their great shame and confusion ere it belong be publikly accused and in my iudgement most cleerely conuicted vnless they speedely change their vncharitable courses cease to make a Schisme and disunion among Catholikes in regard onely of opinions which as witnesseth Cardinall Peron ought not to hinder the reunion of those who are not Catholikes and should desire to be reconciled to the Catholike Church 9 And lastly for my owne part I protest vnfaignedly that as I haue not beene affraid in regard of the dutie obligation wherein I stand bound to God and Caesar to my Prince and Countrey and to the Catholike Religion which I professe to defend with my pen this manifest truth concerning the indissoluble bond g of temporall Allegiance See the Protestants Apologie for the Roman Church tract ' 3. sect 5. due to our Soueraign Prince by the law of God and Nature although I foresaw the great disgraces which both in the Court of Rome and also here in England among our Catholike brethren would come to me thereby so I will God willing be euer readie to confirme and seale the same truth if need shal require with my blood vntill the Catholike Church which is the pillar ground of truth h 1. Tim. 3. to whose censure I most humbly submit my self and whatsoeuer hath or shall be written by me shall infallibly define the contrarie which as I am fully perswaded she neuer will not to say can not i See Card. Caiet in opasc de concept B. virginis cap. 5. Canus lib. 7. de locis cap. 3 who vpon the like grounds thinke assuredly that the Church neuer will though Canus saith expresly she can not define that the B. Virgin was preserued from original sin define for that in my priuate iudgement speaking with all submission she hath no sufficient grounds either from the holy Scriptures as they are expounded by the ancient Fathers or from any other vndoubted rule of faith so to define but that if she will determine either part she will declare and define according to the true and vniuersall doctrine of the ancient Fathers k See the ancient Fathers in M. Widdringt discouerie of Schulkenius slanders § 17 that absolute Princes are supreme in temporals therein subiect to none but God alone and also that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth extend to the giuing of spirituall graces not earthly kingdomes to the remitting of sinnes not of debts to the loosing of spirituall not corporall bonds to the inflicting of spirituall not temporall punishments and to the disposing of spirituall not temporall goods This 27 of December 1620. Yours in all loue and dutie E. I. The Author of the New-yeeres gift A briefe SUMMARIE OF THE CHIEFEST things contained in this ADIOYNDER IN the first Section is shewed that to proue the Oath of Allegiance to bee vnlawfull euident demonstrations are required but to proue it to be lawfull only probable arguments and answers are sufficient In the second Section is shewed First that the immediate obiect of an Oath must bee morally certaine to the iudgement of the Swearer and that it neede not to be morally certaine to all others Secondly that in the second Branch of the Oath is denyed both the Popes power to practise the deposition of Princes and also the practice it selfe in all cases whatsoeuer and that albeit the deniall of some particular practice doth not imply a deniall of the power it selfe to practise yet a deniall of all practices and effects is a vertuall deniall of the power it selfe to practise And thirdly it is shewed that a meere probable power to depose or punish is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power and for practise as good as no power at all to depose or punish In the third Section is shewed that euery doctrine which containeth a falshood against the holy Scriptures is truely and properly hereticall both according to the doctrine of Protestants who hold the holy Scriptures to be the only rule of faith and also of most Catholike Diuines who hold that the Church doth not make any Catholike veritie or heresie but doth onely declare it and make it knowne to all which before her declaration was not known to all Neither is it required in the opinion of Protestants to make any doctrine hereticall that it subuert the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti materialis or of the fundamentall things which are to bee beleeued which are the generall articles of our Creede or Christian Beleefe but that it contain a falshood although it be in poynts of a lesse matter then are the Articles of the Creed repugnant to the Word of God which is the rule of faith and consequently subuerteth the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti formalis or the formall cause of our beleefe which is the infallible truth of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures In the fourth Section is shewed First both by manifest reason and also by the testimony of many learned Catholike Diuines that euerie Theologicall Conclusion which is euidently deduced from two premisses whereof the one is expressely contained in the Word of God and the other manifest by the light of Nature is of faith and the contrarie hereticall and against faith and that therefore although it bee not cleare in Scriptures expressely and directly that it is manifest wrong to depose a Prince excommunicated and depriued by the Pope yet it is cleere in Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessary consequence that it is manifest wrong to depose such a Prince and consequently to deny the same is properly hereticall and secondly that maxime of the Logicians The conclusion followeth the weaker part is clearely explained In the fifth Section is shewed First that it is against the holy Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence and therefore against faith and properly hereticall that it is lawfull to murther Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope Secondly that it is very false and seditious to apply the doctrine of killing manifest Vsurpers to the killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope for that manifest Vsurpers haue no probable title to the Crowne but Princes after the Popes sentence of Excommunication and also depriuation haue besides reall possession a true probable title and right to the Kingdomes which they possesse Thirdly that albeit a Prince should yeeld vp his Crowne after depriuation yet it were not hereticall according to my Aduersary his grounds to kill such a Prince although my Aduersary doth grant it to be euident murther and therfore vertually repugnant to the holy Scriptures In the sixth Section is shewed First that the Author of the New-yeeres Gift did not bring those examples of taking a purse from one who leadeth a wicked life or killing him with a pistoll to compare them to the deposing or murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but hee brought them onely to proue that
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
Apostelike for Catholikes not to obey the Popes commandement whensoeuer they haue doubt that it is vniust Sotus de detegendo secreto memb 3 q 2. Vasques and others cited by Wriddringt in the discouetie of Schulcken his slanders §. 15. and in preiudice of a third person who is in possession of his goods good name so that they doe most humbly propound to his Holinesse the reasons of their doubt This assertion is in plaine expresse tearmes set downe by that most learned and religious Dominicus Soto approued by Vasques and many other Diuines grounded vpon manifest reason and sufficiently confirmed by the Canon Law it selfe in Cap. si quando extra de Rescriptis where Pope Alexander the third giueth this aduertisement to the Archbishop of Rauenna that he ought either to obey the said Popes commandement which he enioyned him by his Breues or else by his letters to yeeld a reasonable cause why he ought not to obey it Whereupon obserue saith the Glosse expounding that Canon that the Superiours commandement ought either to be obeyed or a cause to be yeelded why it is not obeyed Seeing therefore that Mr. Widdrington hath by diuerse publike and printed letters signified to his Holinesse in most humble manner the reasons why English Catholikes thinke themselues bound not to obey his Breues forbidding the Oath as conteyning in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation because they are grounded by the bad information of Card. Bellarmine and his adherents vpon two very false suppositions The one that the Popes power to excommunicate is denyed in the Oath which is manifestly false The other that his power to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith which is no lesse vntrue neither as yet hath he or other Catholikes receiued from his Holinesse or any other any answere or satisfaction of these their doubts truely they cannot be iustly taxed of any disobedience or irreuerence against his Holinesse for not obeying his Breues in the aforesaid case but contrariwise as in a case not much vnlike very well obserueth and proueth that holy and learned Bishop of Lincolne S. Robert d Apud Matth. Paris pag. 843. in vita Henrici tertij in answere to certain Breues of Pope Innocentius the fourth which he thought vniust it were disobedience irreuerence and rebellion against God and the See Apostolike to obey any such Breues which are grounded vpon false informations and suppositions and tend to so great dishonor and iniurie of his Maiesty and the whole kingdome 7 So that with farre greater reason might be taxed with disobedience and irreuerence against the See Apostolike not only the aforesaid holy Bishop S. Robert for the cause alleaged but also that most learned and religious Dominicus Soto and other famous Diuins for contradicting the Popes Breues concerning their dispensations in actuall but not consummate marriage and for saying that the Popes erred therein following the doctrine and opinion of the Canonists as hauing in it no shew or shadow at all of probabilitie * Sotus in 4. Dist 27. q 31. ar 4. then Mr. Widdrington and other English Catholikes may be iustly taxed of any disobedience or irreuerence against the See Apostolike for contradicting the Popes Breues which forbid the Oath as conteyning in it many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation and for saying that he erred therein following the bad information and opinion of Card. Bellarmine other Iesuites which hath in it a farre lesse shew and shadow of probabilitie then hath the doctrine of the Canonists concerning the Popes power to dispence in actuall but not consummate Marriage for that all the world now seeth plainly that neither the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the Oath nor the doctrine for his power to depose is an vndoubted point of faith but a great controuersie among learned Catholikes and which therefore ought not to hinder the reunion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church e See Card. Peron aboue num 3. Considering therefore that the aforesaid foure generall positions are now made so plaine and manifest that no man of learning and conscience can with any colour of reason contradict them and that by them all the chiefe arguments which can be obiected either against any particular clause of the Oath or against the Oath in generall in regard of the Popes Breues forbidding the same only in generall tearmes are most clearly answered I beseech and adiure you my deare Catholike brethren by the loue you beare to God by the dutie you owe to your Prince and Countrey and by the care you ought to haue of your eternall saluation that you will not any longer for feare or flatterie seeke to impugne especially by indirect sinister and vncharitable courses so manifest a truth to the great iniurie and dishonour of your Soueraigne to the great scandall of your Religion and to the great danger of your temporal and spirituall ouerthrow For assure your selues that Truth is great and will in the end preuaile f 3. Esdr 4 and rather then it shall be ouercome God almightie the Authour of all Truth yea and Truth it selfe will raise vp Babes Infants to defend it to the confusion of the greatest Rabbins that shall impugne the same and into what danger you cast your soules either by coyning new articles of faith or concurring and consenting to the coyners thereof and by seeking in that respect to make a Schisme and Disunion among your Catholike brethren you may with feare and trembling perceiue by this which the beloued Disciple of Christ S. Iohn threatneth in the end of his Apocalyps If any man shall add to these things God shall add vpon him the plagues written in this booke For vndoubtedly whosoeuer shall add to the holy Scripture that which is not Scripture or to Catholike beliefe that which is not Catholike or shall belieue with Catholike faith that which is not Catholike or shall forge new articles of faith or consent to the forgers thereof especially in things belonging to temporall allegiance and shall separate himselfe in Ecclesiasticall communion from those who contradict such forgeries and cause a Schisme or Disunion in regard of opinions which ought not to hinder the reunion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church * For so Card. Peron expresly saith about num 3 can not in that respect be accounted a loyall subiect a true Catholike or right beleeuer but endangereth himselfe to be blotted out of the booke of life and to be punished in the next world with Traytors Schismatikes and Misbeleeuers and in the meane time he will haue much adoe to cleere himselfe in this world from the guilt penaltie and imputation of manifest Treason Schisme and Misbeliefe of all which crimes besides most manifest forgerie detraction and slandering those violent hot spurres that exclaim so bitterly against the Oath and their Catholike brethren who fauour the same will to
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
to Moyses in a flame of fire out of the mids of a bush that the bush burned with fire was not consumed Iob. 1. or to deny that Iob had seuen sons and three daughters or such like for albeit these and such like falshoods doe not directly and expressely subuert the foundation of faith ex parte credendorum in regard of the materiall obiect of supernaturall faith which is principally contained in the Articles of our Creed yet they subuert the foundation of faith ex parte regulae fidei and in regard of the formall obiect of faith which is the infallible truth and testimony of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures and so the auerring of these fashoods make God a Lyar and doe indirectly vertually and by a necessary consequence subuert the first Article of our Creede and destroy the infinite power knowledge or goodnes of God and consequently God himselfe and therefore are truely and properly hereticall falshoods or repugnant to faith both according to Protestants and most learned Catholike Diuines Whereupon all Diuines commonly doe put in the first place or degree of hereticall propositions those which are expressely and formally against the holy Scriptures and in second or third place those which are repugnant to the definitions of the Church See Cardinall Turrecremata in Sum. de Ecclesia lib. 4. part 2. cap. 10. Canus lib. 12. de locis cap. 7. Bannes 2 a 2 ae q. 11. ar 2. Franciscus de Christo dist 25. in q. 3. de haeresi in Excursu de Catholica veritate Directorium Inquit sitorum part 2. comment 27. in prima regula besides Alphonsus de Castro and Couerruuias cited by Mr. Widdrington in his answer to Mr. Fitzherbert part 2. Append. p. 69. 2. Veritas Catholica est veritas c. saith Franciscus à Christo Catholike verity is a verity deliuered supernaturally and made known by God alone Wherof there are foure kindes The first kinde is of those truths or verities which are formally and expressely contained in the holy Scriptures And beneath saith hee Therefore the first degree of hereticall propositions is of those which are against Catholike verity or truth contained formally expressely in the holy Scriptures The same saith Turrecremata in the places aboue cited Catholicae veritates illae habendae sunt c. saith Franciscus Pegna in Comment 27. vpon the Directorie of the Inquisitors part 2. Catholike verities are to be accounted those which are contained in the holy Scripture of the old and new Testament And a little aboue in q. 2. Illa propositio c. That proposition is hee reticall saith Eymericus whom Pegna glosseth which is against the holy Scripture approued by the Church 3. And therefore as well sayth Card. Turrecremata cap. 3. Ecclesiae determinatio c. The determination of the Church doth not make nor can make heresie or an hereticall proposition as neither Catholike verity because as Cas tholike verities without all approbation of the Church of their owne nature are immutable and immutably true so immutably they are to be accounted Catholike And likewise heresies without all condensnation of the Church are heresies The same saith Castro and Couerruuias cited by Widdrington g In his Appendix to the second part of Master Fitzherbert num 206. pag. 69. Wherefore you must distinguish as the aforesayd Doctours doe well obserue betwixt Catholike verities and heresies secundùm se quoad nos according to their owne nature and in respect of vs for heresies without all condemnation of the Church are heresies although before the Church hath declared them to bee heresies they are not alwayes knowne to all Catholikes but to some more or lesse who see that either directly or indirectly they containe a falshood repugnant to the holy Scriptures See also the definition which S. Robert of Lincolne maketh of heresie related by Matthew Paris in the life of K. Henry the third pag. 846. Sect. 4. Obiection FOR though it be say you cleare in Scriptures Obiect that none must doe wrong yet it is not cleare in Scriptures that the subiect or other deposing the Prince after depriuation doth wrong It is onely grounded on your rule In pari casu melior est conditio possidentis In the like case the condition of the possessor is the better which though it be true and grounded on reason yet it is not de fide of faith or set downe in Scripture and consequently the doing against it not hereticall For as you know when a conclusion dependeth on two premisses whereof the one is de fide of faith the other not when according to the Logicians rule The Conclusion must follow the weaker part the conclusion cannot be de fide of faith and consequently the contrary proposition to that conclusion cannot bee hereticall And so though it be cleare in Scriptures wee must doe no wrong yet because it is not in Scriptures proued that it is a wrong for the subiect or other to depose the Prince depriued but proued so to bee by your rule which is no Scripture it can not be sworne that the doctrine so teaching is hereticall Answer 1. BVT this discourse of yours is farre more weake Answ and insufficient then the former And first to shew the insufficiency therof by some inconueniences It is manifest that according to your principles no particular proposition is of faith and the contrarie hereticall although it bee neuer so cleerely contained in the generall proposition which is expressed in the holy Scripture vnlesse both the premisses to proue the particular proposition to bee included in the generall bee expressely contained in the holy Scripture And so by your manner of arguing it is not lawfull to abiure as hereticall any particular doctrine which approueth the dishonoring of particular Parents which approueth any particular adultery theft or murther although they bee neuer so vnquestionable dishonouring vnquestionable adultery vnquestionable theft or murther For to proue these particular and vnquestionable vnlawfull actions to bee included in those generall precepts Honour thy father and mother Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not kill one of the premisses is not contained in the holy Scripture but it must be deduced from naturall reason or humane testimonice which are not Scriptures For although it be cleare in Scriptures that wee must honour our father and mother yet it is not set downe in Scriptures although it be otherwise certaine that this particular man or woman is our father or mother but this must bee proued by humane testimonies and naturall reason which are not Scriptures And although it bee cleare in Scriptures that wee must not commit adulterie yet it is not cleare in Scriptures although it bee otherwise vnquestionable that this woman is another mans wife and consequently that particular abuse to be adultery but this must bee proued out of Scriptures And although it bee cleare in Scriptures that wee must not steale from