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
but on the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Pope and Church when they shall declare or define any thing ex Cathedra for the whole Church to be lawfull or vnlawfull which declaration is indeed and in effect a definition in my conceit that declaration must binde for the assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer the ground therof bee a formall Law or but onely an opinion and so if the Pope haue the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in his definitions and declarations ex Cathedra as in Suarez opinion he hath though in yours not and that also probably and intended in his Breues to declare to the whole Church ex Cathedra that the Oath is vnlawfull I see not why it should not so bee thought and taken whether the ground of such declaration was his only opinion or no. And so wee see that if the whole Church should in a Councell declare any thing to bee lawfull or vnlawfull which before was in doubt as is now of this Oath when wee all agree that she hath the assistance of the Holy Ghost in her generall decrees as well as in her definitions wee ought to to take it for such whether the ground of her declaration be certaine or onely but probable The same I would think should bee thought of the declaratiue Breues of Popes at the least in the opinion of those who maintaine that the Pope cannot erre no more without a Councell then with it For if the declaration of any such thing to be lawfull or vnlawfull should binde vs no more then the ground of that declaration whether it were a formall Law or but onely an opinion such declaration were but idle and should not afford that certaintie and satisfaction which at the Church is required in time of doubt I know you answer this difficulty about the Popes Breues sufficiently in saying that the Pope may erre in declaring or defining without a Generall Councell and that there was no such Councell when these Breues were set forth but this difficultie I finde about your doctrine and much more about the doctrine of Suarez of Declaratiue Breues because you stand not vpon that answer onely Answer 1. BVt first it is manifest in my iudgement that in all declaratiue precepts especially belonging to manners or of things to bee done or omitted for onely of these precepts not of definitions declarations or precepts of faith or of things to bee beleeued Suarez speaketh the obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the fundamentall ground reason end of the precept and that therein also is implyed the intention and will of the Law-maker which is the soule and life of the Law who intendeth onely to binde by his declaratiue precept for as much onely as the thing he commandeth or forbiddeth is of it owne nature necessarie or repugnant to some former Law of God Nature or some other positiue Law which the declaratiue precept doth declare and suppose And therefore as Suarez well obserueth a pure declaratiue precept doth not make the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull but only supposeth and declareth it to bee vnlawfull as forbidden by some former Law Whereupon it followeth that if it bee but a probable opinion that there is such a former Law the declaratiue precept can binde no more then the probabilitie of the opinion which is the fundamentall ground and reason of the precept hath force to bind 2. Neither doth your obiection impugne this manifest doctrine For although in such generall precepts wherein the Church cannot erre to wit when shee commadeth the whole Church something which is necessary to saluation the certainty and obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet this doth not hinder but that it must also depend vpon the substantiall ground reason and end for which the Law was made But this onely at the most is proued by your obiection that because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to the precept it must consequently bee annexed to all those things whereon the precept doth necessarily depend But to affirme therefore that the precept doth depend on nothing else then vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost were ridiculous 3. As also due diligence and examining of the cause is according to the doctrine of all Diuines necessarily required in a Generall Councell to define infallibly any doctrine of faith And because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to her definition it must consequently be also annexed to all that whereon her infallible definition doth necessarily depend And thereupon the Diuines affirme that if it be certaine that the Church did not erre in her definition it is also certain that she vsed due diligence and all other necessary conditions which by the institution of Christ are required to an infallible definition But to affirme that because the infallibilitie of her definition dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost therefore neither due diligence nor examination of the cause nor any other thing is necessarily required to her infallible definition were absurd ridiculous 4. Wherefore you must distinguish betwixt fundamentall intrinsecall and necessary reasons or grounds and Extrinsecall or accidental as M. Widdrington hath often affirmed from the doctrine of Bellarm Canus to which also all other Diuines doe agree for these last may be false and yet the definition true As in the second Councell of Nice it was declared that Angels might bee painted because they haue bodies the declaration was true although this reason being extrinsecall and accidentall was false But if shee had declared that it is lawfull to paint Angels because it is not repugnant to faith or good manners which is a fundamentall ground and reason of that declaration the declaration can not be true if that fundamentall reason and ground be supposed to be false And thus much concerning the doctrine of Suarez in generall 5 And therefore secondly to apply it to the Popes Breues if it were certaine that the Pope in making his declaratiue prohibition of the Oath had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost Mr. Widdrington would not sticke to affirme that as the prohibition is infallible so consequenly the fundamentall reason and ground for which the Oath is by the Popes Breues forbidden is also infallible and that therefore some thing is in the Oath repugnant to faith or saluation which is the fundamentall ground reason and end of the Popes forbidding the Oath for if there were nothing in the Oath against faith or saluation the Pope could not forbid it with such iniurie to his Maiestie and so great damage to English Catholikes 6 But thirdly this obiection of yours concerning the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost promised to the Church for the making of general precepts ex Cathedra either touching faith or manners doth not sufficiently confirme the infallibilitie of the Popes Breues forbidding English Catholikes to take the Oath for that Mr. Widdrington
to make a particular proposition to be hereticall it sufficeth that it be contained in the generall proposition which is expressed in the holy Scriptures so that it be sufficiently proued to bee contained therein Secondly that the comparison neuerthelesse had beene apt and conuenient to proue that to make any doctrine hereticall it sufficeth that it bee indirectly vertually or by a necessarie consequence repugnant to the holy Scriptures Thirdly that no Catholike Writer except onely Suarez durst euer aduenture to teach expressely that a Prince after depriuation may by the Popes commission be killed by any priuate man but because this pernicious doctrine of Suarez is grounded vpon a most false and absurd supposition and which all the world seeth to bee false and absurd to wit that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose and murther wicked Princes is most certaine and of faith and out of all controuersie among learned Catholikes his doctrine being grounded vpon a supposition so manifestly false absurd cannot by any Catholike bee accounted probable In the seuenth Section is shewed that Mr. Widdringtons explication of those words depose or murther being grounded vpon the nature of a conditionall disiunctiue is true proper and agreeable to the common sense and vnderstanding of the words nor repugnant to His Maiesties intention albeit Mr. Widdrington doth not rely onely vpon that explication In the eighth Section is shewed that according to the doctrine of many learned Catholike Diuines and manifest reason that rule of the Law In the like case the condition of the possessour is the better ought to be vnderstood not onely of a true doubt and when the minde doth fluctuate and giueth no assent to either part but also of a probable doubt neither can any man with reason imagine that when both parts haue probability the case is not therein alike In the ninth Section is shewed that a Prince in keeping his possession to which he hath a probable title or right doth neither wrong the Pope Church or any other according to that vulgar maxime He that vseth his own right doth no man wrong nor hindereth vniustly any greater good and the same is in the beginning of the next Section confirmed by a most manifest argument ad hominem In the Tenth Section is shewed that according to Vasques doctrin which he thinketh to be certaine and the contrarie false improbable absurd and pernicious it is not lawfull for any Prince onely vpon a probable title to make war against an other Prince who hath not only a probable title but also possession But this question is impertinent to the matter of this present Oath and to the right which Princes may pretend to make warre vpon probable titles which are grounded vpon the Popes power to depose Princes as it is more at large declared in the thirteenth Section In the eleuenth and twelfth Section is shewed that a Prince in keeping his possession to which he hath a probable right or title doth no man wrong nor hindreth vniustly any greater good and that although a probable title be good for something and in some cases better then no title at all yet forasmuch as concerneth the making of warre against him who hath both a probable title and also possession it is in Vasques doctrine which he thinketh to be certaine as good as no title although we suppose the title to be meerely temporall but if the title be grounded vpon a probable spirituall authoritie in all learned mens iudgement and according to the approued grounds of Diuinitie it is as good as no title at all which is at large confirmed in the thirteenth Section In the thirteenth Section is shewed a manifest disparitie betwixt the lawfulnesse of making warre vpon probable titles which are meerely temporall and which are grounded vpon a probable spirituall authoritie for that there is no assured and infallible way on earth to decide or know vndoubtedly by way of sentence and iudgement the truth of meere temporall titles which are in controuersie betwixt two absolute Princes who in meere temporall affaires are subiect to the iudgement and sentence of none but God alone but Christ hath left in his Church an infallible way to decide and know vndoubtedly the truth of all titles which are grounded vpon whatsoeuer pretended spirituall authoritie to wit the determination and decision of a lawfull and vndoubted generall Councell whereupon it is cleerely inferred that albeit Princes might lawfully make warre vpon probable titles which bee meerely temporall because there is no way to decide the controuersie but by war yet they can not lawfully make warre vpon probable titles which are grounded vpon a probable spirituall authoritie because Christ hath left in his Church an infallible and peaceable way to decide certainely by way of sentence and iudgement without making of warre the truth of all such doubtfull and controuersed titles which infallible and peaceable way he hath now left to decide by way of sentence and iudgement the truth and certainety of probable titles which are meerely temporall In the fourteenth Section is shewed that Mr. Widdringtons last Explication of those words as hereticall is true and proper and agreeable to the common sence and vnderstanding of the words nor repugnant to His Maiesties intention although he doe not rely onely vpon that Explication In the fifteenth Section is shewed that the obligation of all declaratiue Breues as well belonging to faith as manners dependeth vpon the fundamentall reason former precept which they suppose and declare and that therfore the Popes Breues forbidding the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which is the fundamentall reason of his declaratiue prohibition haue not force to bind because this fundamentall reason is grounded vpon two suppositions which are manifestly false to wit that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the Oath and that his authoritie to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith nor in controuersie among learned Catholikes In the sixteenth Section is shewed that the sixt Branch of the Oath is lawfull to wit that the Oath is ministred by good and full authoritie euen to those Catholikes who are perswaded the Oath to be vnlawfull In the Last Section is shewed that the last Branch of the Oath is lawful for that euerie good loyall subiect may and ought to take it very willingly although great penalties be imposed against those who refuse to take the same And lastly the Author who hath brought these exceptions against the Oath is friendly admonished not to make any Schisme or Disunion among English Catholikes for defending that doctrine which the Pope himselfe tolerateth in France a So satth Card. Peron â—n Harangue austiers estat pag. 94. Card. Peron in his last great Reply cap. 91. pag. 633. and which as Card. Peron well obserueth ought not hinder the reunion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church especially seeing that it hath been by
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