drawn and hammered out with much pains study and speculations from the abovesaid Principles which Deductions and Conclusions are called Sciences whose chiefest property and richest piece of satisfaction whereby they gratifie the Understanding of man is their clear and convincing Evidence placed beyond all contradiction from Sense or Reason Nor lastly is it in Opinions as in those supernaturall Truths made known unto us by Divine revelation and are of Faith where there is absolute Certainty though without Evidence for Faith wears a scarf before her eyes and believes what she sees not Both which to wit Faith and Science as they justly command and challenge so withall they fully secure our assent from all danger and suspicion of errour the one by its Evidence the other by its Certainty the one interessing the light and patronage of the First Principles the other engaging a Divine and infallible Authority for the truth of their Proposalls But in Opinions it fares quite otherwise for an Opinion having neither the Evidence of Science nor the Certainty of Faith nor indeed any other inferiour degree of Certainty physicall or morall as the Schools speak but onely the slippery knot of Probability to hold by leaves the considering Opiner in a state of suspence and indetermination not daring nor indeed knowing how to yield any more then a faint and timorous assent to either side of the Tenet seeing that neither side is any more then onely probably true or probably false And because true and onely probably true false and onely probably false are not the same but two very different things and at so great a distance that no art or law of consequence can ever bring them together or convincingly argue from the one to the other hence it is that what is onely probably true is not therefore true and what is onely probably false is not therefore false from whence it is finally and manifestly concluded that neither side of an Opinion is lawfully attestable by Oath as simply true nor safely abjurable as simply false To come now to the particular Tenet which denies the Pope's Deposing power in all cases circumstances and emergencies whatsoever If we address our selves to the Maintainers and Abettors of this Tenet if we consult the Authour and Publisher of the Questions if we propose the Case to the Sorbon Doctours and the Faculty of Paris we shall find all their answers concurring in this That their negative Tenet is no more then an Opinion For first the Publisher of the Questions coming to speak of the difference between the Deniers and Abettors of this Power and the nature and quality thereof plainly professeth that this difference is no difference of Faith but onely of Opinions and the Authour of the Questions calls it an Opinion a safe Opinion indeed but no more or other thing then an Opinion an Opinion also the Sorbon Doctours take it for nor is their own Censure or Doctrine any more then their Opinion Neither do they nor indeed could they with any shew of reason or coherence to their own principles discourse at any other rate or ever intend to screw it up any higher then an Opinion For it is not to be imagined that those grave learned and prudent Divines who in their publick Articles concerning Papal and Regal Authority in the year 1663. do not own or look upon any Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome antecedent to and abstracting from the joynt consent or acceptation of the Church as inerrable would ever goe about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Doctrine either as a Point or Article of faith in it self or as a Rule of faith to others but onely as a Rule of Opinion if you please and a Judgment whereby such as were under their charge might remember to frame and regulate not their Faith but their Opinions which are the express words of the Decree it self Since then the deniall of the Pope's Deposing power neither doth nor can pretend any higher then an Opinion admit that its being the Opinion of so many Learned Divines might render it safe to hold and embrace it yet it s being but an Opinion though of Learned Divines renders it unsafe to swear it and no less unsafe to abjure what is contrary to it The Reason I have already given Because nothing can lawfully be sworn as true which is not more then meerly probable or probably true that is which is not either certain or infallible now all the Learned know that a certain or infallible Opinion is as great a bull as an uncertain fallible Article of faith so that to swear to an Opinion as certainly true is as much as to swear an Opinion is no Opinion and the Swearer doth thereby at one breath intangle himself in his own words his Reason in a Contradiction and his Soul in Perjury CHAP. VI. A particular Danger of Abjuring the Pope's Deposing power according to the form set down in the Oath of Allegeance I Shall here annex a particular consideration of the wofull Snare those souls run themselves into and apparent Danger of Swearing they know not what who venture to abjure the Deposing power as it lies expressed in its several Branches in the Oath of Allegeance whereas those Learned persons who undertook to defend and explain the Oath render it not onely difficult but next to impossible to understand what it is that is to be abjured I think I may take it for granted that no person of integrity and candour can ever conceive it lawfull for him to swear without first endeavouring to gain a right understanding of what he is to swear for to swear what a man understands not is blindly to rove at a venture and to swear he knows not what wilfully abandoning the conduct and slighting the inward upbraidings and reproofs of his Reason and which is worse it bewraies a feared Soul a wretched and sinfull preparednesse of mind to prostitute an Oath to the attesting of any thing that comes next to hand where Self-indemnity or other secular ends and advantages are proposed as the accursed purchace or reward of Perjury In the Oath of Allegeance it is required of us to abjure the Pope's Deposing power in all and every its respective Branches therein expressed one of which Branches is That the Pope hath not any Power to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy the King or his Countries Which Branch by the way the Authour and Publisher of the Questions in the form of the Oath set down by them have wholly omitted in both Editions as well that of the year 61. as the other of this present year 74. through what mistake or how occasioned I know not It is not easily to be conceived what subtle Obscurities and learned Intricacies Roger Withrington one of the greatest Champions that ever appeared for the Oath and his friend C. I. who confesseth to have compiled his Book out of
for fear we lose some Residences and Patrons of the Nobility and Gentry therefore among these we must not own it as an Article of faith but as a Controverted Point How then say some of the Fathers of the Society shall we keep them from taking the Oath of Allegeance and if we do suffer them to doe that farewell to our Interest in England P. W. and the Blackloists will prevail Come come saith Father W. never fear I have a Topick will scare them all though we own it as a Controverted Point What is that say they with great Joy Let me alone saith he to them I will prove them all guilty of Perjury if they take the Oath because it is a Controverted Point Excellent they all cry this will doe our business in spite of them Let us now come near and handle this mighty Argument that we may discern whether it be a mere Spectre or hath any flesh and bones The Oath of Allegeance is a mixt Oath partly assertory and partly promissory In an Assertory Oath it is essentially requisite that what we do swear be undoubtedly and unquestionably true Very well but suppose a person doth in his conscience believe that the Pope cannot Depose Princes nor Absolve Subjects from their Allegeance may not such a man swear it without Perjury No says our good Father A man may swear against his Conscience not onely when he doubts but when he hath just cause to doubt How is that good Sir when other men see that he hath cause to doubt or when himself sees it If he sees himself that he hath cause to doubt he doth not believe in his Conscience that to be so as he swears it is for how can a man firmly believe that which he sees cause to doubt If he sees none himself what is that to his Conscience if others think they do if he does not think his Conscience bound to be swayed by their Authority But the Mysterie of this Iesuitism is that no Gentlemen ought to have judgments of their own in these matters but to be swayed by the extrinsick Authority of their Teachers And therefore if they say they have cause to doubt they must doubt whether they do or no. If Gentlemen of freer understandings and education allow themselves the liberty to enquire into these matters they presently see through all this Tiffany Sophistry and find the thing still carried on is meer blind Obedience although in following the conduct of such self-interested Leaders they run themselves into continual Difficulties If a man be satisfied in his Conscience the Pope hath no Deposing power according to the Rules of their own best Casuists he may lawfully abjure it The truth required in an Oath saith Cardinal Tolet is that by which a man speaks that which he thinks in his heart and to swear falsly is to swear otherwise then one thinks And to swear otherwise then a thing really is provided he think it to be so is neither mortal nor venial sin but 1. in case a man hath not used diligence to enquire and to this he doth not require the utmost but onely some and convenient diligence 2. if he be doubtfull in his mind when he swears and yet swears it as certain 3. when he is ready to swear although he knew the thing to be otherwise Suarez saith that in an Assertory Oath the Truth confirmed by it lies in the conformity of the Assertion to the mind of the Speaker rather then to the Thing it self so that if a man thinks it false which he swears although it be really true he is guilty of Perjury and so on the contrary if a man swears a thing really false which he invincibly thinks to be true he is not guilty of Perjury but swears a lawfull Oath according to the doctrine of S. Augustine and S. Thomas By invincibly Suarez means no more then Tolet doth by thinking so after convenient diligence For Suarez lays down this Rule afterwards that When a man swears what is really false but he thinks it true if his thinking be joyned with sufficient care and a probable opinion of the truth mark that he is free from the guilt of Perjury This he saith is the common and express Doctrine and built upon this ground Because the Truth and Falshood of an Oath doth not so much relate to the Matter sworn as to the Mind and Conscience of him that swears Dominicus Soto determines this case very plainly If a man swears that to be true which he thinks so after due enquiry though it be false he doth not sin at all And the measure of diligence he proportions to the nature and quality of the Thing which is therefore left to prudence and discretion Iacobus de Graffiis hath this Assertion He that swears a thing to be true which he thinks so although it be really false sins not unless he neglected to use that diligence which he was bound to use and according to the greatness of that neglect the measure of his sin is to be taken Greg. Sayr saith that to a lawfull Assertory Oath no more is required then the agreement of what a man saith with the inward sense of his mind according to the reasonable judgment a man passes upon what he swears Which words are taken out of Gregory de Valentia Qui non videt vel dubitat esse falsum quod jurat perjurus non est saith Vasquez He that doth not see or doubt that to be false which he swears is not guilty of Perjury Which words are quoted and approved by Layman because all Perjury must have its foundation in a Lie And saith he he that swears in an Assertory Oath doth not affirm the certainty of his own knowledge but directly the very thing which he swears Nay he farther saith that where the Matter sworn is capable of no more then Probability a man may lawfully swear the truth according to that degree of certainty which the thing will bear although it should happen to be otherwise then he thinks So that according to the common and received Doctrine of their own Casuists the foundation of this Second Treatise is false as might be shewed by many more testimonies if these were not sufficient which is That since this Doctrine about the Pope's Deposing power hath no infallible certainty in it a man cannot attest the truth or falshood of it by an Oath Which was the more surprising to me considering how usual it is among your selves to swear to such Opinions of which you cannot pretend to infallible certainty by any evidence of Faith or authoritative Decision of the Church What think you of the Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas are there no mere Opinions undecided by the Church in his Works is there infallible certainty in of all them I do not think any Iesuit in the world will say so for a reason every own knows because his Order holds the direct contrary in
some Points And yet the Dominicans swear to maintain S. Thomas his Doctrine What think you of the Immaculate Conception which so many Vniversities have sworn to maintain as Luc. Wadding hath shewed at large and yet all these Oaths were made before any authoritative Decision of the Church One of you hath found out an evasion for this by saying that it is one thing to swear to maintain a Doctrine as true and another to swear to it as true I cry you mercy Gentlemen I had thought no persons would have sworn to maintain a falshood or to defend that as true which at the same time they believed or suspected not to be true Why may not you then swear that you will maintain the Pope hath no Power to depose Princes when your Prince requires it as well as swear to maintain the Immaculate Conception when the Vniversity requires it whatever your private Opinion be But to prevent this subterfuge Wadding saith from Surius that the Vniversity of Mentz would admit none to any degree in Divinity without swearing that he would neither approve nor hold in his mind any other Opinion What think you now of swearing to the truth of an Opinion not decided by the Church upon the best probable reasons that can be given for it And therefore all this outcry about Perjury was onely to frighten and amuse and not to convince or satisfy The rest of that Treatise consists of impertinent Cavills against several Expressions in the Oath of Allegeance which ought to be understood according to the intention of the Law-givers the reason and design of the Law and the natural sense of the words and if they will but allow these as the most reasonable ways of interpreting Laws all those Exceptions will be found too light to weigh down the balance of any tolerable judgment and have been answered over and over from the days of Widdrington to the Authour of the Questions and therefore I pass them over and leave them to any who shall think it worth their pains to make a just Answer to them The Third Treatise is written by a very Considering man as any one may find in every Page of it He bids his Readers consider so much as though he had a mind to have them spend their days in considering the Oath without ever taking it As he had that desired time to consider the Solemn League and Covenant and when he was asked how long time he would take for it he told them but a little time for he was an old man and not likely to live long But what is it which this person offers which is so considerable His main Argument is from the Pope's Authority prohibiting the taking this Oath expressly at several and distant times and after the most ample information and the Writings on both sides it being a thing belonging to the Pope's Authority as Spiritual Governour and not to the Civil Power to determine This is an Argument I must leave to those to answer who think themselves obliged to justify the Pope's Authority and to disobey it at the same time To this some answer That the Pope's Prohibition proceeding on a false Supposition and a private Opinion of his own viz. that there are some things in the Oath repugnant to Faith they are not bound to obey it because it belongs not to the Pope without a Council to determine matters of Faith That the Popes have sometimes required very unjust and unreasonable things of which Warmington gives some notable instances of his own knowledge That Obedience to all Superiours is limited within certain bounds which if they exceed men are not bound to obey them That the very Canonists and Schoolmen do set bounds to the Pope's Authority as 1. when great mischief is like to ensue by his Commands so Francisc. Zabarell Panormitan Sylvester and others 2. when injury comes to a third person by it so Card. Tolet Panormitan Soto c. 3. when there is just cause to doubt the Lawfulness of the thing commanded so Pope Adrian Vasquez Navarr and others cited by Widdrington 4. when he commands about those things wherein he is not Superiour so Tolet determins A man is onely obliged in those things to obey his Superiour wherein he hath Authority over him Now say they we having just cause to doubt whether the Pope may command us in things relating to our Allegeance and apparent Injury coming to Princes by owning this Doctrine and much Mischief having been done by it and more designed as the Gunpowder-Treason the true Occasion of this Oath it is no culpable Disobedience to take the Oath of Allegeance notwithstanding the Pope's Prohibition And upon the very same Grounds and Reasons which made the King's Royal Ancestours with their Parliaments to limit the Pope's Authority in England in the ancient Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire His Majestie 's Grandfather might with his Parliament enact that Law which requires the taking of the Oath of Allegeance and how comes such Disobedience in Temporals say they to be now more repugnant to Catholick Religion then it was in those days Nay in those times it was good Doctrine that when a Dispute arose whether a thing did belong to the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power to judge the Civil Power hath made Laws and determined it and the Subjects did submit to the Civil Authority This and much more might be said to shew the inconsequence of this Argument upon which the stress of the Third Treatise lies but I leave the full Answer to those that are concerned The plainest shortest and truest Answer is That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction over us either in Spirituals or Temporals But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that if they would renounce the Pope's Deposing power there is nothing else according to the Principles of their own Religion could hinder them from taking the Oath of Allegeance Which is in effect acknowledged at last by this Authour of the Third Treatise when he offers a new Form of an Oath rather more expressive of Civil Obedience then the Oath of Allegeance Are not Princes mightily obliged to you Gentlemen that take such wonderfull care to have a more express Oath then this already required by Law How comes this extraordinary fit of Kindness upon you Do you really think the Oath of Allegeance defective in this point No no. We know what you would have If we can get but this Oath out of the way the same interest which can remove this will prevent another as some argue about other matters at this time Well but what Security is this which you do so freely offer First You are ready to swear without any Mental reservation that you acknowledge our Sovereign Lord CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Dominions A wonderfull Kindness While the old Gentleman at Rome pleases you will doe this but suppose he should
things repugnant to Faith and Salvation though he specifies none of them and that thereby is abjur'd implicitly a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate Princes and his Supremacy in Spiritualls all which is false and we are not bound to submit to Briefs grounded upon mistakes and misinformations That the Pope is a Party in this Debate and by consequence ought not to be Judge in his own Cause That he must give Sentence according to the Canons or Rules prescribed him by the Church which he does not observe in the Prohibition of this Oath Finally That we ought not to take notice of the Prohibitions or Commands of the Pope when the Compliance with them may be a cause of great Disturbance in the Church or is prejudiciall to the Right of others especially of Sovereign Princes and to the Duty due unto them to which God and the Law of Nations obliges us all which Inconveniences intervene in the Prohibition of this Oath 14. Concerning the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope contained in the Objection Consider First that though the King and Parliament be above the King out of Parliament yet we are bound to submit even against our own Interest to the Orders of the King and His Councill in Civill matters till the contrary be decreed by Parliament which at least is enjoyned us by such Parliaments as command us to bear due Allegeance to His Majesty as our Sovereign in all Civill matters and that in like manner we are bound to submit to the Pope's Ordinances in Ecclesiasticall matters even against our Interests notwithstanding the Superiority of a General Councill over the Pope till the contrary be defined by such a Councill which at least is asserted in such Councills and by such Fathers as recommend unto us due Obedience to the Pope as our Supreme Pastour in Spiritualls For the Pope is as Supreme in Spiritualls out of a Councill as the King is in Temporalls out of a Parliament and consequently requires the like submission to his Ordinances 15. Consider Secondly that the Reasons one may seem to have either against the Pope's Decrees out of a Councill or the King's Ordinances out of a Parliament cannot justify the refusing an exteriour Compliance with them but onely may give one ground to make his Addresses to the Councill or Parliament when assembled to have such Decrees or Ordinances repealed and that what we require in our present case is onely that we should forbear the taking this Oath till the Lawfulness thereof be declared by a General Council to which we may apply our selves when convened to have this matter declared 16. Concerning the Fallibility of the Pope and the Infallibility of a General Council Consider First that if it be warrantable to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Pope's Decrees in Ecclesiastical matters because Fallible upon the same account it will be lawfull to refuse an exteriour Obedience to the Orders of Kings and Princes in Civill affairs for doubtless they are all Fallible and may be mistaken and misinformed and so farewell all Government Secondly Consider that even those Catholicks who affirm the Pope to be Fallible out of a General Council do notwithstanding confess that an exteriour Obedience is due to his Commands in Ecclesiastical matters as the like Obedience is due to the Ordinances of Sovereign Princes in Civil affairs though Fallible And in this present Case no more is required then a meer exteriour Compliance with the Pope's Prohibition Thirdly Consider that even Protestants also who confesse their whole Church and not onely the particular Pastours thereof separately to be Fallible do yet affirm that an exteriour Obedience is due to their Ordinances And it seems somewhat odde that Catholicks should deny the Pope that Obedience under pretence of Fallibility which Protestants assert to be due to the Pastours of their Church though Fallible 17. Lastly Consider that the difference between a General Council and the Pope supposing the Infallibility of the one and the Fallibility of the other is that the Decrees and Declarations of the Pope do oblige onely to an Exteriour Obedience but those of a General Council to an Interiour Assent also 18. Concerning the capacity of the Pope of being misinformed and the pretended Mistakes in this present matter Consider First that between the publishing of the first and the last Brief against the Oath there past Twenty years That in this time the present Question concerning the Lawfulness thereof was canvased on both sides by Learned men both English and Forreiners That Withrington the chief Defender of the Oath and who brings all that is material for it represented in this interim to Paul the Fifth his Reasons for the Lawfulness of it and his Answers to what had been objected against him That the Popes in the forementioned Briefs use as significant terms to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation Mistakes and Inconsiderateness as Motu proprio Ex certa nostra scientia Post longam gravémque deliberationem de omnibus quae in illis continentur adhibitam Haec mera pura integráque voluntas nostra est c. as are used in any Briefs or Instruments whatsoever in order to that intent And if this be so as certainly it is then Consider Secondly that if all these diligences and preventions be not thought sufficient to remove all just suspicion of Misinformation Mistakes and Inconsiderateness what Brief or what Decree Ecclesiastical or Civil is there that the party therein condemned may not under pretence of the like Flaws reject and disobey Such liberty as this to reject the Ordinances of our Sovereigns both Spirituall and Temporall must needs induce a perfect Anarchy 19. Consider Thirdly that it belongs to the Pope to determine whether this Oath does contain any thing contrary to Faith and Salvation or destructive to his Sovereignty in Spiritualls or no. For the determination of such Questions belongs to the Spiritual Court as has been above insinuated as it belongs to the King and the Civil Court to determine whether such a thing be contrary to the Civil Laws and publick welfare of the Kingdome or destructive to His Sovereignty in Temporalls or not And since the Popes after so much diligence used to be informed of the Truth have severall times declared that this Oath contains many things destructive to Faith and Salvation and upon that account have prohibited the taking thereof we are bound to afford at least an exteriour Compliance to this Prohibition 20. Consider Fourthly that as to prohibit a Book 't is not necessary to point out the particular Propositions for which it is prohibited as appears by several publick Prohibitions of Books and Pamphlets issued forth either by Civil or Ecclesiastical Authority neither would it be prudence to design alwaies the particular Propositions for which a Pamphlet is prohibited when they are scandalous and offensive so neither was it necessary for the Prohibition of this Oath that the Pope should
assign the particular Propositions which he looked upon as repugnant to Faith and Salvation The Prohibition of Suarez his Book made by the Parliament of Paris as containing things destructive to the Honour due to the Kings does not express at least as it is related by Withrington what those particular Things or Propositions are contained in that Book which are destructive to the Veneration due to Kings and yet no body upon that account does quibble at such a Prohibition Why therefore might not the Pope prohibit this Oath as containing things destructive to Faith and Salvation without setting down in particular which those Things are 21. Consider Lastly whether whoever takes this Oath does not implicitly deny either that the Pope has any Power to Excommunicate an Heretical King which Power is inherent in the Pope as Supreme Head of the Church or at least that though he should Excommunicate such a King the Excommunication would have in the person Excommunicated these Effects viz. to deprive him of all civill Communication with others c. which are assigned in Scripture in those places whence the Power in the Pope to Excommunicate is deduced 2. Joan. 1. Neque Ave ei dixeritis 1 Cor. 5. cum hujusmodi nec cibum sumere For sure a King who is deprived of all Civill Communication with others is deprived of all Civill Government in order to the exercise thereof which is a certain kind of Deposing And if some persons though Excommunicated are excepted from these effects either by the Indulgency of the Pope or otherwise whether it does not belong to the Pope to determine which those persons are and whether he has excepted Princes 22. Concerning the Pope being a Party in this debate and not proceeding according to the Canons Consider First that Supreme Governours whether Spirituall or Temporall in Debates wherein their Prerogatives are concerned either are not styled properly Parties or if they be Parties they are also Iudges Otherwise we should not be bound to stand to the Decision of a Generall Councill in matters relating to the Authority of the Church or Generall Councills nor to the Determination of the King and Parliament in matters relating to the Authority and Prerogatives of His Majesty or His Parliament Consider Secondly that if the Pope is not to be hearkened unto when he prohibits the taking of this Oath because he is the Party concerned in the not-taking thereof neither the King upon the same account is to be hearkened unto when He commands us to take the Oath because He is the Party concerned in the taking thereof 23. Consider Thirdly that as there are Canons and Rules prescribed for the proceedings of Popes so there are in the like manner Rules prescribed for the proceedings of Kings of Councills and of Parliaments But as the King or Councill or Parliament must be their own Judges whether they have proceeded in such a Decision or Determination according to the respective Rules prescribed unto them and not any particular person or Subject so must the Pope be his own Judge and not any particular Doctour whether he hath observed in the Prohibition of this Oath the Rules and Canons prescribed unto him in such cases And since the Popes have sufficiently declared that in the Prohibition of this Oath they have proceeded according to the Canons for such cases it is not reasonable that under pretence that they have not observed such Canons we should deny an exteriour Obedience to their Prohibitions 24. Concerning the Disturbance of the Church which the Opponent pretends may follow from the submission to the Briefs and the prejudice created thence or pretended to be created to the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes Consider First that if the Defenders of the Oath would be quiet we might enjoy the same peace and tranquillity in relation to this point which we have enjoyed for many years For the Oppugners of the Oath have not printed any thing for a long time contenting themselves with the Sentences which the above-mentioned Popes have been pleased to issue forth in their favour And consequently the Disturbance if any follow is rather to be attributed to the Defenders of the Oath then to the Oppugners 25. Consider Secondly that if the Pope whose Office it is to declare the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of an Action especially if he be required thereunto and the inconsistency thereof with Faith and Salvation should forbear to declare such an Action unlawfull for fear of some Disturbance or Persecution by the contrivance of some obstinate and discontented persons upon the same account the Councill of Nice should have forborn to have declared against the Arrians the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father and other Generall Councills in the like manner should have waved the Definitions of severall other Doctrines because some malicious men taking occasion thence have raised severall Disturbances and Persecutions Nay our Saviour and the Apostles should upon the same score have forborn the preaching Christian Religion since they foresaw that many Calamities Disturbances and Persecutions would arise by the malice and obstinacy of men upon the account of Christian Religion And therefore Simeon foretold that the coming of Christ would be the occasion of the ruine of many Ecce hic positus est in ruinam resurrectionem multorum in Israel in signum cui contradicetur Luc. 2.34 26. Consider Thirdly that though it be not the intention neither of Popes nor of Generall Councills that their Enactive Decrees in some extraordinary and extravagant cases should oblige when the compliance with them is very prejudiciall or at least they are supposed to have dispensed for such cases as appears in the precept of Fasting or such like yet this cannot reach to their Declarative Decrees such as the present Decree against the Oath is For it cannot be their intention neither can they dispense in any case whatsoever that we may lawfully doe what they have declared and do declare to be of it self unlawfull 27. Consider Fourthly whether what the Popes enjoyn in the above-mentioned Briefs can be prejudiciall to the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes For though Popes be as jealous of their Prerogatives as Kings are of theirs yet they do not enjoyn us in these Briefs to swear that the Pope has any Power or Authority to Depose Kings or to swear any thing else contrary to any Clause contained in this Oath but onely not to take the Oath or not to swear positively that the Pope has no such Power leaving things in the same condition wherein they were in order to any such Obligation before this Oath was framed For although as long as there is a debate whether such a thing belongs to me or another I cannot lawfully take the possession of it yet I may lawfully hinder my Adversary from taking it Neither do they prohibit us to take other Oaths of Allegeance wherein all Civill Allegeance is contained in