Cannot be dispensed with or absolved from his Allegeance Which to me seems no reason at all why Will not may not be as good a Subject and give as full security for his Allegeance as Cannot his Oath by which he swears he will not ever accept or make use of any Dispensation or Absolution from his Allegeance being to him as indispensably binding and tying him as fast to his Prince and his interest as any Oath can possibly do For if it be replied that he who now swears he will not ever accept or make use of any such Dispensation or Absolution may come hereafter to alter his mind and then what is become of his cobweb-Oath and the security he gave for his Fidelity It may with as much reason and truth be retorted that he who now swears he cannot be dispensed with nor absolved from his Allegeance may come hereafter to alter his opinion and then where is his cobweb-Oath and the security he gave for his Fidelity I answer then for both That though Wills and Opinions are flippery things yet an Oath may fix both the one and the other yet with this difference and advantage against the foresaid Opinion that Wills may be fixed immediately Opinions onely mediately and indeed by no other means then by first fixing of Wills First then that an Oath may immediately fix and restrain the Will I take to be a clear case for he that swears for example he will not doe such or such a thing tending to the prejudice of a third person is without more adoe under as streight and indispensable a ty as any Oath can bring upon him that is he cannot so much as change his Will nor goe back with his Promise without Perjury and proving false to God his own heart and his Oath As for Opinions since it hath been already proved that it can never be safe to swear or abjure an Opinion and then secondly though it were yet such an Oath being an assertory Oath could bring no bond or obligation upon the Swearer so much as of not changing his Opinion for the future hence it plainly follows that the way of fixing and restraining Opinions is onely mediately and by first fixing and restraining the Will either by a promissory Oath or by the severity of the Law or by both jointly For instance take in King Henry the VIII his daies upon occasion of the then Six famed Articles of Religion it was ordained and enacted by authority of Parliament That if any person or persons within this Realm of England or in any other of the King's dominions did by word or writing printing cyphering or any otherwise publish preach teach say affirm declare dispute argue or hold any Opinion contrary to the foresaid Articles that then such person or persons so offending should be liable to such and such particular penalties as are expressed in the Statute Were this pattern copied out by our Age and that there were a Law now in force That if any person or persons within this Realm or in any other of the King's dominions did by word writing printing cyphering or any other waies publish preach teach say affirm declare dispute argue or hold any Opinion in favour of the Pope's Power of deposing Princes that then such person or persons so offending should be liable to such and such penal severities as the Legislative power of this Nation had in their grave wisedom thought fit to appoint were there I say such an Act as this in force he who would swear to a strict observance thereof would have no more to answer for his Opinions in this particular But yet again though there be no such Law extant let but the good Subject be admitted to swear that he will never by word deed or any otherwise countenance abett defend maintain preach teach or publish any Opinion in favour of the Pope's direct or indirect Deposing power and for the rest that he will inviolably bear Faith and true Allegeance to the King notwithstanding any Dispensation or whatever other proceeding to the contrary and not onely never act against Him but also assist to the best of his power and skill and side with Him against any Power whatsoever that shall at any time act against Him or attempt against His Sacred Person Crown or Dignity Questionless no Security imaginable can be greater then this forasmuch as no one can be more faithfully true to his King or more securely incapable of proving disloyal to Him whilst this Oath is kept And for security that he will keep it I conceive no good Subject will refuse to swear that he will be content if ever he fail in the performance hereof to be deemed and adjudged a Disturber of the peace and an Enemy to his King and Country a man forsworn before God and the world and will therefore freely offer to be punished as in case of Perjury and Rebellion that is to forfeit his Body to the Law his Soul to the doom and wrath of the last day and his Name to scorn and reproach Were this throughly weighed and duly sworn I know no Expedient that could more effectually contribute to the perfect quieting of all just fears of the State nor more securely answer for the peaceable disposition and opinions of the Swearer whenas even the most hidden thoughts and abstracted notions of the speculative man being under unjust restraint and having for guaranty such an Oath and sacred Engagement are sufficiently bound to their good behaviour and secured from all sacrilegious attempts of breaking inclosure and shewing themselves abroad though onely by way of publick and open discourse Wherefore I shall conclude with the Fourth Controversial Letter in behalf of the silencing and abjuring all Disputes in reference to the Deposing doctrine heartily wishing as he doth that we may all preserve the majesty of Supreme powers in an awfull distance and submit to them with the reverence of a quiet Obedience and not make them cheap by unreasonable Disputes Princes and Bishops are both sacred let what belongs to them be so too and not touched without the excuse of necessity or obligation of duty let every quiet and peaceable spirit say Obedience is the duty which God and my condition require from me and in the performance of that I will endeavour to be found unblamable and leave disputing to those who value the praise of a witty and subtle man above that of a faithfull and quiet Subject CHAP. IX An Answer to the Authour of the Questions as far as concerns our present Question IN the first place I shall speak to matter of fact relating to the Sorbon Censures and the Subscription of the French Iesuits the clearing of both which particulars from some unwary misrepresentations and disguises of our Authour shall be the chief subject of this Chapter The first and leading Censure was that of the Sacred Faculty of Theology which upon occasion and mature examination of a certain Latine Book printed at
some Points And yet the Dominicans swear to maintain S. Thomas his Doctrine What think you of the Immaculate Conception which so many Vniversities have sworn to maintain as Luc. Wadding hath shewed at large and yet all these Oaths were made before any authoritative Decision of the Church One of you hath found out an evasion for this by saying that it is one thing to swear to maintain a Doctrine as true and another to swear to it as true I cry you mercy Gentlemen I had thought no persons would have sworn to maintain a falshood or to defend that as true which at the same time they believed or suspected not to be true Why may not you then swear that you will maintain the Pope hath no Power to depose Princes when your Prince requires it as well as swear to maintain the Immaculate Conception when the Vniversity requires it whatever your private Opinion be But to prevent this subterfuge Wadding saith from Surius that the Vniversity of Mentz would admit none to any degree in Divinity without swearing that he would neither approve nor hold in his mind any other Opinion What think you now of swearing to the truth of an Opinion not decided by the Church upon the best probable reasons that can be given for it And therefore all this outcry about Perjury was onely to frighten and amuse and not to convince or satisfy The rest of that Treatise consists of impertinent Cavills against several Expressions in the Oath of Allegeance which ought to be understood according to the intention of the Law-givers the reason and design of the Law and the natural sense of the words and if they will but allow these as the most reasonable ways of interpreting Laws all those Exceptions will be found too light to weigh down the balance of any tolerable judgment and have been answered over and over from the days of Widdrington to the Authour of the Questions and therefore I pass them over and leave them to any who shall think it worth their pains to make a just Answer to them The Third Treatise is written by a very Considering man as any one may find in every Page of it He bids his Readers consider so much as though he had a mind to have them spend their days in considering the Oath without ever taking it As he had that desired time to consider the Solemn League and Covenant and when he was asked how long time he would take for it he told them but a little time for he was an old man and not likely to live long But what is it which this person offers which is so considerable His main Argument is from the Pope's Authority prohibiting the taking this Oath expressly at several and distant times and after the most ample information and the Writings on both sides it being a thing belonging to the Pope's Authority as Spiritual Governour and not to the Civil Power to determine This is an Argument I must leave to those to answer who think themselves obliged to justify the Pope's Authority and to disobey it at the same time To this some answer That the Pope's Prohibition proceeding on a false Supposition and a private Opinion of his own viz. that there are some things in the Oath repugnant to Faith they are not bound to obey it because it belongs not to the Pope without a Council to determine matters of Faith That the Popes have sometimes required very unjust and unreasonable things of which Warmington gives some notable instances of his own knowledge That Obedience to all Superiours is limited within certain bounds which if they exceed men are not bound to obey them That the very Canonists and Schoolmen do set bounds to the Pope's Authority as 1. when great mischief is like to ensue by his Commands so Francisc. Zabarell Panormitan Sylvester and others 2. when injury comes to a third person by it so Card. Tolet Panormitan Soto c. 3. when there is just cause to doubt the Lawfulness of the thing commanded so Pope Adrian Vasquez Navarr and others cited by Widdrington 4. when he commands about those things wherein he is not Superiour so Tolet determins A man is onely obliged in those things to obey his Superiour wherein he hath Authority over him Now say they we having just cause to doubt whether the Pope may command us in things relating to our Allegeance and apparent Injury coming to Princes by owning this Doctrine and much Mischief having been done by it and more designed as the Gunpowder-Treason the true Occasion of this Oath it is no culpable Disobedience to take the Oath of Allegeance notwithstanding the Pope's Prohibition And upon the very same Grounds and Reasons which made the King's Royal Ancestours with their Parliaments to limit the Pope's Authority in England in the ancient Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire His Majestie 's Grandfather might with his Parliament enact that Law which requires the taking of the Oath of Allegeance and how comes such Disobedience in Temporals say they to be now more repugnant to Catholick Religion then it was in those days Nay in those times it was good Doctrine that when a Dispute arose whether a thing did belong to the Civil or Ecclesiastical Power to judge the Civil Power hath made Laws and determined it and the Subjects did submit to the Civil Authority This and much more might be said to shew the inconsequence of this Argument upon which the stress of the Third Treatise lies but I leave the full Answer to those that are concerned The plainest shortest and truest Answer is That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction over us either in Spirituals or Temporals But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that if they would renounce the Pope's Deposing power there is nothing else according to the Principles of their own Religion could hinder them from taking the Oath of Allegeance Which is in effect acknowledged at last by this Authour of the Third Treatise when he offers a new Form of an Oath rather more expressive of Civil Obedience then the Oath of Allegeance Are not Princes mightily obliged to you Gentlemen that take such wonderfull care to have a more express Oath then this already required by Law How comes this extraordinary fit of Kindness upon you Do you really think the Oath of Allegeance defective in this point No no. We know what you would have If we can get but this Oath out of the way the same interest which can remove this will prevent another as some argue about other matters at this time Well but what Security is this which you do so freely offer First You are ready to swear without any Mental reservation that you acknowledge our Sovereign Lord CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Dominions A wonderfull Kindness While the old Gentleman at Rome pleases you will doe this but suppose he should
of Rossaeus but written by W. Reynolds a furious English Papist who with his Brethren contributed their utmost assistence to the Rebellious Leaguers in France as appears by the Books then written This man proceeds upon the same two Fundamental Principles of Rebellion the Power of the People and the Deposing power of the Pope He makes all Obedience to Princes to be so far conditional that if they doe not their duty their Subjects are free from their obligation to obey them and saith that the contrary opinion is against the Law of Nations and the common Reason of Mankind And with great vehemency he pleads for the Supreme Power over Princes to lie in the Body of the People or their Representative Which he endeavours to prove by the consent of Nations And it is observable that he makes the Right of Succession by nearness of Bloud to be a Calvinistical Doctrine For he saith Those pretended Catholicks who pleaded for the Right of the King of Navarre though of a different Religion had onely the name of Catholicks but were in truth impudent Calvinists The good Catholick Doctrine which he asserts is that no Obedience is due to an Heretical Prince Which he goes about to prove with more then fanatick zeal But whereas the Fanaticks had onely the Power of the People to justify themselves by he calls in the Deposing Power of the Pope too upon which he largely insists Yet this is the Book so highly commended in France by Clement VIII 5 Nuncio the Cardinal of Placentia By which we see how well the Republican Principles do agree with the Pope's Deposing power Which may be better understood when we consider that these were the common Principles of the whole Party of the League as might be proved from several authentick Testimonies if it were needfull And he is a mighty stranger in History that doth not know how that Party was encouraged and abetted by the Court of Rome and how Sixtus V. made a Fanatick Oration in the Consistory at Rome upon the Murther of Henry III. by a Iacobin Frier after eight days fasting and prayer to prepare himself for so holy an Act and celebrating Masse and commending himself to the prayers of others as one tells us who well knew all the circumstances of that horrid Murther This Oration is now stoutly denied by persons of greater zeal then knowledge but Will. Warmington a Romish Priest not onely assures us that he had seen the Copy printed at Paris 1589. the year of the King's death with the Approbation of 3 Doctours of the Faculty of Paris whereof one viz. Boucher was the Authour of the Book of The just Abdication of Henry III. but he saith that being then at Rome he sent it to William Reynolds the Authour of the other Treatise who looked on it as an Approbation of the Frier's fact and said he could not have been gratified by any thing more then by sending him the Approbation of the See Apostolick because he was then writing his Book This Speech was published from the Notes of Card. Allen as Warmington saith who was then one of his Chaplains imploy'd by him in transcribing it and the Pope himself acknowledged it to be his own Oration Let the World then judge whether the Regicides Doctrine doth not very well agree with the Maxims of the Roman Court So true is that saying of Spalatensis that the Popes and their followers make it their business to lessen the Authority of Princes and to make it as mean and contemptible as they can And the countenancing the Proceedings of the Covenanters in France against Henry IV. by the successive Popes was so open and notorious that the necessity of his Affairs drove him to the Change of his Religion but because he was not a Persecuter of Hereticks to that degree they desired after several attempts upon his Person by men of these Principles we all know it cost him his Life at last And I have it from a very good hand that Ravilliac himself confessed that the Reason which induced him to murther his Sovereign was because he did not think him obedient enough to the Pope Thus we find the most mischievous Commonwealth-Principles have been very well entertained at Rome as long as they are subservient to the Pope's Deposing power But if we enquire farther into the Reason of these Pretences we shall find them alike on both sides The Commonwealths-men when they are asked how the People having once parted with their Power come to resume it they presently run to an implicit Contract between the Prince and the People by virtue whereof the People have a Fundamental Power left in themselves which they are not to exercise but upon Princes violation of the Trust committed to them The very same Ground is made the Foundation of the Pope's Deposing power viz. an implicit Contract that all Princes made when they were Christians to submit their Scepters to the Pope's Authority Which is so implicit that very few Princes in the world ever heard of it unless they were such who took their Crowns from the Popes hands after they had resigned them to them which few besides our King Iohn were ever so mean-spirited to doe I reade indeed that Albertus Archduke of Austria in late times accepted the Government of Flanders with Isabella Clara Eugenia upon these terms That if any of their Posterity were declared Hereticks by the Pope they should lose all their Right to those Provinces and that the People should be no longer bound to obey them but to take the next Successour This is a very unusual Condition and I leave it to the Politicians to dispute how far such a Condition can oblige a Sovereign Prince since it is declared in the case of King Iohn that the Resignation of the Crown to the Pope is a void Act and so consequently will the imposing any such Condition be as inconsistent with the Rights of Sovereignty But in the general case of Princes nothing is pleaded but an implicit Contract where by Princes being Excommunicated by the Pope must lose all that just Authority over the People which they had before But who made such Conditional Settlements of Civil Power upon Princes Who keeps the ancient Deeds and Records of them For all the first Ages of the Christian Church this Conditional Power and Obedience was never heard of Not when Emperours were open and declared Infidels or Hereticks What reason can be supposed more now then was in the times of Constantius and Valens that were Arian Hereticks Yet the most learned zealous and orthodox Bishops of that time never once thought of their losing their Authority by it as I could easily prove if the design of this Preface would permit me Suppose there were an Escheat of Power made how comes it to fall into the Pope's hands If it be by virtue of Excommunication every Bishop that hath Power to Excommunicate
in token of their concurring thereunto after it was pronounced all the Prelates lighting their Tapers held them downward and so put them out and threw them on the ground And every one of them set his hand to the Bull of the Sentence And there were present at it the other Emperour of Constantinople the Embassadours of France and England and of most other Christian States and not one of them no not the Emperour 's own Advocate opened his mouth against the Jurisdiction of the Court onely he put in his Appeal from it to the next more General Council which is an acknowledging the Jurisdiction Yea and the Emperour himself when the Sentence was reported to him though he slighted it as unjust and frivolous yet he never excepted to it as given à non Iudice And the King of England and the French King Lewis IX afterwards Canonized for a Saint and their Nobles justified the Sentence and the French King took upon him the protecting of the Pope's cause against the Emperour 6. In the same General Council of Lyons was made a Canon That whatever Prince should cause any Christian to be murthered by an Assasin he should ipso facto incurre the Sentence of Excommunication and Deposition 7. In Anno 1606. Pope Paul V. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls That the Oath of Allegeance establish'd by Parliament 3. Iac. salvâ Fide Catholicâ Salute animarum suarum praestari non potest cùm multa contineat quae Fidei ac Saluti apertè adversantur Now there are not in it multa to which this Censure is possibly applicable unless this be one That the Pope hath no Power to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance Therefore this Proposition was condemned by that Pope as contra Fidem Salutem animae 8. In Anno 1648. Pope Innocent X. censured the Subscribers negatively to these Propositions 1. The Pope or Church hath power to absolve any persons from their Obedience to the Civil Government established or to be established in this Nation in Civil affairs 2. By the command or dispensation of the Pope or Church it is lawfull to kill or doe any injury to persons condemned or excommunicated for Heresy or Schism 3. It is lawfull by dispensation at least from the Pope to break Promise or Oath made to Hereticks to have done unlawfully and incurred the Censures contained in the holy Canons and Apostolick Constitutions contra negantes Pontificiam authoritatem in causis Fidei Now there is none of these Propositions to which this Censure can reasonably be fastened but the first onely therefore that was thus censured 9. This very last year the now Pope being consulted touching the lawfulness of taking the late Irish Protestation in which is renounced this Power of the Pope declared That instar repullulantis Hydrae it did contain Propositiones convenientes cum aliis à Sede Apostolica olim reprobatis signanter à fel. mem Paulo V. per Constitutionem in forma Brevis nuper anno 1648. in Congregatione specialiter commissa ab Innocentio X. c. Se graviter indoluisse quòd per exemplum Ecclesiasticorum tracti sint in eundem errorem Nobiles Seculares ejusdem Regni Hiberniae quorum Protestationem ac Subscriptiones pariter reprobat idque ad eximendas Catholicorum conscientias à dolo errore quo circumveniuntur 10. That this hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-Divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in all the several Nations of Christendome yea even in France it self yea even of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Ioann Parisiens Gerson c. you may see abundantly proved by that admirable man Cardinal Peron in his Oration made in the name of all the Bishops of France to the Third Estate of Parliament And it is convinced by this That neither Barclay nor Widdrington nor Caron nor any other Champion for the contrary Tenet hath been yet able to produce so much as one Catholick Authour afore Calvin's time that denied this Power to the Pope absolutely or in any case whatsoever as will appear by examining their quotations To conclude then This having been for some Ages One at least the common Belief Sense and Doctrine of the Church according to which she hath frequently and avowedly practised and proceeded in her highest Courts and inflicted her highest Censures upon the Opponents of it If it be an Errour the Church was at that time a wicked and blind Church a Synagogue of Satan the Pillar and Ground of Truth and with it the whole Fabrick of Faith and Religion shook and tottered If it were no Errour they that now call it an Errour are wicked Catholicks and in damnable Errour Nor though all the Doctours of Sorbon all the Parliaments and Vniversities of France all the Fryars or Blackloists in England or Ireland all the Libertines Politicians and Atheists in the world should declare for it could it ever be an Authority to make it a probable Opinion THE SECOND TREATISE AGAINST THE OATH of ALLEGEANCE Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which have now been publick for divers years reduced to one principall Question concerning the Substance of the said Oath CHAP. I. The Occasion and State of the present Question IN the year 1661. was published a small Treatise under this Title Some few Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance which were proposed by a Catholick Gentleman in a Letter to a Person of Learning and Honour A late officious hand hath now in the year 1674. thought it seasonable to re-publish this short and judicious Treatise for the satisfaction of such as are at present either concerned or curious The Authour 's professed design in these Questions concerning the Oath was to propose his sense by way of Quaere's wherein he hopes not to be accused of presumption whilst he onely seeks what he professeth not to know And yet is so knowing that though he could heartily wish for a more condescending form of Oath he sticks not to affirm and he is positive in it that if the manner of expression were a little changed every syllable of the substance might be intirely retained Now if you ask him what he means by the Substance of the Oath he expresly tells you that the Substance of the Oath is the Denying and abjuring the Pope's power to depose Princes For my part 't is as far from my thoughts as forrein to my present purpose to speak any thing in favour of this Deposing power nor shall I at all play the criticall Interpreter of the Oath nor concern my self with raising any artificiall and learned obscurities such as the Publisher hints at about any inconvenient phrase nor boggle at the form and dress but closely apply my reason
Temporal to depose the Pope The first of these Propositions is that which in the year of our Lord 1614. the House of Commons in France in the General Assembly of the Three Estates would have been at and offered not onely to own and swear to it themselves as a fundamental and holy Law but also passionately endeavoured that others should be compelled by rigorous penalties to doe the like But the project was stifled in the birth and the abortive Bill laid aside by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal who well weighing the controverted nature of the case were more considerate and tender of their Oaths then to venture them upon a foundation which take whether side they pleased must needs fail and betray the Swearer to an active sin and shame But what shall we say to the second Proposition may we not strain a little farther for the Pope then the King will not Religion bear us out if we adventure to swear that there is not any Power upon earth Spiritual or Temporal to depose the Pope To which I answer It is neither Religion Veneration Duty or Awe to the See of Rome which ought either to perswade or extort any more then it can legitimate such an Oath which it can never do in regard of the publick and unreproved disputableness of the case For whether we consider matter of fact or right it is no news amongst Catholick Divines that if the Pope should become an Heretick and they grant the If to be no impossible supposition he then forfeits his right to the Apostolical Chair and thereupon may lawfully be judged and deposed by the Spiritual power of the Church And this is a Doctrine which hath been long publick to the world a Doctrine pretending a Canonical Constitution and a Conciliary Act for its ground and support a Doctrine not unknown to Italy yet uncensured at Rome nay held and taught by some who lived and wrote even at the Pope's feet Where by the way our impartiall School-men seem at least to clear themselves from all sinister prejudices of Favour and Flattery and the stale imputation of framing and modelling their Doctrines to the humour and interest of the Court of Rome whereas we here see that some of them and those of eminent note make as bold with the common Father of the Church the Pope himself and even run him down with their Speculations as confidently and with as much show of zeal as at other times they set themselves to unthrone the meanest Prince in Christendome upon the same pretence And though his Holiness knows that Popes sit not so fast nor are so firmly rivetted to their Thrones but that divers of them have been deposed and sees withall this particular Deposing doctrine threatning Popes no less then Princes taught under his very eyes and for the same cause and that cause Heresy and that Heresy hath even by Catholicks been charged more then once against some of his Predecessours yet notwithstanding this concurrence and complicated pretence of Fears and Jealousies he never goes about to establish his Rights Person and Authority by any such assertory Oath as ours is but chuseth rather to trust Providence with his concerns then that the Triple crown should owe any part of its Security to an illegal and unnecessary Oath or his people be compell'd needlesly to swear away the peace of their Conscience for securing that of the Common-wealth But to draw the case yet to a nearer parallel and to close more particularly with the Oath of Allegeance wherein we are commanded to swear that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome nor by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King and this to be understood as to comprehend all causes cases or pretences possible Let us spell the Oath backwards and reade Pope for King and King for Pope and then suppose we were injoyned to swear that no King or Prince either of himself or by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath in any possible case any Power or Authority to depose the Pope let us see what the Schools and the publick and currently-allowed Tenets of Divinity will award as to the taking or refusing this Oath It is acknowledged on all hands there are divers instances from history of Depositions of Popes by Temporal Princes as well as of Temporall Princes by Popes which yet our Divines seem to restrain to the common case of Heresy and therefore the otherwise-pious and godly Emperour Otho incurred at least the mild censure and reprehension of such pens as record the fact for deposing Pope Iohn the XII because though he was one of the worst of Popes yet by the crime of Heresy he was wanting in the black list of his Offences to fill up the measure of his crying Misdemeanours and justify the Sentence and severity of his Deposition though even taking the case as it was not onely the pious Emperour saith Bellarmine conceived this Pope might be deposed but many Doctours thought so as well as he But however nothing is more certain then that it is a common and allowed Opinion of divers Divines that in case of Heresy the Pope may be judged and deposed by the Church Some of which carry it yet a step farther adding ought to may that is that he not onely may but ought to be deposed and that this may and ought is not onely the Churche's right but her obligation and she thereby bound to proceed to due execution thereof to the utmost of her power and if the Pope who is to be deposed should chance to resist oppose and stand in defiance of the Churche's judgment and she not in a condition to call his obstinacy to an account and to turn him out of his Chair by virtue of her Spiritual arms alone and yet her duty still supposed incumbent and pressing upon her to discharge and free her self and her Children from the thraldome of an Usurper then these Authours will tell us that the Law of Nature or that which is a Law to it self Necessity which even in causes Ecclesiastical takes upon her to justify force when nothing but force will serve for the compassing a just and necessary end will prompt the Church as is usual in some other cases to have recourse to the Temporal Power and call in the assistence of the Secular arm to her succour In which juncture no doubt any King Prince or zealous Otho who would please to interest himself in and espouse the Churche's quarrel might both deserve and receive her Commission and thanks to act with authority as a welcome auxiliary in the Holy war even to the Deposing of the Pope and placing another in his Throne in order to the good of Souls and the just recovery of the Ecclesiastical liberties and Spiritual rights Here then being a Case confessedly possible and an Opinion
for as I question not but he was too good a Christian deliberately to swear an untruth so I think he was too much a Scholar deliberately to take this for a truth For let any learned and unprejudiced person but compare Bellarmine Suarez or any other Writer of the Society not onely with the loose and exorbitant Fantasies of Carerius Musconius or Zecchius but with other grave Religious men with Panormitanus Alvares Pelagius Augustinus Triumphas Bosius and too many others to be listed here and then let him freely judge and speak as he sees cause which of these Religious are the strictest in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives I am sure Io. Barkley one of Bellarmine's greatest adversaries was yet so just to him as to let the world know that Sixtus Quintus expressed his great displeasure and it was near passing to a Censure against the Learned Cardinall not for extending but rather for clipping the Pope's Prerogatives by disputing and writing so much as he did against the direct Power and so giving less to the Pope then the Pope himself claimed and other Religious men asserted as his due Besides how can it be averred with truth that the Iesuits are the strictest Religious in maintaining and extending the Prerogative of the Deposing power who of all Religious are the onely persons that by especiall Precept and Decree which was first made by themselves and afterwards renewed at the instance of the Parliament of Paris have silenced this Doctrine in their Pulpits shut their School-doors against it banished it from their publick Disputes and suffer not so much as the mention of it to pass under their Pens unless where necessity or duty make it a Crime to be wholly silent Lastly how far the Iesuits are from being the strictest in maintaining and extending the Pope's Prerogatives by any particular Doctrine of their own and how ready they are to disavow and renounce all singularity in this kind both England and France afford us a fair instance in a very observable and I think unexceptionable harmony of professions and acting between the English and French Iesuits in point of Allegeance For as father Cotton the mouth and speaker of the rest of his Order in France freely offered that the Doctrine of the Sorbon should be theirs and that what the Faculty of Paris should determine and subscribe they were ready to subscribe also so in the year 1661. the very year wherein these Questions concerning the Oath of Allegeance first came to light an English Iesuit in the behalf of the rest of his Brethren offered in print that what Oath of Allegeance the English Clergy and other Religious should agree upon that they would most readily take themselves and willingly invite all others to take it An evidence then which I think a greater cannot easily be given how far they are from any particular kindness to any less allowable Doctrine of their own who shew so much of submission and deference to others Judgments as best suiting with the modesty and humility of Religious men CHAP. X. The rest of the Answer to the Authour of the Questions AFter a carefull survey and a no less impartial then particular and due examination of his small Treatise I find the main Question throughout the whole so generally mis-stated by him even contrary to his own expresse assertions and the very terms wherein he first proposed and thereby engaged to dispute it which I set down in the First Chapter and purposely stated the principall Controversy out of him with this previous and particular Observation That our present Question was not Whether a Catholick may safely deny but deny by Oath that Deniall also being the very Substance of the Oath and universally abjure the Pope's Power of deposing Princes which point he hath treated so cursorily and spoken so little directly to it that the onely application of my former discourse by way of Answer to his few proofs will be all the Answer which the rest of his Book can justly claim and the discovery of his Mistakes will be the refutation of his Arguments As first where he endeavours to fetch the parallel over from France to England arguing from the Censures and Judgment of the French Divines and pressing the Question home why we may not safely and uncensurably profess as much as they To which is answered from the foresaid grounds That though we might safely and uncensurably profess as much as they yet 't is one thing to profess as much as they and another to swear as much as they profess and that though the first might yet the second cannot be safely and uncensurably done and this for the same reason which by repeated instances I have often inculcated that where Catholick Divines teach differently some one way some another there can be no safe ground for an assertory Oath in either way because chuse which of the two ways you please it will still be a Question amongst the Learned whether Truth lies in that way or no and it is this Questionableness of the Point till the Church interpose for the decision of the Case will rise up in judgment against the Swearer and make out the charge of Perjury against him And truly were there no more in taking the Oath of Allegeance then in Subscribing the Sorbon Censures I would gladly ask this Question of the Authour or Publisher of the Questions That whereas the said Oath hath been long since translated and hath now travelled abroad in the Latine tongue for some more then one or two scores of years how it comes to pass that so many famous French Universities which so unanimously and solemnly and deeply condemn this Position of the Pope's Deposing power and all this as the Authour of the Questions observes without constraint voluntarily delivering their free Judgment unmenaced by their King unconcerned in Self-preservation should not at least out of a common concern for Religion whose credit is at stake or out of a sense of Compassion to us their suffering Brethren in England where our Laws so threatningly command and our All is so near concern'd voluntarily deliver their free Judgment and unanimously subscribe our Oath and by their Subscribing encourage us to the taking of it if it were really true that the taking of the said Oath amounted to no more then the denying or condemning of this Position of the Pope's Deposing power or that a simple denying and denying by Oath or condemning and abjuring were all one Then for his next Argument That however the Deposing power may by some be held speculatively probable yet as to any execution it is practically no Power at all against one in possession and consequently may be abjured as such This I say seems too plainly to beg the question and to take that for an uncontrovertible truth which hath been already shewn and is necessarily implied in the very state of the Question to be the chief or rather the onely point in
as or more expressive terms then in the present Oath as shall be made appear hereafter nay nor to take those Clauses of the Oath which do manifestly contain no more then meer Civill Allegeance Neither do they in rigour oblige us to give an interiour assent to the Reasons why they prohibit this Oath For even the Decrees of Generall Councills according to the common sentiment of Divines do not oblige us always to believe the Reasons for the framing such Decrees inserted in them to be good and solid As in the Second Councill of Nice it was declared That Angels may be painted because they have Bodies The Declaration is good but the Reason is false So that though one refuses the Oath in compliance to the Pope's commands it does not follow that he does not think the Oath in it self and speculatively speaking to be lawfull and consequently if he thinks that the Acts therein contained do concern meer Civill Allegeance he is bound as long as he remains in such a persuasion to comply with those Acts whether he has taken this Oath or not For a Subject is bound to Civill Allegeance by the Law of God and Nature antecedently to all Oaths Finally the Popes do not forbid us in these Briefs an Act of Loyalty or Civill Allegeance For the taking of this Oath which is onely forbidden us in these Briefs is not properly speaking any Act of Civil Allegeance but onely a Security thereof and how little trust is to be put in such a Security does appear by the sad experience of the late Wars as a Bond for the payment of such a sum of money is no part of the payment but onely a Security for it if the Debtor denies it Nay a Subject may be obliged to his Civill Allegeance and equally punished for his not-complying therewith or for being a Traitour whether he has taken the Oath or not Whence I conclude that since the Briefs do not forbid us any Act of Civill Allegeance it is manifest that the Compliance with such Briefs cannot be inconsistent with the Duty and Loyalty due to Sovereign Princes which reaches no farther then to all Acts of Civill Allegeance 28. Consider Lastly whether those who reject the forementioned Briefs of the Popes published after so long and so serious deliberation under such frivolous pretences as we have already seen and shall see hereafter do not open a way for Subjects to resist and disobey the express Commands or Prohibitions if they be condemned therein of their respective Sovereigns though issued forth after never so serious a debate pretending that they were grounded upon Inconsiderateness Misinformation and Mistakes in thinking that such a thing was contrary to the Laws of the Realm and the Prerogatives of His Majesty or that the King did not proceed therein according to the Rules prescribed in such cases or that His Majesty was a Party in the debate and that consequently He ought not to be Judge or finally that such Prohibitions and Commands are prejudiciall to the Liberty of the people and common Welfare of the Nation and that they may be occasion of great Disturbances in the Kingdome And whether if such Exceptions as these be warrantable and not to be decided by the Sovereigns themselves they do not render the Authority of Kings though our Adversaries who make use of them will needs seem to be stout Champions for Regall Power very weak and insignificant as in effect they do render the Authority of the Pope 29. If it be objected Thirdly That to refuse this Oath when we are required to take it by the King is sinfull inductive to Schism and scandalous to our Religion as if the Principles thereof were inconsistent with Civill Allegeance due to Princes and in such matters no man is bound to obey the Pope's Decrees but rather to the contrary That should the Pope declare it Sinfull to bear His Majesty Civill Allegeance which is due unto him by the Law of God and Nature certainly we should not think our selves bound to submit to such a Declaration That this Oath contains onely a meer Civill Allegeance as our Kings have declared and to them it belongs to declare what is meer Civill Allegeance and not to the Pope whose Jurisdiction extends onely to Spiritualls That we are bound to obey our Sovereign's Commands in all probable matters and which are not manifestly sinfull as the taking of this Oath is not That since it is doubtfull at least whether the Things contained in this Oath wherein the difficulty thereof consists appertain to the Spirituall or Civill Court why should the Pope decide it rather then the King And since the King commands us to take the Oath and the Pope prohibits us to take it the thing being of it self doubtfull and not manifestly sinfull on either side why should we submit rather to the Pope's Ordinance then to the King's That the King may confine the Pope's Power and declare that he has not a direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome in Temporalls or to vacate the Civill Laws thereof at his pleasure and consequently that it is not proper for the Pope to declare how far his Spirituall Authority does extend it self in all Causes Finally that the like Argument may be made to shew the Refusall of this Oath to be unlawfull as we made above to prove unlawfull the Taking thereof in this manner Whoever of His Majestie 's Subjects refuses this Oath being required thereunto denies an exteriour Obedience to the King's Ordinance in matters appertaining unto him and no farther then they appertain unto him But it is unlawfull to deny such an Obedience to the King's Ordinance and in such matters Therefore it is unlawfull for any of His Majestie 's Subjects when required thereunto to refuse this Oath 30. Concerning the Sinfulness of the Refusall of this Oath objected against us Consider First whether this Objection be not against all or most of those Catholicks who defend the Lawfulness of this Oath whose aim onely is to shew not that it is a Sin to refuse this Oath but that it is no Sin to take it Secondly Consider whether the refusall of this Oath can be sinfull unless the taking thereof be absolutely obligatory and if not then consider whether there be any absolute obligation to take this Oath since the taking thereof is no part of Civill Allegeance as has been already shewn Neither does His Majesty absolutely require of us the taking of this Oath but onely conditionally if we will enjoy such and such Employments or Priviledges which we are not bound to accept of And though those who refuse the Oath in many circumstances are liable to some Penalties enacted against Roman Catholicks yet they are punished even in that case not so much for refusing the Oath but because by refusing it they are suspected to be Popishly inclined Whence therefore can there be proved any absolute obligation to take this Oath especially since the Pope hath
Protestants in their publick Votes in Parliament whether I say this Scandal if any remains be not rather acceptum then datum like to that which Christian Religion lay under among the Iews for transgressing their Ceremonies and consequently not to be taken notice of 37. Consider Secondly whether should all Catholicks concurre to take the Oath Protestants would not in all probability attribute this their concurrence rather to a desire of their safety or of some particular Interest then to the Principles of their Religion as they have and do yet attribute the constant and general Loyalty of the Catholicks in the late Wars not to the Tenets of their Religion but to the Generosity of their minds or desire of their Security as they have published in their Books and Sermons Nay some as I hear have said the same already of Catholicks that have taken the Oath So that the taking of the Oath is ineffectual for the End pretended since Protestants would not therefore have a better opinion of our Religion but worse opinion of Catholicks who take the Oath as professing a Religion to whose Principles as by Protestants understood they are ashamed to conform And if so then consider whether probably speaking Protestants are not more scandalized at Catholicks who take the Oath as not standing in their opinion to the Maximes of the Religion they profess and as denying an exteriour Compliance with the express Commands of him whom they acknowledge to be their Supreme Pastour which Compliance even Protestants grant to be due to the Pastours of the Church then at Catholicks who refuse it which Refusal Protestants ascribe not to any want of Loyalty in them whereof they have sufficient proofs already but to some scruple of Conscience or to the Submission they think themselves obliged to pay to the Ordinances of the Pope And one may easily gather by what is set down in a Letter to a Parliament-man lately printed concerning Peter Walsh who amongst those who profess themselves to be Catholicks seems now to be the onely man who openly and in print vindicates the taking this Oath one may gather I say by what is couched in that Letter what opinion Protestants have of such Catholicks who though they acknowledge the Pope to be their Supreme Pastour yet justify the taking this Oath against several express Prohibitions of the Pope So that by taking the Oath the Scandal if any is not removed from our Religion but rather a new Scandal is fastened upon Catholicks that take it 38. Consider Thirdly whether Protestants are not of opinion that the Supremacy in Spiritualls is inherent and annexed to the Crown as has been declared in Parliament and consequently that as long as Catholicks refuse the Oath of Supremacy which they must doe as long as they will be Catholicks they refuse to acknowledge the Supremacy of His Majesty in Temporalls and His Crown For whosoever refuses to acknowledge any thing inherent and annexed to the Crown refuses at least implicitly to acknowledge the Crown and his Loyalty thereunto So that as long as we remain Catholicks we shall be accounted by Protestants not loyal Subjects in our Tenets whatsoever we be in our Practices 39. Consider Fourthly whether such Catholicks as take the Oath whilst ineffectually they pretend to remove the Scandal Protestants have so unjustly conceived of our Religion by taking the Oath do not create a just Scandal in other Catholicks who refuse it seeing how they slight the expresse Order of their Supreme Head in Ecclesiastical matters 40. Concerning the Case contained in the Objection wherein the Opponent supposes that the Pope should forbid us to bear Civil Allegeance to His Majesty due unto Him by the Law of God and of Nature or should declare such an Allegeance to be Sinfull Consider First that supposing as we do suppose that His Majesty is our Sovereign in all Civil and Temporal Concerns and that not onely in order to the Civil Power but also to the exercise thereof to deny unto Him Civil Allegeance due unto Him by the Law of God and Nature is manifestly Sinfull and in matters manifestly Sinfull we are not bound to obey the Ordinances of our Superiours whether Spiritual or Temporal Nay it would be Heretical to prohibit a meer Civil Allegeance in that supposition or declare it unlawfull and a Pope that should teach an Heresy or become an Heretick would according to the common consent of Divines cease to be Pope and consequently his Orders in that case were not to be obeyed 41. Consider Secondly whether it be reasonable that because there may be feigned a case or cases wherein the Pope or any other Superiour Ecclesiastical or Civil might command a thing manifestly Sinfull and therefore not to be done we should upon that account deny Obedience to the Commands of the Pope or any other lawfull Superiour in matters evidently or at least probably lawfull And the forbearance of this Oath which is onely enjoyned us in the forementioned Briefs as has been shewn is manifestly or probably lawfull as our Adversaries seem to confess 42. Consider Thirdly that the Popes have been so far from forbidding Catholicks to render Civil Obedience to His Majesty His Royal Father and Grandfather Kings of England that rather they have several times and in terms very significant charged the English Catholicks to render to their Majesties all Civil Allegeance and Obedience Neither have the Popes declared any of their Majesties deprived of their Crown Nay never any Pope as some have well advertised has declared any Heretical Prince brought up alwaies in that Profession as the three forementioned Kings were brought up Protestants deprived of their Dominions Neither do the Popes in the above-mentioned Briefs whereby they prohibit the taking of this Oath declare in expresse terms that they have any Authority to Depose Hereticall Princes and much less do they oblige us to swear or to make any acknowledgement that they have any such Authority but onely they enjoyn us a meer forbearance of the Oath the taking whereof is not properly as has been shewed above any Act of Civil Allegeance or at least of bare Civil Allegeance 43. Concerning the meer Civil Allegeance pretended to be contained in this Oath and that alone Consider First whether whatsoever a Prince is pleased to put into an Oath which he terms an Oath of Allegeance is to be held as appertaining to meer Civil Allegeance and whether the Refusers thereof are to be lookt upon as Refusers of Civil Allegeance As for instance if an Oath intitled an Oath of meer Civil Allegeance were framed wherein were expresly denied a Power in the Pope to Excommunicate any of His Majestie 's Subjects in any case whatsoever or to direct them in Spiritual affairs sure no Catholick would say that such an Oath did contain meer Civil Allegeance though the Prince by whose order it was framed should term it an Oath of Civil Allegeance or that the Refusers thereof were guilty of
in his own favour requiring his Subjects to swear positively that the Pope has no such Authority which is as it were to take possession of the part favourable unto him or why may not the Pope inhibit such an Oath in case the King enjoyns it as long as the Question is in debate between the Pope and King as our Adversaries confess it is yet Adhuc sub judice lis est For as long as it is under debate to whom such a thing belongs either of the parties has right to hinder his Adversary from taking possession thereof though he himself cannot take possession of it till the Question be lawfully decided in his favour and it is much less to hinder another from taking possession of a thing then to take possession of it himself 49. Consider Seventhly that whoever acknowledges the King to be our Sovereign in Temporall and Civill matters as we do he must confess that neither the Pope nor any one else has any direct and absolute Power over this Kingdome such a Power in any other being inconsistent with the Sovereignty of the King in Temporalls as in the like manner whoever acknowledges the Pope's Supremacy in Spiritualls as we also do acknowledge he must necessarily upon the like ground deny any other to be invested with the same Superiority So that should the Pope declare himself Sovereign in Temporalls over this Kingdome or any other His Majestie 's Dominions with a direct and absolute Power he would in that case declare a thing manifestly destructive to the King's Sovereignty in Temporalls which we acknowledge Neither does it belong to the Pope or the Spirituall Court to declare who is the Temporall Sovereign of such a Kingdome but to the Representative of that Kingdome or to some other Civill Power according to the different constitutions of Civill Government So that to declare the Pope Temporall Sovereign of such a Kingdome is not to declare how far his Spirituall Jurisdiction as such extends it self which does belong to the Spirituall Court but rather it is to declare him Sovereign or Supreme Governour in a different kind which Declaration does not belong unto him Neither because a lawfull Superiour may perhaps exceed his Power in some matters does it therefore follow that in no other thing he is to be obeyed What therefore we affirm in this point is That as it belongs to a Sovereign Temporall Prince to determine what is precisely necessary for the Conservation of his Temporall Sovereignty in case he be unjustly attacqued by another in his Temporalls so it appertains to the Sovereign Spirituall Prince who is the Pope to determine what is necessary to be done for the Conservation of his Spirituall Sovereignty in case he be unjustly attacqued in Spiritualls 50. Consider Eighthly to the end that it may clearly appear how willing the English Catholicks are to give His Majesty any just Security of their Loyalty that they are ready if it be necessary not onely to take all the Clauses of this Oath wherein meer Civill Allegeance due to His Majesty is contained but other Oaths also rather more expressive of Civill Allegeance then this is viz. such as were taken by the Subjects of the ancient Kings of England or which are taken now by the Catholick Subjects of other Christian Princes whether Catholicks or Protestants or of any other profession And certainly it would be very ridiculous to affirm that there is no standing Oath in any other Christian Country sufficiently expressive of Civill Allegeance And to descend to particulars They are ready to swear without any mentall Reservation That they acknowledge their Sovereign Lord King CHARLES the Second to be lawfull King of this Realm and of all other His Majestie 's Kingdomes That they renounce all Power whatsoever Ecclesiasticall or Civill Domestick or Forrein repugnant to the same That they confess themselves obliged in Conscience to be as obedient to His Majesty in all Civill affairs as true Allegeance can oblige any Subject to be to his Prince That they promise to bear inviolably during life true Allegeance to His Majesty His lawfull Heirs and Successours and Him and them will defend against all Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against His or their Rights the Rights of their Persons Crown or Dignity by any person whatsoever or under whatsoever pretence That they will doe their best endeavour to discover to His Majesty His Heirs and Successours or to some of their Ministers all treacherous Conspiracies which they shall know or hear of to be against Him or them That they do declare that Doctrine to be impious seditious and abominable which maintains that any private Subject may lawfully kill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince Now let any one judge Protestant or Catholick whether these forementioned Clauses are not more or at least as expressive of Civill Allegeance as the ordinary Oath is And if so then let them consider whether since Catholicks are ready to take any of the Oaths above mentioned they can rationally be suspected to refuse the ordinary Oath of Allegeance for want of Loyalty For did they refuse it upon that account they would not offer to take the abovesaid Oaths wherein as much or more Civill Allegeance is contained then in the ordinary Oath And whether also probably speaking we may not vehemently suspect that Protestants who will not be content that Catholicks should take any of the aforesaid Oaths wherein all Civill Allegeance due to Princes is manifestly contained but will needs have them take the ordinary Oath do require of them somewhat more then meer Civill Allegeance otherwise why should not they be content with any of the forementioned Oaths Wherefore it would not be amiss that when the Oath is tendred to any Catholick who is resolved to refuse it he should make a Protestation of his Fidelity by offering to take any of the forementioned Oaths Which will at least serve to disabuse Protestants that he does not refuse to take the ordinary Oath for want of Civill Allegeance 51. Consider Lastly that doubtless there may be framed an Oath of Allegeance with such glances upon the Tenets of Protestants the same is of any other Religion that no Protestant who will stick to the Tenets of his Religion can take though it would seem very irrationall to deduce thence that Protestants deny Civill Allegeance to His Majestie if they be ready to take another Oath wherein all Civill Allegeance is clearly contained And if so why may not we refuse this Oath by reason of some doubtfull or false Expressions it contains or of some glances it has at our Religion without therefore deserving to be impeached of Disloyalty since we are ready to take other Oaths wherein as much or more Civill Allegeance is contained 52. If they object Fourthly for the Lawfulness of this Oath the Authority of the Kingdome of France of the University and Parliament of Paris and of other Universities and Parliaments of that Kingdome who
Adversary saying that he has not seriously examined the Point under debate and that had he seriously pondered it he would have been of the contrary persuasion 93. Consider Fifthly that Mr. Preston who writ those Books concerning this matter published under the name of Withrington and the principal Champion for the Lawfulness of this Oath as I am informed by a person worthy of all Credit and one who was well acquainted with him never took the Oath himself nor advised any other to take it but onely writ those Books to shew for the comfort of Catholicks what might be said in favour thereof The same Authour grants that the Pope has Authority to order and direct the Temporal affairs of Princes and to impose upon them Temporal punishments by way of a Precept or Prohibition or a Direction in order to their Spiritual good and he inveighs against Skulchenius for accusing him as if he had denied the Pope such a Power over the Temporalls of Princes and he saies that there is no controversy in the present Point concerning the Pope's Power to command or prohibit Princes even in Temporal affairs with reference to the Spiritual good of themselves or their Kingdoms Neque de potestate Ecclesiastica praecipiendi sed tantùm coercendi ulla in praesenti controversia est Now this Authority which Withrington admits in the Pope over the Temporalls of Princes seems obnoxious to the same difficulties which he objects against the coercive Power of the Pope and is contrary to the Authority of the Faculty of Paris alledged above by our Adversaries Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod Summus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi Authoritatem habeat And certainly if he has a directive or preceptive Authority over the Temporals of Princes he must have some Authority over their Temporals 94. Now consider whether since Withrington and his Associates will not grant the Pope as Supreme Pastour of the Church any Power or Authority which is not evidently deduced out of the Precedents which Christ and his Apostles have left in Scripture whether I say this preceptive prohibitive and directive Power over the Temporalls of Princes which Withrington grants the Pope can be better declared out of the Precedents left in Scripture by Christ and his Apostles for when did any of them exercise such a Power over Temporal Princes in Civil matters then the coercive power which he denies the Pope And consider farther whether the forementioned Power be not in effect the same with the coercive Power For if the Pope may justly in some cases and in order to the Spiritual good of a Nation command a King to desist from persecuting his Subjects upon the score of Religion or otherwise to lay down his Government and prohibit his Subjects in case he goes on in persecuting them upon that account to bear him Civil Allegeance how can they swear that notwithstanding any Sentence made or granted or to be made and granted by the Pope or his Authority against their Prince they will bear him true Allegeance For certainly all just Precepts are to be obeyed and doubtless Kings will be as unwilling to grant this prohibitive or preceptive Power to the Pope over their Temporalls as the coercive Power For they do not so much fear what the Pope can doe against them by force of Arms as by force of Precepts and Prohibitions 95. Besides the Authour of the Questions concerning the Oath seems to grant that the Pope may in some extravagant case of absolute necessity to defend the Spirituall welfare of those who are committed to his charge and acting onely by a Commission derived from necessity depose Princes as one may justly take away his neighbour's life when unjustly attacqued by him he cannot otherwise defend his own life Now this is all that Bellarmine affirms For he does not grant the Pope Authority to depose Princes but in case of an absolute necessity of defending his Flock from being infected by their Prince with Heresie And if they grant this Power to the Pope how do they affirm that we may swear that the Pope has not any Power or Authority in any case possible to depose Princes So that if what the chief Maintainers of the Oath teach concerning the Deposing power be duely sifted we shall find that in effect they grant what they seem to deny or at least that they grant enough to render the taking of this Oath unlawfull 96. Consider Lastly whether when it manifestly appears that the ground whereon an Authour proceeds is false or inconclusive any account is to be made of the Opinion or Judgment of such an Authour And if not then let us briefly consider the main Reasons whereon the Defenders of the Oath bottome their Sentiment It is far from my intention to defend that the Pope has Authority to depose Princes my design onely is to examine the Reasons whereby some Authours do endeavour to shew that the Pope has no such Authority For let an Opinion be never so good yet some may ground it ill 97. The common Reason therefore whereon most of those Authours who impugn the Pope's Deposing power do ground themselves in this Point is That a meer Spirituall Power such as is onely granted the Pope over all Christendome in no case possible does extend it self to any Temporall thing This Reason does not shew that the Pope as Temporall Prince of Rome has not an indirect Right and Power to depose Kings in some cases such a Power being inherent to every Sovereign Prince and yet if one takes this Oath he must swear that the Pope neither by himself nor otherwise has any Power whatsoever to depose Kings So that whoever takes this Oath does according to the common sense of the words and he swears he takes them so implicitly deny the Pope to be Sovereign Temporall Prince of Rome because he denies him something inherent and proper to all Sovereign Princes 98. Moreover a meer Spirituall Power may extend it self in some cases to Temporall things and the contrary is manifestly false And even our Adversaries confess as has been seen above that the Pope's meer Spirituall Power may extend it self to Temporall things per modum directionis aut praecepti Christ and his Apostles either had no Temporall Power whiles they lived or at least did not exercise it but onely a meer Spirituall Power Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo and yet he saies Non veni pacem mittere sed gladium I did not come to bring peace but the sword and to cause a separation between the nearest relations as between Mother and Daughter Brother and Sister and such like who are tied one to the other by the Law of Nature as Subjects are tied to their Sovereign which is to be understood when a reciprocall communication between them is prejudiciall to their eternall Salvation Our Saviour also used a Temporall Power and force to cast out those who with