regna dat coelestia That Christ is come why dost thou dread O Herode thou vngodlie foe He doth not earthlie Kingdomes reaue That heauenly Kingdomes doth bestow 4. And so although CHRIST were euen as man a Temporall King yet he not actually raigning him self it is not likelie that he should giue any such authoritie to S. PETER and the Pope his successour And although hee had actually raigned him self yet it is not necessarie that he should giue that Authoritie to S. PETER for hee had also the power of Excellencie by which he might command euen Infidels not baptized and by which he instituted a Church Sacraments and a Priesthood which S. PETER and the Pope his Successour can not doe Certes none can denie but that CHRIST might haue giuen S. PETER supreme Iurisdiction spirituall ouer the Church without Temporall because as spirituall power is not necessarily annexed to the Temporall as I haue proued in the former Chapter so Temporall power is not necessarily ioyned to the spirituall and therfore seing that neither the law of God nor Nature nor man giueth any such Temporall Iurisdiction to the Chiefe Pastour of the Church why should either he challenge it or we giue it him especiallie it being a thing verie inconuenient and odious that either the Church or her Chiefe Pastour should haue any such Temporall power For if it were so that the Church or her supreme Pastour had any such soueraintie it would deterre all Pagan Kings and Princes from our Religion fearing least the Church by her absolute Authoritie might depriue them of their Kingdomes Crownes and Scepters at her pleasure And hence it is that the Popes them selues confesse that they haue no Imperiall nor Kinglie Authoritie giuen them by CHRIST but rather that these two powers are in distinct subiects So NICHOLAS Pope sayth Cum ad verum ventum est c. Ca. cum ad verū d. 96. Vide supra pa. 66. et pag. 78. VVhen it came to the vnderstanding of the truth neither did the Emperour take vnto him the rights of Bishop-like Authoritie nor did the Bishop vsurpe the name of the Emperour because the same Mediatour of God and men man Christ IESVS hath distinguished the offices of both powers by their proper and distinct dignities as that Christian Emperours for attaining eternall life should neede bishops and Bishops should vse the Imperiall lawes for the cause onely of temporall things And S. BERNARD Bern. li. 2. de Cōsid ca. 6. Nam quid tibi aliud dimisit Sanctus Apostolus quod habeo inquit tibi do c. VVhat other thing did the holie Apostle leaue vnto thee what I haue saith hee I giue thee VVhat is that One thing I know it is neither gould nor siluer seing that he sayth gould and siluer is not with mee Bee it that by some other way thou maist challenge this vnto thee yet not by Apostolicall right for he could not giue thee that which he had not VVhat he had he gaue sollicitude as he sayd ouer the Churches Did be giue thee rule and domination not ouer-ruling the Clergie but made example of the flocke and doost thou thinke this to be spoken onlie out of humilitie not in veritie the voice of our Lord is in the Ghospell the Princes of the Gentils ouer-rule them c. but it shal not be so amongst you 5. But although the Pope and Chiefe Pastour of the Church hath no direct Temporall power but only in his owne Temporall Patrimonie and Kingdome by which he may dispose of Kingdomes Crownes and scepters yet he hath a Spirituall power which may directlie and ordinarilie dispose of spirituall matters and indirectlie and in some extraordinarie case of the Temporall also that is when it shall be iudged necessarie for the consernation of the faith or Religion or the Churches lawes and right or some other great and necessarie good I say the Pope hath no direct power ouer Princes for then he might limit their power abrogate their lawes and depose their persons at least for some iust cause though it did not concerne either faith or the Churches right or necessarie good as the King can deale with his Viceroy and any of his subiects and then Princes should not be absolute and independent who yet as aboue is declared in Temporall matters and so long as they exceede not the bounds of their authority by commanding things contrary to Gods law or the Churches Canons acknowledg no Superiour in earth neither Pope nor Emperour nor Common wealth For as for the Emperour all Princes who are not his Vassals as the Kings of Spaine England and France are not as they acknowledge him Superiour in dignitie and therfore will and must giue him the precedence whersoeuer they meete yet they are not subiect to him nor bound to obey him vnlesse it be when the Pope the Chiefe Pastour and hee the greatest Prince in dignitie shall thinke it necessarie that all Christian Princes contribute or concurre for the defence of Christendome against the Turke or such like Common enemie As for the Pope I graunt that CHRIST gaue him no Temporall power at all which aboue I haue prooued for that Temporall power which he hath in Italie hee had not by Christs immediat graunt but onlie by Constantines and other Emperouts and Princes donation which donation supposed and confirmed also by Prescription and his subiects yea all the Christian worlds consent that part of Italie which he possesseth is as trulie appertaining to him as England is to the King of England France to the King of France and Spaine to the King of Spaine onlie the Pope cannot transfer his Kingdome to his Heyres as they may because it cometh not to him in particular by hereditarie succession but onlie by election Yea if the Pope were by the law of God a Temporall Soueraine Prince ouer all the world other Princes should holde of him and CONSTANTINES donation by which he made him Temporall Prince of Italie had been no donation but restitution As for the Common wealth I haue aboue declared how it hath despoiled it self of all authoritie and by translating it to the King is trulie a subiect and like a priuate person and so hath no power ouer the King vnles it be in case of intollerable Tyrannie as aboue is explicated 6. I say yet that the Pope hath an Indirect power ouer Kings euen in Temporall mattters which power notwithstanding is not Temporall but spirituall nor any distinct power from his spirituall supremacie but euen the self same And therfore GREGORIE the Seuenth in his deposition of HENRIE the Fourth sayth that he deposeth him by the power he hath from S. PETER of binding and loosing And although his Pastorall and Spirituall power directly and ordinarily hath the menaging only of spirituall matters and so directly and ordinarily exerciseth it self in excommunicating interdicting and suspending frō Spirituall offices calling Councels and deciding controuersies of faith in them in making
that in this place as must signifie equalitie or identitie not similitude New-yeares-guifte Pag. 106. as VViddrington in his Newyeares-guifte confesseth that sometimes it doth in regard of the matter And so by this Clause wee are to abiure that Position not as like to heresie but as all one with heresie trulie heresie Thirdlie it is at least doubtfull least this may bee the sense to witt that the position is truelie heresie speciallie seing that the wordes and manner of speeche as WIDDRINGTON confesseth are to bee taken in the Common sense and according to the Lawemakers intention ergo this is a clause not to bee digested by anie tymerous conscience nor by any other then by an all deuouring conscience The Fift Clause And I do further beleeue and in conscience am resolued that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me of this Oath Sayrus in Claui Regia li. 6. ca. 11. n 7. Lesfius li 2. de iust et iure cap. 40. dub 17. num 114. Arragon 2.2 q. 88. art 10. in expl art §. his cōstitutis Psal 75. or any part thereof 55. In this Clause first is abiured all power to dispense in oathes and vowes which is hereticall it being a matter of faith conformable to common consent and to the Canons and practise of the Church that the Pope can dispense in oathes and vowes when there is iust cause And if in other oathes why not in this VViddrington perchaunce will answere that this Oath of Alleageance bindeth by law of God and Nature in which the Pope cannot dispense But he cannot be ignorant that all oathes and vowes do bynde by law of God and Nature according to that Psal 75. Vouete reddite Vow and render And yet if hee will be a Catholicke he must confesse that the Pope can and often times hath and doth dispense in some oathes and vowes as in a vow to make a longe pilgrimage or to giue a summe of mony to a Church or Monasterie which are temporall things though ordained to a spirituall end and why then can he not dispense in this for a good end to wit conseruation of faith and vpon iust cause as certes if euer there be iust cause to dispence then there is when the Prince with intolerable Tyrannie persecuteth faith and Religion 56. And therefore VViddrington should call to minde that distinction which Diuines vse in this matter to wit that there is duplex ius dininum naturale Sanchez lib. 2. de matrim disp 14. n. 5. ad 4 lib. 8. disp 6. n. 1. a two fold diuine and naturall law or right The one is absolute deriued onely from God and Nature the other supponit factum vel voluntatem humanam that is supposeth some fact or will of man Of this sorte are oathes and vowes which binde not absolutely but only supposing some fact or will of ours by which wee sweare or vowe what otherwise we needed not And although in all such things the Pope cannot dispense for he can not dispense in matrimonie consummated nor in matrimonie betwixt brother and sister nor in pluralitie of wyues which yet suppose some fact or will of ours yet he can dispense in vowes especiallie simple yea and in those that be solemne also as many Diuines do probablie holde He can also dispense in oathes alreadie made when there is iust cause for seeing that these vowes and oathes suppose our free will and consent and are such also as it is expedient that the Pope many times should dispense in them such as is not matrimony consummated nor mariage betwixt brother and sister nor pluralitie of wiues because if once dispensation in these were graunted it would occasion many fornications and aduoutries Sanchez lib. 2. de matrim disp 13. n. 11. lib. 7. disp 52 n. 11. disp 82. num 9. Vide etiā Bellarm li. de matrim ca. 10.16 28. as Sanchez and others obserue it was necessarie that CHRIST should leaue such power to his Church and especially to his Chiefe Vicaire the Pope by which he might take away the obligation of these oathes and vowes which in some circumstāce of times and persons can not so easily nor so conueniently be fulfilled and obserued So that to sweare that the Pope hath no Authoritie to dispense with a subiect in his Oath by which he hath sworne fidelitie to the King where as notwithstanding when the King is an intollerable Tyrant there is good reason In Disp Theolog. ca 6 sect 1. n. 2. and iust cause of dispensation were in effect what soeuer VViddrington affirmeth to abiure all Authoritie of the Church in dispensations For although it be no good Argument to argue à particulari ad vniuersale and to say The Pope can not dispense in this Oath ergo in none yet when there is the same reason of the particular which is in the vniuersall then to deny the particular were to deny the vniuersall And therefore as to say Peter who is a man as well as others is not risihilis were in effect to say that nullus homo est risibili so seeing there is the same reason of this Oath to Wards the Prince which is of other oathes he that denieth that the Pope can dispense in this Oath denyeth also in effect that he can dispense in any oath at all 57. This power which the Pope hath in dispensing in this Oath I confirme by all that which aboue I haue alleaged to proue that the Pope can depose Princes and absolue subiects from their alleageance and euen by the power of binding and loosing Mat. 18 which though ordinarilie it be vnderstood of loosing from sinnes and censures yet it is also extended to absolution from alleageance when it is necessarie to the Churches conseruation as aboue I haue shewed not only by Cardinall Bellarmine whose aythoritie VViddrington should rather reuerence then contemne but also by auncient Popes whose testimonies in this kinde ought to counterpoize all contrarie asseuerations they being in a matter of so great importance vndoubtedly illuminated by the spirit of trueth and deliuering the right sence of the Holy Ghost as his Chiefe and infallible interpretes 58. To this WIDDRINGTON answeareth Disp Th. cap. 6. graunting that although the Pope cannot dispense in iuramento assertorio of which noe man doubteth yet he may in iuramento promissorio a promissorie oath because the thing which we promise for the future tyme may prooue hurtfull or vnlawfull And seing that the things promised for the future tyme in this Clause are three 1. That I will keepe fidelity and obedience to the King and his heires notwithstanding excommunication or depriuation 2. That I will defend him and them with all my forces against all conspiracies made against them and theire Crowne and dignitie 3. That I will reueale all such treasons and trayterous cōspiracies c. He sayth I may as safelie and securelie sweare without all daunger of periurie that
subiects to Bishops and especiallie to the Chiefe Bishop they can not in that kind be heads and superiours to Bishops 17. Lastlie I prooue this by out Aduersaries confession which is an argument ad hominem of no little force because none is presumed to lie against him selfe Calu. in cap. 7. Amos. CALVIN pronounceth thus of HENRIE the eight his supremacie Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt HENRICVM Regem Angliae certè fuerunt homines inconsiderrti dederuut enim ills summam rerum omnium potestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enim blasphemi cum vocarent eum Summum Caput Ecclesiae sub Christo They who in the beginning did so much extoll HENRIE the Eight King of England were men inconsiderate for they gaue him supreme power of all thinges and this did alwayes much aggreue mee For they were Blasphemous when they called him supreaine Head of the Church vnder Christ This was the opinion of CALVIN which is not to be contemned of our Protestants who follow him as an Oracle in other and those verie manie points And to him haue subscribed our Puritans in England and the Brethren of Heluetia Zurich Berne Geneua Polonia Hungarie and Scotland who all denie this supremacie of Kings in Ecclesiasticall causes Yea our Protestants them selues whilst they seeke to auoid the absurdities which aboue I haue produced against this supremacie and which Catholickes haue obiected do in effect despoile the King of all such Authoritie 19. Becanus in Dissid Angl. For first as BBCANVS hath tould them they are not agreed whether his Authoritie should be called Primacie or Supremacie nor whether he should be stiled Primate or Soueraine Salclebr pag. 140. D. And. in Tort. pag. 90. Tomson pag. 33. Head or Gouernour SALCLEBRIDGE calles the King Primate of the Church of England Doctour ANDREWES calles his Authoritie Primacie and yet TOMSON will not haue this authoritie called Primacie but Supremacie because the former word argueth a power Ecclesiasticall and of the same order with that which Prelates of the Church haue the last word he saith signifieth not so much And againe he will not haue it called Spirituall Authoritie but Authoritie in respect of Spirituall things Tomson pag. 31. Idem pag. 95. Salcl pag. 305 and he addeth that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically And yet SALCLEBRIDGE saith that Kinges annointed with sacred oyle what will he then say of Kings that are not annointed are capable of Spirituall Iurisdiction And wheras at the first by the Parlament anno Domini 1543 in the yeare 35. of HENRIE the eight it was decreâ—d That the King should be called supreme head of the Church Poulton in his statute Tooker pag. 3. Burhill pag 133. and that also vnder paine of highe Treason yet now TOOKER and BVRHILL will not haue the King called head of the Church And so in deed Queene ELIZABETH in the First Parlament chose rather to be Gouernesse of the Church then Head 20. And as these men varie in the name so do they in the Power and thing it self TOOKER saith The King hath and can giue Tooker pag 305. Salclebr pa. 140. and take away all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the outward court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can dispense in pluralitie of benefices D. And. apud Tooker pa. 305. Bur. pa. 234. Salcl pa. 121. Took pag. 36. Bur. pag. 137. 242. Took pag. 15. D. And. pag. 151. and can licence a Bastard to take holie orders D. ANDREWES sayth hee hath all externall Iurisdiction but Censures yet BYRHIL denyeth him all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall both in the inward and outward Court SALCLEBRIDGE sayth the King can giue Benefices create and depose Bishops and yet TOOKER sayth he can only nominate and present BVRHIL denyeth the King Authoritie to excommunicate yea he sayth he may bee excommunicated And the same doth also D. ANDREWES and TOOKER maintaine But what a supreme Head is he that can not cut of by excommunication an infecting and infected member What a Pastour that caÌ„ not cast out an infected sheepe by Excommunication And if he can not excommunicate but rather may be excommunicated it argueth that he hath a superiour who can exercise Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction ouer him and so he is not supreme Head of the Church Wherfore Catholicks as they acknowledge the Pope supreme Head Salcl pag. 136. so they say he can not be excoÌ„municated by any SALCLEBRIGE sayth that it is clearer then the sunne that Princes haue determined controuersies of faith in 8. Councels Tooker pag. 50. Bilson caeteri infra citandi and yet TOOKER as also D. BILSON D. ANDREWES and D. FIELD as wee shall see anone will not haue the King called superiour in matters of faith 21. After this doubting and varying they proceed to a flat denyall of the foresaied supremacie In Tortura Torti pa. 170. D. ANDREWES hath taken a great part of the Supremacie from the King for he confesseth that the Emperour hath no Imperiall right to diuine things These be his words Non est in ea quae diuina sunt Imperiale sed neque Pontificale ius vllum Ther is not in the King any Imperiall no nor Pontificall right ouer diuine thinges He addeth that the King hath no right to dispose of Churches which yet King HENRIE the 8. challenged and practized to the ruine of tenne thousand Churches in one yeare For thus sayth D. ANDREWES At illa diuina hîc quae tandem Aedes Templa Basilicae neque verò in ea quae ita diuina sunt Rex noster vllum sibi ius vendicet Ibid. pa. 171. And a little after he sayth That the King is no Iudge in a cause or matter of faith And in the next page he seemeth to affirme and prooue out of the Councels of Constantinople Pa. 172. Antioche and Carthage that the King is not to be Iudge in the causes of Bishops And the page next after that Pa. 173. In sacramentes the King hath neither supreame nor any power at all And besides all this he addeth that he cannot excommunicate Pag. 151 Nos Principi sayth he Cenfurae potestatem non facimus VVe do not graunt the Prince or King any power to excommunicate c. D. BILSON saith plainlie that the King hath Authoritie ouer the Persons of the Church Bilson in his true difference pag. 171 172. par 2. but not ouer the things of the Church to wit ouer the persons of the Bishops but not ouer faith Sacraments materiall Churches and such like Which yet I see not how it can stand together for if the King be supreme Head not only ouer the Kingdome but also ouer the Church that is of the persons of the Church then as because he is supreme Head of the Kingdome he can command his laye subiects in temporall matters as to paie Tribute to obey temporall lawes c. so if he be supreame Head of the Church and
affirme that in case of intolerable tyrannie against the Church the Pope may depose them But rather as they are content so to beare rule ouer their subiects as they will permitt God to beare rule ouer them so they should also be content to subiect them selues their Kingdomes Crownes and scepters to Christ and his Kingdome that raigning vnder him here for a time they may raigne with him hereafter for euer CHAPTER XV. An Explication of the late Oath of pretended Alleageance and of euery clause thereof deduced out of the former and some other grounds by which is prooued that it can neither be proposed nor taâ—en without grieuous offence of Almighty God 1. Vide Alphonsum de Castro V. IurameÌ„tum Gen. 21. Gen. 26. Gen. 31. Psal 17. Rom. 1.2 Cor 1. Philip. 1.1 Tim. 5 CAtholicks with common consent do confesse and hould against the Messalians Euchites Pelagians Waldenses Anabaptistes and Puritanes that it is lawfull in some cases to sweare as many of the greatest Sainctes haue done For ABRAHAM swore to Abimelech ISAAC to the same or another Abimelech IACOB to Laban MOYSES swore by Heauen and earth DAVID and others oftentimes vse this oath Viuit Deus as God liueth which is in effect to sweare by the life of God S. PAVL also did vse diuers oathes as Testis enim mihi est Deus for God is my witnesse and I call God to witnesse I testifie before God and such like Yea God him selfe knowing that we more easilie beleeue when a thing is sworne sweareth himselfe to winne credit at our hands Deut. 4. And in DEVTERONOMIE he commandeth vs to sweare saying Dominum Deum tuum timebis per nomen eius iurabis Thou shalt feare thy Lord God and shalt sweare by his name But as medicines are good yet not alwaies to be taken but onlie supposing a disease or sicknesse so oathes are not to be vsed but only supposing a necessitie as when we cannot otherwise be beleeued And therfore when there is no necessitie CHRIST sayth Mat. 5. Ego autem dicovobis non iurare omnino I say to you sweare not all to wit when there is no necessitie Iacob 1. And S. IAMES Nolite iur are quodcunque iur amentum Do not sweare any oath Deut. 6. But when there is necessitie God commandeth it Psal 62. as wee haue seene And Dauid commendeth it saying Laudabuntur omnes qui iurant in eo They all shall be praised who swearein him God Fot to sweare when necessitie vrgeth is an Acte of Religion and worship of God whome we acknowledge to be so true that he will not fauour a lye and of such a maiestie that none will dare to sweare by him vnlesse the thing be true which is the reason why oathes are easilie credited 2. D. Thom. 2.2 q. 89. art 3. But if we will haue our oathes free from all sinne we must ioyne to them these three companionsâ— or conditions Iudgement Veritie and Iustice according to that of HIEREMIE Hierem. 4 Iur obis in veritate in iudicio in iustitia Thou shalt sweare in Veritie Iudgement and Iustice. Iudgement is necessarie in the sweater Veritie in the thing he sweareth Iustice in the cause For want of Iudgement the oath is rash as when we sweare for euerie trifle for want of Veritie the oath is false and periurie as when we sweare a lye for want of Iustice it is vnlawfull as if one should sweare he would committ a sinne And if a man sweareth with out Iudgement he taketh Gods name in vaine if without Veritie he committeth periurie and makes God to patronize a lie if without Iustice he makes God a patron of sinne Wherfore he that would knowe whether the Oath which latelie is proposed to Catholickes be lawfull must marke whether it want not some one of these three companions or conditions to wit Iudgement Veritie and Iustice for if it want but one it is vnlawfull much more if it want all And because there may be difficultie as well about the proposer as the taker of this Oath let vs see first whether in the proposer may be found Iudgement Iustice and Veritie 3. As touching the first it may seeme not to be wanting in the Magistrate that proposeth and that for two reasons First because the Prince being of another religion then the Pope and knowing that Catholickes giue him power to depose Princes may seeme iustlie to feare least he will exercise this Authoritie vpon him Secondlie the late Gunpowder-plot may seeme to proceed from such an opinion and so the Magistrate to secure the Prince seemeth to haue reason to vrge the Catholicke subiects vnto such an Oath 4. But yet on the other side it seemeth most certaine that the Magistrate hath no iust cause to propose such an Oath consequentlie that in proposing it he obserueth not the first condition For first although the Magistrate may haue some cause to feare the Kings deposition supposing that he persecuteth the Catholicke faith and depriueth Catholicks of liuings libertie Rom. 13. and sometime life also yet as S. PAVL sayth Vis non timere potestatem bonum fac habebis laudem ex illa Dei enim Minister est tibi in bonum Si autem malum feceris time non enim sine causa gladium portat c. VVilt thou not feare the power do good and thou shalt haue praise of the same for he is Gods Minister vnto thee for good But if thou doe euill feare for he beareth not the sword without cause for he is Gods Minister a reuenger vnto wrath to him that doth euill So say I if Princes wil be free from all feare of the Popes power let them do good and they shall haue praise before God and men for the Pope is appointed Pastour vnto theÌ„ for their good But if they will do euill if they will persecute the Church her faith faithfull children then let them feare for he is Gods Minister hath the spirituall glaiue put into his hand to chastize correct all rebellious Christians And therefore as he that taketh a mans purse from him by violence hath no iust cause to compell him to sweare that he will not bewray him because he might and should haue abstayned from the iniurie and then an oath had not bene necessarie so the Prince or Magistrate hath no vrgent cause to propose this Oath to the Cath olicke subiectes because if he abstaine from persecutioÌ„ as he ought to do he needeth not feare the Popes power and so hath no sufficient cause to vrge his subiects by oath to abiure the Popes Authoritie that he in the meane while may persecute impunè 5. As for the Gunpowder plot it could not proceed from this opinion for it doth not follow that because the Pope caÌ„ depose the Prince therefore his subiects by priuate Authoritie may endeuour to kill him because the Pope is superiour the subiectes are inferiours he
12 art 2. that so soone as one is denounced by sentence Excommunicated for Apostasie from faith ipso facto by the verie facte of Excommunication denounced his subiects are sreed from his Dominion Rule or Soueraigntie By which wordes S. THOMAS maketh depriuation an effect of the sentence of Excommunication as much as I did and therfore either meaneth that excommunication is a cause of depriuation immediatlie by it selfe or that Depriuation followeth it in manner aforesayd And so the acte of Depriuation being at least a secondarie acte of the Popes spirituall Supremacie to deny that he hath power to depriue is to deny that he hath power to excommunicate it being all one power and consequentlie it is to deny couertlie his spirituall Supremacie 45. But besides this all the Argumentes which I haue alleadged to prooue that the Pope can depose Princes and all which I haue sayd against the former two Clauses do manifestly prooue that this Clause wanteth the three companions of an Oath and so can not lawfullie be sworne That Iudgement wanteth it may appeare by that which I haue sayd in the verie beginning of my examination of this Oath That it wanteth Veritie it is as euident as it is that the Pope can depose Princes And though it were but probable that the Pope could degrade Princes yet to sweare absolutely that he can not were to expose the swearer to daunger of periurie yea it were to sweare a falsehood and so to committ actuall periurie For as it is periurie to sweare as true that which is false so is it to sweare a thing to be vndoubtedly and assuredly true which is but probable because it is false that that which is but probable is absolutely and assuredly true Wherefore seing that it is false that the Pope cannot in some case depose Princes Widdr. disp Th. c. 6. sec 3 n. 15. seqq and by VViddringtons frequent confession is at least probable that he can for he sayth that the Popes who deposed Princes followed a probable opinion and he confesseth that he contendeth not to shew that it is an hereticall or false opinion Disp Th. in praef n. 2. 3. but onely that it is not de fide tenenda to be held as a matter of faith it followeth that this Clause can not besworne it absolutely and with great asseueration denying the Pope Authority to depose And although if the Pope should excommuntcate and depose a Prince a subiect in some case might yet obey in lawfull thinges because feare of death or losse of liuings would excuse him when otherwise it is no scandall nor no absolute frustration of the Censure to obey him in particular yet to sweare this in so generall termes can not be lawfull as not only my former Arguments but also euen that which out of Victoria I haue alleaged doth manifestlie prooue 46. That this Clause wanteth also the third companion condition of a lawfull oath which is Iustice is as manifest because it derogateth from the Authoritie which the Pope iustlie claymeth and hath of long time not only possessed but also practised and so to sweare this Clause is to sweare and promise by oath an act of iniustice The Fourth Clause And I do further sweare that I do from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other what soeuer c. 40. This Clause as it is more plaine so can it with lesse shew be taken because the common opinion which holdeth that the Pope can depriue and depose Princes is most certaine as I aboue haue prooued and at least it is the more common and being confirmed by so many Argumentes and such Authoritie and practise of holy and auncient Popes and at least euen by VViddrington his owne confession holden as probable how can any that haue any conscience sweare that it is impious and how especially can he sweare that it is hereticall and damnable it neuer hauing beene conby the Church and defined by Generall Councels Widdr. in Disp Th. ca. 6. sect 2. n. 9. â—tseqq as aboue is declared 47 Widdrington answereth that to make the position here abiured as hereticall it is sufficient that one part of it be hereticall to witt that Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be murthered And therefore although it be not heresie to say that Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed yet seing that at least it is hereticall to say that they may be killed it being flat against Scripture which forbiddeth absolutely to kill Exod. 20 1. Reg. 26. especiallie Kings for who shall extend his hand against the Anointed of our Lord and shall be innocent the positioÌ„ abiured must needs be hereticall 48. That it is sufficient to make the position here abiured hereticall that the last part thereof be hereticall WIDDRINGTON prooueth because sayth he the word May when it goeth before the Coniunction or signifieth that it is in our free choice and election to do the one or the other and therefore sayth he though the propositton seeme to be disiunctiue yet it is not an absolute but a conditionall disiunctiue aequiualent to a Copulatiue And so to sweare that it is hereticall doctrine to say that Princes excommunicated and depriued by the Pope may by their subiects or any others be deposed or murdered is to sweare that it is hereticall doctrine to say that after the Prince is excommunicated and depriued by the Pope it is in the free election of his subiects or others to depose him or kill him as they will which is hereticall because at least they cannot kill him as is prooned And to prooue that this is the meaning of that Clause he alleageth many examples and manners of speeches which haue the same sense as if one should say You may eate or drinke You may go by horse or on soote The meaning is you may do of these which you will 49. But this his Answer by his leaue is not sufficient to satisfie anie timorous or rightely fearefull conscience For first although sometimes the Coniunction Or when it followeth the verbe may be taken in the meaning that Widdrington affirmeth yet not alwaies yea ordinarily it is taken disiunctiuelie And so as to verifie a disiunctiue proposition it is sufficient that one part of it be true so to make it false both parts must be false As for example if one should lay a wager that to morrow it will either raine or snowe to winne the wager it is sufficient that it do either but to make the proposition false and to cause him to loose his wager neither must happen that is it must neither raine not snowe Wherefore seeing that the Coniunction or is ordinarily taken disiunctiuelie and many times also when may goeth before it it remaineth yet to be prooued by VViddrington that
cooperate for if hee should confesse that he had bene present he would be presumed to haue consented or cooperated so should be vniustly condemned Adde heereunto that the same Diuines affirme that we are not bound to answere according to the Iudges meaning Caietan alij supra citati when the person interrogated doubteth whether the Iudge hath Authority or proceedeth iuridicallie and according to forme of lawe and equity 63. All which beeing so this Clause of the Oath is verie hard for notwithstanding as we haue seene that it is certaine that the Prince and Magistrate haue not Authoritie to propose such an Oath which containeth so many things vnlawfull to be sworne and which so derogateth frō the Popes lawfull Authoritie as also from Councells and the practise of the Church and which besides that pertaineth not to the Temporall Court and Tribunall yet this Clause bindeth the subiects to answere and sweare without all mentall reseruation yea to sweare that hartily and willingly they take this oath whereas most of meere feare and altogether against their wills and conscience take it and cannot depose their conscience or thinke that the Oath is lawfull 64. Disp Th. ca. 8 and Newyearesguifte cap. 8. Widdrington answereth that this clause dependeth of the lawfullnes and iustice of the oath seing that the oathe containeth noe iniustice nor falshood as he saith hee hath prooued it followeth that in this Clause there is no difficultie But because the wordes indeede doe imply that wee sweare all that goeth before hee vseth much arte to make this Clause speake not to the Authours but to his owne minde For whereas these wordes And all these things I doe plainlie and sincerelie acknowledge and sweare according to the expresse wordes by me spoken c. doe importe according to the Common manner of speaking and vse of wordes that I not onlie sincerelie acknowledge but also doe sweare the coniunction and being copulatiue yet VViddrington contrarie to his rule taken out of Suarez for the interpretation of the lawe Disp Th. c. 1. sec 2. which in this and other things hee leaueth at his pleasure saith that the worde Sweare is not to bee referred to the former woordes and all these things but to the wordes plainlie sincerelie As if the sense were not this I doe plainlie and sincerelie both acknowledge and sweare all which I haue spoken and auerted in this oath but this that which I haue acknowledged I doe plainlie sincerelie acknowledge and that which I haue sworne I doe plainlie and sincerelie sweare And this expositiō hee putteth because in diuers partes of the oath as he auerreth the swearer declareth and sweareth not the thing as for Example that the Pope can not depose a Prince but onlie what his opinion is And this interpretation he prooueth by conferring this last Clause which the first But first VViddrington herein goeth from his rule of interpreting which is that the wordes of the Lawe vnles some other circumstāce hinder ought to bee taken according to the common vse of wordes For who reading or hearing these wordes And all these things I doe plainlie and sincerelie acknowledge and sweare according to the expresse wordes by mee spoken would not by by vnderstand that he not onlie acknowledgeth but also sweareth all these things by him spoken And as VViddrington prooueth his interpretation by conferring this last Clause which the first and second so will I prooue myne by the same conference 65. The first and second Clause then are these I. A. B. doe trulie and sincerelie acknoweledge professe and testifie in my Conscience before God and the world c. And what doe I acknowledge Professe and testifie that I acknowledge and testifie that were to confound make all one the acte of swearing and the obiect of swearing or the thing sworne What then doe I acknowledge professe and testifie That which followeth to wit that our Soueraigne Lord King IAMES is lawfull and true King of this realme c. And that which followeth in the second Clause to wit that the Pope neither by him selfe nor by anie Authoritie of the Churche or Sea of Rome or anie other meanes with anie other hath any Authoritie to depose the King In these two Clauses as euen here and aboue I haue prooued is not protested nor sworne what the swearer thinketh for that present because according to WIDDRINGTONS rule that is not the playne sense of the wordes and for that as aboue also I haue shewed that would litle secure the King because he that sweareth may afterwardes chaunge his opinion and yet not contradict this his former Oath but the swearer testifieth in his Conscience before God and the world that the Pope cannot depose the King Nowe let vs heare the last Clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And all these things I doe plainlie and sincerelie acknowledge and sweare according to the expresse wordes by mee spoken and according to the plaine and Common sense and vnderstanding of the same woords without any equiuocation or mentall reseruation whatsoeuer And seing that amongest all these things this is one to wit that the Pope can not depose King IAMES that also is acknowledged and sworne And for as much as this Position that the Pope can not depose a Prince is false as I haue prooued or at most is but probable and therefore in controuersie as VVIDDRINGTON aboue confesseth he that sweareth this Clause exposeth him selfe to periurie because if it bee but probable that the Pope can not depose a Prince the contrarie to wit that the Pope can depose a Prince is probable and if it bee probable it may be true and so to abiure it by oathe is to expose the sweater to euident daunger of periurie I say euident daunger for there is euident daunger of periurie where there is euident probabilitie that the thing Sworne may be false but so it is in our case ergo 66. This I thought brieflie to say for examination of this Oath and some instruction for the subiects especiallie Catholicks to whom this Oath is proposed And because I haue at large in the former Chapters prooued the Principall obiect thing which this Oath abiureth to wit that the Pope can in some case depose Princes I referre the Reader to those Chapters and withall to the whole Treatise for his fuller instruction and satisfaction in this matter which if he peruse I doubt not but partlie by this examination partelie by the former Chapters he shall see how vnlawfull this Oath is and what iust cause the Chiefe Vicaire of CHRIST S. PETERS successour PAVL by the grace of God the fift who now raigneth and sitteth at the sterne of S. PETERS ship had to forbid by his Breues this Oath as containing thinges which cannot be sworne without most euident and greeuous wronging of Gods Honour and which are flat contrarie to faith and saluation 67. Litle socuritie giuen by Widdr. to the King