as or more expressive terms then in the present Oath as shall be made appear hereafter nay nor to take those Clauses of the Oath which do manifestly contain no more then meer Civill Allegeance Neither do they in rigour oblige us to give an interiour assent to the Reasons why they prohibit this Oath For even the Decrees of Generall Councills according to the common sentiment of Divines do not oblige us always to believe the Reasons for the framing such Decrees inserted in them to be good and solid As in the Second Councill of Nice it was declared That Angels may be painted because they have Bodies The Declaration is good but the Reason is false So that though one refuses the Oath in compliance to the Pope's commands it does not follow that he does not think the Oath in it self and speculatively speaking to be lawfull and consequently if he thinks that the Acts therein contained do concern meer Civill Allegeance he is bound as long as he remains in such a persuasion to comply with those Acts whether he has taken this Oath or not For a Subject is bound to Civill Allegeance by the Law of God and Nature antecedently to all Oaths Finally the Popes do not forbid us in these Briefs an Act of Loyalty or Civill Allegeance For the taking of this Oath which is onely forbidden us in these Briefs is not properly speaking any Act of Civil Allegeance but onely a Security thereof and how little trust is to be put in such a Security does appear by the sad experience of the late Wars as a Bond for the payment of such a sum of money is no part of the payment but onely a Security for it if the Debtor denies it Nay a Subject may be obliged to his Civill Allegeance and equally punished for his not-complying therewith or for being a Traitour whether he has taken the Oath or not Whence I conclude that since the Briefs do not forbid us any Act of Civill Allegeance it is manifest that the Compliance with such Briefs cannot be inconsistent with the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes which reaches no farther then to all Acts of Civill Allegeance 28. Consider Lastly whether those who reject the forementioned Briefs of the Popes published after so long and so serious deliberation under such frivolous pretences as we have already seen and shall see hereafter do not open a way for Subjects to resist and disobey the express Commands or Prohibitions if they be condemned therein of their respective Sovereigns though issued forth after never so serious a debate pretending that they were grounded upon Inconsiderateness Misinformation and Mistakes in thinking that such a thing was contrary to the Laws of the Realm and the Prerogatives of His Majesty or that the King did not proceed therein according to the Rules prescribed in such cases or that His Majesty was a Party in the debate and that consequently He ought not to be Judge or finally that such Prohibitions and Commands are prejudiciall to the Liberty of the people and common Welfare of the Nation and that they may be occasion of great Disturbances in the Kingdome And whether if such Exceptions as these be warrantable and not to be decided by the Sovereigns themselves they do not render the Authority of Kings though our Adversaries who make use of them will needs seem to be stout Champions for Regall Power very weak and insignificant as in effect they do render the Authority of the Pope 29. If it be objected Thirdly That to refuse this Oath when we are required to take it by the King is sinfull inductive to Schism and scandalous to our Religion as if the Principles thereof were inconsistent with Civill Allegeance due to Princes and in such matters no man is bound to obey the Pope's Decrees but rather to the contrary That should the Pope declare it Sinfull to bear His Majesty Civill Allegeance which is due unto him by the Law of God and Nature certainly we should not think our selves bound to submit to such a Declaration That this Oath contains onely a meer Civill Allegeance as our Kings have declared and to them it belongs to declare what is meer Civill Allegeance and not to the Pope whose Jurisdiction extends onely to Spiritualls That we are bound to obey our Sovereign's Commands in all probable matters and which are not manifestly sinfull as the taking of this Oath is not That since it is doubtfull at least whether the Things contained in this Oath wherein the difficulty thereof consists appertain to the Spirituall or Civill Court why should the Pope decide it rather then the King And since the King commands us to take the Oath and the Pope prohibits us to take it the thing being of it self doubtfull and not manifestly sinfull on either side why should we submit rather to the Pope's Ordinance then to the King's That the King may confine the Pope's Power and declare that he has not a direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome in Temporalls or to vacate the Civill Laws thereof at his pleasure and consequently that it is not proper for the Pope to declare how far his Spirituall Authority does extend it self in all Causes Finally that the like Argument may be made to shew the Refusall of this Oath to be unlawfull as we made above to prove unlawfull the Taking thereof in this manner Whoever of His Majestie 's Subjects refuses this Oath being required thereunto denies an exteriour Obedience to the King's Ordinance in matters appertaining unto him and no farther then they appertain unto him But it is unlawfull to deny such an Obedience to the King's Ordinance and in such matters Therefore it is unlawfull for any of His Majestie 's Subjects when required thereunto to refuse this Oath 30. Concerning the Sinfulness of the Refusall of this Oath objected against us Consider First whether this Objection be not against all or most of those Catholicks who defend the Lawfulness of this Oath whose aim onely is to shew not that it is a Sin to refuse this Oath but that it is no Sin to take it Secondly Consider whether the refusall of this Oath can be sinfull unless the taking thereof be absolutely obligatory and if not then consider whether there be any absolute obligation to take this Oath since the taking thereof is no part of Civill Allegeance as has been already shewn Neither does His Majesty absolutely require of us the taking of this Oath but onely conditionally if we will enjoy such and such Employments or Priviledges which we are not bound to accept of And though those who refuse the Oath in many circumstances are liable to some Penalties enacted against Roman Catholicks yet they are punished even in that case not so much for refusing the Oath but because by refusing it they are suspected to be Popishly inclined Whence therefore can there be proved any absolute obligation to take this Oath especially since the Pope hath
in his own favour requiring his Subjects to swear positively that the Pope has no such Authority which is as it were to take possession of the part favourable unto him or why may not the Pope inhibit such an Oath in case the King enjoyns it as long as the Question is in debate between the Pope and King as our Adversaries confess it is yet Adhuc sub judice lis est For as long as it is under debate to whom such a thing belongs either of the parties has right to hinder his Adversary from taking possession thereof though he himself cannot take possession of it till the Question be lawfully decided in his favour and it is much less to hinder another from taking possession of a thing then to take possession of it himself 49. Consider Seventhly that whoever acknowledges the King to be our Sovereign in Temporall and Civill matters as we do he must confess that neither the Pope nor any one else has any direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome such a Power in any other being inconsistent with the Sovereignty of the King in Temporalls as in the like manner whoever acknowledges the Pope's Supremacy in Spiritualls as we also do acknowledge he must necessarily upon the like ground deny any other to be invested with the same Superiority So that should the Pope declare himself Sovereign in Temporalls over this Kingdome or any other His Majestie 's Dominions with a direct and absolute Power he would in that case declare a thing manifestly destructive to the King's Sovereignty in Temporalls which we acknowledge Neither does it belong to the Pope or the Spirituall Court to declare who is the Temporall Sovereign of such a Kingdome but to the Representative of that Kingdome or to some other Civill Power according to the different constitutions of Civill Government So that to declare the Pope Temporall Sovereign of such a Kingdome is not to declare how far his Spirituall Jurisdiction as such extends it self which does belong to the Spirituall Court but rather it is to declare him Sovereign or Supreme Governour in a different kind which Declaration does not belong unto him Neither because a lawfull Superiour may perhaps exceed his Power in some matters does it therefore follow that in no other thing he is to be obeyed What therefore we affirm in this point is That as it belongs to a Sovereign Temporall Prince to determine what is precisely necessary for the Conservation of his Temporall Sovereignty in case he be unjustly attacqued by another in his Temporalls so it appertains to the Sovereign Spirituall Prince who is the Pope to determine what is necessary to be done for the Conservation of his Spirituall Sovereignty in case he be unjustly attacqued in Spiritualls 50. Consider Eighthly to the end that it may clearly appear how willing the English Catholicks are to give His Majesty any just Security of their Loyalty that they are ready if it be necessary not onely to take all the Clauses of this Oath wherein meer Civill Allegeance due to His Majesty is contained but other Oaths also rather more expressive of Civill Allegeance then this is viz. such as were taken by the Subjects of the ancient Kings of England or which are taken now by the Catholick Subjects of other Christian Princes whether Catholicks or Protestants or of any other profession And certainly it would be very ridiculous to affirm that there is no standing Oath in any other Christian Country sufficiently expressive of Civill Allegeance And to descend to particulars They are ready to swear without any mentall Reservation That they acknowledge their Sovereign Lord King CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Kingdomes That they renounce all Power whatsoever Ecclesiasticall or Civill Domestick or Forrein repugnant to the same That they confess themselves obliged in Conscience to be as obedient to His Majesty in all Civill affairs as true Allegeance can oblige any Subject to be to his Prince That they promise to bear inviolably during life true Allegeance to His Majesty His lawfull Heirs and Successours and Him and them will defend against all Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against His or their Rights the Rights of their Persons Crown or Dignity by any person whatsoever or under whatsoever pretence That they will doe their best endeavour to discover to His Majesty His Heirs and Successours or to some of their Ministers all treacherous Conspiracies which they shall know or hear of to be against Him or them That they do declare that Doctrine to be impious seditious and abominable which maintains that any private Subject may lawfully kill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince Now let any one judge Protestant or Catholick whether these forementioned Clauses are not more or at least as expressive of Civill Allegeance as the ordinary Oath is And if so then let them consider whether since Catholicks are ready to take any of the Oaths above mentioned they can rationally be suspected to refuse the ordinary Oath of Allegeance for want of Loyalty For did they refuse it upon that account they would not offer to take the abovesaid Oaths wherein as much or more Civill Allegeance is contained then in the ordinary Oath And whether also probably speaking we may not vehemently suspect that Protestants who will not be content that Catholicks should take any of the aforesaid Oaths wherein all Civill Allegeance due to Princes is manifestly contained but will needs have them take the ordinary Oath do require of them somewhat more then meer Civill Allegeance otherwise why should not they be content with any of the forementioned Oaths Wherefore it would not be amiss that when the Oath is tendred to any Catholick who is resolved to refuse it he should make a Protestation of his Fidelity by offering to take any of the forementioned Oaths Which will at least serve to disabuse Protestants that he does not refuse to take the ordinary Oath for want of Civill Allegeance 51. Consider Lastly that doubtless there may be framed an Oath of Allegeance with such glances upon the Tenets of Protestants the same is of any other Religion that no Protestant who will stick to the Tenets of his Religion can take though it would seem very irrationall to deduce thence that Protestants deny Civill Allegeance to His Majestie if they be ready to take another Oath wherein all Civill Allegeance is clearly contained And if so why may not we refuse this Oath by reason of some doubtfull or false Expressions it contains or of some glances it has at our Religion without therefore deserving to be impeached of Disloyalty since we are ready to take other Oaths wherein as much or more Civill Allegeance is contained 52. If they object Fourthly for the Lawfulness of this Oath the Authority of the Kingdome of France of the University and Parliament of Paris and of other Universities and Parliaments of that Kingdome who
constantly deny the Pope to have any Authority or Power direct or indirect to Depose Kings and finally of the French Iesuits who subscribed the Censure and Condemnation of some Books wherein that Power was defended and why may not the Catholicks of England have the same liberty as the Catholicks of France have 53. Concerning the Authority of France for this Oath objected against us Consider First that though in an Assembly held in France of the Three Estates Ecclesiasticks Nobility and Commons in time of Cardinall Peron there was drawn up an Oath by the Third Estate or Commons wherein is affirmed That there is no Power on earth either Spirituall or Temporall that hath any Right over his Majestie 's Kingdome to Depose the Sacred Persons of our Kings nor to dispense with or absolve their Subjects from their Loyalty and Obedience which they owe to them for any cause or pretence whatsoever yet the Two chief parts of the Assembly viz. the Spirituall and Temporall Lords were so much against this Article of the Oath that they were resolved especially the Spirituall Lords to die rather then take it and the Third Estate or Commons who had drawn it up after they had heard Peron's Oration against it laid it aside which is as much as handsomely to recall it And how can we reasonably say that the Kingdome of France is for an Oath which the Two principall parts of the Assembly representative of that Kingdome were so eager against and which the Third part after serious consideration laid aside 54. Consider Secondly that rather we may alledge the Kingdome of France for the Negative or against the Oath according to what happened in the Assembly For it is a certain kind of Argument against a thing when having been proposed and debated in an Assembly it was not carried but rather rejected Neither has there been since enacted by any other Assembly of France any Oath of this kind to be tendred unto all neither do our Adversaries pretend that any such thing has been done as our Oath of Allegeance was enacted for all sorts of people by our Parliament which corresponds to the Assembly in France Neither is there in France any other Oath wherein is expresly denied the forementioned Power established by the King or any Parliament or any other ways for to be taken by all such who swear Allegeance to his most Christian Majesty And the English Catholicks are ready to take the Oath of Allegeance to His Majesty which is generally tendred in France And why may not His Majesty be content with the same kind of Civil Allegeance from his Subjects which the French King and other Sovereigns require from their Subjects All which shews that France cannot reasonably be brought as a precedent in the Cause we treat of 55. Consider Thirdly that since the Representative of France has so much favoured the Negative though we should grant and whether it must be granted or not we shall see by and by that some other particular Tribunall or Society of that Kingdome have favoured the contrary yet because the Assembly or Representative of France is far above those particular Societies we ought to conclude that France rather countenances the Negative then the Affirmative Should we see that our Parliament did countenance so much the Negative of an opinion as the forementioned Assembly of France did countenance the Refusall of that Oath though some particular Court at Westminster or the University of Oxford should countenance the contrary we ought to say that England rather stood for the Negative then the Affirmative 56. Concerning the Authority of the Parliament and Vniversity of Paris in this Point Consider First that neither that Parliament nor any other Parliament of France neither that University nor any other University of that Kingdome have ever yet made any publick and authentick Act wherein they approve our present Oath of Allegeance as it lies and all its Clauses wherein the difficulty thereof consists neither do our Adversaries pretend any such thing but onely that the Parliament and University of Paris with some other Parliaments and Universities of France have made Decrees wherein they deny the Pope to have any Power whatsoever to Depose Kings or to Absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them for any cause or under any pretence whatsoever Yet hence does not follow that the Parliaments or Universities of that Kingdome do approve this Oath For to approve an Oath 't is necessary to approve all and every part thereof and who onely approves one part does not therefore approve the whole So that whosoever argues hence to shew the Lawfulness of this Oath his Argument must run thus The University and Parliament of Paris approve some Clauses of this Oath whereat severall persons do scruple Therefore they approve the whole Oath Which Argument is inconclusive as is manifest 57. Consider Secondly that though the Authority of the Parliament and University of Paris may work so far with some as to perswade them that this Oath ought not to be refused upon the account of any just Scruple concerning the Power in the Pope to depose Kings or absolve their Subjects from the Allegeance due unto them yet it does not therefore follow that the same Authority which does not concern it self at least in any publick Decrees about other Difficulties of the Oath should perswade them not to refuse at all this present Oath since there are severall other respects not taken notice of by the Parliament or University of Paris in their publick Decrees alledged by our Adversaries for which many refuse it Some though satisfied that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings yet they have a great difficulty about the word Hereticall for it seems hard unto them to censure the Doctrine which maintains that Princes Excommunicate or deprived by the Pope may be deposed by their Subjects for an Heresie or for as bad as an Heresie and the Defenders thereof for Hereticks either materiall or formall as invincible ignorance does or does not excuse them or at least for as bad as such and to swear that they detest them in the like manner either for such or as bad as such 58. Others think they cannot swear with Truth that neither the Pope nor any other whatsoever can absolve them from this Oath or any part thereof in any case imaginable since the King himself may absolve His Subjects from such an Oath either all of them by laying down the Government with consent of the Kingdome as Charles the Fifth did and it is hard to oblige one to swear that a King of England in no case possible can doe the like or at least some of them by passing a Town under his Jurisdiction to another King as His Majesty passed Dunkirk to the French King and consequently absolved from the Oath of Allegeance the Inhabitants who had taken it Moreover they do not see how they can swear that it is
Kings but onely that it is not a good Reason to prove that the Pope cannot depose Kings in any case whatsoever because a meer Spirituall Power can in no case possible extend it self to Temporalls 105. Another Reason very common among those who defend the Oath and deny the Pope's Deposing power is Because neither the Unlawfulness of the Oath nor the Pope's Power to depose Kings is any Article of Divine Faith Whence they infer that one may lawfully take the Oath and by consequence swear positively that the Pope has no such Power Now let any one judge whether this consequence be not manifestly null Such a thing is no Article of Faith Therefore we may lawfully swear the contrary It is no Article of Divine Faith that His Majesty is King of Great Britanny shall we therefore swear that He is not It is no Article of Faith that the Pope is Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome and yet neither Protestant nor Catholick will swear that he is not The reason is because a thing may be certain though no Article of Faith or at least doubtfull and one cannot lawfully swear what is false or doubtfull 106. And as for our present case Those who defend the Pope's Power to depose Kings in some cases do not unanimously affirm that it is an Article of Faith or that it is expresly defined as such by any Generall Council or by the universall Consent of the Church but some of them endeavour to prove it out of Scripture as a meer Theologicall Truth others deduce it from Prescription others from a Donation or Agreement made between Catholick Princes alledging to this purpose that famous Canonicall Constitution of the Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third assented unto by the Embassadours and Plenipotentiaries of all or most Catholick Princes of those times present at the Councill 107. At least it does not seem impossible that Catholick Princes out of hatred to Heresie and zeal for the conservation of the Catholick Religion should make a League among themselves that if any of them should become an Heretick and should be declared as such by the Pope to whom as all Catholicks confess belongs the Authority of Declaring one an Heretick it should be lawfull for the rest in that case to attacque the Transgressour and force him by their Arms to recant and in case of refusall to prosecute the War till they have Deposed him and Absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance And what is agreed upon so by the common Consent of Princes cannot be recalled but by their common Consent This case I say does not seem impossible Now the Pope in that case by declaring such a Prince an Heretick does as it were authorize the rest of the Allies to attacque him and in case he refuses to recant to Depose him though he is not then so properly Deposed by force of the Pope's Declaration as of the Contract made between those Princes Suppose that some zealous Protestant should entail his Estate upon his heirs with this Condition That if any of them should quit the Protestant Religion and should be declared by the Archbishop of Canterbury whom Protestants acknowledge here in England as their Primate to have quitted Protestancy his inheritance should pass to the next heir Now if the Archbishop should declare in this case that such an one who possest that Estate had quitted the Protestant Religion he would deprive him or rather declare him deprived of his Estate though the Archbishop has no Authority in rigour to deprive any man of his Estate And in this case such a man would be deprived of his Estate rather by force of the Entailment then of the Archbishop's Declaration 108. Finally Protestants do commonly confess to return to the main Point that the Points wherein they differ from us as No Purgatory No Transubstantiation No Invocation of Saints and such like Negatives are no Articles of Faith and yet they are far from positively swearing the contrary Whence I conclude that the forementioned Reason of these Authours is manifestly false For it runs thus Whensoever any thing is no Article of Faith the contrary may positively be sworn But the Pope's Power to depose Kings is no Article of Faith Therefore we may positively swear that he has no such Power The Major Proposition is manifestly false as has been shewn 109. Another main Argument which the Defenders of the Oath make a great account of in order to deny the Pope's Deposing power is That our Saviour did not come into the World to deprive other men of their Temporal Dominions Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo and much less to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat coelestia Hence they infer that the Pope has no such Power for his Power must be immediately derived from Christ whose Vicar he is To this Argument I answer First That it is manifestly false that the Authority of Christ and his Apostles did not extend it self in some cases to the Deprivation of Temporals as has been proved Secondly That the Pope and other Bishops have the Temporal Sovereignty of several places granted unto them by Temporal Princes or otherwise acquired though neither our Saviour nor his Apostles had any such Sovereignty Wherefore this Consequence is null Christ had no such power Therefore the Pope has it not and yet in the Oath we are bound to swear that the Pope has not any Power whatsoever to depose Princes derived from Christ or any body else Thirdly That out of those words of the Scripture and the Hymn of the Church is not proved that our Saviour had no Authority in some extraordinary case to deprive Kings of their Dominions Certain it is that God has not given me this life to kill my neighbour yet in some extravagant case when I cannot otherwise defend my own life I may lawfully kill him 'T is also certain that His Majesty was not made King of England to take away from other Princes their Dominions yet He may doe it if otherwise He cannot defend His Subjects Neither did Christ come to damn any one out of his primary intention but to save all as is evident from several places of Scripture and yet he does and may justly condemn men who will be obstinate to eternal punishments In like manner his primary design in coming into the world was not to separate a man from his Wife a Son from his Father or Brother from his Sister for he commands all especially Relations to keep union and due correspondence among themselves and yet 't is said of him in Scripture Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium I did not come to bring peace but division and to make a separation between man and Wife Father and Son Brother and Sister when the Communication with them is destructive to their Salvation and yet 't is certain that Subjects are not more expresly commanded in Scripture to honour their
Rome 1625. having in the 30. and 31. Chapters found these Propositions That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresy and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them and that this custome hath been alwaies practised in the Church c. and on the 4. of April 1626. censured these Propositions of that pernicious Book and condemned the Doctrine therein contained as new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God rendring odious the Papal dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative of the Sovereign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes disturbing the publick Peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the Obedience due to their Sovereigns precipitating them into Faction Rebellion Sedition and even to commit Parricides on the Sacred Persons of their Princes The University of Paris in their General Assembly on the 20. of April 1626. decreed that this Censure should be publickly read every year and that if any Doctour Professour Master of Arts or Scholar should resist disobey or make any the least opposition against the said Censure he should immediately be expell'd and deprived of his Degree Faculty and Rank without hopes of re-admittance The like Decrees on the same occasion the same year against the same Doctrine were made by Seven other Universities of France Likewise the French Iesuits subscribed the Sorbon Censures as the Authour of the Questions tells us And that this was actually done he is confident will not be denied that it was commanded we need no farther evidence says he then the Arrest it self of the Parliament of Paris dated the 17. of March 1626. wherein it is ordered that the Priests and Scholars of Clairmont and of the other two Houses which the Iesuits have in Paris should within three daies subscribe the Censure made by the Faculty of Sorbon This the Authour of the Questions who needed not have been so confident of this last evidence drawn from the Arrest of the Parliament which doubtless must needs be a mistake for otherwise unless we be resolved to rob the Year 1626. of some more daies then were thrown out of the Year 1582. for the Reformation of the Calendar it will be a little hard to understand how the Iesuits should be commanded by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. to subscribe the Sorbon Censures within three daies whereas the first of these Censures was not made before the 4. of April 1626. and the other not before the 20. day of the same month and year even according to his own computation The occasion and ground of the mistake I conceive was this In the month of December 1625. the Sorbon issued out a Censure against another Book entituled Admonitio ad Regem and it was the single Censure against this Book and not the two other Censures against Santarellus his Book as our Authour mistakingly supposed which the Iesuits were commanded to subscribe within three daies by an Arrest of Parliament dated the 17. of March 1626. and looking back to December 1625. This very quotation and copy of the Censure of the 4. of April is not free from its mistake or at least of begetting a mistake in others and making them think the Censure more clear and home to the point then possibly it is For amongst the Propositions and Doctrines which the Faculty of Theology had found in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Santarellus his Book the Authour of the Questions having onely set down these That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresy and exempt their Subjects from the Obedience due to them and that this Custome has been alwaies practised in the Church here he cuts off what follows and defeats his Reader of his full information with an unreasonable c. as if these Propositions were the onely or at least the principal object of the Censure which yet may justly be doubted for the Faculty goes on in the charge against Santarellus as teaching in the foresaid Chapters That Princes may be punished and deposed not onely for Heresy but for other causes 1. for their faults 2. if it be expedient 3. if they be negligent 4. if their persons be insufficient 5. if unusefull and the like and then follows the Censure it self not singly and separately upon each Proposition by it self which yet is the usual method of the Faculty but upon the whole taken in gross which puts a quite different face upon the matter from what our Authour had given it and renders it doubtfull whether the Faculty would have pronounced so severe a Judgment against the first part of the Doctrine had not those last Propositions proved to be the aggravating circumstance or rather cause that deservedly occasioned and sharpened the Censure As to the Subscription of the Iesuits the true account of that action stands thus Santarellus his Book had been condemned at Rome which it was not for our Authour's purpose to take notice of and his Doctrine generally cried down and disavowed by all good men before ever it fell under the brand of the Sorbon Censures all which notwithstanding such and so eminently singular was the caution and zeal of France against this though already sufficiently supprest mischief that upon the 14. of March 1626. the Principal of the French Iesuits with three Superiours and three other ancient Fathers being summoned to appear before the Parliament of Paris and being asked what they held as to the Points noted in Santarellus Father Cotton the then Provincial having in the name of the rest of his Order disclaim'd all singularity of Opinions different from other Divines answered That the Doctrine of the Sorbon should be theirs and what the Faculty of Paris should determine and subscribe they were ready to subscribe also And this indeed may pass for a Subscription to the Sorbon Censures even before they were made But from this Subscription of the French Iesuits our Authour runs into another mistake seeming to wonder why the English Iesuits should scruple a downright Oath which is exacted of us any more then the French Iesuits did a simple Subscription which was onely required of them And then taking upon him a sober and grave style to open the mystery of this particular Iesuitism he attempts it in these very terms Now were I demanded a reason says he why so circumspect and wise a Body should act so differently in the same Cause but different Countries I could onely return this conjectural answer That being wary and prudent persons they could not but see the concerns they hazarded in France by refusing to subscribe far more important then what they ventured at Rome by subscribing whenas in England all they can forfeit by declining the Oath of Allegeance being
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
King which is what is understood by authorizing him to stave off by arms the manifest injury done to his Sheep in Spiritualls and if he may in that case invoke the help of some Christian King to that effect since it is manifest that Ecclesiasticks may in some cases invoke the help of a Secular Power whether then the King so invoked may not condescend to the Pope's request and compell the Hereticall Prince and Persecutour by force of arms to desist from seducing his Subjects and in case of refusall to prosecute the War as he may all other just Wars till he has deposed him and consequently absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance And if they grant all this how can they counsell us to swear that the Pope neither by himself nor with any other has any Power to depose Kings or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy them or their Countries All which is involved in the Oath 80. Consider Thirdly that because the Gallican Church has such Privileges or Liberties granted unto it either by some particular Concessions of the Pope or by some Contract or otherwise it does not therefore follow that every other Church or Kingdome does enjoy the same Privileges or Liberties For one Kingdome may have some particular Privileges which another has not and perhaps we had here some particular Privileges granted unto us from Rome which were not granted in France Among the Propositions alledged out of France concerning the Pope's Authority another is which seems to be held in France That the Pope cannot put an Interdict which is a meer Ecclesiasticall Censure as an Excommunication is either upon the French King or his Kingdome and moreover the Members of the University of Paris do swear that they will defend among other Articles that the said University does not approve that the Pope may depose Bishops or deprive them though Ecclesiasticall persons of their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction contrary to the Liberties and Canons of the Gallican Church commonly received in that Kingdome And yet sure even those Catholicks who stand so much for the Oath would think it somewhat harsh if the Parliament should force them to swear that the Pope cannot depose a Catholick Bishop of England were there any such Bishop that deserved to be deposed or that he cannot put an Interdict upon this Kingdome since they onely pretend to deny the Pope any Jurisdiction over the Temporalls of the Kingdome or to inflict Temporall punishments but not over the Spiritualls thereof or to inflict Ecclesiasticall punishments such as an Interdict is Wherefore this consequence is null Such a Practice or such a Doctrine is allowed of in France or for France Therefore the same Practice or Doctrine must be allowed of in England and for England Besides that the liberty which the French have concerning our present Debate is onely that they may defend that the Pope has no Power to depose Kings which liberty is also given to our English since the Pope in the above-mentioned Briefs does not declare expresly as our Adversaries falsely suppose he does that he has any such Power or forbid us to hold or defend the contrary 81. Consider Fourthly whether should we grant which we do not that there were in France a publick Oath for all sorts of people wherein they do positively swear that the Pope has not any Power to depose his most Christian Majesty whether I say there would not be severall particular Reasons to refuse such an Oath as our present Oath is in England considering the present condition thereof which are of no force in France to refuse the like Oath For we may prudently suspect here in England that since the Framers of this Oath were mortall Enemies to the Pope and See of Rome they have made such frequent mention therein of the Pope and See of Rome without specifying any other Sovereign Temporall Prince nay not so much as containing them in generall terms though there be as much need for His Majesty to secure the Loyalty of his Subjects against other Sovereigns as against the Pope out of hatred and contempt of the Roman Church the Papall Dignity and the Pope's Supremacy in Spiritualls and since they could not so easily bring Catholicks to deny it explicitly by taking the Oath of Supremacy they intend to make them deny it implicitly and under a colour of Civil Loyalty inducing them to take this Oath of Allegeance And that this was the design of the Parliament is manifest For they would have inserted in the Oath a Renunciation of the Pope's power to Excommunicate whereby they would implicitly even according to our Adversaries judgment have denied the Pope's Supremacy And though they left out that Clause at King Iames his request yet there remains enough to make us prudently suspect that the Oath was contrived in contempt of the Papall Dignity Now it is a constant opinion among Divines that when any thing though it should be indifferent of it self is required of us in contempt of any lawfull Dignity we are bound to refuse it though otherwise we might submit unto it It is related of some ancient Christians that they would rather die then swear by the Fortune of Caesar because such an Oath was required of them by the Pagan Emperours in contempt of the True God to the end that they who took it might be thought to acknowledge implicitly thereby that Fortune was a Goddess yet Christians may if it be necessary swear by the Fortune of their Princes who are Christians In like manner should an Arrian King require of his Subjects that they should swear or subscribe this Proposition Christ is a Creature they might justly refuse it though that Proposition in rigour be true because they might prudently suspect that the Arrians did require of them such an Oath or Subscription in contempt of the Divinity of our B. Saviour which they denied and endeavoured to prove their Assertion because he was a Creature Now nothing of this could be suspected in France where they are Roman Catholicks and own the Pope's Dignity and Supremacy in Spiritualls 82. Moreover the very Title of the Act wherein this Oath is inserted as above has been hinted does insinuate that it was instituted by publick Authority as a distinctive Sign for to discover Roman Catholicks by the Refusall thereof Neither can it be said that the Framers of this Oath intended thereby onely to distinguish Loyall Catholicks from those who are not such First Because the Title makes no such distinction and I suppose that the Title was put in by those who framed the Act and intended thereby to declare their intention Secondly Because we might say the same of distinctive Signs of Christians instituted by Pagan Emperours viz. That they were instituted by them onely to distinguish Obedient and Loyall Christians from others who were not such For Christians who were put to death by the Emperours for not submitting to the publick Tests ordained by them
be liable to the same Exceptions as the publick Acts of France which are produced by our Adversaries to the same intent Finally concerning the Sentiment of the ancient French Divines about this Point I refer the Reader to the learned Oration of Cardinal Peron delivered before the Third Estate of France And admitting that some modern French Divines do seem to favour the Oath if the ancient Divines be of the contrary Opinion why should we acquiesce rather to the Sentiment of the former then of the latter especially since the Opinion of the latter has been seconded by the Pope's Briefs condemning the Oath I have been longer about this Point because I find that the chief or onely inducement of several persons to believe that the Oath may lawfully be taken is this pretended Authority of France 88. If it be Objected lastly That many learned English Divines have and do defend the Lawfulness of this Oath That several English Catholicks Consciencious men have taken it That the ancient Fathers of the Church were against the Pope's Power to depose Kings That so great an Authority as this is for the Lawfulness of the Oath cannot but make the Affirmative probable and if it be probable that the Oath may be taken why may we not take it especially since it is practically improbable that it is lawfull to deprive a man of what he possesses viz. a King of his Kingdome upon a meerly probable Opinion That it is no Article of Faith that this Oath is unlawfull or that the Pope has any Power to depose Princes and if so why may we not take the Oath and swear positively that the Pope has no such Power Finally That those who impugn the Oath are for the greater part Priests and Iesuits who depend of the Court of Rome who are carried away with Passion and Interest and who have never seriously considered the merits of the Cause and consequently are not to be consulted nor hearkned unto in this matter 89. Concerning the Divines and other Authours who defend or have defended the Lawfulness of this Oath Consider First what Character Vrban the Eighth gives of them in the Brief he published against this Oath the 30. of May 1626. in these words They who persuade you otherwise speaking to English Catholicks prophesy unto you a lying Vision and a fraudulent Divination For sooner ought the sword of the mighty to take from a Christian his life then his Faith Yea if an Angel from Heaven teach you otherwise then the Apostolick Truth let him be accursed Anathema sit And whether should His Majesty give the like Character of one of his Subjects in order to prevent the rest from consulting him or following his Counsell in a certain civil matter he would deserve to be held for an obedient Subject who notwithstanding His Majestie 's Prohibition should follow such a man's counsell in the very thing prohibited 90. Consider Secondly that actually the Superiours of the Clergy and of the Religious Orders here in England with several others of their respective Subjects learned consciencious and grave men unanimously judge that the Oath ought not to be taken and publickly profess that they are of this Judgment whenas the Priests who are of the contrary Opinion excepting one who is in actual Disobedience to his Superiours to whom he has made a vow of Obedience and who for his Disobedience has been excommunicated do not dare publickly to declare themselves though the disadvantage if any lies here upon those who are against the Oath 91. Consider Thirdly that whoever is against any Part or Clause of this Oath may justly be alledged against this Oath whereas no body can be alledged for the Oath unless he be for all and every Clause thereof as is manifest according to that common Maxime Bonum ex integra causa Malum ex quocunque defectu Nay those who are against the Oath need onely to shew that something therein contained is at least doubtfull for a doubtfull Oath is unlawfull whereas those who defend the Oath must prove that whatever is therein contained as the immediate Object of the Oath is certain for such must be the immediate Object of an Oath And who will not rather think that so many who are against the Oath will evince that something therein contained is at least doubtfull then so few who are for it will prove that all things therein couched and sworn are certain it being far easier to evince a thing to be doubtfull then the contrary certain 92. Consider Fourthly that even our Adversaries do confess that all the Scholastical Divines and all the Canonists for about 500 years have been against some Clauses contained in this Oath and that even now there is scarce any Divine and much less Canonist and to Divines and Canonists properly appertains the discussion of the Clauses of this Oath under debate who dares to defend publickly the Lawfulness thereof Neither is there any Catholick Authour besides some few of His Majestie 's Subjects either French German or of any other Countrey for so much as I have been able to learn who has printed any thing in defence of this Oath as it lies whereas not onely His Majestie 's Subjects but also many forrein Authours Spaniards Italians Germans and Flemmings have printed Books against it even as it lies Now to say that all the Divines and Canonists were in so gross an Errour and for so many years no body daring to oppose them till some few Priests of our Nation rose up to disabuse the World and prove that all those Divines and Canonists had not understood either the Scriptures or the Councills or the ancient Fathers though in all probability they were as much vers'd in them as these modern Divines for them to say this I say seems somewhat strange and savours not a little what the Protestants affirm concerning their pretended Reformation viz. That the whole Church was involved for many hundred years in gross Errours till Luther and Calvin came to disabuse the World and to shew that the Doctours of the Church for so many years had been erroneously mistaken in the true sense of Scripture It seems also very strange what some of our Adversaries insinuate that those ancient Divines and Canonists had not seriously but perfunctorily considered the Points under debate in this Oath though they write great Tracts concerning them What man can prudently think that neither Bellarmine nor Peron nor Suarez nay nor St. Thomas nor any other of so many ancient and modern Divines who have impugned this Oath or some part thereof have seriously studied the Point but onely slightly examined it and that onely Withrington Peter Walsh and some others of their Caball have throughly discussed this matter and seriously studied it If it be reasonable to reject the Authority of so many Grave and Learned Divines upon such a precarious Supposition as this is why may not any one upon the same account slight the authority of his
buying and selling profaned the materiall Temple of God as Hereticks profane with their Heresies the Souls of men the Spirituall Temples of God St. Peter gave Sentence of death against Ananias and Sapphira and God miraculously concurred to the execution thereof as he does miracles sometimes to confirm the Sentences issued by the Pastours of the Church The power of Excommunication which is allowed the Pope and other Prelats is meerly Spirituall as all confess and yet in some cases it extends it self to deprive the person excommunicated from all Civil Communication with others due unto them by the Law of Nature according to what has been alledged above out of Scripture Neither can it be said that such a punishment was imposed upon Excommunicated persons by the consent of Temporall Princes For what Temporal Prince was there in the time of the Apostles who granted any such effect to their Excommunication since the Temporall Princes then living were Persecutours of Christianity 99. Besides a Confessarius has meer Spirituall power over his Penitent and yet sure he may enjoyn some corporall and temporall Penance as has already been hinted and oblige him or declare him obliged to make such a restitution or to forbear the going to such a place where the occasion of his ruine was All which things are Temporall A Wife who cannot live with her Husband without imminent danger of being perverted by him is bound to quit his company and deprive him of the right he has over her though meerly Temporall and Carnall and she may be commanded by her Spirituall Directour to doe so And sure there is as great a Tie between a Wife and her Husband though in a different kind as between a Subject and his Prince 100. Again what Kingdome is there where meerly Spirituall crimes as Heresie Apostasie Blasphemy c. are not punished by the Law with some Temporall Punishment either of Death or Imprisonment or Banishment or Confiscation of goods or such like Certain it is that in England there are severall Punishments enacted by the Law against Spirituall crimes and in matters of Religion as it appears by so many Penall Laws established against Recusants yea whoever is Excommunicated here in England is deprived according to the Law of power to plead or sue another for what is due unto him So that Protestants doubtless are not of opinion that one cannot be Temporally punished by a meer Spirituall Power or upon a meer Spirituall account 101. If it be objected that Temporall Princes have enacted such Laws against Spirituall crimes as prejudiciall to the Temporall Good of their Subjects or because at least Christian Princes are impowered by severall Titles allowed them to defend by their Temporall Forces the Church and to punish crimes destructive to Faith I answer that according to this Objection the Pope may deprive one of some Temporall thing if nothing else do hinder it when it is prejudiciall to the Spirituall Good of Christians for he is invested also with severall Titles which enable him to direct the Temporalls of Princes in order to their Spirituall good or the Spirituall good of their Nation Because if a meer Temporall Power such as we onely ascribe to Kings can extend it self to the Temporall punishment of a meer Spirituall crime when it is prejudiciall to the Temporall good the Judgment of which crime does not belong to the Temporall Court why may not a meer Spirituall power such as we attribute onely to the Pope over all Christendome enjoyn in certain cases if there be not some other obstacle a Temporall punishment or deprive of some Temporall thing in order to a Spirituall end the Execution of which punishment and the Deprivation of which thing belongs to the Temporall Prince And so we see that the Ecclesiasticall Power does and may justly in some cases invocare auxilium brachii secularis invoke the assistence of the Secular Power in order to inflict some Temporall punishment upon the account of some Spirituall crime 102. Yet farther The power of Excommunicating which is meerly Spirituall may in some cases extend it self to punish meer Civill crimes as may be made appear by severall instances why may not therefore in the like manner a meer Spirituall power extend it self in some cases to inflict a Temporall punishment And a meer Temporall Power also may in certain cases extend it self to punish Ecclesiasticall Princes who are exempt from the ordinary Civill Jurisdiction why therefore on the contrary may not a meer Spirituall Power extend it self to punish in some cases Temporall persons and with Temporall punishments at least by the Assistence of Civil Magistrates For Temporalls are not out of the reach of the Spirituall Power more then Spiritualls are out of the reach of the Temporall Power 103. Finally the stoutest Maintainers of the Oath and the greatest Impugners of the Pope's Power to depose Princes cannot deny but that a Subject who is persecuted by his Prince upon the score of his Religion and is in imminent danger of being perverted may lawfully flie and steal away into a forrein Country according to the ancient practice of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians and according to those words of the Gospell Cùm autem persequentur vos in civitate ista fugite in aliam and this even against his Prince's express prohibition and his Spirituall Directours may counsell him or enjoyn him to doe so and consequently such a man may lawfully in that case deprive his Prince upon a meer Spirituall account viz. the Salvation of his Soul of a naturall-born Subject which belongs to the Temporalties of the Prince Yea what Priest or Lay-Catholick is there even among those who are so hot for the Oath and against the Pope's Deposing power pretending thereby to signalize with particularity their Loyalty to the King who does not transgress and thinks he may do so lawfully upon some Spirituall account severall Civil and Temporall Laws enacted by the King and Parliament against Popish Recusants either sending over their Children beyond Seas against the express Laws of the Realm or tarrying in the Kingdome against severall Proclamations of His Majesty or doing many other meer Temporall things prohibited unto Papists by the Law 104. All which instances most whereof are granted by our Adversaries do evidently evince That Spirituall and Temporall things are not so vastly different that they cannot in any case possible interfere the one with the other That it is not always unlawfull to deprive one of a Temporall thing upon a meer Spirituall account and that a meer Spirituall Power may in some cases extend it self to Temporall things and consequently That this proof of the forementioned Assertion viz. that the Pope has not Power to depose Kings in any case possible is manifestly false and of no force whatever the Assertion be in it self Neither do I say that because a Spirituall Power may in some cases extend it self to Temporalls it may therefore Depose
least whether they have seriously pondered them the Expressions so weighty wherewith they declare the Unlawfulness of the Oath and the Character they give of such as counsell or teach the contrary which certainly is enough to startle any tender Conscience and whether they can think themselves obedient Sons to their Supreme Pastour and Father when they disobey his expresse Prohibition published several times after so long debate and so mature deliberation Finally whether most of them have not been carried away with the pretended Authority of France for the Lawfulness of the Oath whereas France never approved by any Publick Act the whole Oath as it lies nor that part thereof for which onely the Authority of France is alledged as it is couched in the Oath 121. Consider Lastly that if what is commonly reported be true all or most of such Catholicks who have taken the Oath have proceeded upon evident Mistakes Some of them were induced thereunto because they thought that the taking this Oath was not malum in se but onely malum quia prohibitum and that the Popes by their Briefs had made it unlawfull and declared it so and consequently that an extraordinary damage such as they apprehend in the Refusall of the Oath does excuse them from complying with this as with other Prohibitions of the same nature Now this is a manifest Mistake as has been shewn above And certainly to take a false doubtfull unjust or unnecessary Oath is intrinsecè malum or malum in se. 122. Others have taken the Oath making beforehand a publick or private Protestation that they intended onely to swear thereby a meer Civil Allegeance and this way they pretended to secure their Conscience But in the like manner they might take the Oath of Supremacy making a Protestation beforehand that they intended onely thereby to swear that the King is Protectour of the Church as all Christian Princes are and that to Him as such does belong to take care that the Laws established by the Church be observed in His Kingdome and that the Pope has no Preeminency inconsistent with the aforesaid Obligation of Christian Princes 123. Moreover one might in the same manner take the Communion of the Protestants making a Protestation that he takes it onely as meer Bread and Wine or for his Breakfast and incense an Idol too protesting that he does it onely to perfume the room All which are vast absurdities as no Catholick can deny The reason is because as long as an Action is in it self unlawfull or as long as it is doubtfull whether it be so or no no previous Protestation can make it lawfull 124. In fine some others of them will needs persuade themselves that in the Oath is denied onely a direct and absolute Power but not an indirect and conditionall Power in the Pope to depose Kings But how can this be credible when both King Iames who had a great hand in framing the Oath and all other Authours whatsoever either Catholicks or Protestants who have hitherto published Books in defence of the Oath have unanimously understood that therein was denied not onely a direct but an indirect Power also in the Pope to depose Princes And it is not probable that they would explicate their own Opinion to any disadvantage or prejudice and make it harder then really it is 125. Besides they all impugn Bellarmine as the chief Maintainer of the Pope's Deposing power and as the greatest Enemy to the Oath and yet Bellarmine as much as any other impugns the Pope's direct Power to deprive Princes of their Dominions and it is not credible that the Maintainers of the Oath would make themselves more Adversaries then really they were or make so famous a man as Bellarmine their Enemy in a matter wherein he is their Friend Moreover the very cause for which the Oath was framed does contain the deniall of an indirect Power For this Oath was framed to deny the Pope all Power and Authority to depose a King of England or dispose of his Dominions or to absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance even in case such a King should not onely be an Heretick himself but also force his Subjects to be so and the Pope could not defend his Flock otherwise then by Deposing him And what is this but to deny an indirect Power in the Pope to depose Kings Neither do I think that there is even amongst Protestants any Divine or Lawyer who can deny but that the forementioned Case is comprehended in the Oath 126. If they say That should that Clause of the Oath be understood in the Latitude pretended even the Protestants themselves who take it would be manifest Perjurers For they would swear in taking this Oath that the Pope is not Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome since every Supreme Temporall Prince has an indirect Power to depose any other Sovereign as above has been expounded And how is it credible that Protestants should frame such an Oath as no body Protestant or Catholick could take without manifestly perjuring himself 127. To this I answer That all Catholicks must confess that whoever takes the Oath of Supremacy does swear false and consequently that those Protestants who framed it and took it were manifest Perjurers and many of them without an invincible ignorance viz. such as denied the Supremacy of the Pope in Spiritualls as doubtless many of the first Framers of that Oath did Yea severall Protestants and amongst the rest King Iames acknowledge the Pope to be Patriarch of the West and that England appertains to the Western Patriarchate and consequently that the Pope has some Preeminency in England in order to Spiritualls for every Patriarch has some Preeminency in his whole Patriarchate and yet they swear positively in the Oath of Supremacy that no Forrein Prelate has or ought to have any Preeminency within this Realm and by consequence they swear false even according to their own Principles 128. What wonder therefore is it that Protestants out of Indignation towards Catholicks should frame such an Oath of Allegeance that even they themselves could not take without being perjured And the like is to be seen in all Heterodox Countries where out of hatred to the true Religion such things are often required of the Professours thereof that even the Heterodox Professours themselves cannot lawfully execute Besides the Test enacted the last year 1673. though levelled onely at Catholicks is notwithstanding such that others who are not Roman Catholicks yea Protestants of the English Church cannot comply with if they understand the Principles of their respective Religions and will stand to them as may easily be made appear 129. 'T is therefore not to be wondered at that men out of Passion should over-doe things and that Protestants to the end they might be sure to frame such a Test that Roman Catholicks could not take should frame such an one and in such generall terms that they themselves could not comply with For their mind seems to have been so