AN ADIOYNDER TO THE LATE CATHOLIKE NEW YEARES GIFT Or Explication of the Oath of ALLEGEANCE Wherein Certaine principall difficulties obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike against the sayd New-yeares Gift and Explication of the Oath are very clearely explained Published by E. I. the Author of the New-yeares Gift ✚ IHS Occultari potest ad tempus veritas vinci non potest Truth may for a time be suppressed but it cannot be ouercome S. Augustin in Psal 61. Permissu Superiorum 1620. To the Reader 1. IN the New of this yeere I presented to your charities Deare Country-men A Catholike New-yeeres gift or A brief clear Explication of the Oath of Allegiance partly vpon occasion of the publike acknowledgment which Mr. Thomas Greene a very learned Diuine and Religious Priest of the Order of S. Benedict made of his opinion concerning the said Oath to wit that in his owne priuate iudgment he thought that there is nothing in the Oath which may not according to Roger Widdringtons Glosse and Explication bee lawfully taken by English Catholikes and partly to instruct and appease more fully the consciences of you my Catholike Brethren concerning the said Oath then you were instructed by that false and pestiferous Explication compiled by I. E. the Author of the Treatise commonly called The Prelate and the Prince 2. Now in the last end thereof I am bold to annex for your better instruction a little Addition or Adioynder to the aforesayd New-yeeres gift vpon occasion of a Reply which a Religious Priest hath made to a very learned Roman-Catholike in answer to diuers difficulties doubts and scruples which he obiected against the sayd New-yeeres gift or Explication of the Oath By which Reply you may clearely see that this difficult dangerous and scandalous controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and the Oath of Allegeance is now in some sort brought to a finall issue for that all the exceptions which hitherto haue beene vrged or with any colour of reason may bee alledged against the aforesayd Oath are fully satisfied by these foure generall assertions which partly in the New-yeeres gift and partly in this Adioynder are made so plaine and manifest that no man of learning and conscience can contradict the same 3. The first assertion is that it is a doctrine truely probable it being approued by so many learned Catholike Diuines and Lawyers both ancient and moderne confirmed by so many publike Decrees of the Parliament of Paris grounded vpon so many pregnant proofes which are taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures the doctrine of the ancient Fathers the practice of the Primitiue Church and diuers other Theologicall reasons that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose absolute Princes or to dispose of their Crownes and liues for any cause crime end or good whatsoeuer And this assertion is so manifest that the most learned and Illustrious Cardinall Peron not onely affirmeth That the Pope doth tolerate in France those Catholikes who hold against him in this point a En Harangue autier Estat pag. 98. and That this controuersie ought not to hinder the re-vnion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church b In his Reply ca. 91. p. 633. but also which is more to bee admired he seeketh to excuse Card. Bellarmine himselfe c See beneath Sect. ◠num 9. as though he thought it absurd for any man to conceiue that so learned a man as Card. Bellarmine is should publikely teach that the doctrine for the Popes power to dispose of all temporalls is an vndoubted point of faith and to which all Catholikes are bound to adhere vnder paine of Excommunication and Anathema 4. The second assertion consisteth of these three points 1. That a meere probable and imaginary power to wit which is onely in the imagination conceipt or approbation of learned Catholikes and is contradicted by others is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power or ground to punish depose or depriue any man of that which he actually possesseth and to which also hee hath a probable title 2. That it is not lawfull for the Pope or other Christian Princes to dispossesse by violence or force of Armes any lawfull Prince of his Dominions vnder pretence of any probable title which is grounded vpon an vncertaine spirituall authoritie especially supposing which is most certaine that Christ hath left in his Church a peaceable way to finde out and decide infallibly the truth and certainty of all such controuersed and doubtfull titles 3. That it is most certaine and out of all controuersie that a lawfull Prince who is in peaceable possessiō of his Dominions may lawfully defend himself his Dominions against all such that shall inuade him his Countries vnder pretence of any such probable title which is grounded vpon spirituall authority and that hee may lawfully put them to death as Traytours or enemies to his Crowne and State that shall in hostile manner assault him and his Dominions vnder pretence of any such vncertaine and controuersed right and authority And these two assertions do make cleare the Second Branch of the Oath wherein is acknowledged That the Pope hath not any power or authoritie to depose the King to absolue his Subiects from their allegeance or to authorize any forraine Prince to inuade or annoy him or his Countries c. 5. The third assertion is that euery false doctrine which is either directly and expressely repugnant to the Word of God or indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence deduced from two premises whereof the one is expressely contained in the holy Scripture and the other euidently knowne by the light of nature is both in the opinion of Protestants and also of most Catholike Diuines truely and properly hereticall and that the Church hath not any authoritie to make any Catholike verity or heresie but onely to declare it when there is made any doubt thereof and to make it knowne to all Catholikes which before her declaration was not knowne to all but onely to some more or lesse who saw the necessity of the consequence deduced from both the premises And by this assertion the veritie of the Fourth Branch is made plaine and manifest for that all the stiffe impugners of the Oath doe ground all their exceptions against that Branch vpon the word hereticall So that by the aforesaid three assertions are cleared all the particular Branches of the Oath for that vpon the verity of the Second and Fourth Branch is wholly grounded the verity and Iustice of euery particular clause except onely of the First Branch wherein our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is acknowledged to be the lawfull and rightfull King of this Realme c. which Branch is so cleere and manifest that no English Catholike euer durst be so impious and presumptuous as to take the least exception against the same 6 The Fourth assertion is that it is no disobedience or irreuerence against the See
your argument First therefore I haue shewed aboue that according to the doctrine of Vasquez which he thinketh to be certaine and the contrarie improbable absurd and pernitious no Prince can lawfully in regard only of the probabilitie of his title make warre against an other Prince who besides a probable title hath also possession 2 But secondly because I will not meddle with this question concerning Princes making warre vpon probable titles which are meerely temporal for that it is impertinent to our controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to depose princes you may obserue a great disparitie betwixt the titles or rights which temporall Princes doe commonly pretend to the kingdomes which other Princes possesse and the right or title which any Prince can pretend by vertue of the Popes sentence of depriuation to the kingdom of an other Prince For the first titles or rights are for the most part meerely temporall titles nor grounded vpon any spirituall authoritie and therefore they are not subiect to the determination of a Generall Councell or to the decision of the Spirituall authoritie of the Church which by the institution of Christ hath infallible assistance to determine and decide only Spirituall and not meere temporall causes But the second right is grounded vpon the Popes pretended authority to depriue Princes of their temporall rights which authoritie if there be any such as I am fully perswaded there is not it being a Spiritual matter and depending chiefly vpon the institution of Christ deliuered to vs in the Word of God is to be decided when it is called in question among learned Catholikes by Spirituall and not temporall authority and therefore it is subiect to the determination and decision of a Generall Councell which without all controuersie among Catholikes is an infallible meanes to know certainly what authoritie Christ hath giuen to the Pope or Church 3 And if you had duly obserued this disparitie betwixt temporall and spirituall titles you might easily haue perceiued the weakenesse of your obiection For it is too too manifest that all Princes are bound to search out by all possible conuenient meanes the truth or falshood of the rights which they with probabilitie pretend to the Kingdome which an other Prince possesseth with a probable title before they can iustly make warre against him in regard onely of their probable title and if there be any assured and peaceable way to finde out the truth they are bound to try the same before they can by warre or violence dispossess any Prince who hath a probable title to his Crown because according to the doctrine of all Diuines no Prince can lawfully make warre wherein the blood of so many innocent men is by all probable coniectures likely to be shed to try an vncertaine title if the certainty of his title may be cleerely knowne and decided by any other assured vndoubtted peaceable way Seeing therefore that Christ hath left in his Church an assured and infallible way and which all Catholikes acknowledge to be infallible to finde out the truth and certaintie concerning the titles which are grounded vpon the Popes pretended authoritie to depriue Princes to wit the determination and decision of a lawfull and vndoubted generall Councell it is euident that both the Pope and Catholike Princes are bound by this infallible and peaceable way to find out the truth of such pretended titles before they can iustly make war to dispossesse any Prince of his probable right by vertue of the Popes vncertaine authoritie to depriue Princes of their temporall Kingdomes 4 Wherfore this consequence of yours is not good although the antecedent proposition were supposed as it is not to be true Temporall Princes may make warre vpon probable titles which are meerely temporall Therefore the Pope and temporall Princes may make warre vpon probable titles which are grounded chiefly vpon a probable spirituall authority Because there is no authoritie on earth to decide infallibly the differences betwixt two absolute Princes in meere temporall affaires wherein they are subiect to God alone neither are there now any Prophets as there were in the Ould Law to declare vndoubtedly the truth and will of God And if there were now any such infallible way Princes were bound to try the same before they could lawfully make war onely vpon a probable title against a Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession But Christ hath left in his Church an vndoubted infallible way to wit the authoritie of an vndoubted Oecumenicall Councell to determine and decide infallibly what authoritie belongeth to the Pope or Church consequently to determine infallibly all doubtfull and controuersed rights or titles depending thereon Neither is it to the purpose whether a Generall Councell not including the Pope be Superiour and aboue the Pope or no for neither doe I speake here of a Generall Councell in this sense as it excludeth the Pope but as it includeth all the Prelates of the Church and doth perfectly represent the whole body of that Church which is without all controuersie the pillar and firmament of truth and moreouer it is most certaine that the Pope is no less subiect and bound to submit him selfe to the definitions of faith ex Cathedra of such a Generall Councell to which Christ hath promised the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost then any inferiour Christian whatsoeuer And so likewise if Christ had promised the like infallibilitie to Arbitrarie Iudges for the deciding of meere temporal causes which he hath promised to a generall Councell for the deciding of spiritual there is no doubt but that temporall Princes were bound to submit themselues to the iudgment of Arbitratours before they could lawfully make warre vpon any doubtfull or controuersed title be it neuer so probable against any Prince who hath not only a probable title but also possession 5 Finally because you stand so much vpon the lawfulness of making warre vpon a probable title against a Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession consider diligently which the Authour of the New-yeres gift o chap. 6 nu 12. recommended to English Catholikes whether if the French King for example or any other forrein Prince should vpon a meere temporall probable title to those Dominions which our Kings Maiestie possesseth make warre against him it be not manifest that his Maiestie may lawfully and all his subiects are bound to defend his Royall Person and Dominions against such inuasions and whether those his Maiesties subiects who cōcurre with any forrein Prince to inuade in that case his Maiestie and the Dominions which he possesseth may lawfully be put to death as Traytours and consequently whether it be not euident that we may lawfully detest abhorre and abiure that doctrine as manifestly false and indirectly or by a necessarie consequence repugnant to those words of our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars which houldeth that they are not Traytours nor can iustly be put to death but
q in his Theologicall Disputation cap. 10. sect 2. hath clearely proued that the Pope both might erre in the aforesaid Breues not onely because they were made without a generall Councell which neuerthelesse as you very well grant were sufficient to proue that he might erre therein but also because they are not generall precepts and belonging to the whole Church but containe only a particular precept directed to one particular nation and therefore they are well called by Endaemon Ioannes r in Praefat. paraleli torti the Popes priuate letters to English Catholikes admonishing them not to take the Oath wherin not onely the Pope but also a generall Councell may erre as Mr. Widdrington obserueth out of the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and Canus Bell. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. ca. 2. Canus lib. 1 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. And also that the Pope did erre in those Breues vpon false informations and suppositions to wit for that he supposed his Primacie in spirituals his power to bind and lose to excommunicate and inflict Censures to bee denyed in the Oath which is manifestly false that his power to depose Princes is most certaine and of faith and not questioned among Catholikes which is no lesse vntrue is sufficiently conuinced by him in his Theological Disputation r in the place aboue câ—teâ— and in his answere to Mr. Fitzherbert Å¿ part 3.6.17 Sect. 16. Obiection A Fourth difficultie I find say you about the swearing that this Oath is ministred vnto me by lawfull authoritie Whereupon it followeth we may vse no equiuocation in taking of the same for that none can equiuocate in an Oath that is exacted by lawfull authoritie For if it were certaine that no thing is exacted by this Oath but temporall allegiance then wee might not onely sweare but were also bound to sweare that such Oath were ministred by lawfull authoritie But when it is questionable and vncertain whether the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no and consequently whether the Prince exacting such an Oath of his Subiects should cause them wrong the Pope and Church and make them sweare a thing vncertaine and with the hurt of their consciences not being able many of them to conforme themselues to those conceipts you frame of the Oath though they were true for that they can perceiue no solid ground therfore I see not how we may sweare that this Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie Answere 1 BVt first it is not true that we must sweare that this Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie but only that we must acknowledge so much of which our acknowledgment which is the immediate obiect of the Oath we must be assured to excuse vs from periurie 2 Secondly it is very true that we must not equiuocate in this Oath and this is not only deduced from the lawfull ministring of the same although this bee sufficient to proue that wee must not equiuocate therein but it is also deduced from the Seuenth branch wherein it is expresly ordained that me must vse no equiuocation 3 Thirdly the lawfulnes or vnlawfulnesse of this Branch dependeth wholy vpon the former Clauses for if none of the former Clauses containe a denyall of any spirituall obedience due to the Pope or Church nor be repugnant to truth or iustice it is manifest that they are ministred by lawfull authoritie And therefore you must first proue that some one of the former clauses is repugnaÌ„t to truth or iustice before you can impugne the Oath as not ministred by lawfull authoritie Whereupon you return backe to that which you aboue obiected against the second Branch to wit the Popes power to depose Princes which say you is vncertaine and questionable c. But as I answered there it is certain to me neither can any man of learning that wel examineth the question otherwise in my iudgement conceiue that the Pope hath no true reall lawfull power and authoritie and which may be a sufficient ground to depose Princes or to practise their deposition but only an imaginarie power in the conceit onely and approbation of some men which neuerthelesse is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power to punish any Prince by depriuing him of the Dominions which he possesseth And consequently the Kings Maiestie in causing his subiects to acknowledge and swear that the Pope hath no true reall lawful authority and which may be a sufficient ground to depose him thereby to be the better secured from all inuasions vnder pretence of Religion and to discouer his loyall and constant subiects from those who maintaine the principles of the Powder-Traytours doth neither wrong the Pope nor Church nor cause his subiects to wrong them or their consciences but seeketh to preserue his owne right and Dominions which he really possesseth from all inuasions and Powder-Treasons vnder colour of any probable or imaginary power or title which is grounded vpon an vncertaine and controuersed spirituall authority But contrariwise the Pope in forbidding this Oath which cannot sufficiently be proued to be vnlawfull doth wrong himselfe the Church his Maiestie and this whole kingdome And those English Catholikes that bend their wits to find out scruples or rather cauills against the Oath and to wrest the words to the worst sense that may be whereas they may expound them in a fauourable sense doe wrong the Pope the Church his Maiestie themselues and all their Catholike brethren 4. But many say you are not able to conforme themselues to those coÌ„ceipts Widdrington frameth of the Oath though they were true for that they cannot perceiue any solid ground therefore But First if they be learned they may easily conforme themselues to Widdringtons explication of the Oath if they will diligently and without partialitie examine the soliditie of his proofes and cousider that his proofes and answeres are grounded not only vpon his own conceipt but vpon manifest reason his Maiesties declaration the doctrine and authoritie of most learned Diuines and which is more euen of those who be his chiefest Aduersaries in this point and if withall they will remember as M. Widdrington hath heretofore h In the Epistle Dedicatorie of his Theologicall Dispotation obserserued that no other solid ground or proofe is sufficient to confute the Oath but euident demonstrations but to proue the Oath to be lawfull and that it may be lawfully taken it is a very sufficient and solid ground to answer probably to all the arguments which are brought against the same which whether he hath performed or no and what kinde of demonstrations or rather most weake arguments the impugners of the Oath haue brought seeing that few of them can scarse agree in any one conceipt I dare remit euen to your owne iudgement 5. Secondly if they be altogither so vnlearned that neither by their owne reading nor naturall iudgment they are able to examine the soliditie of the grounds of this controuersie they must be guided instructed
consisteth in your false glossing of those words The Pope hath no power or authoritie practicè that is for as much as concerneth practise to depose Princes Which is as much as to say say you we doe not sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes but that he can practise no such power vpon any Prince being in possession as long as it is but probable that the Pope hath that power But this Glosse of yours is very vntrue and also expresly repugnant to the words themselues For the plain meaning of these words The Pope hath no power or authoritie practicè that is for practise to depose Princes is that the Pope hath no true reall sufficient and lawfull power or authoritie to practise the deposition of Princes at any time for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer And besides M. Widdrington saith in expres words That the Pope hath no power or authoritie to depose or practise the deposition of Princes and not onely that hee can not practise their deposition or which is all one depose them as though you would haue him to grant that the Pope hath a true and lawful power and authoritie to depose Princes but that he can not lawfully or without sin practise this his authority 5 Moreouer I can not perceiue any difference in substance and effect betwixt these two propositions which you would seeme to distinguish The Pope hath no power or authoritie to depose Princes or to practise their deposition and The Pope can not practise any such power or authoritie to depose vpon any Prince seeing that whosoeuer denieth all effects of any power doth vertually and in effect deny the power it self Frustra enim est illa potestas proinde nulla cùm Deus Natura nihil faciant frustra quae nunquam reducitur adactum for that power is vaine or idle seeing that God and Nature doth no thing idly or in vaine which is neuer brought to act Whereupon Suarez from those words of the third Branch notwithstanding any sentence of depriuation or absolution of the subiects from their allegiance made or to be made c. I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie c. doth well conclude a denyall of the Popes power to depriue Prince and to absolue subiects from their allegiance to be vertually conteyned in those words for that the denial of all effects of any power doth imply a deniall of the power it selfe 6 Wherefore if M. Widdrington and the Author of the New-yeres gift had denyed the practise of the Popes power only in some particular cases as M. Blackwell did at the first deny the practise of the Popes power to depose the King for that rebus sic stantibus things standing as they doe at this present the Pope could not without great hurt to English Catholikes practise vpon him his pretended power to depose Princes and thereupon did ill conclude that the Pope had no power nor authoritie to depose the King then indeed you might wel infer that they did only deny the practice of the Popes power to depose but not the power and authoritie it selfe which is repugnant to his Maiesties meaning who by this Branch of the Oath intended to deny the Popes authoritie to practise his deposition in any case or for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently to deny not only the practise but also the power it selfe But considering that they in expresse tearmes deny both the Popes power authority to practise the deposition of his Maiestie and consequently of any other Prince not directly subiect to the Pope in temporals also the practise thereof in all cases whatsoeuer although the crime should deserue deposition and the Pope should haue sufficient forces and also conuenient meanes to put in execution his sentence of depriuation truly you had no reason nor colour of reason to say that they denied onely the practise of the Popes power to depose but not the power and authoritie it selfe 7. But because you shall see that my meaning is not to conceale or obscure any difficultie I will vrge this obiection of yours against Mr. Widdrington somewhat more forcibly in forme and shew than you haue done in this manner Whosoeuer acknowledgeth that the Pope hath some power and authoritie to depose Princes cannot lawfully sweare nor acknowledge by oath that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose them But Mr. Widdrington acknowledgeth that the Pope hath some power and authority to depose Princes Therefore he cannot lawfully sweare or acknowledge by oath that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose them The Maior is manifest for that in so swearing he should commit manifest periurie in swearing or acknowledging by oath that to be true which he acknowledgeth to bee false seeing that to haue some authoritie and not to haue any authority are contradictories The Minor is proued thus A probable power to depose is some power But Mr. Widdrington acknowledgeth that the Pope hath a probable power saltem speculatiuè at least in speculation to depose Therefore hee acknowledgeth that hee hath some power to depose And yet in the Oath wee must sweare or at least acknowledge by oath That the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose the King c. 8. But this obiection is easily answered For the true meaning of those words That the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose c according to their plaine proper and vsuall signification and the intention of his Maiesty is that the Pope hath not any true reall sufficient and lawfull power or authoritie to depose c. But a meere probable power to depose is no true reall sufficient or lawfull power but for practise and effect it is only an imaginarie power or a power in the conceit and imagination of some Doctors but in very deed and for practise effect it is no true reall lawfull power at all or which may bee a sufficient ground to depose For euery power hath relation to the effect and where there can bee no reall and lawfull effect or practice there is no reall and lawfull power to practise for power and effect or practice are correlatiues and one dependeth vpon the other And this is so plaine and manifest that there needeth no declaration of his Maiesty to explaine the same And therefore I wish you to remember that when the words of penall Lawes may according to their proper and vsuall signification be expounded in a fauourable sense wee ought not contrarie to the rules prescribed by Diuines for the interpreting of lawes seeke to wrest them to an absurd and inconuenient sense Neither can any man with any colour of reason imagin that his Maiestie would haue vs to sweare or acknowledge that which hee himselfe knoweth to be vntrue to wit that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose so much as in the conceit imagination and opinion of some Catholikes yea and of
therefore according to the Seuenth Branch we ought to take it so in this Clause 3. Thirdly I maruell that you should so resolutely affirme without alledging any reason that without doubt the intention of the Law-maker is that wee should no lesse detest the one part of the proposition then the other especially seeing that Mr. Widdrington hath answered at large this obiection in his Confutation of Mr. Fitzherbert who vrged the same obiection more fully then you haue done and yet you vrge here Mr. Fitzherberts obiection and take no notice of Mr. Widdringtons answer to the same And is it possible that a man of your learning can imagine that his Maiestie doth detest no lesse that is in the same degree of detestation and falsity the doctrine of murthering Princes excommunicated or depriued of the Pope then he doth of deposing them Or that he conceiueth that the doctrine of murthering the said Princes is not more manifestly false and against Scripture then is the doctrine of deposing them If you had diligently perused his Maiesties bookes you might haue seene that against the doctrine of deposing Princes by the Popes authority hee bringeth many proofes both out of the old and new Testament but against the doctrine of murthering them hee doth not so much labour for that he supposeth it to bee so manifestly false that no Catholike or Christian Diuine could bee so temetarious as to approue the same 4. But howsoeuer his Maiestie bee perswaded yet his intention which in this Oath wee must chiefly regard and not his beleefe perswasion or opinion is for as much as by reason and his Maiestie declaration wee can coniecture that wee should take the words according to the common sense and vnderstanding of them as wee are expressely bound by the Seuenth Branch of the Oath which as Mr. Widdrington hath proued is that we are not bound to abiure both parts for hereticall And truely I wonder that whereas you may and are bound to expound the words in a fauourable sense you seeke all euasions and deuises to expound them in a sense most false and absurd to the ouerthrowing of the temporall estates of English Catholikes to the disgrace of his Maiesty and to the scandall of the Catholike Roman Religion Sect. 8. Obiection MOreouer Obiect the ground say you whereon the lawfulnesse of swearing that the doctrin which maintaineth the Popes authority to depose Princes after depriuation is hereticall is not so certaine For it is this sole rule In dubio melior est conditio possidentis In a doubt the condition of the possessor is the better which rule seemeth to mee to be vnderstood rather in vero dubio in a true doubt and when neither side hath probability as when the minde doth fluctuate betwixt two and can yeeld assent to neither part of the contradiction then otherwise but about the Popes power to depose Princes there is no such doubt or fluctuation but both parts by you are thought probable at the least speculatiuely Answer 1. BVT first Answ albeit this rule bee oftentimes cited by Doctors In causa dubia or In dubio c. In a doubtfull cause or In a doubt c. yet both the Canon and Ciuill Law and you your selfe aboue doe cite it In paricasu c. In the like case c. And why doe not you now cite it in the same manner as you did aboue In the like case c. but In a doubt Is it possible that you can imagine that when both sides haue probability non est par casus The case is not alike 2. Secondly not onely this rule In pari casu c. In the like case c. But also besides that other rule Cum sunt inra partium c. When the rights of the parties who are in strife are obscure or not cleare the Defendant is rather to be fauoured then the Plaintiffe The common doctrine of Diuines wherof some are cited in the New-yeares Gift k In the first obseruation nu 11. pag. 43. who vnderstand it not onely of a true but also of a probable doubt and who also in my iudgement proue the same by conuincing reasons And yet you bring no other reason or authoritie that it is to be vnderstood onely of a true doubt but your owne conceipt which rule seemeth to me say you to be vnderstood rather in a true doubt and when neither side hath probabilitie then otherwise Is this thinke you a sound and sincere confutation of Widdringtons doctrine in a matter which is so iniurious to the soueraigne right of Princes and so preiudiciall and dangerous to the soules and temporall estates of English Catholikes Sect. 9. Obiection AND although Lessius and others with you seeme to hold say you that none can bee depriued of his right vpon a probable title onely Obiect yet that must be vnderstood first if that right bee not retained with the wrong of others or the retaining of that right bee not the hinderance of a greater good Answer 1. BVT first Answ why do you vse those words seem to hold as though they did not in very deed hold that none can bee depriued of his right to that whereof hee hath possession vpon a probable power or title onely whereas it is manifest that they doe expressely hold the same 2. Secondly why did you omit those words vpon a probable power whereas there is a great difference betwixt a probable power to punish and depose and a probable title Lessius in his Singleton part 2. num 38. and Lessius speaketh expressely of a probable power to punish and to depriue one of that which he actually possesseth 3. Thirdly Lessius proueth the insufficiency of a probable power to punish by a conuincing argument For if it were any way doubtfull the person accused might except against the Iudge and not obey him And hereupon credit is not giuen to delegates to the preiudice of another man vnlesse by an authenticall Instrument they shew their authoritie so that no iust cause of doubt be further left And D. Kellinson * In his Treatise called The Prince and the Prelate cap. 11. pa. 235. with others proue the insufficiency of a probable title without possession by those two rules aboue cited In pari casu c. and Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. And Vasquez confirmeth the same as you shall see beneath l Sect. 10. num 2. by other reasons in his iudgement vnanswerable And yet you without bringing any authority reason or proofe at all affirme too too resolutely that it must bee vnderstood first if that right be not retained with the wrong of others by whom you meane the Pope and Church whereas they vnderstand it generally and also the former Authors speake expressely of the Popes power to depose wicked Princes where you falsly suppose a wrong done to the Pope and Church in resisting the Popes sentence of depriuation For a Prince being depriued
and few agreeing among themselues in any one point besides the silence both of the Popes Holinesse in not expressing as yet any one clause or proposition in the Oath which is cleerely repugnant to faith or saluation although he hath beene often most humbly requested to declare the same and the silence also of Mr. Widdringtons chiefest aduerlaries to whom hee hath replyed who as it seemeth haue left him in the open field and moreouer the weaknesse of your doubts and difficulties which after so long a discussion of this controuersie as the most principall obiections you haue singled from the rest doe sufficiently confirme that no conuincing argument can bee brought to proue the Oath vnlawfull Now to your difficultie Sect. 2. Obiection VVEll then good Sir the first difficultie that I find Obiect is about your doctrine in the Exposition of the first Branch you would say the second Branch of the Oath how it can be true which you seeme to teach That we may lawfully sweare not only our acknowledgement but also the absolute proposition That the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes when the contradictorie proposition to wit That the Pope hath that authoritie is probable and holden for such not only by the ancient Schoole-Diuines Casuists who might peraduenture not haue marked all your grounds but also by our own moderne Doctors who no doubt haue seen the reasons and examined the grounds on both parts when as you know the matter of an Oath ought to be certaine and when one part of the contradictorie is probable the other cannot be certaine I marke well how you say for answere of this difficultie that in the Oath you sweare That the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes not meaning it speculatiuè in speculation or conceipt but practicè for as much as concerneth practise which is as much as to say you doe not sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes but that he can practise no such power vpon any Prince being in possession so long as it is but probable the Pope hath that power and this alwaies is most certaine grounded on that rule In pari casu melior est conditio possidentis In the like case the condition of the possessour is the better and so may be the matter of an Oath and lawfully sworne But this in my conceipt will not serue the turne for that the words in the Oath in their proper signification can haue no such meaning but doe signifie that we sweare not only that the Pope can practise no such power and authoritie but that he hath no such power And although Princes or priuate men doe little regard what learned men do speculatiuè in speculation dispute or teach in Schooles concerning their titles so they may be secured of their estates yet when the words of the Oath in this Branch in their proper signification import a deniall of the power and not of the practise and the controuersie betwixt Popes and Princes hath euer beene of the power and not of the practise and when by the Seuenth Branch we are tyed to take the words of the Oath in their proper signification and according to their common sense and meaning I can not see how this Clause absolutely making the denyall of the Popes power to depose Princes the immediate Obiect of the Oath may be sworne without periurie Especially seeing it is most likely that the intention of the Law-maker was that wee should by this Oath abiure not only the practise of this power but rather the power it self which both might be and had been the roote and origine of the practise of such power which if it were not it were graciously don of our Prince to declare his intention to be otherwise that his Catholike subiects might know how to comport themselues in these affaires For his Magistrates and Officers appointed to see this Law executed doe seeme to insinuate euerie where that the meaning of the Prince and Common-wealth is that not onely the practise but also the power should be abiured And therefore if any chance to take this Oath vpon frailtie or otherwise they will not sticke to tell him in open audience that he hath abiured the Popes power and consequently his faith b As Card. Bellarmine and other Iesuits haue very falsly scandalously declared the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith Answere 1 BVt this first difficultie of yours is easily answered And first although the matter of an Oath ought to be certain yet it is to be vnderstood of the immediate matter or obiect of the Oath and also of morall certaintie and that also not in respect of all men but in respect only of the swearer or according to the reasonable iudgement of the swearer as hath been sufficiently declared in the New-yeeres gift c In the first obseruation for the same thing may be certain or probable to the iudgement of one which is not certaine or probable to the iudgement of an other From whence these two things may be inferred 2 The one that Becanus houlding for certain Becanus in controuersia Anglicana anno dom 1612. impressa pag. 102 that King Iames is the Soueraign Lord in temporals of his Dominions might lawfully sweare the same although some others improbably hould that the Pope and not King Iames is the Soueraigne Lord in temporals thereof And Vasques houlding for certaine that it is not lawfull so make warre vpon a probable title against a Prince who hath not onely a probable title but also possession for he affirmeth d See beneth sect 10 num 2. that the contrarie doctrine hath in his iudgement no probabilitie at all might lawfully sweare the same And likewise they who hould it for certain that the Pope hath no lawfull power or authoritie to depose Princes or which is all one to practise their deposition may lawfully sweare the same And the reason is for that the Veritie which is required in an Oath is not to be taken from the thing sworn as it is in it selfe or a parte rei but as it is in the vnderstanding of him that sweareth 3 The other which may be inferred is that if the immediate obiect of this second Branch of the Oath be not this absolute proposition That the Pope hath not any authoritie to depose the King c. as it hath been sufficiently proued by Mr. Widdrington and also your silence in not impugning that first Explication of his seemeth to confirme the same then by this difficultly of yours it can not bee sufficiently proued that this second Branch of the Oath is vnlawfull for when two answerers are giuen to one obiection it is necessarie to confute them both to proue the obiection to be of force 4. But secondly it is manifest that also M. Widdringtons second Explication of this Branch is very true notwithstanding your obiection against the same For all the force of your difficultie
the Pope himselfe but his meaning is to haue vs to sweare or at least acknowledge by Oath that the Pope hath no true reall and lawfull power to depose and which may be a sufficient ground and foundation to practise the deposition of any absolute Prince notwithstanding this their conceit imagination or opinion 9. But perchance you will obiect that both the power to depose and also the practice it selfe is approued for lawefull and sufficient not onely by the ancient Schoole-Diuines who peraduenture as you insinuate aboue might not haue marked all Widdringtons grounds but also by our owne moderne Doctours who no doubt haue seene the reasons and examined the grounds on both parts therefore the Pope hath at least wise a probable lawfull and sufficient power to practise the deposition of Princes But this obiection hath beene answered at large in the Neweyeares Gift * Cap. 9. num 9. For those Doctors who approue the practice of deposing Princes by the Popes authoritie doe ground their doctrine vpon a very false principle and which all the world now seeth to bee false and absurd to wit that it is certaine and vnquestionable among Catholikes that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes or else they did not obserue the manifest difference betwixt the lawfull practise of a probable power concerning fauour and punishment But that doctrine ought not to bee accounted probable in respect of extrinsecall grounds or the authority of Doctors when it is grounded vpon a principle which is knowne to bee manifestly false as is this that it is not now a controuersie among Catholikes whether the Pope hath authority to depose Princes or no. Neither can you alledge any one ancient or moderne Doctour who holding the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee but probable approueth the practice thereof to bee lawfull For which cause they haue so much laboured these latter yeeres to proue it to bee certaine and of faith but all in vaine And therefore they haue now thought it best to bee silent then to write any more of this controuersie lest their further writings proue the doctrine which they in times past would haue had to be certaine to bee now scarse probable Yet I cannot but commend the ingenuity of Becanus who although some yeeres past was as hot in this question Becanus in Tract de fide ca. 15. q 4. as any of the rest for before hee affirmed that it is certaine at the least f In Controuersia Anglic. cha 3. q. 3. that the Pope hath authority to depose Princes yet now hauing some occasion to treat thereof againe is content to leaue it as a difficultie or controuersie Certum est c. It is certaine saith he that if we regard onely the Law of God or Nature hereticall Princes are not depriued of their Dominions or Iurisdiction de facto But whether a Prince may by the Law of the Church and the Popes sentence be depriued of his Dominion and Iurisdiction it is a difficulty And therefore Card. Peron now in his last booke cap. 91. p. 633. expressely affirmeth That this controuersie ought not to hinder the re-vnion of those who should bee reconciled to the Church In so much that he laboreth also to excuse Card. Bellarmine and sayth that Card. Bellarmine hath admonished his Readers that what hee propounded concerning the Popes power indirectly in temporals he did not propound it as a doctrine of faith and whereof wee must needs hold the one part or the other vnder paine of Excommunication and Anathema which is as much as to say that albeit Card. Bellarmine did hold it to be a doctrine of faith yet he did hold it to bee so onely in his owne priuate opinion which others of the contrary opinion were not bound to follow vnder paine of Excommunication and Anathema As likewise although the Iesuites in times past held their doctrine de auxilijs gratiae to bee of faith yet because they held it to bee so onely in their priuate opinion they knew right well that the Dominicans who held the contrary were not bound to follow their priuate opinion vnder pain of Excommunication and Anathema and therfore they did not thereby cause a Schisme in the Church by seeking to exclude them from Sacraments and Ecclesiasticall Communion Neither ought they now according to Card. Peron his doctrine proceed otherwise in this controuersie of the Popes power to depose Princes 10. And if you obiect again which you vrge beneath Sect. 11. concerning a probable title that if a probable power to depose and punish bee not a sufficient and lawfull power to practise it is as good as no power at all I answer that for as much as concerneth practice it is in very deed as good as no power at all for that a probable power cannot bee a sufficient ground to punish or depriue any man of that which he possesseth as Lessius and P. Kellinson well obserued yet speaking generally your consequence is not good for no power is good for nothing but a probable power to punish and depose is good for this to haue the matter examined by a lawful and vndoubted Iudge who in respect of the deciding of the Popes power to depose Princes can onely be a lawfull and vndoubted Generall Councell as hath beene declared sufficiently in the New-yeeres Gift And this may suffice for the cleering of this difficulty Sect. 3. Obiection SEcondly I finde say you another difficulty about your exposition of the fourth Branch for I cannot see how any with safety of conscience can swear that the doctrine which maintaineth That Princes which be excommunicated and depriued may bee deposed or murthered by their owne subiects c. is impious and hereticall though wee should take hereticall in that sense which you doe take it which yet in my conceit is not so proper with vs nor Protestants who most of them hold that for hereticall which subuerteth the foundation of faith and not that which is contrarie to Scripture Answer 1. BVT before I goe any further Answ to set downe and examine the proofes of what here you say it is strange to mee that a man of your learning and reading should conceiue that the taking of hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington doth take it to wit for that false doctrine which is contrary to the holy Scriptures is not so proper neither with vs nor Protestants For the Protestants hold the Scriptures to bee the onely rule of saith and consequently that to bee hereticall or against faith which is contrary to the Word of God which is the rule of faith And therefore euery falshood which is repugnant to the Word and testimony of God contained in the holy Scriptures is in the doctrine of Protestants and also of the most Catholike Diuines hereticall and repugnant to diuine and supernaturall faith though it be only in a poynt of some historicall narration as to deny Euod 3. that God appeared
any man his goods yet it is not cleare in Scriptures although it be otherwise certaine that these goods are an other mans but this must be proued out of Scripture And although it be cleere in Scripture that we must not kill and consequently an vndoubted lawfull King yet it is not cleare in Scripture although it be otherwise certaine either that this particular killing of a priuare man is don by priuate and not by publike authoritie or that part cular man to bee a lawfull King or a King yea or to be a man but these must bee proued by principles which are no Scriptures Many other examples may be brought out of the new Testamēt as of Priests to remit sins of Popes to be the chiefe Pastors of the Church of Sacraments to be effectuall outward signes of inuisible grace for that out of Scripture only we cannot proue any man whatsoeuer to bee a true Priest any Pope whatsoeuer to bee a true Pope or any Sacrament whatsoeuer to bee a true Sacrament but to proue them to bee such one of the premisses must be taken out of the holy Scripture 2 But least you should obiect that to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument Secondly I answere directly that it is very vntrue in my iudgement and also repugnant to the common doctrine of Diuines that to make a Conclusion to bee faith and the contrarie hereticall both the premisses must be expresly and formally conteyned in the holy Scriptures but it is sufficient that one onely of them bee expressed in the holy Scripture and the other certaine by naturall reason Ad fidem aliquîd pertinet dupliciter c. To faith a thing belongeth two waies saith S. Thomas 2.2 q. 11. ar 2. one way directly and principally as the Articles of faith an other way indirectly and secondarily as those things from which doth follow the corruption of some article Which words of S. Thomas Bannes declareth more plainely distinctly in these words Illa secundùm D. Thomam indirectè sunt fidei c. Those things according to S. Thomas are indirectly of faith by the denying wherof it followeth necessarily by a good consequence that to be false which is affirmed firmed by faith As if one deny Christ to haue power to laugh doth erre in the Catholike faith consequently and indirectly Because it well followeth by a consequence knowne by the light of nature that Christ is not a perfect man 3 Et notandum est aliquam propositionem esse de fide duobus modis c. And it is to be noted saith Franciscus de Christo h Pag. 23 that a proposition is of faith two waies one way proximè and immediately of which sort is euery proposition which is formally and expresly conteyned in the holy Scripture as that Abraham had two sonnes the other way a proposition is of faith mediatly of which sort is euery proposition which by a good consequence is deduced from that which is immediately of faith as that Christ had not power to vnderstand that he had not a will c. Therefore that proposition which is deduced from that which is formally conteyned in the holy Scriptures is of faith and the proposition repugnant to that is hereticall Thus he And Franciscus Pegna in his Annotations vpon the Directorie of the Inquisitours part 2. Comment 27. citing for the same Cardinal Turrecremata and other Doctours putteth in the second place or degree of Catholike verities those which are by a necessarie consequence deduced from the holy Scriptures And a little after he affirmeth that those propositions are to be accounted hereticall which are repugnant to these Catholike assertions And therefore I meruaile that you should conceiue that proposition not to be heretical which is deduced from two premisses whereof the one is expresly repugnant to the holy Scriptures and the other deduced necessarily from the light of naturall reason or sensible experience although wee should take hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington doth take it For according to your principles M. Widdrington could not maintaine that it is hereticall to affirme that Christ had not humane vnderstanding and will and that euery Tyrant may and ought lawfully meritoriously be slain by any whatsoeuer c. which neuerthelesse are expresly condemned by Generall Councels for hereticall Because to proue these propositions to be hereticall one of the premisses is only deduced from the light of naturall reason which is no Scripture 4 And if perchance you should answere that these propositions are therefore hereticall because Generall Councels haue condemned them for heretical now you fly from taking the word hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington with most Catholike Diuines and all Protestants doe take the word hereticall who hould that the definition or declaration of the Church doth not make any Catholike veritie or any doctrine hereticall but suppose it declare it make it known to all Catholikes which neuerthelesse before any declaration or definition of the Church was indeed Catholike veritie or hereticall doctrine and also knowne so to be to diuerse learned men who euidently saw the necessarie consequence from both the premisses For also as wel writeth Molina a most learned Iesuite Concursus Molina 1. part q. 1. ar 2 disp 1. quo spiritus sanctus praesto adest Ecclesiae c. The assistance wherewith the holy Ghost is present with the Catholike Church is not to make any thing of faith which before was not of faith but onely that she do not erre in declaring those things which mediately or immediately belong to faith Wherefore as in the Church there is not power authority to make any thing of faith which before was not of faith but only to declare to the faithful which is certainly to be held of faith so also neither is there power and authoritie to make any sacred Scripture or to add to it any canonicall booke or any part but onely to iudge betwixt canonicall bookes and not canonicall Thus he wherein as you haue seene aboue i In the third Sectiō he agreeth with the common doctrine of Diuines 5 Now to that Logicall maxime That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part which is the chiefe ground of your obiection I answer that althogh it bee frequent in euerie mans mouth yet you are not ignorant that it is not by learned men vnderstood and expounded alike And first if you will vnderstand it without exception limitation or declaration how will you make good Aristotles saying in his first booke of the Priors cap. 10. When the Maior proposition is necessarie and the Minor de inesse the Conclusion is necessarie and not de inesse if the Conclusion doe alwaies follow the weaker part 6 Secondly you know that many learned Diuines whom Molina the Iesuite in the place aboue cited doth follow expound it thus That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part quoad certitudinem euidentiam in respect of certitude
and euidence wherein the Conclusion dependeth vpon both the premisses non quoad supernaturalitatem not in regard of supernaturalitie wherein it only dependeth vpon Diuine and supernaturall faith For to make an act supernaturall it is sufficient that one of the causes be supernaturall as it is apparant in the acts of contrition of faith hope and charity to which concurre the vnderstanding and will of man which are naturall causes and yet they are supernaturall acts because they are produced by a supernaturall habite for which cause they affirme that a Theological conclusion deduced from one principle of faith and from the other knowne by the light of naturall reason is supernaturall because it is produced by the supernaturall habite of faith 7 Thirdly others who hould with S. Thomas and the common doctrine of Diuines that doctrine to be of faith which either directly and expresly or indirectly and vertually is conteyned in the holy Scripture and the contrarie to be hereticall that the Church doth not make Catholike veritie or heresie but onely doth declare and make it certainely knowne to all Catholikes which before her declaration was not certainly knowne to all doe answere thus That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part principally directly and immediately but when the weaker part is necessarily connected with the stronger then also the Conclusion doth follow the stronger part secundarily indirectly and mediately And the reason hereof is euident for when one thing is necessarily connected with an other that which followeth the one must consequently follow the other at the least secundarily indirectly and mediately Wherefore seeing that all dishonouring of Parents all Theft all Murder all Adulterie are against Scripture directly and expresly it necessarily followeth that euerie particular contained in the generall being sufficiently proued to be conteyned therein of whatsoeuer kind that proofe be is also indirectly vertually or by a necessarie consequence repugnant to Scripture And hereby also appeareth the weakenesse of the application you make of your argument to the murthering of Princes which are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope in these words following Sect. 5. Obiection IN like manner say you though it be cleare in Scriptures Obiect we must not murther yet it is not cleare in Scripture that it is murther if a priuate man go about to kill a Prince depriued if he still vsurpe when Tyrannicall Vsurpers may be slayne by priuate men as all doe grant I say if he still vsurpe for if he do not but yeeld vp his Crowne as some haue done after depriuation it were euident murther to kill such a Prince as all doe teach It is onely deduced out of your rule In pari casu c. In the like case c. to be murther which rule when it is not in Scripture as I said before the opposite doctrine can not bee hereticall Answere 1 BVt first although it be not cleare in Scriptures directly and immediately Answ that it is murther to kill a Prince excommunicated or depriued by the Pope if he will not obey his sentence of depriuation not to vse your vnrespectiue words if hee still vsurpe seeing that a Prince who hath possession and a probable title is by none accounted an Vsurper yet it is repugnant to Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence to kill such a Prince for that neither Excommunication which depriueth him onely of spirituall graces nor depriuation which depriueth him onely of his kingdome according to those that hould it for certain that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes not of his life can hinder that the killing of such a Prince is not included in that generall Thou shalt not kill 2 Secondly I wonder that you houlding it probable as I suppose that the Pope hath not authoritie to depriue Princes should so dangerously seditiously apply that similitude of killing Vsurpers to the killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope seeing that the doctrine of killing Vsurpers is vnderstood by all that approue it of known manifest and vndoubted Vsurpers and not of such as haue possession also a probable title to the Crowne as haue all those Princes which are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope supposing it to be a controuersie among Catholikes as vndoubtedly it is whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue wicked Princes or no. if 3 Thirdly that which you say that he yeeld vp his Crowne as some haue done it were euident murther in any one to go about to kill such a Prince is very true yet it is not cleare and expresly contained in Scripture but to proue it euident murther you must vse the helpe of an argument whereof one of the premisses is not formally and expressely contained in Scripture And therefore according to your grounds you could not abiure as hereticall that doctrine which should maintaine it for no murther although you grant it to be euident murther 4 Fourthly if you will call to mind the Histories of those Princes who haue yeelded vp their Crownes after depriuation whereof you can name but very few you shall find such stuffe about the practise of this doctrine of deposing that any zealous Catholike may bee ashamed thereof Among those few Princes remember our king Iohn who rendred vp his Crown after depriuation But to whom did hee yeeld or render it Not to the next heire of the blood Royall who after King Iohns depriuation was forthwith the true King by right if King Iohn was truly and really depriued but hee gaue it to the Pope And how I pray you could hee giue that to the Pope whereof hee was depriued and consequently had no right therein if the Pope had truly authoritie to depriue him Or how could the Pope accept thereof if King Iohn when he gaue it to the Pope was depriued thereof and consequētly had no right to giue that which was not his But let vs on to the rest of your Discourse Sect. 6. Obiection ANd as for the examples you produce to proue say you that these particulars are conteyned in the generals Obiect me thinke they are not so good and apt for that purpose and in them I find a great disparitie For to take a purse from our neighbour or to kill him with a penne knife if hee lead a wanton life are vnquestionable theft and murther and included in the generals and that one liueth a wicked life can no way bee excuse for the fault committed But to depose or kill a Prince depriued if after depriuation hee vsurpe is with many questionable and probably thought by some neither theft nor murther and so though to you according to your rule they may be thought so to be yet by others they are no more reputed such or included in the generall proposition of theft and murther then taking a Cow or Horse from the enemie in time of warre when the cause is iust or killing a Tyrant in call Vsurper in a Common-Wealth which neither
rather doe well in taking part against their Soueraigne in the aforesaid case And neuerthelesse as I haue shewed aboue in the former Section the falshood and absurditie of the Doctrine concerning the inuading of Princes and seeking to dispossesse them by warre only by vertue of the Popes sentence of depriuation or vpon any probable title which is grounded vpon a controuersed Spirituall authoritie is farre more manifest for the reason there alledged Sect. 14. Obiection LAstly Obiect say you about this Branch your exposition of those words as hereticall seemeth to me neither agreeing with the ordinarie and common sense of the words which though somtimes may be taken in such sense as you expound them yet ordinarily are not nor with the intention of the Law-maker who thinking it to be against Scriptures that the Pope should haue power to depose Princes for that none is aboue Kings at the least in temporals but God alone and that by Scriptures would haue all no doubt detest such doctrine as shall allow the deposition of Princes not only as hereticall but for hereticall Answere 1 BVt it seemeth Answ that you haue not well considered M. Widdringtons meaning and drift in bringing this last answere for the expounding of these words as hereticall in the fourth Branch of the Oath For in his former answere he tooke the word hereticall for that which is directly or indirectly repugnant to Scriptures and in which sence both Catholike Diuines commonly and also Protestants and his Maiestie do vnderstand it which sense neuerthelesse you aboue in the third Section seemed to disproue in those words which sense is not in my conceipt so proper neither with vs nor Protestants who most of them hould that for heretical which subuerteth the foundation of faith and not that which is contrarie to Scripture And yet now you will haue the Law-maker who are Protestants to take hereticall for that which is against Scriptures Now Mr. Widdrington taking hereticall in this sense to wit for that which is against Scriptures either directly formally and expresly or at the least indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence which sense I haue sufficiently proued aboue to be proper and vsuall both among Protestants and Catholikes affirmed that the doctrine euen of deposing Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be abiured not only as hereticall but for hereticall 2. But because some might peraduenture contend as you seeme to do that the word hereticall according to the common vnderstanding of Catholikes is to be taken onely for that which is expressely declared by the Church to be hereticall and repugnant to Scriptures and which maketh a formall hereticke and to be punishable as an hereticke by the Canons of the Church and the Imperiall Lawes Mr. Widdrington in regard onely of such contentious spirits and admitting for Disputation sake that to bee true which hee accounteth very false gaue this last answer to wit that if wee will needs haue the word hereticall to bee taken for that doctrine which is made hereticall by the Church and maketh a formall heretike and which before the declaration of the Church is not to be accounted hereticall although it be a very false doctrine and contrary to the word of God then the Aduerb as doth signifie both by vertue of the Word and also of the matter not an identity or reality but onely a similitude of that strict and rigorous hereticall And this answer hee hath at large confirmed in his Adioynder against Mr. Fitzherberts Reply where you may see that the Aduerbe As being an Aduerbe of similitude doth commonly and not only sometimes or oftentimes signifie onely a similitude by vertue of the Word and that it neuer signifieth a reality identity or equality but onely by reason of the matter to which it is applyed And that if the matter of this Branch will not permit without manifest absurditie that it signifie a realitie wee are bound to interpret it in that sense which is not absurd according to the rules prescribed by Diuines for the interpreting of Lawes vnlesse either the words will not beare a true sense which as Mr. Widdrington hath proued is very false or it bee apparant that the intention of the Law-maker was to haue it taken in an absurd and inconuenient sense which were rashnesse and impiety so to iudge of his Maiesty 3. For howsoeuer his Maiestie be perswaded in his opinion iudgement or beliefe yet his intention is not but that wee must take the words of the Oath according to the common sense and vnderstanding of them as it is euident by the Seuenth Branch And therefore a great difference is to bee made betwixt his Maiesties beleefe or perswasion and his intention as he is a Law-maker as Mr. Widdrington and the Authour of the New-yeeres Gift p In the third obseruation haue proued at large by his Maiesties expresse declaration who although he be perswaded that he is the supreme Lord of his Dominions not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall causes for as much as concerneth the external gouernment by true coactiue authority and that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ any authority to excommunicate him yet his intention was not to meddle in this Oath with these poynts nor to distinguish Catholikes from Protestants in points of Religion but onely to distinguish Catholikes from Catholikes in points of their loyalty and temporall allegeance for in poynts of Religion Catholikes were sufficiently distinguished from Protestants by the Oath of Supremacie Neither also is his Maiestie perswaded that the doctrine of deposing Princes depriued by the Pope is hereticall taking hereticall in that strict and rigorous sense for only that which is expressely and formally declared by the Church or some vndoubted generall Councell to be hereticall but he is perswaded that the sayd doctrine is therefore hereticall because it is either directly and expressely or indirectly and vertually or by a necessary consequence repugnant to the holy Scriptures in which sense it may bee abiured not onely as hereticall but also for hereticall as hath beene shewed aboue Sect. 15. Obiection THirdly Obiect I finde another difficultie say you about your doctrine of Declaratiue Breues For you seeme to say following therein the doctrine of Suarez That Declaratiue Breues of Popes set forth and published to declare some thing which the Church is in doubt of do binde no further then the Law or ground which they declare and therefore if such Breues bee but grounded on the Popes opinion as these seeme to you which are set forth to declare that the Oath is vulawfull they binde no more then his opinion Which doctrine of yours and Suarez I must needs confesse I cannot well conceiue or vnderstand For to me it seemeth that Breues of the Pope or Church whether they be declaratiue or definitiue for the certainty of their obligatiō should not depend on the ground or Law which they declare or define
and directed by the learned who if through ignorance negligence want of due examination inconsiderate zeale or partialitie either towards Popes or Princes they direct them amisse the chiefest fault is in the Direrectors and Instructors for which they are greatly to answer at the day of iudgement and how farre these ignorant men being guided and instructed amisse are to be excused in conscience and before the sight of God I will not iudge but leaue it to his iudgement who is the searcher of all mens hearts This onely I wish them to remember that temporall Princes doe not in their Tribunalls meddle with their consciences but onely with their externall actions for which they may sometimes be iustly punished by the externall Magistrate although their conscience be neuer so cleare in the sight of God 6. Thirdly if some either can not or can but will not conforme themselues to Wiiddringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath to which neuerthelesse others both can and doe conforme themselues will you therefore inferre from hence that the Oath is of it selfe vnlawfull or not ministred to them by lawfull authoritie Call to mind how aboue in your exceptions against the second Branch you affirmed without any proofe at all that to deny the practise of the Popes authoritie to depose is not to deny the power and authoritie it selfe and yet now from the deniall of the practise of the lawful authoritie to minister the Oath to some who can not conforme themselues to Widdringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath you would inferre also without any proofe a deniall of the authority it selfe to minister lawfully the Oath to them But the plaine truth is as I obserued there that a deniall of all effects and practises of any power or authoritie is a vertuall deniall of the power and authoritie it selfe but a deniall of some particular effects practises is not a sufficient or vertuall deniall of the authoritie it selfe And therefore although we should grant as we doe not that the State can not lawfully or without sinne minister this Oath to those who cannot conforme themselues to Widdringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath to which neuerthelesse other Catholickes both can and doe conforme themselues yet it can not be inferred from hence that the Oath is not ministred to thē by lawfull authority As also although we should admit as we doe not that a Iudge cannot lawfully or without sinne minister an Oath to him whom he morally knoweth wil sweare falsly and against his conscience yet it cannot be inferred from hence that the Iudge hath not good and full power and authoritie to minister the Oath to him For one may haue authoritie to a thing which neuerthelesse in some cases he cannot lawfully doe As a Priest being in mortall sinne hath authoritie to minister the Sacraments for example of Penance and yet as a Priest he cannot lawfully minister them being in mortall sinne and therefore although he commit sinne by vsing and exercising his Office irreligiously yet the Sacrament is valid because his being in sinne doth not depriue him of his authority neither doth he sinne in that manner as he should doe who ministreth the said Sacrament without priestly authority See Widdrington in his Answere to Master Fitzherb part 2. chap. 10. nu 33. pag. 286. et seq where he handleth this matter more at large 7. Fourthly according to your manner of arguing you might also proue that the King hath not authoritie to minister an Oath to his subiects that they shall acknowledge his Maiestie to be their Soueraigne Lord in temporals and yet Fa. Parsons himselfe affirmeth In the iudgment c. pag. 13 16. that there is no Catholike who sticketh or maketh difficultie to acknowledge and sweare the same And Becanus also in the first Edition of his Controuersia Anglicana pag. 101. affirmeth that it is certaine to him that King Iames is the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls ouer his Dominions For to vse the like argument you framed aboue If it were certaine that nothing is exacted by the aforesaid Oath but temporall Allegiance then we might not onely sweare but also were bound to sweare that such an Oath were ministred by lawfull authoritie But when it is questionable and vncertaine whether the Kings Maiestie or the Popes Holinesse be the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls not onely of this Kingdome but according to the Canonists doctrine which most learned Victoria affirmeth to be altogither improbable as in very deede it is of all the Christian Kingdoms in the world and consequently whether the King exacting such an Oath of his Subiects should cause them wrong the Pope or Church or make them sweare a thing vncertaine or with the hurt of their consciences not being able many of them to conform themselues to those conceipts which the Diuines who are opposite therein to the Canonists doe make of such an Oath though they were true for that they can perceiue no solid ground therefore I see not how we may lawfully sweare that such an Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie But how insufficient this manner of arguing is I haue shewed partly in this Section and partly aboue in the Second 8. Fiftly if we follow M. Widdringtons first answer which you can not convince to be improbable to wit that the immediate Obiect of this Oath is onely our sincere acknowledgement and perswasion that the Pope hath not any lawfull power or authoritie to depose the King and not the absolute proposition then the argument you make here is of no force at all for of this our acknowledgment we must be and are most certaine and assured And neuerthelesse you know right well that to proue any Branch of the Oath vnlawfull you must impugne all the explications M. Widdrington hath made of that Branch that not onely with probable exceptions but with euident and convincing demonstrations Sect. 17. Obiection LAst Ob. I doe not see say you how and one that is not altogither of your opinions in all these points belonging to the Oath can sweare that he doth it willingly for that none doth willingly sweare against his owne opinions although he might perhaps doe it if the opinion be probable vnlesse we take willingly for voluntarium secundum quid which willingnesse is neither proper nor sufficient as your selfe will grant Your old acquaintance if he be not deceiued M. B. Answere 1. BVt first Ans this exception of yours doth not proue the Oath to be of it selfe vnlawfull but at the most that some who are not of Widdringtens opinion in ad these points can not take it against their opinion or rather against their conscience And the same exception you might make albeit the Oath should ouely containe that King Iames is our Soueraigne Lord in temporalls But this exception doth not proue that those who be of Widdringtons opinion in all these points belonging to the Oath may not sweare that they take it willingly