OATHS
178
OATHS
oaths. These we believe to be addressed to God him-
self and to be accepted in the precise sense of the
words pronounced. If King James had made his
subjects swear specifically " in the sense by him
explained", the oath might perhaps have been en-
dured, but when he made them "swear according to
the plain and common sense, and understanding of the
same words", to what was injurious to Catholic con-
sciences, this could not be tolerated. Of the many
objections raised against the oath the following are
perhaps the chief.
A.—Objectionahtc Words. — The most objectionable words were those in which the deposing power was sworn to be "impious, heretical and damnable." In previous centuries generations and generations of loyal subjects, and numberless patriots and lawyers, and doctors and saints of the Church (with exceptions, of course, but upon the whole in a large majority) had considered that this power was a valuable safeguard for liberty both religious and civil. In later days some people might think it out of date, inapplicable, extinct, perhaps even a mi.stake. But to call God to witness that one execrated it as "impious, heretical and damnable", was what no God-fearing adherent of the old Faith, who knew what he said and to whom he spoke, could conscientiously do. Indeed anyone who carefully weighs the terms of this oath, will see that the rights of the pontiff are so unreservedly denied, that no room whatsoever is left for the assertion of ecclesiastical liberties. This shows the affinities of the oath with Gallicanism (q. v.), which was acquiring such vogue upon the continent in those days. The Sorbonne, on 30 June, 1681, very shortly before ap- proving the Galilean articles, censored the English oath, and found in it very little to object to (Butler, I, 351). The words here under discussion also evidently presume that he who takes the oath believes in the "Divine right of kings".
B. — The Deposing Power. — While all Catholics would condemn the extreme statements just men- tioned, as to the deposing power, there were also many at that time, and they of the highest name, who con- sidered any denial of that power as illicit. Two or three generations only had passed since the discipline of papal deposition for extreme cases of misgovern- ment had been generally accepted. In some parts of Europe it was still the law. Many, and Paul V with his medieval ideals was among them, had not yet per- ceived that this discipline would never be in vogue again, even in Catholic countries. This explains why Bellarmine, Persons, and several other early oppo- nents of the oath went further in their condemnation of it than later theologians would have done. At the same time it is a mistake to suppose that Catholic re- sistance to the oath was chiefly or solely due to belief in the deposing power. This statement, however, is often made by Protestants (e. g., Hallam) and also by the Catholic writers, like Preston and others who wrote in defence of the oath, or who had Galilean lean- ings, such as Charles Butler and Canon Tierney (But- ler, I, 359, 396; IV, 120, &c. ; Tierney-Dodd, IV, 78 n., 81 n.). We have seen on the contrary that there were from the first English Catholic Non-jurors who explicitly rejected the deposing power. Doctor Wil- liam Bishop, for instance, did this, but still underwent imprisonment for refusing the oath; and he was after- wards made a bishop by the Holy See.
C. — Fraudulent Object of the Oath. — It was always known that the loyalty of the Catholic body was un- impeachable. The reign of Charles I and the fall of the Stuarts showed that is was really far stronger than that of any other religious bo<ly. The Oath of Alle- giance was designed to obscure this. As a man's repute for veracity may be impaired by prolonged examina- tion on the subject of mental reservation and the like, and by exacting oaths about truthfulness, so these elaborate protests against the deposing power were
intended to throw doubt upon the loyalty of Cut ho-
lies, and so to divide and disgrace them, and this it
actually did. Like all religious tests imposed by ene-
mies it was something, not to amend, but to avoid
altogether.
D. — The Dishonour to the Holy See. — This oath and all those of a similar character amount to a statement beforehand of "the conditions under which the Holy See will be ilisobeyed", and Home has ever considered such proposals as dishonourable to herself, just as a nation would consider it a disgrace to lay down be- forehand the terms under which her soldiers were to capitulate.
E. — The Controversy. — The archpricst Blackwell, then head of the English clergy , had at liist disapproved of the oath, then allowed it. tlirn ul'tiT the pope's Brief disallowed it again, and finally being arrested and thrown into prison, took the ii;ith, relying on James's statement that no encroacli II icTit nn (■(ln,■^cience was intended, and recommended tlie faithful to do the like. The pope at once issued a new Brief (23 August, 1607), repeating his prohibition, and on 28 Sept., 1607, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to Blackwell exhorting him to obey the Brief at any cost. As this also proved ineffectual a new archpriest, George Birkhead, or Birkett, was appointed 1-10 P"eb., 1608, and Blackwell was informed that his faculties would be taken away if he did not retract in two months. This, however, he still refused to do, and, much to King James's satisfaction, continued to defend his opinion for three years before he was finally sus- pended. Blackwell's example, as may be imagined, had but too great an influence, and he found succes- sors in his unfortunate apostolate for many a year afterwards.
Meantime James had himself undertaken to answer the missives sent to Blackwell. This he did anony- mously in a tract with the quaint title, "Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus " ("A triple wedge for a triple knot", i.e., for two Briefs and the Cardinal's letter). This was answered by Bellarmine, also anonymously, " Respon- sio ad librum: Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus" (1608). James now dropped his anonymity, and reprinted his tract with a "Premonition to Christian Princes", and an appendix on his adversaries' supposed mistakes (Jan., 1609). Upon this, Bellarmine published, now also using his own name, his "Apologia pro respon- sione ad librum Jacobi I" (1609). James opposed to this a treatise by a learned Scottish Catholic, W. Bar- clay, "De potestate papae" (1609). Barclay was a decided Galilean, and Bellarmine's answer, "Tracta- tus de potestate summi pontificis in rebus temporali- bus" (1610), gave such offence to the gallicanizing party in France, that it was publicly burnt in Paris by a Decree of 26 Nov., 1610. A similar fate befell Father Suarez's answer to James through an arrf( of 26 June, 1614; but this decree was eventuallj' withdrawn at the request of the pope. At every stage of the contest be- tween the two champions a host of minor combatants joined the fray. Here it must suffice to enumerate the chief names. On the Catholic syde. Cardinal Du- perron, Leonard Lessius, Jacob Gretser, Thomas Fitzherbert, Martin Becan, Caspar Scioppi, Robert Persons, Adolph Schulckenius (who according to Som- mervogel is an independent writer, not a pseudonym for Bellarmine, as has been asserted), N. Coeffeteau, A. Euda-nion Joannes. On the other side Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, William Barlow, Robert Burhill, Pierre du Moulin, and especially the Benedictine Roger \\'iddrington, vere Preston. Most of the Prot- estant books written in Latin, together with all the publications of Preston and Barclay, were put upon the Roman Index.
F. — Suhsequenl History. — Some ideas of the press- ure caused by the oath may be gathered from the Acts of the \'encrable martyrs, Drury, Atkinson, Al- mond, Thulis, Arrowsmith, Herst, Gervase, Thomas
