the only supream Governour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporall And that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all forraign Iurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities And doe promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highness his heirs and lawful Successours and to my power shall assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Pre-eminencies and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his hâ—irs and Successours or united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realme So help me God and by the Contents of this book 11. The tenor of the Oath of Allegiance is this viz. I A. B. do truely and sincerely acknowledge professe testify and declare in my conscience before God and the World that our Soveraign Lord King CHARLES is lawful and rightful King of this Realme and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or Sèe of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorise any forreign Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Armes to raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties Subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or sâ—ntence of Excommunication or Deâ—rivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successours or by any Authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his Sèe against the said King his Heirs or Successours or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience I will hear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Hâ—irs and Successours and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shal be made against his or their Persons their Crown or dignity by reason or Colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesties Heirs and Successours all Treasons and Traiterous conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And I do further swear that I from my heart abhorr detest and abjure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in my conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully ministred unto me And do renounce all Pardons and dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these expresse words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever And I do make this recognition and acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the true faith of a Christian So help me God 12. These are the formes of the two Oathes Both which if they be understood according to the proper and natural sence of the words import that there being only two kinds of Jurisdictions viz. Spirituall and Temporal both which are named here the King within his Dominions is equally the Fountain and Root of them both So that whosoever exercises any office or Magistracy either in the State or the Church does it and must acknowledge so much meerly by communication from the King or a participation of so much of his power as he is pleased to impart Upon which grounds it will follow not only that no forraign Prince Prelate c No Assembly or Councel of Bishops though never so Oecumonical hath right to any superiority or Jurisdiction within these Kingdomes but also that whatsoever any Bishop or Priest in the Kingdom c. acts in matters duties purely Spiritual as conferring Orders Ecclesiastical inflicting censures administring Sacraments c. they do all this with a direct subordination to the King as his Delegates or Substitutes insomuch as if he pleases he may himself exercise all those functions personally and may according to his pleasure suspend the execution of them in all others 13. All this plainly seems to be the true importance of the Oathes neither will any Stranger or dis-interessed person reading them frame to his mind any other meaning of them though certain it is that our four last Princes have not intended that all that took them should accowledge all this that is imported by them Neither is there at this day any Church or Assembly of Christians nor perhaps any person unlesse it be the Authour of Leviathan that taking these Oathes will or can without contradicting his belief mean all that the formes and clauses of them do directly properly and Grammatically signify as shall be Demonstrated SECT IV. Reflections upon these two Oathes in grosse 14. IT well deserves to be considered what was the occasion of framing this Oath of Supremacy by K. Henry the eighth and what power he received or at least executed by vertue of such Acts of Parliament as enjoyned the taking of it c. 15. The Title of Supream head and Governour of the Church of England was first given to King Henry the eight in a Petition addressed unto him by the Bishops obnoxious to a Praemunire for having submitted to Cardinal Wolsey's Legantine power without the Kings assent Now how far this new Ecclesiastical power of the King was intended to extend will appear by following Acts of Parliaments and by the Kings own proceedings in vertue thereof 13. It was enacted by Parliament 1. that no Canons or Constitutions could be made by the Bishops c. and by them promulgated or executed without the Kings command 2. Yea the Clergy were forced to give up also their power of executing any old Canons of the Church without the Kings consent had before 3. All former Constitutions Provincial and Synodal though hitherto inforce by the authority of the whole Church at least Westerne were committed to the abitriment of the King of sixteen Lay persons and sixteen of the Clergy appointed by the King to be approved or rejected by them according as they conceived them consistent with
words be interpreted in their proper Grammatical sence as all Oathes in reason ought to be unlesse they be otherwise interpreted by authority and according to the intention of the first lawgiver declared by his practice imply excepting even a personal conferring of Orders and administring sacraments that all Jurisdiction purely Spiritual is acknowledged to be the Kings right Now what Christian at this day alive will make these two Recognitions in the sence aforesaid Yea what English Protestant will be willing to make even the Negative Recognition For if there be no Forraign power at all Superiour to the King in things or causes purely spiritual then neither is the Pope a Patriarch of the West which yet King James will not deny neither can a lawful and free General Council oblige English Protestants which yet they so often protest to submit to And as for the Affirmative clause it is well known they do not admit it at least in K. H. the eighth his sense we may add nor in Q. Elizabeths as their 37 Article will testify contrary to the rigorous sence of the words of the oath 33. How much lesse then can any English Subjects divided both in belief and Ecclesiastical Discipline from the Head and Body of the Church of England submit to the same Oath For can the King be acknowledged in all causes spiritual to be a Head of Churches of which he renounces and is renounced the being so much as a member Shall he contrive or order the contriving of Articles of belief respectively sutable to each Congregation and bind his Subjects severally to subscribe thereto when himself believes them to be false Will he require some to be obedient to Bishops as instituted by Christ and others to renounce them as Antichristian Some to use no other Forme of Service but the Common-prayer-book others not that but the Directory and others neither of them but their owne crude imaginations and Non-sense Will he command some to submit to the Pope as supreame pastour others Calvin others Zuinglius or Socinus or a John of Leyden or a Knipper dolling 34. It is evident that by vertue of this oath unchanged in any words this Kingdom has at least thrice changed its Religion and the whole frame of the Church For in K. Henry the eighths dayes excepting onely in one point it was intirely Catholick In King Edward the VI. his daies it was almost Lutheran and in Q. Elizabeths very much Calvinistical And which is strange excepting Catholicks those that did not change their belief yet were content to take the same Oath Which could not be done without framing to themselves different sences and mental evasions so as though all took the same Oath yet each severally took a different Oath with a meaning in all of them contrary to the intention of the Oath-makers 35. Matters standing thus what a burden of guilt most we suppose to lye upon these Kingdomes by occasion of an Oath so solemnly imposed on the whole Nation which if we regard the force of the words no man can take sincerely And this guilt is the more aggravated in this respect that there cannot possibly be any real necessity for the imposing of it For since by an Oath of Allegiance and Obedience his Maiesty may be secured of his Subjects Loyalty what necessity or use can there be of such ambiguous acknowledgments of such a Supremacy which the King himself will not acknowledge and the affirming or denying of which contributes nothing to his safety He has experienced great disloyalty from a world of those that have most freely taken it and none at all from those Catholicks that have refused it It is manifest that it was first contrived meerly on purpose that King Henry the eighth might make a most filthy and execrable use of it But now at last his Majesty having been pleased to declare a liberty to tender consciences a world of men there are in these Kingdomes that are or ought to be weary of colluding with men and dis-honouring God in swearing according to a a Forme which they cannot but judge unlawful though it were for no other reason but because it is ambiguous And these are not Roman Catholicks for they refuse the Oath but many of distinct Sects from both Catholick and Protestant belief And surely that Christian conscience which is not tender in a matter in which the honour of God and the salvation or damnation of souls is so much concerned as in a solemn National Oath or that would voluntarily make advantage for temporal ends of gain to themselves or malice to others by such an oath to ensnare the consciences of another only pretends to be a Christian but in his heart saies There is no Christ and no God SECT VI. In what sence the Oath of Supremacy is taken by English Protestants 36 NOtwithstanding what hath been said although the oath of Supremacy as it is conceived and in the rigorous sence of the Words cannot lawfully be taken by any sect amongst Christians yet we see it freely taken by persons of quite different perswasions in matters of Religion Neither will charity permit us to judge that they do all or indeed any of them directly against their consciences either take it or impose it And some make no doubt at all but that an Oath though it contain expressions which absolutely considered are false yet are capable of a good interpretation and that a commodious interpretation is allowed by supreme authority such a forme of an Oath may not unlawfully be sworn to if other circumstances impede not 37. Now what the sences are in which respectively the Protestants and other divided Sects do take this oath cannot assuredly be determined otherwise then as they have expressed themselves in their writings But however certain it is that they all of them take it in a meaning so farr different from that which K. Henry the eighth intended that if they had lived in his dayes and given such limitations to the Kingly power in Ecclesiastical matters as we find openly and plainly discovered in their Writings they would have been esteemed as guilty of treason as Bishop Fisher and Sr. Thomas More were Whence appears that an Oath remaining for the Forme unchanged may be taken and allowed to be so taken in various senses 38. First for English Protestants I mean since from toward the latter end of Queen Elizabeth to these dayes that notwithstanding any Spiritual Authority either by Statutes confer'd or assumed by K. Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth they attribute to the King only a Civil power in matters Ecclesiastical and that they do this with the allowance of our Princes who questionlesse have authority to interpret Oathes such especially as concern their own safety and when their interpretations do no waies enlarge their own power nor diminish their subjects rights may appear by evident testimonies in all these three last Princes times published by the most learned Doctours then living
c. This learned and judicious writer thus at once states the point in both these respects My last ground sayes he is That neither King Henry the eighth nor any of his Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the keyes or any part thereof Either the key of order or the key of Jurisdiction I mean Jurisdiction purely spirituall which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such persons as submit willingly Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume to themselves either the key of order or the key of Jurisdiction purely spiritual All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the external Regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective Branches of it This power the Bishops of Rome never had or could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose Subjects they were And therefore when we meet with these words or the like That no forraign prelate shall exercise any manner of power Jurisdiction c. Ecclesiastical within this Realm it is not to be understood of internal or purely spiritual power in the Court of Conscience or the power of the keyes VVe see the contrary practised every day but of external and Coactive power in Ecclesiasticall causes in Foro contentioso And that it is and might to be so understood I prove clearly by it Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and an Article of the English Church Which act article shall be produced afterward The Bishop continues They that is the Parliament profess their ordinance is meerly Political What hath a Political Ordinance with power purely spiritual They seek only to preserve the Kingdom from rapine c. And then having produced the Article he concludes You see the power is political the sword is political all is Political Our Kings leave the power of the keyes and Jurisdiction purely spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it Nothing can be more express then this so clear a testimony of so judicious a Bishop touching the Kings supremacy in matters Ecclesiasticall acknowledged by Oath Only we must be excused if we assent not to what he affirms touching King Henry the Eighth his not assuming spiritual Jurisdiction 42. Again the same Bishop thus further adds Wheresoever our Lawes do deny all spirituall Jurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that sence that we call the exteriour Court of the Church the spirituall Court They do not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the keyes or of any spiritual power that was bequeathed him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy To conclude omitting a world of other passages to the same effect he saith We have not renounced the substance of the Papacy except the substance of the Papacy do consist in coactive power 43. Moreover to warrant these explications of three so eminent men of the Protestant Church who write expresly upon the Subject may be added testimonies yet more authentick and irrefragable of our Princes themselves who are to be esteemed unquestionably authoritative interpreters of their own lawes at least in these cases as afore was observed and besides those the publick Articles of the English Clergy yea the Statutes of Parliaments also 44. In an Act of Parliament made in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeths Raign there is an interpretation of the Oath of Supremacy in an express Proviso That the Oath of Supremacy shall be taken and expounded in such forme as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions published in the first year of her Raign The which Admonition was made to take away a scruple raised by some as if the Queen had usurped a Jurisdiction purely spirituall which she renounces professing first that by vertue of that Oath no other Authority is to be acknowledged then what was challenged and lately used by King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth This clause is not to be supposed to be any part of the interpretation of the Oath but it is only intended to signifie that this is no new invented usurpation of a Title but that the same had been allowed to those two Kings before her and the same Authority saith she is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this Realm Neither doth she say that she challenges all that those two Kings did as in effect it is apparent she did not but that what she requires had been formerly granted to them And it is evident that if her meaning had been that the Oath should be taken according to that enormous latitude of power allowed and exercised by them such a way of indefinite explication would have been far more burdensome and entangling to conscices then before For that would signifie that all that swear should be obliged to inform themselves in all the clauses of acts of Parliament made by those two Kings and in all the actions performed by them or else they will swear they know not what Her explication therefore is set down clearly and distinctly in the following words by which she declares what that authority is which she challenges and which must be acknowledge in taking the Oath Viz. That is the Queen under God to have the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them 45. This clause according to the Queens interpretation confirm'd by act of Parliament contains the true sence of the Oath so that if this clause can be sworn to that is all that is signified in the form of the Oath say Protestants Now that by this Clause only civil power over all persons Ecclesiasticall is challenged appears by a wrong interpretation of the Oath which she complains to have been spred abroad Viz. as if by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings and Queens of this Realm possessours of the crown may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine offices in the Church She renounces all medling with any Offices purely Ecclesiasticall in the Church as also Doctor Bilson by her authority declares in the forecited words she pretends not to administer Sacraments conferr Orders inflict Ecclesiastical censures determine controversies of faith c. But she challenges a supream civil Authority over all those that have right to exercise those Offices as being her Subjects as well as the Laity And this Jurisdiction she will have acknowledged so to be her peculiar Right as that no forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them that is no part of this Regal power whatsoever spiritual Jurisdiction which she medles not withall they may challenge That this is the true sence of this
and accordingly in many particulars practised it to the which several clauses also both in this and following Statutes seem as if they gave warrant yet the Parliament by the said Provizo laid a ground how they might in future and better times shew how they meant no such thing The words are these PROVIDED alwayes that this Act nor any thing or things therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted or expounded that your grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline or vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendom or in any other things declared by holy Scripture and the word of God necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an ordinance by policies necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquillity from rapine and spoil insuing much the old ancient customes of this Realm in that behalfe Not minding to seek for any reliefes succours or remedies for any worldly things and humane lawes in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly causes to any other Superiour By this Proviso never repealed the Parliaments Ordinance is declared to be meerly Political that the Kings Independence on forraign power is in worldly things and humane lawes he being in worldly causes not obliged to any other Superiour 50. Thus far of the sence in which both the most judicious among the English Protestants have declared and have been authorised to declare what power it is that by the Oath is deferred to the Kings of England and renounced to be in any forraign Prince or Prelate to wit a civil Political power wheresoever it can be exercised in any causes Ecclesiastical c. Against this there is not extant a contradictory Testimony of any one Protestant Writer So that the Protestant Subjects of England do intend and judging that they have unquestiónable grounds to judge this only to be the sence of the Oath in this sence only do they take it and require it to be taken by others SECT VII In what sence the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance seem to be taken by Presbyterians Independents c. 51. IT is a wonderfull Mystery how it should come to pass that our English Prebyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously not without threatning urge the imposing them upon others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practises or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years 52. First for ther Doctrinal principles I do not find that any of those Sects of late in England in peaceable times have publickly declared in what sence they allowed his Majesty to have a supreme Jurisdicton in causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritaul as to themselves But as to the oppression and destruction of poor Roman Catholicks they have alwayes shew'd too great a willingness to exalt the Kings Authority and to draw out and sharpen his sword far more then himself was willing I do not find that any of them have busied themselves as a world of Protestants and Catholicks have with making discourses upon the Oathes Their silence in this point wherein they are doubtless much concern'd one way or other is surely very argumentative 53. Who ever knew or heard to flow from the tongue or drop from the pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a positon as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the generall body of Roman Catholicks viz. That even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his civil power to persecute truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of armes but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his misused Authority leaving the judgment to God only How unknown at least how unreceived such a Doctrine has hitherto been among their Brethren abroad will but too manifestly appear in a volume entitled Dangerous positions collected by Archbishop Bancroft out of severall books written by Calvinisticall preachers What judgment their patriarch Calvin made of King Henry the eighths new Title of the Head of the Church we have seen before And what an exception terrible to Princes the French Calvinistical Church hath made in their confession of Faith speaking of Obedience due to the supreme Magistrate appears at least every Sunday in all their hands in print Where they acknowledge such obedience due to them except the Law of God and religion be interested or to use their own expression mogennant que l'empire de Dieu demeure en son entire that is upon condition that Gods Soveraignty remain undiminished Which clause what it means their so many and so long convinced Rebellions do expound 54. And as for their practices in England and Scotland it were to be wished they could be forgotten especially all that has hapned the last twenty years And it may suffiice only in gross to take notice that the most efficacious Engin for begining the late war and engaging their party in the prosecution of it was a publick declaration that their design was to root out Popish Doctrines favoured by the King and Bishops to abolish publick Formes of Church-service and to destroy Episcopacy and Church Government root and branch which had been established in England by the universal authority of the whole Kingdom 55. These things considered is it not a great Mystery that such persons of such perswasions should be so zealous to take and impose generally either of these Oaths To think that they do knowingly directly and formally forswear themselves and force others to do so would be uncharitable Therefore an Evasion they have to secure themselves in their own opinions from perjury How little they deferr to Kings in their own Ecclesiastical matters and Government yea how they declare that none must be excepted from their consistories and Synodical Jurisdictions even externally coercive is evident both in Scoâ—land and elsewhere And it is observable that in the form of an Oath lately contrived in Scotland the word Ecclesiastical is studiously left out How comes it then to pass that they can in England swear that the King is supreme Head and Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical or spirituall Who can reconcile these things together in such a sence 56. Surely it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to imagine any colourable Evasion or pretext for cousening themselves except it be this That both the Oaths were made only against Roman Catholicks acknowledging the Pope to be supreme
by that of Allegiance Though how can Equivocation be excluded when according to them one Equivocation may be renounced by another A most horrid example whereof England has lately seen in the R. Padre Antonio Vais 72. Neither do Protestants think that a Declaration formerly made by the Pope and forbidding Catholicks to take those Oaths with any Interpretation whatsoever needs to be a hindrance to the taking of it in the forementioned sence so publickly avouched but onely in any secret meanings invented or mentally reserved by particular persons For surely the Pope intends not to take a power from Law-givers to interpret their own lawes nor to forbid their Subjects to admit their interpretations if they be agreable to truth and that the words be capable of being so interpreted as these are pretended to be Certain it is that the Pope was never informed of this so legal an interpretation For if he had he would never have forbidden that to distressed English Catholicks which to his knowledg all good Subjects in France Germany Venice c. neither will nor dare refuse to acknowledge and profess Besides say they is England now become the only Kingdom in Christendom where all manner of Briefs must be immediately submitted to without a publick Legal acceptation and without examination of the Motives or suggestions by which they wâ—re procured It is far otherwise now in the most Catholick Countries and was formerly even in England when it was most Catholick the Lawes then made against receiving or executing Bulls from Rome without a publick admission under the penalty of incurring a Praemunire are still in force 73. If Catholicks rejoyning say that there is another regard for which they are unwilling even to receive information touching any qualifications of these Oaths viz. because the mere admitting a probability that they may lawfully and without prejudice to Catholick Faith be taken would argue that so many vertuous wise and holy Men as have suffered death c. for refusing them have suffred without any necessary cause Such were Bishop Fisher Sir Thomas More c. in King Henry the eights dayes and many good Priests since 74. Notwithstanding say Protestants such a consequence is not necessary For first it hath been shewed that King Henry the eighth intended to exclude the purely spiritual Jurisdiction of the Pope his power of determining matters of Faith according to former Lawes of the Church c. And therefore no wonder that good Catholicks then would not betray their consciences But it is well known that Sir Thomas More advised the King to limit some excesses of the Popes Jurisdiction And an eminent writer tells us that Bishop Fisher offered to take the Oath if it might have been permitted him to explicate his sence of it which could be no other then this that he should deny the Popes temporal Jurisdiction Secondly as for those that suffred in Q. Elizabeths time it is certain that all good Catholicks would never have esteemed it a Martyrdom to dye for refusing to the King a supreme Kingly Power and attributing that to the pope They had therefore a quite different notion of what the state of England required by this Oath But of late good occasion has been given for a more exact examination of it For to make a sincere and ingenuous confession it was a Committee of the late rebellious parliament that probably first of all discovered what use they made of the foresaid proviso in the Act 5. Eliz. to warrant them to take this Oath without submitting their Religion to the King And the same use they judged that all other Sects might make of the same and justify their so doing by law even Roman Catholicks themselves 75. All these things considered it is no wonder that English protestants not being fully informed of the state of Catholicks should wonder at Roman Catholicks for their so Universal agreement in refusing an Oath so interpreted without the least prejudice to their faith but with so unexpressible a prejudice both to their estates and exercise of their Religion 76. The Authour of these Reflexions does freely acknowledge that he has been inquisitive with more then ordinary diligence into the grounds upon which Protestants do make no scruple at all to take an oath which if it had no Expounders to qualifie the sence properly imported by the words he knows they could not take it with a good conscience Nay moreover he has given all the advantage that he could to the proofes produced by them to justify that no other sence ought to be given therto by any English Subject in so much as he may apprehend that he shall incurr a danger to be esteemed by Catholicks to have a design to encourage them also to take it since that sence is such as is very convenient to the principles of Catholick Religion 77. But he protests the contrary His end in writing all this is besides a satisfaction given to his mind that he cannot now without breach of Charity charge Protestants with such an unsincerity in their taking this Oath as Presbyterians c. are apparently guilty of to afford unto the World an illustrious proof of the most perfect sincerity and the greatest tendernesse of conscience expressed on this occasion by the generality of English Catholicks that I believe ever was given by any Church since Christs time 78. They live here in their own native Country with lesse priviledg then strangers they are excluded from having any influence on any thing that concerns the Common-weale of which they are freeborn Subjects When laws are made against them as guilty persons they are not permitted to separate their cause from a few that only deserved the penalties of those lawes they are by lawes obnoxious to greater sufferings then enemies they see their families impoverished their houses invaded by savage officers their lives forfeited as Traytours for entertaining those without whom they could not live otherwise then as Pagans deprived of performing any service and worship to God c. All these miseries they groan under without proofe of any demerit on their parts the crimes of a few miserable seduced and seducing wretches and their bloody Doctrine by none in the Kingdom more detested then by themselves are made their guilt And these calamities they could avoid by taking an oath the present new acknowleded sence whereof as to his Majesties right is just and lawful And yet they dare not take it Why Because they fear God above all But do not Protestants fear him too They are no Judges of the consciences of others This they assure themselves of that if those that now take the Oath had been to have framed it they would have shewed a greater proof of their fear of God then to have expressed the Kings Supremacy in termes fit for none but K. Hen. the VIII 79. But moreover great difference there is between the case of Protestants and Roman Catholicks in regard of this Oath For
Spiritual Government then it would be considered what the spiritual Government is and in what points it doth chiefly remain I find sayes he in the Gospels that when Christ gave to St. Peter the Supreme Government of the Church he said to him Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum c. That is I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth c. Now if you mean to give to the Queen that Authority which our Lord gave to St. Peter if you will say Nos tibi dabimus claves Regni coelorum c. We will give to your Majesty the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven I pray you shew your Commission by which you are authorised to make such a Gift Again for the same purpose Our Lord said to St. Peter Pasce c. Pasce c. Pasce c. Feed my sheep Feed my sheep Feed my lambs As likewise Tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres When thou art converted confirm thy Brethren Now if you mean to say so much to the Queen let us see your Commission and withall consider whether her person being a Woman be in a capacity to receive and execute such an Authority since St. Paul forbids a Woman to teach in the Church Thus argued the said Lord Chancelour proceeding in the same manner upon other branches of spirituall Government and concludes That without a mature consideration of all these premises their honours shall never be able to shew their faces before their Enemies in this matter 23. But notwithstanding all this the Lords c. proceeded to frame an Act without any distinct explication whether it was a Temporal or Spirituall Authority which they gave the Queen Or rather they framed it with such clauses as that the most obvious sence of it imported that it was an Authority purely spiritual that they invested her withall and most certain it is that if she had executed such an Authority she might have justified her so doing by that Act. 24. However after that Parliament was ended but before the first year of her Raign was expired such considerations as the Lord Chancelour had formerly in vain represented had so great an influence upon the Queen that she was obliged by an Admonition prefixed to her Injunctions to declare that which the Parliament would not that it was not her intent by vertue of that Act to challenge Authority and power of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church but only to have Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born within her Realmes of what State either Ecclesiastical or Temporall soever they be Which explication of hers was confirmed four years after by Parliament yet without changing the foregoing Act or any clauses in it 25. And consequently she left ordering of matters purely Spiritual to Bishops c. Expresly renouncing it For as for the power of Excommunication having again taken it from the Pope she did not fear it from any of her Bishops 26. In the times succeeding after her what qualifications were made and declared by three Kings touching spiritual Jurisdiction shall be shewed afterward They had not any such interests nor such fears as the three foregoing Princes had and therefore look'd with a more indifferent eye upon the matter Without repealing lawes or changing the Exteriour Forme of the oath of Supremacy they esteemed it sufficient to qualifie it by moderate interpretations as shall be shewed 27. As for the other Oath of Allegiance the compiler whereof was King James the most sad and horrible occasion of it is but too well known the intention of it is obvious and the sence plain So that it did not stand in need of such a Multiplicity of Acts of Parliament with many clauses to shew the extention of it Excepting one party scarce any except against it and were it not for some few incommodious expressions and phrases nothing pertaining to the substance and design of the Oath it would freely and generally be admitted and taken notwithstanding the foresaid parties condemning it who take that advantage to decry the substance of the Oath from which they have an aversion in as much as Fidelity is promised thereby SECT V. That the Oath of Supremacy as it lies and according to the sence of the first Law giver cannot lawfully and sincerely be taken by any Christian. 28. IT is a truth from the beginning acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church that all Kings are truly Supream Governours over the persons of all their Subjects and in all causes even Ecâ—lesiastical wherein their civil authority is mixed Constitutions of Synods however they may oblige in conscience and be imposed under spirituall censures yet are not lawes in any Kingdom that is they they are not commanded nor the transgression of them punishable in external Courts by outward punishments as Attachments Imprisonment c. further then supream Civil Governours do allow 29. This is a right due to all Kings though Heathens Hereticks c So that Kings by being converted to Christianity or Catholick Religion have not any new Jurisdiction added or their former enlarged thereby They do not thereby become Pastours of Souls but sheep of lawfull pastours And it is not a new Authority but a new duty that by their conversion accrews to them obliging them to promote true Religion by the exercise of their Civil Authority and Sword And subjects are bound to acknowledge and submit to this Authority of theirs that is not alwayes to do what Princes in Ecclesiasticall matters shall command but however not to resist in case their inward Beliefs be contrary to theirs but patiently to suffer whatsoever violence shall be offerâ—d them 30. Such a submission therefore to Kingly authority may when just occasion is be lawfully required by Kings from all their Subjects yea a profession thereof by oaths But such an one was not the Oath of Supremacy when it was first contrived and imposed For there an authority in many causes purely spirituall was by our Princes challenged as hath been shewed Therefore if we consider that Oath as now imposed on Subjects infinitely differing from their Princes beliefe and Judgment both in Point of doctrine and discipline it is not imaginable how it can be taken in such a sense as was first meant by any congregations no not even by that which is of the Kings own Religion 31. The Oath consists of two parts one Affirmative and the other Negative The Affirmative clause obliges all the Kings Subjects though never so much differing in their beliefs to swear an acknowledgment that the King is the only supreme Head and Governour of his Realme as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And the Negative to deny that any forraign Prince Prelate c. hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realme and to renounce all such 32. These two Recognitions if the
among them 39. In Queen Elizabeths reign we have the Testimony of Doctour Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester whose expressions are these The Oath saith he expresseth not the duty of Princes to God but ours to them And as they must be obeyed when they joyne with the truth so must they be endured when they fall into errour Which side soever they take either obedience to their Wills or submission to their swords is their due by Gods Law And that is all which our oath exacteth Again This is the supreme power of Princes which we soberly teach and which you JESUITES so bitterly detest That Princes be Gods Ministers in their own Dominions bearing the sword freely to permit and publickly to defend that which God commandeth in Faith and good manners and in ecclesiastical discipline to receive and establish such Rules and Orders as the Scriptures Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdomes And as they may lawfully command that which is good in all things and causes be they Temporal Spiritual or Ecclesiastical So may they with just force remove whatsoever is erroneous vitious or superstitious within their lands and with external losses and corporal pains represse the broachers and abbettours of Heresies and all impieties From which subjection unto Princes no man within their Realms Monk Priest Preacher nor Prelate is exempted And without their Realmes no mortal man hath any power from Christ judicially to depose them much lesse to invade them in open field least of all to warrant their Subjects to rebel against them Moreover intending to explain in what sence Spiritual Jurisdiction seems by the oath to be given to Princes he saith first We make no Prince judge of Faith and then more particularly To devise new Rites and Ceremonies for the Church is not the Princes vocation but to receive and allow such as the Scriptures and Canons commend and such as the Bishops and pastours of the place shall advise not infringing the Scriptures or Canons And so for all other Ecclesiastical things and â—auses Princes be neither the devisers nor Directours of them but the Confirmers and establishers of that which is good and displacers and Revengers of that whiâ—h is evill Which power we say they have in all things and causes be they Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Temporal Hereto his adversary is brought in replying And what for Excommunications and absolutions be they in the princes power also To this he answers The abuse of Excommunication in the priest and contempt of it in the people Princes may punish excommunicate they may not for so much as the Keys are no paâ—t of their charge Lastly to explain the Negative clause in the Oath he sayes In this sense we defend Princes to be supreme that is not at liberty to do what they list without regard of truth or right but without superiour on Earth to represse them with violent means and to take their Kingdomes from them Thus Doctour Bâ—lson whose testimony may be interpreted to be the Queens own interpretation of the oath since as appears by the Title page of his book what he wrote was perused and approved by publick Authority And to such a sense of the Oath as this there is not a Catholick Clergy man in France Germany Venice or Flanders but would readily subscribe 40. In the next place suitable to him Doctour Carleton in King James his time thus states the matter Bellarmine saith he disputing of Jurisdiction saith There is a triple Power in the Bishop of Rome first of Order secondly of internal jurisdiction thirdly of external jurisdiction The first is referd to the sacraments the second to inward Government which is in the court of Conscience the third to that external Government which is practised in external Courts And confesseth that of the first and second there is no question between us but only of the third Then of this saith Carleton we are agreed that the question between us and them is only of Jurisdiction coactive in external courts binding and compelling by force of Law and other External Mulcts and punishments beside excommunication As for spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church standing in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offendours Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and spiritual Cures c. this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give or take from the Church This power hath been practised by the Church without co-active jurisdiction other then of Excommunication But when matters handled in the Ecclesiastical Consistory are not matters of Faith and Religion but of a Civil nature which yet are called Ecclesiastical as being given by Princes and appointed to be within the cognisance of that Consistory and when the censures are not spiritual but carnal compulsive coactive here appeareth the power or the Civil Magistrate This power we yield to the Magistrate and here is the question whether the Magistrate hath right to this power or Jurisdiction c. This then is the thing that we are to prove That Ecclesiastical coactive power by force of Law and corporal punishments by which Christian people are to be governed in externall and contentious Courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Again afterward he sayes Concerning the extention of the Churches Jurisdiction it cannot be denyed but that there is a power in the Church not only internal but also of external Jurisdiction Of internal power there is no question made External Jurisdiction being understood all that is practised in external Courts or Consistories is either definitive or Mulctative Authority Definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative power may be understood either as it is with Coaction or as it is referred to spirituall censures As it standeth in spirituall censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when the Church was without a Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was never practised by the Church when the Church was without Christian Magistrates but was alwayes understood to belong to the civill Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen After this manner doth Doctour Carleton Bishop of Chichester understand the Supremacy of the King acknowledged in the Oath 41. In the last place Doctour Bramhall Bishop of Derry in our late Kings dayes and now Archbishop of Armagh thus declares both the Affirmative and Negative parts of the Oath touching the Kings supream authority in matters Ecclesiastical and renouncing the Popes Jurisdiction in the same here in England in his book called Schisme guarded c. The summe of which Book is in the Title-page expressed to consist in shewing that the great Controversie about Papal power is not a question of Faith but of interest and profit not with the Church of Rome but with the Court of Rome
pastour of Gods Church so that whosoever can swear that he is no Papist may freely and without scruple take those Oaths as being nothing at all concerned in them Whatever he does he cannot be a traytor by vertue of the Oath because he was not a powder-traytor 57. If the secret of the affair do indeed lye on such an interpretation as this then it will follow that none of the Kings Subjects are or can by any oath as yet in force be obliged not to be traytors but only such Roman Catholicks as take the Oath of Allegiance A hard case for his Majesty 58. This Evasion may perhaps serve for the Negative clause of the Oath of Supremacy wherein profession is made That the Pope has no Jurisdiction in this Kingdom But how will they defend themselves from the most principal Affirmative clause That the King alone is supreme Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical Till they express themselves in this point no other expedient I Suppose can be found but by denying that there are two distinct clauses in the oath and consequently by saying that the whole Oath is but one simple assertion viz. That the King is so far to be esteemed the supreme Governour as that the Pope is not above him But yet a consistory of Presbyters though his Subjects yea any single Minister in causes toùching Religion and Church Government may be his superiour Now if this guess hit right upon the like grounds the Oath of Allegiance will be interpreted too as if they that take it should say thus We promise Fidelity to his Majesty so sincerely that notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of deprivation issuing from the Pope against him we will not seek to depose or murther him But if our teachers or we our selves do interpret the word of God against any of his actions or if we find in scripture that he loves not the pure reformed Religion and shewes his dislike by any publick action then he must look to himself For these Oaths do not extend to such cases no not so much as to hinder us from defending our purses with our swords against any illegall exactions We are sure we are not Papists that we readily swear and that is enough 59. Notwithstanding if they look well upon the Oath they will find the word Only too stubborn to comply with this sence where they profess the King to be the only supreme Governour Unless they will conceive the meaning to be That he is only a Supreme Governour in regard of the Pope with whom he will have nothing to do and who therefore is neither under him nor above him and in regard of no body of the world besides not the most pittifull Tub-Man This indeed would be an evasion the invention whereof is beyond the art of equivocation 60. It is not here pretended that by this evasion and no other Presbyterians have the art to sweeten Oaths which in the ordinary sence and understanding of all the rest of the Kingdom are point blank opposed at least to their Brethrens Doctrines and their own practises So that the Author of these Reflexions must leave a more perfect discovery of their mysterious wayes to the eyes of the State infinitely more clear-sighted and penetrating 61. As for the Independents all that to me is known of them since they lately shew'd their faces to the destruction both of Church and State is their new name What they think of the Oaths does not to me appear But the very name implying a renouncing of all order and subordination in Church-Government even among themselves and their known practice having been an Usurpation of supreme authority to themselves purchased with the most execrable murther of their undoubted and too too mercifull Soveraign if they can be so hypocritical as to take either of these Oaths they will deceive no body For it will be evident to all men that not changing their tenents and courses they must needs be perjured so that to some it may be a doubt whether it be a lawfull or however an expedient mean for the Kings safety to offer them the Oathes or to relye upon their taking them 62. All that for the present will be collected from the words or practises of these two Sects is That at least they do acknowledge so far a concurrence with the sence of Protestants touching these Oathes that they do assure themselves that by them there is no Jurisdiction purely Ecclesiastical attributed or due to his Majesty How far or whether at all they will permit his civil power to act in matters Ecclesiastical till they discover their minds if they be not too much discovered already who can tell 63. Besides these other Scots there are in abundance which the common voice tyes together as Samson did his Foxes tail to tail their faces all looking several wayes however they are called usually Fanaticks Of these some professe Obedience others profess against it but not any of them will swear either the one or the other Their sence therefore of these Oaths is neither to be expected nor if it were had is it to be valued SECT VIII Vpon what grounds Roman-Catholicks do generally refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy 64. IT may very well and indeed does to Protestants seem a mystery almost as hard to be penetrated into as was that in the last Section why Roman-Catholicks should so generally refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy considering that the whole Kingdom besides does unanimously agree at least in this point That the Supremacy ascribed therein to his Majesty does not at all prejudice the spirituall Jurisdiction of Pastours with which the King does not meddle neither indeed does it concern him for it is nothing to the King whether one of his Subjects be for his faults excommunicated or admitted to the communion Whether he be an Ecclesiastical person or a Lay-Man as likewise whether his Excommunication or Ordination proceed from one beyond Seas or at home and the like is to be said of his Orders Now since Catholick Faith teaches that secular power which belongs to Caesar should be given to Caesar and meer spiritual Authority over consciences and upon spirituall penalties only should be given to the supreme and subordinate Pastours Protestants wonder why Catholicks so perswaded should refuse to swear that which they profess Especially since by such a refusal they deprive themselves of a comfortable exercise of their Religion and withall expose themselves to many and grievous penalties They profess Loyalty to the King and dare not swear it And they hopefully perswade themselves that if they did swear it he would believe them which is a grace that he will not afford to all but by not swearing it when they are required by lawfull authority they put themselves in an incapacity to make their Loyalty usefull to his Majesty give perhaps scandal to many out of the Church as if indeed there were some unknown principle of disloyalty in their
Protestants know that the first invention of this Oath was to explore the consciences of Catholicks and to tempt them to Schisme by renouncing the Spiritual Authority of the head of Gods Church which under perill of damnation they cannot do They would not perhaps find so great difficulty without swearing only to say That the King alone is the supreme Governour in all matters Ecclesiastical within his Dominions c. when they are obliged to say this to persons that acknowledge with them such power to be only Civill But an Oath to Catholicks is a thing so dreadful that they dare not call God to witnesse that they sincerely swear an acknowledgement that the Pope has not nor ought to have any Superiority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual unlesse it might be permitted them at the same time in the same breath to signify that this is intended of Civil Kingly Authority in Ecclesiastical causes They tremble to swear in a phrase at the best ambiguous or rather not ambiguous but formally contradictory to Catholick Doctrine for all the words that they pronounce and of their acknowledgment whereof they make God a witnesse are such as they are perswaded to be manifestly erroneous Now God is called a witnesse to what men say in an oath not to what they think unless they think as they say 80. But moreover there is another consideration that is more than sufficient to make the taking of this oath inconsistent with Catholick Religion and that is the difference that King James Bishop Andrews c. put between the two oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance in regard of their End and intention For sayes King James The Oath of Allegiance was not framed against Roman Catholicks in general but only to make a separation between Catholicks of a peaceable disposition in all other things good Subjects and such Roman Catholicks as maintained the Rebellious Maxims of the Powder-traitours But as for the Oath of Supremacy the intention of the continuation of it was to the end to discover who were Roman Catholichs and who Protestants So that whosoever takes that Oath is presumed by King James c. to declare that he is no Catholick Bishop Andrews has the like expression but withall he discovers the usesessness of that oath For saies he what needs any oath at all to detect who are Roman Catholicks For they refuse to be present at the Protestants Church service they will not come to our Sermons they dare not receive the Eucharist with us c. So that without any oath you may easily know who are Roman Catholicks 81. Lastly the principal proof by which Protestants demonstrate that by the Oathes no other Authority or Supremacy is given to our Princes but civil only which is the 37 Article of the English Church though it be sufficient to clear the Affirmative part of the oath yet not so for the Negative concerning the Popes spiritual Jurisdiction Yea in the same place it is expresly excluded For the words following in the same Article do apparently give and require a very uncatholick sence of that Negative Clause for there is expressely affirmed The Bishop of Rome hath not any Jurisdiction in this Kingdom Now since both King James Bishop Andrews and the thirty seventh Article even in the very same places where they speak of Kingly and papal power do as the former rightly state the Kingly and leave the Papal Spiritual power indifinitely excluded their intention appears to have been to declare against and require an abrenunciation of a Catholick point of faith 82. Upon these grounds Catholicks dare not but refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy Perhaps by the new unlawful art of Casuistry some of them might think they could find evasions but generally such is the tendernesse of their consciences that they dare not think it lawful to make advantage of Casuistry in a Solemn Oath Very likely Protestants will call them nicely scrupulous foolish or improvident for this their tendernesse of conscience But sure they will not suspect them disloyal who attribute as much Authority to the King as themselves do and if it were permitted them to confirm this by a clear Oath in their own language they would not yield to them in the fullnesse of the expression If hereafter they are resolved not to grant them any ease from their pressures if a harmlesse scrupulosity in Catholicks shall bear those penalties which direct rebellion in others escapes If to satisfy the passion of not very good Subjects those that are truly loyal shall be treated as Rebells and their religion only punished indeed however that will not be acknowledged by those that punish it all that remains for Catholicks to say is Dominus judicabit fines terrae SECT IX Vpon what grounds some Catholicks make scruple to take the Oath of Allegiane 83. NExt followes the Oath of Allegiance framed by K. James upon the greatest provocation and an attentat the most execrable the most abhorred by the whole body of Catholicks both at home and abroad and the most scandalous to Christian Religion that ever was This oath affords also matter of wonder to Protestants Why Catholicks who acknowledge the Kings supreme civil authority should make any scruple to take it since it was never meant against such 84. But they may impute only to themselves the cause of such a refusal for by some incommodious phrases unnecessarily thrust into it they have frighted many from taking it and as if they had conspired with that one too well known party which alone gave occasion for the framing it they have given them advantage for those unnecessary phrases sake to fix upon all the Refusers a scandalous however unjust imputation as if they approved these abominable principles from which flowed that more abominable Attentat which deservedly wrung extreme severity from a Prince the most element that ever this Nation formerly had enjoyed 85. In the following Reflexions therefore upon this Oath justice requires that we should divide between the innocent and the guilty between those that not in this Kingdom only have made that Principle of Disloyalty their distinctive Charter and those that are ready to renounce that Principle if they might be allowed to renounce it by any other though more Emphatical expressions 86. As touching the former unhappy party it is observable that at the first publishing of the Oath there were in every line and almost particle of it pointed out by them a several Heresie All which Heresies are now at last vanished excepting only one which is that by which there is enjoyned a renouncing of that so bruited Article of Faith touching the Popes power of deposing Princes not for Heresie only but almost any other fault that shall be esteemed sufficient to deserve it 87. This pretended Article of Faith is by such new De-fide-men grounded either upon the Actions of certain Popes since Pope Gregory the seventh which both for their own sakes and ours it is to be
fundamental Christian verity 2. That the preaching of that doctrine will be far more safe yea only safe in conscience because if it be probable that it is an Article of faith the teaching of the contrary may perhaps come to be Heretical which the teaching of it cannot be 104. In vain therefore do they expect so easie a condescendence from others and the more unreasonably because themselves dare not justifie this their Article of Faith in the Catholick Kingdom of France to be so much as a probable opinion no not in these times when they lately had a great Cardinal a Minister of State their confident and a Confessarius or manager of the Kings conscience their Court-instrument Who is so much too much a Courtier and as long as he lives in France too little a zelot for this their peculiar principle as that he dares not so much as motion to his penitentan acceptation of that Decree of Lateran interpreted in their sence but freely absolves him and admits him to the communion without so much as confessing among his faults his dis-beliefe of this Article yea professing the contrary Nay more they themselves whilst they are there do not believe it for if they did they would not surely omit to attempt the conversion of French Catholicks at least in articulo mortis to this their Fundamental point of Faith but this they dare not and care not to do nor do they refuse to take mony for praying for their souls as they did formerly in England to some that defended the Oath of Allegiance 105. What charme then have they to make such a topical uncatholick Aricle of Faith to serve only for the Meridian of England which of all the Countries in Christendome ought least to hear any mention of it They themselves in France are or at least appear Catholicks a la mode de France and dare not so much as in a whisper say that this is a topical Opinion much less an Article of Faith And yet the King there is of the Popes own Religion and consequently not obnoxious to the danger of it What stupidity then what blindness do they presume to find among us English Catholicks that they should fancy that we do not evidently see that it is their own secular interest only that makes the same point of Doctrine to be de fide in an Island and a pestilent errour in terra firma 106. In vain therefore do they hope that all Catholicks which have not made them the Depositaries of all their reason and common sence will admit a position infinitely prejudicial to their Religion to their King and to their own souls which they would renounce in regard of their own single Estates or persons For suppose a Bull of Excommunication should be procured from Rome against any Catholick Lord Gentleman or Farmer in England for some new Heresie of Jansenisme or for denying their Exemptions c. and that in consequence thereof the Pope by his temporal Authority should lay a sine upon their heads or deprive them of their Titles and Estates Would those Lords or Gentlemen quietly be content to be unlorded and become peasants or would they pay their fines and resign their Estates to such Apostles If not as most certainly they would not with what conscience would they suffer themselves to be perswaded that the Sacred person of their Soveraign only is obnoxious to slavery beggery and danger 107. Though that party therefore be so tender-conscienced that they dare not or so obnoxious to Superiours abroad that they must not according to the clause of this Oath of Allegiance swear that they do detest as impious that position of theirs That Princes excummunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdred by their subjects Yet since English Catholicks yea even their own penitents will be both good Catholicks and therefore good subjects as all are in France Germany Venice Flanders c. Till an Authentick approved received decree of the Church be produced or procured to declare not in England only but all Christendom over that that position is de fide they will not be deprived of their Christian liberty to renounce it especially being assured that without renouncing of it the State will never acknowledg them for loyal Subjects It is well known that in France there was an Oath framed by the whole Body of the fiers Estate in which they are to be sound farr more comprehensive expressions then are in our Oath for therein is expresly affirmed That there is no power on Earth either spiritual or temporal that hath any right over his Majesties Kingdom to deprive the sacred persons of our Kings nor to to dispence with or absolve their Subjects from their loyalty and obedience whiâ—h they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoever 108. This will suffice concerning that position which those who will not be permitted to renounce but rather maintain it to Article of faith yet however will perhaps not refuse to profess themselves ready to swear 1. That the Kings of England excommunicated by the Pope may not be murthered by their Subjects and to detest the contrary as Heretical 2. Yea moreover that notwithstanding any sentence of deprivation ever hereafter upon what occasion soever to ensue they will bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and his successours And what needs Princes desire any greater security say they what need they trouble themselves with their Subjects speculative opinions 109. But alas a miserable security a poor testimony or gage of fidelity is all this God knowes For first Murder being an unjust killing out of malice and with a deliberate purpose is a sin so horrible in it self that God himself cannot make it lawfull much lesse the Pope therefore in all reason instead of those words May not be murdred they ought to say may not be killed by their Subjects For otherwise notwithstanding that Oath the Pope may be acknowledged to be a competent Judge of life and death over our Kings to sentence them to the slaughter and that sentence may be put in execution without murther For who ever said that a Malefactour put to death by Law was murthered by the Judges sentence 110. But whether they say May not be murthered or May not be killed Princes will esteem themselves little advantaged by such an Oath unlesse the swearers say withal May not be deposed For whosoever has a supreme just right upon any pretence whatsoever to Depose Princes has thereby right to cause them to be killed in case they by armes oppose the Execution of that sentence And can it be imagined that any Prince judged an Heretick or otherwise guilty by the Pope and by him sentenced to be deposed will thereupon quietly descend out of his Throne and yield up his Scepter to one of a contrary Religion Or rather is it not most certain that they will not but on the contrary bring with them many thousands of their armed