AN ADIOYNDER TO THE LATE CATHOLIKE NEW YEARES GIFT Or Explication of the Oath of ALLEGEANCE Wherein Certaine principall difficulties obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike against the sayd New-yeares Gift and Explication of the Oath are very clearely explained Published by E. I. the Author of the New-yeares Gift ✚ IHS Occultari potest ad tempus veritas vinci non potest Truth may for a time be suppressed but it cannot be ouercome S. Augustin in Psal 61. Permissu Superiorum 1620. To the Reader 1. IN the New of this yeere I presented to your charities Deare Country-men A Catholike New-yeeres gift or A brief clear Explication of the Oath of Allegiance partly vpon occasion of the publike acknowledgment which Mr. Thomas Greene a very learned Diuine and Religious Priest of the Order of S. Benedict made of his opinion concerning the said Oath to wit that in his owne priuate iudgment he thought that there is nothing in the Oath which may not according to Roger Widdringtons Glosse and Explication bee lawfully taken by English Catholikes and partly to instruct and appease more fully the consciences of you my Catholike Brethren concerning the said Oath then you were instructed by that false and pestiferous Explication compiled by I. E. the Author of the Treatise commonly called The Prelate and the Prince 2. Now in the last end thereof I am bold to annex for your better instruction a little Addition or Adioynder to the aforesayd New-yeeres gift vpon occasion of a Reply which a Religious Priest hath made to a very learned Roman-Catholike in answer to diuers difficulties doubts and scruples which he obiected against the sayd New-yeeres gift or Explication of the Oath By which Reply you may clearely see that this difficult dangerous and scandalous controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and the Oath of Allegeance is now in some sort brought to a finall issue for that all the exceptions which hitherto haue beene vrged or with any colour of reason may bee alledged against the aforesayd Oath are fully satisfied by these foure generall assertions which partly in the New-yeeres gift and partly in this Adioynder are made so plaine and manifest that no man of learning and conscience can contradict the same 3. The first assertion is that it is a doctrine truely probable it being approued by so many learned Catholike Diuines and Lawyers both ancient and moderne confirmed by so many publike Decrees of the Parliament of Paris grounded vpon so many pregnant proofes which are taken from the authority of the holy Scriptures the doctrine of the ancient Fathers the practice of the Primitiue Church and diuers other Theologicall reasons that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose absolute Princes or to dispose of their Crownes and liues for any cause crime end or good whatsoeuer And this assertion is so manifest that the most learned and Illustrious Cardinall Peron not onely affirmeth That the Pope doth tolerate in France those Catholikes who hold against him in this point a En Harangue autier Estat pag. 98. and That this controuersie ought not to hinder the re-vnion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church b In his Reply ca. 91. p. 633. but also which is more to bee admired he seeketh to excuse Card. Bellarmine himselfe c See beneath Sect. ◠num 9. as though he thought it absurd for any man to conceiue that so learned a man as Card. Bellarmine is should publikely teach that the doctrine for the Popes power to dispose of all temporalls is an vndoubted point of faith and to which all Catholikes are bound to adhere vnder paine of Excommunication and Anathema 4. The second assertion consisteth of these three points 1. That a meere probable and imaginary power to wit which is onely in the imagination conceipt or approbation of learned Catholikes and is contradicted by others is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power or ground to punish depose or depriue any man of that which he actually possesseth and to which also hee hath a probable title 2. That it is not lawfull for the Pope or other Christian Princes to dispossesse by violence or force of Armes any lawfull Prince of his Dominions vnder pretence of any probable title which is grounded vpon an vncertaine spirituall authoritie especially supposing which is most certaine that Christ hath left in his Church a peaceable way to finde out and decide infallibly the truth and certainty of all such controuersed and doubtfull titles 3. That it is most certaine and out of all controuersie that a lawfull Prince who is in peaceable possessiō of his Dominions may lawfully defend himself his Dominions against all such that shall inuade him his Countries vnder pretence of any such probable title which is grounded vpon spirituall authority and that hee may lawfully put them to death as Traytours or enemies to his Crowne and State that shall in hostile manner assault him and his Dominions vnder pretence of any such vncertaine and controuersed right and authority And these two assertions do make cleare the Second Branch of the Oath wherein is acknowledged That the Pope hath not any power or authoritie to depose the King to absolue his Subiects from their allegeance or to authorize any forraine Prince to inuade or annoy him or his Countries c. 5. The third assertion is that euery false doctrine which is either directly and expressely repugnant to the Word of God or indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence deduced from two premises whereof the one is expressely contained in the holy Scripture and the other euidently knowne by the light of nature is both in the opinion of Protestants and also of most Catholike Diuines truely and properly hereticall and that the Church hath not any authoritie to make any Catholike verity or heresie but onely to declare it when there is made any doubt thereof and to make it knowne to all Catholikes which before her declaration was not knowne to all but onely to some more or lesse who saw the necessity of the consequence deduced from both the premises And by this assertion the veritie of the Fourth Branch is made plaine and manifest for that all the stiffe impugners of the Oath doe ground all their exceptions against that Branch vpon the word hereticall So that by the aforesaid three assertions are cleared all the particular Branches of the Oath for that vpon the verity of the Second and Fourth Branch is wholly grounded the verity and Iustice of euery particular clause except onely of the First Branch wherein our Soueraigne Lord King Iames is acknowledged to be the lawfull and rightfull King of this Realme c. which Branch is so cleere and manifest that no English Catholike euer durst be so impious and presumptuous as to take the least exception against the same 6 The Fourth assertion is that it is no disobedience or irreuerence against the See
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
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
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