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
in several Nations of Christendom and confirmed afterward in divers National Councils And after his death was confirmed by the three Popes that succeeded him during that King's life 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 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 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 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 and to the German Prelates that consulted him of it and prove it to them from Scripture and Tradition 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 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 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 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 And upon that and other pretexts appeal'd from that to the next more General Council 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Mâ—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
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