applyed because in the beginning or Preface of euery Law is vsually contayned the finall end cause and reason which chiefly moueth the Law-maker and which is morally a sure meanes to finde out his will and meaning and by which the ambiguitie of any word or sentence is chiefly to be determined And finally we must alwaies if there be no other let interprete the words of the Law when they are doubtfull in the more milde and fauourable sense especially if the matter be odious and penall aeccording to those approued rules of the Law Benignius leges c. Leg. Benignius ff de legibus De regulis Iuris in Sexin Laws are to be interpreted in the more fauourable sense c. And it is meete that odious things be restrayned and fauours bee enlarged Yea and if the words of the Law being taken in their proper signification should argue any iniustice or like absurditie to bee in the minde of the Law-maker they must bee drawne to a sense although improper wherein the Laew may bee iust and reasonable because this is presumed to bee the will of the Law-maker as it hath beene declared by many Lawes in ff tit de Legibus Nam in ambigua voce c. Leg. in ambigua ff de legibus For in a doubtfull word of the Law saith the Law that sense is rather to bee chosen which is voide of all default especially seeing that the will also of the Law-maker may hereby be gathered because it ought not to be persumed that the Law-maker did intend to command any absurd or inconuenient thing Thus Suarez What blame then doe they deserue who seeke to wrest the wordes of this Oath to a sense which they account to bee most false and absurd with so great preiudice to the soules and temporall States of English Catholikes and with no lesse irreuerence to his Maiestie and the State whom next vnder God they are bound to honor and obey in all temporall affaires whereas they may expound the words according to their proper and vsuall signification in a true conuenient and fauorable sense as the Reader may see beneath 5. Thirdly to know the end and reason of this Oath and of the makers thereof it is to bee obserued that the Parliamēt in the very beginning of this Act to which according to Suarez we must if there be no other let apply all that followeth did expresly set downe the cause end and reason for which this new Oath was deuised to wit to make a better tryall how His Maiesties subiects stand affected in point of their loyaltie and due obedience For His Maiestie and the State perceiuing that the Powder-Traytors who were all of them Romane Catholikes did ground as it doth appeare by their confessions their barbarous and deuillish plot chiefly vpon the Popes power to take away the Crownes and liues from temporall Princes in order to spirituall good and knowing with all that many other Roman Catholikes did from their hearts detest and abhorre such trayterous and diabolicall practises and the wicked grounds thereof thought it needfull for the better discouering and repressing of such bloudie Assasinates and their disciples to deuise such an Oath wherein true temporall Allegiance due to all temporall Princes of what Religion soeuer should bee demanded and no true spirituall obedience due to the Pope or other spirituall Pastours should be denyed and yet the wicked principles of that most damnable Conspiracie should bee detected and abiured And the substance of this new Oath they did take from the Protestation of those thirteene Catholike Priests as the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie Doctor Bancroft told a deare friend of mine only vsing another forme of words and expressing some things concerning the Popes pretended authoritie which in their Protestation are not expressed but only supposed implyed and virtually contayned for in effect and substance they little differ as partly you haue seen aboue and more fully shall perceiue when you haue seene all the branches of the Oath explayned In his Premonition pag. 9. in hir Apologie for the Oath pag. 2. pag. 9. 6. And not only the Parliament hath set downe the end and reason of this new Oath but also His Maiestie Himselfe hath often by publike Writings in expresse words declared that He intended to exact in this Oath nothing else of His Subiects then a profession of that temporall Allegiance and ciuill Obedience which all subiects what Religion soeuer they professe by the Law of God and Nature do owe to their lawfull Prince with a promise to resist and disclose all contrarie vnciuill violence and to make a true distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants but betwixt ciuilly obedient Catholikes and such Catholikes as are the Disciples of the Powder-Treason Whereupon hee caused the lower house of Parliament who at first would haue had the Oath to contayne the denyall of the Popes power to excommunicate him to reforme that clause So carefull was He that nothing should be contayned in this Oath except the profession of naturall Allegiance and ciuill and temporall obedience He said in this Oath for as the Oath of Supremacie saith His Maiestie was deuised for putting a difference betweene Papists and them of our professions so was this Oath ordayned for making a difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-Treason And againe This Oath saith His Maiestie was ordayned only for making a true distinction betweene Papists of quiet disposition and in all other things good subiects and such other Papists as in their harts maintayned the like violent bloudie maximes that the Powder-Traytours did The same also but in more ample wordes affirmeth His Maiestie in His Apologie for the Oath 7. Wherefore we must distinguish betwixt the vnderstanding beliefe or perswasion of His Maiestie and His will intent or meaning as Hee is a Law-maker For albeit His Maiestie should beleeue and be fully perswaded that the Pope is not the Supreme Head of the whole Church and consequently that he hath not by the institution of Christ any power to excommunicate him yet his will and meaning is not that His subiects shal in this Oath professe the same or renounce any spirituall obedience due to the Pope which euery Catholike according to the grounds of true Catholike Religion is bound to acknowledge but only that they make a profession of that temporall Allegiance and ciuill obedience which all subiects of what Religion soeuer do owe to their lawfull Prince From whence it cleerly followeth that albeit there were in this Oath some ambiguous or doubtfull sentence as there is not which might be applyed as well to the denying of that spirituall obedience which according to the grounds of Catholike Religion is due to the Pope and other spirituall Pastours as to the professing of that temporall Allegiance which is due to temporall Princes we ought to interprete the words in that sense wherein according to the will minde and end
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
or Successours or any absolution of the said Subiects from their obedience yet he wil beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his Heires and Successours and him and them will defend c. Neuerthelesse the lawfulnesse or iustice of this promissorie Oath supposeth for the principall ground thereof the veritie of the former assertorie Clause and therefore it implieth and vertually containeth a deniall of the Popes authoritie to depriue or depose Princes and to absolue Subiects froÌ„ their temporall allegiance for that whosoeuer doth sweare that notwithstanding any sentence of depriuation or absolution of subiects from their obedience made or hereafter to be made by the Pope or his Successours against his Maiestie his Heires or Successours to make this promise iust and lawfull he must consequently deny that the Pope hath Authoritie to depriue Princes or to absolue Subiects from their obedience as Suarez examining this Branch of the Oath doth most clearely demonstrate Suarez in Defens lib. 6. cap. 3. See Widdring against Fitzherbert part 1. cap. 5. For if the sentence of depriuation to be made at any time hereafter against the King his Heires or Successours for any manifest cause or crime whatsoeuer may be iust lawfull and effectuall it is as vnlawfull to take this clause as it is vnlawfull for one to sweare that he will not obey the Popes sentence and commandement which hereafter he shall impose be it neuer so inst and without all errour or default But if this sentence of depriuation at any time hereafter to be made can neuer be iust it must needs follow that the Pope hath no more authoritie to depriue or depose the King his Heires or Successours then he hath authoritie to commit open iniustice 2. Wherefore those thirteene Reuerend Priests who solemnly protested to Queene Elizabeth that notwithstanding any authoritie which words are farre more generall then notwithstanding any sentence of depriuation or any Excommunication either denounced or to be denounced against her Maiestie c. they would yeeld to her Maiestie all obedience in temporall causes would then haue made no difficultie to take this Branch of the Oath and consequently to free themselues from periurie they must also deny the Popes Authoritie to depriue and depose Princes for that the iustice of this Branch implieth supposeth as a chiefe ground thereof a deniall of the Popes authoritie to depriue and depose as Suarez doth most plainely conuince 3. First therefore in this Clause is not denied the Popes power to Excommunicate but onely that Excommunication being a spirituall censure doth not worke this temporall effect as to make Kings no Kings or to depriue them of their Royall right and Soueraigntie and consequently not to absolue Subiects from their naturall allegiance which according to the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and Suarez they doe by the law of God and Nature owe to their lawfull Prince Bell. in Tract contra Barclaium cap. 21. pag. 202. Suarez in Defens c. lib. 6. cap. 3. nu 6. And thus much his Maiestie hath also in expresse words declared The truth is saith his Maiestie The Kings Maiestie in his Premonition c. pag. 9. that the Lower house of Parliament at the first framing of this Oath made it to containe that the Pope had no power to Excommunicate mee which I forced them to reforme onely making it to conclude that no Excommunication of the Popes can warrant my Subiects to practise against my Person or State denying the deposition of Kings to be in the Popes lawfull power as indeede I take any such temporall violence to be farre without the limits of such a spirituall censure as Excommunication is And also that depriuation or deposition from temporall kingdomes is not an effect of ExcommunicatioÌ„ Widdrington hath shewed at large heretofore and Becanus and Suarez doe also in expresse words affirme the same Widdrington in his Apologie nu 346. in his Answer to Suarez part 2. sect 4. and in his Answer to Fitzher part 3. cap. 1. FroÌ„ hence it is very apparaÌ„t saith Becanus Becanus in quest de fide haereticis seruanda ca. 8. nu 16. and in his Controuersia Anglic. cap. 3. qu. 2. that Heretikes by this precisely that they are excommunicated are not depriued of their Dominion or Iurisdiction either ouer their subiects or ouer their temporall goods but this depriuation is a destinct punishment and inflicted by a destinct law And againe It is one thing saith he to excommunicate a King and another thing to depose him or depriue him of his Kingdome neither is the one necessarily connected with the other Many Kings and Emperours haue beene excommunicated and yet not therefore deposed and contrariwise many deposed and yet not therefore excommunicated See also Suarez cited by Widdrington in his Apologie Suarez tom 5. disp 15. sect 6. nu 3. and in his answere to Suarez and Fitzherbert 4. And therefore in very truth I am sorie and doe in some sort pittie the Author of the Prelate and the Prince a man whom heretofoâ—e I haue much loued respected and honoured that he should so grosly forget himselfe as to bewray so palpably such great want of learning iudgement and sinceritie in affirming so boldly and without any proofe at all Pag. 298. that depriuation of Regall authoritie is an effect of excommunicating Kings and Princes and so in denying the effect the cause is denyed For as saith he if you should say A man is not risibilis that is hath not power to laugh you should deny him to be a man so in denying that the Pope can depriue Princes of their Kingdomes you deny in effect that he can excommunicate Whereas this Authour knew right well that Widdrington in that very Chapter which hee citeth did by the expresse doctrine of Suarez and Becanus but now related cleerely prooue against Lessius who vrged euen as nakedly and without any proofe at all the same obiection that depriuation is no effect at all of Excommunication much lesse proprium quarto modo as risibilis a power to laugh is to a man as this Authour most vnlearnedly affirmeth And yet forsooth he taketh vpon him as it may appeare by the very Title and Inscription of his Treatise to giue a full Instruction and appeasement to the consciences of English Catholikes concerning the Oath of Allegiance But this shall suffice at this present for an imperfect portraying of this Authours want of iudgement and sinceritie in his Explication of the Oath of Allegiance especially if wee consider his person the Office hee now beareth and the doctrine which in former times hee held for that as I am told his perfect Picture both in this and other points is alreadie drawne and will be set forth in liuely colours ere it be long 5. Secondly it is euident by the former Obseruations that those wordes Heires and Successours doe not signifie Vsurpers as some would wrest them contrarie to the meaning of the Law the
now in controuersie did not consider some Reason Law or Decree which hath great force against their opinion but contrariwise that the later Doctors being conuinced with that Reason Law or Decree doe now defend the contrarie opinion If therfore a learned man seeing that Law or Decree or considering that new reason doth defend the opinion of the later Writers against the ancient hee cannot follow in practice the opinion of the ancient Writers against his owne opinion or which is all one by reason of their authoritie and approbation because the opinion of the ancient who haue not seene or considered that Decree or Reason ought not now to be accounted probable And therefore Widdrington defining probable to bee that which is approued by learned and skilfull men for the better vnderstanding and explication of the last words he added who haue seene and examined the difficultie for if they haue not seene and considered that particular difficultie and controuersie they cannot bee accounted learned and skilfull therein 11. Now the particular difficulty and controuersie concerning this point and which those Popes and Doctours mentioned in the obiection did not consider and examine is whether supposing it to bee now a controuersie and to be apptooued by learned Catholikes that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Princes it be not open iniustice in the Pope to depriue Princes of their Kingdomes and Dominions which they really and bona fide doe possesse And therefore vnlesse it can bee conuinced that it is not at this day a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue which is as hard a matter as to proue that the Sunne doth not giue light at noone daies or else that it is lawfull vpon a doubtfull vncertaine controuersed probable power or title to thrust by violence any man out of that which heeactually and bona fide possesseth the practice of deposing Princes vnder pretence of the probability of the Popes power to depriue Princes cannot bee accounted probable to any learned man so much as to excuse him in conscience and in the sight of God from formall sinne and iniustice 12. But to conclude with this Obseruation which I wish you Deare Countremen diligently to consider That howsoeuer any Subiect concurring in practice with the Pope to the deposing of his lawfull Soueraigue Prince may vnder pretence of some probabilitie of the doctrine to depose Princes by the Popes authoritie perswade himselfe that hee is excused from sinne and formall Treason in his conscience and before the sight of God wherewith Princes not knowing the secrets of mens hearts but leauing them to the iudgement of God doe not intermeddle in their Tribunals yet considering these two things The first that it is most certayne and out of all controuersie that hee is excused in conscience and before the sight of God from all sinne and offence in defending his lawfull Prince who is in possession and in resisting such inuasions and depositions which are grounded only vpon a probable power and title whereas hee cannot with any reason assuredly perswade himselfe that hee is secure in conscience by taking part with the Pope against his Prince who is in possession of his Crowne The Second that it is also most certaine and out of all controuersie that hee may iustly in taking the Popes part against his Prince being inuaded and depriued vnder pretence of a probable power and title although in very deed the power and title were neuer so probable bee accused and condemned both in the Secular and also Ecclesiasticall Court of the Prince inuaded of open and manifest Treason and as a manifest Traitour be deseruedly put to death for that it is open iniustice in the Pope saith the Authour of the Prelate and the Prince to depriue a Prince of his Kingdome to which hee hath probable right and withall possession and consequently it is open Treason in the Subiect to take part with the Pope in that case against his rightfull Prince These two things I say being duly considered I thinke those Subiects to bee starke mad and senslesse and to haue neither the feare of God nor Man before their eyes that can be drawne to approue such damnable practices and consequently neither the doctrine grounds and principles thereof or to concurre with the Pope to the deposing and dispossessing of their Soueraigne Prince vnder pretence of a power title and clayme which euen in speculation and abstracting from practice can bee at the most but probable And so recommending to your prudent considerations this my serious and sincere aduertisement I make an end and request you euer to haue in minde that which I said in the beginning and cannot too often repeate Feare God Honour the King Render to God and Caesar and consequently to Popes and Princes that which is their due 1. Pet. 2. Mat. 22. A Copie of the Oath of Allegiance or the First Article which the Lower House of Parliament wherein of 200. Deputies for the Third Estates were but sixe Protestants propounded to the French King to haue established for a fundamentall Law in the generall Assembly of the three Estates holden at Paris in the yeere 1614. The First Article of the Third Estates taken out of a Booke intituled Apologie de l'Article primier du Tiers Estat pag. 4. THat to stay the course of that pernitious dostrine which some years since hath been broached against Kings and Souereigne powers established by God by seditious spirits who attend only to disturbe and subuert the same Supplication may bee made to the King that hee will cause to bee decreed in the Assemblie of these Estates for a fundamentall Law of the Realme That for as much as hee is acknowledged Soueraigne in his Estate nor houlding his Crowne but from God alone There is not any power on Earth whatsoeuer it be Spirituall or Temporall which hath any right ouer his Kingdome to depriue the sacred persons of our Kings nor to dispence or absolue for any cause or pretence whatsoeuer their Subiects from the Allegiance and obedience which they owe to them That all the Subiects of what qualitie or condition soeuer they be shall hould this Law for holy and true as agreeable to the Word of God without distinction equiuocation or limitation whatsoeuer Which shall be sworne and signed by all the Deputies of the Estates and from henceforth by all that haue Benefices or offices in the Kingdome before they enter into possession of their Benefices and bee admitted into their Offices That all Masters Regents Doctors and Preachers shall bee bound to teach and publish that the contrarie opinion to wit that it is lawfull to kill and depose our Kings to rise vp and rebell against them to shake of the yoake of their obedience for any occasion whatsoeuer is impious detestable and contrarie to truth and against the establishment of the State of France which dependeth immediatly on none but God That all Bookes which doe teach
Wee most humbly beseech Her Maiestie that in this our recognizing and yeilding Caesars due vnto Her wee may also by Her Gracious leaue be permitted for auoyding Obloquie and Calumnies make knowne by like publike Act that by yeilding Her right vnto Her wee depart from no bond of that Christian Dutie which we owe vnto our Supreme spirituall Pastour And therefore wee acknowledge and confesse the Bishop of Rome to be the Successour of Saint Peter in that See and to haue as ample and no more Authoritie or Iurisdiction ouer vs and other Christians then had that Apostle by the gift and commission of Christ our Sauiour and that Wee will obey him so farre forth as we are bound by the Lawes of God to doe which we doubt not but will stand well with performance of our Duty to our Temporall Prince in such sort as we haue before professed For as we are most ready to spend our bloud in the defence of Her Maiestie and our Country so we will rather lose our liues then infringe the lawfull authoritie of Christs Catholike Church William Bishop Iohn Colleton Iohn Mush Robert Charnocke Iohn Bosseuile Anthonie Hebborne Roger Cadwallader Robert Drury Anthony Champney Iohn Iackson Francis Barneby Oswald Needham Richard Button This Protestation of the thirteene Catholike Priests to which a great number more would haue subscribed if the Articles which those Priestes gaue vp to the State had beene returned them backe but some few dayes before the end of the time prefixed to them by the Proclamation to make known to the State their Allegiance was the ground and foundation from whence the Parliament as the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie D. Bancroft told a friend of mine framed the forme of this new Oath of Allegiance as agreeable to the doctrine which any Catholike subiect according to the grounds of true Catholike Religion might lawfully maintaine to make thereby a true distinction not betweene Protestants and Catholikes but betweene ciuilly obedient Catholikes and in all other things good Subiects and such other Catholikes as in their hearts maintained the like violent bloodie maximes that the Powder-Traitours did See beneath in the third Obseruation And doubtlesse whosoeuer will compare the new Oath and their Protestation together and doe withall consider that Queene Elizabeth was long before that time depriued of all Regall power authoritie dignitie and Iurisdiction by the Bull of Pius Quintus and also obserue vpon what assured grounds and principles those Priests could lawfully acknowledge her Maiesty to haue as full Authority Power and Soueraignty ouer them and all the Subiects of this Realme as any Her Predecessours euer had and also could lawfully promise that they would yeild to Her Maiestie all Obedience in Temporall Causes notwithstanding any authority or any Excommunication whatsoeuer denounced or to be denounced against Her Maiestie or Her Subiects as is aforesaid he will cleerly perceiue that their Protestation is all one in effect and substance with this new Oath of Allegiance and that the only difference betwixt them is that in the Oath the Popes authority to depose the King c. is expresly and in plaine wordes denyed and in their Protestation the deniall thereof is only couertly vertually and by a necessary consequence implyed notwithstanding all the euasions tergiuersations turnings windings sayings and vnsayings which any one of these Priests if for some worldly respect or other motiue hee should now repent him of what he had done could to excuse himselfe from Periurie possibly vse or inuent A Copie of Master Iohn Colletons Petition to the Lord Archbishop of Canterburies Grace wherein hee confirmeth his former Protestation many yeeres after the new Oath of Allegiance was established IF your Grace and the State saw the present affections of my heart and were pleased to looke on my carriages past neyther trouble some or vnrespectiue I hope the fauour I am to desire albeit it may seeme extraordinary yet the same could not altogether be deemed vnworthily extended The voluntarie and free Recognition I made in the late Queenes Reigne as it then sufficed and is now extant in print so doth it still witnesse the readinesse of my professed Allegiance in all Secular and Ciuill affaires Neither haue I bin am now or by Gods grace euer shall be otherwise affected then in like sort to acknowledge his Maiestie that now gouerneth for my lawfull Dread Soueraigne obey in all Politicall administration and defend his sacred Person Crowne and Dominions to the vttermost of my power against all enemies of what place and calling soeuer The commiseration I most humbly beseech your Grace to take of my aged yeeres accompanied with sundrie infirmities is to stand so good Lord vnto me as to enlarge me vpon sufficient securitie for my appearance before your Honour at the time your Lordship shall thinke fit to assigne An euident meane of lengthing my life beside the easing of the heauy charge my imprisonment imposeth I would very gladly haue beene herein my owne Sollicitour in person but that I hold the boldnesse greater in respect of my disgracefull state then I durst to aduenture on without your Lordships good liking thereunto first vnderstood 26. of March 1610. Your Graces most suppliant Petitioner IOHN COLLETON A Copie of the Declaration and Acknowledgement which Master Iames Houghton alias Thomas Green a Religious Priest of the Order of Saint Benedict and professour of Dininitie made vnder his owne hand writing to the Lord Bishop of Durham the first of Nouember 1619. touching his opinion of the Oath of Allegiance Iames Houghton alias Thomas Green his opinion touching the Oath of Allegiance 1 FIrst I do ingenuously confesse that his Maiestie had very iust cause by occasion of that most trecherous plot of the Gunpowder-Treason to propose to all his Subiects English Catholikes 〈◊〉 Oath of ciuill fidelitie and obedience due vnto Kings both by the Lawes of God and Nature and that in most effectuall and peremptory termes for tryall of their fidelity and loyalty to Hâ—… Maiestie their true Soueraigne Lord and King 2. Secondly it seemeth to me that the Church had done her dutie if she had shewed her dislike of that odious practice of the Gun-powder-Treason by some publike declaration in detestation thereof both for his Maiesties satisfaction and for the confirmation of his Catholike Subiects in their fidelity and allegiance vnto Him 3. Thirdly I doe ingenuously confesse that to me it seemeth most true that the doctrine which approueth murthering of Kings by their owne Subiects or any else is both damnable and hereticall yea though it be in casu Apostasiae a fide aut Infidelitatis in case of Apostasie from faith or of Infidelitie 4. Fourthly I do ingenuously grant that it seemeth to mee in my priuate iudgement that there is nothing in the Oath but that it may according to Roger Widdrington his Glosse and Exposition be lawfully taken of English Catholikes His Maiesties Subiects though some both Learned and Religious hold
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
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
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
lawfull for Catholickes to contradict the declaratiue Breue of Pope Nicholas the First a De consecr dist 4. can A quodam Iudaeo wherein he declared that Baptisme ministred in the name of Christ without expressing the three persons of the B. Trinitie was valid and true Baptisme And the declaratiue Breue of Pope Celestine the Third b Which was once extant in the Canon Law in cap. Laudabilem de controuers coniugot wherein he declared and as Alphonsus de Castro saith b Castro lib. 1. de haeres cap. 4. he defined that Marriage is so dissolued by heresie that the partie whose Consort falleth into heresie may lawfully marry an other which Doctrine is now condemned in the Councell of Trent c Sec. 24. de Reform can 5. And the declaratiue Breues or Letters of Pope Iohn the 22. who publiquely taught and declared that the soules of the Blessed should not see God before the resurrection d See Castro lib. 3. contra haeres verbo Beatitudo haeres 6. Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 14. Hadrianus Papa in quaest de Confirm circa finem and other Histories wherein hee was contradicted by the Doctours of Paris and caused to recall his Doctrine And the declaratiue Breue of Pope Boniface the eight wherein he declared that Philip the French King was subiect to him in spiritualls and temporalls wherein he was contradicted by the French Nation and taxed of wonderfull impudency * See Nicolaus Vignerius ad annum 1300. 5. Fourthly he sheweth that the Popes declaratiue Breues forbidding Catholicks to take the oath for that it contayneth many things which are manifestly against faith and saluation are neyther definitiue for that they are not directed to the whole Church nor doe contayne any of those rules which according to Cardinal Bellarmine and other Diuines is required to a true and infallible definition of faith for onely of this kind of definition now wee speake and that although they were definitiue yet considering that it is a probable Doctrine that the Pope hath no authoritie infallibly to define without a generall Councell no Catholicke is bound to giue more credit to his definition then to follow his probable Doctrine and opinion neyther are they grounded vpon any former definition of Pope or Councell and which all Catholickes are bound to admit for a true definition as Widdrington hath proued at large by answering all the Decrees and Canons of Popes or Councells which Lessius masked vnder the name of D. Singleton hath scraped together But they are grounded onely vpon the opinatiue iudgement of the Pope and some other Diuines of Rome who then were of opinion that many things are contayned in the Oath manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation for one of these two grounds and reasons or rather for both The first that the Popes power to excommunicate and consequently his spirituall authoritie is denyed in the Oath and that the Breues were chiefly grounded vpon this reason Widdrington conuinceth by the Popes answer to Fa Parsons Widdrington against Fitzh part 3. chap. 17. by the consult and resolution of the Diuines of Rome by Cardinall Bellarmine Bellarmine in his Answer to the Apologie pag. 9. who doubtlesse would not in this poynt dissent from the opinion and resolution of the Pope and the other Diuines of Rome nor they from him affirming that in the Oath is plainely or manifestly denyed to the Pope power to excommunicate euen hereticall Kings for which he is deseruedly taxed by his Maiestie of manifest falshood and lastly by those wordes of the Breues that in the Oath are contayned many things quae apertè aduersantur fidei which are plainely or expresly repugnant to faith But none of our learned Aduersaries dare affirme that the denyall of the Popes power to depose Princes is plainely and expresly repugnant to faith but at the most tacite and tecte conertly and closely and that by many farre fetcht and ill deduced inferences and suppositions See Suarez lib. 6. cap. 1. de Iuramento fidelitatis and that therefore they supposed with Cardinall Bellarmine that the Popes power to excommunicate is denyed in the Oath The second ground or reason is that the Popes power to depose Princes to dipose of their temporalls and to absolue subiects from their temporall allegiance which doubtlesse is denyed in the Oath is a cleare poynt of faith and not in controuersie among Catholiques both which grounds and reasons are manifestly false as hath beene sufficiently conuinced by the former Discourse and consequently that it is no more vnlawful not to obey the Popes declaratiue Breues forbidding Catholickes to take the Oath they being grounded vpon the aforesaid reasons suppositions which are manifestly false then it is vnlawfull not to approue the said false reasons and suppositions for that a declaratiue precept hath no more force to bind according to the Doctrine of Suarez which is also conforme to manifest reason then hath the reason supposition whereon it is grounded 6. Lastly he sheweth out of the doctrine of Dominicus Sotus other diuines Sotus de de delegendo secretoto memb 2. nu 2. See Widdrington in the Discouery of the 15. colum of D. Schulked that if a Prelate or any other Superiour command a thing which the Subiect doubteth to be vniust and the thing which is commanded be in preiudice of a third person who is in possession of his goods and good name it is no irreurence or disobedience in the Subiect not to obey propounding to his Superiour with all humilitie and reuerence the reasons of his doubt Seeing therefore that Widdrington hath in the name of English Catholickes propounded to his Holinesse the reasons which moued them to doubt that his declaratiue Breues were not iust as beeing greatly preiudiciall to his Mtiesties temporall Soueraigntie and namely for that they were grounded vpon the two aforesaid false reasons and suppositions and that they haue not had as yet any satisfaction concerning those their doubts it is not onely manifest that they cannot be iustly taxed of any disobedience or irreuerence to his Holinesse for not obeying the aforesaid Breues but also it is an euident signe that his Holinesse could not satisfie their doubts and that now hee plainly seeth that he and his Diuines were mistaken and that his declaratiue Breues were grounded vpon those false reasons and suppositions which he could not iustifie or make good Otherwise he would without all doubt in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall charge haue sought to haue giuen them all possible satisfaction in this poynt which so neerely concerneth not onely their soules health and their temporall states and libertie but which also is so iniurious to his Maiestie and so scandalous to Catholicke Religion giuing occasion to all Protestant Princes and subiects to perswade themselues that the profession of the Catholicke Roman Religion cannot stand with true and constant loyaltie but that it is a Nurcery of
vniust Inuasions Rebellions and Powder-Treasons 7. Wherefore for the last farewell I beseech you again and againe deare Countrimen not to forget those two most certaine Principles whereon is chiefly grounded the Doctrine for the iustifying of the Oath and for the securing of Princes from all trayterous Conspiracies practises and attempts vnder the colour and pretence of the Popes authoritie to depose them to wit that it is a great controuersie among learned Catholickes and therefore not certayne but truely probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Soueraigne Princes and that no power or title which is not most certayn but in controuersie can bee a lawfull ground whereby immediately any man may be punished or depriued of that right dominion or any other thing which hee really and bona fide possesseth both which Principles are as you haue seene so cleare and manifest that no learned man can from his hart deny them howsoeuer some one or other for some temporall respect end or motiue may speake or write contrary to his mind and knowledge 8. But as Widdrington towards the end of his Answer to Fitzherberts Preface well obserueth out of Molina and Lessius both famous Iesuites there is a great difference betwixt the possessing of temporall and corporall goods as Lands Houses Crownes Kingdomes and the like and the possessing of authoritie Iurisdiction rights and claymes which one may pretend to haue to such temporall goods For that possession properly is onely of temporall goods and such goods may properly be possessed although the party who hath true right to those goods contradicteth neuer so much but rights and claymes are not properly possessed but they are onely said to be as it were in some sort or improperly possessed and besides to the possessing of power authoritie iurisdiction right or claime to any temporall thing in such manner as right iurisdiction and claime may be sayd to be possessed it is necessarie that the right or claime which is pretended be without contradiction and resistance of the aduerse part Otherwise if one should challenge any right or authoritie be it good or bad true or false and should exercise that pretended right or authoritie the aduerse part contradicting he might neuerthelesse be said to bee in possession of that right or authoritie which is manifestly false and absurd For so if a Lay-man should pretend to haue true spirituall iurisdiction ouer Clergie men as power to excommunicate and should exercise that pretended iurisdiction hee might be said to be in possession of true spirituall iurisdiction although the Clergie should neuer so much contradict and except against the same And for this reason albeit some Popes haue for as many hundreds of yeares as haue beene since the time of Pope Gregorie the Seuenth challenged a right and authoritie to depriue Kings of their regall Soueraigntie yet they cannot be said to haue beene for one day or one houre in possession of that their pretended right and authoritie because Christian Kings and Subiects from the time of Henrie the Fourth Emperour who was the first Emperour that was depriued by Pope Gregorie the Seuenth vntill the time of Henrie the Fourth most Christian King who was the last King who was depriued by Pope Sixtus the Fift haue euer resisted and contradicted this pretended authoritie and clayme of Popes to depriue them of their temporalls And although perchance there should haue beene or hereafter shall be some or other Christian King who for some priuate or publique respect and interest hath not or shall not resist the Popes sentence of depriuation denounced or to bee denounced against him but rather yeeld thereunto yet this cannot preiudice his successors or be a sufficiēt ground that the Pope may be truely said to be in possession of his pretended right authority and claime to depriue Kings in general but at the most to depriue that King in particular who did not resist or gainsay but rather acknowledged the right and authority which the Pope claimed to depriue him 9. Finally although it may bee obiected that diuerse Popes haue practized the deposing of Princes and many learned Diuines haue approued the said practice therefore the practice being approued by many learned and skilfull men in the Arte which they professe is truly probable euen according to Widdringtons grounds which he taketh from Vasquez Yet this is easily answerd For those Popes and learned men in approuing that practice for lawfull did either thinke assuredly that the doctrine for the Popes power to depriue Princes was most certaine vnquestionable and out of all controuersie and that the contrarie doctrine was not at that time nor could lawfully bee approued by any learned Catholike which howsoeuer those Doctours might at that time thinke or be perswaded wherein neuerthelesse they were greatly deceiued because euen from the first broaching of this doctrine and practice by Pope Gregorie the VII A thing vnheard of before that Age saith Onuphrius Onuphr lib. 4. de varia creat Rom. Pont. it hath euer beene a great controuersie saith Azor the Iesuite Azor. cited aboue in the Sixt Obseruat betweene Popes and Emperours yet now it is so cleere and manifest that there is at this time a great controuersie among learned Catholikes concerning this authoritie of the Pope as that all the World both by the publike writings and proceedings in this controuersie can giue sufficient testimonie of the same Or else those Popes and Doctours did not consider and examine the difference betwixt speculation and practice but without any further examination thought euery doctrine that was probable and approoued by learned men in speculation and might speculatiuely and abstracting from practice bee disputed in Schooles pro and contra might also bee practised and put in execution not considering whether it tendeth to the preiudice of a third person and to the dispossessing him of that which hee actually and bona fide possesseth or no whereas it is most certaine and out of all controuersie as hath beene shewed aboue that it is open iniustice to depriue vpon a probable or controuersed power or title any man of that which hee hath really in his possession 10. Now it is euident according to Vasquez doctrine which Widdrington followeth and which stands with manifest reason that the approbation and authoritie of ancient or moderne Doctours is not sufficient to make their doctrine probable to other learned men if either their doctrine bee grounded vpon some principle which to those learned men is manifestly false or it may bee confuted by some reason which to those learned men seemeth inuincible and not to be answered and which reason those Doctours haue not seene considered and examined Obseruandum tamen maxime est c. But it is greatly to bee obserued saith Vasquez Vasquez 1. 2. disp 62. cap. 4. nu 18. cited by Widder in disp Theolog c. 10. sec 2. nu 16. that it may sometimes fall out that the ancient Writers whose opinions are