SOME FEW QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, Proposed by a Catholic Gentleman In a LETTER to a Person of Learning and Honour.  MATH. VII. VII. Quaerite & Invenietis. 
Printed in the Year, 1661.   

To the Reader.  
A Thousand to one now you'll be enquiring, who is the Author? Pardon me, if I frankly answer, what need you care? Judge of the Venison, and never trouble yourself with ask whence it comes. 'Tis a short Book, though a long Letter; and when you have perused a period or two, if you like it, you may read on; if not, lay it down, and betake yourself to some better business: only oblige me with this favour, if you allow not what I have done; teach me what I should have done. This is my case.  
Me thought I saw the truth hang clearly on my side, while I considered only the weights which each hand laid in the balance; but the Number of those who strove by plain force to pull down the Other, a little moved, I confess, and shaked my Scale: yet I easily recovered my former steadiness, when I reflected on the Moment one solid Reason has, compared to a multitude even of the gravest Opiners: But then they shrewdly heaved at me again; Why should not the Many be presumed to have Reason, as well as the Few? against which, thus much, at least, I had to say, and perhaps somewhat more to think; That since either too strong an Interest, or too weak a Courage, or too slight an Examination, may justly be suspected as the general cause of spreading that Opinion, I hoped my inferiournesse in number would not be able to work me any great prejudice with those who fairly compared my advantages in other respects; especially if we remember the diligences perpetually used for improvement of Ecclesiastical Prerogatives; by advancing still favourable Tenets, and prohibiting the contrary; while the good Lay-Princes seldom provide so carefully for themselves; and where they do, such tender Doctrines grow very slowly, and if they chan●e to take a little, yet, for want of depth, soon whither away.  
Nor is my Party so few as not to be considerable: If three or four Doctors, nay perhaps One, who has well studied the Point, can make an Opinion safe; What may we say where a greater number of whole Universities engage their Judgements? Universities equal to the best in Europe, who on purpose studied and disputed the Question, and having seriously pondered both what Popes had done, and Councils had defined, and all kind of Authors had written, at last unanimously concluded and decreed what this following Letter intends to represent.  
When I was thus by Reason and Authority satisfied in my own mind, still there remained a Scruple to publish it; for though I suppose myself secure of a Truth, what have I to do, being a private Man, to tell it to others; especially Those who are infinitely more competent Judges than I? But as again I beg your Counsel, let me again tell you my condition; I observed, that most of the Persons, from whom we might expect such discourses, were either diverted by other employments, or for particular considerations unwilling to meddle with This: On the other side I considered how excellent a Charity it were to be the occasion of settling clearly so important a Doctrine, that we might hang no longer between Heaven and Earth, God and Cesar, sustained only by the slippery running-knot of Probability, which will be fast or lose, as the Casuist pleases, especially if the Writers endeavours should be blest with so happy success, as to give the least contribution towards the attainment of a more condescending Form of Oath; wherein, the manner of expression being a little changed, every syllable of the Substance might entirely be retained; many of the better-tempered Refusers being observed to scruple more at some Phrase, than at any Thing in the Oath.  
This strongly carried me to wish the Work done; but my own unqualifiednesse extremely discouraged me from doing it: At last, seeing my Independence on any (as to particular expectations) was a Circumstance very suitable to such an undertaking, and in very few to be found, my thoughts weary of struggling one with another, sat down and rested, upon this Conclusion, That to propose my Sense by way of Quaeres could not be esteemed presumptuous, since every fool has wit enough to ask Questions, and I have left for others, the Wise man's part, to answer them.   

THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.  
I A. B. Do truly and sincerely Acknowledge, Profess, Testify, and Declare in my Conscience, before God, and the World, That our Sovereign Lord King CHARLES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm, and of all other his▪ Majesty's Dominions and Countries; And that the Pope, neither of himself, nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by any other means, with any other, hath any Power or Authority to depose the King, or to dispose of any of his Majesty's Kingdoms or Dominions, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty, or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Arms, raise Tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesty's Person, State, or Government, or to any of his Majesty's Subjects, within his Majesty's Dominions.  
Also I do Swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any Declaration, or sentence of Excommunication, or Deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope, or his Successors, or by any Authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him, or his See, against the said King, his Heirs, or Successors, or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience, I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his▪ Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his, or their Persons, their Crown, and Dignity, by reason or colour of any such Sentence, or Declaration, or otherwise; And will do my best endeavour to disclose, and make known unto his Majesty; his Heirs and Successors, all Treasons, and Traitorous Conspiracies, which I shall know or hear of, to be against him, or any of them.  
And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as Impious and Haeretical, this damnable Doctrine, and Position; That Princes which be▪ Excommunicated, or Deprived by the Pope, may be deposed, or murdered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever.  
And I do believe, and in my Conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any Person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof, which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to be lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely Acknowledge and Swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain, and common Sense, and understanding of the same words, without any Equivocation, or Mental Evasion, or secret Reservation whatsoever.  
And I do make this Recognition, and Acknowledgement, hearty, willingly, and truly, upon the true Faith of a Christian. So help me God.  

THE LETTER.  
SIR,  
AS your Civility has taught me, I may have any thing of you for ask, so my own Experience teaches me, nothing is more easy than to ask; Unless it be, to doubt, or to be ignorant; two qualities so common, and so little implying any conceit of sufficiency in their Owner, that I hope you will neither accuse me of Presumption, while I only seek what I profess not to know; nor of Imprudence, while I seek where I know I am most like to find. Your piercing Eye has both read what others say, and penetrated what they maintain; Your generous mind neither hopes nor fears can corrupt; and, if they could, your happy Condition secures you from both: To you therefore I confidently come, and without any farther Compliments, which you are too wise to expect, and I too uncourtly to give, I humbly desire your free and speedy judgement, in these few Seasonable and Important Questions.  
Some say the Pope, by direct and immediate sentence, can depose Princes; Others, he can only Excommunicate directly, and depose by Consequence. Some say, he can depose only Princes Subject to the Church; Others, Infidels too. Some say, he has power to do this only in order to Spirituals; Others, absolutely without that Restriction. Some say, the Crime must be Heresy, or Apostasy; Others extend his Jurisdiction to more, and even all Cases. And there are who say, He cannot depose at all, neither any of these ways, nor for any of these Persons, nor for any of these Causes.  
In favour of which last Position (not to speak of particular Authors) 'twas my fortune lately to meet with a Censure of the Faculty of Paris, and some public and solemn Decrees made by that, and divers other Universities of France; Of which, the better to entitle myself to beg your Judgement, I here send you a shot Extract; On purpose omitting the French King and Parliaments Prohibition and Arrests, as Lay-arguments, of little, and perhaps too little weight, with some that dispute this point.  
A Decree of the University of Paris, made by the Rector, Deans, Proctors, and Bachelors of the said University, in a General Assembly had on the 20th. of April 1626. at the Matutine.  
IT having been represented by the Rector, that the sacred Faculty of Theology, moved as well by their ardent zeal and fidelity towards the Church, his most Christian Majesty, and his Kingdoms; as also by the true and perfect love which they bear to Right and Justice, and following therein the illustrious Examples left by their Predecessors in like Cases, upon mature Examination of a certain Latin book, entitled, A Treatise of Heresy, Schism, Apostasy, etc. and of the Pope's power in order to the punishment of those Crimes, Printed at Rome, 1625. had in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Heresy, found these Propositions; That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes, despose, and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms, for the Crime of Heresy, and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them; and that this custom has been always practised in the Church, etc. and thereupon had by a public, just, and legal Sentence, on the 4th. of April, Censured these Propositions of that pernicious book, and condemned the Doctrine therein contained, as New, False, Erroneous, contrary to the Law of God, rendering odious the Papal Dignity, opening a gap to Schism, derogative to the Sovereign Authority of Kings, which depends on God alone, retarding the Conversion of Infidels, and heretical Princes, disturbing the public Peace, tending to the ruin of Kingdoms, and Republics, diverting Subjects from the obedience due to their Sovereigns, and precipitating them into Faction, Rebellion, Sedition, and even to commit Parricides on the sacred Persons of their Princes.  
The Rector, Deans, Proctors, Bachelors, and whole University have made this Decree; That the sacred Faculty of Theology ought highly to be commended, for having given a judgement so Pious, so Religious, so Wholesome, against so wicked and dangerous a Doctrine; For having so opportunely held forth to the whole Church, but especially to all France, the clear light of Ancient and Orthodox Doctrine; For having so gloriously followed the Illustrious generosity of their Predecessors, and performed a task, not only becoming their particular Profession to defend the truth, but deserving the Imitation even of the whole University itself.  
And to obstruct altogether the very entrance of this new and pernicious Doctrine, and cause all those who now are, or hereafter shall be Members of this University, or merit promotion to any Degree therein, to remember for ever to form and regulate their Opinions according to the judgement pronounced by that sacred Faculty, and keep at utmost distance from the Doctrine so justly proscribed, and that every one in particular may fly, detest, & abhor it, and as well in public, as private, Combat, Confute, and Convince its falsity: They do decree, that in the next solemn Procession, as also annually in the Assembly for the Procession general, immediately after opening the Schools in the month of October, this Censure shall publicly be read by the Proctor of the University (the first business, nothing to intervene) and recorded in the Registers of each Faculty, and Nation; and that two Copies hereof, written and signed by the hand of the Clerk of the sacred Faculty of Theology, shall be kept in the Common Records of the University, and the like number be sent as soon as may be to all Superiors of Colleges, and Houses, to the end all possible care and diligence be used to secure all those who frequent, or reside in the said Colleges, from the corruption and poison of this pernicious Doctrine; and that they never give way that any Person whatsoever presume to say or do any thing contrary to what has so wisely been determined and ordained by that sacred Faculty.  
If any Doctor, Professor, Master of Arts or Scholar resist and disobey, or go about in any sort by word or writing, on any cause or pretence whatsoever, to offer at the least attempt, or make the least opposition against this so laudable and legal a Censure, let him for a note of Infamy and Ignominy be expelled & deprived of his Degree, Faculty, & Rank, by a sentence that may for ever cut off all hope of admittance.  
Quintaine, Scribe of the University.  
The Censure of the Faculty of Sorbonne, dated 4th. April 1626. I omit, because recited at large in this of the University.  
The like Decrees on the same occasion, and against the same Doctrine (That the Pope can punish Kings with temporal punishments, depose them and deprive them of their Kingdoms and Estates, etc.) were made by these several Universities following; All which have lately been printed at Paris in a Collection of divers Acts, Censures, and Decrees as well of the University, as of the Faculty of Theology of Paris.  
By the University of Caen, assembled in the Convent of S. Francis, 7. May 1626.  
By the University of Rheims, the four Faculties being assembled in the Chapel of S. Patrice, 18. May 1626.  
By the University of Tholouze, the Rector and Professors of all the Faculties being assembled in S. Thoma's School at the Dominicans, 23. May 1626.  
By the University of Poitiers, assembled at the Dominicans, 26. June 1626.  
By the University of Valence, assembled in the great Hall, 14. July 1626.  
By the University of Bourdeaux, assembled at the Carms, 16. July 1626.  
By the University of Bourges, all the Deans and Doctor's Regent of all the Faculties assembled by the Rector, 25. Nou. 1626.  
By all which the said Doctrine was Condemned as False, Erroneous, Contrary to the Word of God, Pernicious, Seditious, and Detestable.  
AND now, since so many, so famous Universities have unanimously, and solemnly, and deeply condemned this Position (That Popes can punish Princes temporally) and all this without constraint, voluntarily delivering their free judgements, unmenaced by their King, unconcerned in self-preservation: The first Question wherein I entreat your assistance, is  

I. Why we, when our Laws so threateningly command, and our All is so nearly concerned, may not safely and uncensurably profess as much as They?  
AND I beg of you a more satisfactory answer, than, that the Pope in prudence forbears the French, because their party is numerous, and learned, and united, and Persons of heart and courage; for (omitting to observe the advantage this very Objection offers, by confessing so great Authority against that pretended Power) I should easily secure myself with this reply, that were not their Case, in itself, at least tolerable, all those fair qualities could never justify the Pope's suspending to condemn them. Their Tenets then clearly are in themselves consistent with Faith and Catholic Communion; and 'tis a Consideration merely prudential, whether such proceed ought to be Censured or no; which naturally leads me to my second Question.   

II. If there be reasons enough to turn the Eye of Authority quite away from seeing what whole Universities so openly avow in the face of the world: are there not enough to Connive at us, who are but a few, and act privately, and not without the excusing plea of extreme necessity?  
HEre, Your first thoughts perhaps may offer you this distinction, That in England 'tis required to renounce the Doctrine as Impious and Heritical, while the French condemn it only as False, Erroneous, Contrary to the Word of God, Pernicious, Seditious, and Detestable. But I appeal to your second thoughts, and ask,   

III. Are those two words, Impious and Heretical, so vastly different in their true and natural sense, from the other half dozen, False, Erroneous Contrary to the word of God, Pernicious, Seditious, Detestable, that all these six may voluntarily be affirmed; and both those, or at least, one of them, whatever ruin attends, must necessarily be denied?  
IF we be obliged, as sure we are, to answer in the sense of our Proposers, and they mean no more by Heretical (as the very Principles of their Religion, besides other Arguments, sufficiently assure us) than Erroneous, and Contrary to the word of God; I hope this third Question will prove no invincible difficulty; For, is not what's Contrary to the word of God, Contrary to Faith; and what's Contrary to Faith, Heretical? Especially since among ourselves we must find a larger sense for Heretical, than that which severely measures its conceived strictest notion; We must find a sense wherein the Opinion of Antipodes was anciently Heretical, and the Turning of the Earth, or at least the Standing of the Sun is so now; one of which the Qualificatori at Rome, in order to Galileo's Condemnation, Censured as Absurd, False, etc. the Other, as formally Heretical; We must▪ find a sense that may justify not only our disputing Schoolmen, who often on slighter grounds, cry out Heresy one against another; but the public Censors of Books, and Qualifiers of Opinions, who every day reject many Doctrines as Heretical, without intending to divide Communion from the Maintainers; Nay, we must find a sense that may agree with the words of the Pope himself, in his Prohibitive Brief of this very Oath, which, he says, contains many things contrary to Faith and Salvation; and what can we imagine should be those Many, if the denial of his Prince-deposing power be not counted for One? yet possibly neither It, nor any of these I have mentioned are, in precise scholastic rigour, Heretical: But Use and Custom being the Rule of Speech, I cannot see it reasonable, why we alone in so Important an Occasion, should be denied that latitude of sense, which we know is so frequently, and so justifiably allowed to all the world.  
To reconcile more clearly this difference, I conceive the common Distinction of Material and Formal Heresy very useful: According to the first sense, whatever is now Heretical, always was so in its inward nature; the Decision of the Church operating only by way of Declaration of the formerly believed Truth, and Extension of the Obligation to new Subjects, adding perhaps express Menaces of Anathema, etc. to obstinate Dissenters, which every one is justly presumed to be, that submits not to the known determination of the Universal Church.  
In the second sense many Tenets are not yet Heretical, which may in time become so: Even ●his intolerably false and flattering Position, That the Pope is direct Universal King over all the World, is not yet (the Church not using to interpose Her Authority, till the Decision be necessary) condemned as Heretical; though certainly, none that pretend to the least degree of true Loyalty, but are ready to abjure so damnable a Doctrine, as worse than Impious, worse than Heretical. 'Tis evidently therefore enough to verify my forswearing such an error as Heretical, if in itself it be notably mischievous, without expecting till the Church can meet, and solemnly pa●●e Her Canonical Sentence upon it.  
Though this Example of so many Universities be sufficient to decide the Question, in that they renounced this pretended Power; and more than sufficient, to justify us, in that they did it freely: Yet to propose an Instance agreeing, even in the point of fear too, with ours; I shall not forbear to say there was a numerous and considerable Party in France (no less than the whole Body of the Jesuits) whose Judgement was known to differ from That of the Universities as much as Any, and more than most of Ours here, yet rather than expose themselves to Inconveniences, and their Interests to Danger; they publicly subscribed the Sorbonne Censures; publicly condemned this King-dethroning Power, as False, Erroneous, contrary to the Word of God, Pernicious, Seditious, and Detestable.  
How this so solemn Subscription, against what themselves had formerly held either as altogether, or at least as almost an Article of Faith, was understood at Rome, I know not: that it was actually done in France, I am confident will not be denied: that it was commanded, we need no other Evidence than the Arrest itself of the Parliament of Paris, dated 17. Mar. 1626. wherein 'tis Ordered That the Priests and Scholars of Clermont, and of the other two Houses which the Jesuits have in Paris, should within three days subscribe the Censure made by the Faculty of Sorbonne: and within two months procure Testimonials of the like Subscription from every Provincial, and Rector, and from six of the Ancients of every College of their Society in France.  
Nor can it be said, this Subscription relates only in general to Sautarellus' Book, since it particularly approves the whole Censure of Sorbonne; whereof one and the first branch is directly, and in most express terms, against the Pope's Power to punish Kings Temporally, to Depose, etc. If this be true, of which I know not the least reason to doubt,   

IU. Why is it not Lawful for English Catholics to be Loyal to their Prince, as far as the French to Theirs? Why is it not tolerable in Laymen here to disavow, what the strictest Religious there openly condemn? Strictest, I mean, in maintaining, and extending the Pope's Prerogatives, and so most pertinent to our Question: Shall Humane Motives be allowed their place with Them who renounce the World, and not with those who live in it?  
IF any shall here pretend to distinguish between a simple subscription, which only was required of the French Jesuits, & a down right Oath, which is exacted of us; I cannot think but they proceed with too much scruple; since certainly no sincere and generous honesty will solemnly and deliberately attest under his hand, what he will not in due circumstances swear to be true: and indeed, for Religious Persons, who actually still reflect on the presence of God, what difference can there be, between calling Him in a form of words to witness what they say, especially with such Solemnity and Deliberation; and believing him continually in their hearts to witness not only what they say, but what they think?  
And now were I demanded a reason, why so circumspect and wise a Body should act so differently in the same cause but different Countries; I could only return this conjectural Answer; that being wary and prudent persons, they could not but see the Concerns they hazarded in France by refusing to Subscribe, far more important, than what they ventured at Rome by Subscribing: whereas in England, all they can forfeit by declining the Oath of Allegiance (being themselves but few, and without the Engagements of Colleges and Foundations) is perhaps of less esteem with them, than the interest of their Universal Body at Rome, whence so many advantages are continually derived to the rest of their Society.  
When I have taken leave to suppose for True, That a certain general Rule, is to be observed, notwithstanding an Exception that's incertain; I may easily hope your leave to ask this fifth Question;   

V If the Precept of Obedience to Kings in Temporals be a certain Catholic Doctrine, and the Exception (unless the Pope depose) be incertain; whether the Precept does not still Oblige notwithstanding that Exception?  
ANd however such a power may by some be held speculatively probable, yet, as to any Execution, 'tis practically no Power at all, against one in possession; and consequently may be ab ured as such: he that has only a speculatively probable Commission to take away my life, has none at all actually to do it: and every one will surely agree that to dispossess a King is of infinitely more mischievous Consequence than to kill a private Person; Witness the horrid miseries that followed the Deposition of Henry the fourth, by Gregory the seventh; the first Pope, and first Emperor that ever engaged so far in that kind of quarrel; a quarrel wherein both sides endured for a long time unspeakable Calamities, both sides striving with all extremity of passion and fury to ruin one another.  
Our Allegiance to Kings, and Their Title to our Allegiance being both, in their natures, antecedent to Baptism; For the relation of King and Subject is by Birth, and the quality of Christian by Adoption;   

VI. How can the Superinduced spiritual Obligation diminish the Civil, when no such Condition is contained either in Baptism, Catechism, or Articles of Faith; Especially since we are baptised into the Communion of Believers, not of Opiners?  
'tIS true, both Prince & people, do by their Godfathers in Baptism renounce the world, the flesh, & the devil: but neither of them make any promise to forfeit their Crowns or Estates to the Pope, if they break their word. Nay, even Popes themselves, in the primitive times, were temporally Subject to the Heathen Emperors both before and after their Conversion: And indeed, since the Christian Law, by the Judgement of all, deprives none of their Right, if they were Subject before the Prince's Conversion, they must needs continue so after.  
Nor can I see (and in this every Reader is concerned) why the Pope if once admitted to dispense with Subjects Allegiance to their Prince, may not discharge the Tenants too from paying Rents to their Landlords, and Debtors from their Obligations to their Creditors, as often as He shall Judge the Interest of Religion to require it. Nay, by the same reason, driven a step or two farther; why may not every Bishop in his Diocese, and every Curate in his Parish pretend a Right, radically inherent in his Dignity, to dispose of all our Estates in Order to the good of our Souls; and that 'tis only either the hardheartedness of Lay-Magistrates to hinder it from shooting forth into branches; or the Wisdom of the Supreme Spiritual Magistrate to reserve the whole fruit to Himself?  
Already by my own reflections I am fully satisfied that a Dispensation (should any such be pretended) with the Oath of Allegiance, would be no Dispensation with the Duty of Allegiance: The Duty being Antecedent to the Oath, and Independent of it, and only Confirmed, not Created by it: and therefore as to this point, I find no necessity of giving you any trouble.  
But in the next Question I must humbly bespeak your pardon, because I fear my boldness may need it: 'Tis a Case I never have yet seen well examined, and therefore more doubtingly propose it.  
The Gravest Assertors of the Pope's indirect power to depose Princes, warily confine Him to two Cases; which they call Heresy and Apostasy: And, as by Apostate they must necessarily mean One that has been a Catholic, and is quite fallen away from Christianity; So surely by Heretic they should proportionably understand One that has been a Catholic, and is in part fallen away from the Faith: This Consideration, I confess, bred in me a scruple, I am not able, without your help to satisfy: How a Protestant Baptised into the Church of England, should be held obliged to the positive Laws of another Church; to which, neither himself, nor his Godfathers, promised any Obedience: his Baptism indeed confers Grace, and adopts him into the State of Salvation; but why should he be counted subject to the Government of a Communion quite opposite to That into which he is Baptised? does a Protestant commit a Mortal Sin every time he eats Flesh on a Fasting day, or omits to hear Mass on a Holiday, when neither Mass, nor perhaps that Holiday is allowed by his Church?  
We know, whoever loves God above all things, is in the State of Salvation, but not of External Communion, till he actually submit to it; and me thinks it seems obscure, that I should be interpreted to submit to the Government of a Church of such a Discipline, by my very being Baptised into a Church of a contrary one.  
Besides, Followers of those who began the Division are not in the same form of Church-Condemnation with those who began it; much less when they are born of such Parents, and bred up in a Country where such Tenets have so long and uncontrolledly been established, that many perhaps may hold them, without being guilty of holding them; Wherefore I humbly entreat your Learning to instruct me,   

VII. Whether You have read any Authors that expressly say, a Magistrate so Circumstantiated may be Deposed by the Pope, especially since I remember not one Instance, Ancient or Modern, of any such Prince so treated?  
THE Examples of deposing Princes being without any certain Rule, sometimes by the Pope, sometimes by the Nobility, sometimes by the People, sometimes by an Eminent Subject, sometimes by a powerful Stranger; And the ground pretended, being sometimes Religion, sometimes some other Cause▪ give me leave to consult your judgement,   

VIII. Whether those Examples may not all be resolved, Either by the General Answer, that Fact makes no Right; Or, that they were practised without any ordinary and acknowledged Jurisdiction; but only by way of common Reason and natural Prudence, which teaches us in extremities to cast about and relieve ourselves, in the best and hopefullest way we can, according to our Circumstances?  
FOr though by this Almighty Maxim of Extreme and Lawless necessity, even Popes themselves, as well as other Governors, have sometimes been deposed; yet I clearly believe neither Popes, nor Councils, nor Kings, nor Nobles, nor People, nor Strangers, have any Dormant Commission from Heaven, that constitutes in any of them a Formal and Authorotative Tribunal to decide Jurisdictionally who shall be Pope or King.  
To make this distinction (on which the whole controversy chief depends) unmistakably plain and evident; let me parallel the grand Instances of Popes and Kings, with the little ones of private persons: when we say, as I think every Christian does, that 'tis Impious and Heretical to hold, One Neighbour can take away the life of another, though he never so much deserve it; in Reference to what power do we speak? is it not to that kind of power which is ordinarily Created by Commission? can we be fairly interpreted to mean some odd extravagant case of absolute necessity to defend our own lives against his otherwise unavoidable Assaults? So when we speak of a Power and Authority to depose Kings, we are plainly to understand a Power and Authority vested in St. Peter and his Successors by Commission from Christ: This and this only, I conceive, is the Authority we are commanded to abjure; and unless such a Divine Commission be shown, I cannot see why to assert such a power in the Pope is not Impious and Heretical, as much and far more than the instance of private Murder: Especially the Oath so particularly expressing its chief intent to be the exclusion of the Pope's pretences, and prevention of the mischiefs naturally apprehended from the Supreme and all-Commanding Jurisdiction of a Foreiner.  
Having perused some Authors who confidently say, never any Orthodox Divine maintained this transcendent power in the Pope, nor ever any such practices appeared for above a thousand years after Christ; though the Christians long before that time had both strength enough to do it, if they had had a Will; and Zeal enough to have willed it, if they had thought it lawful: I cannot but suspect this Doctrine of Novelty, till you be pleased to inform me,   

IX. What Eminent Writers there are, in the first thousand years after Christ, who expressly hold this Tenet of the Pope's Authority to Depose Princes?  
THis I am apt to conceive so much the more improbable to be found; because neither S. Tho. nor Card▪ Bellarmine cite any Ancienter Authors than Gregory the seventh, whose Papacy is of a younger date than that we speak of: Much younger yet is the Council of Lateran; nor can it with the least colour of truth be alleged for any more than a Canonical Constitution; and perhaps not so much, till the difficulties concerning it be cleared, which I leave to the Doctors, and only contend, 'tis at best no more; else the Defenders of Papal Deposition were bound to believe its Decree in this point as an Article of Faith, and condemn the French Universities as Heretical, and separate from their Communion: if then it be only an Ecclesiastical Canon, 'tis well enough known such Laws are not Obliging, but where they are received, and where they are received, may on just grounds be again rejected. However, even where that Canon is admitted (if any where it be) no fair Interpreter can extend it to reach so high as Sovereign Princes, to whom this respect is generally by the Canonists esteemed due, that unless They be expressly named, they are not by implication understood to be comprehended in any penal or restrictive clause, a Civility allowed even to Cardinals, whom I cannot think any disinteressed Considerer will prefer before Kings.  
As for reason, which I confess, where 'tis evident, needs no Antiquity to gain my assent; I have not met with any that bids so fair towards satisfaction, as this argument.  
If the Ends be subordinate to one another, the Faculties are.  
But the End of Civil Power (temporal happiness) is subordinate to the End of Spiritual Power (eternal happiness.)  
Therefore the Civil Power is subordinate to the Spiritual.  
Let all this be supposed as true (though there want not distinctions, by which some endeavour to relieve themselves in this point too) I only inquire how this Spiritual Superior must proceed, when the Temporal Magistrate intolerably misdemeans himself; & I think He is confined, as his very Name imports, to Spiritual punishments, as suspension from Sacraments, Excommunication, etc.  
But that, they'll say is not sufficient, nor the Church completely furnished with means proportionate to its end, unless it can depose a Prince that deserves it. To which, I answer,  
First. The argument is of so wild unlimited a Consequence, that should they instead of Depose, say Kill, or whatever other mischief they please to invent, they might in Rigour with the same Reason defend it.  
Secondly. Though in some sense it be true, the Spiritual Power is furnished with all means necessary to its End; yet are we not obliged to say, it can remove all impediments, and that in what method it pleases; Is not the Sun completely endued with power to shine, unless it can levelly mountains, and overturn for rests that intercept its light? or, which is nearer our Case, has not a King sufficient power to govern, unless he can punish his neighbour King, nay even the Pope himself, and that with spiritual penalties? In regular and ordinary Occurrences, the regular and ordinary power both of Pope and Prince is sufficient: in irregular and extraordinary, the very word signifies, they are out of Rule, and must be governed by occasional reason, which allows both to Pope and Prince a just and equal title to provide, that Neither prejudice the Other; and this, without the Pope's being Superior to the Prince in Temporals, any more than the Prince is to the Pope in Spirituals; But, as absolute Sovereigns, when there's no other remedy, may lawfully make war; so I conceive may these (each managing his proper weapon) and pretend only Reason, not Jurisdiction to justify their proceed.  
Thirdly, I suspect, this plausible argument (the spiritual power is furnished with all means necessary to its end) may so largely be understood, that it will flatly be denied; for, is not Execution of the Magistrates Commands, necessary to the end of Government? and is not a competent Force necessary to that Execution? why then did our all-foreseeing Saviour not provide for this? why did he not furnish his Supreme Lieutenant with twelve Legions of Angels, to overcome the Princes of the Earth, that will not obey his Decrees? As to this, I know no better reason, than that the Church's Hymn is true,  

Non eripit Mortalia,  
Qui Regna dat Caelestia.   

He does not Earthly Kings deprive,  
Who came the Crown of Heaven to give.   
Besides, may we not as well say, the Church is furnished by Christ with all Offices (at least all considerable Ones) as with all Power necessary to its Government? yet every one knows neither Patriarches, Primates, nor Arch-Bishops are of divine Institution, however their very being so canonically established in the Church, sufficiently declares their usefulness and necessity; and their being no otherwise established, sufficiently convinces the weakness of the argument I am endeavouring to disable.  
If my expectations happen to fail in all these Questions, permit me yet to offer this short Consideration. The Position we are commanded to renounce as Impious, and Heretical, is this,  Princes, who are Excommunicated, or Deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever. 
Since 'tis clear, that where the Subject of a Proposition is in the disjunctive, unless the Predicate be verefiable of both Members, the whole Proposition may absolutely be denied; it plainly follows, if to say a Prince Excommunicated only (not deprived) may be deposed by his Subjects, be Impious and Heretical, at least in the large and usual sense of that word, that the whole Proposition is safely abjurable, as Impious and Heretical. In which discourse, this only seems to need proof, that 'tis Heretical to say, a Prince Excommunicated may be deposed by his Subjects. And first, I hope, it will quickly appear to be False, by the very definition of Excommunication; Excommunication being a Church-Censure, that separates from the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Faithful. And though by a general rule we are commanded to avoid all Heretics, and Excommunicated Persons, yet (besides that, of itself it reaches only to spiritual things, unless the Civil Law extend it farther) the Canonists give many exceptions, one is (which nearliest concerns our Case) that of Relation; shall Husbands and Wives, Parents and Children, Masters and Servants, be bound in case of Excommunication to abandon one another? what Confusion would so rash a Doctrine bring into the world? and is it not far worse, if Subjects shall think it lawful to forsake their King, nay unlawful not to forsake him?  
Thus I conceive 'tis evidently False; and if once admitted for such, it's own weight will soon sink it down into Impious. And what is Impious, especially drawing after it such mischievous effects, will easily be proved against the very Essence of the Christian Law, and by Consequence intrinsically Heretical. If yet you think, this opinion not so highly censurable, I beseech you inform me,   

X. Whether any of these Positions deserve the Condemnation of Heretical? That the Pope has a direct Dominion, both in Spirituals and Temporals, over all the World: Or that He can deprive Kings of their lives, and pass sentence of death against them: Or against the lives or goods of any other Person? that is, whether He can make it lawful to do those Acts, which, were they not Authorised by him, would be plain Murder, Theft, or Rebellion?  
ALL these, every one I meet is ready to cry out on, as Impious, Hereticial, and what you will; And is the Deposing a King a slighter work, than the Sequestering a private Gentleman? Or has he a weaker Title to his Crown, than a Merchant to his Shop? Either I am deceived by some Equivocation, which I entreat you to discover, or else the Question I propose is as clear as the Sun at Noon.  
'Tis true some Cases are mixed, but then me thinks it is not so hard a task to give each Authority its due; Can we not easily discern, what belongs to Marriage as a Sacrament, from what belongs to it, as a Civil Contract? Or distinguish between the Church's power to make a Bastard incapable of Orders, and that of the Commonwealth, to make him incapable of Inheriting? Nor has the Question any greater difficulty, when the Tribunals Successively assist one another, as when the Ecclesiastics, having proceeded to the utmost of their Jurisdiction, deliver the Criminal to the Lay Court, there to receive such further punishment, as his Crime deserves, which they could not have needed, had their own power reached so far, not would they have practised, had they not needed it.  
To conclude this point, with some Authority as well as Reason; I have read, that not only the Position of kill Kings was condemned as Impious, Heretical, and Damnable, by 141. Divines of the Faculty of Paris, in the year 1413. But since, in the year 1610. the same Faculty Decreed, That it was Seditious, Impious, and Heretical, for any Subject, Vassal, or Stranger, on what occasion or pretence soever, Sacris Regum personis vim infer, to offer violence to the sacred persons of Kings. Behold the very word Heretical, directly and formally applied to a Position that in substance exceeds not Ours, unless we imagine a King so tame, that we may Depose him without offering him any Violence: or find some witty Casuist, who has invented a new way of creeping out of the words (no matter for the plain and honest sense) and by his grave Opinion, secure our Consciences, that though it be Impious indeed and Heretical, to offer any force to the sacred Persons of Kings, yet to intercept their meat till they be starved to death (as 'tis said of one of the Kings of Denmark) is absolutely lawful, as being an omitted Case, and so not at all forbidden.  
Observing that in this whole Controversy, the main Bulwark wherein the Defenders of the Pope's Prerogative in Temporals, fortify themselves, and think to pacify the Civil Powers, is a certain famous Distinction, whose plain and literal sense I understand well enough, but cannot find in it, if impartially examined, a title to make so great an Impression as is pretended; I humbly entreat your quick and strong Eye, to look a little seriously into the Question, and teach me,   

XI. What difference there is, as to any real effect in Government, between acknowledging a direct immediate Power in the Pope to Depose Princes, or only an indirect and mediate One?  
IS it not almost all one in itself, and altogether all one in mischief, whether my eyes be beaten out with a direct stroke of a Tennis-Ball, or by Bricol? Are not our Laws still equally Penal both to direct and indirect Offenders? will any of us allow a slandering tongue (than which nothing is more frequent, or more intolerable) to Caluminate freely, on condition his poisonous darts come only glancing, and not be levelled point-blank against us?  
Here they perhaps will say, I mistake the Case; For, were only the Exercise of this Power mediate and indirect, they would confess my similitudes had something of Argument, but the very Power itself say they, is in its Intrinsic nature no more than mediate and indirect, which widens much the sides of the distinction, nor do any of my Interrogations offer to confute it.  
When I have first declared, I intent not to meddle with such slender Entityes as Relations metaphysically considered; I shall betake my thoughts to what I conceive more pertinent to our purpose, the Moral Notion; and inquire what influence on humane actions a direct Power gives its Posse●or, more than an indirect? If they answer, by the one He can punish his Inferiors, as he pleases, by the other not: I reply, That is the notion of an absolute and perfectly arbitrary Government, not precisely of a direct Power, which not only may sometimes be limited, but almost always is; has not the Emperor a direct Authority over the Germane Electors? Is not the Pope direct Superior of the Christian Bishops? yet which of them can, either One or the Other, deprive or punish at his mere pleasure? I they say, 'tis a Power as strongly Commanding as the direct, but is not in the same line, the spiritual being of a quite different Order from the Temporal; I confess these are pretty terms to entertain subtle heads, and amuse simple ones; but to a downright prudent Examiner, I believe they'll prove of very little serious Signification, nay though the Causes be contrary to one another's, if they produce the same effect, they make with me the same argument. Naturalists say, that Cold immediately condenses by directly crushing the Body it encloses: whereas Heat first extenuates, and then draws away the subtilised parts, and after the grosser shrink together of themselves, and so condenses too, but mediately and indirectly; and these are words that sound well enough; but when we come to practical application, and find that too much Sun, as well as Frost, so dries and hardens the Earth, that it chokes our seed, and kills our flowers, what good does our fine distinction? what does our Mediately and Indirectly avail us?  
Nor is the Effect only the same, whether the Pope's power be called direct or indirect, since each way he really dethrones the Prince; but the end to both of his direct-Spiri●ual, and indirect-Temporal Authority is the same since He is bound to manage the last only, in ordine ad Spiritualia, and the first, ad Edificationem; which two phrases seem to me no ill Synonimas one of another. These are some of the reflections that have made me doubt, though there may be (and I think I see it) some Speculative difference between the two manners of Title, yet in practice very little, if any at all.  
When all this is said, and far more, (which I think not uneasy to do) still there remain two grand Objections: The Supreme Pastor has engaged his Authority; and our duty obliges us to obey His Commands: Our Predecessors have refused the Oath, and suffered for refusing; and our honour is concerned to follow their steps. To which, with your permission, I offer this answer,  
Since by the Pope's forbearing the French, we evidently see such Prohibitions depend on particular and occasional Considerations, not only liable to be misapprehended by others, but to be altered in themselves; certainly it very ill becomes our Reverence to the Authority of the Pope, or respect to the Memory of our Ancestors, to fear they would wilfully persist in a discovered Error, and not change their proceed, when they should see the grounds on which they proceeded were changed.  
Nor even then when the Pope's Brief forbade the Oath, did there want a just number of Catholics, if my books say true, who humbly represented their Motives to his Holiness, why they doubted his Prohibition was not obliging, as being grounded on mistaken and incertain Suppositions: A privilege permitted to all, and most of all to Ecclesiastical Subjects (who are not Governed by the Sword, but the Pastoral Staff) either to obey or give good reason why they do not: and this, without the least suspicion of boldly examining their Superiors Commands with the Judgement of Authority, but exercising only, what the meanest Vassal may Loyally practise towards the greatest Prince, their natural Reason and Judgement of Discretion.  
And here I must confess myself inclined to think it very probable, that the whole business was untruly represented to the Pope: for, can we doubt but Card. Bellarmine was acquainted with the Informations given to his Holiness? or, that they Both agreed not in their sense concerning our Case? let us then see what his Eminence says in his Letter to Mr. Blackwell, Archpriest of the English Clergy; where, having alleged that Ancient Instance of mingling together the Images of the Emperors, and of the false Gods, to entangle the Christians with this Dilemma, that either they must bow to Jupiter, and Commit Idolatry; or not bow to Cesar, and be guilty of high Treason, He adds, Tale aliquid in juramento▪ etc. Some such thing me thinks I see in this Oath they offer you, which is so fraudulently contrived, that none can profess their Civil Subjection to the King and Detest all Treason against Him, but he must needs perfidiously Renounce the Supremacy▪ of the See Apostolic. And again, Nam si rem totam, etc. If you will diligently examine the whole matter, you'll see 'tis no small thing which by that Oath is brought into danger, but one of the Capital and Fundamental Points of our Faith and Catholic Religion; And quite throughout the whole Letter He still supposes the Design of the Framers of this Oath, how covertly soever they express themselves to be; That the Authority of Head of the Church be transferred (as to England) from the Successor of St. Peter, to the Successor of Henry the 8. Which still so much the more evidently appears, both by his Quoting Fathers upon the general head of obeying the Pope, and acknowledging his Supremacy, as also by his comparing Mr. Blackwells Sin in taking the Oath, to Peter's denying Christ, and Marcellinus' Sacrificing to Idols; whom at least in some part, He says, the Archpriest imitated. Does this Pen run as if it were guided by a Hand well informed? Is it not highly probable that such Informations were the grounds of the Prohibition? Is it not absolutely certain, that such grounds, being palpable mistakes, are no way sufficient to oblige our Obedience.  
Not that we have cause so much to complain of the Brief, as of them whose Passionate, and perhaps Factious Zeal procured it: for how can the Pope be informed what we Tramontani do, but by others? and how can He Judge, but as he is informed? since surely we are not to expect such an extraordinary assistance from Heaven to guide his Hand in writing a Letter, though in Form of Brief, as some pretend for his defining ex Cathedrâ. Read but the Bulla Coenae, and you'll find it no impossible thing for the Pope to claim more, than a good Subject, much less a wise King will give him: there he solemnly excommunicates all Princes, who impose on their Subjects new Gabels without leave of the See Apostolic: with many other unallowed pretences. From all which we infer these two plain truths, That the Pope may miscommand; and when he does so, be lawfully disobeyed.  
But to proceed ingenuously with you, as I hope and beg you will do with me; let us fortify this Objection with the utmost skill and strength we can: This Act of Deposing Kings has not only been done by Popes, but approved by Councils; to whose jo●nt-Authority I confess a great Reverence is due, and therefore beseech you deal candidly with me, (for I have no● any convenience to examine the circumstances of these Histories) did they only approve the Fact; or declare the Right? if the first, I shall without staying to dispute it, suppose the thing, for that time, well done; and only inquire, in reference to what Authority 'twas done: our Henry the 7. we know did many Acts without declaring the Title by which he did them; and the Parliaments approbation still confirmed them: if then they, proceeded as by a Commission claimed from Christ, and allowed in a General Council, would not that make the Tenet an Article of Faith, and so prove too much, since among the Temperate it generally▪ pretends no higher than an Opinion? but if they acted only by a Commission derived from Necessity, which having no Law, is a Law to itself▪ the Consequence little concerns our Dispute; who know the Pope Himself has been deposed; yet neither will He admit, nor need his Deposers pretend any Jurisdiction or Superiority over Him; 'tis enough where Necessity overrules the Law, that Necessity Govern in its stead; which if true and real, may perhaps do much harm, but can do no injury.  
As to the other Branch; if the Council interposed in declaring the Right, either they intended it as a Definition, and then you must say 'tis of Faith, which almost every one denies: or as an Ecclesiastical Canon, and then I must say, it binds only where received, and may be altered or repealed like other Laws, as is already discoursed, when we cited the Council of Lateran.  
However, in our particular Case, nothing is more easy than to Conquer the Objectors of the Pope's Briefs with their own weapons; for let them tell me, are they not ready to swear they will faithfully serve their King while they live, and that notwithstanding any Papal Dispensation, or whatever other Proceeding to the contrary? what signifies this, but an express renouncing all obedience to the Pope in these ●●●●ts? True say they, we renounce obedience, but not the acknowledgement of his Power; we will adhere to the King, though the Pope should Depose him; but will not say, he cannot Depose him. What wise and real difference (as to Government, and the practical part of humane life) can we imagine between these two; I'll swear never to obey my Commander, and I'll swear he has no power to command me? Speak plain and honestly, and either deny his Authority, or obey it; this motley Hypocrisy will, I fear, offend both Pope and King, and while you disclaim your obedience to the One, and the Authority of the Other, Neither will confide in you; Change but the Person, and think, what a holy religious man he would be, that should solemnly vow never to obey his Superior, how loud soever he preached his Authority; think what a flat contradiction it is, of two Relatives, to kill one, and keep the other alive; think what an uncharitable madness it is, that the whole body of catholics be exposed to ruin, and the whole Credit of their Religion be buried in that ruin, rather than disavow an Authority, which we are ready to swear we will never obey.  
But to dispatch this chief Objection with a shorter word, and that still taken out of their own mouths; The Pope they say has commanded we should refuse this Oath, but do they not too, with the same breath say, they will absolutely forswear obeying his Commands, if they be not pressed to renounce his Power? and what do we more than disobey him, if notwithstanding his Prohibition we accept of the Oath? we meddle not with his Authority, we only (as they profess themselves ready to do) deny our Obedience; is it not as lawful for us, when the King commands, to admit this Oath against the Pope's will, as for them to swear they'll obey the King, let the Pope command what he will?  
As for our Ancestors, had they seen the Unanimous Judgement of so many Universities, and the public Subscriptions of so many eminent Regulars, particularly noted for great enlargers of the Pope● power; had they examined the sense of Antiquity towards Sovereign Princes, which acknowledges them Supreme in Temporals, and accountable to none but God; had they read the learned Treatises composed by Catholic writers, both of our own and other Nations, where this King-dethroning power is absolutely disavowed; had they perused the Declarations of the Kings in France, and Arrests of Parliaments there, by which the Authors who dared to assert that Opinion were Condemned, and their Books burnt by the hand of the Hangman; had they done all, or any notable part of this, they could not certainly but have changed their Judgements, and no longer, both against Reason, Authority, and their own Interest, have wilfully adhered to a Tenet so ill grounded, and a practice so ruinous.  
Little of all this I fear did many of our Ancestors reflect on, but guiding their Consciences by their Ghostly Fathers, and their practice by their Consciences, chose that side of the Opinion, which any one might then have refused without Heresy, and any one may now without scandal, without scandal I mean as to the bare Opinion considered in its naked self, not as it unhappily is dressed up in the Oath, where some expressions, at first sight, show so oddly, that a little prejudice or unacquaintedness makes many a well meaner boggle at them; And here again I hearty renew the wish I have already made, that a general form of Oath, were so Charitably and Condescendingly framed, as might fully secure to our most gracious Sovereign the Allegiance of All, and not trouble with scruples the less instructed Conscience of any.  
But to dispatch this Objection: If to take the Oath we discourse of be truly justifiable, why may not we do what we think lawful now, because our Predecessors did not what they thought unlawful heretofore? their Refusal was Innocent and Laudable, since they followed sincerely the dictates of their Consciences; yet Ours will be neither, unless we do so too; nay the very reason that made them decline the Oath, their being so persuaded, engages us to take it, if we be otherwise persuaded; for, as in this all the world agrees, that an erroneous Conscience, till the mistake be removed, undoubtedly obliges; so none will deny, but, the Truth once cleared, the Obligation ceases: if such than be the case between our Predecessors and Us, we may fairly be absolved from following them, or rather truly be said to follow them, while we all aim at the same end (the Conscionable performance of what we believe our Duty) though we seem to go thither by different ways: None but eternal truths can exact an unchangeable adherence; none but they can deserve it.  
And now I have only one Question more to propose,   

XII. How do the Clergy, the Religious, & the Wiser sort of the Laity in other Countries behave themselves, when the Pope makes War, or any other way Contends with their Sovereign Princes or States?  
FOr even in Italy, I see most of them generally, and all of them sometimes, disobey the Pope, and cleave to their Country; nay those very Religious who have formerly ventured All by a particular Obedience to his Holiness, are noted of late to be grown more temperate: I have read, if I misremember not, in an It lian Author this Story, That the Pope making War some few years since, with the Duke of Parma, and proceeding against him to the extremity of Ecclesiastical Censures, occasioned the Duke to advise with his Council, how he should bear himself towards the Churchmen that lived in his Subjection; where after some debate, 'twas at length concluded, that fit persons should immediately be deputed to demand of every Order both Secular and Regular, which party they intended to follow? only to one sort of Regulars it 'twas expressly forbidden to make any such Address, lest their extraordinary obsequiousness to the Pope might engage them otherwise than the Duke desired, and the example of their Nonconformity breed a prejudice to his affairs: But they, wisely examining the Consequences of so new a Distinction, and the Necessity of preventing so dangerous a jealousy, did of themselves, without expecting any Summons, wait upon their Prince, and voluntarily presented Him their Humble Protestations of Fidelity and Obedience: an action, which, I am apt to believe was not a little contributive to their late Restitution in the wary State of Venice. In fine, every sort of ecclesiastics, as well the uninvited, as the invited came in, and professed their firm and positive resolution to obey the Commands of his Highness, not withstanding the Interdict of his Holiness.  
And yet (to abstract from the Justice of the Quarrel, which was perhaps on the Pope's side) the Duke is not only a Feudatary of the Church, but his Estate was at first derived to him from the Pope, and is to return again in default of Issue male, which makes a fair difference betwixt Him and the Case of an Absolute King.  
But to look nearer home; what did we ourselves not many years since in our own Country? did not almost▪ all the ecclesiastics, and a number of the Nobility and Gentry, sufficient to represent the whole little Body of Catholics here, after full deliberation unanimously subscribe their Negative to these three Articles?  
I. That the Pope or Church hath power to absolve any person or persons from their Obedience to the Civil and▪ Political Government established▪ or to be established in this Nation, in Civil and Political affairs.  
II. That by the Command or Dispensation of the Pope or Church, it is lawful to kill, destroy▪ or do any injury to any Person or Persons living within the King's Dominions, because that such a Person or Persons are Accused, Condemned, Censured, or Excommunicated for Error, Schism, or Heresy.  
III. That it is lawful in itself▪ or by Dispensation from the Pope, to break Promise or Oath, made to any of the foresaid Persons, under pretence that they are Heretics.  
These, I am sorry I must confess were Censured at Rome, privately indeed and without solemnity, as being perhaps either unwilling to come to the light, or unable to bear it; whatever was the motive, I cannot omit to make this Reflection upon so unequal a proceeding towards the prosperous French, and the afflicted English; what either of injurious or untrue, do any of these three Propositions contain, that is not both more largely, and more smartly expressed in the Decrees of Sorbonne, and the rest of the Universities cited at the beginning of this Letter? if they be free, why are not we? if we be condemned, why are not they?  
At least, this Roman Censure of the English Subscription, wants not some good effect, since it has absolutely cleared the chief remaining Objection; which else, if captiously managed, might perhaps have given us some trouble to maintain our parallel with the French, for, till then, it had been no great piece of invention, to pretend that the Pope's prohibitive Brief was appliable only to the whole Oath in gross, and so might consist well enough with the disclaim of His indirect Authority over Kings; But now I see, 'tis not the Form, 'tis not an inconvenient Phrase or two (the greatest scruple of some serious Persons among us here) but the very Substance of the Oath, the growing denial of the Pope's power to Depose Princes, is the chief, if not the only Scandal that's offensive there.  
Nor is this kind of disobedience to the Pope's Commands only in some Cases practised, but by the Common Maxim of the Canonists, and of Reason too, constantly maintained, both which step in to our relief in such extremities, and say, where any notable mischief is like to follow, we are not obliged to obey the Pope, though he command under pain of Excommunication, ipso facto. This is the common Opinion of the Learned; but, because 'tis too the common scruple of the unlearned, I shall cite some few Authorities transcribed out of books where I find them collected, having myself neither skill nor delight in such kind of Studies; Of these I conceive two or three, in a point so evident, abundantly sufficient; One is of Pope Innocent 3. thus cited by Franc. Zabarel de schismat. Papae non est obediendum, etc. We are not to obey the Pope when there is a vehement presumption that the state of the Church may be disturbed, or other mischiefs like to follow; Nay it were a sin to obey, because every one is bound to prevent future evils. Conformable to this, Sylvester alleging Panormitan, says, Verb. obedientia Num. 5. Nec est ei obedientium, etc. We are not to obey the Pope; if our obedience may be presumed will trouble the state of the Church, or be cause of any future Evil or Scandal, though the Precept were under pain of Excommunication, Latae sententiae. And Cardinal Tolet citing the same Authors, pronounces the same truth in far more ample terms.  
Do not these Authors (and none I suppose, for I have not much acquaintance with that sort of Learning, can differ from them in proper Cases) give us indeed more than we have need of? Are not the Consequences of our obeying the Pope's Letters, ruinous to our Fortunes; and which is worse, Scandalous to our Religion? shall we not strengthen the suspicion of our factiousness, and Inconsistency with Civil Government? and can a little Credit of a few at Rome, counterpoise a burden that lies so heavy on us all, in our own Country.  
The Circumstances we are in, I confess, are very unhappy, when the wisest of those who should advise us, are not fully free to speak their thoughts? but by particular Concernments so tempted to comply, that nothing but a rare Sincerity and Courage can enable them to resist; a Case that needs indeed some pity, but deserves no praise: and therefore as we shall be to blame, if we Censure too readily the Effects of Frailty in Them, so will they be less Innocent, if they Condemn too severely the Use of Liberty in Us. For my part, I have this to say, in proof of my own Indifferency, I am not Ambitious for preferment from Any, but humbly and hearty acknowledge my submission to every one above me; especially to the two Supreme, whom with all fidelity I am ready to obey, as my Soveragin Governors, though They never should be my particular Benefactors.  
A Duty we own to the Pope, a Duty to the King; both commanded by God, both obliging under Sin; yet both confined to their proper limits; Too much of the Temporal may be ascribed to Popes; too much of the Spiritual to Kings: too much may be challenged by Both: the difficulty is, when either exceeds, who must be Judge: if the cause be clearly Temporal, 'tis clearly the King (speaking of Common Right, not their particular Agreements) if Spiritual, the Pope: but where the Quality of the cause is invincibly doubted, (which can seldom be without a strange passion at least on one side,) I know no Judge expressly impower'd to decide so extraordinary a Question, nor can imagine any other remedy, than what true Reason, pressed with necessity, will extemporally dictate in such an occasion. However, thus far I plainly see, that, as sometimes a mischance may happen by the Competition of these two Authorities, so often very many and great advantages may accrue to Both, by their good correspondence, and mutual assistance.  
But by no means can I see, were the Extent of the Pope's power in Spirituals, and the Denial of his power in Temporals well understood, what disturbance He could possibly make in this Kingdom? if he excommunicate the Protestants, they little regard it: if the Catholics, such as are rightly instructed know their Civil Obligations both to their King and Fellow-subjects▪ remain entirely the same after Excommunication as they were before. No Ecclesiastical Censures against a Catholic here altering in the least tittle his Circumstances to Protestants; since of its own nature, it only concerns Communication in Spirituals, wherein, before any Censure they no more Communicate together, than after: indeed among the Catholics such Censure has some effect; yet of itself, only thus far can it work with them, to suspend or deprive their Communion in Holy Offices; to which, if any Temporal prejudices be annexed (as that an Excommunicate cannot bring an Action, etc.) they wholly are derived from the Civil Power, and when it sees convenient may wholly be revoked.  
As for the particular Laws of our Country, long before the unhappy dividing times of H. 8. our Wise, yet Pious Ancestors failed not to provide for the public peace against all Foreign encroachments; prohibiting the importation of any Bull from Rome without his Majesty's allowance, and imposing penalties on any that presumed without His Royal Assent to publish them. And were things so disposed that the little correspondence which is necessary for Catholics here with Rome were regulated, and not by severities endeavoured to be extinguished, (which cannot be effected without extinguishing the Religion itself) I am confident not one sort of people in the whole Nation would be either more faithfully serviceable to their King, or more securely incapable of disserving their Country. Nor would this design require any more consideration than only to resolve that their Ecclesiastical Government should be no other than such as had known Rules & Limits, not Arbitrarily depending on Rome; And their Ecclesiastical Governors no other than such as were of known Loyalty to their King, and Piety to their Country.    

Thus Sir I have finished these few Questions; and hope by Your instruction to settle my mind: professing hearty my absolute readiness (with the Grace of God) to govern my Understanding by Reason, and my Actions by my Understanding: only this short Petition I Humbly add, That as your Nature is Frank and Generous, your Answer may be Manly and Candid, not in the way miscalled Pious, but with a strict Conformity to what is true and solid; and however your Opinion may possibly in some things differ from mine, yet still continue in all things to Command  
SIR, Your Most Humble Servant A. G. St. George's Day, 1661.  
FINIS,    

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. Line 27. Dele. for. Page 4. Line 17. read Depose. And Line 25. read Word of God.