rather doe well in taking part against their Soueraigne in the aforesaid case And neuerthelesse as I haue shewed aboue in the former Section the falshood and absurditie of the Doctrine concerning the inuading of Princes and seeking to dispossesse them by warre only by vertue of the Popes sentence of depriuation or vpon any probable title which is grounded vpon a controuersed Spirituall authoritie is farre more manifest for the reason there alledged Sect. 14. Obiection LAstly Obiect say you about this Branch your exposition of those words as hereticall seemeth to me neither agreeing with the ordinarie and common sense of the words which though somtimes may be taken in such sense as you expound them yet ordinarily are not nor with the intention of the Law-maker who thinking it to be against Scriptures that the Pope should haue power to depose Princes for that none is aboue Kings at the least in temporals but God alone and that by Scriptures would haue all no doubt detest such doctrine as shall allow the deposition of Princes not only as hereticall but for hereticall Answere 1 BVt it seemeth Answ that you haue not well considered M. Widdringtons meaning and drift in bringing this last answere for the expounding of these words as hereticall in the fourth Branch of the Oath For in his former answere he tooke the word hereticall for that which is directly or indirectly repugnant to Scriptures and in which sence both Catholike Diuines commonly and also Protestants and his Maiestie do vnderstand it which sense neuerthelesse you aboue in the third Section seemed to disproue in those words which sense is not in my conceipt so proper neither with vs nor Protestants who most of them hould that for heretical which subuerteth the foundation of faith and not that which is contrarie to Scripture And yet now you will haue the Law-maker who are Protestants to take hereticall for that which is against Scriptures Now Mr. Widdrington taking hereticall in this sense to wit for that which is against Scriptures either directly formally and expresly or at the least indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence which sense I haue sufficiently proued aboue to be proper and vsuall both among Protestants and Catholikes affirmed that the doctrine euen of deposing Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be abiured not only as hereticall but for hereticall 2. But because some might peraduenture contend as you seeme to do that the word hereticall according to the common vnderstanding of Catholikes is to be taken onely for that which is expressely declared by the Church to be hereticall and repugnant to Scriptures and which maketh a formall hereticke and to be punishable as an hereticke by the Canons of the Church and the Imperiall Lawes Mr. Widdrington in regard onely of such contentious spirits and admitting for Disputation sake that to bee true which hee accounteth very false gaue this last answer to wit that if wee will needs haue the word hereticall to bee taken for that doctrine which is made hereticall by the Church and maketh a formall heretike and which before the declaration of the Church is not to be accounted hereticall although it be a very false doctrine and contrary to the word of God then the Aduerb as doth signifie both by vertue of the Word and also of the matter not an identity or reality but onely a similitude of that strict and rigorous hereticall And this answer hee hath at large confirmed in his Adioynder against Mr. Fitzherberts Reply where you may see that the Aduerbe As being an Aduerbe of similitude doth commonly and not only sometimes or oftentimes signifie onely a similitude by vertue of the Word and that it neuer signifieth a reality identity or equality but onely by reason of the matter to which it is applyed And that if the matter of this Branch will not permit without manifest absurditie that it signifie a realitie wee are bound to interpret it in that sense which is not absurd according to the rules prescribed by Diuines for the interpreting of Lawes vnlesse either the words will not beare a true sense which as Mr. Widdrington hath proued is very false or it bee apparant that the intention of the Law-maker was to haue it taken in an absurd and inconuenient sense which were rashnesse and impiety so to iudge of his Maiesty 3. For howsoeuer his Maiestie be perswaded in his opinion iudgement or beliefe yet his intention is not but that wee must take the words of the Oath according to the common sense and vnderstanding of them as it is euident by the Seuenth Branch And therefore a great difference is to bee made betwixt his Maiesties beleefe or perswasion and his intention as he is a Law-maker as Mr. Widdrington and the Authour of the New-yeeres Gift p In the third obseruation haue proued at large by his Maiesties expresse declaration who although he be perswaded that he is the supreme Lord of his Dominions not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall causes for as much as concerneth the external gouernment by true coactiue authority and that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ any authority to excommunicate him yet his intention was not to meddle in this Oath with these poynts nor to distinguish Catholikes from Protestants in points of Religion but onely to distinguish Catholikes from Catholikes in points of their loyalty and temporall allegeance for in poynts of Religion Catholikes were sufficiently distinguished from Protestants by the Oath of Supremacie Neither also is his Maiestie perswaded that the doctrine of deposing Princes depriued by the Pope is hereticall taking hereticall in that strict and rigorous sense for only that which is expressely and formally declared by the Church or some vndoubted generall Councell to be hereticall but he is perswaded that the sayd doctrine is therefore hereticall because it is either directly and expressely or indirectly and vertually or by a necessary consequence repugnant to the holy Scriptures in which sense it may bee abiured not onely as hereticall but also for hereticall as hath beene shewed aboue Sect. 15. Obiection THirdly Obiect I finde another difficultie say you about your doctrine of Declaratiue Breues For you seeme to say following therein the doctrine of Suarez That Declaratiue Breues of Popes set forth and published to declare some thing which the Church is in doubt of do binde no further then the Law or ground which they declare and therefore if such Breues bee but grounded on the Popes opinion as these seeme to you which are set forth to declare that the Oath is vulawfull they binde no more then his opinion Which doctrine of yours and Suarez I must needs confesse I cannot well conceiue or vnderstand For to me it seemeth that Breues of the Pope or Church whether they be declaratiue or definitiue for the certainty of their obligatiō should not depend on the ground or Law which they declare or define
and few agreeing among themselues in any one point besides the silence both of the Popes Holinesse in not expressing as yet any one clause or proposition in the Oath which is cleerely repugnant to faith or saluation although he hath beene often most humbly requested to declare the same and the silence also of Mr. Widdringtons chiefest aduerlaries to whom hee hath replyed who as it seemeth haue left him in the open field and moreouer the weaknesse of your doubts and difficulties which after so long a discussion of this controuersie as the most principall obiections you haue singled from the rest doe sufficiently confirme that no conuincing argument can bee brought to proue the Oath vnlawfull Now to your difficultie Sect. 2. Obiection VVEll then good Sir the first difficultie that I find Obiect is about your doctrine in the Exposition of the first Branch you would say the second Branch of the Oath how it can be true which you seeme to teach That we may lawfully sweare not only our acknowledgement but also the absolute proposition That the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes when the contradictorie proposition to wit That the Pope hath that authoritie is probable and holden for such not only by the ancient Schoole-Diuines Casuists who might peraduenture not haue marked all your grounds but also by our own moderne Doctors who no doubt haue seen the reasons and examined the grounds on both parts when as you know the matter of an Oath ought to be certaine and when one part of the contradictorie is probable the other cannot be certaine I marke well how you say for answere of this difficultie that in the Oath you sweare That the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes not meaning it speculatiuè in speculation or conceipt but practicè for as much as concerneth practise which is as much as to say you doe not sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes but that he can practise no such power vpon any Prince being in possession so long as it is but probable the Pope hath that power and this alwaies is most certaine grounded on that rule In pari casu melior est conditio possidentis In the like case the condition of the possessour is the better and so may be the matter of an Oath and lawfully sworne But this in my conceipt will not serue the turne for that the words in the Oath in their proper signification can haue no such meaning but doe signifie that we sweare not only that the Pope can practise no such power and authoritie but that he hath no such power And although Princes or priuate men doe little regard what learned men do speculatiuè in speculation dispute or teach in Schooles concerning their titles so they may be secured of their estates yet when the words of the Oath in this Branch in their proper signification import a deniall of the power and not of the practise and the controuersie betwixt Popes and Princes hath euer beene of the power and not of the practise and when by the Seuenth Branch we are tyed to take the words of the Oath in their proper signification and according to their common sense and meaning I can not see how this Clause absolutely making the denyall of the Popes power to depose Princes the immediate Obiect of the Oath may be sworne without periurie Especially seeing it is most likely that the intention of the Law-maker was that wee should by this Oath abiure not only the practise of this power but rather the power it self which both might be and had been the roote and origine of the practise of such power which if it were not it were graciously don of our Prince to declare his intention to be otherwise that his Catholike subiects might know how to comport themselues in these affaires For his Magistrates and Officers appointed to see this Law executed doe seeme to insinuate euerie where that the meaning of the Prince and Common-wealth is that not onely the practise but also the power should be abiured And therefore if any chance to take this Oath vpon frailtie or otherwise they will not sticke to tell him in open audience that he hath abiured the Popes power and consequently his faith b As Card. Bellarmine and other Iesuits haue very falsly scandalously declared the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith Answere 1 BVt this first difficultie of yours is easily answered And first although the matter of an Oath ought to be certain yet it is to be vnderstood of the immediate matter or obiect of the Oath and also of morall certaintie and that also not in respect of all men but in respect only of the swearer or according to the reasonable iudgement of the swearer as hath been sufficiently declared in the New-yeeres gift c In the first obseruation for the same thing may be certain or probable to the iudgement of one which is not certaine or probable to the iudgement of an other From whence these two things may be inferred 2 The one that Becanus houlding for certain Becanus in controuersia Anglicana anno dom 1612. impressa pag. 102 that King Iames is the Soueraign Lord in temporals of his Dominions might lawfully sweare the same although some others improbably hould that the Pope and not King Iames is the Soueraigne Lord in temporals thereof And Vasques houlding for certaine that it is not lawfull so make warre vpon a probable title against a Prince who hath not onely a probable title but also possession for he affirmeth d See beneth sect 10 num 2. that the contrarie doctrine hath in his iudgement no probabilitie at all might lawfully sweare the same And likewise they who hould it for certain that the Pope hath no lawfull power or authoritie to depose Princes or which is all one to practise their deposition may lawfully sweare the same And the reason is for that the Veritie which is required in an Oath is not to be taken from the thing sworn as it is in it selfe or a parte rei but as it is in the vnderstanding of him that sweareth 3 The other which may be inferred is that if the immediate obiect of this second Branch of the Oath be not this absolute proposition That the Pope hath not any authoritie to depose the King c. as it hath been sufficiently proued by Mr. Widdrington and also your silence in not impugning that first Explication of his seemeth to confirme the same then by this difficultly of yours it can not bee sufficiently proued that this second Branch of the Oath is vnlawfull for when two answerers are giuen to one obiection it is necessarie to confute them both to proue the obiection to be of force 4. But secondly it is manifest that also M. Widdringtons second Explication of this Branch is very true notwithstanding your obiection against the same For all the force of your difficultie
onely by a probable power doth no man wrong by keeping his probable right and possession according to that maxime of the Law grounded on naturall reason Qui vtitur iure suo nemini facit iniuriam Hee that vseth his right doth no man wrong 4. Moreouer your first exception if that right bee not retained with the wrong of others is friuolous for that alwaies in the case of rights to temporall Kingdomes and goods it may be presumed that the right is retained with the wrong or rather detriment of others because temporall Kingdomes and goods if they doe not belong to the Prince or person depriued they must needes belong to others And besides as it hath been said aboue a probableright with possession is retained without wrong to any man And lastly your second exception or if the retaining of that right bee not a hinderance to a greater good doth sauour too much of that false principle ouer much frequent in the mouths and actions of some vnlearned Iesuites Ad maiorem gloriam Dei c. To the greater glory of God c. For good ends and greater good are not to bee effected by bad meanes And therefore albeit the retaining of that right should bee an hinderance to a greater good it little importeth vnlesse it be an vniust hinderance and vnlesse the Prince depriued by a probable power onely in keeping his probable right with possession hindereth vniustly a greater good which to bee an vniust hinderance you cannot possibly proue with any colour of a probable argument as more plainely you shall see beneath Sect. 10. Obiection AND secondly say you if they who contend about that right Obiect haue a Superiour to decide the controuersie and determine vnto whom the right belongeth But if one by retaining that right vpon a probable title should wrong others whose good is more to bee respected then his who is in possession of that right or if those who contend about right haue no Superiour to decide the matter and to determine to whom the right belongeth I see not why one may not bee depriued of his right vpon a probable title And so we see that Kings and Princes who haue no Superiours but euery one is supreme Lord in his owne dominions oftentimes fall to wars and one seeke to dispossesse another onely vpon a probable title Answer 1. BVT first it is manifest that no man Answ who hath a probable right and withall possession doth any wrong to another of what qualitie condition or state soeuer hee bee by keeping his probable right and possession and that no good is to bee procured by vniust meanes and consequently that the retaining of a probable right with possession cannot be an vniust hinderance to the good of any whether it bee the Pope or Church it selfe For if to inuade the Kingdome of a Prince onely vpon a probable title without possession bee no wrong or any vniust hinderance of a greater good as you in Vasquez iudgement very falsly perniciously and absurdly suppose much more it is no wrong nor any iust hinderance to greater good for a Prince to defend his Kingdome to which hee hath not onely a probable right but also possession thereof And therfore that exception of yours But if one by retaining his probable right should wrong others whose good is more to be respected then his who is in possession of that right is idle and cannot bee applyed to a Prince who iustly retaineth his probable right to the Kingdome whereof hee hath possession and consequently without any wrong to others whose good must not be respected or effected by doing wrong to him 2 Secondly albeit you do not see why one may not be depriued of his right vpon a probable title if those who contend for right haue no Superior to decide the matter and to determine to whom the right belongeth yet you might easily haue seene a reason thereof if you had called to mind the doctrine of your Maister Vasquez who saw and yeelded a reason thereof so clearely Vasques 1.2 disp 64. c. 3. that hee feared not to taxe this your doctrine not onely of falshood but also of pernitious improbabilitie and absurditie Immo semper existimaui hanc doctrinam nihil probabilitis habere c. Yea I haue euer thought saith he this doctrine to haue no probabilitie and to haue bin in no little mischief and detriment of the Christian Common-wealth And therefore hee would not haue sticked to detest your doctrin as false improbable pernitious and the contrarie to acknowledge for certaine and he proueth it by these reasons which in his iudgement are conuincing For warre is an act of punitiue Iustice inflicting a punishment and chastising Rebels and the nature of iust warre consisteth in this that by vindicatiue iustice hee bee punished who is worthy of punishment in regard of some fault either actually committed or at least wise iustly presumed But it cannot be iustly presumed that a Prince committeth any fault who by way of defence retaineth his prohable right to the kingdome which he possesseth against the pretensions of any one who claimeth onely a probable right without possession Et praeterea omnis controuersia c. And moreouer euerie controuersie saith he which is in opinions concerning some right is not to bee decided by powerfulnesse and armes but by iudgment For it seemeth to bee the custome of Barbarous men to decide the better right to reigne in the more powerfull armes Quod si dicas posse duos illos Principes c. And if thou say saith Vasques that those two Princes may make iust warre on either side for that both of them are led by a probable opinion and thinke that the right to reigne belongeth to them this is manifestly absurd c. which he doth there in his iudgement most plainely conuince Neuerthelesse as you shall see beneath m Sect. 13. nu 2. I rely vpon a more assured lesse questionable ground then this doctrine of Vasques for this question concerning Princes making warre vpon a probable title which is meerely temporall I will shew to be impertinent to our present controuersie concerning the Popes authority to depose Princes 3 Thirdly albeit some few Diuines doe hould which Vasquez accounteth to be manifestly absurd and improbable that it is lawfull for Princes to make warre vpon a probable title yet some of them expresly affirme that those Princes who contend about their probable title are bound before they can lawfully make war Nouar in Sion cap. 25 nu 4. to chuse and admit Arbitrary Iudges to decide the controuersie for that there is no other peaceable way they being both supreme Iudges nor the one subiect to the other or to any other superiour Iudge in temporals to end it but by arbitrement which if any of those Princes refuse to admit then the other Prince say these Diuines may make warre but not in regard onely of his probable title but for doing wrong in not
and directed by the learned who if through ignorance negligence want of due examination inconsiderate zeale or partialitie either towards Popes or Princes they direct them amisse the chiefest fault is in the Direrectors and Instructors for which they are greatly to answer at the day of iudgement and how farre these ignorant men being guided and instructed amisse are to be excused in conscience and before the sight of God I will not iudge but leaue it to his iudgement who is the searcher of all mens hearts This onely I wish them to remember that temporall Princes doe not in their Tribunalls meddle with their consciences but onely with their externall actions for which they may sometimes be iustly punished by the externall Magistrate although their conscience be neuer so cleare in the sight of God 6. Thirdly if some either can not or can but will not conforme themselues to Wiiddringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath to which neuerthelesse others both can and doe conforme themselues will you therefore inferre from hence that the Oath is of it selfe vnlawfull or not ministred to them by lawfull authoritie Call to mind how aboue in your exceptions against the second Branch you affirmed without any proofe at all that to deny the practise of the Popes authoritie to depose is not to deny the power and authoritie it selfe and yet now from the deniall of the practise of the lawful authoritie to minister the Oath to some who can not conforme themselues to Widdringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath you would inferre also without any proofe a deniall of the authority it selfe to minister lawfully the Oath to them But the plaine truth is as I obserued there that a deniall of all effects and practises of any power or authoritie is a vertuall deniall of the power and authoritie it selfe but a deniall of some particular effects practises is not a sufficient or vertuall deniall of the authoritie it selfe And therefore although we should grant as we doe not that the State can not lawfully or without sinne minister this Oath to those who cannot conforme themselues to Widdringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath to which neuerthelesse other Catholickes both can and doe conforme themselues yet it can not be inferred from hence that the Oath is not ministred to thē by lawfull authority As also although we should admit as we doe not that a Iudge cannot lawfully or without sinne minister an Oath to him whom he morally knoweth wil sweare falsly and against his conscience yet it cannot be inferred from hence that the Iudge hath not good and full power and authoritie to minister the Oath to him For one may haue authoritie to a thing which neuerthelesse in some cases he cannot lawfully doe As a Priest being in mortall sinne hath authoritie to minister the Sacraments for example of Penance and yet as a Priest he cannot lawfully minister them being in mortall sinne and therefore although he commit sinne by vsing and exercising his Office irreligiously yet the Sacrament is valid because his being in sinne doth not depriue him of his authority neither doth he sinne in that manner as he should doe who ministreth the said Sacrament without priestly authority See Widdrington in his Answere to Master Fitzherb part 2. chap. 10. nu 33. pag. 286. et seq where he handleth this matter more at large 7. Fourthly according to your manner of arguing you might also proue that the King hath not authoritie to minister an Oath to his subiects that they shall acknowledge his Maiestie to be their Soueraigne Lord in temporals and yet Fa. Parsons himselfe affirmeth In the iudgment c. pag. 13 16. that there is no Catholike who sticketh or maketh difficultie to acknowledge and sweare the same And Becanus also in the first Edition of his Controuersia Anglicana pag. 101. affirmeth that it is certaine to him that King Iames is the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls ouer his Dominions For to vse the like argument you framed aboue If it were certaine that nothing is exacted by the aforesaid Oath but temporall Allegiance then we might not onely sweare but also were bound to sweare that such an Oath were ministred by lawfull authoritie But when it is questionable and vncertaine whether the Kings Maiestie or the Popes Holinesse be the Soueraigne Lord in temporalls not onely of this Kingdome but according to the Canonists doctrine which most learned Victoria affirmeth to be altogither improbable as in very deede it is of all the Christian Kingdoms in the world and consequently whether the King exacting such an Oath of his Subiects should cause them wrong the Pope or Church or make them sweare a thing vncertaine or with the hurt of their consciences not being able many of them to conform themselues to those conceipts which the Diuines who are opposite therein to the Canonists doe make of such an Oath though they were true for that they can perceiue no solid ground therefore I see not how we may lawfully sweare that such an Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie But how insufficient this manner of arguing is I haue shewed partly in this Section and partly aboue in the Second 8. Fiftly if we follow M. Widdringtons first answer which you can not convince to be improbable to wit that the immediate Obiect of this Oath is onely our sincere acknowledgement and perswasion that the Pope hath not any lawfull power or authoritie to depose the King and not the absolute proposition then the argument you make here is of no force at all for of this our acknowledgment we must be and are most certaine and assured And neuerthelesse you know right well that to proue any Branch of the Oath vnlawfull you must impugne all the explications M. Widdrington hath made of that Branch that not onely with probable exceptions but with euident and convincing demonstrations Sect. 17. Obiection LAst Ob. I doe not see say you how and one that is not altogither of your opinions in all these points belonging to the Oath can sweare that he doth it willingly for that none doth willingly sweare against his owne opinions although he might perhaps doe it if the opinion be probable vnlesse we take willingly for voluntarium secundum quid which willingnesse is neither proper nor sufficient as your selfe will grant Your old acquaintance if he be not deceiued M. B. Answere 1. BVt first Ans this exception of yours doth not proue the Oath to be of it selfe vnlawfull but at the most that some who are not of Widdringtens opinion in ad these points can not take it against their opinion or rather against their conscience And the same exception you might make albeit the Oath should ouely containe that King Iames is our Soueraigne Lord in temporalls But this exception doth not proue that those who be of Widdringtons opinion in all these points belonging to the Oath may not sweare that they take it willingly