I. Why we, when our Laws so threatningly com­mand, and our All is so nearly concern'd, may not safely and uncensurably profess as much as They?

AND I beg of you a more satisfactory answer, than, that the Pope in prudence forbears the French, because their party is numerous, and learn'd, and united, and Persons of heart and courage; for (omit­ting to observe the advantage this very Objection offers, by confessing so great Authority against that pretended Power) I should easily secure my self with this reply, that were not their Case, in it self, at least tolerable, all those fair qualities could never justify the Popes suspend­ing to condemn them. Their Tenets then clearly are in themselves consistent with Faith and Catholick Commu­nion; and 'tis a Consideration meerly prudential, whe­ther such proceedings ought to be Censur'd or no; which naturally leads me to my second Question.

II. If there be reasons enow to turn the Eye of Authority quite away from seeing what whole Uni­versities so openly avow in the face of the world: are there not enow to Connive at us, who are but a few, and act privately, and not without the ex­cusing plea of extreme necessity?

HEre, Your first thoughts perhaps may offer you this distinction, That in England 'tis requir'd to renounce the Doctrine as Impious and Heritical, while [Page 8] the French condemn it only as False, Erroneous, Contrary to the Word of God, Pernicious, Seditious, and Detesta­ble. But I appeal to your second thoughts, and ask,

III. Are those two words, Impious and Heretical, so vastly different in their true and natural sense, from the other half dozen, False, Erroneous Contrary to the word of God, Pernicious, Seditious, Detestable, that all these six may voluntarily be affirm'd; and both those, or at least, one of them, whatever ruine attends, must necessarily be deny'd?

IF we be oblig'd, as sure we are, to answer in the sense of our Proposers, and they mean no more by He­retical (as the very Principles of their Religion, besides other Arguments, sufficiently assure us) than Erroneous, and Contrary to the word of God; I hope this third Quest­ion will prove no invincible difficulty; For, is not what's Contrary to the word of God, Contrary to Faith; and what's Contrary to Faith, Heretical? Especially since among our selves we must find a larger sense for Hereti­cal, than that which severely measures its conceiv'd strictest notion; We must find a sense wherein the Opi­nion of Antipodes was antiently Heretical, and the Turn­ing of the Earth, or at least the Standing of the Sun is so now; one of which the Qualificatori at Rome, in or­der to Galileo's Condemnation, Censur'd as Absurd, False, &c. the Other, as formally Heretical; We must▪ find a sense that may justify not only our disputing Schoolmen, who often on slighter grounds, cry out Heresy one against another; but the publick Censors of Books, and Qualifiers of Opinions, who every day reject many Doctrines as Heretical, without intending to divide Communion from the M [...]inteiners; Nay, we must find a sense that may agree with the words of the Pope himself, [Page 9] in his Prohibitive Brief of this very Oath, which, he sayes, contains many things contrary to Faith and Salvation; and what can we imagin should be those Many, if the deni­al of his Prince-deposing power be not counted for One? yet possibly neither It, nor any of these I have mention'd are, in precise scholastic rigor, Heretical: But Use and Custome being the Rule of Speech, I cannot see it rea­sonable, why we alone in so Important an Occasion, should be denyed that latitude of sense, which we know is so frequently, and so justifiably allow'd to all the world.

To reconcile more clearly this difference, I conceive the common Distinction of Material and Formal Heresy very useful: According to the first sense, whatever is now Heretical, alwayes was so in its inward nature; the Decision of the Church operating only by way of Decla­ration of the formerly believ'd Truth, and Extension of the Obligation to new Subjects, adding perhaps express Menaces of Anathema, &c. to obstinate Dissenters, which every one is justly presum'd to be, that submits not to the known determination of the Universal Church.

In the second sense many Tenets are not yet Hereti­cal, which may in time become so: Even [...]his intollera­bly false and flattering Position, That the Pope is direct Universal King over all the World, is not yet (the Church not using to interpose Her Authority, till the Decision be necessary) condemn'd as Heretical; though certainly, none that pretend to the least degree of true Loyalty, but are ready to abjure so damnable a Doctrine, as worse than Impious, worse than Heretical. 'Tis evidently therefore enough to verifie my forswearing such an er­rour as Heretical, if in it self it be notably mischievous, without expecting till the Church can meet, and solemn­ly pa [...]e Her Canonical Sentence upon it.

Though this Example of so many Universities be suf­ficient to decide the Question, in that they renounc'd this pretended Power; and more than sufficient, to justifie us, in that they did it freely: Yet to propose an Instance agreeing, even in the point of fear too, with ours; [Page 10] I shall not forbear to say there was a numerous and con­siderable Party in France (no lesse than the whole Body of the Jesuites) whose Judgement was known to differ from That of the Universities as much as Any, and more than most of Ours here, yet rather than expose them­selves to Inconveniences, and their Interests to Danger; they publikely subscrib'd the Sorbonne Censures; pub­lickly condemn'd this King-dethroning Power, as False, Erronious, contrary to the Word of God, Pernicious, Seditious, and Detestable.

How this so solemn Subscription, against what them­selves had formerly held either as altogether, or at least as almost an Article of Faith, was understood at Rome, I know not: that it was actually done in France, I am confi­dent will not be deny'd: that it was commanded, we need no other Evidence than the Arrest it self of the Parliament of Paris, dated 17. Mar. 1626. wherein 'tis Order'd That the Priests and Scholars of Clermont, and of the other two Houses which the Jesuits have in Paris, should within three days subscribe the Censure made by the Faculty of Sorbonne: and within two months procure Testi­monials of the like Subscription from every Provincial, and Rector, and from six of the Antients of every College of their Society in France.

Nor can it be said, this Subscription relates only in general to Sautarellus's Book, since it particularly ap­proves the whole Censure of Sorbonne; whereof one and the first branch is directly, and in most expresse terms, a­gainst the Popes Power to punish Kings Temporally, to Depose, &c. If this be true, of which I know not the least reason to doubt,

IV. Why is it not Lawful for English Catholicks to be Loyal to their Prince, as far as the French to Theirs? Why is it not tolerable in Lay-men here to disavow, what the strictest Religious there open­ly condemn? Strictest, I mean, in maintaining, and extending the Popes Prerogatives, and so most [Page 11] pertinent to our Question: Shall Humane Mo­tives be allow'd their place with Them who renounce the World, and not with those who live in it?

IF any shall here pretend to distinguish between a simple [...]ubscription, which only was requir'd of the French Je­suites, & a down right Oath, which is exacted of us; I can­not think but they proceed with too much scruple; since certainly no sincere and generous honesty will solemnly and deliberately attest under his hand, what he will not in due circumstances swear to be true: and indeed, for Reli­gious Persons, who actually still reflect on the presence of God, what difference can there be, between calling Him in a form of words to witnesse what they say, especially with such Solemnity and Deliberation; and beleeving him continually in their hearts to witness not only what they say, but what they think?

And now were I demanded a reason, why so circum­spect and wise a Body should act so differently in the same cause but different Countries; I could only 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, than what they ventur'd at Rome by Subscribing: whereas in England, all they can forfeit by declining the Oath of Allegiance (being themselves but few, and with­out the Engagements of Colleges and Foundations) is perhaps of lesse esteem with them, than the interest of their Universal Body at Rome, whence so many advan­tages are continually deriv'd to the rest of their Society.

When I have taken leave to suppose for True, That a certain general Rule, is to be observ'd, notwithstanding an Exception that's incertain; I may easily hope your leave to ask this fifth Question;

V. If the Precept of Obedience to Kings in Tempo­rals be a certain Catholick Doctrine, and the Ex­ception (unlesse the Pope depose) be incertain; whether the Precept does not still Oblige notwith­standing that Exception?

ANd however such a power may by some be held spe­culatively probable, yet, as to any Execution, 'tis practically no Power at all, against one in possession; and consequently may be ab ur'd as such: he that has only a speculatively probable Commission to take away my life, has none at all actually to do it: and every one will surely agree that to dispossesse a King is of infinitely more mischievous Consequence than to kill a private Per­son; Witness the horrid miseries that follow'd the Deposition of Henry the fourth, by Gregory the seventh; the first Pope, and first Emperour that ever engag'd so far in that kind of quarrel; a quarrel wherein both sides endur'd for a long time unspeakable Calamities, both sides striving with all extremity of passion and fury to ruine one another.

Our Allegiance to Kings, and Their Title to our Al­legiance being both, in their natures, antecedent to Baptism; For the relation of King and Subject is by Birth, and the quality of Christian by Adoption;

VI. How can the Superinduced spiritual Obligation diminish the Civil, when no such Condition is contain'd either in Baptism, Catechism, or Arti­cles of Faith; Especially since we are baptiz'd in­to the Communion of Believers, not of Opiners?

TIS true, both Prince & people, do by their God-fa­thers in Baptism renounce the world, the flesh, & the devil: but neither of them make any promise to forfeit [Page 13] their Crowns or Estates to the Pope, if they break their word. Nay, even Popes themselves, in the primitive times, were temporally Subject to the Heathen Empe­rours both before and after their Conversion: And in­deed, since the Christian Law, by the Judgement of all, deprives none of their Right, if they were Subject before the Princes Conversion, they must needs continue so af­ter.

Nor can I see (and in this every Reader is concern'd) why the Pope if once admitted to dispense with Subjects Allegiance to their Prince, may not discharge the Te­nants too from paying Rents to their Landlords, and Debters from their Obligations to their Creditors, as often as He shall Judge the Interest of Religion to re­quire it. Nay, by the same reason, driven a step or two farther; why may not every Bishop in his Diocess, and every Curate in his Parish pretend a Right, radically in­herent in his Dignity, to dispose of all our Estates in Order to the good of our Souls; and that 'tis only either the hard-heartedness of Lay-Magistrates to hinder it from shooting forth into branches; or the Wisdome of the Supreme Spiritual Magistrate to reserve the whole fruit to Himself?

Already by my own reflexions I am fully satisfied that a Dispensation (should any such be pretended) with the Oath of Allegiance, would be no Dispensation with the Duty of Allegiance: The Duty being Antecedent to the Oath, and Independent of it, and only Confirm'd, not Created by it: and therefore as to this point, I find no necessity of giving you any trouble.

But in the next Question I must humbly bespeak your pardon, because I fear my boldness may need it: 'Tis a Case I never have yet seen well examin'd, and therefore more doubtingly propose it.

The Gravest Assertors of the Popes indirect power to depose Princes, warily confine Him to two Cases; which they call Heresy and Apostasy: And, as by Apostate they must necessarily mean One that has been a Catholick, and is quite faln away from Christianity; So surely by [Page 14] Heretick they should proportionably understand One that has been a Catholick, and is in part faln away from the Faith: This Consideration, I confesse, bred in me a scruple, I am not able, without your help to satisfie: How a Protestant Baptiz'd into the Church of England, should be held oblig'd to the positive Laws of another Church; to which, neither himself, nor his God-fathers, promis'd any Obedience: his Baptism indeed confers Grace, and adopts him into the State of Salvation; but why should he be counted subject to the Government of a Communion quite opposite to That into which he is Baptiz'd? does a Protestant commit a Mortal Sin every time he eats Flesh on a Fasting day, or omits to hear Masse on a Holyday, when neither Masse, nor perhaps that Holyday is allow'd by his Church?

We know, whoever loves God above all things, is in the State of Salvation, but not of External Communion, till he actually submit to it; and me thinks it seems ob­scure, that I should be interpreted to submit to the Go­vernment of a Church of such a Discipline, by my very being Baptiz'd into a Church of a contrary one.

Besides, Followers of those who began the Division are not in the same form of Church-Condemnation with those who began it; much lesse when they are born of such Parents, and bred up in a Country where such Te­nets have so long and uncontrolledly been establish'd, that many perhaps may hold them, without being guil­ty of holding them; Wherefore I humbly intreat your Learning to instruct me,

VII. Whether You have read any Authors that ex­pressely say, a Magistrate so Circumstantiated may be Depos'd by the Pope, especially since I remember not one Instance, Ancient or Modern, of any such Prince so treated?

THE Examples of deposing Princes being without any certain Rule, sometimes by the Pope, some­times by the Nobility, sometimes by the People, some­times [Page 15] by an Eminent Subject, sometimes by a powerful Stranger; And the ground pretended, being sometimes Religion, sometimes some other Cause▪ give me leave to consult your judgement,

VIII. Whether those Examples may not all be resolv'd, Either by the General Answer, that Fact makes no Right; Or, that they were practis'd without a­ny ordinary and acknowledg'd Jurisdiction; but only by way of common Reason and natural Pru­dence, which teaches us in extremities to cast about and relieve our selves, in the best and hopefullest way we can, according to our Circumstances?

FOr though by this Almighty Maxime of Extreme and Lawlesse necessity, even Popes themselves, as well as other Governors, have sometimes been deposed; yet I clearly believe neither Popes, nor Councils, nor Kings, nor Nobles, nor People, nor Strangers, have any Dor­mant Commission from Heaven, that constitutes in any of them a Formal and Authorotative Tribunal to decide Jurisdictionally who shall be Pope or King.

To make this distinction (on which the whole contro­versy chiefly depends) unmistakably plain and evident; let me parallel the grand Instances of Popes and Kings, with the litle ones of private persons: when we say, as I think every Christian does, that 'tis Impious and He­retical to hold, One Neighbour can take away the life of another, though he never so much deserve it; in Refe­rence to what power do we speak? is it not to that kind of power which is ordinarily Created by Commission? can we be fairly interpreted to mean some odd extrava­gant case of absolute necessity to defend our own lives a­gainst his otherwise unavoidable Assaults? So when we speak of a Power and Authority to depose Kings, we are plainly to understand a Power and Authority vested in St. Peter and his Successors by Commission from Christ: [Page 16] This and this only, I conceive, is the Authority we are commanded to abjure; and unlesse such a Divine Com­mission be shewn, I cannot see why to assert such a pow­er in the Pope is not Impious and Heretical, as much and far more than the instance of private Murther: Espe­cially the Oath so particularly expressing its chief intent to be the exclusion of the Popes pretences, and preven­tion of the mischiefs naturally apprehended from the Su­preme and all-Commanding Jurisdiction of a Foreiner.

Having perus'd some Authors who confidently say, ne­ver any Orthodox Divine maintain'd this transcendent power in the Pope, nor ever any such practices appear'd for above a thousand years after Christ; though the Chri­stians long before that time had both strength enough to do it, if they had had a Will; and Zeal enough to have will'd it, if they had thought it lawful: I cannot but sus­pect this Doctrine of Novelty, till you be pleas'd to in­form me,

IX. What Eminent Writers there are, in the first thousand years after Christ, who expresly hold this Tenet of the Popes Authority to Depose Princes?

THis I am apt to conceive so much the more impro­bable to be found; because neither S. Tho. nor Card▪ Bellarmine cite any Antienter Authors than Grego­ry the seventh, whose Papacy is of a younger date than that we speak of: Much younger yet is the Council of Lateran; nor can it with the least colour of truth be al­leg'd for any more than a Canonical Constitution; and perhaps not so much, till the difficulties concerning it be clear'd, which I leave to the Doctors, and only con­tend, 'tis at best no more; else the Defenders of Papal Deposition were bound to believe its Decree in this point as an Article of Faith, and condemn the French Univer­sities as Heretical, and separate from their Communion: if then it be only an Ecclesiastical Canon, 'tis well e­nough known such Laws are not Obliging, but where [Page 17] they are receiv'd, and where they are received, may on just grounds be again rejected. However, even where that Canon is admitted (if any where it be) no fair In­terpreter can extend it to reach so high as Soveraign Princes, to whom this respect is generally by the Ca­nonists esteem'd due, that unlesse They be expresly nam'd, they are not by implication understood to be comprehended in any penal or restrictive clause, a Ci­vility allow'd even to Cardinals, whom I cannot think a­ny disinteressed Considerer will preferr before Kings.

As for reason, which I confess, where 'tis evident, needs no Antiquity to gain my assent; I have not met with any that bids so fair towards satisfaction, as this argument.

If the Ends be subordinate to one another, the Fa­cultyes are.

But the End of Civil Power (temporal happiness) is subordinate to the End of Spiritual Power (eternal happiness.)

Therefore the Civil Power is subordinate to the Spi­ritual.

Let all this be suppos'd as true (though there want not distinctions, by which some endeavour to relieve themselves in this point too) I only enquire how this Spiritual Superiour must proceed, when the Temporal Magistrate intolerably misdemeans himself; & I think He is confin'd, as his very Name imports, to Spiritual pu­nishments, as suspension from Sacraments, Excommuni­cation, &c.

But that, they'l say is not sufficient, nor the Church compleatly furnish'd with means proportionate to its end, unless it can depose a Prince that deserves it. To which, I answer,

First. The argument is of so wild unlimited a Conse­quence, that should they instead of Depose, say Kill, or whatever other mischief they please to invent, they might in Rigor with the same Reason defend it.

Secondly. Though in some sence it be true, the Spiritu­al Power is furnish'd with all means necessary to its End; [Page 18] yet are we not oblig'd to say, it can remove all impedi­ments, and that in what method it pleases; Is not the Sun compleatly endued with power to shine, unless it can level mountains, and overturn for rests that intercept its light? or, which is nearer our Case, has not a King sufficient power to govern, unless he can punish his neighbour King, nay even the Pope himself, and that with spiritual penalties? In regular and ordinary Oc­currences, the regular and ordinary power both of Pope and Prince is sufficient: in irregular and extraordinary, the very word signifies, they are out of Rule, and must be govern'd by occasional reason, which allows both to Pope and Prince a just and equal title to provide, that Neither prejudice the Other; and this, without the Popes being Superiour to the Prince in Temporals, any more than the Prince is to the Pope in Spirituals; But, as absolute Soveraigns, when there's no other remedy, may lawfully make war; so I conceive may these (each managing his proper weapon) and pretend only Reason, not Jurisdiction to justify their proceedings.

Thirdly, I suspect, this plausible argument (the spiri­tual power is furnish'd with all means necessary to its end) may so largely be understood, that it will flatly be deny'd; for, is not Execution of the Magistrates Com­mands, necessary to the end of Government? and is not a competent Force necessary to that Execution? why then did our all-foreseeing Saviour not provide for this? why did he not furnish his Supreme Lieutenant with twelve Legions of Angels, to overcome the Princes of the Earth, that will not obey his Decrees? As to this, I know no better reason, than that the Churches Hymn is true,

Besides, may we not as well say, the Church is fur­nish'd by Christ with all Offices (at least all considerable Ones) as with all Power necessary to its Government? yet every one knows neither Patriarks, Primates, nor Arch-Bishops are of divine Institution, however their very being so canonically establish'd in the Church, suffi­ciently declares their usefulness and necessity; and their being no otherwise establish'd, sufficiently convinces the weaknesse of the argument I am endeavouring to disable.

If my expectations happen to fail in all these Quest­ions, permit me yet to offer this short Consideration. The Position we are commanded to renounce as Impious, and Heretical, is this,

Since 'tis clear, that where the Subject of a Propositi­on is in the disjunctive, unless the Predicate be verefi­able of both Members, the whole Proposition may ab­solutely be deny'd; it plainly follows, if to say a Prince Excommunicated only (not depriv'd) may be depos'd by his Subjects, be Impious and Heretical, at least in the large and usual sense of that word, that the whole Proposition is safely abjurable, as Impious and Hereti­cal. In which discourse, this only seems to need proof, that 'tis Heretical to say, a Prince Excommunicated may be depos'd by his Subjects. And first, I hope, it will quickly appear to be False, by the very definition of Excommunication; Excommunication being a Church-Censure, that separates from the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Faithful. And though by a general rule we are commanded to avoid all Hereticks, and Excommunicated Persons, yet (besides that, of it self it reaches only to spiritual things, unless the Civil Law extend it farther) the Canonists give many exceptions, one is (which near­liest concerns our Case) that of Relation; shall Hus­bands and Wives, Parents and Children, Masters and [Page 20] Servants, be bound in case of Excommunication to aban­don one another? what Confusion would so rash a Doctrine bring into the world? and is it not far worse, if Subjects shall think it lawful to forsake their King, nay unlawful not to forsake him?

Thus I conceive 'tis evidently False; and if once ad­mitted for such, its own weight will soon sink it down into Impious. And what is Impious, especially draw­ing after it such mischievous effects, will easily be prov'd against the very Essence of the Christian Law, and by Con­sequence intrinsecally Heretical. If yet you think, this opinion not so highly censurable, I beseech you inform me,

X. Whether any of these Positions deserve the Con­demnation of Heretical? That the Pope has a di­rect Dominion, both in Spirituals and Tempo­rals, over all the World: Or that He can deprive Kings of their lives, and pass sentence of death against them: Or against the lives or goods of any other Person? that is, whether He can make it lawful to do those Acts, which, were they not Au­thoriz'd by him, would be plain Murther, Theft, or Rebellion?

ALL these, every one I meet is ready to cry out on, as Impious, Hereticial, and what you will; And is the Deposing a King a slighter work, than the Sequest­ring a private Gentleman? Or has he a weaker Title to his Crown, than a Merchant to his Shop? Either I am deceiv'd by some Equivocation, which I intreat you to discover, or else the Question I propose is as clear as the Sun at Noon.

'Tis true some Cases are mixt, but then me thinks it is not so hard a task to give each Authority its due; Can we not easily discern, what belongs to Marriage as [Page 21] a Sacrament, from what belongs to it, as a Civil Con­tract? Or distinguish between the Churches power to make a Bastard incapable of Orders, and that of the Common-wealth, to make him incapable of Inheriting? Nor has the Question any greater difficulty, when the Tribunals Successively assist one another, as when the Ecclesiastics, having proceeded to the utmost of their Jurisdiction, deliver the Criminal to the Lay Court, there to receive such further punishment, as his Crime deserves, which they could not have needed, had their own power reach'd so far, not would they have practis'd, had they not needed it.

To conclude this point, with some Authority as well as Reason; I have read, that not only the Position of killing Kings was condemn'd as Impious, Heretical, and Damnable, by 141. Divines of the Faculty of Paris, in the year 1413. But since, in the year 1610. the same Faculty Decreed, That it was Seditious, Impious, and Heretical, for any Subject, Vassal, or Stranger, on what occasion or pretence soever, Sacris Regum personis vim inferre, to of­fer violence to the sacred persons of Kings. Behold the very word Heretical, directly and formally applyed to a Position that in substance exceeds not Ours, unless we imagine a King so tame, that we may Depose him with­out offering him any Violence: or find some witty Casuist, who has invented a new way of creeping out of the words (no matter for the plain and honest sense) and by his grave Opinion, secure our Consciences, that though it be Impious indeed and Heretical, to offer any force to the sacred Persons of Kings, yet to intercept their meat till they be starv'd to death (as 'tis said of one of the Kings of Denmark) is absolutely lawful, as being an omitted Case, and so not at all forbidden.

Observing that in this whole Controversy, the main Bulwark wherein the Defenders of the Popes Prerogative in Temporals, fortifie themselves, and think to pacify the Civil Powers, is a certain famous Distinction, whose plain and literal sense I understand well enough, but can­not [Page 22] find in it, if impartially examin'd, a title to make so great an Impression as is pretended; I humbly intreat your quick and strong Eye, to look a little seriously into the Question, and teach me,

XI. What difference there is, as to any real effect in Government, between acknowledging a direct immediate Power in the Pope to Depose Princes, or only an indirect and mediate One?

IS it not almost all one in it self, and altogether all one in mischief, whether my eyes be beaten out with a direct stroke of a Tennis-Ball, or by Bricol? Are not our Laws still equally Penal both to direct and indirect Offenders? will any of us allow a slandering tongue (than which nothing is more frequent, or more into­lerable) to Caluminate freely, on condition his poy­sonous darts come only glancing, and not be level'd point-blank against us?

Here they perhaps will say, I mistake the Case; For, were only the Exercise of this Power mediate and indi­rect, they would confesse my similitudes had something of Argument, but the very Power it self say they, is in its Intrinsick nature no more than mediate and indirect, which widens much the sides of the distinction, nor do any of my Interrogations offer to confute it.

When I have first declar'd, I intend not to meddle with such slender Entityes as Relations metaphysically consider'd; I shall betake my thoughts to what I con­ceive more pertinent to our purpose, the Moral Notion; and enquire what influence on humane actions a direct Power gives its Posse [...]or, more than an indirect? If they answer, by the one He can punish his Inferiours, as he pleases, by the other not: I reply, That is the notion of an absolute and perfectly arbitrary Government, not precise­ly of a direct Power, which not only may sometimes be limited, but almost always is; has not the Emperour a [Page 23] direct Authority over the German Electors? Is not the Pope direct Superiour of the Christian Bishops? yet which of them can, either One or the Other, deprive or punish at his meer pleasure? I they say, 'tis a Power as strongly Commanding as the direct, but is not in the same line, the [...]piritual being of a quite different Order from the Temporal; I confesse these are pretty terms to entertain subtile heads, and amuze simple ones; but to a down-right prudent Examiner, I believe they'l prove of very little serious Signification, nay though the Causes be contrary to one anothers, if they produce the same effect, they make with me the same argument. Na­turalists say, that Cold immediately condenses by direct­ly crushing the Body it incloses: whereas Heat first ex­tenuates, and then draws away the subtiliz'd parts, and after the grosser shrink together of themselves, and so condenses too, but mediately and indirectly; and these are words that sound well enough; but when we come to practical application, and find that too much Sun, as well as Frost, so dryes and hardens the Earth, that it choaks our seed, and kills our flowers, what good does our fine distinction? what does our Mediately and In­directly avail us?

Nor is the Effect only the same, whether the Popes power be call'd direct or indirect, since each way he re­ally dethrones the Prince; but the end to both of his direct-Spiri [...]ual, and indirect-Temporal Authority is the same since He is bound to manage the last only, in ordine ad Spiritualia, and the first, ad Edificationem; which two phrases seem to me no ill Synonimas one of another. These are some of the reflections that have made me doubt, though there may be (and I think I see it) some Speculative difference between the two manners of Title, yet in practise very little, if any at all.

When all this is said, and far more, (which I think not uneasy to do) still there remain two grand Objections: The Supreme Pastor has engag'd his Authority; and our duty obliges us to obey His Commands: Our Predeces­sors [Page 24] have refus'd the Oath, and suffer'd for refusing; and our honour is concern'd to follow their steps. To which, with your permission, I offer this answer,

Since by the Popes forbearing the French, we evident­ly see such Prohibitions depend on particular and occasio­nal Considerations, not only lyable to be misapprehend­ed by others, but to be alter'd in themselves; certain­ly it very ill becomes our Reverence to the Authority of the Pope, or respect to the Memory of our Ancestors, to fear they would wilfully persist in a discover'd Errour, and not change their proceedings, when they should see the grounds on which they proceeded were chang'd.

Nor even then when the Pope's Brief forbad the Oath, did there want a just number of Catholicks, if my books say true, who humbly represented their Motives to his Holinesse, why they doubted his Prohibition was not obliging, as being grounded on mistaken and incertain Suppositions: A privilege permitted to all, and most of all to Ecclesiastical Subjects (who are not Govern'd by the Sword, but the Pastoral Staff) either to obey or give good reason why they do not: and this, without the least suspition of boldly examining their Superiors Commands with the Judgement of Authority, but ex­ercising only, what the meanest Vassal may Loyally pra­ctise towards the greatest Prince, their natural Reason and Judgement of Discretion.

And here I must confesse my self inclin'd to think it very probable, that the whole businesse was untruly re­presented to the Pope: for, can we doubt but Card. Bel­larmine was acquainted with the Informations given to his Holynesse? or, that they Both agreed not in their sence concerning our Case? let us then see what his E­minence says in his Letter to Mr. Blackwell, Arch-Priest of the English Clergy; where, having alleg'd that Anti­ent Instance of mingling together the Images of the Em­perors, and of the false Gods, to entangle the Christians with this Dilemma, that either they must bow to Jupiter, and Commit Idolatry; or not bow to Cesar, and be guil­ty [Page 25] of high Treason, He ads, Tale aliquid in juramento▪ &c. Some such thing me thinks I see in this Oath they offer you, which is so fraudulently contriv'd, that none can profess their Civil Subjection to the King and Detest all Treason against Him, but he must needs perfidiously Renounce the Supremacy▪ of the See Apostolick. And again, Nam si rem totam, &c. If you will diligently examine the whole matter, you'l see 'tis no small thing which by that Oath is brought into danger, but one of the Capital and Fundamen­tal Points of our Faith and Catholick Religion; And quite throughout the whole Letter He still supposes the Design of the Framers of this Oath, how covertly soever they expresse themselves to be; That the Authority of Head of the Church be transferr'd (as to England) from the Successor of St. Peter, to the Successor of Henry the 8. Which still so much the more evidently appears, both by his Quoting Fathers upon the general head of obeying the Pope, and acknowledging his Supremacy, as also by his comparing Mr. Blackwells Sin in taking the Oath, to Peters denying Christ, and Marcellinus's Sacrificing to Idols; whom at least in some part, He says, the Arch-Priest imitated. Does this Pen run as if it were guided by a Hand well inform'd? Is it not highly probable that such Informations were the grounds of the Prohibition? Is it not absolutely certain, that such grounds, being pal­pable mistakes, are no way sufficient to oblige our Obe­dience.

Not that we have cause so much to complain of the Brief, as of them whose Passionate, and perhaps Factious Zeal procur'd it: for how can the Pope be inform'd what we Tramontani do, but by others? and how can He Judge, but as he is inform'd? since surely we are not to expect such an extraordinary assistance from Heaven to guide his Hand in writing a Letter, though in Form of Brief, as some pretend for his defining ex Cathedrâ. Read but the Bulla Coenae, and you'l find it no impossible thing for the Pope to claim more, than a good Subject, much lesse a wise King will give him: there he solemnly ex­communicates [Page 26] all Princes, who impose on their Subjects new Gabels without leave of the See Apostolick: with ma­ny other unallow'd pretences. From all which we inferr these two plain truths, That the Pope may miscommand; and when he does so, be lawfully disobey'd.

But to proceed ingenuously with you, as I hope and beg you will do with me; let us fortify this Objection with the utmost skill and strength we can: This Act of Deposing Kings has not only been done by Popes, but approv'd by Councils; to whose jo [...]nt-Authority I con­fesse a great Reverence is due, and therefore beseech you deal candidly with me, (for I have no [...] any convenience to examine the circumstances of these Histories) did they only approve the Fact; or declare the Right? if the first, I shall without staying to dispute it, suppose the thing, for that time, well done; and only enquire, in reference to what Authority 'twas done: our Henry the 7. we know did many Acts without declaring the Title by which he did them; and the Parliaments approbation still con­firm'd them: if then they, proceeded as by a Commission claim'd from Christ, and allow'd in a General Council, would not that make the Tenet an Article of Faith, and so prove too much, since among the Temperate it gene­rally▪ pretends no higher than an Opinion? but if they acted only by a Commission deriv'd from Necessity, which having no Law, is a Law to it self▪ the Consequence little concerns our Dispute; who know the Pope Himself has been depos'd; yet neither will He admit, nor need his Deposers pretend any Jurisdiction or Superiority o­ver Him; 'tis enough where Necessity over-rules the Law, that Necessity Govern in its stead; which if true and real, may perhaps do much harm, but can do no in­jury.

As to the other Branch; if the Council interpos'd in declaring the Right, either they intended it as a Defini­tion, and then you must say 'tis of Faith, which almost every one denyes: or as an Ecclesiastical Canon, and then I must say, it binds only where receiv'd, and may [Page 27] be alter'd or repeal'd like other Laws, as is already dis­cours'd, when we cited the Council of Lateran.

However, in our particular Case, nothing is more easy than to Conquer the Objectors of the Popes Briefs with their own weapons; for let them tell me, are they not ready to swear they will faithfully serve their King while they live, and that notwithstanding any Papal Dispensation, or whatever other Proceeding to the contrary? what sig­nifies this, but an expresse renouncing all obedience to the Pope in these [...]ts? 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 real difference (as to Government, and the practical part of humane life) can we imagine be­tween these two; I'le swear never to obey my Commander, and I'le swear he has no power to command me? Speak plain and honestly, and either deny his Authority, or o­bey it; this motley Hypocrisy will, I fear, offend both Pope and King, and while you disclaim your obedience to the One, and the Authority of the Other, Neither will confide in you; Change but the Person, and think, what a holy religious man he would be, that should so­lemnly vow never to obey his Superiour, how loud soe­ver he preach'd his Authority; think what a flat contra­diction it is, of two Relatives, to kill one, and keep the other alive; think what an uncharitable madness it is, that the whole body of Chatholicks be expos'd to ruine, and the whole Credit of their Religion be buried in that ruine, rather than disavow an Authority, which we are ready to swear we will never obey.

But to dispatch this chief Objection with a shorter word, and that still taken out of their own mouths; The Pope they say has commanded we should refuse this Oath, but do they not too, with the same breath say, they will absolutely forswear obeying his Commands, if they be not prest to renounce his Power? and what do we more than disobey him, if notwithstanding his Prohibi­tion [Page 28] we accept of the Oath? we meddle not with his Authority, we only (as they profess themselves ready to do) deny our Obedience; is it not as lawful for us, when the King commands, to admit this Oath against the Popes will, as for them to swear they'l obey the King, let the Pope command what he will?

As for our Ancestors, had they seen the Unanimous Judgment of so many Universities, and the publick Sub­scriptions of so many eminent Regulars, particularly noted for great enlargers of the Pope [...] power; had they examin'd the sense of Antiquity towards Soveraign Prin­ces, which acknowledges them Supreme in Temporals, and accountable to none but God; had they read the learned Treatises compos'd by Catholick writers, both of our own and other Nations, where this King-dethro­ning power is absolutely disavow'd; had they perus'd the Declarations of the Kings in France, and Arrests of Parliaments there, by which the Authors who dar'd to assert that Opinion were Condemn'd, and their Books burnt by the hand of the Hangman; had they done all, or any notable part of this, they could not certainly but have chang'd their Judgments, and no longer, both a­gainst Reason, Authority, and their own Interest, have wilfully adhered to a Tenet so ill grounded, and a pract­ice so ruinous.

Little of all this I fear did many of our Ancestors re­flect on, but guiding their Consciences by their Ghostly Fathers, and their practice by their Consciences, chose that side of the Opinion, which any one might then have refus'd without Heresy, and any one may now without scandal, without scandal I mean as to the bare Opinion consider'd in its naked self, not as it unhappily is drest up in the Oath, where some expressions, at first sight, shew so odly, that a little prejudice or unacquaintedness makes many a well meaner boggle at them; And here a­gain I heartily renew the wish I have already made, that a general form of Oath, were so Charitably and Conde­scendingly fram'd, as might fully secure to our most gra­cious [Page 29] Soveraign the Allegiance of All, and not trouble with scruples the lesse instructed Conscience of any.

But to dispatch this Objection: If to take the Oath we discourse of be truly justifiable, why may not we do what we think lawful now, because our Predecessors did not what they thought unlawful heretofore? their Refusal was Innocent and Laudable, since they follow'd sincerely the dictates of their Consciences; yet Ours will be neither, unlesse we do so too; nay the very reason that made them decline the Oath, their being so perswa­ded, engages us to take it, if we be otherwise perswaded; for, as in this all the world agrees, that an erronious Conscience, till the mistake be remov'd, undoubtedly obliges; so none will deny, but, the Truth once clear'd, the Obligation ceases: if such then be the case between our Predecessors and Us, we may fairly be absolv'd from following them, or rather truly be said to follow them, while we all aim at the same end (the Conscionable per­formance of what we believe our Duty) though we seem to go thither by different ways: None but eternal truths can exact an unchangeable adherence; none but they can deserve it.

And now I have only one Question more to propose,

XII. How do the Clergy, the Religious, & the Wiser sort of the Laity in other Countries behave them­selves, when the Pope makes War, or any other way Contends with their Soveraign Princes or States?

FOr even in Italy, I see most of them generally, and all of them sometimes, disobey the Pope, and cleave to their Country; nay those very Religious who have formerly ventur'd All by a particular Obedience to his Holinesse, are noted of late to be grown more tem­perate: I have read, if I misremember not, in an It li­an Author this Story, That the Pope making War some few years since, with the Duke of Parma, and proceed­ing [Page 30] against him to the extremity of Ecclesiastical Censures, occasion'd the Duke to advise with his Council, how he should bear himself towards the Church-men that liv'd in his Subjection; where after some debate, 'twas at length concluded, that fit persons should immediately be depu­ted to demand of every Order both Secular and Regular, which party they intended to follow? onely to one sort of Regulars it 'twas expresly forbidden to make any such Addresse, lest their extraordinary obsequiousnesse to the Pope might engage them otherwise than the Duke de­sir'd, and the example of their Nonconformity breed a prejudice to his affairs: But they, wisely examining the Consequences of so new a Distinction, and the Necessi­ty of preventing so dangerous a jealousy, did of them­selves, without expecting any Summons, wait upon their Prince, and voluntarily presented Him their Hum­ble Protestations of Fidelity and Obedience: an action, which, I am apt to believe was not a little contributive to their late Restitution in the wary State of Venice. In fine, every sort of Ecclesiasticks, as well the uninvited, as the invited came in, and profest their firm and positive reso­lution to obey the Commands of his Highnesse, not with­standing the Interdict of his Holynesse.

And yet (to abstract from the Justice of the Quarrel, which was perhaps on the Popes side) the Duke is not on­ly a Feudatary of the Church, but his Estate was at first deriv'd to him from the Pope, and is to return again in default of Issue male, which makes a fair difference be­twixt Him and the Case of an Absolute King.

But to look nearer home; what did we our selves not many years since in our own Country? did not almost▪ all the Ecclesiasticks, and a number of the Nobility and Gentry, sufficient to represent the whole little Body of Catholicks here, after full deliberation unanimously subscribe their Negative to these three Articles?

These, I am sorry I must confesse were Censured at Rome, privately indeed and without solemnity, as being perhaps either unwilling to come to the light, or unable to bear it; whatever was the motive, I cannot omit to make this Reflection upon so unequal a proceeding to­wards the prosperous French, and the afflicted English; what either of injurious or untrue, do any of these three Propositions contain, that is not both more largly, and more smartly exprest in the Decrees of Sorbonne, and the rest of the Universities cited at the beginning of this Letter? if they be free, why are not we? if we be con­demn'd, why are not they?

At least, this Roman Censure of the English Subscrip­tion, wants not some good effect, since it has absolutely clear'd the chief remaining Objection; which else, if captiously manag'd, might perhaps have given us some trouble to maintain our parallel with the French, for, till then, it had been no great piece of invention, to pre­tend that the Popes prohibitive Brief was applyable only to the whole Oath in gross, and so might consist well e­nough with the disclaim of His indirect Authority over Kings; But now I see, 'tis not the Form, 'tis not an in­convenient Phrase or two (the greatest scruple of some serious Persons among us here) but the very Substance [Page 32] of the Oath, the growing denial of the Popes power to Depose Princes, is the chief, if not the only Scandal that's offensive there.

Nor is this kind of disobedience to the Popes Com­mands only in some Cases practis'd, but by the Com­mon Maxime of the Canonists, and of Reason too, con­stantly maintain'd, both which step in to our relief in such extremities, and say, where any notable mischief is like to follow, we are not oblig'd to obey the Pope, though he command under pain of Excommunication, ipso facto. This is the common Opinion of the Learned; but, be­cause 'tis too the common scruple of the unlearned, I shall cite some few Authorities transcrib'd out of books where I find them collected, having my self neither skill nor delight in such kind of Studies; Of these I conceive two or three, in a point so evident, abundantly suffi­cient; One is of Pope Innocent 3. thus cited by Franc. Zabarel de schismat. Papae non est obediendum, &c. We are not to obey the Pope when there is a vehement presumpti­on that the state of the Church may be disturb'd, or other mischiefs like to follow; Nay it were a sin to obey, because every one is bound to prevent future evils. Conformable to this, Sylvester alleging Panormitan, says, Verb. obe­dientia Num. 5. Nec est ei obedientium, &c. We are not to obey the Pope; if our obedience may be presumed will trouble the state of the Church, or be cause of any future E­vil or Scandal, though the Precept were under pain of Ex­communication, Latae sententiae. And Cardinal Tolet ci­ting the same Authors, pronounces the same truth in far more ample terms.

Do not these Authors (and none I suppose, for I have not much acquaintance with that sort of Learning, can differ from them in proper Cases) give us indeed more than we have need of? Are not the Consequences of our obeying the Pope's Letters, ruinous to our Fortunes; and which is worse, Scandalous to our Religion? shall we not strengthen the suspition of our Factiousnesse, and Inconsistency with Civil Govern­ment? [Page 33] and can a little Credit of a few at Rome, counter­poise a burthen that lies so heavy on us all, in our own Country.

The Circumstances we are in, I confesse, are very un­happy, when the wisest of those who should advise us, are not fully free to speak their thoughts? but by particu­lar Concernments so tempted to comply, that nothing but a rare Sincerity and Courage can enable them to re­sist; a Case that needs indeed some pity, but deserves no praise: and therefore as we shall be to blame, if we Censure too readily the Effects of Frailty in Them, so will they be less Innocent, if they Condemn too severely the Use of Liberty in Us. For my part, I have this to say, in proof of my own Indifferency, I am not Ambi­tious for preferment from Any, but humbly and heartily acknowledge my submission to every one above me; es­pecially to the two Supreme, whom with all fidelity I am ready to obey, as my Soveragin Governors, though They never should be my particular Benefactors.

A Duty we owe to the Pope, a Duty to the King; both commanded by God, both obliging under Sin; yet both confin'd to their proper limits; Too much of the Temporal may be ascrib'd to Popes; too much of the Spiritual to Kings: too much may be challeng'd by Both: the difficulty is, when either exceeds, who must be Judge: if the cause be clearly Temporal, 'tis clearly the King (speaking of Common Right, not their parti­cular Agreements) if Spiritual, the Pope: but where the Quality of the cause is invincibly doubted, (which can seldome be without a strange passion at least on one side,) I know no Judge expresly impower'd to decide so extra­ordinary a Question, nor can imagin any other remedy, than what true Reason, press'd with necessity, will ex­temporally dictate in such an occasion. However, thus far I plainly see, that, as sometimes a mischance may happen by the Competition of these two Authorities, so often very many and great advantages may accrue to Both, by their good correspondence, and mutual assistance.

But by no means can I see, were the Extent of the Popes power in Spirituals, and the Denyal of his power in Temporals well understood, what disturbance He could possibly make in this Kingdome? if he excom­municate the Protestants, they little regard it: if the Ca­tholicks, such as are rightly instructed know their Civil Obligations both to their King and Fellow-subjects▪ re­main entirely the same after Excommunication as they were before. No Ecclesiastical Censures against a Ca­tholick here altering in the least tittle his Circumstances to Protestants; since of its own nature, it only concerns Communication in Spirituals, wherein, before any Cen­sure they no more Communicate together, than after: indeed among the Catholicks such Censure has some effect; yet of it self, only thus far can it work with them, to suspend or deprive their Communion in Holy Offices; to which, if any Temporal prejudices be an­nex'd (as that an Excommunicate cannot bring an Acti­on, &c.) they wholy are deriv'd from the Civil Power, and when it sees convenient may wholy be revok'd.

As for the particular Laws of our Country, long be­fore the unhappy dividing times of H. 8. our Wise, yet Pious Auncestors fail'd not to provide for the publick peace against all Forein incroachments; prohibiting the importation of any Bull from Rome without his Majesties allowance, and imposing penalties on any that presum'd without His Royal Assent to publish them. And were things so dispos'd that the little correspondence which is necessary for Catholicks here with Rome were regulated, and not by severities endeavour'd to be extinguish'd, (which cannot be effected without extinguishing the Re­ligion it self) I am confident no one sort of people in the whole Nation would be either more faithfully serviceable to their King, or more securely incapable of disserving their Country. Nor would this design require any more consideration than only to resolve that their Ecclesiastical Government should be no other than such as had known Rules & Limits, not Arbitrarily depending on Rome; And [Page 35] their Ecclesiastical Governours no other than such as were of known Loyalty to their King, and Piety to their Country.