath ; whereas no body can be alledged for the Oath , unless he be for all and every Clause thereof , as is manifest , according to that common Maxime , Bonum ex integra causa , Malum ex quocunque defectu . Nay , those who are against the Oath need onely to shew , that something therein contained is at least doubtfull ; for a doubtfull Oath is unlawfull : whereas those who defend the Oath must prove , that whatever is therein contained , as the immediate Object of the Oath , is certain ; for such must be the immediate Object of an Oath . And who will not rather think , that so many who are against the Oath will evince that something therein contained is at least doubtfull , then so few who are for it will prove that all things therein couched , and sworn , are certain ? it being far easier to evince a thing to be doubtfull , then the contrary certain . 92. Consider , Fourthly , that even our Adversaries do confess , that all the Scholastical Divines and all the Canonists , for about 500 years , have been against some Clauses contained in this Oath ; and that even now there is scarce any Divine , and much less Canonist , ( and to Divines and Canonists properly appertains the discussion of the Clauses of this Oath under debate , ) who dares to defend publickly the Lawfulness thereof . Neither is there any Catholick Authour , besides some few of His Majestie 's Subjects , either French , German , or of any other Countrey , for so much as I have been able to learn , who has printed any thing in defence of this Oath as it lies : whereas not onely His Majestie 's Subjects , but also many forrein Authours , Spaniards , Italians , Germans , and Flemmings , have printed Books against it , even as it lies . Now to say that all the Divines and Canonists were in so gross an Errour , and for so many years , no body daring to oppose them , till some few Priests of our Nation rose up to disabuse the World , and prove , that all those Divines and Canonists had not understood either the Scriptures , or the Councills , or the ancient Fathers , though in all probability they were as much vers'd in them as these modern Divines ; for them to say this , ( I say ) seems somewhat strange , and savours not a little what the Protestants affirm concerning their pretended Reformation , viz. That the whole Church was involved for many hundred years in gross Errours , till Luther and Calvin came to disabuse the World , and to shew , that the Doctours of the Church , for so many years , had been erroneously mistaken in the true sense of Scripture . It seems also very strange , what some of our Adversaries insinuate , that those ancient Divines and Canonists had not seriously , but perfunctorily considered the Points under debate in this Oath , though they write great Tracts concerning them . What man can prudently think , that neither Bellarmine , nor Peron , nor Suarez , nay nor St. Thomas , nor any other of so many ancient and modern Divines , who have impugned this Oath , or some part thereof , have seriously studied the Point , but onely slightly examined it ; and that onely Withrington , Peter Walsh , and some others of their Caball , have throughly discussed this matter , and seriously studied it ? If it be reasonable to reject the Authority of so many Grave and Learned Divines , upon such a precarious Supposition as this is ; why may not any one , upon the same account , slight the authority of his Adversary , saying that he has not seriously examined the Point under debate ; and that had he seriously pondered it , he would have been of the contrary persuasion ? 93. Consider , Fifthly , that Mr. Preston , who writ those Books concerning this matter , published under the name of Withrington , and the principal Champion for the Lawfulness of this Oath , as I am informed by a person worthy of all Credit , and one who was well acquainted with him , never took the Oath himself , nor advised any other to take it ; but onely writ those Books , to shew , for the comfort of Catholicks , what might be said in favour thereof . The same Authour grants , that the Pope has Authority to order and direct the Temporal affairs of Princes , and to impose upon them Temporal punishments by way of a Precept , or Prohibition , or a Direction , in order to their Spiritual good ; and he inveighs against Skulchenius , for accusing him , as if he had denied the Pope such a Power over the Temporalls of Princes ; and he saies , that there is no controversy in the present Point , concerning the Pope's Power to command or prohibit Princes , even in Temporal affairs , with reference to the Spiritual good of themselves or their Kingdoms . Neque de potestate Ecclesiastica praecipiendi , sed tantùm coercendi , ulla in praesenti controversia est . Now this Authority which Withrington admits in the Pope over the Temporalls of Princes , seems obnoxious to the same difficulties which he objects against the coercive Power of the Pope , and is contrary to the Authority of the Faculty of Paris alledged above by our Adversaries ; Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis , quod Summus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi Authoritatem habeat . And certainly , if he has a directive or preceptive Authority over the Temporals of Princes , he must have some Authority over their Temporals . 94. Now consider whether , since Withrington and his Associates will not grant the Pope , as Supreme Pastour of the Church , any Power or Authority which is not evidently deduced out of the Precedents which Christ and his Apostles have left in Scripture , whether ( I say ) this preceptive , prohibitive , and directive Power over the Temporalls of Princes , which Withrington grants the Pope , can be better declared out of the Precedents left in Scripture by Christ and his Apostles , ( for when did any of them exercise such a Power over Temporal Princes in Civil matters ? ) then the coercive power , which he denies the Pope . And consider farther , whether the forementioned Power be not in effect the same with the coercive Power . For if the Pope may justly , in some cases , and in order to the Spiritual good of a Nation , command a King to desist from persecuting his Subjects upon the score of Religion , or otherwise to lay down his Government , and prohibit his Subjects , in case he goes on in persecuting them upon that account , to bear him Civil Allegeance ; how can they swear , that , notwithstanding any Sentence made or granted , or to be made and granted , by the Pope , or his Authority , against their Prince , they will bear him true Allegeance ? For certainly all just Precepts are to be obeyed ; and doubtless Kings will be as unwilling to grant this prohibitive or preceptive Power to the Pope over their Temporalls , as the coercive Power . For they do not so much fear what the Pope can doe against them by force of Arms , as by force of Precepts and Prohibitions . 95. Besides , the Authour of the Questions concerning the Oath seems to grant , that the Pope may , in some extravagant case of absolute necessity , to defend the Spirituall welfare of those who are committed to his charge , and acting onely by a Commission derived from necessity , depose Princes ; as one may justly take away his neighbour's life , when , unjustly attacqued by him , he cannot otherwise defend his own life . Now this is all that Bellarmine affirms . For he does not grant the Pope Authority to depose Princes , but in case of an absolute necessity , of defending his Flock from being infected by their Prince with Heresie . And if they grant this Power to the Pope , how do they affirm , that we may swear , that the Pope has not any Power or Authority , in any case possible , to depose Princes ? So that , if what the chief Maintainers of the Oath teach concerning the Deposing power be duely sifted , we shall find , that in effect they grant what they seem to deny ; or at least that they grant enough to render the taking of this Oath unlawfull . 96. Consider , Lastly , whether , when it manifestly appears , that the ground whereon an Authour proceeds is false , or inconclusive , any account is to be made of the Opinion or Judgment of such an Authour . And if not , then let us briefly consider the main Reasons whereon the Defenders of the Oath bottome their Sentiment . It is far from my intention , to defend , that the Pope has Authority to depose Princes : my design onely is , to examine the Reasons whereby some Authours do endeavour to shew , that the Pope has no such Authority . For let an Opinion be never so good , yet some may ground it ill . 97. The common Reason therefore whereon most of those Authours , who impugn the Pope's Deposing power , do ground themselves in this Point , is , That a meer Spirituall Power , such as is onely granted the Pope over all Christendome , in no case possible , does extend it self to any Temporall thing . This Reason does not shew , that the Pope , as Temporall Prince of Rome , has not an indirect Right and Power to depose Kings , in some cases ; such a Power being inherent to every Sovereign Prince : and yet if one takes this Oath , he must swear , that the Pope neither by himself , nor otherwise , has any Power whatsoever to depose Kings . So that whoever takes this Oath , does , according to the common sense of the words , ( and he swears he takes them so , ) implicitly deny the Pope to be Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome , because he denies him something inherent and proper to all Sovereign Princes . 98. Moreover , a meer Spirituall Power may extend it self in some cases to Temporall things ; and the contrary is manifestly false . And even our Adversaries confess , ( as has been seen above , ) that the Pope's meer Spirituall Power may extend it self to Temporall things per modum directionis aut praecepti . Christ and his Apostles either had no Temporall Power whiles they lived , or at least did not exercise it , but onely a meer Spirituall Power : Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo : and yet he saies , Non veni pacem mittere , sed gladium ; I did not come to bring peace , but the sword , and to cause a separation between the nearest relations ; as between Mother and Daughter , Brother and Sister , and such like , who are tied one to the other by the Law of Nature , as Subjects are tied to their Sovereign : which is to be understood , when a reciprocall communication between them is prejudiciall to their eternall Salvation . Our Saviour also used a Temporall Power and force , to cast out those who with 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 Sovereigns , then Children are commanded to honour their Parents , and Wives to obey their Husbands . 110. If our Adversaries object , That the cases alledged by us here and above , to prove that Christ and his Apostles did sometimes exercise their Power over Temporals , or deprive others of some Temporal thing , did proceed , not from an ordinary , but an extraordinary Power ; and by consequence , hence cannot be inferred , that the Pope has any such Power , since he succeeds Christ , and his Apostles , in their ordinary Jurisdiction onely : To this I answer , That all the cases at least alledged by us are not such . For the Power to deprive one , by Excommunication , of all Civil conversation , and to separate a man from his Wife , in certain cases , is inherent in the Pope according to his ordinary Jurisdiction . That the forementioned Instances do shew , that though Christ's Power upon earth was meerly Spiritual , and his Kingdom was not of this World ; yet he exercised sometimes his Power over Temporals : which was the main intent , for which I alledged those Precedents of Christ and his Apostles . Finally , That it is a very extraordinary case , for Popes to Depose Kings , and even ( which is much less ) to Excommunicate them ; and those who derive the Pope's Deposing power from Christ , affirm , that he has received that Power onely for some extraordinary and extravagant cases . 111. And here I cannot but reflect upon these Authours , who impugn the forementioned Power in the Pope . They require their Adversaries to shew out of Scripture the King-dethroning Power : if they cannot shew it thence , then they triumph , and conclude , that the Pope has no such Power : though that inference be null , as we have insinuated . If they produce out of Scripture several Instances to prove , that Christ's and his Apostles Power did extend it self sometimes to Temporals ; then they answer , that such cases were extraordinary ; and consequently , that they ought not to be brought as proofs of any such Power in the Pope . So that , though Christ had exercised never so great Temporal Power , and had Deposed more Kings then ever Popes did depose , or pretend to depose ; they might with the same Answer put them all off , saying , that they were extraordinary cases , and proceeded from an extraordinary Jurisdiction . 112. There follows another Reason , of great value among the Impugners of the Pope's Power to depose Kings ; and it is , That there cannot be found in all Antiquity , till Gregory the VII . his time , one precedent for any such Power in the Pope ; whereas Christians were persecuted as much by Pagan Emperours , as they are or have been persecuted by Heretical Princes : Neither had the ancient Christians less courage or zeal for their Religion , and the conservation thereof , then the modern . But , whatever the opinion of the Pope's Power to depose Kings be , this Reason is not solid . First , Because those who ground the forementioned Power upon Prescription , or an Agreement made between Princes , can easily answer , that in time of the Pagan Emperours there was no such Prescription or Agreement made ; and consequently , that it is no wonder , if in their time no such Power was exercised . Secondly , Because , since the Deposition was to be put in execution by the help of some Christian Prince , there was not , for a long time , any Christian Prince at all , or any one so powerfull , that could put it in execution : and consequently , the Pope's Sentence , if he had issued forth any against a Pagan Emperour , would upon this account have been insignificant : neither would the Pagan Subjects have taken notice of it ; and the Christian Subjects were , many times , so inconsiderable , that had they taken notice of it , or not , it would have been of little concern . 113. Thirdly , Because 't is no good Argument , Such a Power was not exercised till such a time ; Therefore there was no such Power till such a time . The existency of one onely Act does necessarily infer the existency of a Power for it : but the denial of several , yea of all Acts , appertaining to such a Power , though for some long time , does not necessarily infer the denial of such a Power . For a Power , especially to extraordinary cases , may lie dormant for a long time . The Power to Excommunicate Princes nominatim is certainly derived from Christ ; and yet we find very few Precedents in ancient times of any such Excommunication . And some have reflected very well , as above we hinted , that there is not one Instance of an Heretical Prince , who was alwaies brought up in Heresy , Excommunicated nominatim : and yet even those who deny the Pope any Power to depose Kings , affirm , that he may Excommunicate nominatim such Princes . 114. Fourthly , I do not remember to have read , that either Iulian the Apostata , or any of the Arrian Kings , were speciatim Excommunicated : and yet , sure , there was a Power to Excommunicate them ; yea and they deserved it too . Why therefore do these Authours infer , that , because several Kings , who persecuted the Church , were not Deposed , there was no Power to depose them ? Such a thing was not done ; Therefore it might not lawfully have been done ; is no good Consequence . There was no General Council held in the Church for many hundred years after Christ , till the First General Council , which was that of Nice ; though there were several Heresies , and many zealous Popes , in those times : shall we therefore conclude , that the Popes had no Authority to call a General Council derived from Christ ? or shall we alledge the continuance of three hundred years without a General Council , to prove that there is no Power in the Pope to call such a Council ? And if a Power could lie dormant , by reason of certain Circumstances , for three hundred years , why not for some years more ? So that , because the Popes did not exercise , for many hundred years , a Power to depose Kings , it does not follow , that they were not invested with any such Power . 115. I close up this Point with another Reason , which is , That the Impugners of the Pope's Deposing power cannot understand , as they will needs persuade us , what difference can be between a direct Power and an indirect Power : and since they are convinced that the Pope has no direct Power to depose Princes , as even Bellarmine confesses , they infer , that he neither has an indirect Power to doe it . For what matters it , say they , to make the mischief the less , whether one's eyes be beaten out by a direct stroke from a Tennis-ball , or by a Bricol ? In answer to this Difficulty ; No body denies but that , if a Prince be really Deposed , the effect is the same , whether he was Deposed by a direct , or indirect Power : and this is all the instance they bring does amount to . For certainly , 't is harder , more extraordinary , and more skill is required to strike a set mark by Bricol , then by a direct stroke of a Tennis-ball ; and were one to stand the one or the other stroke , sure he would rather stand a Bricol then a direct stroke . Moreover , there is a vast difference between a direct and an indirect Power to depose Kings ; and so palpable , that ( sure ) these Authours could not chuse but perceive it . Is there not a great difference between the Power His Majesty has to depose , or recall a Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland , and to depose a forrein Prince , when he cannot otherwise defend His Subjects ? between the Right every one has to make use of what is his own , and to make use of what belongs to another , in case of extreme necessity ? between the right one has to cut off his hair , and to cut off his arm , when otherwise the whole body would perish ? between the power a man has to put away his Servant , and to put away his Wife , from cohabiting with him , in some extraordinary case ? Certainly , such Powers are very different ; and as different is a direct or absolute Power , from an indirect or conditional Power onely , to depose Princes . The former is inconsistent with the Sovereignty of a Prince , but not the latter . A direct and absolute Power is easily , often , and many times at the meer pleasure of him that is invested therewith , put in execution : whereas a pure indirect Power is seldome reduced to practice , and in some extravagant case onely . Hence I deduce , that the indirect Power over Princes , which some attribute to the Pope , is not inconsistent with their Security , nor with the Duty and Respect due unto them . For certainly one Prince may be secure of another Prince ; and yet every Prince has an indirect Power to depose any other Sovereign , in case it be necessary for the defence of his own Subjects . Any one that walks in the streets may be secure , that I will not take away his life ; and yet I have an indirect Power to kill him , if he attaques me unjustly , and I cannot otherwise defend my self . 116. And as for the respect due to Princes , Catholick Divines affirm more of the Pope , concerning this Point , ( without being therefore charged with Disrespect toward him , ) then of meer Temporal Princes . For they openly defend , that should the Pope become an Heretick , ipso facto he would cease to be Pope ; and should he persist to retain the Papall Dignity , Christian Princes might compell him by force of arms to quit it : and yet they do not assert , that a King , meerly because he becomes an Heretick , ipso facto ceases to be King , or that he may be Deposed upon that account onely ; since even Bellarmine and Peron are not of opinion , that a Prince can be Deposed meerly because he is an Heretick , unless moreover he does endeavour to pervert his Subjects . So that one cannot swear positively , neither does the Pope require it of any one , that a King , neither by himself , nor by any Authority derived from his Crown , or otherwise , hath any Power whatsoever , in any case imaginable , to Depose the Pope , not onely as a Temporal Prince , but also as Pope , or an Ecclesiastical Sovereign , according to what has been insinuated . What wonder is it therefore , that Catholicks should scruple to swear positively , in as ample terms , that the Pope cannot Depose Kings ? For , sure , no Catholick will affirm , that Kings have more Power over the Pope , then the Pope over Kings . 117. From what hitherto has been discuss'd in reference to this Point , I conclude , That though the Opinion that denies the Pope to have any Authority to Depose Kings should be true , yet the forementioned Reasons to prove it are manifestly false , or inconclusive ; and consequently , the Authority of such Authours , who ground themselves upon those Reasons , as most of our Adversaries do , is void and of no force . Yea , should the aforesaid Reasons prove , that the Pope has not any Power to depose Kings , yet it does not therefore follow , that the Oath may lawfully be taken . For there are many other Difficulties , as we have seen . 118. Concerning the Example of such Catholicks as have taken the Oath ; Consider , First , whether most of them have not been guided by the Authority of such Writers , as have grounded themselves upon the above-mentioned Reasons ; which are palpably false , or insignificant . And if so , whether , as the Authority of such Writers , so the Example of such Catholicks as were guided by them , be of any force . Consider , Secondly , that as there has scarce ever been any Question , which before had been under great debate , and wherein considerable parties were concerned , decided by a General Council , but that some persons , who seemed learned and moral men , either out of ignorance , or obstinacy , have stood out ; and yet the Example of such ought not to move us to follow them : So neither has there been any Debate , wherein numerous parties on both sides were engaged , decided by the Pope out of a Council , but that some of those who were condemned , blinded with ignorance , or carried away with obstinacy , have refused to submit ; and yet neither ought the Example of such to invite us to imitate them , because they go against an express Order and Declaration of their lawfull Superiour , to whom they had referred the Decision of the matter under debate , and to whose Ordinances they owe at least an Exteriour Obedience . 119. Consider , Thirdly , whether it be not much to be feared , that at least some of those who have taken the Oath , have been carried away with the prospect to some Temporal Interest or Advantage , which did dazzle their eyes . Whether others of them have not of purpose waved the conferring this matter with grave and consciencious men , who were inclined to the contrary , though against their Interest , and are ready to subscribe their Opinion : and whether they have not guided themselves by some Priests , neither more learned , nor more consciencious then the former , nor so many in number , and who refuse to subscribe their Sentiment in this matter ; though there does no reason appear , why they should be afraid of any prejudice thereby . And if so , whether such persons , upon this account , may not justly be suspected of some affected ignorance . Whether others have not governed themselves meerly by the Opinion of Lay-men , unvers'd in these Controversies ; and not by the Sentiment of Divines or Canonists , to whom the Discussion of these matters onely appertains . Whether others have not consulted one onely part of the Oath , viz. concerning the Pope's Power to depose Kings ; and being informed that he had no such Power , have presently taken the Oath , without consulting or examining several other Difficulties contained therein . Whether some of them , being afterwards better informed , do or did not repent that they ever took the Oath . And finally , whether the Precedents of such Catholicks , who are justly presumed to have been governed , in taking the Oath , by some of the forementioned waies , ought to move any prudent and consciencious man , to make so solemn an Act , as is the taking this publick Oath , bringing God or witness of the Truth and Justice of all and every thing he swears therein . 120. Consider , Fourthly , whether many of those who have taken the Oath , are not ignorant of the several Briefs issued forth by Popes against it : or at least , whether they have seriously pondered them ; the Expressions so weighty , wherewith they declare the Unlawfulness of the Oath ; and the Character they give of such as counsell or teach the contrary ; which certainly is enough to startle any tender Conscience : and whether they can think themselves obedient Sons to their Supreme Pastour and Father , when they disobey his expresse Prohibition , published several times , after so long debate , and so mature deliberation . Finally , whether most of them have not been carried away with the pretended Authority of France for the Lawfulness of the Oath : whereas France never approved , by any Publick Act , the whole Oath as it lies ; nor that part thereof , for which onely the Authority of France is alledged , as it is couched in the Oath . 121. Consider , Lastly , that if what is commonly reported be true , all or most of such Catholicks who have taken the Oath have proceeded upon evident Mistakes . Some of them were induced thereunto , because they thought that the taking this Oath was not malum in se , but onely malum quia prohibitum ; and that the Popes by their Briefs had made it unlawfull , and declared it so : and consequently , that an extraordinary damage , such as they apprehend in the Refusall of the Oath , does excuse them from complying with this , as with other Prohibitions of the same nature . Now this is a manifest Mistake , as has been shewn above . And certainly , to take a false , doubtfull , unjust or unnecessary Oath , is intrinsecè malum , or malum in se. 122. Others have taken the Oath , making beforehand a publick or private Protestation , that they intended onely to swear thereby a meer Civil Allegeance ; and this way they pretended to secure their Conscience . But in the like manner they might take the Oath of Supremacy , making a Protestation beforehand , that they intended onely thereby to swear , that the King is Protectour of the Church , as all Christian Princes are ; and that to Him , as such , does belong to take care , that the Laws established by the Church be observed in His Kingdome ; and that the Pope has no Preeminency inconsistent with the aforesaid Obligation of Christian Princes . 123. Moreover , one might , in the same manner , take the Communion of the Protestants , making a Protestation that he takes it onely as meer Bread and Wine , or for his Breakfast ; and incense an Idol too , protesting that he does it onely to perfume the room : All which are vast absurdities , as no Catholick can deny . The reason is , because as long as an Action is in it self unlawfull , or as long as it is doubtfull whether it be so or no , no previous Protestation can make it lawfull . 124. In fine , some others of them will needs persuade themselves , that in the Oath is denied onely a direct and absolute Power , but not an indirect and conditionall Power in the Pope to depose Kings . But how can this be credible , when both King Iames , who had a great hand in framing the Oath , and all other Authours whatsoever , either Catholicks or Protestants , who have hitherto published Books in defence of the Oath , have unanimously understood , that therein was denied , not onely a direct , but an indirect Power also in the Pope to depose Princes ? And it is not probable , that they would explicate their own Opinion to any disadvantage or prejudice , and make it harder then really it is . 125. Besides , they all impugn Bellarmine , as the chief Maintainer of the Pope's Deposing power , and as the greatest Enemy to the Oath ; and yet Bellarmine as much as any other impugns the Pope's direct Power to deprive Princes of their Dominions : and it is not credible , that the Maintainers of the Oath would make themselves more Adversaries then really they were , or make so famous a man as Bellarmine their Enemy , in a matter wherein he is their Friend . Moreover , the very cause for which the Oath was framed does contain the deniall of an indirect Power . For this Oath was framed to deny the Pope all Power and Authority to depose a King of England , or dispose of his Dominions , or to absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance , even in case such a King should not onely be an Heretick himself , but also force his Subjects to be so , and the Pope could not defend his Flock otherwise then by Deposing him . And what is this , but to deny an indirect Power in the Pope to depose Kings ? Neither do I think that there is , even amongst Protestants , any Divine or Lawyer , who can deny but that the forementioned Case is comprehended in the Oath . 126. If they say , That should that Clause of the Oath be understood in the Latitude pretended , even the Protestants themselves , who take it , would be manifest Perjurers . For they would swear , in taking this Oath , that the Pope is not Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome ; since every Supreme Temporall Prince has an indirect Power to depose any other Sovereign , as above has been expounded . And how is it credible , that Protestants should frame such an Oath , as no body ( Protestant or Catholick ) could take , without manifestly perjuring himself ? 127. To this I answer , That all Catholicks must confess , that whoever takes the Oath of Supremacy does swear false ; and consequently , that those Protestants who framed it , and took it , were manifest Perjurers , and many of them without an invincible ignorance , viz. such as denied the Supremacy of the Pope in Spiritualls ; as doubtless many of the first Framers of that Oath did . Yea , severall Protestants , and amongst the rest King Iames , acknowledge the Pope to be Patriarch of the West , and that England appertains to the Western Patriarchate , and consequently , that the Pope has some Preeminency in England , in order to Spiritualls ; for every Patriarch has some Preeminency in his whole Patriarchate : and yet they swear positively , in the Oath of Supremacy , that no Forrein Prelate has , or ought to have , any Preeminency within this Realm ; and by consequence they swear false , even according to their own Principles . 128. What wonder therefore is it , that Protestants , out of Indignation towards Catholicks , should frame such an Oath of Allegeance , that even they themselves could not take without being perjured ? And the like is to be seen in all Heterodox Countries , where , out of hatred to the true Religion , such things are often required of the Professours thereof , that even the Heterodox Professours themselves cannot lawfully execute . Besides , the Test enacted the last year , 1673. though levelled onely at Catholicks , is notwithstanding such , that others , who are not Roman Catholicks , yea Protestants of the English Church , cannot comply with , if they understand the Principles of their respective Religions , and will stand to them : as may easily be made appear . 129. 'T is therefore not to be wondered at , that men out of Passion should over-doe things ; and that Protestants , to the end they might be sure to frame such a Test , that Roman Catholicks could not take , should frame such an one , and in such generall terms , that they themselves could not comply with : For their mind seems to have been so much bent to consider what Roman Catholicks could not swear , that they did not reflect what they themselves could swear . Wherefore it would not be amiss , when they require us to take either the Oath of Supremacy or Allegeance , or comply with the Test enacted the last year , to shew them that they require of us what they themselves , even according to their own Principles , cannot doe : whereby will easily appear the unreasonableness of their Request . From the premisses hitherto set down , one may justly conclude , that the Example of such Catholicks who have taken the Oath , as grounding themselves upon palpable Mistakes and Misinformations , cannot be a prudent Motive for others to take it , nor a good Argument to shew the Lawfulness thereof . 130. Concerning the Authority of the ancient Fathers , against the Pope's Power to depose Princes , or to absolve their Subjects from their Allegeance ; Consider , First , that though it should be granted , that the ancient Fathers are against the forementioned Power in the Pope ; it does not therefore follow , that they are for this Oath , but onely for one part thereof ; neither for that in such a degree , that one may positively swear it . Consider , Secondly , that to prove , that the ancient Fathers and Doctours deny the Pope to have any Power whatsoever , either by himself or by others , to depose Princes , in any case imaginable , 't is necessary to prove , that they deny the Pope any Power whatsoever , to deprive a Prince of civil Communication with his Subjects , by force of any Excommunication whatsoever : or , in supposition there has been an Agreement made between Catholick Princes , that if any one of them become an Heretick , he should forfeit his Kingdome , or be liable to be deposed by the rest , in case he refuses to recant , to declare any one of such Princes an Heretick , though really he be such : or , in case that a Subject , or Subjects , cannot live under an Hereticall Prince , and Persecutour of the true Church , without imminent danger of being perverted , and consequently is , or are , bound by the Law of God and Nature , to withdraw themselves ; to declare , I say , in such a case , that he , or they , are bound to withdraw , and to oblige them to it . For those who assert the Pope's Deposing power , expound it in one of these three ways ; which many do not seem to understand . Therefore it would not be amiss to ask them who deny the Pope any Power to depose Princes , what they mean by a Power to depose Princes . 131. Consider , Thirdly , whether Bellarmine , Peron , Suarez , and others who assert that Power , do not alledge severall ancient Councills and Fathers for their Opinion : and if so , what reason is there why we should not think , that they , being persons so eminent in Doctrine and Erudition , did not understand them as well as Withrington , Caron , or Peter Walsh ; especially , since most of the modern Divines and Canonists , having seen what both parties do produce out of Antiquity in their favour , are for the Affirmative ? And had I time , I could lay open the gross Mistakes committed by Caron in the quotation of ancient Authours for his Opinion . 132. Consider , Fourthly , whether it would avail a man in a Suit of Law , to pretend , that the ancient Lawyers are on his side , after that the modern Judges and Lawyers , or the far greatest part of them , having heard what he could say for himself , had determined the contrary : And if not , apply the same to our present case . 133. Consider , Fifthly , whether those ancient Fathers , which the Maintainers of the Oath alledge , may not be understood to speak onely of a direct Power in the Pope to depose Princes : and if so , whether they can prejudice the Opinion which onely allows him an indirect Power . Or , whether they may not be understood to deny onely , that the Pope , as Pope , ( for as such he has no Temporall Dominions , nor Temporall Sovereignty , ) cannot compell any Prince , by his own Temporall Forces , to quit his Kingdome : and if so , the Authority of such Fathers cannot be prejudiciall to the Opinion , which affirms that the Pope , having declared a Prince an Heretick , and a Persecuter of the Church , may invoke the help of Catholick Kings , and authorize them to compell such a Prince , by force of their Arms , to desist from persecuting his Subjects , and , in case of refusall , to Depose him . 134. Consider , Sixthly , whether ancient Fathers are to be alledged for an Opinion , after it has been condemned by the Church , or the Pope , as this Oath severall times has been : as , for instance , whether it be now a sufficient motive to affirm , that Children baptized by Hereticks are to be re-baptized , because St. Cyprian was of that Opinion before the contrary was defined . 135. Consider , Lastly , whether it be not the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers , that we are bound to afford at least an Exteriour Obedience to the Pope's express Commands , in matters appertaining unto him , if the Compliance with them be not manifestly Sinfull ▪ as the Forbearance of this Oath ( which is the thing onely required of us by the Pope in the above-mentioned Briefs ) is not : and whether there be not severall things contained in this Oath , the Decision whereof , according to the common Sentiment of the ancient Fathers , does appertain to the Ecclesiasticall Court , whose Head the Pope is . 136. Concerning the Probability of the Opinion , that asserts the Lawfulness of this Oath ; Consider , First , whether an express Declaration or Prohibition of the Church , or Pope , does not render the thing prohibited practically improbable , or the Lawfulness of the practice thereof improbable ; though the thing in it self , and prescinding from such a Prohibition , be probably or certainly lawfull . As prescinding from the Prohibition of the Church , 't is as lawfull to eat flesh upon Fridays as upon any other days of the week : yet this is improbable , practically speaking , supposing such a Prohibition . And if this be so , consider farther , whether , since the Pope ( to whose Orders we owe at least an Exteriour Obedience ) has prohibited us , by severall Briefs , to take this Oath , it be not practically improbable , that it is lawfull to take it ; though we should grant , that the Oath , prescinding from such a Prohibition or Declaration , is in it self , and speculatively speaking , probable : as severall hidden Mysteries of our Faith , prescinding from the Declaration or Definition of the Church , do seem probably otherwise . 137. Consider , Secondly , that it is not probable , nor credible , that the Maintainers of the Oath would have made ( as they did ) their application to the Pope , to the end he might give sentence of the Lawfulness thereof , and whether it did contain any thing contrary to Faith , or not , had they not been persuaded , that the Decision of these matters did appertain to the Pope . And if so , that it was very ridiculous for them to make any such application to the Pope for the Decision of these matters , or to refer themselves to the Pope's Judgment , if they were resolved not to submit , even exteriourly , to his Judgment , in case he should give sentence against them , as he did : and consequently , we cannot probably presume they had any such resolution . So that , unless they will condemn their own proceedings in this matter , ( which 't is not probable they will do , ) they must needs confess themselves bound to afford at least an Exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Briefs concerning this matter , till they be lawfully repealed . 138. Consider , Thirdly , whether the same Exceptions which they make against the Pope's Briefs , and his proceedings in this matter , viz. That he was misinformed ; That the Pope's Briefs are here in England of no force , without the approbation of the King , who , as things now stand , does acknowledge no Spirituall Power in the Pope over his Realm , and consequently , will not approve any thing that comes from him , in order to the direction of His Subjects , whether favourable , or not favourable unto him ; That the Pope is fallible , and inferiour to a Generall Councill ; and other Exceptions mentioned above ; whether ( I say ) the same Exceptions might not have been made by us , in case the Pope had given sentence for them , and against us , and had commanded all to take the Oath , when they should be required thereunto by His Majesty : and whether our Adversaries do think , that such Exceptions , made by us in that case against the Pope's Sentence , could have justified our Refusall of the Oath , or our Disobedience to the Pope's express Commands . Or what would they have said of us , should we have persisted still to urge the same Reasons , and the Authority of so many Doctours , against the Lawfulness of the Oath , after it had been declared lawfull by the Pope ; and upon that account , and under pretence of Probability , should have still refused the Oath ? I am confident , that they will not confess , that such proceedings of ours in that case , though they be the very same which now they make use of , would have been justifiable . 139. Consider , Fourthly , that the Maxime they make so much account of in this great Debate , viz. In dubiis melior est conditio possidentis , ( In doubtfull matters better is the condition of him that possesses , ) and consequently , that no body can be lawfully dispossess'd of what he has , upon a meer probable Opinion , is insignificant in our present case . For it is to be understood , as our Adversaries also understand it , as long onely as the matter under debate has not been decided by a lawfull Judge . Now the Unlawfulness of this Oath , which is the main Point under debate , has been , severall times , decided by the Pope , to whom even our Adversaries refer the Decision of this matter . Neither does the Pope decide , in the above-mentioned Briefs , ( as the Opponents would needs suppose , ) that he has Authority to depose Kings , which is the thing our Adversaries say is under debate ; but onely prohibits us to swear , that he has not any such Authority , or hinders the King from deciding it in his own favour : and every one has right , as long as the thing is under debate between him and another , to hinder his Adversary from deciding it on his side . 140. Consider , Fifthly , whether meer indirect Power in the Pope to depose Princes , such as is in every King to depose any other Sovereign , be inconsistent with the Sovereignty of Princes , or whether it does dispossess them actually thereof . If not , then to admit such a Power in the Pope , ( as some do , ) is not to admit any thing which does actually dispossess Kings of their Temporall Sovereignty . 141. Consider , Sixthly , whether , according to the severall Precedents alledged by such Authours who assert the aforementioned Power in the Pope , and assented unto , as to matters of fact , by their Adversaries , Popes have not exercised such a Power many years agoe : and consequently , whether the Popes have not possession of such a Power , ( just or not just I do not decide : ) for one takes possession of a Power by exercising its Acts. So that the debate which remains , is not , whether the Pope has Possession of such a Power , or not ; but onely , whether he has a just Possession thereof , or onely an usurp'd : and consequently , according to the Maxime produced by our Adversaries , In dubiis melior est conditio possidentis , the Pope ought not to be deprived of such a Power , till the matter be lawfully decided against him . And to oblige men to swear positively that he has no such Power , is , in a certain manner , to deprive him thereof , and to oblige men to swear positively a doubtfull thing . 142. Consider , Lastly , that though it be probable , that one cannot wage war , or deprive any one of what he possesses , upon the account of a meer probable Opinion ; whether this be so certain , ( since grave Authours are of the contrary sentiment , ) that we may positively swear , that no body , who has onely a probable Opinion on his side , can lawfully dispossess another of what actually he has . 143. Concerning the Interest of those who impugn the Oath , objected in the last place against us ; Consider , First , whether it be not as probable at least , that those who defend the Oath , and deny the Pope all Power whatsoever to depose Princes , are Flatterers of Princes , and Sycophants of Temporall Courts , as that those who are of the contrary perswasion are Flatterers of the Pope , and Sycophants of the Spirituall Court : and whether ( morally speaking ) it be not impossible , that where the matter under debate is of so vast an extent , as Supremacy in Spiritualls , and Supremacy in Temporalls , there should not be some prospect of Interest , of whatsoever side we be , either from the Pope , if one defends the Negative , that the Oath is not lawfull , or from the King , if one maintains the Affirmative , that it is lawfull : and consequently , whether , were this Exception equitable , one ought to hearken to either side . 144. Consider , Secondly , whether Roman Catholicks ( His M●jestie's Subjects ) do not depend more of the King , and Civill Government , in order to their Interest and Preferment , then of the Pope , and Roman Court : or whether those who impugn the Oath , may not fear more Dammages from the Civill Government , then those who defend it , from the Ecclesiasticall : or , finally , whether the latter may not hope to obtain greater Advantages from His Majesty by defending the Oath , then the former from his Holiness by impugning it . Those who defend the Oath aim , or may aim , at some particular Priviledges , or Exemptions , to be granted them , upon that account , from the Civill Government . Neither do I see what Dammages they can fear from the Pope , by defending the Oath . For though , perhaps , the Pope may Excommunicate some of them upon that score ; yet an unjust Excommunication does not any harm : and the Defenders of the Oath are persuaded , that such an Excommunication would be unjust , and not to be taken notice of . On the other side , those English Catholicks who impugn the Oath , may fear lest the Penalties be put in execution against them upon that account ; which , whether justly , or unjustly executed , do in effect equally prejudice . And what such Catholicks can hope for from the Pope , I see not ; since there is no Temporall nor Ecclesiasticall Preferment here in England to which , in the present conjuncture of affairs , his Holiness can promote them . And if this be so , then , upon the account of dependency , we ought rather to suspect those who defend the Oath , then those who impugn it . 145. Consider , Thirdly , whether some of those Priests who have shewn themselves most forward to defend the Oath , have not received considerable Pensions , and sums of money , to print their Books relating to this Subject , from Protestant persons of quality , either Clergy-men or Lay-men , or both ; and whether they have not been countenanced and caressed by them upon that score . And that this has happened , we can make appear . Moreover , whether they can produce any Precedents of English Priests , who have received the like summs of money , or incouragement , from the Pope , for opposing the Oath . And if not , then , considering the event that this Debate has had hitherto , we must conclude , that the Defenders of this Oath have got more then the Opposers thereof . 146. And here I cannot but reflect upon what is related of some of our Protestant Prelates , who , being noted that they kept familiar correspondency with some Roman Priests , and encouraged them in their designs , answered , that they did it to breed a Schism among Roman Catholicks , thereby the better to destroy them . Prynne , in his Canterbury Doom , pag. 557. saies , that Archbishop Lawd , being accused , that he conversed familiarly with some Priests , answered , King Iames had conference with , and extended favours to some Priests , making good use thereof , to set them at variance among themselves , and induce them to write one against another ; as Watson and Preston , who wrote divers Books in defence of the Oath of Allegeance , and did good service therein . Whereupon my Predecessour , Archbishop Abbott , granted Preston a kind of Protection under his hand and seal . Ibid. Lawd granted also Preston a Protection under his hand . Fuller , in his Church-History , in the Life of King Iames , saies thus : Doctour Bancroft afforded the Seculars countenance and maintenance in London-House , accommodating them with necessaries , to write against their Adversaries , ( viz. the Iesuits , ) hoping that the Protestants might assault the Romish Cause with more advantage , when they found a breach made to their hands by the others own dissensions . Where I cannot but note , that as concerning the present Point we speak of , the Protestants countenanced the Priests who defended the Oath , as Preston , the chief among them , and not those Priests who opposed it . Whence appears , that Protestants are of opinion , that the Defenders of the Oath are against the Church of Rome , but not the Opposers thereof , since they joyn with the former , and not with the latter ; and sure , they would joyn with the Enemies of our Church , according to their opinion , and not with her Friends . 147. Consider , Lastly , that those who are most blamed for opposing the Lawfulness of the Oath are less liable to any suspicion of pretence , or Interest , in this matter , since they are tied by a particular Vow , not to pretend , neither directly nor indirectly , any Preferment or Dignity : besides , they have been particularly prohibited by their General , who resides at Rome , under pain of Excommunication , either to preach , or teach , in publick Disputes or Books , that the Pope has any Power to depose Kings : the like Prohibition , for ought I know , being not imposed upon any other Religious Order . And whatsoever heretofore some of them have taught concerning this Subject , 't is certain , what Henry the Fourth of France justified in a publick Speech , that they taught nothing in this matter , which is not still taught , and has been taught before their Society was in the world , by several Learned men of other Orders . I have proposed these Considerations for the Satisfaction of such Catholicks who have a desire to be informed concerning the Lawfulnesse or Unlawfulnesse of this Oath , to the end , that having perused them over , they may proceed , in a matter of so great concernment , with due consideration . For I have endeavoured to couch , in this short Discourse , the main Arguments on both sides . I believe that Consciencious Catholicks , who shall be pleased to peruse seriously the forementioned Considerations , will have at least some rational Reluctancy to take the Oath , as it lies ; which is enough to render the taking thereof unlawfull ; since such as take it do swear , that they doe it heartily , that is , without any Reluctancy of mind , but rather with a Propension and Inclination to take it : which certainly no body can lawfully swear , who feels a Reluctancy of mind to any part of the Oath . And to summe up the whole Substance of this Treatise : Since it is certain , ( neither do our Adversaries deny it , ) that it belongs to the Pope , to decide whether this Oath be unlawfull or not ; Since the Pope has determined severall times , that it is unlawfull , and has prohibited the taking thereof , as all do confesse ; Since what our Adversaries still urge , for the Lawfulnesse of this Oath in it self , has been long since proposed to the Pope , and does concern the very thing , for the Decision whereof even they refer themselves to the Pope's Judgment , with resolution to stand to his Determination , otherwise why should they refer it to him ? Since , finally , all the Exceptions our Adversaries make against the Briefs , and the Proceedings of the Pope in framing of them , are frivolous , and such as would vacate ( were they of any force ) all Briefs whatsoever , issued forth by Popes , and which even they themselves would not have allowed us to make , in case the Pope had given the contrary Sentence ; Since ( I say ) all this is so , as does manifestly appear , by what has hitherto been set down : I conclude , That our Adversaries are destitute of all rationall Motives , whereby to justify their Disobedience to the forementioned Briefs ; and that nothing but Ignorance or Obstinacy can move them to stand out . THE END . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A61561-e60 Supplicatio ad Clem. X. per Francisc Simonis Mogunt . A.D. 1675. Quis nesciat , Reges & Duces ab iis habuisse principium , qui , Deum ignorantes , superbiâ , rapinis , perfidiâ , homicidiis , postremò universis penè sceleribus , ( Mundi Principe , Diabolo viz. agitante , ) super pares , sc. homines , dominari caecâ cupiditate , & intolerabili praesumptione , affectaverunt ? Greg. VII . l. 8. ep . 21. Pag. 4. An Apologie in defence of Ecclesiastical Subordination in England , pag. 187. col . 2. Rog. Widdrington Supplicat . ad Paul. 5. p. 133. De justa Abdicatione Henrici Tertii è Francorum Regno . Lugd. A. 1591. l. 1. à c. 5. ad c. 9. * à c. 9. ad c. 25. l. 4. c. 1. ad c. 6. lib. 4. c. 23. De justa Reip. Christianae in Reges Impios & Haereticos Authoritate . Antw. A.D. 1592. Responce de vrays Catholiques Francois à l'advertisement des Catholiques Anglois pour l'exclusion du Roy de Navarre de la Couronne de France . A. D. 1588. Iuramentum populi non eum astringit ad obediendum Regi , nisi Rex legitimè & Christianè imperet . Rossae . c. 2. n. 6. p. 68. c. 2. n. 7. p. 82. c. 2. n. 4. Apologie Catholique , &c. part . 2. p. 111 , 112. A. 1585. c. 8. n. 14. c. 8. de Rege Haeretico excommunicando . Pi●s . de Script . Angl. A. 1594. De justa Abdicat . Henr. 3. l. 4. c. 23. Catholick Apology p. 336. A Moderate Defence of the Oath of Allegeance ▪ A. 1612. p. 127. p. 148. Illud unum sciant Reges , nihil magìs cordi esse Pontifici & ejus asseclis , quàm ut Regiam potestatem vilem reddánt , infirmam , imbecillem & abjectam . Ortel . error . Suarez . c. 3. n. 1. Th. Graswinckel , Dissertat . De praelud . justit . & juris , pag. 257. Suarez de Legibus l. 2. c. 15. n. 4.16 , &c. Azor. Instit . Moral . l. 6. c. 1. dub . 4. Aqu. 1.2 . q. 100. art . 8. 2.2 . q. 89. art . 9. Cajetan . in 2.2 . q. 89. art . 9. In juramentis oportet respicere ad praejudicium hominis cui factum est , & in cujus favorem factum est . Id. ib. Maldonat . Summul . qu. 12. art . 7. q. 15. art . 21. Enimvero quamvìs Papa dispensare valeat in Voto , quod est majus , non tamen in Iuramento , quod est minus . Haud enim relaxare potest Iuramentum quod homo homini pr●stitit , Id solvendi quod ei debeat . Soto De iustit . & jure l. 8. q. 1. art . 9. Quando autem est juramentum in alicujus tertii utilitatem ▪ non potest absque voluntate tertii etiam à Papa dispensari ; sicut nec Papa potest auferre rem alterius . Tolet. Summa Casuum l. 41 c. 23. n. 1. Clavis Regia Cas. Consc. l. 6. c. 11. n. 11. Azor. Instit . Mor. l. 6. c. 1. Quartò quaeritur . Widdrington Disp. Theolog. c. 6. sect . 3. n. 1 , 2 , 3. Theolog. Moral . l. 4. tr . 3. c. 11. n. 5. De justa Abdicat . Henr. 3. l. 1. c. 3. n. 4. c. 18. p. 33 , 34. c. 25. p. 51 , 52 , &c. c. 26 , 27 , 28. Ross. De justa Reip. Christian. Author . in Reges impios & haeret . c. 9. n. 1. pag. 604 , 608. n. 7. p. 616. De Rom. Pontif. l. 5. c. 7. tertia Ratio . First Treatise , p. 1. pag. 5. pag. 2. pag. 3 , 4 , 5. pag. 13. pag. 14. Cathol . Apology , pag. 121 , 122. Pag. 13. Treat . 2. p. 2. Pag. 3. Pag. 4. First Treatise , p. 13. Second Treat . p. 4 ▪ Pag. 5. Pag. 6. Summa Cas. lib. 4. c. 21. n. 3. Suarez De virtut . Relig . To. 2. tract . 4. l. 1. c. 9. n. 4. l. 3. c. 5. n. 3. Soto De justit . & jure l. 8. quaest . 2. art . 3. concl . 6. Iacob . de Graffiis decis . aure . l. 2. c. 16. n. 8. Sayr Clav. Reg. lib. 5. c. 4. n. 2. Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. Diss. 6. quaest . 7. punct . 3. Vasquez 1. 2. Disp. 127. c. 3. Layman Theol. Mor. l. 4. tr . 3. c. 14. n. 4 , 5. Legatio de Concept . Virg. Mariae tract . 13. Third Treatise par . 65. & 68. Wadding p. 402. Third Treatise , p. 46 , &c. Warmington's Moderate Defence , pag. 44. Widdrington advers . Schulken . p. 194 , &c. Reflections on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegeance , n. 98. Third Treatise par . 50. Reflections on the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegeance , n. 110. First Treatise , p. 5. Second Treatise , pag. 32. Third Treat . p. 88. Third Treat . p. 130. Notes for div A61561-e11650 Vir in Sacris literis eruditissimus , & in tota Ecclesia omni virtutum genere celeberrimus . Lambertus , a Writer of that Age. Nos S. R. E. Cardinales elegimus nobis in Pastorem , Virum religiosum , geminae scientiae prudentiâ pollentem , aequitatis & justitiae praestantissimum amatorem , bonis moribus ornatum , &c. Registr . Greg. 7. in init . b Gratiâ miraculorum , & prophetiae , erat omnibus admirabilis . Binius in Vit. Greg. 7. Eundem , sicut in vita , ità & post mortem claruisse miraculis , Bibliothecarius ejus temporis absque ulla dubitatione confirmat . Baron . ad ann . 1085. n. 11. In album Sanctorum relatus , universali memoriâ nomine celebri perseverat . Id. ib. c Aut Rex ipse , repudiato turpi Simoniacae haereseos mercimonio , &c. aut Franci pro certo ( nisi fidem Christianam abjicere maluerint ) generalis anathematis mucrone percussi , illi ulteriùs obtemperare recusabunt . Greg. 7. l. 1. ep . 35. Si in perversitate studiorum suorum perseveraverit , Nos in Romana Synodo , à corp●re S. Ecclesiae ipsum , & omnes quicunque sibi Regalèm honorem vel obedientiam exhibuerint , sine dubio sequestrabimus . Id. l. 2. ep . 18. d Significâsti nobis per literas & legatos tuos , te B. Petro devotè ac decenter velle obedire , &c. Id. l. 1. ep . 36. Pontifex habito cum 110 Episcopis consilio , in eundem Regem Excommunicationis sententiam protulit . Author Vit. S. Ansel. Luc. a Writer of that Age. Cunctis qui convenerant Episcopis id fieri decernentibus , Regem excommunicat . Lambert . Cunctis acclamantibus nè talis contumelia inulta remaneret , omnium consilio & consensu , Henricum , Synodali judicio damnatum , Regísque honore & nomine privatum , anathematis gladio percussit . Bruno Histor. belli Saxon ▪ a Writer of that Age. b Henrico Regi omnem potestatem & dignitatem Regiam tollo , totiúsque Regni Teutonicorum & Italiae gubernacula contradico ; & omnes Christianos à vinculo juramenti quod sibi fecère absolvo . Greg. 7. l. 3. ep . 6. c B. Petre , mihi tuâ gratiâ est potestas à Deo data ligandi atque solvendi in coelo & in terra . Hâc itaque fiduciâ fretus , ex parte Omnipotentis Dei , Patris , & Filii , & Spiritûs Sancti , per tuam , B. Petre , potestatem & authoritatem , Henrico Regi , &c. ut suprá . a Greg. 7. l. 4. ep . 23. b Baron . ad ann . 1084. n. 10. & ad ann . 1094. n. 17 , &c. c Triburiense , Quintiliniburgense , Ostionense , Claromontanum , Roman . 7.8.10 . d Victor III. Urbanus III. Paschalis II. * Adversarii nostri , quamvìs ipsi exiverint à nobis , non nos ab ipsis , tamen dicere solent , Nos Catholici sumus , nos in Vnitate Ecclesiae sumus . Vnde Scriptor illius Epistolae appellat eos qui sunt in parte sui Gregorii , Catholicos ; nos , Schismaticos , Haereticos , & Excommunicatos . Vercellens . de Unit. Eccles. a Bishop of the King's party . Hoc decretum ( Synodi Quintiliniburg . ) contra Henricianos , qui fideles S. Petri ( meaning the Catholicks ) constringere voluerunt , ut Excommunicationem D. Papae unà cum illis retractare praesumerent . Bertold . a Writer of that Age. f Me quoque quem Sanctorum Patrum traditio soli Deo judicandum docuit , nec pro aliquo crimine , nisi à fide ( quod absit ) exorbitaverim , deponendum censuit , &c. Epist. Henr. 4. ad Greg. 7. set out by a Protestant , in Fascic . rerum expetendarum . g Imperatorem , ( so his own party called him ) in nulla Synodo Canonicè accusatum , praecipitanter excommunicavit ; in qua Excommunicatione nullus Cardinalium subscripsit , &c. Beno de Vit. Hildebrand . in the aforesaid Fasciculus . h Eodem anno , ( 1080. ) condicto , tam ab inimicis quàm amicis Imperatoris , alloquio , in Thuringia , conveniebant ex utraque parte quicunque sapientissimi de Optimatibus judicabantur , Canonum authoritate probaturi , cui parti justitia faveret ; Imperatore tamen absente ; sic enim ipse consensit . Electis , hinc Wecilone Moguntino , illinc Gebehardo Saltzburgensi , disputatio coepta est . Affirmat Gebehardus , ( proponente hoc priùs Wecilone ) Imperatorem non injusto judicio , tam Regno , quàm Communione , Apostolici Sententiâ , privatum . E contrà Wecilo , Dominum suum , praejudicium non minùs à Papa quàm à Principibus passum , contendit , dum ipso ad Canusium in satisfactione posito , imò jam à Papa in communionem recepto , alterum super se Regem elevarent . Adjecit etiam , quòd Imperator , diu jam à Saxonia depulsus , & regnandi copiâ , etiam ab illa dissensione quae ante Podolphum facta describitur , spoliatus , nec vocari , nec judicari Canonicè debuisset , &c. Ursperg . ad ann . 1080. a Dictatus Papae , in Concil . Roman . 3. ann . 1076. 1. Quòd Papae liceat Imperatorem deponere . 2. Quòd à fidelitate iniquorum Subditos potest absolvere . b Quod postulâsti , te nostris scriptis quasi juvari , & communiri , &c. non adeò necessarium nobis videtur , cùm hujus rei tam multa ac certissima documenta in Sacrarum literarum paginis reperiantur , &c. citing the Scriptures . L. 8. ep . 21. Eos qui dicunt , Regem non oportet excommunicari , &c. ad Sanctorum Patrum dicta vel facta mittimus . Legant itaque , &c. Considerent cur Zacharias Papa Regem Francorum deposuerit , & omnes Francigenas à vinculo juramenti quod sibi fecerant absolverit . In Registro B. Gregorii , &c. l. 4. ep . 2. c B. Petri authoritate , ei ( Henrico Regi ) resistite , & totius Regni gubernacula contradicendo , &c. illud semper habentes in memoria , quia scelus Idololatriae committit , qui Apostolicae Sedi obedire contemnit . L. 4. ep . 23. Contra eorum insaniam , qui nefando ore garriunt , Authoritatem Apostolicae Sedis non potuisse Regem Henricum excommunicare , nec quenquam à Sacramento fidelitatis ejus absolvere ...... Neque enim credimus eos , qui , ad cumulum suae damnationis , veritati impudenter de●rahunt & contradicunt , haec ad suae defensionis audaciam , tam ignorantiâ , quàm miserae desperationis vecordiâ , coaptâsse . Id. ibid. Eos qui dicunt , Regem non oportet excommunicari , licèt pro magna fatuitate , nec etiam eis respondere debeamus ; tamen nè impatienter eorum insipientiam praeteriisse videamur , &c. L. 4. ep . 2. Si B. Gregorius , Doctor utique mitissimus , Reges qui Statuta sua super unum xenodochium violarent , non modò deponi , sed etiam excommunicari , atque in aeterno examine damnari decrevit : quis nos , ipsius matris Ecclesiae , quantum in ipso est , conculcatorem , deposuisse & excommunicâsse reprehendat , nisi fortè similis ejus ? L. 8. ep . 21. a Moneantur seculi potestates , &c. Si verò Dominus temporalis requisitus , & monitus ab Ecclesia , terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac haeretica faeditate , per Metropolitanum & Comprovinciales Episcopos Excommunicationis vinculo innodeturm , Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum , significetur hoc Summo Pontifici , ut extunc ipse vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos , & terram exponat Catholicis occupandam , qui eam , exterminatis Haereticis , sine ulla contradictione possideant ; salvo jure Domini principalis , dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum . Eâdem nihilominus lege servatâ circa eos qui non habent Dominos principales . Cap. 3. de Haeret. Mitto Decreta Concilii Lateranensis olim ex antiquo descripta Codice . Jo. Co●hl . ep . ante Concil , Lateran . ap . Crab. Nos cum fratribus nostris & sacro Concilio deliberatione praehabitâ diligenti , cùm Jesu Christi vices teneamus in terris , nobisque in B. Petri persona sit dictum , Quodcunque solveris , &c. memoratum Principem , suis ligatum peccatis , & abjectum , omnique honore & dignitate privatum à Domino ostendimus , denunciamus , ac nihilominus sententiando privamus : omnes qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur astricti , à juramento hujusmodi perpetuò absolventes : authoritate Apostolicâ sirmiter inhibe●d● , nè quisquam ei de caetero tanquam Imperatori vel Regi pareat ; & decernendo quoslibet , qui deinceps ei velut Imperatori aut Regi consilium aut auxilium praestilerint , ipso facto Excommunicationis vinculo subjacere , &c. In Actis Concil . b Matth. Paris . in Henrico 3. c Video quòd ad confusionem meam aspirat Papa , ..... nec Sacrum decet Imperium maximè adversanti judicio sisti Synodali . Id. ibid. d Id. ibid. * Id. ibid. f Trithem . in Chron. Hirsang . g Matth. Paris . in Henrico 3. h Paul. Aemil . in Vit. S. Ludov. i In 6. Cap. 1. de Homicid . * as he speaks . † in his Preface . * page 14. page 30. * Trithemius in Chron. historic . ad ann . 1106. * Magister in 3. dist . 39. En. ann . 10. S. Thom. † S. Aug. lib. de Mendacio . * pag. 31. Second Controversial Letter , pag. 31. towards the end of his large Preface . Vide Articulos Facultatis Parisiensis de Authoritate Pontificia & Regia , Art. 6. * This Book was printed in an . 1620. and called The New-year's gift , or , A brief and clear Explication of the Oath of Allegeance . † Withringt . in Apol. n. 99. and in his other books very often . Also C. I. in his Explication of the Oath of Allegeance , p. 74. Canon de Papa , Distinct. 40. Synod . 8. act . 7. Bellarm. de Rom. pont . l. 2. c. 29. * printed at London 1649. S. Thomas 2.2 . qu. 89. ar . 7. History of the Irish Remonstrance first part of the first Treatise , 3.86 . The Publisher of the Questions in his Preface to the Authour himself , pag. 25. And the Protestant in the 9. Controversial Letter . H. 8.31 . * Pag. 8. See the Censure it self , and first Cont. Letter , pag. 13. So speaks the Decree itself . Io. Barkley in his Vindiciae , pag. 106. This the Publisher of the Questions observes . The Account of the Iesuits Life and Doctrine , pag. 120. So Onuphrius mentions him , lib. 4. Devaria creat . Rom. Pont. See Chap. 8. * Vide aliud Breve Paul. V. ad D. Georg. Birket 1. Febr. 1608. aliud Urban . VIII . ad Regem Galliae 3. Maii 1626. & aliud ejusdem Pontis . eodem die & anno ad Episcop . Chalcedonensem . † Supplic . to Paul V. p. 2.91 . Vide etiam Supplic . Thom. Prestoni & Thom. Greeni ad Greg. XV. * Sententia Papae obligat ad non dogmatizandum contrarium . Gers. Tract . de exam . doctrin . consid . 2. Vide Duvall . in Elencho , pag. 106. † Hujusmodi Iuramentum salvâ Fide Catholicâ & Saluteanima . rum vestrarum praestari non potest ; cùm multa contineat quae Fidei & Saluti apertè adversantur . Paul. V. 1. Brev. Urban . VIII . vocat Iuramentum noxium & illicitum , & addit , authoritatem B. Petri eâ jurisjurandi formulâ imminui . Excommunicantur in Bulla Coenae qui subterfugiunt judicium Papae , appellando ad Concilium Generale . Vide Synod . General . 5. Can. 5. ubi damnat Origenem aliòsque , cum suis scriptis , nullò particulari errore nominato . Append. ad prop. Theolog . de Jurament . fidelitatis , initio . Vide Gloss. cap. Cum venissent . De judiciis . * Suar. ait , lib. De leg . c. 4. n. 2. Nulla est data determinata forma verborum in legibus Canonic's ferendis , vel jure Divino vel Ecclesiastico . Malosjudices se esse perpessos , vox est omnium malorum litigatorum , etiam cùm manifestissimâ fuerint veritate convicti . Aug. Epist. 162. * Anno 1615. ‖ Quoted in the Reflexion upon the Oath , pag. 73. † De hoc Articulo ait Gallic . Eccles . in illis Comitiis , non aliò tendere quàm ad Schisma conflandum , & corroborandum Haeresin . Mercur. Gall. Tom. 30. Ann. 1615. p. 298 , 247. * Rex , silentio imposito , Articulum inseri codicillis vetuit . Nobilitas Clero consentit . Id. pag. 336. In convent . Episc. Gall. habito 27. Febr. 1626. damnatus est ille Articulus : subscripserunt 2 Card. 10 Archiep. 30 Episc. Rochefoc . in ration . cont . Schism . Sect. 1. Sect. 102. & Mercur. Gallic . ●om . 11. An. 1626. p. 105. Etiam major pars Tertii ▪ Ordinis Articuli illius progressum impedivit . Card. Richelieu lib. cont . 4 Ministros Calvinist . pag. 173. The University of Louvaine is also against this Oath , as appears by a Censure they gave Dec. 29. 1662. Anno 162● . Feb. 9 Facultas Parisiensis hanc Censuram , quoad formam & tenorem . revocavit , nec hactenus , quod sciam , aliam confecit . Mercur. Tom. 12. An. 1627. pag. 21. Vide etiam Rochefoc . pag 386. in the year 1627. Plura circa Iesuitas Gall. quoad hanc rem vide apud Mercur. Jesuit . pag. 844. & Mercur . Gall. Ann. 1626. Nec probant Adversarii , Iesuitas unquam subscripissè hanc Prop. Papa in nullo casu potest deponere regem . * Vide Duval . in Elench . & Decretum Facult . Sorbon . ad calcem Magistri Sentent . ubi dicitur , Ad Sanctam Sedem Apostolicam pertinet , Authoritate judiciali supremâ circa ea quae sunt Fidei judicialiter definire . Paul V. commanded Birket to take away their Faculties from such Priests as had taken the Oath , or taught that it might be taken , unless they repented . Item in the Brief to the Bishop of Chalcedon the Pope saies thus ; Si quis aliter docuerit , ejus Doctrina non è fontibus Salvatoris , sed ex Aegypti pu●eis hauritur . Supplic . ad Paul. V. pag. 95. Append. pag. 3. Respons . ad argum . Suarez . cont . jurament . pag. 204. See Caron , a great defender of the Oath , in his Apostolatus Mission , printed at Paris 1659. q. 13. in Canc. 2. q. 29. coroll . 4. & alibi , where he saies as much as Bellarmine for the Pope's Deposing power . Joan. 18.36 . Matt. 10.34 . Matt. 21.12 . Act. cap. 5. Marc. 10.23 . Joan. 18. Matt. 10. Urban . 8. Brev. ad reg . Gall. air , Iuramentum hoc totius Ecclesiae pietas exsecratur . Brev. ad Epise . Chalced . vocat illud abortum mendacii , & impietatis tesseram . Paul. V. 1. Brev. ait , Non potestis absque evidentissima gravissimáque Divini honoris injuria obligare vos hoc juramento . 


