their great shame and confusion ere it belong be publikly accused and in my iudgement most cleerely conuicted vnless they speedely change their vncharitable courses cease to make a Schisme and disunion among Catholikes in regard onely of opinions which as witnesseth Cardinall Peron ought not to hinder the reunion of those who are not Catholikes and should desire to be reconciled to the Catholike Church 9 And lastly for my owne part I protest vnfaignedly that as I haue not beene affraid in regard of the dutie obligation wherein I stand bound to God and Caesar to my Prince and Countrey and to the Catholike Religion which I professe to defend with my pen this manifest truth concerning the indissoluble bond g of temporall Allegiance See the Protestants Apologie for the Roman Church tract ' 3. sect 5. due to our Soueraign Prince by the law of God and Nature although I foresaw the great disgraces which both in the Court of Rome and also here in England among our Catholike brethren would come to me thereby so I will God willing be euer readie to confirme and seale the same truth if need shal require with my blood vntill the Catholike Church which is the pillar ground of truth h 1. Tim. 3. to whose censure I most humbly submit my self and whatsoeuer hath or shall be written by me shall infallibly define the contrarie which as I am fully perswaded she neuer will not to say can not i See Card. Caiet in opasc de concept B. virginis cap. 5. Canus lib. 7. de locis cap. 3 who vpon the like grounds thinke assuredly that the Church neuer will though Canus saith expresly she can not define that the B. Virgin was preserued from original sin define for that in my priuate iudgement speaking with all submission she hath no sufficient grounds either from the holy Scriptures as they are expounded by the ancient Fathers or from any other vndoubted rule of faith so to define but that if she will determine either part she will declare and define according to the true and vniuersall doctrine of the ancient Fathers k See the ancient Fathers in M. Widdringt discouerie of Schulkenius slanders § 17 that absolute Princes are supreme in temporals therein subiect to none but God alone and also that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth extend to the giuing of spirituall graces not earthly kingdomes to the remitting of sinnes not of debts to the loosing of spirituall not corporall bonds to the inflicting of spirituall not temporall punishments and to the disposing of spirituall not temporall goods This 27 of December 1620. Yours in all loue and dutie E. I. The Author of the New-yeeres gift A briefe SUMMARIE OF THE CHIEFEST things contained in this ADIOYNDER IN the first Section is shewed that to proue the Oath of Allegiance to bee vnlawfull euident demonstrations are required but to proue it to be lawfull only probable arguments and answers are sufficient In the second Section is shewed First that the immediate obiect of an Oath must bee morally certaine to the iudgement of the Swearer and that it neede not to be morally certaine to all others Secondly that in the second Branch of the Oath is denyed both the Popes power to practise the deposition of Princes and also the practice it selfe in all cases whatsoeuer and that albeit the deniall of some particular practice doth not imply a deniall of the power it selfe to practise yet a deniall of all practices and effects is a vertuall deniall of the power it selfe to practise And thirdly it is shewed that a meere probable power to depose or punish is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power and for practise as good as no power at all to depose or punish In the third Section is shewed that euery doctrine which containeth a falshood against the holy Scriptures is truely and properly hereticall both according to the doctrine of Protestants who hold the holy Scriptures to be the only rule of faith and also of most Catholike Diuines who hold that the Church doth not make any Catholike veritie or heresie but doth onely declare it and make it knowne to all which before her declaration was not known to all Neither is it required in the opinion of Protestants to make any doctrine hereticall that it subuert the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti materialis or of the fundamentall things which are to bee beleeued which are the generall articles of our Creede or Christian Beleefe but that it contain a falshood although it be in poynts of a lesse matter then are the Articles of the Creed repugnant to the Word of God which is the rule of faith and consequently subuerteth the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti formalis or the formall cause of our beleefe which is the infallible truth of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures In the fourth Section is shewed First both by manifest reason and also by the testimony of many learned Catholike Diuines that euerie Theologicall Conclusion which is euidently deduced from two premisses whereof the one is expressely contained in the Word of God and the other manifest by the light of Nature is of faith and the contrarie hereticall and against faith and that therefore although it bee not cleare in Scriptures expressely and directly that it is manifest wrong to depose a Prince excommunicated and depriued by the Pope yet it is cleere in Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessary consequence that it is manifest wrong to depose such a Prince and consequently to deny the same is properly hereticall and secondly that maxime of the Logicians The conclusion followeth the weaker part is clearely explained In the fifth Section is shewed First that it is against the holy Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence and therefore against faith and properly hereticall that it is lawfull to murther Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope Secondly that it is very false and seditious to apply the doctrine of killing manifest Vsurpers to the killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope for that manifest Vsurpers haue no probable title to the Crowne but Princes after the Popes sentence of Excommunication and also depriuation haue besides reall possession a true probable title and right to the Kingdomes which they possesse Thirdly that albeit a Prince should yeeld vp his Crowne after depriuation yet it were not hereticall according to my Aduersary his grounds to kill such a Prince although my Aduersary doth grant it to be euident murther and therfore vertually repugnant to the holy Scriptures In the sixth Section is shewed First that the Author of the New-yeeres Gift did not bring those examples of taking a purse from one who leadeth a wicked life or killing him with a pistoll to compare them to the deposing or murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but hee brought them onely to proue that
rather doe well in taking part against their Soueraigne in the aforesaid case And neuerthelesse as I haue shewed aboue in the former Section the falshood and absurditie of the Doctrine concerning the inuading of Princes and seeking to dispossesse them by warre only by vertue of the Popes sentence of depriuation or vpon any probable title which is grounded vpon a controuersed Spirituall authoritie is farre more manifest for the reason there alledged Sect. 14. Obiection LAstly Obiect say you about this Branch your exposition of those words as hereticall seemeth to me neither agreeing with the ordinarie and common sense of the words which though somtimes may be taken in such sense as you expound them yet ordinarily are not nor with the intention of the Law-maker who thinking it to be against Scriptures that the Pope should haue power to depose Princes for that none is aboue Kings at the least in temporals but God alone and that by Scriptures would haue all no doubt detest such doctrine as shall allow the deposition of Princes not only as hereticall but for hereticall Answere 1 BVt it seemeth Answ that you haue not well considered M. Widdringtons meaning and drift in bringing this last answere for the expounding of these words as hereticall in the fourth Branch of the Oath For in his former answere he tooke the word hereticall for that which is directly or indirectly repugnant to Scriptures and in which sence both Catholike Diuines commonly and also Protestants and his Maiestie do vnderstand it which sense neuerthelesse you aboue in the third Section seemed to disproue in those words which sense is not in my conceipt so proper neither with vs nor Protestants who most of them hould that for heretical which subuerteth the foundation of faith and not that which is contrarie to Scripture And yet now you will haue the Law-maker who are Protestants to take hereticall for that which is against Scriptures Now Mr. Widdrington taking hereticall in this sense to wit for that which is against Scriptures either directly formally and expresly or at the least indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence which sense I haue sufficiently proued aboue to be proper and vsuall both among Protestants and Catholikes affirmed that the doctrine euen of deposing Princes being excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be abiured not only as hereticall but for hereticall 2. But because some might peraduenture contend as you seeme to do that the word hereticall according to the common vnderstanding of Catholikes is to be taken onely for that which is expressely declared by the Church to be hereticall and repugnant to Scriptures and which maketh a formall hereticke and to be punishable as an hereticke by the Canons of the Church and the Imperiall Lawes Mr. Widdrington in regard onely of such contentious spirits and admitting for Disputation sake that to bee true which hee accounteth very false gaue this last answer to wit that if wee will needs haue the word hereticall to bee taken for that doctrine which is made hereticall by the Church and maketh a formall heretike and which before the declaration of the Church is not to be accounted hereticall although it be a very false doctrine and contrary to the word of God then the Aduerb as doth signifie both by vertue of the Word and also of the matter not an identity or reality but onely a similitude of that strict and rigorous hereticall And this answer hee hath at large confirmed in his Adioynder against Mr. Fitzherberts Reply where you may see that the Aduerbe As being an Aduerbe of similitude doth commonly and not only sometimes or oftentimes signifie onely a similitude by vertue of the Word and that it neuer signifieth a reality identity or equality but onely by reason of the matter to which it is applyed And that if the matter of this Branch will not permit without manifest absurditie that it signifie a realitie wee are bound to interpret it in that sense which is not absurd according to the rules prescribed by Diuines for the interpreting of Lawes vnlesse either the words will not beare a true sense which as Mr. Widdrington hath proued is very false or it bee apparant that the intention of the Law-maker was to haue it taken in an absurd and inconuenient sense which were rashnesse and impiety so to iudge of his Maiesty 3. For howsoeuer his Maiestie be perswaded in his opinion iudgement or beliefe yet his intention is not but that wee must take the words of the Oath according to the common sense and vnderstanding of them as it is euident by the Seuenth Branch And therefore a great difference is to bee made betwixt his Maiesties beleefe or perswasion and his intention as he is a Law-maker as Mr. Widdrington and the Authour of the New-yeeres Gift p In the third obseruation haue proued at large by his Maiesties expresse declaration who although he be perswaded that he is the supreme Lord of his Dominions not onely in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall causes for as much as concerneth the external gouernment by true coactiue authority and that the Pope hath not by the institution of Christ any authority to excommunicate him yet his intention was not to meddle in this Oath with these poynts nor to distinguish Catholikes from Protestants in points of Religion but onely to distinguish Catholikes from Catholikes in points of their loyalty and temporall allegeance for in poynts of Religion Catholikes were sufficiently distinguished from Protestants by the Oath of Supremacie Neither also is his Maiestie perswaded that the doctrine of deposing Princes depriued by the Pope is hereticall taking hereticall in that strict and rigorous sense for only that which is expressely and formally declared by the Church or some vndoubted generall Councell to be hereticall but he is perswaded that the sayd doctrine is therefore hereticall because it is either directly and expressely or indirectly and vertually or by a necessary consequence repugnant to the holy Scriptures in which sense it may bee abiured not onely as hereticall but also for hereticall as hath beene shewed aboue Sect. 15. Obiection THirdly Obiect I finde another difficultie say you about your doctrine of Declaratiue Breues For you seeme to say following therein the doctrine of Suarez That Declaratiue Breues of Popes set forth and published to declare some thing which the Church is in doubt of do binde no further then the Law or ground which they declare and therefore if such Breues bee but grounded on the Popes opinion as these seeme to you which are set forth to declare that the Oath is vulawfull they binde no more then his opinion Which doctrine of yours and Suarez I must needs confesse I cannot well conceiue or vnderstand For to me it seemeth that Breues of the Pope or Church whether they be declaratiue or definitiue for the certainty of their obligatiō should not depend on the ground or Law which they declare or define
therefore according to the Seuenth Branch we ought to take it so in this Clause 3. Thirdly I maruell that you should so resolutely affirme without alledging any reason that without doubt the intention of the Law-maker is that wee should no lesse detest the one part of the proposition then the other especially seeing that Mr. Widdrington hath answered at large this obiection in his Confutation of Mr. Fitzherbert who vrged the same obiection more fully then you haue done and yet you vrge here Mr. Fitzherberts obiection and take no notice of Mr. Widdringtons answer to the same And is it possible that a man of your learning can imagine that his Maiestie doth detest no lesse that is in the same degree of detestation and falsity the doctrine of murthering Princes excommunicated or depriued of the Pope then he doth of deposing them Or that he conceiueth that the doctrine of murthering the said Princes is not more manifestly false and against Scripture then is the doctrine of deposing them If you had diligently perused his Maiesties bookes you might haue seene that against the doctrine of deposing Princes by the Popes authority hee bringeth many proofes both out of the old and new Testament but against the doctrine of murthering them hee doth not so much labour for that he supposeth it to bee so manifestly false that no Catholike or Christian Diuine could bee so temetarious as to approue the same 4. But howsoeuer his Maiestie bee perswaded yet his intention which in this Oath wee must chiefly regard and not his beleefe perswasion or opinion is for as much as by reason and his Maiestie declaration wee can coniecture that wee should take the words according to the common sense and vnderstanding of them as wee are expressely bound by the Seuenth Branch of the Oath which as Mr. Widdrington hath proued is that we are not bound to abiure both parts for hereticall And truely I wonder that whereas you may and are bound to expound the words in a fauourable sense you seeke all euasions and deuises to expound them in a sense most false and absurd to the ouerthrowing of the temporall estates of English Catholikes to the disgrace of his Maiesty and to the scandall of the Catholike Roman Religion Sect. 8. Obiection MOreouer Obiect the ground say you whereon the lawfulnesse of swearing that the doctrin which maintaineth the Popes authority to depose Princes after depriuation is hereticall is not so certaine For it is this sole rule In dubio melior est conditio possidentis In a doubt the condition of the possessor is the better which rule seemeth to mee to be vnderstood rather in vero dubio in a true doubt and when neither side hath probability as when the minde doth fluctuate betwixt two and can yeeld assent to neither part of the contradiction then otherwise but about the Popes power to depose Princes there is no such doubt or fluctuation but both parts by you are thought probable at the least speculatiuely Answer 1. BVT first Answ albeit this rule bee oftentimes cited by Doctors In causa dubia or In dubio c. In a doubtfull cause or In a doubt c. yet both the Canon and Ciuill Law and you your selfe aboue doe cite it In paricasu c. In the like case c. And why doe not you now cite it in the same manner as you did aboue In the like case c. but In a doubt Is it possible that you can imagine that when both sides haue probability non est par casus The case is not alike 2. Secondly not onely this rule In pari casu c. In the like case c. But also besides that other rule Cum sunt inra partium c. When the rights of the parties who are in strife are obscure or not cleare the Defendant is rather to be fauoured then the Plaintiffe The common doctrine of Diuines wherof some are cited in the New-yeares Gift k In the first obseruation nu 11. pag. 43. who vnderstand it not onely of a true but also of a probable doubt and who also in my iudgement proue the same by conuincing reasons And yet you bring no other reason or authoritie that it is to be vnderstood onely of a true doubt but your owne conceipt which rule seemeth to me say you to be vnderstood rather in a true doubt and when neither side hath probabilitie then otherwise Is this thinke you a sound and sincere confutation of Widdringtons doctrine in a matter which is so iniurious to the soueraigne right of Princes and so preiudiciall and dangerous to the soules and temporall estates of English Catholikes Sect. 9. Obiection AND although Lessius and others with you seeme to hold say you that none can bee depriued of his right vpon a probable title onely Obiect yet that must be vnderstood first if that right bee not retained with the wrong of others or the retaining of that right bee not the hinderance of a greater good Answer 1. BVT first Answ why do you vse those words seem to hold as though they did not in very deed hold that none can bee depriued of his right to that whereof hee hath possession vpon a probable power or title onely whereas it is manifest that they doe expressely hold the same 2. Secondly why did you omit those words vpon a probable power whereas there is a great difference betwixt a probable power to punish and depose and a probable title Lessius in his Singleton part 2. num 38. and Lessius speaketh expressely of a probable power to punish and to depriue one of that which he actually possesseth 3. Thirdly Lessius proueth the insufficiency of a probable power to punish by a conuincing argument For if it were any way doubtfull the person accused might except against the Iudge and not obey him And hereupon credit is not giuen to delegates to the preiudice of another man vnlesse by an authenticall Instrument they shew their authoritie so that no iust cause of doubt be further left And D. Kellinson * In his Treatise called The Prince and the Prelate cap. 11. pa. 235. with others proue the insufficiency of a probable title without possession by those two rules aboue cited In pari casu c. and Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. And Vasquez confirmeth the same as you shall see beneath l Sect. 10. num 2. by other reasons in his iudgement vnanswerable And yet you without bringing any authority reason or proofe at all affirme too too resolutely that it must bee vnderstood first if that right be not retained with the wrong of others by whom you meane the Pope and Church whereas they vnderstand it generally and also the former Authors speake expressely of the Popes power to depose wicked Princes where you falsly suppose a wrong done to the Pope and Church in resisting the Popes sentence of depriuation For a Prince being depriued
2. Secondly albeit some be of this opinion that the Pope hath authority to depose Princes yet vnlesse they hold it for certaine and a poynt of faith and the contrarie doctrine altoth crimprobable and out of all controuersie among Catholikes which neuerthelesse all the world seeth to be a great controuersie among them they may notwithstanding their opinion take the Oath lawfully and willingly for that they may and ought perswade their consciences assuredly that the Pope hath not any true reall sufficient or lawfull power to depose Princes or to practise their deposition which is the true and plaine meaning of the Second and fourth Branch 3. Thirdly whereas you seeme to insinuate that those things which are done through feare are onely voluntaria secundum quid willing in some sort but not simply and properly willing and so he that should for feare of loosing his libertie and goods and incurring his Maiesties displeasure take this Oath against his owne opinion or also conscience should not take it willingly simpliciter proprie simply and properly but onely secundum quid in some sort you are herein greatly mistaken For according to the common doctrine of all Philosophers and Diuines feare doth onely cause involuntarium secundum quid vnwillingnesse in some sort and those things which are done through feare are simply willing which willingnesse is both proper and sufficient Doe not many both sweare and forsweare very willingly against their opinions yea and consciences also for loue of their sensuall pleasures for hope of great gaine and preferment for feare of great danger for procuring the fauour of Princes and auoyding of their indignation You know that a great loue and concupiscence of any thing which we greatly desire doth not cause vnwillingnesse but rather increase it and that where there is a great loue and desire of obtaining any thing there is also a great feare of loosing or not obtaining it A Marchant doth very willingly hic et nunc in this particular case when he is in danger of drowning cast his goods into the Sea to saue his life which hee more loueth and respecteth then his goods And many men who preferre their corporall pleasures and the auoiding of corporall punishment before their soules health doe very willingly hic et nunc in this particular case speak and doe many things against their opinions and consciences also But it seemeth that you abstract from hic et nunc from this particular case and that you consider voluntarium or willingnesse if that particular case were not which is the cause of your errour or mistaking for quae fiunt ex metu sunt hic nunc simpliciter absolutè efficaciter propriè voluntaria those things that are done for feare are hic nunc in this particular case simply absolutely actually effectually and properly done willingly 4. But Fourthly supposing the Oath to be lawfull and ministred by lawfull authoritie an other most perfect willingnesse is to be found in taking this Oath as likewise in the obseruing of all iust lawes For we are bound to obserue all iust lawes both of God although eternall damnation of soule and bodie be threatned against the breakers of the same and also of man although great temporall punishments are imposed vpon the transgressours thereof not for feare of punishment but heartily willingly and sincerely for the loue of vertue and for the duty and obedience we owe to God and the King as it hath beene insinuated in the New-yeeres-gift u Cap. 8. and declared more at large by M. Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation x Cap. 9. And therefore vnlesse you can sufficiently proue some one of the former branches to be vnlawfull you neede not insist vpon this clause which according to your grounds is therefore vnlawfull because some one of the former clauses is vnlawfull albeit as I haue shewed you cannot sufficiently proue that this Oath may not hic et nunc supposing the great temporall harme is incurred by refusing it be taken willingly by some who prefer their temporall state and goods of body and fortune before their soules health although we should falsly suppose the Oath to be vnlawfull consequently this clause may be true in regard of some that take it willingly although they should suppose some one or all of the former clauses to be repugnant to truth or iustice 5. And thus you see good Sir that I haue taken a little paines and spent some time which in very deede I could hardly at this present haue spared to answer all your difficulties in particular partly for your owne sake and satisfaction and partly of others who as I suppose haue concurred with you herein whom as also your selfe both in regard of our ancient acquaintance and your singular learning and great zeale I much loue and respect And truely I make no doubt but that if you had beene as diligent to finde out arguments and answers in fauour of the Oath as you haue beene to invent scruples against the same you would quickly haue perceiued that no one Clause of the Oath can be sufficiently proued to be vnlawfull especially if you had obserued that to proue the Oath to be vnlawfull euident demonstrations are required but to proue it lawfull only probable arguments and answeres are sufficient and also that I haue here said nothing but what Mr. Widdrington hath either expressely said before or may be clearely deduced from the grounds of his doctrine And so wishing you all happinesse I take my leaue hoping that if notwithstanding this my answer you cannot conforme your conscience to Mr. Widdringtons conceipts explication of the Oath yet you will not condemne those Catholikes who both can and doe conforme themselues therevnto and that you will not be any cause or occasion in word or deede of making a separation disvnion or Schisme among your Catholike brethren by excluding them vniustly from Ecclesiasticall Sacraments in regard of this controuersie for which in France they are not excluded nor thought vnworthy to be admitted therevnto and which as Card. Peron notably obserueth ought not to hinder the revnion of those Peron in his last great Reply cap. 91. pag 633. who are out of the Church should desire to be reconciled therevnto especially seing that the cōtrary doctrin hath bin in France by many publike Edicts of Roman Catholikes cōdēned vnder paine of high treason for false pernitious scandalous and seditious but that you will seeke as you wished aboue to make an happy atonement reconcilement and peace among them and not ouer rashly and vncharitably to censure for any point which is controuersie among Catholikes their consciences who for cleare and vndoubted points of Catholike Religion are as ready and willing to loose by patient suffering their goods libertie and life it selfe as your selfe or any other Catholike whatsoeuer From London this 13. of Nouemb. 1620. Your very louing friend and ancient Schoolefellow R. P. Faults escaped In the Summarie pag. C 2. lin 5. read hath not pag. 14. after the words King c. adde but onely our sincere acknowledgment thereof pag. 93. lin 24. commandeth