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
to Moyses in a flame of fire out of the mids of a bush that the bush burned with fire was not consumed Iob. 1. or to deny that Iob had seuen sons and three daughters or such like for albeit these and such like falshoods doe not directly and expressely subuert the foundation of faith ex parte credendorum in regard of the materiall obiect of supernaturall faith which is principally contained in the Articles of our Creed yet they subuert the foundation of faith ex parte regulae fidei and in regard of the formall obiect of faith which is the infallible truth and testimony of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures and so the auerring of these fashoods make God a Lyar and doe indirectly vertually and by a necessary consequence subuert the first Article of our Creede and destroy the infinite power knowledge or goodnes of God and consequently God himselfe and therefore are truely and properly hereticall falshoods or repugnant to faith both according to Protestants and most learned Catholike Diuines Whereupon all Diuines commonly doe put in the first place or degree of hereticall propositions those which are expressely and formally against the holy Scriptures and in second or third place those which are repugnant to the definitions of the Church See Cardinall Turrecremata in Sum. de Ecclesia lib. 4. part 2. cap. 10. Canus lib. 12. de locis cap. 7. Bannes 2 a 2 ae q. 11. ar 2. Franciscus de Christo dist 25. in q. 3. de haeresi in Excursu de Catholica veritate Directorium Inquit sitorum part 2. comment 27. in prima regula besides Alphonsus de Castro and Couerruuias cited by Mr. Widdrington in his answer to Mr. Fitzherbert part 2. Append. p. 69. 2. Veritas Catholica est veritas c. saith Franciscus à Christo Catholike verity is a verity deliuered supernaturally and made known by God alone Wherof there are foure kindes The first kinde is of those truths or verities which are formally and expressely contained in the holy Scriptures And beneath saith hee Therefore the first degree of hereticall propositions is of those which are against Catholike verity or truth contained formally expressely in the holy Scriptures The same saith Turrecremata in the places aboue cited Catholicae veritates illae habendae sunt c. saith Franciscus Pegna in Comment 27. vpon the Directorie of the Inquisitors part 2. Catholike verities are to be accounted those which are contained in the holy Scripture of the old and new Testament And a little aboue in q. 2. Illa propositio c. That proposition is hee reticall saith Eymericus whom Pegna glosseth which is against the holy Scripture approued by the Church 3. And therefore as well sayth Card. Turrecremata cap. 3. Ecclesiae determinatio c. The determination of the Church doth not make nor can make heresie or an hereticall proposition as neither Catholike verity because as Cas tholike verities without all approbation of the Church of their owne nature are immutable and immutably true so immutably they are to be accounted Catholike And likewise heresies without all condensnation of the Church are heresies The same saith Castro and Couerruuias cited by Widdrington g In his Appendix to the second part of Master Fitzherbert num 206. pag. 69. Wherefore you must distinguish as the aforesayd Doctours doe well obserue betwixt Catholike verities and heresies secundùm se quoad nos according to their owne nature and in respect of vs for heresies without all condemnation of the Church are heresies although before the Church hath declared them to bee heresies they are not alwayes knowne to all Catholikes but to some more or lesse who see that either directly or indirectly they containe a falshood repugnant to the holy Scriptures See also the definition which S. Robert of Lincolne maketh of heresie related by Matthew Paris in the life of K. Henry the third pag. 846. Sect. 4. Obiection FOR though it be say you cleare in Scriptures Obiect that none must doe wrong yet it is not cleare in Scriptures that the subiect or other deposing the Prince after depriuation doth wrong It is onely grounded on your rule In pari casu melior est conditio possidentis In the like case the condition of the possessor is the better which though it be true and grounded on reason yet it is not de fide of faith or set downe in Scripture and consequently the doing against it not hereticall For as you know when a conclusion dependeth on two premisses whereof the one is de fide of faith the other not when according to the Logicians rule The Conclusion must follow the weaker part the conclusion cannot be de fide of faith and consequently the contrary proposition to that conclusion cannot bee hereticall And so though it be cleare in Scriptures wee must doe no wrong yet because it is not in Scriptures proued that it is a wrong for the subiect or other to depose the Prince depriued but proued so to bee by your rule which is no Scripture it can not be sworne that the doctrine so teaching is hereticall Answer 1. BVT this discourse of yours is farre more weake Answ and insufficient then the former And first to shew the insufficiency therof by some inconueniences It is manifest that according to your principles no particular proposition is of faith and the contrarie hereticall although it bee neuer so cleerely contained in the generall proposition which is expressed in the holy Scripture vnlesse both the premisses to proue the particular proposition to bee included in the generall bee expressely contained in the holy Scripture And so by your manner of arguing it is not lawfull to abiure as hereticall any particular doctrine which approueth the dishonoring of particular Parents which approueth any particular adultery theft or murther although they bee neuer so vnquestionable dishonouring vnquestionable adultery vnquestionable theft or murther For to proue these particular and vnquestionable vnlawfull actions to bee included in those generall precepts Honour thy father and mother Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not kill one of the premisses is not contained in the holy Scripture but it must be deduced from naturall reason or humane testimonice which are not Scriptures For although it be cleare in Scriptures that wee must honour our father and mother yet it is not set downe in Scriptures although it be otherwise certaine that this particular man or woman is our father or mother but this must bee proued by humane testimonies and naturall reason which are not Scriptures And although it bee cleare in Scriptures that wee must not commit adulterie yet it is not cleare in Scriptures although it bee otherwise vnquestionable that this woman is another mans wife and consequently that particular abuse to be adultery but this must bee proued out of Scriptures And although it bee cleare in Scriptures that wee must not steale from
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
any man his goods yet it is not cleare in Scriptures although it be otherwise certaine that these goods are an other mans but this must be proued out of Scripture And although it be cleere in Scripture that we must not kill and consequently an vndoubted lawfull King yet it is not cleare in Scripture although it be otherwise certaine either that this particular killing of a priuare man is don by priuate and not by publike authoritie or that part cular man to bee a lawfull King or a King yea or to be a man but these must bee proued by principles which are no Scriptures Many other examples may be brought out of the new Testamēt as of Priests to remit sins of Popes to be the chiefe Pastors of the Church of Sacraments to be effectuall outward signes of inuisible grace for that out of Scripture only we cannot proue any man whatsoeuer to bee a true Priest any Pope whatsoeuer to bee a true Pope or any Sacrament whatsoeuer to bee a true Sacrament but to proue them to bee such one of the premisses must be taken out of the holy Scripture 2 But least you should obiect that to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument Secondly I answere directly that it is very vntrue in my iudgement and also repugnant to the common doctrine of Diuines that to make a Conclusion to bee faith and the contrarie hereticall both the premisses must be expresly and formally conteyned in the holy Scriptures but it is sufficient that one onely of them bee expressed in the holy Scripture and the other certaine by naturall reason Ad fidem aliquîd pertinet dupliciter c. To faith a thing belongeth two waies saith S. Thomas 2.2 q. 11. ar 2. one way directly and principally as the Articles of faith an other way indirectly and secondarily as those things from which doth follow the corruption of some article Which words of S. Thomas Bannes declareth more plainely distinctly in these words Illa secundùm D. Thomam indirectè sunt fidei c. Those things according to S. Thomas are indirectly of faith by the denying wherof it followeth necessarily by a good consequence that to be false which is affirmed firmed by faith As if one deny Christ to haue power to laugh doth erre in the Catholike faith consequently and indirectly Because it well followeth by a consequence knowne by the light of nature that Christ is not a perfect man 3 Et notandum est aliquam propositionem esse de fide duobus modis c. And it is to be noted saith Franciscus de Christo h Pag. 23 that a proposition is of faith two waies one way proximè and immediately of which sort is euery proposition which is formally and expresly conteyned in the holy Scripture as that Abraham had two sonnes the other way a proposition is of faith mediatly of which sort is euery proposition which by a good consequence is deduced from that which is immediately of faith as that Christ had not power to vnderstand that he had not a will c. Therefore that proposition which is deduced from that which is formally conteyned in the holy Scriptures is of faith and the proposition repugnant to that is hereticall Thus he And Franciscus Pegna in his Annotations vpon the Directorie of the Inquisitours part 2. Comment 27. citing for the same Cardinal Turrecremata and other Doctours putteth in the second place or degree of Catholike verities those which are by a necessarie consequence deduced from the holy Scriptures And a little after he affirmeth that those propositions are to be accounted hereticall which are repugnant to these Catholike assertions And therefore I meruaile that you should conceiue that proposition not to be heretical which is deduced from two premisses whereof the one is expresly repugnant to the holy Scriptures and the other deduced necessarily from the light of naturall reason or sensible experience although wee should take hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington doth take it For according to your principles M. Widdrington could not maintaine that it is hereticall to affirme that Christ had not humane vnderstanding and will and that euery Tyrant may and ought lawfully meritoriously be slain by any whatsoeuer c. which neuerthelesse are expresly condemned by Generall Councels for hereticall Because to proue these propositions to be hereticall one of the premisses is only deduced from the light of naturall reason which is no Scripture 4 And if perchance you should answere that these propositions are therefore hereticall because Generall Councels haue condemned them for heretical now you fly from taking the word hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington with most Catholike Diuines and all Protestants doe take the word hereticall who hould that the definition or declaration of the Church doth not make any Catholike veritie or any doctrine hereticall but suppose it declare it make it known to all Catholikes which neuerthelesse before any declaration or definition of the Church was indeed Catholike veritie or hereticall doctrine and also knowne so to be to diuerse learned men who euidently saw the necessarie consequence from both the premisses For also as wel writeth Molina a most learned Iesuite Concursus Molina 1. part q. 1. ar 2 disp 1. quo spiritus sanctus praesto adest Ecclesiae c. The assistance wherewith the holy Ghost is present with the Catholike Church is not to make any thing of faith which before was not of faith but onely that she do not erre in declaring those things which mediately or immediately belong to faith Wherefore as in the Church there is not power authority to make any thing of faith which before was not of faith but only to declare to the faithful which is certainly to be held of faith so also neither is there power and authoritie to make any sacred Scripture or to add to it any canonicall booke or any part but onely to iudge betwixt canonicall bookes and not canonicall Thus he wherein as you haue seene aboue i In the third Sectiō he agreeth with the common doctrine of Diuines 5 Now to that Logicall maxime That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part which is the chiefe ground of your obiection I answer that althogh it bee frequent in euerie mans mouth yet you are not ignorant that it is not by learned men vnderstood and expounded alike And first if you will vnderstand it without exception limitation or declaration how will you make good Aristotles saying in his first booke of the Priors cap. 10. When the Maior proposition is necessarie and the Minor de inesse the Conclusion is necessarie and not de inesse if the Conclusion doe alwaies follow the weaker part 6 Secondly you know that many learned Diuines whom Molina the Iesuite in the place aboue cited doth follow expound it thus That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part quoad certitudinem euidentiam in respect of certitude
admitting Arbiters to end the controuersie in a peaceable manner without making warre for that warre must not be waged when the controuersie may otherwise bee peaceably ended But neither also with this controuersie will I intermeddle 4 Fourthly whereas you say that Kings and Princes who haue no Superiours oftentimes fall to warres and one seeke to dispossesse an other onely vpon a probable title you might for answere hereof haue called to minde what Card. Bellarmine related by Widdrington n In his Apologie for the right of Princes nu 445 answereth to such kind of arguments Aliud est facta Regum referre c. It is one thing to relate the facts of Kings and an other to proue their power authoritie And besides it may verie well be that the Prince who beginneth the warre thinketh his title to be certaine and the others title not to bee probable And moreouer the title for which they make warre may be meerely temporall which belongeth not to our case as you shall see beneath But let vs go on to the rest of your obiections Sect. 11. Obiection ANd if a probable title say you were not sufficient excuse for the dispossessing of the right Obiect which an other houldeth it were as good haue no title at all as a probable title without possession Answere 1 BVt first Answ your consequence is not good For no title is good for nothing but a probable title without possession in subiects is good for this to call the title in question and to haue it examined decided by a lawfull and vndoubted Iudge and in absolute Princes who haue no Superiours in temporals it is good in the opinion of some Diuines to haue the matter put to arbitrement or compromise which if the Prince who is in possession refuse the other Prince may according to the doctrine of these Diuines wherewith I will not meddle make warre against him for the wrong done him in not admitting Arbiters Also a probable title without possession is better then no title for that it is good after the decease of them who haue possession to haue the matter decided by the Kingdome or Common-wealth to whom it belongeth as well obserueth Vasquez to determin doubtfull titles when none is in possession As also according to the doctrine of all Diuines it belongeth to the Church or Spirituall kingdome of Christ which a general Councel doth represent to determine and decide the doubtfull titles of two Popes although both of them be partly in possession 2 Secondly your consequent for as much as concerneth the making of warre vpon a probable title without possession Vasquez would not feare to admit For it is not absurd to graunt that a probable title without possession is as good as no title for the making of warre against a Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession As also it is no absurditie to grant but rather a most certaine doctrine that aprobable matter of Baptisme is in some case for as much as concerneth practise as good as no matter See Vasques 1.2 disp 63 disp 64 cap. 4. for that it is not lawful in some case to baptize with a probable matter to wit when we may vse a certaine and vndoubted matter And a probable medicine is in some case as good as no medicine for that it is not lawfull to apply to one a probable medicine when an vndoubted medicine may be applyed Sect. 12. Obiection NOw in this contention say you betwixt the pope Obiect the Prince though the Prince haue a probable title after depriuation and also possession it is houlden with wrong to the Church preiudice to Christs flocke whose good is more to bee respected then the priuate good of a temporall Prince And so it seemeth he may be depriued of his right vpon a probable title though absolutely abstracting from such case it may not bee done Answere 1 BVt this hath beene fully answered aboue Answ For it is a most false and seditious doctrine to hould that a Prince in keeping the possession of his Crown to which as you confesse he hath a probable right after depriuation doth any wrong or iniurie to the Church or any vniust preiudice to Christs flocke or that the good of the Church or of Christs flocke is to bee respected or obtained by vniust meanes and with the wrong of any man much lesse of Princes who in vsing defending their probable right being in possession do no man wrong For if it be no wrong as you in Vasquez iudgement falsly and absurdly suppose for the Pope or Prince who hath onely a probable title without possession to inuade and assault an other Prince who hath both a probable title and also possession much more it is no wrong for this Prince so assaulted to defend himselfe And therefore you must not bee so mindfull of the good of the Church or other good ends that you forget that the good of the Church and all good ends must be obtained by good meanes for as you know Bonum est ex integra causa c. Good proceedeth from and entier cause Dionisius Areo pag. 4. cap. de diu nom but euill from euerie defect 2 Secondly I doe not well vnderstand that exception you make in your last words though absolutely abstracting from such case it may not bee done For I do not see but that according to the principles of your doctrine if an hereticall or wicked Prince bee depriued by the Pope his Kingdome must alwaies bee held by him with wrong to the Church and preiudice to Christs flocke c. and so that exception of yours whereby you would seeme to limit your former false assertion is in my conceipt to little purpose And moreouer whether it better for Gods glorie and the good of the Church Leo serm 1. de SS Petro Paulo to haue somtimes persecutions Whereby as S. Leo saith the Church is not diminished but increased c. We cannot so easily know and therefore wee ought rather to leaue it to the iudgement of him who maketh a man that is an hypocrite reigne for the sinnes of the people Iob. 34. then ouer rashly to iudge of the secrets of Gods prouidence Sect. 13. Obiection AGaine though in your conceipt and opinion say you the Pope and Prince haue a Superiour or head to iudge the controuersie betwixt them Obiect to wit a generall Councell yet in the opinion of others who hould that the Pope is aboue the Councell and consequently hath no head it seemeth the Pope may as other Princes may without iniurie goe about to depose a Prince depriued vpon a probable title though in full possession of his right and dominions Answer 1 MY conceit indeed is that it is very probable that a generall Councel excluding the Pope is aboue atrue and vndoubted Pope Answ and that to conceiue the contrarie is altogether improbable and absurd Now to
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