to make a particular proposition to be hereticall it sufficeth that it be contained in the generall proposition which is expressed in the holy Scriptures so that it be sufficiently proued to bee contained therein Secondly that the comparison neuerthelesse had beene apt and conuenient to proue that to make any doctrine hereticall it sufficeth that it bee indirectly vertually or by a necessarie consequence repugnant to the holy Scriptures Thirdly that no Catholike Writer except onely Suarez durst euer aduenture to teach expressely that a Prince after depriuation may by the Popes commission be killed by any priuate man but because this pernicious doctrine of Suarez is grounded vpon a most false and absurd supposition and which all the world seeth to bee false and absurd to wit that the doctrine for the Popes power to depose and murther wicked Princes is most certaine and of faith and out of all controuersie among learned Catholikes his doctrine being grounded vpon a supposition so manifestly false absurd cannot by any Catholike bee accounted probable In the seuenth Section is shewed that Mr. Widdringtons explication of those words depose or murther being grounded vpon the nature of a conditionall disiunctiue is true proper and agreeable to the common sense and vnderstanding of the words nor repugnant to His Maiesties intention albeit Mr. Widdrington doth not rely onely vpon that explication In the eighth Section is shewed that according to the doctrine of many learned Catholike Diuines and manifest reason that rule of the Law In the like case the condition of the possessour is the better ought to be vnderstood not onely of a true doubt and when the minde doth fluctuate and giueth no assent to either part but also of a probable doubt neither can any man with reason imagine that when both parts haue probability the case is not therein alike In the ninth Section is shewed that a Prince in keeping his possession to which he hath a probable title or right doth neither wrong the Pope Church or any other according to that vulgar maxime He that vseth his own right doth no man wrong nor hindereth vniustly any greater good and the same is in the beginning of the next Section confirmed by a most manifest argument ad hominem In the Tenth Section is shewed that according to Vasques doctrin which he thinketh to be certaine and the contrarie false improbable absurd and pernicious it is not lawfull for any Prince onely vpon a probable title to make war against an other Prince who hath not only a probable title but also possession But this question is impertinent to the matter of this present Oath and to the right which Princes may pretend to make warre vpon probable titles which are grounded vpon the Popes power to depose Princes as it is more at large declared in the thirteenth Section In the eleuenth and twelfth Section is shewed that a Prince in keeping his possession to which he hath a probable right or title doth no man wrong nor hindreth vniustly any greater good and that although a probable title be good for something and in some cases better then no title at all yet forasmuch as concerneth the making of warre against him who hath both a probable title and also possession it is in Vasques doctrine which he thinketh to be certaine as good as no title although we suppose the title to be meerely temporall but if the title be grounded vpon a probable spirituall authoritie in all learned mens iudgement and according to the approued grounds of Diuinitie it is as good as no title at all which is at large confirmed in the thirteenth Section In the thirteenth Section is shewed a manifest disparitie betwixt the lawfulnesse of making warre vpon probable titles which are meerely temporall and which are grounded vpon a probable spirituall authoritie for that there is no assured and infallible way on earth to decide or know vndoubtedly by way of sentence and iudgement the truth of meere temporall titles which are in controuersie betwixt two absolute Princes who in meere temporall affaires are subiect to the iudgement and sentence of none but God alone but Christ hath left in his Church an infallible way to decide and know vndoubtedly the truth of all titles which are grounded vpon whatsoeuer pretended spirituall authoritie to wit the determination and decision of a lawfull and vndoubted generall Councell whereupon it is cleerely inferred that albeit Princes might lawfully make warre vpon probable titles which bee meerely temporall because there is no way to decide the controuersie but by war yet they can not lawfully make warre vpon probable titles which are grounded vpon a probable spirituall authoritie because Christ hath left in his Church an infallible and peaceable way to decide certainely by way of sentence and iudgement without making of warre the truth of all such doubtfull and controuersed titles which infallible and peaceable way he hath now left to decide by way of sentence and iudgement the truth and certainety of probable titles which are meerely temporall In the fourteenth Section is shewed that Mr. Widdringtons last Explication of those words as hereticall is true and proper and agreeable to the common sence and vnderstanding of the words nor repugnant to His Maiesties intention although he doe not rely onely vpon that Explication In the fifteenth Section is shewed that the obligation of all declaratiue Breues as well belonging to faith as manners dependeth vpon the fundamentall reason former precept which they suppose and declare and that therfore the Popes Breues forbidding the Oath for that it containeth many things flat contrarie to faith and saluation which is the fundamentall reason of his declaratiue prohibition haue not force to bind because this fundamentall reason is grounded vpon two suppositions which are manifestly false to wit that the Popes power to excommunicate is denied in the Oath and that his authoritie to depose Princes is an vndoubted point of faith nor in controuersie among learned Catholikes In the sixteenth Section is shewed that the sixt Branch of the Oath is lawfull to wit that the Oath is ministred by good and full authoritie euen to those Catholikes who are perswaded the Oath to be vnlawfull In the Last Section is shewed that the last Branch of the Oath is lawful for that euerie good loyall subiect may and ought to take it very willingly although great penalties be imposed against those who refuse to take the same And lastly the Author who hath brought these exceptions against the Oath is friendly admonished not to make any Schisme or Disunion among English Catholikes for defending that doctrine which the Pope himselfe tolerateth in France a So satth Card. Peron â—n Harangue austiers estat pag. 94. Card. Peron in his last great Reply cap. 91. pag. 633. and which as Card. Peron well obserueth ought not hinder the reunion of those who should desire to be reconciled to the Church especially seeing that it hath been by
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
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
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
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