A theologicall disputation concerning the oath of allegiance dedicated to the most holy father Pope Paul the fifth. Wherein all the principall arguments which haue hitherto beene brought by Cardinall Bellarmine, Iacobus Gretzer, Leonard Lessius, Martin Becanus, and diuers others, against the new oath of allegiance, lately established in England by act of Parliament, are sincerely, perspicuously, and exactly examined. By Roger Widdrington, an English Catholike. Translated out of Latin into English by the author himselfe,whereunto hee hath also added an appendix, wherein all the arguments, whach that most learned diuine Franciscus Suarez, hath lately brought for the Popes power to depose princes, and against the aforesaid oath of allegiance, are sincerely rehearsed, and answered.

Sect. V.

1 COncerning the third part of the oath, which be∣ginneth from those words [And I doe further sweare that I do from ray heart &c.] Suarez examinethy three things. First, the Doctrine it selfe. Secondly, by what authority this part of the Oath is exacted of the Sub∣iects. Thirdly, how much these words are repugnant to those, wherein his Maiestie promiseth to shew, that there is no∣thing contained in this Oath besides ciuill Obedience. Con∣cerning the first, (after that Suarez hath made a long discourse about the doctrine of killing of Tyrants, wherein hee teacheth a very perilous, scandalous, and desperate Doctrine, which I haue beforez related, to wit, that both the Pope may giue leaue to any man to kill a King after he be deposed, and that also the next lawfull Successour may kill him, if otherwise he be not able to depose him, which hee auerreth to be a true and certain Doctrine) he affirmetha that it is manifestly con∣uinced, that this part of the oath by reason of diuers heads doth containe an excesse of power, iniustice against good manners, and an error against the true and Catholike Do∣ctrine. The first I proue: for by what authoritie doth the King compell his Subiects to sweare that proposition as he∣reticall, which the Catholike Church hath not yet condem∣ned? And if the King doth say, that it is condemned in the Councell of Constance, where doth he reade in the Councell of Constance that particle, [Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope?] or that [by their Subiects or a∣ny other whatsoeuer?] Seeing therefore that these parti∣cles added to that proposition do make it & the sense ther∣of far different, that propositiō by a fallacious & deceitfull inference is attributed to the Councell. But if the King doth condemne that proposition not by the authoritie of the Councell but by his owne authoritie, he exceedeth doubtlesse and abuseth the power which he hath not. And besides it is admirable, that he oftentimes contemneth the Popes

power to define matters of faith, and yet he dare arrogate it vnto himselfe; for although hee doth not this in words, yet in deede he professeth it. Wherein also he little agreeth with himselfe. For in an other place in his Apologie he boasteth that he doth not coine new articles of faith after the man∣ner of Popes. Finally seeing that he thinketh nothing to be of faith vnlesse it be contained in holy Scripture, he ought to shew vs in what place of Scripture that proposition is con∣demned as hereticall, or the contrarie reuealed by God, that it may be accounted for hereticall. Truly although Paul did say, Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers, he did neer adde, let all men be subiect also to powers excom∣municated or depriued by the Pope, neither can one be gathered frō the other, seeing that they are far different, not to say, as opposite, for a King depriued is not now a higher po∣wer. And frō hence I farther conclude, that the profession of that oath cōcerning this part is a certain confessiō of Kingly authority & power both to cōdemne at his pleasure proposi∣tions as hereticall, and also to propound to the faithfull au∣thentically what they ought to beleeue as a point of faith, or to detest as hereticall, which in regard of the King is an ex∣cesse and a vsurpation of a spirituall power, and in regard of them who take the oath, is a certaine vertuall profession of a false faith.

2 Besides, by the words themselues it doth most cleerly appeare, that the King in this oath doth not only exact ci∣uill Obedience or the swearing thereof. For to detest by oath a proposition as hereticall, doth plainly exceede ciuill obedi∣ence, which is of a farre inferiour degree then it Christian faith. Especially when such a precept is new in the Church, in such sort that the King doh not only compell a Christian Subiect to detest a proposition otherwise condemned by the Church (which a Catholike King obseruing due manner may sometimes doe) but also doth compell to detest a propo∣sition which he newly again by his authoritie doth cōdemne, as now the King doth. Whereby it is also sufficiently proued, that this oath is vniust in regard of the King, because hee

doth many waies exceede his authoritie, and so it is a violent compulsions and a vsurpation of an other mans Iurisdiction: And in regard of the faithfull it is vniust to accept thereof, both for this generall reason, because they should sweare ei∣ther an vnlawfull thing or an untruth; for if they beleeue that proposition to he hereticall only for the Kings authori∣ty, for this only it is damnable, and much more because that proposition, which is so condemned, is most true and certaine according to the true principles of faith, as hath beene pro∣ued in the third booke; but if they outwardly abiure that proposition, which inwardly they beleeue not to be hereticall, they commit manifest periurie, as of it selfe it is euident: And besides this that proposition doth containe a peculiar and proper iniurie against the Pope, whose power and obe∣dience for feare of man they doe deny.

3 Lastly, by these it is easily vnderstood, that this part of the oath doth also include an erroneous Doctrine. One error is that the Pope hath not autheritie to depose an he∣reticall or schismaticall King, and who doth peruert and draw his kingdome to the same schisme or to the same here∣sie. For the profession of this error is principally and more directly made by those words then by others, as to euery rea∣der it will forthwith appeare, and hath before beene proued many waies: The other error which truly in words is lesse expressed, yet in the sentence it selfe lyeth hidden and is ver∣tually contained, is, that its these things, which do appertaine to the doctrine of faith and detestation of heresies, a tempo∣ral King may exact of his Subiects their faith also by oath. Yea also that in this the opinion of the King is to be prefer∣red before the opinion of the Pope. Which truly is a cer∣taine vertuall profession of the Kings temporall Primacie in spirituall or Ecclesiastical causes: for there is nothing grea∣ter in the Primacie of Saint Peter nor more necessarie to the conuersation and vnion of the Church then is a supreme authoritie, which the King of England doth in those words arrogate to himselfe, therefore the profession of such an Oath is a manifest profession of schisme and error, there∣fore

true Catholikes are bound in conscience to refuse it.

4 To the first part of this obiection I haue beforeb in this Disputation giuen two answers: The first was; that the position contained in this branch is hereticall, to wit, that it is in the free power of Subiects, and of any one whatsoeuer to depose, or if they wil, to murther Princes, who be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope: And that this is the true meaning of that position contained in this branch, That Princes which be excommunicated, &c. according to the common vnderstanding of our Eng∣lish phrase I haue declared in that place more at large. And to proue that position so vnderstood to bee hereti∣cal, I alleaged these two texts of holy Scripture, Thou shalt not kill.c Kill him not,d for who shall stretch forth his hand against the Lord his annointed and be guiltlesse? Nei∣ther doe I thinke that Suarez (although hee goeth too too farre in this point of killing Princes) dare presume to auerre that the Popes sentence of Excommunication or depriuation denounced against a King can be a suffi∣cient warrant for euery man to kill that King; seeing that neither the sentence of Excommunication nor of depriuation (although wee should grant that the Pope hath authority to depose Princes) depriueth a King of corporall life, but onely of his right to raigne. Neither is it necessary to make that proposition to be hereticall that the Scripture should haue added, thou shalt not kill Princes who be excommunicated or depriued by Priests or Bishops: It is sufficient that all killing either of priuate men or of Princes is vnlawfull, and is by this precept forbidden, which is not warranted either in other pla∣ces of holy Scripture, or declared by the Church to bee lawfull, and to haue sufficient warrant; now I would gladly know of Suarez, if hee will affirme, as I think he wil not, y^t the aforesaid position, Princes which be excom∣municated, &c. is not hereticall, where hee findeth that the Church doth giue sufficient warrāt to euery man to

kill a Prince who is excommunicated or depriued by the Pope?

5 The scond answer was, that I do not sweare the a∣foresaid position to be heretical, but as hereticall in that sense as I did there declare, which answere doth also sufficiently auoid the difficulty which Suarez here doth make. Wherefore his Maiestie doth not arrogate to himselfe authority to condemne at his pleasure proposi∣tions as heretical, which are not hereticall, or to pro∣pound to the faithfull authentically what they ought to beleeue as a point of faith, as Suarez wrongfully impo∣seth vpon him, for this indeede were an excesse of ciuill authority to attribute to himselfe power to define and determine any doctrine to be of faith, but he doth only compell his Subiects by temporall punishments, which are proper to the ciuill common-wealth, to abiure as hereticall that position which by all Catholikes is ac∣counted as hereticall, which a Christian Prince, as it is probably thought fit and necessary for the preseruation of himselfe, and of the temporall peace and outward quietnes in the common-wealth, may lawfully doe, as beforee I haue shewed more at large. And so neither the King in this Oath doth transgresse in exceeding his authoritie, neither the Subiects in making an expresse or vertuall profession of a false faith.

6 And so the answere to the second point is also ma∣nifest, it being almost a repetition of the former. For nei∣ther doth his Maiestie compell his subiects to abiure as hereticall that which is not so, neither doe they beleeue that it is so only for the Kings authority, but for that al∣mighty God in holy Scriptures hath reuealed so, and by the common acceptance of the Church it hath euer bin vnderstood so: And that the Pope hath not power to de∣pose Princes they beleeue with moral credulity, for that many learned Cotholikes doe teach the same, and for that the contrary hath not as yet by any man, nor by Suarez himselfe in his third booke beene sufficiently

proued to bee certaine, as by my answers to his argu∣ments may sufficiently appeare.

7 To the third point likewise wherin he scarce saith any thing which he hath not repeated before, wee haue already answered, that in this branch of the Oath is not abiured as hereticall the Popes power to depose Princes but onely to murther them in that sense as wee haue be∣fore declared: Neither is it an errour to affirme that a Christian King may vnder paine of temporall punish∣ments exact of his subiects by Oath a profession of some points of their Christian faith, when vpon prudent mo∣tiues it shall be thought necessary to the preseruation of the Kings person & of his State, for that spiritual things not as they are spiritual but as they are tēporal & neces∣ssary to the keeping of outward peace in the common-wealth, are subiect to the tēporall power, especially of a Christian King, by whō they may be punished, & conse∣quently commanded or forbidden, for that the coer∣ciue power in a Prince to punish supposeth the directiue power to command. Neither doe the Catholike Sub∣iects preferre the Kings opinion before the Popes, only because the King saith so, but because in a matter dis∣putable they may follow a probable opinion against the Popes opinion, although it bee the more probable vntill the contrary bee defined and determined by the Church. Seeing therefore that there is no heresie, er∣ror or any other vnlawfull thing contained in this oath euery true Catholike may with a safe conscience take it. And although the Popes Holinesse hath forbid the taking of the same, yet his precept beeing meerely de∣claratiue and either grounded vpon false information, or at the most vpon a probable opinion, it is neither schisme, nor sin to contradict it, as beforef I haue more at large declared.

Notes

• y

  Cap. 4. nu. 1.
• z

  Part. 1. sec. 10. nu. 3.
• a

  Nu. 20.
• Suarez nu. 21.
• Suarez nu. 22.
• b

  Cap. 5. sec. 2.
• c

  Exod. 20.
• d

  1. Reg. 26.
• e

  Cap. 6. sec. 2.
• f

  cap. 10. sec. 2.