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
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
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
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
your argument First therefore I haue shewed aboue that according to the doctrine of Vasquez which he thinketh to be certaine and the contrarie improbable absurd and pernitious no Prince can lawfully in regard only of the probabilitie of his title make warre against an other Prince who besides a probable title hath also possession 2 But secondly because I will not meddle with this question concerning Princes making warre vpon probable titles which are meerely temporal for that it is impertinent to our controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to depose princes you may obserue a great disparitie betwixt the titles or rights which temporall Princes doe commonly pretend to the kingdomes which other Princes possesse and the right or title which any Prince can pretend by vertue of the Popes sentence of depriuation to the kingdom of an other Prince For the first titles or rights are for the most part meerely temporall titles nor grounded vpon any spirituall authoritie and therefore they are not subiect to the determination of a Generall Councell or to the decision of the Spirituall authoritie of the Church which by the institution of Christ hath infallible assistance to determine and decide only Spirituall and not meere temporall causes But the second right is grounded vpon the Popes pretended authority to depriue Princes of their temporall rights which authoritie if there be any such as I am fully perswaded there is not it being a Spiritual matter and depending chiefly vpon the institution of Christ deliuered to vs in the Word of God is to be decided when it is called in question among learned Catholikes by Spirituall and not temporall authority and therefore it is subiect to the determination and decision of a Generall Councell which without all controuersie among Catholikes is an infallible meanes to know certainly what authoritie Christ hath giuen to the Pope or Church 3 And if you had duly obserued this disparitie betwixt temporall and spirituall titles you might easily haue perceiued the weakenesse of your obiection For it is too too manifest that all Princes are bound to search out by all possible conuenient meanes the truth or falshood of the rights which they with probabilitie pretend to the Kingdome which an other Prince possesseth with a probable title before they can iustly make warre against him in regard onely of their probable title and if there be any assured and peaceable way to finde out the truth they are bound to try the same before they can by warre or violence dispossess any Prince who hath a probable title to his Crown because according to the doctrine of all Diuines no Prince can lawfully make warre wherein the blood of so many innocent men is by all probable coniectures likely to be shed to try an vncertaine title if the certainty of his title may be cleerely knowne and decided by any other assured vndoubtted peaceable way Seeing therefore that Christ hath left in his Church an assured and infallible way and which all Catholikes acknowledge to be infallible to finde out the truth and certaintie concerning the titles which are grounded vpon the Popes pretended authoritie to depriue Princes to wit the determination and decision of a lawfull and vndoubted generall Councell it is euident that both the Pope and Catholike Princes are bound by this infallible and peaceable way to find out the truth of such pretended titles before they can iustly make war to dispossesse any Prince of his probable right by vertue of the Popes vncertaine authoritie to depriue Princes of their temporall Kingdomes 4 Wherfore this consequence of yours is not good although the antecedent proposition were supposed as it is not to be true Temporall Princes may make warre vpon probable titles which are meerely temporall Therefore the Pope and temporall Princes may make warre vpon probable titles which are grounded chiefly vpon a probable spirituall authority Because there is no authoritie on earth to decide infallibly the differences betwixt two absolute Princes in meere temporall affaires wherein they are subiect to God alone neither are there now any Prophets as there were in the Ould Law to declare vndoubtedly the truth and will of God And if there were now any such infallible way Princes were bound to try the same before they could lawfully make war onely vpon a probable title against a Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession But Christ hath left in his Church an vndoubted infallible way to wit the authoritie of an vndoubted Oecumenicall Councell to determine and decide infallibly what authoritie belongeth to the Pope or Church consequently to determine infallibly all doubtfull and controuersed rights or titles depending thereon Neither is it to the purpose whether a Generall Councell not including the Pope be Superiour and aboue the Pope or no for neither doe I speake here of a Generall Councell in this sense as it excludeth the Pope but as it includeth all the Prelates of the Church and doth perfectly represent the whole body of that Church which is without all controuersie the pillar and firmament of truth and moreouer it is most certaine that the Pope is no less subiect and bound to submit him selfe to the definitions of faith ex Cathedra of such a Generall Councell to which Christ hath promised the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost then any inferiour Christian whatsoeuer And so likewise if Christ had promised the like infallibilitie to Arbitrarie Iudges for the deciding of meere temporal causes which he hath promised to a generall Councell for the deciding of spiritual there is no doubt but that temporall Princes were bound to submit themselues to the iudgment of Arbitratours before they could lawfully make warre vpon any doubtfull or controuersed title be it neuer so probable against any Prince who hath not only a probable title but also possession 5 Finally because you stand so much vpon the lawfulness of making warre vpon a probable title against a Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession consider diligently which the Authour of the New-yeres gift o chap. 6 nu 12. recommended to English Catholikes whether if the French King for example or any other forrein Prince should vpon a meere temporall probable title to those Dominions which our Kings Maiestie possesseth make warre against him it be not manifest that his Maiestie may lawfully and all his subiects are bound to defend his Royall Person and Dominions against such inuasions and whether those his Maiesties subiects who cōcurre with any forrein Prince to inuade in that case his Maiestie and the Dominions which he possesseth may lawfully be put to death as Traytours and consequently whether it be not euident that we may lawfully detest abhorre and abiure that doctrine as manifestly false and indirectly or by a necessarie consequence repugnant to those words of our Sauiour Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars which houldeth that they are not Traytours nor can iustly be put to death but
q in his Theologicall Disputation cap. 10. sect 2. hath clearely proued that the Pope both might erre in the aforesaid Breues not onely because they were made without a generall Councell which neuerthelesse as you very well grant were sufficient to proue that he might erre therein but also because they are not generall precepts and belonging to the whole Church but containe only a particular precept directed to one particular nation and therefore they are well called by Endaemon Ioannes r in Praefat. paraleli torti the Popes priuate letters to English Catholikes admonishing them not to take the Oath wherin not onely the Pope but also a generall Councell may erre as Mr. Widdrington obserueth out of the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine and Canus Bell. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. ca. 2. Canus lib. 1 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. And also that the Pope did erre in those Breues vpon false informations and suppositions to wit for that he supposed his Primacie in spirituals his power to bind and lose to excommunicate and inflict Censures to bee denyed in the Oath which is manifestly false that his power to depose Princes is most certaine and of faith and not questioned among Catholikes which is no lesse vntrue is sufficiently conuinced by him in his Theological Disputation r in the place aboue câ—teâ— and in his answere to Mr. Fitzherbert Å¿ part 3.6.17 Sect. 16. Obiection A Fourth difficultie I find say you about the swearing that this Oath is ministred vnto me by lawfull authoritie Whereupon it followeth we may vse no equiuocation in taking of the same for that none can equiuocate in an Oath that is exacted by lawfull authoritie For if it were certaine that no thing is exacted by this Oath but temporall allegiance then wee might not onely sweare but were also bound to sweare that such Oath were ministred by lawfull authoritie But when it is questionable and vncertain whether the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no and consequently whether the Prince exacting such an Oath of his Subiects should cause them wrong the Pope and Church and make them sweare a thing vncertaine and with the hurt of their consciences not being able many of them to conforme themselues to those conceipts you frame of the Oath though they were true for that they can perceiue no solid ground therfore I see not how we may sweare that this Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie Answere 1 BVt first it is not true that we must sweare that this Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie but only that we must acknowledge so much of which our acknowledgment which is the immediate obiect of the Oath we must be assured to excuse vs from periurie 2 Secondly it is very true that we must not equiuocate in this Oath and this is not only deduced from the lawfull ministring of the same although this bee sufficient to proue that wee must not equiuocate therein but it is also deduced from the Seuenth branch wherein it is expresly ordained that me must vse no equiuocation 3 Thirdly the lawfulnes or vnlawfulnesse of this Branch dependeth wholy vpon the former Clauses for if none of the former Clauses containe a denyall of any spirituall obedience due to the Pope or Church nor be repugnant to truth or iustice it is manifest that they are ministred by lawfull authoritie And therefore you must first proue that some one of the former clauses is repugnaÌ„t to truth or iustice before you can impugne the Oath as not ministred by lawfull authoritie Whereupon you return backe to that which you aboue obiected against the second Branch to wit the Popes power to depose Princes which say you is vncertaine and questionable c. But as I answered there it is certain to me neither can any man of learning that wel examineth the question otherwise in my iudgement conceiue that the Pope hath no true reall lawfull power and authoritie and which may be a sufficient ground to depose Princes or to practise their deposition but only an imaginarie power in the conceit onely and approbation of some men which neuerthelesse is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power to punish any Prince by depriuing him of the Dominions which he possesseth And consequently the Kings Maiestie in causing his subiects to acknowledge and swear that the Pope hath no true reall lawful authority and which may be a sufficient ground to depose him thereby to be the better secured from all inuasions vnder pretence of Religion and to discouer his loyall and constant subiects from those who maintaine the principles of the Powder-Traytours doth neither wrong the Pope nor Church nor cause his subiects to wrong them or their consciences but seeketh to preserue his owne right and Dominions which he really possesseth from all inuasions and Powder-Treasons vnder colour of any probable or imaginary power or title which is grounded vpon an vncertaine and controuersed spirituall authority But contrariwise the Pope in forbidding this Oath which cannot sufficiently be proued to be vnlawfull doth wrong himselfe the Church his Maiestie and this whole kingdome And those English Catholikes that bend their wits to find out scruples or rather cauills against the Oath and to wrest the words to the worst sense that may be whereas they may expound them in a fauourable sense doe wrong the Pope the Church his Maiestie themselues and all their Catholike brethren 4. But many say you are not able to conforme themselues to those coÌ„ceipts Widdrington frameth of the Oath though they were true for that they cannot perceiue any solid ground therefore But First if they be learned they may easily conforme themselues to Widdringtons explication of the Oath if they will diligently and without partialitie examine the soliditie of his proofes and cousider that his proofes and answeres are grounded not only vpon his own conceipt but vpon manifest reason his Maiesties declaration the doctrine and authoritie of most learned Diuines and which is more euen of those who be his chiefest Aduersaries in this point and if withall they will remember as M. Widdrington hath heretofore h In the Epistle Dedicatorie of his Theologicall Dispotation obserserued that no other solid ground or proofe is sufficient to confute the Oath but euident demonstrations but to proue the Oath to be lawfull and that it may be lawfully taken it is a very sufficient and solid ground to answer probably to all the arguments which are brought against the same which whether he hath performed or no and what kinde of demonstrations or rather most weake arguments the impugners of the Oath haue brought seeing that few of them can scarse agree in any one conceipt I dare remit euen to your owne iudgement 5. Secondly if they be altogither so vnlearned that neither by their owne reading nor naturall iudgment they are able to examine the soliditie of the grounds of this controuersie they must be guided instructed