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
consisteth in your false glossing of those words The Pope hath no power or authoritie practicè that is for as much as concerneth practise to depose Princes Which is as much as to say say you we 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 as long as it is but probable that the Pope hath that power But this Glosse of yours is very vntrue and also expresly repugnant to the words themselues For the plain meaning of these words The Pope hath no power or authoritie practicè that is for practise to depose Princes is that the Pope hath no true reall sufficient and lawfull power or authoritie to practise the deposition of Princes at any time for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer And besides M. Widdrington saith in expres words That the Pope hath no power or authoritie to depose or practise the deposition of Princes and not onely that hee can not practise their deposition or which is all one depose them as though you would haue him to grant that the Pope hath a true and lawful power and authoritie to depose Princes but that he can not lawfully or without sin practise this his authority 5 Moreouer I can not perceiue any difference in substance and effect betwixt these two propositions which you would seeme to distinguish The Pope hath no power or authoritie to depose Princes or to practise their deposition and The Pope can not practise any such power or authoritie to depose vpon any Prince seeing that whosoeuer denieth all effects of any power doth vertually and in effect deny the power it self Frustra enim est illa potestas proinde nulla cùm Deus Natura nihil faciant frustra quae nunquam reducitur adactum for that power is vaine or idle seeing that God and Nature doth no thing idly or in vaine which is neuer brought to act Whereupon Suarez from those words of the third Branch notwithstanding any sentence of depriuation or absolution of the subiects from their allegiance made or to be made c. I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie c. doth well conclude a denyall of the Popes power to depriue Prince and to absolue subiects from their allegiance to be vertually conteyned in those words for that the denial of all effects of any power doth imply a deniall of the power it selfe 6 Wherefore if M. Widdrington and the Author of the New-yeres gift had denyed the practise of the Popes power only in some particular cases as M. Blackwell did at the first deny the practise of the Popes power to depose the King for that rebus sic stantibus things standing as they doe at this present the Pope could not without great hurt to English Catholikes practise vpon him his pretended power to depose Princes and thereupon did ill conclude that the Pope had no power nor authoritie to depose the King then indeed you might wel infer that they did only deny the practice of the Popes power to depose but not the power and authoritie it selfe which is repugnant to his Maiesties meaning who by this Branch of the Oath intended to deny the Popes authoritie to practise his deposition in any case or for any cause crime or end whatsoeuer and consequently to deny not only the practise but also the power it selfe But considering that they in expresse tearmes deny both the Popes power authority to practise the deposition of his Maiestie and consequently of any other Prince not directly subiect to the Pope in temporals also the practise thereof in all cases whatsoeuer although the crime should deserue deposition and the Pope should haue sufficient forces and also conuenient meanes to put in execution his sentence of depriuation truly you had no reason nor colour of reason to say that they denied onely the practise of the Popes power to depose but not the power and authoritie it selfe 7. But because you shall see that my meaning is not to conceale or obscure any difficultie I will vrge this obiection of yours against Mr. Widdrington somewhat more forcibly in forme and shew than you haue done in this manner Whosoeuer acknowledgeth that the Pope hath some power and authoritie to depose Princes cannot lawfully sweare nor acknowledge by oath that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose them But Mr. Widdrington acknowledgeth that the Pope hath some power and authority to depose Princes Therefore he cannot lawfully sweare or acknowledge by oath that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose them The Maior is manifest for that in so swearing he should commit manifest periurie in swearing or acknowledging by oath that to be true which he acknowledgeth to bee false seeing that to haue some authoritie and not to haue any authority are contradictories The Minor is proued thus A probable power to depose is some power But Mr. Widdrington acknowledgeth that the Pope hath a probable power saltem speculatiuè at least in speculation to depose Therefore hee acknowledgeth that hee hath some power to depose And yet in the Oath wee must sweare or at least acknowledge by oath That the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose the King c. 8. But this obiection is easily answered For the true meaning of those words That the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose c according to their plaine proper and vsuall signification and the intention of his Maiesty is that the Pope hath not any true reall sufficient and lawfull power or authoritie to depose c. But a meere probable power to depose is no true reall sufficient or lawfull power but for practise and effect it is only an imaginarie power or a power in the conceit and imagination of some Doctors but in very deed and for practise effect it is no true reall lawfull power at all or which may bee a sufficient ground to depose For euery power hath relation to the effect and where there can bee no reall and lawfull effect or practice there is no reall and lawfull power to practise for power and effect or practice are correlatiues and one dependeth vpon the other And this is so plaine and manifest that there needeth no declaration of his Maiesty to explaine the same And therefore I wish you to remember that when the words of penall Lawes may according to their proper and vsuall signification be expounded in a fauourable sense wee ought not contrarie to the rules prescribed by Diuines for the interpreting of lawes seeke to wrest them to an absurd and inconuenient sense Neither can any man with any colour of reason imagin that his Maiestie would haue vs to sweare or acknowledge that which hee himselfe knoweth to be vntrue to wit that the Pope hath not any power or authority to depose so much as in the conceit imagination and opinion of some Catholikes yea and of
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
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
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