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
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
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
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
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