obligation whatsoeuer contained therein See the Canons Nos Sanctorum Iuratos Absolutos that the Pope hath authoritie to release him of that promise and to giue him leaue to doe otherwise then hee hath promised by Oath to doe And also for that his Maiestie and the State according to whose meaning especially the doubtfull words of this Oath are to bee vnderstood and determined doe little regard this subtile quircke of refined wits whether the Pope hath power to absolue his Maiesties subiects from the sacred and religious bond of their naturall Allegiance or which is all one only as it is sworne or confirmed by Oath so that notwithstanding the releasing of this sacred bond they may bee assured that the ciuill and naturall obligation of the subiects temporall Allegiance to the confirmation whereof this Oath is superadded doth remaine inuiolable and indispensable and by the Popes authoritie cannot any way be dissolued or diminished but that his Subiects although they might by the Popes authoritie bee absolued from the sacred bond of their Allegiance as it is confirmed by Oath are neuerthelesse by the Law of God and Nature obliged to beare faith and true Allegiance to his Maiestie and that therein the Pope hath no authoritie to dispense 6. And although wee should for Disputation sake admit that it were the meaning of this Clause that the Pope hath no authoritie to absolue the swearer so much as from the Sacred bond of this Oath or any part thereof or which is all one from any of these three things promised in the third Branch only with this reduplication as they are sworne or confirmed by Oath of which nice subtiltie his Maiestie and the Parliament by all likelihood little dreamed yet any man may with great reason thinke and in conscience be resolued that the Pope hath no such authoritie for that according to the common doctrine of Diuines the Pope hath not power to absolue from Oaths when the absoluing from them tendeth to the temporall preiudice of a third person vnlesse either directly or indirectly hee hath power to dispose of the temporall goods of that person For hee hath not power saith Sotus Aragona and Sayrus Scotus lib. 8. de Instit q. 1. art 9. Aragona 2. 2. q. 89. art 9. Sayrus lib. 5. Thesauri cap. 8. num 4. to release an Oath which one hath made to another man to pay him that debt which he oweth him because he hath not power to take from another man that which is his owne and therefore he can not doe him wrong in releasing the Oath which was made vnto him Wherefore this difference is betweene Vowes and Oaths that in changing and dispencing of Vowes that only must be regarded which is more pleasing to God but in releasing of Oaths great caution must be vsed that no wrong be done to a third person 7. And this is farre more euident in the doctaine of Saint Thomas S. Thom. 2. 2. qu. 89. art 9. whom the greatest part of Diuines doe herein follow who houldeth that the Pope cannot dispence in Oaths by releasing directly the sacred obligation of the Oath for that this obligation is de iure naturae wherein the Pope cannot dispence but only by declaring that the thing promised by Oath which before was a fit thing to bee sworne and therefore by vertue of the Oath to be performed so long as it remayneth so is now by reason of some particular accident or circumstance become vnlawfull hurtful or an hinderance of greater good and therefore now no fit matter to be sworne nor by vertue of the Oath to be now any longer performed From whence it plainely followeth that the Pope cannot absolue from this Oath of Allegiance vnlesse hee hath power to declare that temporall Allegiance which Subiects by the Law of God and Nature owe to their lawfull Prince so long as he remaineth Prince be vnlawfull hurtfull or an hinderance of greater good which he cannot in any wise declare vnlesse hee hath power to make a King no King For consequently hee should also declare that God and Nature commanding Subiects to beare true faith and Allegiance to their lawfull Prince should enioyne them an vnlawfull or hurtfull thing or which is an hinderance of greater good which is impossible And so in this Clause there is no more difficultie concerning this point of the Popes authoritie not to absolue from this Oath of Allegiance or any part thereof then is in the former clauses wherein the Popes authoritie to depose Kings and to absolue Subiects from their naturall allegiance is denyed 8. Lastly by those words nor any person whatsoeuer is not vnderstood the Kings Maiestie Both for that in the Lawes of this Realme the Kings Maiestie is not vnderstood by the name of person or persons when the matter is odious also as in no penal law the Prince or Law-maker himselfe is included vnder any generall word because he is not subiect to such laws according to that principle of the law Princeps legibus solutus est The Prince is free from lawes Leg Princeps ff de Legibus so also when it is said in the Law that no person whatsoeuer hath power to dispence in that law or to change or alter that Law the Law-maker himselfe who is aboue the Law is not comprehended vnder those generall words yea and as well obserueth Salas and Sa both Iesuites In a generall speech the person who speaketh is vnderstood to bee excepted Salas disp 21. de Legibus sec 3. regula 22. Emanuel Sa verbo Interpretatio nu 14. 9. And although we should admit that the Kings Maiestie were included in those wordes nor any person whatsoeuer yet this clause would neuerthelesse be very true And the reason is for that albeit his Maiestie hath power to dispence with his subiects that they shall not take this Oath which is not the meaning of this Clause yet he hath not power to absolue them from this Oath or any part thereof after they haue once taken it which is the true sense meaning of this Branch First for that to dispence or absolue from Oaths taking those words to dispence or absolue according to their proper signification and as they are taken commonly by Diuines doth belong onely to spirituall and not to temporall power Wherefore the Diuines make a great difference betweene absoluing or dispencing in Oathes or Vowes and releasing or annulling the same and they affirme that to release or annull an Oath or Vow a temporall power yea and sometimes priuate authoritie may suffice as Parents may release and annull the oathes and vowes of their children but to absolue or dispence in an Oath or Vow a spirituall authoritie and iurisdiction is necessarily required But secondly and principally for that his Maiestie hath not power to release his subiects from their temporall and naturall allegiance vnlesse he will cease to be their Prince because temporall allegiance is by the law of
God and Nature due to him from his Subiects so long as he remayneth their Prince and therfore he cannot absolue discharge or release them from the Obligation of this Oath or any part thereof or which is all one he cannot giue them leaue not to beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie and consequently not to defend him to the vttermost of their power against all Treasons and trayterous conspiracies which shall be made against his Royall person Crowne and dignitie and not to doe their best endeauor to disclose and make them knowne vnto his Maiestie seeing that to performe all these things Subiects are bound by the law of God and Nature wherein no temporall or spirituall authoritie can dispence And therefore the Authour of the Protestants Apologie for the Roman Church trac 3. Sec. 5. doth very well affirme that all Catholikes are by all Lawes Diuine and Humane indissolubly obliged in the highest degree of all earthly Allegiance to his Maiestie that now is as to their true vndoubted lawfull Soueraigne liege Lord and King CHAP. VI. The Sixt Branch of the Oath and an Explication of the same WHich Oath I acknowledge by good and full authoritie to bee lawfully ministred vnto mee and doe renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrarie 1. This Branch contayneth in it no difficultie at all if wee consider what hath beene said before to wit that in this Oath is onely demanded a sincere profession of true temporall allegiance and that no authoritie or obedience which is due to the Pope is denied therein And that to treat of the Popes authoritie not affirmatiuely what power he hath but affirmatiuely what authoritie in temporalls the Kings Maiestie hath ouer his Kingdome and Subiects and consequently what authoritie in temporalls the Pope hath not ouer the said kingdome and subiects and also that to exact of Subiects an Oath not onely of their temporall allegiance in generall but also of such allegiance in particular which his Maiestie and the State shall for prudent reasons motiues thinke to be necessarie for the preseruation of the Kingdome from future Treasons Inuasions or Perturbations so that it bee contayned within the bounds of true temporall allegiance doth no way exceede the limits of temporall authoritie 2. First therefore by those words good and full authoritie is not vnderstood any authoritie of the Kings Maiestie in Ecclesiasticall causes but onely in temporall matters as is the ministring of an Oath of true temporall allegiance For although his Maiesty be perswaded that hee hath full and supreme authoritie not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiastical affaires for externall gouernement and that the Pope hath not ouer him or his Subiects within this Realme any authoritie or iurisdiction nor power to excommunicate his Maiestie yet his meaning is not to meddle at all in this Oath eyther with his owne or with the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacie but onely with his owne temporall Soueraigntie and consequently with the Popes authoritie not to depose him or to dispose of his Kingdome or to authorize any forraigne Prince to inuade or annoy him or to absolue his Subiects from their obedience c. And therefore as I obserued before in the third obseruation wee must distinguish betwixt his Maiesties vnderstanding or perswasion and his meaning or intention for his meaning was not to exact in this Oath of His Subiects all which hee is perswaded he might lawfully exact of them but only to demand of them in this Oath a profession of that temporall Allegiance which all Subiects are bound by the Law of God to giue to their lawfull Soueraigne as it is manifest by the declaration both of His Maiestie and also of the Parliament and therefore Hee was carefull not to meddle with the Popes authority to excommunicate Him 3. Secondly it is certaine that albeit Christian Princes haue not authoritie to define and determine what position is hereticall or to punish Heretikes with spirituall punishments for these are meere spirituall things yet they haue authoritie to command their subiects to abiure such positions as are alreadie defined or knowne to bee manifestly false and repugnant to the holy Scriptures for such and to punish with temporall punishments the obstinate maintayners of the same especially as the mayntayning of such positions is hurtfull to the publike temporall peace whereof the King hath charge and who therefore may also by the materiall Sword repell the wrongs and iniuries offered to the temporall Kingdome or Common-wealth by Clergie-men and also the abuses of the spirituall Sword when they tend to the hurt of the ciuill Common-wealth as Franciscus Victoria Ioannes Parisiensis and Couerruuias doe well obserue Victoria Relect. 1. de potest Eccles sec 7. §. octaua propositio Parisiensis de potest Reg. Pap. cap. 11. ad 37. Couerruu cap. 35. Practic question Wherefore a King saith Dominicus Bannes Bannes 2. 2. q. 11. ar q. 1. doth punish Heretikes as most seditious Enemies to the peace of His Kingdome which cannot be preserued without vnitie of Religion And Marriage saith Dominicus Sotus Sotus in 4. dist 29. q. 1. ar 4. being a Sacrament in such sort that it is also a ciuill contract it nothing letteth but that as in the former respect it belongeth to the Ecclesiasticall Court so in regard of the later it is subiect also in some sort to the Ciuill Not that Princes can alter those things which are of the substance of Matrimonie but that they may punish them who contract they shall offend against the publike peace for against those crimes whose iudgement doth belong to the Ecclesiasticall Court they may also ordayne punishments as they disturbe the peace of the Common-wealth Which doctrine of Sotus may in the very like manner bee applyed to Heresie which being a spirirituall offence in such sort that also it disturbeth the temporall peace of the Common-wealth it nothing letteth but that as in the former respect it belongeth to the Ecclesiasticall Court so in regard of the later it is subiect also in some sort to the Ciuill not that Princes can determine and define what is Heresie but that they may punish Heretikes when by defending hereticall positions they shall offend against the publike good For against those crimes whose iudgement doth belong to the Ecclesiasticall Court they may also ordayne punishments as they disturbe the peace of the Common-wealth And therefore Christian Princes haue good and full power to compell their Subiects to abiure impious damnable and hereticall positions for such when it is necessarie to the preseruation of the publike temporall peace and to discouer how their Subiects stand affectted in point of their Loyaltie and due Obedience 4. Thirdly it is euident that Clergie-men being truely subiect to temporall Princes in regard of their naturall birth and of their liuing in Ciuill Societie with others and consequently bound according to the common doctrine of Diuines to obserue their iust Lawes not only virationis
of the Law and declaration of the Law-maker only temporall Allegiance is demanded for that by the end and reason of the Law the ambiguitie of the words saith Suarez Suarez lib. 6. de Legibus cap. 1. nu 19. is chiefly to be determined and it is morally a sure meanes to finde out the will and intention of the Law-maker especially that reason which is expressed in the Law for then the reason of the Law is in some sort a part thereof because it is contayned and supposed therein 8. Fourthly it is to bee obserued that albeit English Catholikes might at the first before they examined particularly the end reason matter and contents of this new Oath iustly suspect it to be vnlawfull and to contayne in it more then temporall Allegiance and that His Maiestie and the Parliament vnder pretence of demanding that temporall Allegiance which by the Law of God and Nature is due to all temporall Princes did intend to haue couertly at leastwise abiured some spirituall obedience which by the institution of Christ is due to spirituall Pastours both for that it is a new vncouth and vnwonted Oath of Allegiance and expresly denyeth the Popes authoritie to depose wherewith other Christian Princes in the ordinarie Oaths of Allegiance which they demand of their subiects doe not in plaine and expresse termes intermeddle and also for that it was deuised by those who are opposite to the Catholike Romane Religion yet this bare suspicion can bee no sufficient cause ground or motiue to condemne it as likewise no man vpon a bare suspicion is to be condemned but only to haue it examined and if after due examination it be found faulty to reiect it if otherwise to approue it But doubtlesse whosoeuer will sincerely and with a pure desire to find out the truth and to yeeld without all partialitie as wel to Kings as to Popes that which is their due examine the occasion end matter and contents of this new and vnwonted Oath will quickly finde that it is condemned by some vpon a bare and naked suspicion and without due examination by others vpon a blind and inconsiderate zeale to the See Apostolike not regarding in like manner the dutie which by the Law of God they owe to their temporall Prince and by all that thinke it vnlawfull without sufficient ground 9. For the occasion of this vnwonted Oath was that vnwonted barbarous Powder-plot of certaine Catholikes who pretended to iustifie their neuer heard of Barbarisme vnder the colour of Religion and the Popes authoritie to dispose of the Crownes and liues of temporall Princes in order to spirituall good and so no maruell that to preuent the like vnwonted crueltie was deuised this vnwonted remedie And albeit the inuenters of this Oath are opposite to the Catholike Romane Religion and are fully perswaded that the Pope by the Law of God hath no authoritie ouer this Kingdome so much as in spiritualls yet there meaning was not as you haue seene aboue to meddle in this Oath with that spirituall authoritie which is granted him by all Catholikes but only to demand a profession of that temporall Allegiance which all the Subiects of this Land of what Religion soeuer they be doe owe to their temporall Prince and not to the Pope 10. And therefore which is carefully to bee obserued this Oath doth not meddle positiuely with the Popes authoritie for that it doth not belong to temporall Princes to declare what authoritie the Pope hath but it medleth positiuely with the Kings temporall Soueraigntie and negatiuely with the Popes authoritie and it doth not declare ◅ what authoritie the Pope hath but only what authoritie hee hath not And what man I pray you can bee so blinde as not to see that whosoeuer expresly affirmeth King Iames to bee his true and rightfull King and Soueraigne in temporalls and to haue ouer him and his other Subiects all Kingly Power Authority and Iurisdiction doth consequently and vertually deny the same of the Pope Wherefore if wee well examine the matter and contents of this vnwonted Oath wee shall find that His Maiestie and the State doe herein deny no other authoritie of the Pope expresly and by name then which not only in the Protestation of those thirteene Catholike Priests but also in all other vsuall Oaths of Allegiance which absolute Princes are wont to demand of their Subiects is vertually couertly and in effect implyed For whosoeuer sincerely and from his heart acknowlegeth any Prince to be his only rightfull King and Soueraigne in temporals which all absolute Princes in their vsuall Oaths of Allegiance demand of their Subjects hee must vertually acknowledge that the Pope is not his Soueraigne Lord in temporals and consequently that he hath no authoritie ouer his Prince or him in temporals and therefore neither to depose his Prince or to dispose of His temporall Dominions for that these are tēporal things for what end cause crime or pretext soeuer either spirituall or temporall they be done 11. Fiftly to know vpon what assured grounds the Popes authoritie to depose Princes or to attempt and practise their deposition is by Catholikes denyed in this Oath it is to be obserued that as Leonardus Lessius a famous Iesuite noteth very well Lessius in his Singleton part 2. nu 38. a power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a sufficient ground or title whereby immediately any man may bee punished or depriued of that right dominion or any other thing which he actually possesseth but such a power or title must bee most certaine and without all doubt or controuersie Wherefore neither can the Pope nor any other Prince without manifest iniustice inuade the Kingdome of another Prince make warre against him or seeke to depose or dispossesse him vpon a probable vncertaine or controuersed title For certes saith the Authour of the Prelate and the Prince and who is knowne to bee a famous Doctor and Professor of Diuinity though masked vnder the name of I. E. Cap. 11. pag. 235. as it is iniustice to put one out of his land or house who hath probable right and and withall possession because poti◅r est conditio possidentis better is the condition of him that is in possession So were it open iniustice in the Pope to depriue a King of his Crowne and Kingdome who hath probable right and withall possession And this also is the receiued doctrine of all Diuines and Lawyers Victoria in Relect de ture belli nu 29. seq Vasquez 1. 2. disp 64. cap. 3. Gregorius de Valentia 2. 2. and Pope Adrian with many others cited by Valentia and grounded in the light of naturall reason and declared by the approued rules of the Law that no man can bee iustly inuaded or be put out of his possession vpon an vncertaine or controuersed title because In causa dubia siue incerta potior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable cause the condition of the
being put out of that which they really and bona fide doe possesse And doubtlesse most miserable were the state of all men that possesse any thing of worth and much more of Princes if vpon a title which some learned mâ—n may in speculation approoue it were lawfull to inuade their possessions before a lawfull Iudge and who is certainly knowne so to bee hath decided and determined the title or controuersie To preuent which mischiefe all Natitions being guided herein by the light of naturall reason haue agreed in this manifest principle that it is open iniustice to put any man out of his possession vpon any title which is not most certaine and free from all controuersie vntill a lawfull and vndoubted Iudge hath decided the matter I said a lawfull and vndoubted Iudge for if it be doubtfull vncertaine and questionable whether he be a lawfull and competent Iudge to determine that cause his decision cannot be sufficient to end the controuersie For which cause the Pope is not to bee accounted a lawfull and competent Iudge to decide this question concerning his owne pretended authoritie to depriue Princes for that it is a controuersie among learned Diuines and approued by very many as Pope Adrian the Cardinaell of Cambray the Cardinall Cusanus the Cardinall Panormitan the Cardinall of Florence Master to Panormitan Iohn Patriarch of Antioch Abulensis Ioannes Parisiensis Ioannes Gerson Iohn Maior Almaine and almost all the Vniuersitie of Paris cited by Widdrington Widdring in the discouerie of D. Schulkeuius slanders §. 7. that the Pope is not a competent Iudge to decide or define infallibly any doctrinall point and much lesse in his owne cause without a true and vndoubted generall Councell and therfore although he should hereafter as yet he hath not attempt to define and decide this question his decision could not end the controuersie nor giue sufficient warrant to any man to practize the deposition of Princes vpon so doubtfull vncertaine and questionable power or title 3. Neuerthelesse it behooueth temporall Princes to be very carefull that their titles to the Dominions which they lawfuly possesse be not so much as speculatiuely or only for Disputation sake disputed pro and contra by learned men least that some ignorant or turbulent spirits which either doe not know or of set purpose to colour their practices vnder a pretence of a probable title will not take notice of the manifest difference betwixt speculation and practice may take occasion thereby to disturbe the publike peace and to molest annoy or to offer any violence or hurt to their Royall Persons States or Gouernment For which cause the Parliament of Paris hath with great wisdome and reason oftentimes by publike Edicts ordained See beneath in the end of this Treatise some of these Decrees that the doctrine of deposing their Kings should not bee so much as taught and maintayned to bee probable or problematike that occasion be not giuen to seditious spirits who know not or will not take notice of the difference betwixt speculation and practice to attempt vnder pretence of a probable title any violence against the Crowns or sacred Persons of their Kings And the reason is manifest for that the temporall Common-wealth hath good and full authoritie to forbid the teaching and publishing of any doctrine which is not necessarie whereby probable danger to the Crownes and liues of temporall Princes and perturbations in the Common-wealth may arise 4. First therefore by those words of this Branch nor by any other means with any other it is euident that the Parliament which representeth the whole bodie of the Kingdome or Common-wealth did not intend to meddle with the authoritie which the whole Kingdome or Common-wealth may according to the opinion of some Doctors pretend to haue in some cases ouer their soueraign Prince as Lessius and others whom the Authors of the Prelate and the Prince doth seeme to follow doe idly obiect And although the meaning of those words were to deny that the whole Kingdome or Common-wealth hath no authoritie to depose their King yet considering that it is also a probable doctrine approued by many learned Catholike Diuines and Lawyers cited by Widdrington Widdr. in Apolog nu 111. and in his Answere to Fitz-herb part 3. cap. 11. nu 36. 37. that the Common-wealth hath no such authority it is also lawful for any man of what opinion soeuer hee bee in speculation concerning this authoritie of the CoÌ„monweath to acknowledge and sweare that the Common-wealth hath no more authoritie to depose the King that is to practize his deposition then she hath to commit open iniustice But the true meaning of His Maiestie and the Parliament is as the words themselues doe plainely signifie only to deny the Popes authoritie to depose c. to wit that the Pope neither of himselfe that is neither as a sole and totall cause nor by any authoritie c. that is neither as an Instrument or Minister of the Church or See of Rome nor by any other meanes with any other that is nor as a principall or true and proper partiall cause or Agent hath any authoritie to depose the King c. 5. Neither by those wordes or to authorize any forraigne Prince to inuade or annoy Him or His Countries did His Maiestie and the Parliamenâ— intend to denie the authoritie which temporall Princes may haue in somâ— cases to make warre against their neighbour Princes and consequently against His Maiestie if he should giue them iust cause of warre yet euer obseruing that no probable power cause or title can bee a sufficient ground to punish any Prince or to inuade His Countries but as the expresse words do plainly shew only to deny the Popes authoritie to authorize any forraigne Prince to inuade or annoy Him or His Countries because all the authoritie which temporall Princes haue to make warre or to inuade the Kingdome of an other Prince for what cause crime or end so euer it bee is deriued from their temporall Soueraigntie grounded vpon the Law of Nature or Nations not from the Popes authoritie And likewise all the authority which the temporall Common-wealth may pretend to haue in some cases to rise vp in Armes against their Prince is not deriued from the Popes warrant license or authoritie but if there be any such power from the Law of Nature And therefore with great reason this Clause denyeth in the Pope all power and authoritie to authorize any forraigne Prince to inuade or annoy His Maiestie or his Countries or to giue license or leaue to any of his subiects to beare Armes rayse Tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to His Maiestis Royall Person State or GouernmeÌ„t because although they shuld haue any such authoritie leaue or licence wherewith His Maiestie and the Parliament would not in this Oath intermeddle they haue it not from the Pope but from the Law of Nations or Nature 6. Secondly in this Branch is not
considering that it is not only probable but also most certaine that hee is excused in conscience and in the sight of God by defending his Prince against such damnable and trayterous practises which are grounded at the most vpon a probable power title and clayme and also that hee cannot bee excused from formall Treason in the externall Court both Ecclesiasticall and Secular of his Soueraigne Prince who is in actuall possession of his Kingdome cānot without open iniustice be dispossessed vpon any vncertayne and controuersed power clayme or title though it were neuer so probable it is euident that those Subiects might iustly bee accounted worse then mad that would in such damnable and trayterous practises concurre with the Pope to the dispossessing of their Soueraigne Prince vnder pretence of a power or title which euen in speculation and abstracting from practise can be at the most but probable 6. Lastly are set downe First the Oath of France or the first Article of the lower House of Parliament wherein of two hundred Deputies for the third Estates were but six Protestants Secondly two Arrests or Decrees of the Parliament of Paris forbidding vnder paine of Treason Cardinall Bellarmines Booke against Barckley and Suarez Booke against our Kings Maiesties Premonition and thirdly another Decree of the said Parliament ordayning likewise that no person of what qualitie or condition soeuer doe teach the said doctrine of deposing Princes as problematicall or probable All which Decrees are proued to be agreeable to truth and iustice and that Christian Princes by vertue of their temporall power haue good and full authoritie both to forbid the teaching maintayning and publishing of all vnnecessarie doctrines positions be they neuer so probable as the teaching and publishing of the same tendeth to the subuersion of States-and to the disturbance of the publike peace in the Ciuill Common wealth and is dangerous to the Crownes and liues of temporall Princes and also to punish with temporall punishments the teachers maintayners and publishers of the same AN ADMONITION TO ENGLISH Catholikes 1. COnsider with your selues Deare Country-men how greatly this new Oath of Allegiance concerneth you all not only in your temporall states and libertie which in conscience you are bound to regard and not wilfully to cast away and the more if you haue a charge of Wife and Children for whom in nature you are obliged to prouide but chiefly in your soules health which aboue all temporall things in this World you are bound to preferre For what doth it profit a man if hee gaine the whole World and sustaine the damage of his soule Mat. 16. Now if this new Oath bee truely an Oath of temporall Allegiance and ministred by lawfull authoritie as this Treatise doth conuince it to bee doubtlesse you incurre the danger of eternall damnation if you refuse it by disobeying and resisting the iust commandement of lawfull authoritie and the Ordinance of Almightie God from whom all power and authoritie doth proceed For he that resisteth power Rom. 13. or authoritie resisteth the Ordinance of God And they that resist purchase to themselues damnation 2. First therefore it behooueth you that are Lay-men to examine diligently this matter and not to be led hoodwinkd into the pit both of spirituall and temporall miserie especially by blinde and ignorant guides who neither vnderstand nor are desirous to know the true grounds of this important Controuersie and therefore can hardly bee drawne for the informing of your consciences to descend with you in particular to the examination of the lawfulnes or vnlawfulnesse of euery Branch of this Oath which many of them I speak with griefe and not without Booke haue not so much as euer read but to cloake their ignorance vnder colour of Zeale and Deuotion without any further examining they only cry out to you in general termes The Church the Pope the Rocke is that which good Catholikes ought to cleaue vnto not knowing themselues what authoritie is spirituall and due to the Pope or Church and what authoritie is temporall and due to temporall Princes and that the Pope is not the Church but only the chiefe member thereof and that the Popes opinion and consequently his Declaratiue Breues when they are grounded either vpon false suppositions or else only vpon his opinion are not the Rocke whereon Catholikes ought to build their eternall saluation and lastly not considering that many times when Popes and Princes haue beene and shall bee in opposition the Popes both haue bin may lawfully bee and also ought to bee resisted As the resistance which Philip the Faire made to Pope Boniface the VIII who depriued the said King gaue his Kingdome to a Genebrard lib. 4. ad annum 1294. Albertus the Emperour and declared that he accounted them for Heretikes who did not beleeue that the said King was subiect to him in Spiritualls and Temporalls b Vignerius ad annum and the resistance which Lewis the XII made to Pope Iulius the II. by whom he was depriued and his Kingdome c Genebrard lib. 4. ad annum 1503. Guicciardin lib. 11. hist Richeome in Apoleget cap. 24 25. See Brerely in the Preface of his Protestants Apologie c. Sec. 20. 21. seq giuen in pray to any that could take it is well commended by Lewis Richeome Prouinciall of the Iesuites and proposed for an example to be imitated yea and he sheweth that whensoeuer any Bishop of Rome should offend the King of France as those Kings were offended by those Bishops the Iesuites in such an occasion would doe that which good Clergie-men and good French-men together with the said King Philip and Lewis did in those times who defended their rights against those Popes Boniface and Iulius without any irreuerence to the Sea Apostolike And therefore I beseech you Deare Countrey-men to take heed vpon what guides you relye for the directing of your soules in these important affaires and remember that Admonition of our Sauiour Mat. 15. Blinde they are and guides of the blinde And if the blinde be guide to the blinde both fall into the ditch 3. Secondly you that are Priests and haue taken vpon you to guide others in the way to saluation and ought to be alwayes readie to satisfie euery one that asketh you a reason of that faith which is in you 1. Pet. 3 if you thinke in your consciences the Oath to bee lawfull and ministred by good and full authoritie you ought to take great heede that your soules bee not defiled nor your consciences stayned with some worldly respect and that neither hope of gaine or preferment nor feare of want or disgrace keepe you backe from giuing warning to those whom you are boūd to guide direct and instruct to beware of the danger which they are like to fall into by resisting the Ordinance of God if they refuse the Oath when it is tendred them by lawfull authoritie lest that you foreseeing their danger and not
possessor is to bee preferred and Cum sunt iura partium obscura fauendum est reo potius quam Actori When the rights or titles of the parties that are in suite are obscure or not cleere the Defendant is rather to be fauoured then the Plaintiffe And this is the first assured ground and principle for which the doctrine of deposing Princes by the Popes authoritie may not only be barely and simply denyed as it is in the second clause of the Oath by force only of the words but also bee abhorred detested and abiured as impious damnable most cleerly repugnant to the Word of God and in that sense hereticall as it is in the fourth clause The second manifest principle is that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes and approued by many and therefore truely probable that the Pope hath no authority to depriue Princes of their Regall Power and Authoritie 12. For the better cleering whereof it is to be obserued sixtly that as Ioannes Azorius a famous Iesuite expresly affirmeth Azor. tom 2. lib. 11. c. 5. q. 8. it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in some certaine cases the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their Kingdome For some Kings haue oftentimes yea since the time of the great Lateran Councell contended with Popes about this matter saying that they haue their Kingdome from God and not from the Pope and that in those things which are ciuill and temporall the power of Kings is supreme and absolute and that herein Kings are not subiect to the Pope although in sacred Ecclesiasticall and spirituall things the Pontificall power is supreme and that herein Kings and Princes are subiect to Popes as children to their Fathers and sheepe to their Pastours c. And many complayned that Gregorie the seuenth did excommunicate Henry the fourth and depriue him of the administration of his Kingdom Thus Azor. And it is a controuersie among the Schoolemen saith Ioannes Trithemius Trithemius in Chron. Hirsaug ad annum 1106. and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no. And the Ecclesiasticall power saith Iacobus Almainus Almain de dâ—minio natur ciu Eccles in probat 2. conclus a famous Doctor of Paris and whom Azor relateth Azor. tom 1. lib. 2. cap. 14. among Classicall Doctors cannot by the institution of God inflict any ciuill punishment as are death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes c. Nay nor so much as imprison vt plerisque Doctoribus placet as is the opinion of most or of very many Doctors but it is extended only to a spirituall punishment as is Excommunication and the other punishments which she vseth doe proceed from the pure positiue Law or as Gerson speaketh Gerson de potest Eccles considerat 4. from the grant of Princes And the libertie of the Church of France saith Petrus Pithaeus Pithaeus in Cod. libert Eccles Gallicanae printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. whom Antonius Posseuinus the Iesuite commendeth for a man truely learned and a diligent searcher of Antiquitie Posseuinus in verbo Petrus Pithaeus is grounded in this principle which France hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath not power to depriue the French King of his Kingdome or in any other manner to dispose thereof And that notwithstanding any whatsoeuer Monitions or Monitories Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope can bee made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to the King for temporals neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope Which position is in very deed the whole substance both of our new Oath and also of the late Oath of France which the lower house of Parliament would haue had established for a fundamentall law 13. And to omit now many other learned Catholikes cited by Widdrington Widdrington in his Answere to Fitzherb part 1. that it is a controuersie among Catholikes and approued by many and therefore truly probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes it is so manifest that no learned man vnlesse hee will bee shamefully impudent can denie it and the publike Writings of learned Catholikes on both sides See beneath in the end of this Treatise the Oath of FraÌ„ce the condemnation of Suarez and Bell. Booke and a decree of the Parliament of Paris touching the doctrine of the Popes power to depose the proceedings of the Parliament of Paris against the Bookes of Cardinall Bellarmine of Schulckenius and of Suarez the propounding of the aforenamed Oath by the lower house of Parliament wherein of two hundred Knights and Burgesses there were but fix Protestants besides the complaint of some Doctors of Paris to the Colledge of Sorbon against the Controuersia Anglicana of Becanus and infinite other testimonies of learned men of our owne Nation not only of those who haue taken the Oath or thinke it to be lawfull but also of many others doe most cleerly conuince the same In so much that Cardinall Peron Card. Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament compelled by so manifest a truth doth plainly confesse the same and thereupon acknowledgeth that the Pope himselfe doth in France tolerate those Catholikes that hold against him in this point tolerate I say not as publike Vsurers Harlots or other notorious sinners are in some Countries permitted but by admitting them to Sacraments which neither the Pope nor the Prelates of France could lawfully doe if for holding that doctrine those Frenchmen were to bee condemned of Heresie Errour Temeritie or any other damnable sinne So that it is most cleere manifest to any man of iudgment that it is a great controuersie among learned Catholikes and that it is approued by many of them and therefore truly probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose or depriue Soueraigne Princes See also the Authour of the Potestants Apologie for the Roman Church in his Preface from Sect. 19. to the end where you may see his dislike of this doctrine for the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and taxeth them who ouercharge the supreme Pastour with incompetent attributes of Authoritie in temporals and in his owne authentical Manuscript he more particularly and expresly shewed that the Pope hath no Authority in temporals either directly or indirectly which last words it pleased those who had commission to print his Booke to leaue out whereof he greatly complained to a friend of mine And likewise for the dislike which this learned Authour shewed in his Preface of this authoritie of the Pope to dispose of temporals it pleased the Authour who translated his Booke into Latine to leaue out the Preface altogether which neuerthelesse is a chiefe part of his Booke and it deserued to bee put in Latine as much if not
denyed the Popes authoritie to command in temporals in order to spirituall good or to declare that they who haue authoritie to depose or to make warre are bound to vse their temporall authoritie and to draw forth the temporall Sword when the necessitie of the Church and the spirituall good of soules shall require the same for this authoritie of declare and command doth not exceede the limits of spirituall power as Widdrington hath shewed at large heretofore Widdr. in Apol nu ◅ and in all his other Bookes very often but especially in his Answere to Fitz-herb But here is only denyed the Popes authoritie to depose temporall Princes to dispose of their temporals to vse or draw forth the temporall Sword or to authorize temporall Princes or subiects to vse or draw forth the same for whosoeuer giueth authoritie to another man to vse the temporall Sword hath authoritie to vse it himselfe although sometimes for want of strength or some other necessarie Instrument hee cannot vse it himselfe yet still he hath authoritie to vse it 7. And although a Commander which I wish the Reader to obserue for the Author of the Prelate and the Prince is commmonly said to doe that thing which is done by his Commandement and so hee that counsaileth consenteth or any way concurreth although per accidens and not by any proper vertue or influxe of his owne is said to doe that thing as hee that applyeth fire to straw or commandeth counsaileth yea or doth not hinder the applying thereof when hee is bound to hinder it is said to burne the straw although hee bee no true and proper efficient cause of the burning thereof but only a cause per accidens yet a Commander is not said to doe that which hee commandeth as a true and proper cause or as hauing authoritie to doe that thing which hee commandeth whereof this Branch of the Oath doth only speake but only as a cause per accidens which according to the doctrine of all Philosophers is no true and proper efficient cause vnlesse by his proper power vertue influxe or authoritie hee concurre to the doing thereof and that the person commanded hath his power vertue or authoritie to doe that thing deriued from the Commander or depending on him 8. For which cause a Painter who commandeth his Seruant to make a Picture and giueth him rules and directions how to mingle his Colours and afterwards to apply them which without the directions of his Master hee himselfe could not doe is the principall cause and agent of making that Picture and the Seruant is only his Instrument or Minister for that all the Arte hee hath to make that picture is deriued from the commaundement and directions of the Painter and depending on him and yet a King who hath no skill to paint and commaundeth the Painter to make a picture is no true and proper efficient cause of making that picture but onely a cause per accidens by morally applying the Painter that hath skill to vse the same So likewise a Prince who commandeth his Officers to condemne and put to death an egregious malefactour is the principall cause of his death and the Officers are onely his Instruments Ministers and Executioners for that all the authoritie which they haue to condemne and kill that malefactour is deriued from the Prince and depending on him because onely the Prince doth authorize or giue them authoritie to pronounce and execute that sentence And yet the Pope commaunding a Prince to vse his temporall sword power or authoritie when the necessitie of the Church shall require the same as to make warre inuade any Countrey or to put any egregious malefactor to death is onely a cause per accidens of that warre c. by applying morally to wit by his commandement the person who hath authoritie to make warre c. to the making thereof But the Pope is no true and proper cause of that warre c. neither can hee bee said to make that warre as hauing authoritie to make it or as authorizing or giuing authority leaue or licence whereof onely this branch maketh mention to the Prince to make that warre c. Neyther is the Prince in making that warre c. the Popes Instrument Minister or Executioner as the Author of the Prelate and the the Prince absurdly affirmeth for that he hath not his authoritie to make warre c. deriued from the Popes commandement or depending on it whereas according to the doctrine of all Philosophers it is necessary to an Instrument that it haue all it vertue to worke deriued from the principall Agent or depending on it but all the authoritie which temporal Princes or Common-wealths haue in temporall affaires is deriued from the law of Nations or Nature and not from the Popes authoritie or commandement 9. By which it is apparant how grosly the said Author of the Prelate and the Prince in excepting against this Branch was mistaken for not considering the difference betweene a Commander who hath onely authoritie to command but not to execute or doe that which hee commandeth to be done and a Commander who hath authoritie both to commaund and also to execute or doe that which he commandeth to be done although perchance he cannot effect it for want of strength or effectuall meanes but not for want of authoritie as euerie lawfull Prince hath sufficient authoritie to subdue his Rebels and yet hee cannot alwaies effect it not for want of authority but for want of strength force or effectuall meanes because his Rebels are more strong and potent then he is CHAP. III. The Third Branch of the Oath and an Explication thereof ALso I doe sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or sentence of Excommunication or Depriuation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successours or by any Authoritie deriued or pretended to be deriued from him or his Sea against the said King his Heires or Successours or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his Heires and Successours and him and them will defend to the vttermost of my power against all cōspiracies attempts whatsoeuer which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crowne and dignitie by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration or otherwise and will doe my best endeuour to disclose and make knowne vnto his Maiestie his Heires Successors all Treasons Traiterous Conspiracies which I shall know or heare of to be against him or any of them 1. This Branch of the Oath is somewhat clearer then the former because it doth not expressely and in plaine tearmes deny the Popes Authoritie to depriue or depose Princes but it onely containeth in expresse words a promise which the Subiect confirmeth by Oath that if in case the Pope hath denounced or hereafter should denounce any sentence of Excommunication or Depriuation against the King his Heires
but also vi legis by force of the Law doe owe true Allegiance to their naturall Prince no lesse then Lay men and that therefore hee may lawfully demand of them as they are Subiects an Oath of their Allegiance whensoeuer hee shall iustly suspect their fidelitie And although some Clergie-men should bee so capricious as to imagine contrarie to the practice of the Primitiue Church the doctrine of the Ancient Fathers and manifest reason that they are not subiect at all to the authoritie of temporall Princes and thereupon should make a scruple to take this Oath as lawfully ministred to them by good and full authoritie yet this could not bee a sufficient proofe that the Oath is vnlawfull in it selfe or that Lay-men cannot lawfully take it and also acknowledge that it is lawfully ministred vnto them by good and full authoritie 5. Lastly in those words And I doe renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrarie is not implyed a renouncing in generall of the Popes authoritie to giue Pardons and Dispensations but as the wordes doe plainly signifie in them is only contayned a denyall of the Popes authoritie to dispence with the Swearer or to giue him leaue and license to doe contrarie to that which hee hath promised in this Oath Wherefore the veritie of these last wordes is chiefly grounded vpon the lawfulnesse of the Fift Branch For if the Pope hath no power and authoritie to absolue the Swearer from any part of this Oath because those three things before mentioned which he promiseth to performe he is bound by the Law of God and Nature to performe and that therein no authoritie of Pope or Prince can dispence it is manifest that hee may lawfully renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrarie CHAP. VII The Seuenth Branch of the Oath and an Explication thereof ANd all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and sweare according to these expresse words by me spoken and according to the plaine and common sense vnderstanding of the same words without any equiuocation or mentall euasion or secret reseruasion whatsoeuer 1. This Branch is greatly to bee regarded for that it expresly declareth in what sense the Swearer is bound to take all the parts and parcels of this Oath And first by those first words And all these things I doe plainly and sincerely acknowledge and sweare c. it is manifest that the immediate obiect of all this Oath and euery part therof or which is all one that which in all the former Branches I doe directly and immediatly sweare is my plaine and sincere acknowledgement to wit that our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is the lawfull and rightfull King of this Realme c. and that the Pope hath not any power or authoritie to depose him c. and that I will beare Faith true Allegiance to His Maiestie c. and that from my heart I doe abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall c. and that I doe beleeue and in conscience am resolued c. and that it is lawfully ministred vnto me by good and full authoritie and that I doe renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrarie Whereupon the Oath concludeth thus And I doe make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily willingly and truly vpon the true faith of a Christian. So that the plaine and proper meaning of this Branch is that whatsoeuer I doe sweare in this Oath I doe sweare plainly and sincerely according to these expresse words c. 2. Secondly the meaning of those words without any equiuocation c. is not that there is not to be found in this Oath any equiuocall wordes and which may not haue two proper and vsuall significations especially if they be taken barely and by themselues alone for if wee consider them as they be ioined with other words and make a full and perfect sentence and doe also duly regard the intention of the Law-maker with the other obseruations before set downe we shall hardly find any one sentence in this Oath so equiuocall or ambiguous that according to the common vnderstanding of men it hath two senses equally common which is properly to bee equiuocal But the plaine and proper meaning of those words is that the Swearer must not in this Oath equiuocate or vse any equiuocation mental euasion or secret reseruation whatsoeuer but that he must deale plainly and sincerely according to the minde and intention of the Law-maker For it is one thing to vse equiuocall words and an other thing to equiuocate or to vse equiuocation because one may vse equiuocal words and not deceiue or delude the hearer for that hee vseth the words in that sense wherein the hearer vnderstandeth them But to equiuocate implyeth a fraudulent deceitfull and vnsincere dealing by vsing the words in an other sense then the hearer vnderstandeth them 3. Wherefore the plaine meaning of this Branch is that albeit in this Oath there might bee found diuerse common senses of the same wordes yet the Swearer must not equiuocate but hee must take the wordes in that sense wherin the Law-maker vnderstandeth them with whome hee is bound by vertue of this Branch to deale plainly sincerely without any guile fraude deceit euasion or secret reseruation whatsoeuer But if perchance there should any difficulty arise concerning any ambiguous word or sentence contayned in this Oath and the will meaning and intention of the Law-maker could not bee knowne then wee must vse those rules which according to the approued doctrine of all Diuines and Lawyers wee haue aboue set downe for the interpreting of doubtfull and ambiguous speeches in any Law And namely among the rest that in penall Lawes and odious matters the milder and more fauourable sense and which contayneth in it no absurditie is to be chosen 4 Seeing therefore that according to the doctrine of all Diuines it is not lawfull to equiuocate or to vse equiuocation but we must answere plainly and sincerely according to the meaning and intention of the Iudge when hee proceedeth iuridically and demandeth no vniust and vnlawfull thing but which hee hath authoritie to demand it is manifest that the veritie of this Branch dependeth wholly vpon the lawfulnesse of the Oath and vpon the authoritie of the maker thereof and that consequently there is no difficultie in this Clause supposing the lawfulnesse of the former Clauses and that this Oath is lawfully ministred by good and full authoritie CHAP. VIII The Eight and last Branch of the Oath ANd I doe make this recognition and acknowledgement heartily willingly and truely vpon the true faith of a Christian So helpe mee God 1. The lawfulnesse of this Branch dependeth wholly vpon the veritie and iustice of the former Clauses and will cleerely appeare if wee suppose as hath beene shewed before that this Oath of Allegiance contayneth in it no falshood or iniustice and that it is ministred vnder great penalties by lawfull authoritie to make a triall how his Maiesties subiects stand