An adioynder to the late Catholike new yeares gift, or explication of the oath of allegeance Wherein certaine principall difficulties, obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike, against the sayd New-yeares gift, and explication of the oath, are very clearely explained. Published by E.I. the author of the New-yeares gift.

The Copy of a letter written by R. P. a religious Catholike Priest to M. B. a very learned Roman Catholike , in answer to certaine difficulties obiected by the aforesayd M. B. against the late Catholike New-yeares Gift , or Explication of the Oath of Allegeance . Worthy Sir :

THere was left for mee , in the end of the last Trinity Term , & in my absence , a letter with this superscription , [ To the worshipfull , and his most respected friend E. I. giue these ] and the Partie who brought it , sayd , it was sent and meant for me . Which after I had opened , and perused the first beginning thereof , I was a little greeued in this respect , that a friend , and old acquaintance of mine , should seeke , as then I conceiued , to put a tricke vpon me , in making mee to bee the Author of the late New-yeeres Gift , whereas the Author thereof ( knowing belike how displeasing such bookes are in the Court of Rome ) was desirous ( as you might haue gathered by the Inscription therof ) to haue his name concealed . Whereupon some friends , to whom I shewed your letter , endeuoured to perswade mee not to meddle at all therewith , but to returne it backe to the Party , who brought it . Neuerthelesse , because I did not attribute this your errour to any euill affection , or meaning in you towards me , but rather to some want of discretion , or consideration in you , and for that as it seemeth , you are desirous to haue from me some answer to your obiections , I my selfe , hauing also read and perused the said New-yeeres Gift with all diligence , and not disliking the grounds and principles therof ( which I am not affraid publikely to acknowledge ) will in regard of our old acquaintance , without more adoe , or seeking any other Reply from E. I. the Author thereof , take the paines to answer , according to Mr. Widdringtons grounds , to the principall obiections contained in your letter , which I will entirely , ad verbum , and orderly set downe , onely diuiding it into certaine parts , or Sections , without altering , or inuerting the order of your letter . Thus therefore you begin .

Sect. 1. Obiection .

1. WOrthy Sir , and mine old acquaintance : Hauing read and perused with all diligence , your late booke for the Oath of Allegeance , mee thinketh I finde not in it that fulnesse of satisfaction , at the least in all poynts , which was expected , and I and others could haue wished . And therefore I make bold ( presuming of our ancient amitie ) to trouble you with some few lines , concerning the chiefe doubts and difficulties I finde about your booke , and exposition of the Oath . Blame me not ( good Sir ) that I make thus bold to trouble you in this businesse ; for it is a matter , which concerneth much both my selfe and others , and such indeed as requireth great discussion , and most diligent examination . If the Oath might lawfully bee taken , as you labour to proue , and ( whatsoeuer others think ) as I am perswaded , with great sincerity , zeale to God , and loue to your Prince and Countrey , I should bee glad , and none more glad ; for it would yeeld great content to our Prince , ( a thing much to bee wished of all louing and loyall subiects ) and no small comfort to our poore afflicted brethren , wearied and almost wasted to nothing , for refusall of the same . But if it cannot ( as I much feare ) at the least in that sense it is exacted at our hands , no maruell if wee , who haue daily to deale with poore mens consciences , labour what wee can , to haue it throughly examined . And this I would haue you assure your selfe , that whatsoeuer scruple or doubt you shall finde , that I doe make about your doctrine , and exposition of the Oath , I will not doe it of any euill affection , contradictious spirit , or humour to wrangle ( for of that sort there hath been too much sayd , and done already , and a happy attonement were heartily to bee wished ) but meerely for loue of truth , and desire of satisfaction to poore afflicted consciences , which through the Popes Breues , on the one side , together with many other stiffe defenders of that doctrine , and your late exposition of the Oath , and the allowance thereof on the other , still , God not , remaine perplexed , and hardly know yet what to doe .

Answer .

1. BVT first , I doe not well vnderstand , what fulnesse of satisfaction in all points you did expect , and haue not found in the late New-yeeres Gift . For if you expected , that Mr. Widdrington , from whom the Author of the New-yeeres Gift , hath collected his Explication of the Oath , should haue taken vpon him in this controuersie of the Oath , ( which is forbidden by the Popes Breues , though vpon false informations and suppositions , and also impugned by diuerse learned men vpon the same false grounds ) to proue it to bee lawfull by such cleare and euident demonstrations , as that no wrangling spirit , or stiffe Impugner of the Oath , could alledge any doubt , difficulty , or scruple against his arguments , or answers ; you were herein greatly mistaken , neither had you any reason to expect the same : especially if you had duely considered what he did obserue in his Theologicall Disputation a a In the Epistle n. 4. ; both for that to bring such euident demonstrations in any controuersie whatsoeuer among learned Catholikes , is a very hard matter ; and also because it was sufficient for him to answer probably all the arguments , which could bee brought against the Oath , and to alledge such probable proofes , grounded both vpon the cleare principles of Philosophie , Law , and Diuinitie , and also vpon the testimony , authority , and confession of his chiefest Aduersaries , which might perswade any prudent , learned , and indifferent man , that there is nothing in the Oath , repugnant to faith , or saluation , and consequently , that it may with a safe conscience bee taken . And whether hee hath sufficiently performed this , or no , the learned Reader must iudge , & you your self , by the answers to your doubts , difficulties , or rather , as you well tearme them , scruples , may easily perceiue .

2. Secondly , I cannot blame you , for labouring to haue this controuersie of the Oath , to bee throughly examined , considering it doth so neerely concerne our duty to God and Caesar ; and consequently , the spiritual safety , or hurt to our soules ( to omit now all temporall losses ) by taking or refusing the same . But truely , in my conceit , if without all partiality , or ouermuch affection to either part , you would be as curious and carefull to finde out fauourable Expositions of the Oath , as you haue beene to inuent doubts , difficulties , or rather scriples against the same , you would easily perceiue , that no conuincing and demonstratiue argument can be brought , to proue the Oath vnlawfull . And the variety , and diuersity of the grounds , whereupon the stiffe Impugners therof do chiefly insist , some disprouing the Oath for this clause , some for another , some for this reason , others not for that , some for the Popes Breues , others not daring to ground themselues on them , 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 .

WEll 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 2ae . 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 heereticall ( 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 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 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 particular 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 Testament , 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 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 i In the third Section . , 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 and euidence , wherein the Conclusion dependeth vpon both the premisses , non quoad supernaturalitatem , not in regard of supernaturalitie , wherein it only dependeth vpon Diuine and supernaturall faith . For to make an act supernaturall , it is sufficient , that one of the causes be supernaturall , as it is apparant in the acts of contrition , of faith , hope , and charity , to which concurre the vnderstanding . and will of man , which are naturall causes , and yet they are supernaturall acts , because they are produced by a supernaturall habite , for which cause they affirme , that a Theological conclusion deduced from one principle of faith , and from the other knowne by the light of naturall reason , is supernaturall , because it is produced by the supernaturall habite of faith .

7 Thirdly , others ( who hould with S. Thomas , and the common doctrine of Diuines , that doctrine to be of faith which either directly and expresly , or indirectly , and vertually is conteyned in the holy Scripture , and the contrarie to be hereticall , & that the Church doth not make Catholike veritie or heresie , but onely doth declare , and make it certainely knowne to all Catholikes , which before her declaration was not certainly knowne to all ) doe answere thus : That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part , principally , directly , and immediately : but when the weaker part is necessarily connected with the stronger , then also the Conclusion doth follow the stronger part , secundarily , indirectly , and mediately . And the reason hereof is euident ; for when one thing is necessarily connected with an other , that which followeth the one , must consequently follow the other , at the least secundarily , indirectly , and mediately . Wherefore , seeing that all dishonouring of Parents , all Theft , all Murder , all Adulterie are against Scripture directly and expresly , it necessarily followeth , that euerie particular contained in the generall , being sufficiently proued to be conteyned therein , ( of whatsoeuer kind that proofe be ) is also indirectly , vertually , or by a necessarie consequence repugnant to Scripture . And hereby also appeareth the weakenesse of the application you make of your argument to the murthering of Princes which are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope , in these words following .

Sect. 5. Obiection .

IN like manner ( say you ) though it be cleare in Scriptures , Obiect . we must not murther , yet it is not cleare in Scripture , that it is murther , if a priuate man go about to kill a Prince depriued , if he still vsurpe , when Tyrannicall Vsurpers may be slayne by priuate men , as all doe grant . I say , if he still vsurpe ; for if he do not , but yeeld vp his Crowne , as some haue done after depriuation , it were euident murther to kill such a Prince , as all doe teach . It is onely deduced out of your rule , In pari casu &c. In the like case &c. to be murther ; which rule when it is not in Scripture , as I said before , the opposite doctrine can not bee hereticall .

Answere .

1 BVt first , although it be not cleare in Scriptures directly and immediately , Answ. that it is murther to kill a Prince excommunicated or depriued by the Pope , if he will not obey his sentence of depriuation ( not to vse your vnrespectiue words , if hee still vsurpe , seeing that a Prince , who hath possession , and a probable title , is by none accounted an Vsurper ) yet it is repugnant to Scriptures indirectly , vertually , and by a necessarie consequence , to kill such a Prince : for that neither Excommunication , which depriueth him onely of spirituall graces , nor depriuation , which depriueth him onely of his kingdome ( according to those that hould it for certain that the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes ) & not of his life , can hinder , that the killing of such a Prince is not included in that generall , Thou shalt not kill .

2 Secondly , I wonder that you houlding it probable ( as I suppose ) that the Pope hath not authoritie to depriue Princes , should so dangerously & seditiously apply that similitude of killing Vsurpers , to the killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope , seeing that the doctrine of killing Vsurpers is vnderstood by all that approue it , of known , manifest and vndoubted Vsurpers , and not of such , as haue possession , & also a probable title to the Crowne , as haue all those Princes , which are excommunicated or depriued by the Pope , supposing it to be a controuersie among Catholikes ( as vndoubtedly it is ) whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue wicked Princes , or no.

if 3 Thirdly , that which you say [ that he yeeld vp his Crowne as some haue done , it were euident murther in any one to go about to kill such a Prince ] is very true , yet it is not cleare and expresly contained in Scripture , but to proue it euident murther , you must vse the helpe of an argument , whereof one of the premisses is not formally and expressely contained in Scripture . And therefore , according to your grounds , you could not abiure as hereticall that doctrine , which should maintaine it for no murther , although you grant it to be euident murther .

4 Fourthly , if you will call to mind the Histories of those Princes , who haue yeelded vp their Crownes after depriuation , whereof you can name but very few , you shall find such stuffe about the practise of this doctrine of deposing , that any zealous Catholike may bee ashamed thereof . Among those few Princes , remember our king Iohn , who rendred vp his Crown after depriuation . But to whom did hee yeeld or render it ? Not to the next heire of the blood Royall , who after King Iohns depriuation was forthwith the true King by right , if King Iohn was truly and really depriued , but hee gaue it to the Pope . And how , I pray you , could hee giue that to the Pope , whereof hee was depriued , and consequently had no right therein , if the Pope had truly authoritie to depriue him ? Or how could the Pope accept thereof , if King Iohn when he gaue it to the Pope was depriued thereof , and consequently had no right to giue that which was not his . But let vs on to the rest of your Discourse .

Sect. 6. Obiection .

ANd as for the examples you produce to proue ( say you ) that these particulars are conteyned in the generals , Obiect . me thinke they are not so good and apt for that purpose , and in them I find a great disparitie . For to take a purse from our neighbour , or to kill him with a penne knife , if hee lead a wanton life , are vnquestionable theft , and murther , and included in the generals ; and that one liueth a wicked life can no way bee excuse for the fault committed : But to depose or kill a Prince depriued , if after depriuation hee vsurpe , is with many questionable , and probably thought by some neither theft nor murther : and so though to you , according to your rule , they may be thought so to be , yet by others they are no more reputed such , or included in the generall proposition of theft and murther , then taking a Cow or Horse from the enemie in time of warre , when the cause is iust , or killing a Tyrant in call Vsurper in a Common-Wealth , which neither are Theft nor Murther , nor can with safe conscience be sworne so to be .

Answere .

1 BVt first , you greatly abuse the Author of the New-yeeres gift , Answ. in affirming , that he brought those examples to make a paritie or similitude betwixt them , and the deposing and murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope . For hee brought them onely to shew , that it is not necessarie to make a proposition de fide , of faith , and the contrarie heretical , that it be formally , and expresly contained in the holy Scripture , but that it suffiseth to be contained vertually , & by a necessarie consequence , and that no word , or circumstance expressed in the particular proposition doe hinder , that it be not included in the generall proposition , which is formally and expresly contained in the holy Scripture . Neither did he apply them otherwise , as you may see , if you will pervse the place .

2 Secondly , although he had compared them together , as hee did not , yet the paritie is not so vnapt , as you would seeme to make it . For albeit there be a great disparity betwixt them ( as there is betwixt salt and sugar in tast but not in colour ) yet they both agree in this , for which onely purpose he brought those examples , that they are not formally and expresly contained in the holy Scriptures , but onely by a necessarie consequence proued to be Theft and Murther ; as also the deposing and murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope , are by a necessarie consequence proued by the said Authour to bee Theft and Murther , and consequently comprehended in those generall words , Thou shalt not steale , Thou shalt not kill , as particulars in the vniuersalls .

3 But to take a purse from his neighbour , or to kill him with a pistoll , if hee leade a wicked life , are vnquestionable Theft and Murther ( say you ) and included in the generals &c. This is verie true , and for that cause the Authour of the New-yeeres Gift brought those examples . But you can not proue by Scriptures onely , that they are vnquestionable Theft and Murther , because they are not formally and expresly forbidden in the word of God , but to proue them to be vnquestionable Theft and Murther , you must vse a Syllogisme , whereof one of the premisses is not in the Word of God , but grounded on the light of naturall reason , which is no Scripture . And so , according to the Discourse you made aboue , although this Theft , and Murther bee vndoubtedly contained in those generalls , Thou shalt not steale , Thou shalt not kill , yet you cannot abiure , as hereticall , that doctrine , which approueth them to bee lawfull . Nay , according to your grounds , you cannot abiure as hereticall that doctrine , which holdeth it lawfull to kill any particular man whatsoeuer , although it be most assuredly Murther , for that you cannot proue by Scriptures , that hee is a man , but this premisse you must proue by naturall reason , or euidence of sence , neither of which is Scripture .

4 But to depose ( say you ) or kill a Prince depriued , if after depriuation hee vsurpe , is with many questionable , and probably thought by some , neither Theft , nor Murther , &c.

To kill a Prince depriued by the Pope is by no man questionable , Suarez in Defens . fidei Cathol. &c. lib. 6. ca. 4. num. 10. vnlesse the Pope , after depriuation , giue a particular commission to kill him . And in this case onely Suarez among all that euer I read , durst aduenture to teach expressely , That if the Pope giue such a commission to any priuate man , hee may lawfully kill such a Prince . But considering that this seditious , or rather diabolicall doctrine is , grounded vpon a most false and improbable foundation , to wit , that it is a cleare poynt of faith , and out of all controuersie among Catholikes , that the Pope hath authority to dispose of the Crownes , and also liues of temporall Princes in order to spiritual good , which all the world seeth not onely to bee a controuersie among them , but also to bee condemned by the Parliament of Paris , for a false and seditious , damnable and pernicious doctrine , it is manifest , that the conclusion , which is grounded vpon this false and improbable foundation , cannot bee probable . And therefore those your words [ and probably thought by some , to be neither Theft , nor Murther ] are very vntrue , and dangerous , and also the examples you bring in taking spoyles from the enemy in time of iust war , and killing a Tyrant in call an Vsurper , are vnaptly and perniciously ( not to say seditiously , applyed by you to the killing of a Prince depriued by the Pope , or taking from him his Crown : both for that depriuation doth not take away the right hee hath to liue , neither is that Prince , keeping his Crowne after depriuation , such a knowne and manifest Vsurper , as that he hath not at least a probable title to the Crowne , of which manifest Vsurpers only , those Diuines , who approue the killing of Vsurpers , doe speake . And that it is manifest Theft , to take from a Prince his Crown , to which he hath a probable right after depriuation , you shal see more plainly beneath .

Sect. 7. Obiection .

BEsides your exposition ( say you ) of those words [ depose , Obiect . or murther ] taken out of Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation , to proue the lawfulnes of swearing this Branch , seemeth to me not altogether so sound . For though indeed such examples may be found sometimes , yea and oftentimes ( as he well doth demonstrate ) wherein for the truth of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition , it sufficeth , that the one part be true , though the other bee false , and consequently wee may sweare the whole proposition , if the one part bee but true , yet hic & nunc in this Oath , and with these circumstances , with the words going before , and the words comming after , adding therunto the intention of the Law-maker , who no doubt would haue vs no lesse detest the one , then the other , it cannot bee , but they must by the Oath bee both abiured as hereticall ; and consequently , this euasion of the conditionall disiunctiue can helpe nothing here to saue from periury .

Answer .

1. BVT first , Answ. you are greatly mistaken in setting downe Mr. Widdringtons doctrine concerning the nature of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition . For he doth not say , that to the truth , but to the falshood of a conditionall disiunctiue proposition it sufficeth , that the one part bee true , though the other befalse , and consequently that wee may , hee doth say , sweare , but abiure the whole proposition , if the one part bee but true . But this your mistaking I do not attribute to any want of you in the vnderstanding of Mr. Widdringtons doctrine in this point , but onely to the errour and hastinesse of your pen .

2. Secondly , he doth not onely say , that sometimes and oftentimes , but also that most commonly the conditionall disiunctiue proposition , to wit , when the Coniunction [ or ] followeth the Verbe [ may ] is so to be taken ; and that there can scarse bee alledged any one conditionall disiunctiue proposition , wherein it is not so to bee taken : and that 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 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 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 onely by a probable power , doth no man wrong by keeping his probable right and possession , according to that maxime of the Law , grounded on naturall reason , Qui vtitur iure suo nemini facit iniuriam : Hee that vseth his right doth no man wrong .

4. Moreouer , your first exception [ if that right bee not retained with the wrong of others ] is friuolous , for that alwaies in the case of rights to temporall Kingdomes and goods , it may be presumed , that the right is retained with the wrong , or rather detriment of others , because temporall Kingdomes and goods , if they doe not belong to the Prince , or person depriued , they must needes belong to others . And besides , as it hath been said aboue , a probableright with possession is retained without wrong to any man . And lastly , your second exception [ or if the retaining of that right bee not a hinderance to a greater good ] doth sauour too much of that false principle , ouer much frequent in the mouths and actions of some vnlearned Iesuites , Ad maiorem gloriam Dei , &c. To the greater glory of God , &c. For good ends , and greater good are not to bee effected by bad meanes : And therefore , albeit the retaining of that right should bee an hinderance to a greater good , it little importeth , vnlesse it be an vniust hinderance , and vnlesse the Prince depriued by a probable power onely , in keeping his probable right with possession , hindereth vniustly a greater good : which to bee an vniust hinderance , you cannot possibly proue with any colour of a probable argument , as more plainely you shall see beneath .

Sect. 10. Obiection .

AND secondly ( say you ) if they who contend about that right , Obiect . haue a Superiour to decide the controuersie , and determine vnto whom the right belongeth : But if one , by retaining that right vpon a probable title , should wrong others , whose good is more to bee respected , then his , who is in possession of that right ; or if those , who contend about right , haue no Superiour to decide the matter , and to determine to whom the right belongeth , I see not , why one may not bee depriued of his right vpon a probable title . And so we see , that Kings and Princes , who haue no Superiours , but euery one is supreme Lord in his owne dominions , oftentimes fall to wars , and one seeke to dispossesse another onely vpon a probable title .

Answer .

1. BVT first it is manifest , that no man , Answ. who hath a probable right , and withall possession , doth any wrong to another , of what qualitie , condition , or state soeuer hee bee , by keeping his probable right and possession : and that no good is to bee procured by vniust meanes , and consequently , that the retaining of a probable right with possession cannot be an vniust hinderance to the good of any , whether it bee the Pope , or Church it selfe . For if to inuade the Kingdome of a Prince , onely vpon a probable title without possession , bee no wrong , or any vniust hinderance of a greater good ( as you , in Vasquez iudgement , very falsly , perniciously , and absurdly suppose ) much more it is no wrong , nor any iust hinderance to greater good , for a Prince to defend his Kingdome , to which hee hath not onely a probable right , but also possession thereof . And therfore that exception of yours [ But if one by retaining his probable right , should wrong others , whose good is more to be respected , then his , who is in possession of that right ] is idle , and cannot bee applyed to a Prince , who iustly retaineth his probable right , to the Kingdome whereof hee hath possession , and consequently without any wrong to others , whose good must not be respected , or effected by doing wrong to him .

2 Secondly , albeit you do not see why one may not be depriued of his right vpon a probable title , if those who contend for right haue no Superior to decide the matter , and to determine to whom the right belongeth , yet you might easily haue seene a reason thereof , if you had called to mind the doctrine of your Maister Vasquez , who saw and yeelded a reason thereof so clearely , Vasques 1.2 disp 64. c. 3. that hee feared not to taxe this your doctrine not onely of falshood , but also of pernitious improbabilitie , and absurditie . Immo semper existimaui hanc doctrinam nihil probabilitis habere &c. Yea I haue euer thought ( saith he ) this doctrine to haue no probabilitie , and to haue bin in no little mischief , and detriment of the Christian Common-wealth . And therefore hee would not haue sticked to detest your doctrin , as false , improbable , pernitious , and the contrarie to acknowledge for certaine : and he proueth it by these reasons , which , in his iudgement , are conuincing : For warre is an act of punitiue Iustice , inflicting a punishment , and chastising Rebels : and the nature of iust warre consisteth in this , that by vindicatiue iustice hee bee punished , who is worthy of punishment in regard of some fault , either actually committed , or at least wise iustly presumed . But it cannot be iustly presumed , that a Prince committeth any fault , who , by way of defence , retaineth his prohable right to the kingdome which he possesseth , against the pretensions of any one , who claimeth onely a probable right without possession . Et praeterea omnis controuersia &c. And moreouer euerie controuersie , saith he , which is in opinions concerning some right , is not to bee decided by powerfulnesse and armes , but by iudgment . For it seemeth to bee the custome of Barbarous men to decide the better right to reigne in the more powerfull armes . Quod si dicas , posse duos illos Principes &c. And if thou say ( saith Vasques ) that those two Princes may make iust warre on either side , for that both of them are led by a probable opinion , and thinke that the right to reigne belongeth to them , this is manifestly absurd &c. which he doth there , in his iudgement , most plainely conuince . Neuerthelesse , as you shall see beneath m m Sect. 13. nu. 2. I rely vpon a more assured , & lesse questionable ground , then this doctrine of Vasques ; for this question concerning Princes making warre vpon a probable title , which is meerely temporall , I will shew to be impertinent to our present controuersie , concerning the Popes authority to depose Princes .

3 Thirdly , albeit some few Diuines doe hould ( which Vasquez accounteth to be manifestly absurd and improbable ) that it is lawfull for Princes to make warre vpon a probable title , yet some of them expresly affirme , that those Princes , who contend about their probable title , are bound , before they can lawfully make war , Nouar in Sion . cap. 25 nu. 4. to chuse and admit Arbitrary Iudges to decide the controuersie , for that there is no other peaceable way ( they being both supreme Iudges , nor the one subiect to the other , or to any other superiour Iudge in temporals ) to end it but by arbitrement : which if any of those Princes refuse to admit , then the other Prince ( say these Diuines ) may make warre , but not in regard onely of his probable title , but for doing wrong in not 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 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 your argument : First therefore I haue shewed aboue , that according to the doctrine of Vasquez ( which he thinketh to be certaine , and the contrarie improbable , absurd , and pernitious ) no Prince can lawfully in regard only of the probabilitie of his title , make warre against an other Prince , who , besides a probable title , hath also possession .

2 But secondly ( because I will not meddle with this question concerning Princes making warre vpon probable titles , which are meerely temporal , for that it is impertinent to our controuersie concerning the Popes authoritie to depose princes ) you may obserue a great disparitie betwixt the titles or rights , which temporall Princes doe commonly pretend to the kingdomes which other Princes possesse , and the right or title , which any Prince can pretend , by vertue of the Popes sentence of depriuation to the kingdom of an other Prince . For the first titles or rights are for the most part meerely temporall titles , nor grounded vpon any spirituall authoritie , and therefore they are not subiect to the determination of a Generall Councell , or to the decision of the Spirituall authoritie of the Church , which , by the institution of Christ , hath infallible assistance to determine and decide only Spirituall , and not meere temporall causes : But the second right is grounded vpon the Popes pretended authority to depriue Princes of their temporall rights , which authoritie ( if there be any such as I am fully perswaded there is not ) it being a Spiritual matter , and depending chiefly vpon the institution of Christ , deliuered to vs in the Word of God , is to be decided , when it is called in question among learned Catholikes , by Spirituall and not temporall authority , and therefore it is subiect to the determination and decision of a Generall Councell , which , without all controuersie among Catholikes , is an infallible meanes , to know certainly , what authoritie Christ hath giuen to the Pope or Church .

3 And if you had duly obserued this disparitie betwixt temporall and spirituall titles , you might easily haue perceiued the weakenesse of your obiection . For it is too too manifest , that all Princes are bound to search out , by all possible & conuenient meanes , the truth , or falshood of the rights , which they with probabilitie pretend to the Kingdome , which an other Prince possesseth with a probable title before they can iustly make warre against him , in regard onely of their probable title ; and if there be any assured and peaceable way to finde out the truth , they are bound to try the same , before they can , by warre or violence , dispossess any Prince , who hath a probable title to his Crown : because according to the doctrine of all Diuines , no Prince can lawfully make warre ( wherein the blood of so many innocent men is by all probable coniectures likely to be shed ) to try an vncertaine title , if the certainty of his title , may be cleerely knowne and decided , by any other assured & vndoubtted peaceable way . Seeing therefore , that Christ hath left in his Church an assured and infallible way , and which all Catholikes acknowledge to be infallible , to finde out the truth and certaintie concerning the titles , which are grounded vpon the Popes pretended authoritie to depriue Princes , to wit , the determination and decision of a lawfull and vndoubted generall Councell , it is euident , that both the Pope and Catholike Princes , are bound by this infallible and peaceable way to find out the truth of such pretended titles , before they can iustly make war , to dispossesse any Prince of his probable right , by vertue of the Popes vncertaine authoritie to depriue Princes of their temporall Kingdomes .

4 Wherfore this consequence of yours is not good , although the antecedent proposition were supposed ( as it is not ) to be true .

Temporall Princes may make warre vpon probable titles , which are meerely temporall :

Therefore the Pope and temporall Princes may make warre vpon probable titles , which are grounded chiefly vpon a probable spirituall authority . Because there is no authoritie on earth to decide infallibly the differences betwixt two absolute Princes in meere temporall affaires , wherein they are subiect to God alone , neither are there now any Prophets , as there were in the Ould Law , to declare vndoubtedly the truth , and will of God : And if there were now any such infallible way , Princes were bound to try the same , before they could lawfully make war , onely vpon a probable title , against a Prince , who hath both a probable title and also possession . But Christ hath left in his Church an vndoubted infallible way , to wit , the authoritie of an vndoubted Oecumenicall Councell , to determine and decide infallibly , what authoritie belongeth to the Pope or Church , & consequently to determine infallibly all doubtfull and controuersed rights or titles depending thereon . Neither is it to the purpose , whether a Generall Councell , not including the Pope , be Superiour , and aboue the Pope or no ; for neither doe I speake here of a Generall Councell in this sense , as it excludeth the Pope . but as it includeth all the Prelates of the Church , and doth perfectly represent the whole body of that Church , which is without all controuersie the pillar and firmament of truth : and moreouer it is most certaine , that the Pope is no less subiect , and bound to submit him selfe to the definitions of faith ex Cathedra of such a Generall Councell , to which Christ hath promised the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost , then any inferiour Christian whatsoeuer . And so likewise , if Christ had promised the like infallibilitie to Arbitrarie Iudges for the deciding of meere temporal causes , which he hath promised to a generall Councell for the deciding of spiritual , there is no doubt but that temporall Princes were bound to submit themselues to the iudgment of Arbitratours , before they could lawfully make warre vpon any doubtfull or controuersed title , be it neuer so probable , against any Prince , who hath not only a probable title , but also possession .

5 Finally , because you stand so much vpon the lawfulness of making warre vpon a probable title against a Prince , who hath both a probable title and also possession , consider diligently ( which the Authour of the New-yeres gift o o chap. 6 nu. 12. recommended to English Catholikes ) whether if the French King ( for example ) or any other forrein Prince , should vpon a meere temporall probable title to those Dominions , which our Kings Maiestie possesseth , make warre against him , it be not manifest , that his Maiestie may lawfully , and all his subiects are bound to defend his Royall Person and Dominions against such inuasions , and whether those his Maiesties subiects , who concurre with any forrein Prince to inuade in that case his Maiestie , and the Dominions which he possesseth , may lawfully be put to death , as Traytours , and consequently , whether it be not euident , that we may lawfully detest , abhorre , and abiure that doctrine , as manifestly false and indirectly , or by a necessarie consequence repugnant to those words of our Sauiour , Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars , which houldeth , that they are not Traytours , nor can iustly be put to death , but 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 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 obligation should not depend on the ground , or Law , which they declare , or define , but on the assistance of the Holy Ghost , promised to the Pope and Church , when they shall declare , or define any thing ex Cathedra , for the whole Church to be lawfull , or vnlawfull ( which declaration is indeed , and in effect a definition ) in my conceit that declaration must binde for the assistance of the holy Ghost , whatsoeuer the ground therof bee a formall Law , or but onely an opinion : and so if the Pope haue the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in his definitions and declarations ex Cathedra ( as in Suarez opinion he hath , though in yours not , and that also probably ) and intended in his Breues to declare to the whole Church ex Cathedra , that the Oath is vnlawfull , I see not why it should not so bee thought and taken , whether the ground of such declaration was his only opinion , or no. And so wee see , that if the whole Church should in a Councell declare any thing to bee lawfull , or vnlawfull , which before was in doubt ( as is now of this Oath ) when wee all agree , that she hath the assistance of the Holy Ghost in her generall decrees , as well as in her definitions , wee ought to to take it for such , whether the ground of her declaration be certaine , or onely but probable . The same ( I would think ) should bee thought of the declaratiue Breues of Popes , at the least in the opinion of those , who maintaine , that the Pope cannot erre no more without a Councell , then with it : For if the declaration of any such thing to be lawfull , or vnlawfull should binde vs no more , then the ground of that declaration , whether it were a formall Law , or but onely an opinion , such declaration were but idle , and should not afford that certaintie and satisfaction , which at the Church is required in time of doubt . I know you answer this difficulty about the Popes Breues sufficiently , in saying , that the Pope may erre in declaring , or defining without a Generall Councell , and that there was no such Councell , when these Breues were set forth ; but this difficultie I finde about your doctrine , and much more about the doctrine of Suarez , of Declaratiue Breues , because you stand not vpon that answer onely .

Answer .

1. BVt first , it is manifest in my iudgement , that in all declaratiue precepts , especially belonging to manners , or of things to bee done , or omitted ( for onely of these precepts , & not of definitions , declarations , or precepts of faith , or of things to bee beleeued , Suarez speaketh ) the obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the fundamentall ground , reason , & end of the precept : and that therein also is implyed the intention and will of the Law-maker ( which is the soule and life of the Law ) who intendeth onely to binde by his declaratiue precept , for as much onely as the thing he commandeth , or forbiddeth , is of it owne nature necessarie , or repugnant to some former Law of God , Nature , or some other positiue Law , which the declaratiue precept doth declare and suppose : And therefore ( as Suarez well obserueth ) a pure declaratiue precept doth not make the thing , which it forbiddeth , to be vnlawfull , but only supposeth and declareth it to bee vnlawfull , as forbidden by some former Law . Whereupon it followeth , that if it bee but a probable opinion , that there is such a former Law , the declaratiue precept can binde no more , then the probabilitie of the opinion ( which is the fundamentall ground and reason of the precept ) hath force to bind .

2. Neither doth your obiection impugne this manifest doctrine . For , although in such generall precepts , wherein the Church cannot erre , to wit , when shee commadeth the whole Church something , which is necessary to saluation , the certainty and obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost , yet this doth not hinder , but that it must also depend vpon the substantiall ground , reason , and end , for which the Law was made . But this onely at the most is proued by your obiection , that because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to the precept , it must consequently bee annexed to all those things , whereon the precept doth necessarily depend : But to affirme therefore , that the precept doth depend on nothing else , then vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost , were ridiculous .

3. As also due diligence and examining of the cause is , according to the doctrine of all Diuines , necessarily required in a Generall Councell , to define infallibly any doctrine of faith : And because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to her definition , it must consequently be also annexed to all that , whereon her infallible definition doth necessarily depend . And thereupon the Diuines affirme , that if it be certaine , that the Church did not erre in her definition , it is also certain , that she vsed due diligence , and all other necessary conditions , which by the institution of Christ are required to an infallible definition : But to affirme , that because the infallibilitie of her definition dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost , therefore neither due diligence , nor examination of the cause , nor any other thing is necessarily required to her infallible definition , were absurd & ridiculous .

4. Wherefore you must distinguish betwixt fundamentall , intrinsecall , and necessary reasons , or grounds , and Extrinsecall , or accidental , as M. Widdrington hath often affirmed from the doctrine of Bellarm: & Canus , to which also all other Diuines doe agree : for these last may be false , and yet the definition true . As in the second Councell of Nice it was declared , that Angels might bee painted , because they haue bodies , the declaration was true , although this reason , being extrinsecall , and accidentall , was false . But if shee had declared , that it is lawfull to paint Angels , because it is not repugnant to faith , or good manners , which is a fundamentall ground , and reason of that declaration , the declaration can not be true , if that fundamentall reason and ground be supposed to be false . And thus much concerning the doctrine of Suarez in generall .

5 And therefore secondly , to apply it to the Popes Breues , if it were certaine , that the Pope , in making his declaratiue prohibition of the Oath , had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost , Mr. Widdrington would not sticke to affirme , that as the prohibition is infallible , so consequenly the fundamentall reason and ground , for which the Oath is by the Popes Breues forbidden , is also infallible : and that therefore some thing is in the Oath repugnant to faith or saluation , which is the fundamentall ground , reason , and end of the Popes forbidding the Oath : for if there were nothing in the Oath against faith or saluation , the Pope could not forbid it with such iniurie to his Maiestie , and so great damage to English Catholikes .

6 But thirdly , this obiection of yours ▪ concerning the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost , promised to the Church for the making of general precepts ex Cathedra either touching faith or manners , doth not sufficiently confirme the infallibilitie of the Popes Breues forbidding English Catholikes to take the Oath : for that Mr. Widdrington q q in his Theologicall Disputation cap. 10. sect. 2. hath clearely proued , that the Pope both might erre in the aforesaid Breues , not onely because they were made without a generall Councell ( which neuerthelesse , as you very well grant , were sufficient to proue , that he might erre therein ) but also because they are not generall precepts , and belonging to the whole Church , but containe only a particular precept directed to one particular nation ( and therefore they are well called by Endaemon Ioannes r r in Praefat. paraleli torti . the Popes priuate letters to English Catholikes admonishing them not to take the Oath ) wherin not onely the Pope but also a generall Councell may erre ( as Mr. Widdrington obserueth out of the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine , and Canus ) ; Bell. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. ca. 2. Canus lib. 1 5. de locis c. 5. q. 4. And also that the Pope did erre in those Breues vpon false informations and suppositions , to wit , for that he supposed his Primacie in spirituals , his power to bind and lose , to excommunicate and inflict Censures to bee denyed in the Oath , which is manifestly false , & that his power to depose Princes is most certaine and of faith , and not questioned among Catholikes , which is no lesse vntrue , is sufficiently conuinced by him in his Theological Disputation r r in the place aboue c●te● . and in his answere to Mr. Fitzherbert s s part. 3.6.17 .

Sect. 16. Obiection .

A Fourth difficultie I find ( say you ) about the swearing , that this Oath is ministred vnto me by lawfull authoritie : Whereupon it followeth , we may vse no equiuocation in taking of the same , for that none can equiuocate in an Oath , that is exacted by lawfull authoritie : For if it were certaine , that no thing is exacted by this Oath , but temporall allegiance , then wee might not onely sweare , but were also bound to sweare , that such Oath were ministred by lawfull authoritie : But when it is questionable and vncertain , whether the Pope hath power to depose Princes or no , and consequently , whether the Prince exacting such an Oath of his Subiects , should cause them wrong the Pope and Church , and make them sweare a thing vncertaine , and with the hurt of their consciences , not being able many of them to conforme themselues to those conceipts you frame of the Oath , though they were true , for that they can perceiue no solid ground therfore , I see not how we may sweare , that this Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie .

Answere .

1 BVt first it is not true , that we must sweare , that this Oath is ministred vnto vs by lawfull authoritie , but only that we must acknowledge so much , of which our acknowledgment , which is the immediate obiect of the Oath , we must be assured to excuse vs from periurie .

2 Secondly , it is very true , that we must not equiuocate in this Oath ; and this is not only deduced from the lawfull ministring of the same ( although this bee sufficient to proue , that wee must not equiuocate therein ) but it is also deduced from the Seuenth branch wherein it is expresly ordained , that me must vse no equiuocation .

3 Thirdly , the lawfulnes , or vnlawfulnesse of this Branch dependeth wholy vpon the former Clauses : for if none of the former Clauses containe a denyall of any spirituall obedience due to the Pope or Church , nor be repugnant to truth , or iustice , it is manifest , that they are ministred by lawfull authoritie . And therefore you must first proue , that some one of the former clauses is repugnant to truth or iustice , before you can impugne the Oath as not ministred by lawfull authoritie . Whereupon you return backe to that which you aboue obiected against the second Branch , to wit , the Popes power to depose Princes , which ( say you ) is vncertaine and questionable &c. But , as I answered there , it is certain to me ( neither can any man of learning that wel examineth the question , otherwise in my iudgement conceiue ) that the Pope hath no true , reall , lawfull power and authoritie , and which may be a sufficient ground to depose Princes , or to practise their deposition , but only an imaginarie power , in the conceit onely and approbation of some men , which neuerthelesse is no true , reall , lawfull and sufficient power to punish any Prince by depriuing him of the Dominions which he possesseth . And consequently the Kings Maiestie in causing his subiects to acknowledge and swear , that the Pope hath no true , reall , lawful authority , and which may be a sufficient ground to depose him ( thereby to be the better secured from all inuasions vnder pretence of Religion , and to discouer his loyall and constant subiects from those who maintaine the principles of the Powder-Traytours ) doth neither wrong the Pope , nor Church , nor cause his subiects to wrong them , or their consciences , but seeketh to preserue his owne right and Dominions which he really possesseth , from all inuasions and Powder-Treasons , vnder colour of any probable , or imaginary power or title , which is grounded vpon an vncertaine and controuersed spirituall authority . But contrariwise the Pope in forbidding this Oath , which cannot sufficiently be proued to be vnlawfull , doth wrong himselfe , the Church , his Maiestie , and this whole kingdome : And those English Catholikes , that bend their wits to find out scruples , or rather cauills against the Oath , and to wrest the words to the worst sense that may be , whereas they may expound them in a fauourable sense , doe wrong the Pope , the Church , his Maiestie , themselues , and all their Catholike brethren .

4. But many ( say you ) are not able to conforme themselues to those conceipts Widdrington frameth of the Oath , though they were true , for that they cannot perceiue any solid ground therefore .

But First , if they be learned , they may easily conforme themselues to Widdringtons explication of the Oath , if they will diligently , and without partialitie examine the soliditie of his proofes , and cousider , that his proofes and answeres are grounded , not only vpon his own conceipt , but vpon manifest reason , his Maiesties declaration , the doctrine and authoritie of most learned Diuines , and which is more , euen of those , who be his chiefest Aduersaries in this point : and if withall they will remember ( as M. Widdrington hath heretofore h h In the Epistle Dedicatorie of his Theologicall Dispotation . obserued ) that no other solid ground , or proofe is sufficient to confute the Oath , but euident demonstrations , but to proue the Oath to be lawfull , and that it may be lawfully taken , it is a very sufficient and solid ground , to answer probably to all the arguments , which are brought against the same : which whether he hath performed , or no , and what kinde of demonstrations , or rather most weake arguments , the impugners of the Oath haue brought , ( seeing that few of them can scarse agree in any one conceipt ) I dare remit euen to your owne iudgement .

5. Secondly , if they be altogither so vnlearned , that neither by their owne reading , nor naturall iudgment , they are able to examine the soliditie of the grounds of this controuersie , they must be guided , instructed , and directed by the learned , who if through ignorance , negligence , want of due examination , inconsiderate zeale , or partialitie either towards Popes , or Princes , they direct them amisse , the chiefest fault is in the Direrectors , and Instructors , for which they are greatly to answer at the day of iudgement : and how farre these ignorant men , being guided and instructed amisse , are to be excused in conscience , and before the sight of God , I will not iudge , but leaue it to his iudgement , who is the searcher of all mens hearts . This onely I wish them to remember , that temporall Princes doe not in their Tribunalls meddle with their consciences , but onely with their externall actions , for which they may sometimes be iustly punished by the externall Magistrate , although their conscience be neuer so cleare in the sight of God .

6. Thirdly , if some either can not , or can , but will not conforme themselues to Wiiddringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath , to which neuerthelesse others both can , and doe conforme themselues , will you therefore inferre from hence , that the Oath is of it selfe vnlawfull , or not ministred to them by lawfull authoritie ? Call to mind , how aboue in your exceptions against the second Branch you affirmed without any proofe at all , that to deny the practise of the Popes authoritie to depose , is not to deny the power and authoritie it selfe ; and yet now from the deniall of the practise of the lawful authoritie to minister the Oath to some , who can not conforme themselues to Widdringtons conceipts , and explication of the Oath , you would inferre , also without any proofe , a deniall of the authority it selfe to minister lawfully the Oath to them . But the plaine truth is , as I obserued there , that a deniall of all effects , and practises of any power or authoritie is a vertuall deniall of the power and authoritie it selfe , but a deniall of some particular effects & practises is not a sufficient , or vertuall deniall of the authoritie it selfe . And therefore although we should grant , as we doe not , that the State can not lawfully , or without sinne , minister this Oath to those who cannot conforme themselues to Widdringtons conceipts and explication of the Oath , to which neuerthelesse other Catholickes both can , and doe conforme themselues , yet it can not be inferred from hence , that the Oath is not ministred to them 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 .

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 u Cap. 8. and declared more at large by M. Widdrington in his Theologicall Disputation . x 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 contrary doctrin hath bin in France by many publike Edicts of Roman . Catholikes , condemned 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.