the Tridentine Fathers but also quite contrary to those Doctrines and Practises which are manifestly recommended in the letter sense and whole design of the Gospel of Christ in the writings of his blessed Apostles in the Commentaries of their holy Successors in the belief and life of the Christian Church universally for the first Ten Ages thereof and moreover in the very clearest dictates of Nature it self whether Christianity be supposed or not IV. That of those quite other and quite contrary Doctrines in the most general terms without descending to particular applications of them to any one Kingdom or People c the grand Positions are as followeth viz. That by divine right and immediate institution of Christ the Bishop of Rome is Vniversal Monarch and Governour of the World even with sovereign independent both spiritual and temporal authority over all Churches Nations Empires Kingdoms States Principalities and over all persons Emperours Kings Princes Prelates Governours Priests and People both Orthodox and Heterodox Christian and Infidel and in all things and causes whatsoever as well Temporal and Civil as Ecclesiastical or Spiritual That He hath the absolute power of both Swords given Him That He is the Fountain of all Jurisdiction of either kind on Earth and that whoever derives not from Him hath none at all not even any the least Civil or Temporal Jurisdiction That He is the onely Supreme Judge of all Persons and Powers even collectively taken and in all manner of things divine and humane That all humane Creatures are bound under forfeiture of Eternal Salvation to be subject to Him i. e. to both His Swords That He is empowred with lawful Authority not only to Excommunicate but to deprive depose and dethrone both sententially and effectually all Princes Kings and Emperours to translate their Royal Rights and dispose of their Kingdoms to others when and how He shall think fit especially in case either of Apostasie or Heresie or Schism or breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or any publick oppression of the Church or People in their respective civil or religious Rights or even in case of any other enormous publick Sins nay in case of only unfitness to govern That to this purpose He hath full Authority and Plenitude of Apostolical Power to dispense with Subjects in and absolve them from all Oaths of Allegiance and from the antecedent tyes also of the Laws of God or man and to set them at full liberty nay to command them under Excommunication and what other Penalties He please to raise Arms against their so deposed or so excommunicated or otherwise ill-meriting Princes and to pursue them with Fire and Sword to death if they resist or continue their administration or their claim thereunto against His will That He hath likewise power to dispense not only in all Vows whatsoever made either immediately or mediately to God himself nor only as hath been now said in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to the King but in all other Oaths or Promises under Oath made even to any other man whatsoever the subject or thing sworn be That besides Oaths and Vows He can dispense in other matters also even against the Apostles against the Old Testament against the Four Evangelists and consequently against the Law of God That whoever kills any Prince deposed or excommunicated by Him or by others deriving power from Him kills not a lawful Prince but an usurping Tyrant a Tyrant at least by Title if not by Administration too and therefore cannot be said to murther the Anointed of God or even to kill his own Prince That whosoever out of pure zeal to the Roman-Church ventures himself and dyes in a War against such a Tyrant i.e. against such a deposed or excommunicated Prince dyes a true Martyr of Christ and his Soul flies to Heaven immediately That His Holiness may give and doth well to give plenary Indulgence of all their sins a culpa poena to all Subjects rebelling and fighting against their Princes when He approves of the War That antecedently to any special Judgment Declaration or declaratory Sentence pronounced by the Pope or any other subordinate Judge against any particular person Heresie does ipso jure both incapacitate to and deprive of the Crown and all other not only royal but real and personal Rights whatsoever That an Heretick possessor is a manifest Vsurper and a Tyrant also if the possession be a Kingdom State or Principality and therefore is ipso jure out-law'd and that all his People i. e. all his otherwise reputed Vassals Tenants or Subjects are likewise ipso jure absolved from all Oaths and all other tyes whatsoever of fidelity or obedience to him That he is truly and certainly and properly an Heretick who misbelieves calls in question or even doubts of any one definition of the Tridentine Council or of any one that is of meer Papal Constitution or of any one of those Articles profess'd in Pius Quartus 's Creed That not only the Pope but any Patriarch nay any inferiour Bishop acknowledging His Holiness may if need be both excommunicate and depose their own respective Princes Kings or Emperours and may also without their leave or knowledge reverse the Decrees of their Vice-Roys or Lieutenants and even censure depose from and restore again such Lieutenants to their former dignity and charge That all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever both Men and Women Secular and Regular Patriarchs Primaâ—s Archbishops Bishops Abbots Abbesses Priests Fryars Monks Nuâ—s to the very Porter or Portress of a Cloyster inclusively nay to the very Scullion of the Kitchin and all their Churches Houses Lands Revenues Goods and much more all their persons are exempt by the Law of Nature and Laws of Nations and those of God in Holy Scripture both Old and New Testament and those of men i. e. of Christian Emperours Councils and Popes in their respective Institutions and Canons and are indeed universally perpetually and irrevocably so exempt from all secular civil and temporal Authority on Earth whether of States or of Princes of Kings or of Emperours and from all their Laws and all their Commands that is from both the directive and coercive virtue of either or which is the same thing in effect from sin against God and from punishment by God or man for only transgressing them That consequently if any Church-man should murder his lawful and rightful King blow up the Parliament fire burn and lay waste all the Kingdom yet he could not be therefore guilty of Treason or truly called a Traytor against the King or against the Kingdom or People or Laws thereof no nor could justly be punish'd at all by the secular Magistrate or Laws of the Land without special permission from the Pope or those deriving Authority from Him That nevertheless all Clergy-men regular and secular in the World from the meanest either Accolits or Converts to the highest Generals of Orders and greatest Patriarchs of Nations inclusively may be out of all Kingdoms and even contrary to
of God be wanting in any reverence duty or obedience which by Vow or Rule or Canon or Reason I do or may according to the Faith or Doctrine of the Universal Church owe either to the most Holy Father the Bishop of Old Rome or to any other Bishops or to any other Prelates or Superiours in their respective places whether Secular or Regular because doing otherwise I could not but condemn my self of using evil means to attain or drive at lawful ends and consequently of being as bad an Interpreter of that saying of our Lord in St. Matthew (a) Matth. 6.22 Si oculus tuus fuerit simplex totum corpus tuum lucidum erit as any of the late extrinsick Probablists are Whereunto also is consequent That I never at any time hitherto intended nor shall I hope through the same grace of God for the future willingly or wittingly intend either in my Writings Actions or Designs any thing against the Divine Authority of the Catholick Church or even against the venerable either Majesty or Primacy or even Power Authority and Jurisdiction of the First of Bishops or First of Apostolical Sees the Roman I mean not altogether so far as a number of Popes speaking in their own cause or a company of Schoolmen prepossessed by them or frighted or hired or misled through corruption and ignorance of the later times have asserted the former in their Canons and the other in their speculative Writings but as far as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath believed or taught how great soever or whatsoever that Patriarchical or Jurisdictional power be which she believes or acknowledges to be in the Roman Archbishop either from divine Title or humane onely nay which but the National Churches hard by us though composing her but in part the Spanish and the Sicilian the French and German the Venetian and the Polish notwithstanding they be of strict communion with the Pope do universally or unanimously believe For I think it too hard a task for any private man much more for me to know better what hath been delivered in all former Ages or is believed in this present as an Article or Doctrine of undoubted Faith divine by the Universal Church of Christ on earth than may be learned from the unanimous consent of those very National Churches of Europe alone agreeing together upon any Article as undoubtedly such Other humane Laws indeed or Canons or Customs they may agree in that oblige not other Catholicks of their communion in other Kingdoms or Nations but where and as much as they are received and not abolished again or antiquated either by a Municipal Law or National Canon or even by general Custom prescribing against the former The Sixth and last Appendix relating likewise generally to the former Questions That as notwithstanding my Appeal to your judgment of discretion I never intended to exempt or withdraw my self i. e. my person from the Authoritative or binding sentence of Canonical Delegates if my Adversaries continue their prosecution and His Holiness may be induced to grant me such Delegates as He is certainly bound to do or at least to acquit me and rescind all the illegal proceedings hitherto of his subordinate Ministers and Officials against me so neither do I decline their judgment of my Writings Nay on the contrary my resolution hath alwayes been and I hope shall evermore be which I do now the second or third time declare in Print under my own hand or name to submit with full and perfect resignation every word in my several Books even to the Authoritative judgment not only of the Catholick Church the House (b) 2 Tim. 3. of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth or which is the same thing of its lawful Representative an Oecumenical Synod truly such that highest Tribunal on earth in matters of Divine Faith and Holy Discipline nor only of a free Occidental Council of the Latin Church alone but even of any other Judges whatsoever many or few or even so few as two or three that shall in the interim of such a Council be delegated by His Holiness or any other that hath a lawful Church-power to require obedience from me in such cases provided those other Judges Delegate be competent i. e. indifferent or above all those exceptions which the Canons of the Catholick Church allow To the Authoritative sentence even of any such Delegates I will and do submit both my Person and my Writings in this sense that if I cannot conform my own inward opinions reason or belief to theirs yet I will abide whatever punishment they shall therefore inflict upon me and patiently undergo it until absolv'd from it or dispens'd with by a higher or at least equal power But to that of such an Oecumenical Synod or even such an Occidental onely as before I shall moreover God willing as I do at this very present for all future times most heartily conform all the most inward dictates of my Soul for what concerns any matter of pure Christian Faith and shall throughly acquiesce in their determination whatever may be in the mean time disputed by others or even my self of the absolute Fallibility as to us of the very most General Representatives or most Oecumenical Councils themselve before their Decrees be at least virtually or tacitely received by the Represented or Diffusive Church without publick opposition to them from any considerable part of the said Church Besides for what concerns not the binding power of publick Tribunals but the discerning of every private Conscience I shall and do most readily submit even every word also in my Writings not only to your â—ensure but to that of all such learned men of whatsoever Nation or Religion as diligently and sincerely seek aâ—ter Truth And God forbid I should be otherwise disposed or that I who believe and maintain the Pope himself not to be Infallible not even in His definitions of Faith if made by Him without the concurrence either of the Catholick Church diffusive or of its lawful Representative a General Council truly such wherein He is but the First or Chief Bishop onely should think my self not Fallible or not subject to Errour Yet I hope and am sufficiently assured that in any material point either of Doctrine or Practice relating to the publick Controversie in hand I have not hitherto fallen into Errour After all this submission it must not seem strange if I except as I do plainly in this Cause both against the Authoritative and Discretive Judgment of all the Roman Ministers Cardinals Consistories Congregations Courtiers and all their Clients whatsoever And yet it is not their Fallibility but their Partiality their extreme blindness or wilfulness or both in their own Cause and for maintaining their own worldly Interest and consequently it is their actual Errour yea and actual prejudgment too of the Cause without so much as giving any reason nay without so much as hearing once the Parties concern'd
Pontifice suo ad judicia publica pertrahant Proinde statuimus ut hoc de caetero non praesumatur Si quis hoc praesumpserit facere causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus Out of both these Councils that is out of that eight canon of that first Matisconensian Council and this 13. canon of the third Toletan our learned Cardinal endeavours again to impose on his unlearned Readers But not so much in his great work of controversies l. 1. de Cler. c. 28. where he onely or at least commonly cited the bare chapters and not as much as the material words of Councils so farre he was from composing arguments but in that other book he writ long after against D. W. Barclay and in defence of his foresaid Controversies and particularly of what he taught therein or in his often quoted first book de Cleric c. 28. It is therefore in this reply of his which he also entitles as Barclay did his own book against him De potestate Papae in Temporalibus and it is in the 24. chapter of it and after so many other arguments weak enough as I have already shewn them to be framed and replyes made against William Barclay on pretence of those other councils and in behalf of his own allegation of them it is I say in this little and last beloved piece of his old age he argues thus interrogatively or Socratically out of both these last Councils Si Laici Magistratus c. If sayes he Lay Magistrats were legal Judges of Clergiemen by what right law or title could the above Matisconensian Council decree that all causes of clerks should be determined in the presence of the Bishop or Presbiter or Archdeacon And how could this Toletan Council also with so great asperity of words tearm it praesumption and unlawful attempts in Clergiemen to have recourse to secular Iudicatories And how lastly would this same Council dare to rescind or annull the sentence of the secular Judg and besides to excommunicate the Clerk that procured such sentence or sued any other Clerk in a secular Court or Iudicatory For so much do these words import Causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus let him loose his cause and be made a stranger to communion But the answer is facile enough and clear 1. That neither of both Councils or canons determins any thing against the secular Judge himself or against his having still a power of Iurisdiction to judg the causes of Clerks when called or come before him but onely prohibits Clerks themselves to have recourse of themselves or freely of themselves to sue one an other in secular Courts as hath been said before to the canon of Carthage And for prohibiting such voluntary recourse of Clerks that these Fathers of Matiscon and Toledo had respectively the same rights or authority which those of Carthage or even those of Chalcedon had even that very same which St. Paul had when he either commanded or advised his Corinthians not to sue one an other before Heathen judges c. And therefore that these Councils do rather confirm then any way infirm the jurisdiction at that time yet of lay Judges 2. That Bellarmine is much out of the way in thinking if ever he thought so indeed that by these words causam perdat the Fathers of Toledo rescind or annul the sentence of the secular judg by their own proper Episcopal or spiritual authority For and for what belong'd and was necessary to such rescission or annullation strictly taken the Fathers in making this canon as likewise in making any other such or that would or should require a politick civil power properly such in the canon-makers derived their authority from King Recaredus himself at whose command this third Council of Toledo was called and therefore sate in it himself and made the first speech to open it and several speeches after and finally confirmed it with his own subscription in these words Flavius Recaredus Rex hanc deliberationem quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo confirmans subscripsi Having also before his said subscription premised this declaration or admonition to all concern'd Praecedente autem diligenti cauta deliberatione sive quae ad fidem conveniunt sue quae ad morum correctionem respiciunt sensus maruritate intelligentiae gravitate constant esse digesta Nostra proinde authoritas hoc omnibus hominibus ad regnum nostrum pertinentibus jubet ut si qua definita sunt in hoc Concilio acto in urbe Toletana anno Regni nostri faeliciter quarto nulli contemnere liceat nullus praeterire praesumat For so it hath been usual that where the civil and Ecclesiastical power agree well together in making laws each or both do make such use of one an others authority that as to the words the Church sometimes doth seem to speak as having civil jurisdiction and the Politick or secular civil power also to make such laws as are of Ecclesiastical Notion Neither indeed doing so or seeming so by vertue of its own proper innate authority but by that borrowed from the other or as being certain of the others approbation and ratihabition Which was the cause that Recaredus the foresaid King of Spain though a meer layman ordained in his confirmation of this Toletan Council in his own name too that if any person Concilii observator esse noluerit superba fronte majorum statutis repugnans si Episcopus Praesbiter Diaconus aut Clericus fuerit ab omni Concilio excommunicationi subjaceat What is the power of excommunication in a lay Kings hands Or did Recaredus the very first Catholick King after those Arian Gothish Kings of Spain a King so truly Catholick and pious as he is confessed to have been did he usurp the rights and proper powers of the Church and even in that very Edict unto which the Fathers of this Toletan Council did themselves subscribe themselves Nothing less What he did in this respect or by such words was by consent of the Fathers nor in so much did he assume peradventure as much the person of a law maker as of a publisher of that law which in this particular of excommunication was onely made by the Fathers Though withal I confess that a secular Prince may by his own proper supream and even still meer civil power make a law commanding or enjoyning the Bishops to excommunicate in certain cases and a law besides ordaining some temporal punishment for such as without any just cause or against the known canons of the Church should excommunicate For to say so we are not onely warranted by natural reason or consideration of the proper office of the supream civil Magistrate which consists in taking care that all degrees either civil or Ecclesiastical under his charge do justly and religiously discharge themselves but also by the canon De illicita 24. q. 3. taken out of a Paris Council where the Fathers speak thus De illicita excommunicatione Lex
purpose Nothing but against oppressive taxes contrary to law and former customs and taxes too imposed by the Consuls only and Rectors of particular Cities Nothing in specie against even any such oppressive taxe tallies exactions collections laid or made by an absolute order law or constitution of the supream civil power or of Kings Emperours States who certainly are not understood by the names of Consuls and Rectors of Cities And however this of taxes of Clerks be nothing at all for the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the supream civil power in all other civil and criminal causes whatsoever which only is it we dispute of here Nothing besides but what was convenient for the Government of the people within the Popes own temporal Patrimony for which only the additions of Gregory were unless it pleased other Countreys and of themselves to receive his said additions Finally nothing but what the Pope Innocent might as justly have decreed in case he believed certainly that Clerks had their exemption whatever it be from the sole civil power as if he had believed they had it only from the Church or from himself or some other of his Predecessors in the See of Rome 3. For although cap. Ecclesia sanctae Mariae de constitutionibus be a meer papal constitution of Innocent the Third only and hath indeed an expression which imports some such thing as the exemption of Churches and of the persons too of Churchmen from the power of Laicks yet forasmuch as this expression is not specifical or not in specie relating to or comprising the very supream lay power it self but so generical only as these words which are the words there concerning this matter Nos attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super Ecclesiis personis Ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa potestas and consequently forasmuch as these words may have a very true and rational sense notwithstanding the subjection still of the persons of Clerkes to the supream lay power because the civil laws or customs which prevailed at that time under Innocent the Third or which is the same thing because the Emperours themselves had given or permitted under themselves to the Church and Churchmen proper Ecclesiastical Judges for all their own both civil and criminal causes how ever still subordinat Judges in such causes to the Emperours and the same must be said of other Kings who had granted the like Ecclesiastical Judges and moreover forasmuch as this canon or chapter of Innocent is only a decision of a particular controversie in matter of a possession controverted betwixt a certain Church called here the Church of S. Mary and a certain Convent termed likewise in this canon the Convent of St. Sylvester which possession was adjudged by a certain lay judge called Senator against the said Convent without previous confession conviction or examination of the same Convent and those words above or meaning of them no part of that which was intended or decided by the Pope in this canon but assumed only and that also transiently as in part importing his reason or motive to remand that possession back to the said Convent and that we know the reasons motives or suppositions expressed in a sentence or canon are not therefore defined by the Pronouncer of the sentence or maker of the canon and further yet because those words neither distinguish nor determine by what authority or law that is whether by divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical authority or law it was so enacted that lay-men could have no power in the causes of Church-lands or Church-men and because too they say nothing at all of any Pope's having made such a law whether by a true or only pretended power as did incapacitat all kind of Laicks even the very supream civil Magistrate himself or indeed as much as the very subordinate inferiour lay Judges from having any judicial authority over Churchmen finally because those words of themselves take away no such authority from Laicks but only at most signifie the not being of such authority attributed to Laicks whatever those Laicks were and by what means soever it came to pass not to be attributed to them therefore it is plain enough this canon Ecclesia sanctae Mariae is to no purpose alledged for Bellarmin's voluit that is for the matter of Fact of any Pope's having done so or having exempted so by his own Power all Clerks from the jurisdiction of even supream lay Princes or even of having declared them so exempted by the law of God himself 4. That albeit also cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto and cap. Clericis de Immunitate Ecclesiar be two meer Papal canons as made by the sole authority of Boniface the VIII and although it be confessed this Pope did challenge all the both spiritual temporal power on earth in Church and State to himself alone as likewise consequently to his Predecessours and Successours in the See of Rome which his extravagant Vnam sanctam De Majoritate obedientia and his other proceedings against a King of France besides the later of these two canons here quoted the said cap. Clericis can prove abundantly yet I dare confidently averre that neither of these canons of his however otherwise too too exorbitant at least the later of them comes home enough to prove that any Pope hath de facto by his own meer Papal authority exempted Clerks in all civil and criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of Lay Princes or hath de facto as much as declared or defined that Clerks have been so or are so exempted by the law of God in such causes from the said supream power of temporal Princes That for the former canon seculares de foro competenti the case is clear enough out of the very words and whole tenour of it Which being but short I give here altogether not omitting one word Seenlares judices qui licet ipsis nulla competat jurisdicto in hac parte personas Ecclesiasticas ad soluendum debita super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur litterae vel probationes aliae indueuntur damnabili praesumptione compellunt a temeritate hujusmodi per locorum Ordinarios censura Ecclesiastica decerninus compescendos where you see first there is not one word directly or indirectly of criminal causes but only of a civil in matter of debt Nor secondly any specifical comprehension no nor any comprehension at all of Kings States or Princes but onely of those inferiour persons whose peculiar office it is to be judge twixt party and party Nor thirdly is there any word here declaring by whose law or authority that is whether by that of the Pope or that of the Church c. it came to pass that these very inferiour Lay Judges have no jurisdiction in hac parte in a civil cause of debt challenged on a Clerk or declaring how it came to pass that the proceeding judgment or determination
other to be repugnant to a sincere profession of the Catholick Faith For the Censure of Lovaine sayes our Remonstrance contains somewhat repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Faith and consequently sayes too the Subscribers are bound under pain or guilt of sacriledge to refix their Subscriptions And shall further conclude not only out of these last XIII Sections treating particularly of Ecclesiastical Exemption nor only out of the LXI Section immediatly going before them all shewing that Remonstrance disclaims not quits not renounceth not nor as much as touches upon Ecclesiastical Exemption but also out of those other eight yet more precedent Sections from LIII to LX. both incusively taken which dispute against the three first grounds of the said Lovaine Censure I say that my LXXVI following Section shall further conclude finally and generally against this Censure of sacriledge and of containing any thing against the sincere profession of the Catholick Faith And then I will return immediatly to matter of Fact which I have so long interrupted by these intervening disputes and will in a few Sections more three or four at most end this first part which the necessity of relating such material disputes have made so prolix LXXII Therefore to begin and give in this present LXXII Section those my first three arguments to prove with much evidence as I have undertaken that no Clergiemen whatsoever living within the Dominions of any supream temporal Prince or State are exempt from but subject to the same Prince's or State 's supream civil coercive power in all meer civil temporal or politick matters and causes whatsoever My first of them is briefly formed thus Whatever natural and meer civil temporal jurisdiction or politick power authority or dominion was in any supream temporal Prince as for example in Constantine the Great over any Christians whatsoever Laicks or Clerks before he became Christian by baptisme in re vel in vâ—to or by a perfect entire submission to the laws of Christianity the same natural and meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority and dominion over all the same Christians Laicks and Clerks remained in him after he was so become Christian unless he did expresly and of his own accord devest himself of it and excepting the case wherein the law of Christ hath some formal or virtual caution or provision for the exemption of some of those Christians from that power if any such case be Behold the major of this my first argument Whereof yet the further proof is Quia lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo Because the law of Christ or true profession of Christianity deprives no man of his right or dominion nor consequently of his natural or of his meer temporal civil or politick jurisdiction power authority or dominion whatsoever at least unless in such case only or in relation to such persons only who are so exempted by special provision in this very law if any such case or persons be Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat calestia is in this point the profession of the Catholick Church as may be read in the sacred Hymne Hostes Herodes impie which is part of the publick divine Office of the same Church in the Breviary on the Feast of the Epiphany And Homo quis me constituit Iudicem aut divisorem super vos was the answer of the holy Iesus himself to the man that would have had him command one brother to share the inheritance with another Luke 12.24 And to Pilate also more clearly yet Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo Si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum ministri mei utique decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis nunc autem regnum meum non est-hinc Ioan. 18.36 And Nonne manens munebat tibi venumdatum in tua erat potestate was the argument of St. Peter to reprove Ananias for his lye and hypocrisie in seeming to have offered at the feet of the Apostles for the common stock the whole price for which he sold a piece of ground of his own Actor 5.4 Out of all which 't is manifest enough that even for what depends of Scripture we must admit this reason I gave for my proposition or this maxime and concession also of even Bellarmine himself and of others of his way Quia lex Christi neminem privat sure dominioque suo as I have expounded it in English and both modified determined the genetical notion of right to that which is meerly temporal and this temporal again with that particular exception But that quieting all advantage from those Scriptures right reason it self even supposing still all the uncontroverted or certain truths of Christian Religion concludes the necessity of admitting this maxime lex Christi nominem privat jure dominioque suo as I have given it I demand of the denyers or distinguishers of it otherwise First whether Christianity leaves any pure temporal right of any beleever untoucht or unaltered or unalterable in any case or whether it leaves the Subjects or the Kings property in any of their respective goods lands houses unchangable undiminishable without their own consent And being no Divine or Canonist in the world can be so impudent or so ignorant as to answer these queries negatively because it is as clear as the Sun that all both the essence and necessary appendages of Christianity that is of Christs Kingdom or law and all the blessings and rewards and also the very true proper genuine and only ends of it which are the grace of God in this life and the glory of God in the next acquired by poor mortals being purely spiritual have no inconsistency at all with the temporal civil or politick rights continuing and remaining still not only unchang'd but also unchangeable in the beleevers without their own free consent for changing or depriving themselves of such rights I demand secondly wherefore the law of Christ is said by any or how can it upon rational grounds be said by any Divine or Canonist not to alter change deprive or touch any one or moe sorts or kinds of temporal rights and yet to alter change or deprive or have the power to deprive the beleevers of some other sorts or kinds or even of any one such at all unless there be an express caution or provision in the very law it self of Christ that this particular civil right or property may be transferred from the former proprietours and no other but this And being it is evident enough this last querie cannot be answered but by confessing that there can be no rational ground for saying so and being that to this day neither Bellarmine nor any other could shew or produce any passage of the law of Christ wherein there is any such caution or provision that is to say any other but that only one in the case of a misbeleeving husband it is also evident enough that right reason it self without any help from
Scripture teacheth the truth of that maxime as I have taken it Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo For if there be a latitude or liberty once given to mince these temporal rights without an express or certain warrant in that law it self of Christ it must be consequent that according to the caprichiousness or wilfulness of any either ignorant or interessed person the beleevers may be deprived now of one and then of another and at last of all kinds of civil rights under pretext forsooth of their submitting all to the pleasure of the Church by their profession of Christianity being that without such express warrant caution or provision there can be no reason given why of one more then of another or even why of one more then of all Having thus laid and demonstrated my first proposition or major of this my first argument I assume this other proposition for my minor But there was a natural or meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority or dominion which amounted to a coercive power in all temporal causes in every supream temporal Prince for example in Constantine the Great over all Christians whatsoever Laicks or Clerks living within his or their dominions before he or they became Christian in re vel in voto or by a perfect entire submission to the laws of Christianity and there is no such formal or virtual caution or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks and after his or their such entire submission neither he nor they did expresly or tacitly and equivalently of their own accord devest themselves of or quit that power not even I mean in order to any Clerks whatsoever so living still within his or their dominions Ergo The same natural and meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority and dominion which amounts to a coercive power in all temporal causes over the same Christians whatsoever Laicks and Clerks living within his or their dominions remained in them and him after he or they were so become Christians The conclusion follows evidently the premisses being once admitted And of the premisses the minor only remains to be proved Which yet although having three parts into the first of Clerks to have been subject in politick matters to the supream coercive power of heathen Princes appears already and sufficiently demonstrated in my former Sections where I solved all the arguments of Bellarmine to the contrary from the laws divine either positive or natural and from the laws of Nations too and shall yet more positively and abundantly appear out of my very next immediatly following LXIII and LXIV Sections where by authorities of Scriptures and expositions of those very Scripture places by holy Fathers and by examples or practice according to such expositions I treat this matter and prove this first part of this Minor at large Nay and shall appear too most positively and abundantly out of my second and third arguments of reason either Theological or Natural either ad hominem or not ad hominem but abstracting from all concessions ab homine which follow in this very present Section And therefore to save my self the trouble of too much repetition I remit the Reader to those other Sections and arguments the rather that Bellarmine himself never scrupled in his first editions of his controversies nor ever until he saw himself in his old age beaten from all his other retreats by the writings of other Catholick Divines Canonists against him and consequently the rather that this matter of this first part of my foresaid Minor is now so little controverted that scarce any can be found of such impudence as to deny it notwithstanding Bellarmine's illgrounded chang◠or opposition in his old age whereof more presently And as to the second part of no such formal or virtual caution or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks the very self same Sections which demonstrate the first part do also this But for the third or last part of this Minor which was that after their conversion to Christianity Princes did not quit or devest themselves of this supream coercive power of or over Clerks c I need not say more here or elswhere then I have before in answering Bellarmine's arguments out of the civil laws of Emperours Section LX. And nothing els but alleadg the known general and continual challenge of all Christian supream civil Magistrats Emperours Kings Princes and States to this very day of that supream coercive power of Clerks in all politick matters and their actual practice accordingly at their pleasure and when occasion requireth Notwithstanding all this evidence Bellarmine strugles like a bird in a cage For though he had not this argument framed against him dilated upon at full as I have heer but onely pressed by that bare maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo objected to him by William Barclay he answers thus contra Barclaium cap. XXXIIII It is true sayes he the law of Christ deprives no man of his right and dominion proprié perise quasi hoo ipsum intendat nisi aliquis culpa sua privari mereatur properly and intentionally or that of it self or of its own nature it deprives no man so as intending to deprive him so if not in case of demerit when a man through his own fault deserves to be deprived of his right or dominion Yet when it raises laymen to a higher order such as that is of Clerks we must not wonder that consequently it deprives Princes of the right or dominion they had over such men whiles in a condition much inferiour Nor are there examples wanting in other things as well prophane as sacred 1◠The King rayses a private man till then subject to an Earl and rayses him I say to a Principality It must be confess'd this Earl is consequently deprived of his Lordship or dominion which till then he had over this man nay perhaps further even subjected consequently to this very man whose Lord he was so late The Pope rayses an ordinary or simple Priest to a Metropolitane a Priest subject otherwise to a Suffragan Bishop and by such creation without any injury to this Bishop or Suffragan places consequently such a Priest in a Metropolitical power of command over even the very Ordinary under whom he was immediately before A unbelieving heathen or infidel husband had the right of a her band to and dominion over his infidel wife she is converted to the Christian Faith he remaining still an unbeliever And the law of Christ doth without injury deprive him of all right evermore too that woman if she please Even so by a marriage done or contracted by words of the present time a Christian husband acquires a right to such a Christian wife and yet if she before consummation please to ascend to or embrace a higher and holier state of life or that of a Votress in a Cloyster within the tearm of
only such causes as are meerly Ecclesiastical That Peter Martyr in cap. 13. ad Roman not only teaches the very same but further adds that Princes could not give Clerks the priviledge to be exempt from or not to be subject to the politick Magistrats because sayes Martyr this would be against the law of God and therefore that notwithstanding any concessions of Princes Clerks ought alwayes to be subject to the secular Magistrats And that Ioannes Brentius in Prologamâ—nis and Melanchthon in locis cap. de Magistrat subject Ecclesiasticks to the secular Tribunals even in matters and causes Ecclesiastical But who is so weak as to be frighted from any truth because maintained also or asserted by some lyars Or who knows not that all both Hereticks and Arch-hereticks too joyn with the most orthodox in many both Philosophical and Theological Natural and Moral Divine and Humane positions and even in very many of the most precise uncontroverted revelations of Christian Faith Must it be suspected to be a Christian Truth that Jesus Christ is the Messias promised that he is the Son of God that there are three persons in the Godhead that there are some Sacraments of the new Testament that Christ was born of a Virgin that he suffered for Mankind that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead c. must I say any of these be suspected not to say rejected because Melanchthon or Brentius or Martyr or even Calvin himself or Luther beleeve and maintain them against other Hereticks If therefore they or any other such as they taught also this truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from but subject to the supream civil coercive power of Princes which only is it I undertake here to maintain must Bellarmine therefore think to fright us from saying the same thing although we say it not at all because they did And yet I must further tell the Readers and Admirers of Bellarmine although my task here require it not 1. That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of a yet more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the di-drachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condemned nor censured at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters 2. That if Calvin pretend no more but that Clerks ought to be subject in politick matters to the supream temporal Magistrate and where the same temporal doth not exempt them insomuch he speaks not his own sense but the sense he was formerly taught in the Catholick Church which yet in so many other points he unhappily deserted Thirdly That although if Martyr be understood also of inferiour Magistrats as I doubt not much he ought to be his addition be absolutely and simply false yet if understood of the supream onely as perhaps others may understand him and of Clerks living still as Subjects under any such temporal power supream and acknowledging and owning it for such and themselves for Subjects Martyr was not out by saying in this Hypothesis that Princes could not in secular matters exempt Clerks from the secular Magistrat vz. from the supream secular Fourthly That although also if Brentius and Melanchthon understood by causes Ecclesiastical those which are purely and originally such and not those which by custome onely or concession of Princes or because onely permitted or delegated by Princes or their laws to the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Judges are now and have been a long time called Ecclesiastical vz. per denominationem extrinsecam by an extrinsick denomination from such Ecclesiastical Judges not by any intrinsick assumed from the nature of the causes which in themselves otherwise are meerly civil or temporal as for example usury adultery theft committed in Sacred places or of Sacred things c I say that although if not this latter kind of Ecclesiastical causes but the former be understood by Melanchthon and Brentius and if they further mean'd that Clerks are to acquiesce finally in the judgment or determination of the temporal Magistrat in all such pure Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes it must be confessed their doctrine or this meaning of it is very false and heretical yet if they understood onely the second sort of Ecclesiastical causes and by secular Magistrats intended onely the supream secular it must be also confess'd that in so much they spoke orthodoxly Besides that none may upon rational grounds deny to Kings and other supream temporal Governours a certain kind of external and temporal or politick and civil superintendency even of the very truest and purest Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes of the Church such as are those of believing this or that to have been revealed by God of Ministring the Sacraments in this or that manner and with convenient or decent rites c. Provided they do not use nor attempt to use immediately by themselves or even mediately by others and by vertue of their own proper authority other means or execution of such superintendency but such means and execution as are meerly temporal and corporal or such as are answerable to the civil power and sword Which kind of superintendency and supream civil coercive judicatory power annexed and I mean also annexed in order to such spiritual causes no man will deny to Kings that will consider it is onely from their supream coercive power the Ministers of justice derive authority to put any man to death for Apostacy Infidelity or Heresy in Faith or doctrine or Sacriledg in the administration of Sacraments For it is not the Bishop or Church that by any power Episcopal or Church power adjudgeth any Clerk to death for denying or renouncing Christianity or any Priest for poysoning his communicant at the Sacred Altar or with a Sacred or unsacred hoast but the King and State and their laws and power So that these onely are still the supream Judges for temporal and corporal and civil punishment or coercion whether by death or otherwise and let the cause be never so spiritual or let the crime be committed in matters or things never so purely strictly or solely Ecclesiastical And therefore if Brentius and Melanchthon intend no more but this by saying that Ecclesiasticks were not exempt but subject even in causes Ecclesiastical to the supream civil power they both meand and sayed in so much but what the Catholick Church had taught them As if they meand any more that is if they meand to say that Ecclesiasticks
supream temporal Prince in any of the Citties or territories which he either actually possesses or challengeth to himself as such an absolute or supream independent temporal Prince To enquire into any such intrigue is not material nor any part of my purpose And all I say of it because I mention'd it accidentally is that if the Pope be not so I could heartily wish he were so provided all Popes made that good use of it and onely that good use which some blessed Popes have For I am farre enough for envying the Apostolical See or even present Roman or Papal Court any even worldly greatness which may be to the glory of God and general good of Christian people was verily such even worldly greatness not onely of the Popes of Rome but of other Bishops and of other Priests too may be without any peradventure if regulated and applyed well And I am also farre enough from perswading my self that no Christian Priest can be found who may for natural parts and gifts of God be among Christians and if it please the Christians themselves such an other as Hermes Trismegistâ—s was among Heathens a great Priest great Prophet and great King withall Nay I confess that many Clergiemen have many excellencies and advantages for government above most Laymen Yet I say withall that if in elective Kingdoms or States they were by the people put at the Helme of supream temporal government or if in hereditary Kingdoms any of them came by succession to it their being Priests Bishops or even Popes would not could not enlarge their temporal power in any kind of respect nor give them any more temporal exemption as from any pure law of God or Christian Religion then they had before they were Priests c. It is not therefore against any power Ecclesiastical or even Papal as such I dispute here but onely against the unwarrantable extension of such and as onely such by those two most eminent writers Cardinal Baronius and Cardinal Bellarmine Yet I will say this much for Cardinal Bellarmine albeit shewing 〈◊〉 this also his contradiction of himself that in his great work of controversies de Concil Eccles l. 1. 〈◊〉 13. I know lot how but by the too great power of truth he confesses in very express worth that even the very Popes themselves have been subject and even too subjected themselves in temporal affairs to the Emperours and consequently that their Pontifical or Papal office or dignity did not exempt them from subjection to the lay supream power For considering there how the foâ—â— first general Councils of the vniversal Church had been convoked by the Emperours and fearing least such convocation might prejudice that authority which he ascribes to the great Pontiff and consequently bringing four causes or reasons why the Popes then were necessitated to make use of the power Imperial as he sayes for the convocation of those four first general Councils he delivers thâ—â— his fourth Reason Quarta ratio est sayes he quia to tempore Poâ—â—tyex eâ—si in spirituâ—libus essex caput omnium etiam Imperatorum tamen in temporalibus subâ—â—citbus se Imperatoribus ideo non peterat invito Imperatore aliquid agere cum tantum â—â—bâ—isset petere ab Imperatore auxilium ad convocandum Synodum vel ut permitteret Synodum convocari tamen quia Dominum suum temporalem cum agnoscebal supplicabat ut jubereâ— Synodum convoâ—â—i At post illa tempora ista omnes causae mutata sunt Nam neo illa lex viget he means that old Imperial constitution which prohibited all Colleges and frequent or numerous Assemblies without the Emperours licence to prevent seditions designs Vide l. 1. ff de Collegiis illicitis l. Conventicula ff de Episcopis Clericis noc Imperatores in â—oto orbe dominantur nec sumptibus publicis fiunt Concilia nec sunt Gentiles qui impedire possint Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus cum etiam ipse in suis Provinoiis sit Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij id quod divina providentia factum est ut Pontifex libere manus suum exequi possit So Bellarmine cleerly and expresly to a word Therefore by this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself the Pope hath no freedom no exemption at all in temporal matters from the civil power of the Emperour by virtue I mean of his Pontificat or Papal office But hath all his exemption in such matters by vertue onely of the supream temporal Principality which he acquired after as Bellarmine's sayes and which he possesses yet And consequently Bellarmine confesses also that this temporal Principality being removed or lost as by a just conquest and many other legal wayes it may be the Pope will be no more exempt in temporals from the Emperour or King of Rome but subject to him wholly in such Which is that onely I contend all along in this dispute of the Pope And therefore it must also follow evidently out of this doctrine and confession of Bellarmine himself that all other Priests Bishops and Clerks whatsoever even Cardâ—nals who have no supream earthly power and Principality of their own must be throughly and entirely subject in temporal matters to those supream lay Princes in whose dominions they live and whom they acknowledge to be their own very true Soveraign Lords Which is that moreover which I contend for in all the Sections of this whole and long dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity against the Divines of Lovain And I am extremely deceaved if Bellarmine yeeld it not fairely and freely in this place however he coyned a new faith for himself after in his old age and in his little books against Barclay Widdrington and some others But forasmuch as nothing more confirmes the rightfull power and authority of Kings in all humane things over also their subjects even all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever then the most ancient custome and perpetual practise in the Christian Catholick Church this very Church her self not onely not resisting but consenting also and approving such custome and practise therefore it is that to those particular Instances already given of such practise or matter of fact in the persons of those two most holy Bishops Athanasius and Eusebius and in the persons also of those other two and not onely most holy but even the very Head Bishops of the whole Earth in their own time as being the great Pontiffs then of the Roman See to witt Gregory and Constantine I must now moreover add those other particular Instances in such matter of fact which I promised of Princes Wherein if I be somewhat prolix in bringing not a few examples down along throughout almost all ages of Christianity from the days of Constantine the great and first Christian Emperour the profit will yours good Reader and the labour mine For you may cull out and pause on such as you find the most illustrious the rest you may read over cursority on pass by
opinion or rather certain and true judgment of such a power in the Emperour as properly and essentially belonging to his Imperial office it was that the orthodox Bishops of Syria writ also to the same Emperour Leo for punishing by his own Imperial power according to the laws of the civil Commonwealth Timotheus Elucus Bishop or Patriarch of Alexandria as by the same laws and against both the same laws and Princes too being guilty of various crimes but in particular of adultery and murder De delictis autem say they post Câ—ncil Chalced. praesumptionibus quas nefandê commisit Reipublicae legibus corum praesulibus judicio competenti subdetur Where you see a meer secular judgment called or said to be a competent judgment of criminal Bishops And indeed that the banishment of the said Timotheus which soon after followed by the decree of this Emperour Liberat. Brevi c. 13. proceeded onely from his own proper Imperial power not from any Church power or from any commission or delegation from the Church we may gather sufficiently out of the 100. epist of the above S. Leo the Pope wherein he writes thus to Gennadius Dilectio tua eniti elaborare debit ne redeundi integram capiat libertatem de quo jam Edictis suis Princeps Christianissimus judicavit Finally pursuant to the same knowledg of the Imperial power and authority from God for judging and sentencing the criminal causes and inflicting corporal punishments in such criminal causes and on such Clergymen as were found guilty Pope Simplicius epist 9. 11. beseecheth the Emperour Zeno Vt quod per nos sayes he Ecclesia seriò postulat imô quod ipsi specialiùs supplicamus Petrum Alexandrinae Ecclesiae pervasorem ad exteriora transferri piissima praeceptione jubeatis But to leave this judgment of Popes or other Bishops of the power and authority Royal in the case which Judgment as such of the power is not the proper and primary subject of this section or at least of this part of it and to return to matter of fact onely and this of the Princes themselves acting by particular Instances The next Prince I offer to the Readers consideration is Theodoricus King of Italy For this Prince albeit an Arrian as to his beleef of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ yet in all other points of Christian religion and in his veneration and observance of the Church and Churchmen and of their priviledges and exemptions in general and this without any distinction of Arrians or not Arrians he was precise wary and strict enough nor is there any reprehension or complaint of him in History as not being so And yet he is recorded to have admitted of and discussed the accusations drawn and presented to him by the very Catholicks themselves both Layety and Clergye against Pope Symmachus Of which matter Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes thus in Symmacho Post annos vero quattuor aliqui ex clero zelo ducti aliqui ex Senatu maximè Festus Prâ—binus insimulaverunt Symmachum subornarunt falsos testes quos miserunt Ravennam ad Regem Theodoricum accusantes beatum Symmachum occultè revocarunt Laurentium post libellum Romae factum fecerunt Schysma divisus est iterum Clerus nam alij communicaverunt Symmacho alij Laurentio Tunc Festus Probinus Senatores miserunt relationem Regi caeperunt agere ut visitatorem daret Rex Sedi Apostolieae quod canones prohibent And albeit upon debate this King at last remitted this cause of Symmachus to a Council of Bishops and that by the same King's licence several Councils of Bishops convened at Rome to sift it throughly which Councils I have amongst others and upon an other occasion quoted in the marginal note of my introduction to this first Treatise pag. 1. yet no man can deny that he admitted the accusations and thereupon and as judg of them and of the whole cause exercised several judiciary acts as having a legal power or Christian authority to do so Nor did Symmachus except or resist nor did any for him or in his behalf or in behalf of the Church or of Ecclesiastical Immunity reprehend Theodorick for doing so Nay we have seen before in this Treatise Sec ... this very Symmachus himself openly professing that he himself would yield to God in the Emperour's person to wit by obeying him in humane things as we saw him desiring on the other side that the Emperour should likewise revere God in the person of the Pontiff doubtless for what concern'd spiritual or divine matters The Catholick Emperour Justinus proceeded yet more imperially in the criminal cause of Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica For this Bishop being accused of sedition and of several murders too and particularly of the murder of Iohn who was one of the Legats of the See Apostolick and the rest of the Apostolick Legats being his accusers before the Emperour and being so also by express command from Hormisda the Pope whose Legats they were and he too that was murdered and this Pope himself pressing hard that the said Bishop Dorotheus the supposed murderer of his Legat should either be deposed by the Emperour from his Bishoprick and sent to banishment farr from his place or See and Church or certainly be sent to Rome with all fit prosecution of his cause Iustin indeed proceeded to a judicial tryal and sentence of the criminal Bishop but with so much regard of his own imperial power in the case that he neither did the one nor the other which Hormisda so earnestly pressed for Of all which the Suggestions amongst and after the epistles of Hormisda and these epistles themselves particularly the Suggestion which is after the 56. epist and the second Suggestion after the 64. epist and the 57. epistle in it self may be read Promittit say the Legats writing to the Pope Sancta Clementia for so they stile the Emperour vindicare citare Dorotheum quia nos contestati sumus pietatem ejus c. And Hormisda himself the Pope epist 57. writing to the said Legats Nam eumdem Dorotheum sayes he Constantinopolim jussu Principis didicimus evocatum adversus quem Domino filio nostro Clementissimo Principi debetis insistere ne ad eamdem civitatem denuo revertâ—tur sed Episcopatus quem numquam bene gessit honore deposito ab eodem loco ac Ecclesia longius relegetur vel certè huc ad urbem sub prosecutione congrua dirigatur But wherefore doth not this Pope command his Legats to insist upon the delivering of such a criminal a criminal Bishop into their own proper custody hands and power to proceed against him to judg and punish him as they shall find cause being they alone and not the Emperour were his competent Judges in the case if we believe our Bellarminians and Baronius wherefore do not these Legats wherefore doth not this Pope himself being denied what he desired fulminat excommunications against Iustine
and this barely too crimen Ecclesiasticum it is declared that if any charge a Clerk with the former sort of crime the secular judges shall determine the cause but if with the later that the Bishop onely shall have power to judg it Quod si de criminali causa litigium emerserit tunc competentes judices in hac civitate scilicet Constantinopolitana vel in Provinciis interpellati consentaneum legibus terminum imponant c Sin autem crimen Ecclesiasticum est tunc secundum canones ab Episcopo suo causae examinatio paena procedat nullam communionem aliis judicibus in hujusmodi causis habentibus Which although it was first or originally a meer civil constitution or Novel of Iustinian yet was after made a canon of the Church by being inserted in and received by the Church amongst her canons in corpore Iuris canonici or in Gratian. Sixt canon as to pure Ecclesiastical crimes and to their punishment in case of disobedience to the Bishops was long before and not a Papal canon onely but a canon of the third Council of Carthage which was that is called the Vniversal Council understand you of Affrick and is that also in Gratian XI q. 1. c. Petimus where it is declared that intruded Bishops contemning the admonitions of the Church belong in such case to the lay judicatory Seaventh canon distinguishing likewise in effect sufficiently and clearly enough as the above fift hath done betwixt lay crimes or at least some lay crimes that is crimes which are common as well to lay-men as to Clergie-men and both Ecclesiastical crimes or such as are proper onely to Ecclesiastical persons and other crimes too which are strictly civil but not criminal is that of the first Council of Matiscon held in the year 582. under King Gunteramnus and Pope Pelagius II. wherein and in the 7. chap. the Fathers decree Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque Iudex cujuscumque Clericum absque causa criminali id est homicidio furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum suerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur Whence appears evidently these Fathers held it no breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity that Clerks accused of murder theft or maleficium what ever they understood by this word or whether witchcraft onely according the special acception and restriction of this word or sense of it by some authors or generally all kind of lay evils or wickedness according to the general or etymological sense thereof should be subject to the meer lay coercive power of even inferiour lay judges whereof I have said more at large before And therefore by this canon Princes were to the end of the fift age of Christianity in possession of their own proper supream civil power of punishing Clerks in their own lay and princely Iudicatories tribunals or courts and even by their own inferiour proper and meer lay delegated or commission'd judges when I say the cause or accusation was purely criminal and of such crimes in specie as are murder theft or witchcraft Eight canon is that still in Gratian 23. q. 5. cap. Principes For though Isidorus de sum bon c. 35. be the original Author of it yet as in Gratian it is now allowed and accounted amongst the canons of the Church And that indeed not unworthily For thus it speaks Principes seculi non numquam intra Ecclesiam potestatis adeptae culmina tenent ut per eamdem potestatem disciplinam Ecclesâ—asticam muniant Caeterum intra Ecclisiam petesta es necessariae non essent nisi ut quod non fraevalet sacerdos efficere per doctrinae sermonem potestat hoc impleat per disciplinae terrâ—rem Saepe per regnum terrenum caeleste regnum proficit ut qui intra Ecclesiam positi contra fidem disciplinam Ecclesiae agunt rigore Principum conterantur ipsamque disciplinam quam Ecclesiae humilitas exercere non praevalet corvicibus superborum potestas principalis imponat ut venerationem mereatur virtutem potestatis impertiat Cognoscant Principes saeculi Deo debere se rationem reddere propter Ecclesiam quam a Christo tuendam accipiunt Nam sive augeatur pax displina Ecclesiae per fideles Principes sive soluatur ille ab eis rationem exiget qui corum potestati suam Ecclesiam credidit Here you see that not out of or by vertue of any commission or delegation from Bishops or Popes Princes do exercise the distriction of their power even within the Church that is against Churchmen and even too in Church affairs but out and by vertue of their own proper authority which they received from God And you see also that the Church as such by reason of its humble and essential constitution may not exercise or make use of any penal discipline as belonging to her self but for such coercion must have recourse to the power of Princes Nor let any think to evade by saying that Princes are in so much or as punishing such persons or as determining correcting or amending such affairs but Ministers of the Church and executors of the sentence or power of the Church pursuant to that which Innocent III. and the Glosse upon him say or determine cap. ut famae de sent Excom extracted out of the said Innocent's answer to the Bishop of London For I have before already in several Sections proved by reason Scripture tradition of the Fathers and practise too both general and particular and of both Fathers and Princes and Pontiffs and people that Princes have hethertoo proceeded and de jure proceeded against such persons and even too in such matters by their own proper authority without any commission had from the Church As likewise that they received from God himself such their own proper universal authority and right to proceed so against all persons whatsoever laymen or Clergiemen guilty of any crimes and in all causes too whatsoever temporal or spiritual forasmuch or wherein they relate to the external peace of the Commonwealth and to the meer external government of the Church by the power of the material sword And we have seen too already that the power of inflicting corporal punishment by way of coaction and force is absolutely denyed to the Church as a Church Which being so who will be so unreasonable as to attribute a power to Her of deputing commissioning or delegating Ministers or executors to inflict them so But what this canon or Gratian or rather Isidore who was the original Author sayes here is very observable I mean where it sayes that Princes have the height of their power within the Church and that God himself hath committed his Church to their power even as Leo Magnus the Pope writing to Leo the Emperour ep 81. sayes Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non
Ex his omnibus datur intelligi his own conclusion is in general tearms only importing that a Clerk is not either in a civil or criminal cause to be convented in publick that is in lay or secular Judicatories Quod Clericus sayes he ad publica judicia nec in civili nec in criminali causa est producendus not descending to the particular or specifical case of the regal power and regal cognizance intervening by special commission or special warrant or in a special emergency nor descending also to or considering the special case of times or Countryes when or where no such canon of the Church or Pope no such priviledge imperial at least in that latitude is in use or perhaps hath ever yet been received or if once received hath been again repealed Therefore Gratian may be rationally expounded to mean by his judicia publica in this Paragraph those ordinary Judicatories only which are of inferiour lay Judges and those too but only where such Canons are received or such priviledges allowed by the supream civil powers and laws But if any must needs press further yet or in any other sense the conclusion of Gratianus then I must say three things The first is that as I have proved already elsewhere in this work if a Clerk sue a Layman for any temporal matter or in a meer civil cause that is not criminal he must sue him in a lay Court and before a lay Judge and this lay Judge albeit only a subordinate inferiour and ordinary Judge shall give a binding sentence against this Clerk if the law be in the case for the Layman So that neither is it generally true not even by the very Canons I mean that Clerks in all civil causes are totally exempt from the jurisdiction of as much as the very inferiour lay Judges For the very Canons not to speak of the civil laws now in force throughout the world have ordered so Quod Actor sequatur forum Rei let the Actor be ever so much a Clerk or Ecclesiastick The second is that generally for criminal causes of Clerks Gratianus hath not produced as much as any one either imperial constitution or even any one Church Canon sufficiently either in particular or in general revoking or anulling or sufficiently declaring that revocation of the 74. Constitution of Iustinianus whereby this Emperour appoints and impowers the lay Judges for those within Constantinople and for those abroad in the Provinces the lay Pretors in the same Provinces to iudge the criminal causes of Clerks nay nor hath at all as much as attempted to answer or gain-say it albeit this very 74. Constitution was the very last chapter saving one which himself produced immediatly as a canon before the foresaid last paragraph Ex â—is omnibus Thirdly that for those Church Canons or those more likely authorities or passages true or false of some Popes or some Councils alledged by Gratianus in that his eleventh cause and first question or those in him which may seem most of any he hath to ground another sense then that I have said to be his sense I have before sufficiently nay and abundantly too cleared and answered them at large in my LXIX Section of in my answer to Bellarmine's aâ—legations of the Canons for himself and for the exemption of criminal Clerks from the supream royal coercive power of Kings where I have also noted some of Gratian's either voluntary or unvoluntary corruptions of the Canons Fourthly and consequently that whether Gratian was or was not of a contrary opinion it matters not a pin It is not his opinion and let us suppose he had truly and sincerely declared his own inward opinion for I am sure many as good and as great and far greater then he dared not declare their own when he writ his Decretum or declare any at all but in the language of the Papal Court It it is not I say his opinion but his reason we must value for sin he did not himself nor any for him does pretend to infallibility And I am sure he neither brings nor as much as pretends to bring any Scripture at all or any Tradition of the Fathers or even as much as any argument of natural reason for the warranty of any other sense And I am certain also that my judicious and impartial Readers will themselves clearly see and confess that he brings not for himself or for such a sense as much as any one Canon true or false to confront these I have alledg'd for my self and for that sense I intend all along or any one Canon true or false that denyes that which I have given for the coercive power of secular Princes to have been and to be the sense of Paul the Apostle Rom 13. or to have been and be the general and unanimous sense of the holy Fathers in their commentaries and expositions of it or finally any one Canon true or false that particularly and either formally or virtually descends to the specifical debate 'twixt the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius or their followers the present Divines of Lovaine and me concerning the supream royal and external Jurisdiction of Kings to punish criminal Clerks by their own immediate authority royal and by virtue of their own royal commissions and delegations extraordinary in all cases and contingencies wherein the preservation of the publick peace and safety of either Church or State require it and by their mediat authority also in their inferiour Judges and by vertue of their ordinary commissions or delegations to such Judges or of the ordinary power which the civil laws of the land give to these Judges in all cases I mean wherein the same civil laws or the makers of such laws have not received or admitted of the more or less ancient constitutions of Roman Emperours or of the more or less ancient Canons of the great Pontiffs or of other Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Councils for what concerns the exemption of Clergie-men in criminal causes from the meer civil and ordinary Courts and lay inferiour or subordinate Judges and their subjection to Ecclesiastical Judges only and the Prince himself who must be without any peradventure and even in such causes too of Clerks above all Iudges in his own Kingdom whether lay or Ecclesiastical Judges For I have before sufficiently demonstrated that all Ecclesiastical Exemption in temporal matters or in all both civil and criminal causes is only from the supream civil Power as from the only proper and total efficient cause and I have also before demonstrated that no exemption to any persons or person whatsoever could be given by that Power from it self or at least for the matter of coercion and when the publick good required it unless at the same time it freed such persons or person from all kind of subjection to it self and I have likewise demonstrated before that such exemption from it self in any case at all whatsoever cannot be rationally supposed as given by
Synodum cum Hadriano Papa in Patriarchio Lateranensi in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris quae Synodus celebrata est à CLIII Episcopis religiosis Abbatibus Hadrianus autem Papa cum universa Synodo tradiderunt Carolo jus potestatem eligendi Pontificem ordinandi Apostolicam sedem dignitatem quoque patriciatus eis concesserunt In super Archiepiscopos Episcopos per singulas provincias ab eo investituram accipere diffinivit ut nisi à Rege laudetur investiatur Episcopus à nemine consecretur quicumque contra hoc decretum ageret anathematis vinculo eum innodavit nisi resipisceret bona ejus publicari praecepit Item Leo Papa ut habetur distinct 63. cap. In Synodo In Synodo Congregata Romae in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris Ad exemplum B. Hadriani Apostolicae sedis antistitis qui domino Carolo victoriosissimo regi Francorum Longobardorum Patriciatus dignitatem ac ordinationem Apostolicae sedis investituram Episcoporum concessit ego quoque Leo Episcopus servus servorum Dei cum toto clero ac Romano populo constituimus confirmanus et corroboramus et per nostram apostolicam auctoritatem concedimus atque largimur domino Othoni primo regi Tentonicorum ejusque Successoribus hujus regni Italiae in perpetuum facultatem eligendi Successorem atque summae sedis Apostolicae Pontificem ordinandi ac per hoc Archiepiscopos seu Episcopos ut ipsi ab eo investituram accipiant et consecrationem unde debent exceptis his quos Imperator Pontificibus et Archiepiscopis concessit et ut nemo deinceps cujusque dignitatis vel religiositatis eligendi vel patricium vel Pontificem summae sedis Apostolicae aut quemcumque Episcopum ordinandi habeat facultatem absque consensu ipsius Imperatoris quod tamen fiat absque omni pecunia et ut ipse sic Patricius et Rex Quod si à clero et populo quis eligatur Episcopus nisi à supradicto Rege laudetur et investiatur non consecretur Si quis contra hanc regulam et Apostolicam autoritatem aliquid molietur hunc excommunicationi subiacere decernimus et nisi resipuer it irrevocabili exilio puniri vel ultimis suppliciis affici Now to consider the fourth Article of Marfilius and Iandunus viz. this Omnes sarcerdotes sive sit Papa five Archiepiscopus sive sacerdos simplex sunt ex institutione Christi authoritatis jurisdictionis aequalis quod autem unus plus alio habeat hoc est secundum quod Imperator concedit uni vel alii plus minus sicut concessit alicui sic potest illud etiam revocare albeit I confess this Article and as to all the several parts of it be most justly censurable as false and erroneous in these tearms wherein this Pope Iohn the XXII relates it for whether Christ himself immediatly from his own mouth instituted this diversity of degrees amongst Priests that one should be a simple Priest only another should be an Episcopal Priest a third an Archbishop a fourth a Primat a fifth a Patriarch and the sixt the chief of all Patriarchs whom we now call the Pope or whether Christ did not so immediatly by his own mouth institute any such or other kind of diversity of degrees inferiour and superiour among Priests but only mediatly by the mouths or decrees of his Apostles or even only by the mouths decrees or mutual consent of the Priests them selves who immediatly or mediatly after the dayes of the Apostles did govern the several Churches yet it is plain that by the institution of Christ they are not after such decree made who ever made it of equal authority or jurisdiction because it is plain that for any thing we read Christ our Lord made no such particular institution or such particular provision for parity or equality of jurisdiction amongst them not even I mean in case the diversity of degrees were made by the Priests themselves and not by Christ himself immediatly as it is too plain that if the immediat institution of this diversity of decrees be attributed to him the immediat institution also of a disparity or inequality of jurisdiction amongst them must be likewise attributed to him and therefore the first part of this fourth Article which sayes the contrary and if it do say the contrary must be most justly censurable as false and erroneous and as renewing the old Heresie of Aerius and as deriving or handing it down to Calvin and his godly gang of Presbyterians because we know that by the general and even immediat institution of Christ himself the first Apostolical Priests and all their lawful successors in the priestly function both immediat and mediate until the consummation of the world were and are and shall be impowered to govern the Church and make laws of discipline for the better government of it and consequently to make laws for the diversity of degrees of inferiours and superiours and by consequence also for a disparity and inequality of jurisdiction and because we know he said immediatly by his own mouth Qui vos audit me audit and Quaecunque alligaveritis super terram erunt alligata in coelo and immediatly by the mouth of his Apostle Obedite Praepositis vestris subiacete eis ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri and therefore also the second part of this same fourth Article for as much as it sayes that That one Priest hath more authority or jurisdiction purely spiritual then another Priest it is meerly and only from the imperial power as such that gives more to one and less to another of such spiritual power if this be it it sayes is no less justly censurable as false erroneous and heretical as is consequently the third and last part for the supposition it also involves of such a spiritual power greater and lesser given so by the Emperour to this and that Priest albeit I say my judgment of this fourth Article and of all the several parts of it be such and consequently be in all respects conformable to the censure of Iohn the XXII of it in this Bull yet I say withal what every one sees in this Article or condemnation of it there is not a word in it reflecting either directly or indirectly or at all touching the doctrine of a supream civil coercive power in secular Princes to judge the criminal causes and punish by secular means the crimes of all Clerks whatsoever living within their Dominions or such Clerks as are not themselves also for the time supream temporal Princes as well as Clerks Priests Bishops Archbishops Primats Patriarchs or Popes For the disparity or inequality of spiritual authority and jurisdiction betwixt them and the several degrees of superiority and inferiority in such spiritual power by whomsoever immediatly instituted hinders not their parity and equality of temporal subjection to the secular Prince and to his coercive power in temporal matters
perjured malignant infamous The second is That wherein provision was made for supplying the Resident Council with legal members See this second Act at large in the printed Establishment concluded upon by the last general Assembly at Killenry the 12th day of November Anno 1647. in case of the necessary absence of such as were nominated by the last Assembly or of any of the just number who are bound to reside by vertue of which Act they have subscribed as Resident who were legally brought in to supply the vacant places And for such honourable persons as above the number of Residents did vote or subscribe the Cessation it 's known they did it not officiously but out of their duty to the Publick and by the power of grand Counsellors conferred on them by the last Assembly Wherefore it being now clear from first to last both out of our solutions to all is or may be objected against the Appeal and out of positive reasons for it that according to the prescript of Canons and sense of Doctors it hath all the conditions of a just Appeal and that the Lord Nuncio and Delegates are even by the Law deprived of all or any power to question examine or judge the reasonableness or justice thereof or to cast any obligation on us either before God or the World to submit to his or their judgment in this behalf it must be inferred by a necessary consequence out of what is formerly said That your Lordships Appeal doth not only by the Canons but also by the sense of Doctors suspend the Censures their effects and consequences and all other proceedings of the Lord Nuncio Delegates Subdelegates and of all and every or any other deriving power from him or them on the same ground For that as we have formerly seen their doctrine is That a just Appeal of its own nature and as soon as 't is interposed hath all and each of the said effects And hence they may be fully satisfied who hitherto were persuaded or fearful through their own ignorance or have been deluded by the disaffected who of purpose through scruples into mens Consciences without Law or Reason taking occasion by the kind of apostles the Lord Nuncio granted which are refutatories not reverentials or dimissories to persuade the simple that by reason these refutatories were granted and not reverentials the Appeal can be of no force Which erring Assertion is plainly convinced by what hath been already said For since it is manifested That the reasonableness justice or lawfulness of an Appeal depends not of the Judges breast or answer unto it which they call apostles but is to be accounted such if the Causes alledged in it seem evident probable or likely or would be thought probable in case their truth might be proved and since it is no less evident that a refutatory that is to say a rejecting answer proceeding either from the malice negligence corruption or ignorance of the Judge or from any other motive whatsoever cannot make the Appeal unreasonable which before the answer was in it self reasonable and contained the expression of causes either evidently or probably just since lastly it hath been proved that a just or lawful Appeal of its own nature suspends the Judge from being any more Judge of the Appellant from jurisdiction over him or power to question the lawfulness of his Appeal how can refutatory apostles given by the Judge as answer to the said Appeal have power to hinder these suspensive effects If it be said That the Canons which thus deprive the Judge are not to be understood of him when he gives apostles refutatories we must say this is a most ridiculous evasion and meer non-sense Certainly they were not made against Judges who give reverentials or dimissory apostles For what Judge who gave reverentials hath ever yet been so frantick as to give wittingly such apostles and yet to frame a Process against and call in question the probability of the Appeal whereas by giving such apostles he deprived himself of all power yea should the Appeal otherwise be frivolous Neither have they been instituted only against Judges who deny both kinds in regard the words of the Text are not by any proper or common sense they may have restrained to any such limitation nor by the adjoining Glosses or opinion of Doctors Commenting thereon but may and ought according to their proper meaning to be understood generally in all cases of just Appeals whether apostles be given or no whether they be refutatories or dimissories c. And surely where the Canons would have only provided against the abuse of Judges who give no kind of apostles we find their meaning expressed in significant terms as cap. Vt super de Appellat 6. which may be read in the margent Innocent 4. in Conc. Lug. cap. Vt super de appellat in 6. Ut super appella ione ac ejus causa instructio facilior vaâ—eat in processu haberi districte praecipimus quod ille aquo appellatur Apostolos appell inti juxta tenorem Constitutionis nostrae super hoc editae tribuit requisitus si vero non exhibuerit ex tunc si â—orte in causa procedat nisi appellationi renunciatum fuerit ejus invaâ—idos irritus sit processâ—s But to unmask wholly the non-sense of this evasion let us observe the absurdity and contradiction which thence doth follow for if cap. Si a Judice de Appellat in 6. and the like are of no force against the Judge when he gives only refutatories for answer to a just Appeal then it must follow that the Judge by an unjust act that is by giving such an illegal answer or apostles refutatories when he should have given dimissories reaps a benefit to wit recovers the jurisdiction and power which before was suspended by and from the instant of the Appeal interposed until that present of receiving the refutatories And if it be said That his jurisdiction was not so suspended until the dayes passed which are allowed by the Law for deliberating on the apostles then besides that this is against the Text a plain contradiction follows in the Canons and Glosses which is that during this interval the said Judge from whom may call in question examine juridically give sentence c. of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Appeal since he is not restrained of his power during this interval and yet all Canons and Glosses affirm the contrary as we have before seen The like contradiction follows if any confess as he must that indeed the Judge could not proceed during the interval of time twixt the Appeal made and apostles given but will nevertheless say that he may presently after the apostles when they are refutatory here is we say the like contradiction in regard that if the Appeal was at first reasonable and just it remains so alwayes notwithstanding the refutatory apostles unjustly given and consequently by all the foresaid Canons Glosses and even by natural equity
the Judge cannot proceed to the execution of his sentence and by the Canons and Glosses he is no Judge he hath no jurisdiction he cannot examine or call in question the causes of the Appeal neither is the Appellant bound to answer his summons Certainly if he could proceed to the execution of the sentence he might summon him and examine the causes of the Appeal both because that the examination of these causes might make him alter his sentence which was in it self perhaps wholly unjust and because it is therefore said he might proceed to this execution inasmuch as it is supposed he lost no part of his jurisdiction by the interposition of the Appeal since he gave only refutatories If therefore he have in this case a plenary jurisdiction over the Appellant why cannot he summon him concerning the causes of the Appeal or why is not the Appellant in this case bound to obey him It cannot be said That the Laws exempt the Appellant in this particular from him for the very prime Text which can be alledged for this to wit cap. Si a Judice de Appellat in 6. exempts him likewise in all other cases and declares the Judge to be no more Judge over the Appellant And if they say being reduced to extremities that the Judge a quo may call in question even the causes of the Appeal and judge them then they engage themselves against all the Canons Glosses and Doctors and against all their reasons whereof that is insoluble which we have before produced in the Glosse of cap. Sollicitudinem extr de Appellat verb. Episcopus posset where we have seen the question propounded why the Judge a quo might not be a competent Judge of the Appeal and answered it is therefore because that the Appellant is exempt from his jurisdiction by expression of a probable cause in his Appeal as from a Party suspected in regard the Law presumes that he would still give sentence in favour of his jurisdiction and of his former acts or sentences which all reason persuades us he would do For who is that upon unjust grounds would give sentence against any and upon his just Appeal give him only refutatory apostles would not also give sentence against him in the causes of the Appeal for maintenance of his own jurisdiction and righteousness or perhaps in prosecution of his former ignorance corruption malice or spleen if the Law did enable him with power to be Judge in this case Whence further would follow That the Subject would be often remedilesly exposed to the tyranny of every unjust and partial Judge This very same is a reason most sufficient and discovered unto us by the light of nature why we must hold that it lies not in the Judges breast to disannul just Appeals by giving refutatories whether it be granted or denied that he is Judge of the causes For otherwise an ignorant corrupt or malicious Judge notwithstanding his most illegal proceedings might overthrow at his pleasure the most reasonable and necessary Appeals in the World innocency might be oppressed without remedy and all injustice and tyranny maintained if we say the Judge for having given refutatories might proceed to execution during the said just Appeal for the execution may be an evil irrecoverable by any address might be made after as indeed it would be in our case were it allowed Which how repugnant it is to the very Law of Nature and to the intention and aim of Holy Canons who doth not see It was this convincing reason we may justly think made Glossa in cap. Licet de sentent Excom in 6. maintain our assertion in the like case where the Judge gave only apostles refutatories Which is the second argument we make use of to remove this Block whereat some seem to stumble For though the words of Glossa be not the very Text of the Law yet no man can deny but in such a business they are a sufficient president for us and no man can deny who is versed in Canons or Canonists but this very Glosse is next after the Text of esteem and of more authority than Forty Doctors who should maintain the contrary if they produced not the express Letter of the Law to the contrary or some Glosse as clearly for the opposite assertion as this for ours or at least some reason convincing a natural equity for the adverse opinion None of which as we are sure they could not as yet produce so we are confident they shall never be able hereafter to produce The words of the foresaid Glosse are Put the case I was convented before an Ecclesiastical Judge against whom I alledged some declinatory exception perhaps that he was the Kinsman of my adversary or I alledged some dilatory exception The Judge would not admit my exception but declared that notwithstanding any such he would proceed in the principal Whereupon I appealed in writing expressing a reasonable cause in my Appeal and desired with due instance that he would give me apostles He gave me refutatories prefixing withal a time to proceed before him in the principal But I appeared not the day appointed Wherefore he excommunicated me as contumacious 'T is certain that if the cause inserted in my Appeal be true I am not excommunicated (r) Glossa in cap. Licet de sent excom in 6. Pone casum quod fui conventus coram Judice Ecclesiastico coram quo proposui aliquam exceptionem declinatoriam forte quod erat consanguincus adversarii mei vel aliquam exceptionem dilatoriam posui Judex noluit admittere istam exceptionem sed pronunciavit quod ea non obstante procederet in principali unde appellavi in scriptis legitime expressa causa rationabili in mea appellatione petii cum debita instantia ut daret mihi apostolos qui dedit resutatorios assignando mihi terminum ad procedendum coram ipso in principali qua die non comparui Ideo tanquam contumaciem me excommunicavit Certum est quod si causa inserta in mea appellatione sit vera non sum excommunicatus Behold here our very case of an Appeal interposed and only apostles refutatorie granted which refutatories notwithstanding the Gloss affirms it is certain That the Appellant was not bound by the sentence of Excommunication issued against him if the causes expressed in his Appeal were true that is lawful and reasonable for appealing How may it therefore be denied but a just Appeal exempts the Appellant from the power and jurisdiction of the Judge from whom though this Judge do not admit his Appeal but only give refutatories and even the worst King of refutatories for such were the apostles mention'd in this Glosse otherwise this Excommunication of our Glosse would oblige the Appellant And how may it be that any will hereafter stumble at this block of the Lord Nuncio's apostles refutatories given as an Answer to the Councils Appeal or think That these apostles could hinder their just
otherwise at all noxious to humane Society and then also and there to Enact those penal Laws where at the same time the Lawmakers could not but have continually before their eyes all those beforemention'd Positions and Practises which they could not but judge to be indeed of the greatest Danger Insolence Pride Injustice Usurpation Tyranny and Cruelty imaginable even those very Positions and Practises which they knew to threaten themselves above others most particularly and which they saw themselves Ten thousand times more concern'd to persecute than any pure Religious Rites or Articles nay which they also knew to be such as even according to the judgment of the greater and sounder part of the Roman-Catholicks themselves abroad in other parts of the World did of their own nature require all the severity of Laws and all the anger of Men to prosecute them I am sure the Third Estate of the Roman Catholicks of France anno 1514 1â— did think so when they desired it should be made a fundamental Law of FRANCE to be kept and known by all men That the King being acknowledged Head in his Dominions holding his Crown and his Authority only from God there is no power on earth whatever Spiritual or Temporal that hath any right over his Kingdom either to depose our Kings or dispense with or absolve their Subjects from the fidelity and obedience which they owe to their Soveraign for any cause or pretence whatsoever That all his Subjects of what quality or condition soever shall keep this Law as holy true and agreeable to God's Word without any distinction equivocation or limitation whatsoever which shall be sworn and signed by all the Deputies of Estates and henceforward by all who have any Benefice or Office in the Kingdom before they enter upon such Benefice or Office and that all Tutors Masters Regents Doctors and Preachers shall teach and publish that the contrary Opinion viz. That it is lawful to kill and depose our Kings to rebel and rise up against them and shake off our Obedience to them upon any occasion whatever is impious detestable quite contrary to Truth and the establishment of the State of France which immediately depends upon God only That all Books teaching these false and wicked Opinions shall be held as seditious and damnable All Strangers who write and publish them shall be look'd upon as sworn enemies to the Crown and that all Subjects of His Majesty of what quality and condition soever who favour them shall be accounted as Rebels Violators of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and Traytors against the King c. And I am sure also That all the Parliaments and Universities of the same Kingdom did likewise think and believe so when at several times they proceeded with so much severity in their censures against so many inconsiderate Writers that maintain'd the Papal vain pretences of Authority to depose Kings and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them But to say nothing at present of the many several Arrests of the French Parliaments on this subject and speak only of their University Censures how smart these were in general the Universities of Paris (z) 1626 4. April and Caen (a) 7. May. and Rheims (b) 18. May. and Tholouze (c) 23. May. and Poitiers (d) 26. June and Valence (e) 14. July and Burdeaux (f) 16. July and Bourges (g) 25. November sufficiently tell us in their special Censures anno 1626. against the Jesuit Sanctarellus in particular i. e. against the Doctrine of such a power in the Pope asserted by him the said Sanctarellus in his Treatise of Heresie Schism Apostasie c. The first of them viz. the University of Paris finding in the said Book this Assertion That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresie c. condemn'd it in formal words as new false erroneous contrary to the Law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative to the Soveraign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes disturbing the publick peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the obedience due to their Soveraigns and precipitating them into faction rebellion sedition and even to commit Particides on the sacred Persons of their Princes And the other seven Universities were not much behind for they also every one condemn'd it as false erroneous contrary to the Word of God pernicious seditious and detestable XI That if any shall object those penal Statutes which may perhaps be thought by some to have all their quarrel and bend all their force and level all the rigor of their Sanctions against some harmless Doctrines and practises whether in themselves otherwise true or false good or bad I say against the meer spiritual meer sacramental rites of our Religious worship of God and our Belief of meer supernatural operations following as for example against our Doctrines of the Consecration and Transubstantiation and our practice withall of the adoration of the Host which this present Parliament at Westminster in their late Act against Popish Recusants may be thought by some to make the principal mark whereat all the arrows of disfavour must now be shot the answer is both consequential and clear viz. That the Law-makers perswading themselves 1. that the Roman Catholicks in general of these Kingdoms both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks had alwayes hitherto since the schism either out of ignorance and blind zeal or a mistaken interest or irrational fear refused or at least declined to disown by any sufficient publick instrument the foresaid Anti-catholick Positions and Practises which maintain the Popes pretences of all Supreme both Spiritual and Temporal Dominion Jurisdiction Authority Power Monarchy and Tyranny c 2. That their Missionaries i e. their Priests not only day and night labour to make new Proselytes but also to infuse into as many of them and of their other Penitents as they think fit all their own Principles of Equivocation and mental Reservation in swearing any Oath even of Allegiance or Supremacy to the King and forswearing any thing or doctrine whatsoever except only those Articles which by the indispensable condition of their communion they may not dissemble upon Oath 3. That the Tenet of Transubstantiation is one of those Articles therefore to discover by this however otherwise in it self a very harmless Criterium the mischief which they conceive to go along with it thorough the folly of Roman Catholicks in these Dominions they make it the test of discriminating the Loyally principled Protestant from the disloyal and dissembling Papist Which otherwise they would not have done if the Romanists themselves in general who are Subjects to our Gracious King had by any sufficient Test distinguished amongst themselves and thereby convinced the Parliament and all other Protestant people
persuaded or dissuaded by any of these men It is not really your salvation they promote by dissuading or diverting you from such a profession of your Allegiance to the King as would in part formally and for the rest virtually and consequentially renounce abjure condemn abhor detest and even in formal terms protest against all those uncatholick Positions and unchristian Practises before related It is indeed their own worldly gain and greatness that the leading men aim at They drive at all and if they thrive they will have all If they fail in their great and bold attempt an attempt forsooth pro bono Ecclesiae Dei yet they know where to live as well for the conveniencies of this World as they do at present with you and many of them much better But when that happens you may starve many of you in a Jayle and your Posterity after you be for ever miserable not knowing where to find relief And by losing on such an account all the lawful comforts of this life to say no worse you cannot with any certainty or even the least intrinsick probability expect to be therefore crown'd as Martyrs or Confessors in the next However they may glorifie you to incite others to do as you have done you cannot amidst your Sufferings have the comfort of believing them or account your selves Martyrs of Christ or of the Christian or Catholick Religion unless you are silly enough to be persuaded That such Positions and Practises as the whole Christian Church from the beginning and even for Ten whole Ages after condemned in effect as erroneous and wicked be that Righteousness or part of that Righteousness whereof our Saviour speaks in St. Matthew declaring there unto us That (b) Mat. 5. Blessed are they who suffer persecution for Righteousness sake because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven XVII That no less a man yea no less a Saint a Holy Doctor and Pope too than Gregory the Great Himself writing above a Thousand years ago to all the Bishops of Ireland (c) Whether of Hibernia as in the common Editions or of Iberia as in Rom. Correctan Gratian. de Consecrat dist 4. c 144. Ab Antiqua it matters not for either way it serves to my purpose on the subject of their being then under a grievous persecution for a less improbable less reprovable and I am sure less interested cause viz That of the Tria Capitula relating to the great Council of Chalcedon hath spoken as plainly to them as I do here to you For in his Epistle (d) L. 2. Regist Indict x. Ep. 36. Which Indiction fell into the year of Christ 592. superscribed Ad universos Episcopos per Hiberniam constitutos in causa Trium Capitulorum He told those Irish Bishops in plain terms That they were not to expect in the other life any rewards for their suffering in this for the cause of the Tria Capitula or for any other unreasonable cause whatsoever i. e. for any at all which was not of divine Cathloick Religion but of humane uncatholick Opinion or Faction not even for suffering so grievous a Persecution as they complain'd of nay seem'd also by their Letter to glory in Prima itaque sayes he Epistolae vestrae frons gravem vos pati persecutionem innotuit Quae quidem persecutio dum non rationabiliter sutinetur nequaquam proficit ad salutem Nam nulli fas est retributionem praemiorum expectare pro culpa Debetis enim scire sicut Beatus Cyprianus dixit quia Martyrem non facit poena sed causa Dum igitur ita sit incongruum nimis est de ea vos quam dicitis persecutione gloriari per quam vos constat ad aeterna pramia minime provehi And yet we know that cause of the Tria Capitula for which those ancient Bishops of Ireland did then suffer was in it self far more specious than yours can be in the Case proposed Nay we know it was indeed so specious and probable that they of Ireland then had not only the Bishops of many other Provinces even of the Roman Empire concurring with them in opinion but the chief of all Bishops in his time that was a little before St. Gregory the Great 's Pontificat even Pope Vigilius of Rome and Him also extreamly persecuted for the same cause yea buffeted drag'd imprisoned at Constantinople c. by command of the Catholick Emperor Justinian * Baron ad ann Christ 552. Nay we know it was so specious a Cause as not only to have in the bottom of it nothing of worldly Interest Dominion Power Riches nothing of Supremacy or Primacy even Spiritual much less any thing at all of Rebellion or Blood or Wickedness under any pretence whatsoever For these Sufferers both pretended and intended the sole honor of Christ against Nestorianism And yet we see how severely and positively they i. e. those ancient Bishops of Ireland or Iberia were by Gregory the Great dealt with on the point of their suffering persecution for that cause how specious or probable soever which a greater body of Christians did condemn and which all Christians might be sure was no part of those undoubted verities of Religion for which if occasion were they were bound to suffer and suffering and dying so were also to expect certainly and confidently the reward of the blessed a Crown of Glory in Heaven Whence you may judge what he would say to you at this present for being led by men who would persuade you still to suffer persecution for a Cause which hath nothing of that speciousness in it a Cause which hath nothing to make the sufferance for it appear in any wise rational to sober men a Cause that hath not the ancient nor even the modern Bishops of any one other Kingdom or Province in the World to make it seem the less improbable no nor any one of those ancient Bishops of Old Rome alone and yet a Cause that in the very outward Superficies hath nothing clearer than worldly Pomp Power Vanity Pride Usurpation Rebellion Treason Blood and all kind of Injustice and Vice to brand it and finally by very evident consequence a Cause that in its own nature conduces to nothing not according to reason can promote any thing less than the honour of either the Divinity or Humanity of our Saviour Christ against any Sect whatsoever XVIII That in the last place having your eyes thus prepared all these things being consider'd you may clearly see thorough that other sly artifice of those self same interested men whereby they would perswade you at least to so much filial Reverence to the great Father of Christendom as to acquaint Him first with your present condition send him a Copy of the publick Instrument you intend to fix upon with the Reasons also inducing you thereunto pray His approbation thereof in order to your signing it and then expect a while his Paternal Advice and Benediction before you make any further progress
You may at the very first hearing of this Proposal plainly discover their design to be no other than by such indirect means of cunning delayes under pretence of filial reverence forsooth to hinder you for ever from professing at least to any purpose i. e. in a sufficient manner or by any sufficient Formulary that loyal obedience you owe to his Majesty and to the Laws of your Country in all Affairs of meer temporal concern This you cannot but judge to be their drift unless peradventure you think them to be really so frantick as to perswade themselves That from Julius Caesar or his Successor Octavian after the one or the other had by arms and slaughter tyrannically seized the Commonwealth any one could expect a free and voluntary restitution of the People to their ancient Liberty or which is it I mean and is the more unlikely of the two That from Clement the Tenth now sitting in the Chair at Rome or from his next or from any other Successor now after six hundred years of continual usurpation in matters of highest nature and now also after the Lives of about fourscore Popes one succeeding another since Hildebrand or Gregory the Seventh his Papacy and since the Deposition of the Emperor Henry the Fourth by Him in the year of Christ 1077 any one should expect by a paper-Petition or paper-Address to obtain the restoring or manumising of the Christian World Kingdoms States and Churches to their native rights and freedom or that indeed it could be other than ridiculous folly and madness to expect this And yet certainly thiâ— must be the natural consequent of the Popes or present Papal Courts giving you licence to sign such a publick Instrument as will do your selves and Religion right amongst his Majesties Protestant Subjects or as even amongst your selves will satisfie the more ingenuous loyal and intelligent Persons Thus at last in so many several Paragraphs in all eighteen I have given at large those farther and more particular thoughts of mine relating both to the proper causes and proper remedies of those Evils which as you so much complain lie so heavy on you as Papists to wit the rigorous Sanctions of the penal Laws c. And consequently I have given you those conceptions whereof I said also before not only That without peradventure you may find them to be right if you please to examine things calmly with unprejudicâ—d reading and coolely with unbyassed reason but also That beside your great concern above others in the peculiar Subject of the Book it was my desire to speak directly and immediately to your selves all that moved me to make this consecratory Address to you as esteeming the knowledge of such matters to be for your great advantage and withall considering a Dedicatory Epistle as the fittest place in which I might present them to your view A third motive yet and this the onely other if in effect it be another of this Dedication was my further desire of choosing you as the fittest Judges of such a Work seeing you are the only Professors amongst all those of so many different Churches in these Kingdoms who peculiarly derive your Faith from that of Old Rome which will still be famous throughout the World For although I thought it excusable not to importune you for Patronage to a Book whose Nativity is I know not which very hard or very easie to calculate nevertheless I held it but reasonable to submit wholly to your judgment the Book it self and the Subject therein handled or the Controversie 'twixt the persecuted Remonstrants of the year 1661 of one side and their persecuting Antagonists of the other In which judgment of yours I have the more reason to be concern'd for both That this and some other Books or Tracts of mine already printed and publish'd besides some other well nigh ready for the Press as well in English as in Latin do in that cause wholly decline the Authoritative â—udgment of His Holiness and consequently of all His suspected Ministers and all other suspected Delegates whatsoever as holding them in that Controversie not to be competent Judges but criminal Parties and knowing that not only in common reason and equity but also by the express Canons of the Catholick Church they cannot be Parties and Judges in the same cause with authority to bind others Therefore until His Holiness or His subordinate Ministers Officials or Delegates under Him in point of or in order to such Authoritative Judgment be pleased to proceed Canonically against me and other Remonstrants i. e. to proceed against us in a Regular Judicatory or Tribunal and in a Regular way that is by giving us indifferent Judges and a place of safety to appear in and both beyond all exception according to the Canons of the Universal Church I and my said Fellow-sufferers the few remaining constant Remonstrators must be in a high measure concern'd in that other I think more excellent kind of judgment which is common to you and to all judicious sober conscientious Men a judgment not of authority or power to bind others but of discretion and reason to direct your selves in order to that opinion you are to hold of and communication you may have with us after you have throughly and seriously ponderâ—d the merits of our Cause and the proceedings of those who would make themselves even against all the Rules of Reason and all the Canons too of the Christian Church our Authoritative Judges in that very Cause in which they are the principal Parties However though I cannot for my own part otherwise choose than be somewhat sollicitous for the succesâ— while it is a meer future contingency yet I hope and am almost confident That my integrity and constancy in the Roman-Catholick Religion shall be vindicated against all Aspersions and Misconstructions when I Appeal to you for Justification whose Censure would be the most grievous that can befall me For in truth I do so Appeal to you in this very passage most humbly and earnestly demanding of you 1. Whether in those two grand Controversies one succeeding another the former that of the Nuncio Rinuccini's Ecclesiastical Censures of Interdict and Excommunication in the Kingdom of Ireland (e) an 1648. against all the Adherers to the Cessation concluded by the Confederate Catholicks with the then Baron now or late Earl of Inchiquin who had then declared for the late King the later of the Remonstrance presented to His Majesty (f) an 1661 â— since His Happy Restauration in both which I have ever since continually engaged against the Roman Courts designs on the Supreme Temporal power of these Kingdoms Whether I say my Sermons or my Books my Doctrine or my Practice in the Concerns of either Controversie can be justly tax'd with so much as one tittle or one action against that Roman-Catholick Faith which you all together with the Roman-Catholick World abroad believe as necessary to Salvation 2. Or seeing there is not so much as any
immediately before the foresaid Mauritius Aemulator sayes that Roman Pontiff (b) Agatio was chosen Pope or rather Bishop of Rome an 678. Agatho verae Apostolicae fidei piae memoriae Augustus Justinianus cujus fidei rectitudo quantum pro sincera confessione Deo placuit tantum Rempublicam Christianam exaltavit Et ubique ab omnibus gentibus ejus religiosa memoria veneratione digna censetur cujus fidei rectitudo per augustissima ejus Edicta in toto orbe diffusa laudatur Would Agatho have said so of an Heretick * To Agatho I might add Gregory II. in several Epistles nay and a far greater Authority too viz. the Fathers of the Sixth Oecumanical Sâ—nod besides many others after them See Baâ—â—â—s himself and his Epitomizer Spâ—â—danus confessing so much ad an 565. 3. That if the Truth were known it would be found that Baronius and the rest following him were willing to make use of any malicious ungrounded Fictions whatsoever against Justinian not that they believed him to have either lived at any time or dyed at last in any wilful or imputable Errour or in any at all otherwise than St. Cyprian of Carthage did but that his Laws in Ecclesiastical matters even those of Faith are a perpetual eye-sore to them because these Laws are a Precedent to all other good Princes to govern their own respective Churches in the like manner without any regard of Bulla Coenae or of so many other vain Allegations of those men that would make the World believe it unlawful for Secular Princes to make Ecclesiastical Laws by their own sole Authority for the government of the Church and all orders and degrees of Church men under them even to the very Patriarchs inclusively as Justinian did and you may see in his very many Constitutions to that purpose he did X. Although I do ingenuously confess I had on the Subject of Ecclesiastical either Exemption or Subjection very much light and help from those excellent Authors that writ before me so well on that Subject I mean both the Barclayes the Father and Son yet the learned Reader may see I have been very far from borrowing all from them or any other who treated before or after on Ecclesiastical Immunity Wherever I make use of them I have commonly added everywhere i. e. in every Section to their Answers Animadversions and Proofs my own both reasoning and reading elsewhere I have also raised against my self the strongest Objections I could imagine which they had not nor consequently the Solutions Nay Canons also viz. those Paâ—al ones which the Barclayes do not mention I have both objected and answered at large because I observed our later Casuists or Moralists Azorius and Bonacina c or chiefly or onely or at least partly to quote them though they do no more but barely quote the Chapters not the words or Text for their false Positions about Ecclesiastical Immunity as you may see in my whole LXXI Section from pag. 230. to pag. 241. Besides the whole Affirmative or Positive way against Bellarmine and his Disciples the Louain Divines in five intire long Sections from pag. 243 to pag. 374 where I assume the person of the Opponent to prove the Subjection of all Clergy-men to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate and prove it by Scripture Tradition Fathers Councils and as well by Ecclesiastical yea very Papal Canons as Imperial Constitutions and by Practice also and Reason is wholly from other Collections of my own neither of both the Barclayes nor Withrington nor any other seen by me having so much proceeded in this Affirmative or Positive way but mostly in that which I call Negative as it which hath for principal scope to deny and solve the Arguments of Bellarmine c. XI As for the two grand Objections framed by me against my self the one from the condemnation of Marsilius de Padua and Joan. de Janduno the other from the Martyrdom of St. Thomas of Canterbury or rather for my Answers and long material Discourses Sect. LXXVI from pag. 374 to pag. 436. nay to 462. upon and by occasion of each or either of the said two Objections I must no less ingenuously acknowledge that I was necessitated to be my self alone my own guide all along without either light or help from any Authour that handled either Subject For I never saw nor heard of any such Authour Which was the reason that I took more than ordinary pains to clear whatsoever might be alledged or pretended from either that Condemnation or this Martyrdom against the soundness of that Doctrine which maintains the Subjection of all Clergy-men whatsoever to the Supreme Temporal both directive and coercive authority even of meer Lay-Princes and States but more especially to clear the whole Intrigue of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel with Henry II and the Cause for which he suffered and to shew it was no Divine right nor even other Humane save only that of the Civil Secular and Municipal Saxon Danish and Norman Laws of England which he grounded himself on when he refused to deliver at the Kings pleasure the Criminal Clerks to be punish'd or judg'd by the Secular Judges and Officers XII The veneration I have as I am bound to the Roman-Catholick Church or that Communion in general wheresoever diffused throughout the World and my knowledge of their having in all their Calendars on the 29th of December the Festival of St. Thomas of Canterbury made me the First also that for any thing I know ventures in a singular and long Discourse by way of Appendix after my four several Answers given to the grand Objection against c. from the Martyrdom of that holy Bishop of set purpose to vindicate him from having been a Traytor to the King whether or no he was a Martyr in the Church through the merits of his Cause and according to the more proper and stricter Ecclesiastical sense of the word Martyr Three hundred years indeed after his death he was under Henry VIII in a very unusual manner both judicially summon'd to appear and formally condemn'd for a Traytor Then which judgment if woâ—â— grounded nothing can be more prejudicial to the practice of all Roman-Catholicks in the World in keeping his Festivity and honouring his Memory and begging his intercession for them to our Lord and Saviour Christ That it hath been in-grounded I do my devoir to shew and prove from pag. 439 to pag. 462. where I answer first all that hath been or could be alledged against him and then produce eight several Arguments even very strong Presumptions both in Law and Reason for him I mean as to this controverted Point Whether he could be justly said to have either dyed or even at any time lived or been a Traytor against the King People or Laws of England XIII Where I seem pag. 438. somewhat too severe on Matthew Parker the First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth you must not persuade your self I do at all
and such I mean of them as have been so Printed I have moreover shewed there that were those very Lateran and Tridentine Canons nay the very General Statutes of Victoria received in the Countries or Provinces where I Printed any of those Books of mine or Father Caron his own excepted against by Adversaries and consequently where I now publish this present Book yet the meaning of the Fathers who made those Canons or Statutes could not extend nor be construed to extend to all Causes Cases and Contingencies whatsoever nor consequently to the Cause Case or Contingency wherein Father Caron and I have Printed heretofore or wherein I do now Print or Publish this present Work or shall hereafter any other on the same Subject Nay I have there abundantly and clearly proved That it is not in the power not even of the Universal Church of Christ as such to make if they would any such Canon or Statute or any I say of such meaning or sense because * 2 Cor. 13.10 there is no power given by Christ to his Church for destruction but for edification as Paul the Apostle hath long since declared XXX As for the more malicious Objections of another nature I mean those meer Calumnies and Forgeries which the In famous Author whoever he was of the Dublin Libel some years since written and dispersed there directly against me and other my Fellow Remonstrants I confess but withal indirectly and if I be not much deceived even principally aiming at the most Illustrious person of His Grace the Duke of ORMOND hath amassed together the most speciously i. e. the most cunningly but falsely too boot he could and which therefore or however may perhaps occur to some others who have read them and yet saw no Answer to them and for that reason may work in them against this present Book of mine some kind of prejudice I must advertise thee 1. That for what concerns either my self or my said Fellow Remonstrants I have also before now at large and of purpose in my foresaid Latin Hibernica Part III cap. 5 6 7. discovered as I shall yet hereafter in the Second Tome of this English Work as in a more proper place discover the imposture of those for one part lying and for the rest deceitful vain objections as being wholly composed either of meer Forgeries or imperfect Relations of matter of Fact and those Relations too given so imperfectly out of meer design to deceive the Reader by suppressing or saying not a word of that which if known would of it self not only not leave any place for an objection but clear all objections imaginable 2. That for what concerns His Grace the Duke of ORMOND you may see in the last Appendix of this Book i. e. in His own very Excellent Letter which is there a clear both discovery and conviction of and against all the malicious and lying Reflections of that Libel on Him for His management of Publick Affairs or Conduct of the Army in Ireland since the Peace of 1648 concluded till He was forc'd out of that Kingdom in 1650 by the Declaration and Excommunication of the Irish Prelats at Jamestown c. As for His Carriage formerly and first in disposing Affairs to and then concluding the former Peace or that of 1646 you may see Him in all respects throughly vindicated in the Complete History of all the Publick Transactions and other particulars too of the late Irish Wars Which History as I have said before is now preparing for the Press 3. That you may see moreover not only in my foresaid Hibernica but in my First Latin Epistle ad Haroldum which was published last year what Penalties I say not by the municipal Laws of England and Ireland which are known to all the Students of our English Laws but even by as well the Canon Law as the Civil he i. e. the AUTHOR of the foresaid LIBEL is obnoxious to How by the Laws of the Emperours Valentinian and Valens (a) Cod. de Famos Libel l. uni◠he should be put to death by the Canon (b) 5. q. 1. cap. quidam of Pope Adrian if he can be found or if appearing of himself he cannot prove the truth of the particulars of his Libel he must be stript naked and whipt with scourges by the Council of Eliberis (c) ead cap. Quidam he is to be anathematized by the Canon (d) ead cap. Quidam ex lib. 5. Epist Greg. Epist 30. sive cap. 130. in Castorii casu supra of Gregory the Great until he appear and confess himself to be the Author he is presently de facto deprived of the participation of the body and blood of our Lord and if notwithstanding he dare approach to these adorable mysteries he is also ipso facto even as to all other Goods and Rites of and communication with the Church both excommunicated and anathematized and wholly as a deceitful pestiferous person separated from the Holy Catholick Church How also not he alone who is the principal Author but even all others qui consansum in 〈◊〉 iniquitatis consilio praebuerum who consented with him in such iniquity are in the same manner ipso facto excommunicated anathematized and separated c. by the self-same Canon of Gregory How by both Civil and Canon Law he and they are likewise ipso facto per sententiam rendred infamous (e) Infames ipso facto per sententiam esse Gloss in dictum cap. Quidam verb. potuerit How moreover both by the foresaid Canon of Pope Adrian and foresaid Law of the Emperours Valentinian and Valens it is Enacted That not only such as consent unto or participate with the principal Author in his iniquity but such as even by chance either at home or abroad in any place whatsoever light upon a Libel and not tear it presently or burn it but reveal the Contents thereof to any other are to be taken for the principal Author or Authors and are accordingly to be punish'd That is are by the Ecclesiastical Court to be sentenced to Scourging and by the Civil to be sentenced to Beheading flagellandos esse sayes the Canon and Capitali sententiae subjugandos sayes the Law 4. That for the sake of Father Peter Talbot the Titular Archbishop of Dublin and of his Complices I took the pains to quote these Laws and Canons whereby it may be seen what he and they deserved nay what de facto they lie under by their infamous wretched tricks of Libelling against me and not against me onely but also against so many others those I mean no less truly venerable and pious than sincerely Loyal and Remonstrant Irish Priests For I will speak nothing here of the most Illustrious Duke of ORMOND who is infinitely above all the malice of those Libellers and hath hitherto by so much appear'd more and more deservedly glorious by how much the malice and envy of some men have fixed the eyes of all sober men
liberty or that ease from the penal laws which they so vehemently desired might be so sollicited and obtained by him That my Lord Aubigny himself though expecting the Cardinal Dignity was so farre from disapproveing that Remonstrance or their concurrence to it when first it came forth in Print That he sayed plainly and often to the Procuratour when complaining to him of his said Confessour Father Peter Aylmer at that time with his Lordship at London If the King would be advised by him there should not be a Priest in any of the three Kingdoms but such as would freely sign it That although a while after when he hearkned to the Jesuits he relented somewhat on consideration of their furtherance of his pretensions at Rome or of removeing the obstacles they might perhaps otherwise put in his waye yet on better consideration again return'd to his former and fix'd principles and therefore advised the said Father Aylmer either to sign or withdraw himself out of England Which was the immediate cause of Mr. Aylmers comming then for Ireland though with design also to do all the mischief he could to cross that business as truly he did by manifest untruths although he protested so lately before and so publickly in the presence of 30. Catholicks Priests and Catholick Bishops too at London when the rest signed it that he singled not himself for point of conscience and that he would with his blood sign the lawfulness and Catholickness of it yet pretending after that he had not sufficiently studied nor understood the point as indeed he never seemed to have before or after That for the rest of the Queens Chaplains ordinary or extraordinary I mean the English Irish who were concern'd and to whom it was proper I must confess the grand mistake was in not offering it them by authority at first when it came forth as to my knowledge it was intended to be offered at Hampton-Court and at Council upon a certain Sunday but none of the copies being at hand that day and other things intervening after they were neglected Which gave so much encouragement to all other dissentors ever since albeit the case of those Chaplains and that of the rest of the Irish Clergie be very different and that none of the rest who have been so expresly particularly and positively desired their own concurrence should on that pretence denye or excuse it That finally for what concerns my Lord Abbot Montague what ever his own peculiar interest was or is in relation to that Remonstrance or to an approbation of it if demanded I am sure that being as well as my Lord Aubigny acquainted with the Divinity of France having his title and so great a benefice there and being so conversant in that Court and Church his judgement must have been for the Catholickness and lawfulness of it And a person of so great both reason and experiance in the affairs of these Nations could not but conceive it was both expedient and necessary for such of the Romish Clergie natives as would live at home in any of them to sign it and for such as were abroad or would be not to hinder those at home by disswasion from the good they might expect thereby And could not but conceive it was both expedient and necessary even for His Majesties greater assurance of them that they should do so That besides nothing more in particular being known of my Lord Abbot Mountague's affection or disaffection to that matter nay were even his positive perswasion to the contrary known of certain as it was never for any thing I could here and I have listened after it sufficiently carefully enough yet his Lordships even such demeanour could be no rational pretence for them his forraign dependency his special priviledge by serving the Queen Mother in so great a capacity as he is known to serve Her exempting him from a rule concerning others that had no such arguments to excuse them To say nothing here of his being an English man and Priest of that Clergie who were not so neerly concern'd not to be backward as the Irish Clergie were and who nevertheless did then for the generality of them most heartily desire as they do at this present His Majestie were pleased to favour them so much albeit not lying under those great suspicions the Irish Clergie do at least not having in our dayes given such cause as to demand their subscriptions to such an Instrument and be content therewith in lieu of those other demonstrations the laws they lye under expect from them IX However such as made it their interest to oppose any further subscription made use of these and many other such pittiful and too too weak pretences to excuse their nonconcurrence when they saw no further probability in those no less weak pretences of Theological arguments borrowed from Suarez Bellarmine and others of their way that writ on the Subject of the Popes ill-grounded pretences to and over the Scepters and Royal Diadems or temporal authority of Kings and in particular of the Kings of England But indeed the true causes of their backwardness and reluctancy and which even themselves almost all generally upon occasion acknowledg'd were 1. That most of their leading men and such as not onely were in office over others but very many also that bore no such offices at all as then were pretendents and candidats either abroad at Rome for titulary Archbishopricks Bishopricks Vicar-generalships Deanries Parishes Provincialships Commissaryships c. or at home amongst their own Brethren for votes to be chosen presented or preferred to such offices either amongst the secular or regu-Clergie as they aspired unto albeit as poor and inconsiderable amongst the Clergie as little Cures in Parishes without other advantage than the bare benevolence of the laye people and even as poor and inconsiderable as a Guardianship Priorship or some such other now very vain title in Ireland amongst the Regulars For because at Rome and for what depended of that Court immediately they perswaded themselves that to subscribe would be a perpetual obstruction to all their hopes as the case stands in Ireland the King being of a different communion and even at home also they could expect no more favour from their own Brethren or their own actual superiours Bishops Vicars-general Provincials c. that were adverse to the Remonstrance as most of them certainly were even such as both in their judgements for point of conscience and in their natural inclinations also to the English Crown and interests of it in Ireland were truly in their Soules for the Remonstrance would not by any means be induced to declare themselves publickly such either in word or writing 2. That such as in the late Warrs had engaged themselves against both Peaces or either of them and against the foregoing Cessation and consequently for the Censures of the Nuncio apprehended it for want of Christian humility or a true sense of piety as the worst of evils
excuse their great dependence from the Ordinaries and Secular Clergy as to their future admission to the respective Districts or Diocesses and their establishment for houses in the Countrey Besides that they were but a very few and inconsiderable in respect of others That however their judgment affection or extraction lead them yet this cause alone might be sufficient for their excuse not to subscribe without encouragment by example from the Ordinaries And yet it is very well known that several of them as likewise of the other more ancient Orders laboured earnestly and mightily that there should be no such encouragment or example at all from Ordinaries or any other Whereof the reason is very obvious Because the later any religious Institution is and the newer in any Catholick Countrey the greater dependence it must have and the more support it wants from Rome Which those three last Orders amongst us were so far from putting to any hazard to be lost by subscription that they would assure themselves of it more and more by the greatest opposition they could make in favour of all pretences for the holy See and thereby also be sure to continue their yearly pensions of Missionaries such of them I mean as are pensionaries upon the account of mission as several are 9. That above all the Jesuits yet more particularly found themselves concern'd on this particular account that so many great and famous Writers of their Society and by consequence the whole Society it self had been all along these fourscore years at least throughly engaged to maintain the contrary doctrine and practises 10. That on the other side the Secular Clergy pretended there was no signing for themselves before the Regulars concurr'd who as being commonly the best Divines and Preachers and many in number and changeable from County to County and from one Diocess and Province to another at their Superiours will and in most parts in greater esteem with the lay people then the Secular Clergy would if not concurring with them cast such an aspersion on them as would be able to render them infamous and contemptible amongst their own Parishioners upon account of so specious a pretence amongst ignorant people as the renouncing the Papal power and acknowledging the King to be Supream Head of the Church would amount unto For so many and very many too of both Secular and Regular Clergy gave out to the common sort against their own knowledge and conscience the Subscribers mean'd and did by that Remonstrance of 61. representing it as the same thing with the Oath of Supremacy which Roman Catholicks generally have refused this hundred years and therefore lay under so many incapacities and other penalties Nay some of those Clergy-men did not stick to say and swear too they would sooner take the Oath of Supremacy than subscribe that Remonstrance And yet it is very clear those Gentlemen understand neither or if they do either that certainly they are out as to both in their explications of them as far as from East to West For in the sense wherein the sons of the Protestant Churches of England and Ireland take the Oath of Supremacy they acknowledge no spiritual Supremacy purely such or any such spiritual Headship or supream Government-ship in the King in any causes or things what soever even temporal so far are they from acknowledging such in causes or things Ecclesiastical or Spiritual not even in those which are by extrinsecal denomination only called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual but only a Supream Politick Civil or Temporal Head-ship or Government-ship in all things whatsoever by the power of the material Sword and this of this Sword over all persons generally as well Church-men as others Which sense is very Catholick and owned in relation to their Kings and 〈…〉 temporal Governours by all Catholicks in France Spain Germany Poland Italy 〈◊〉 wheresoever in the world Nor do they intend to deny by the 〈◊〉 Oath in the negative â—â—me any power purely spiritual to the Pope or other even 〈◊〉 Prelate 〈◊〉 that power only which 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—ugnant to that supâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 temporal or politick Government-ship be not said to be such as indeed it cannot justly And on the other side it is plain the Remonstrance o◠〈…〉 not a word or clause either defectâ—â—◠〈◊〉 directly or by any kind of consequence importing the 〈◊〉 wherein the Roman Catholicke have refused â—â—therto the â—â—nd Oath of Supremacy 〈◊〉 this sense is no other than 〈…〉 by the universality of the words or signs 〈◊〉 the affirmative and negative 〈◊〉 the Roman Catholick Vulgar understands ever also a spiritual Privacy or Supremacy purely such to be attributed to the King and denied to the Pope and other Bishops in those Dominions albeit this sense be plainly repugnant to the very Confession of Faith in the 〈◊〉 articles of the Prâ—â—estâ—â—â— Church England and Ireland and to those others of Queen Elizabeth in her Injuctions authorized and owned even by Parliament Now it is no less manifest and out of all controversie amongst such as do but even lead singly over the Protestation of 61. that there us not a word in it 〈◊〉 â—biâ—â—ting any such to the King or denying it to the Pope or intending at all any such thing nor indeed any thing else but what is allowed and approved by the doctrine and practice of all the Catholick world abroad iâ— peradventure the present Roman Court not the Roman Church be not excepted and the few sticklers for it although against the sense and inclination of all the wise and moderate Popes even I mean too such as governed that See in these latter times But however this be or be not such was the pretence of many for not concurring by their subscriptions albeit they confess'd withal the Remonstrance very catholick in it self And for this pretence or the scandal raised against the Remonstrance of renouncing the Pope or importing the same with the Oath of Supremacy besides the malicious or wilful stumbling of some at one word in it not construed or taken with the words immediatly following restraining that word as all men of never so little reason or sense must allow it ought to be I know not but the reprinting of the single sheet of that Remonstrance at London by some of purpose to gain by selling it when all the first Edition was immediately bought and the reprinting of it with a false Title cryed and sold so up and down the Streets which false Title imported the renouncing of the Pope by the Popish Clergy of Ireland whether I say this occasioned not at first that aspersion amongst some ignorant people I know not though I am sure it could not amongst the Clergy on Layety either that read the paper it self or what was therein contained 11. That some also of the leading men had a special pick to it only because advanced by the Procurator by whose means they would not even desire the freest exercise of their Religion because he had been all
of the chief maintainers of his spiritual Primacy at least in the whole latitude of even the pretences of it execution of such pretences to so great a diminution of the ordinary power of all other Bishops wheresoever as the Bishops themselves Arch-bishops Primats and Patriarchs too complain of whether justly or injustly I meddle not with that And that moreover they could not be ignorant of what their own Divines do teach in such a case of revocation without cause at least for an unjust cause and for so ill an end as the supporting of errour and Heresy in the Church or of what St. Paul before them taught Non est potestas ad destructionem c. or of the character and power they received in their consecration or of what the power of jurisdiction imports and what it is in its own nature and that nothing els by addition but ablatio obicis and how both Christ himself and the Church of Christ supplyes what is wanting what is obstructing crosses even that ebex or obstacle when it is put by an unjust sentence and for a general destruction or corruption by any Prelate soever revokeing so or attempting to revoke so against former laws Canons Nor could be ignorant how their own Divines also teach their priviledges are most of them for such as are material inserted even in the body of the Canon Law and ratified by general Councils even by the very Council of Trent as many as are not there specifically revoked And that the Pope is not Lord absolute but Lord Keeper only of the Canons at least of those we call in opposition to others Canones Vniversalis Ecclesiae And further teach that the Priviledges of Regulars as to the main and material of them are of the nature of those are called Remunerative which cannot at least so easily and without an evident abuse be recalled Nor could be ignorant also such of them as were conversant in Ecclesiastical History how the Franciscan Order alone could and did maintain themselves and their own lawful priviledges against all the thunders of John the two and Twentieth incensed against them principally or only for maintaining their Temporal Allegiance to Ludovicus Bavarus then Emperour though deposed by the Popes unjust sentence as much I say as such a Papal sentence could depose him verbally That those Regulars moreover knew no less their own interest to be greater in the people and Clergie both of Ireland and the esteem of them farre greater than that the Ordinaries could upon such an improbable ground or would or dared attempt any thing to their prejudice much less prevaile if they would be so inconsiderate as to venture on that ground any attempt against them Whereas on the contrary the Ordinaries themselves confess'd their farre greater influence or that of Regulars on the people Which is so true that for example Doctor Daly Vicar general of Ardmagh and Judge Delegate in all that Province by Commission from the titular Catholick-Primate when at Dublin some two years past called upon to sign the said Remonstrance or give his reasons why not alleadged for not concurring then and confess'd plainly and several times his only reason for not doing it was the opposition of the Franciscans in his Province who were indeed said he the only Divines they had That for his own part he was no Divine and his learning was but a little in the Canons and that little too principally in those of the Council of Trent yet such little thereof as he had by practice because received in that Province That the Franciscans only boare all the swaye amongst his Ulster-people and that indeed so very great that if he could get but only four leading men of them Father Thomas Makiernan Anthony Gowan Malachias Corcran Bonaventure Quin to sign with him he would undertake to bring the whole Province or Arch-Bishoprick of Ardmagh with the several Ordinaries Bishops Vicars General and other inferiour Clergie to sign at Dublin And so true besides that Father Oliver Dese Vicar General of Meath alleaged also and confessed often that four or five leading men only of the several Provinces of Ireland of that very Franciscan Order who had been formerly of the Nuncios party once concurring would infallibly draw after them to a like concurrence or subscription all the rest not only of that Order but of all other Orders of the regular Clergie and not of the regular Clergie alone but even of all the Secular also in all parts of the Kingdom who hitherto either opposed or not concurr'd to it 6. To the Franciscans in particular I mean those leading Nuntiatists and their party in that Order it was answered That they had the more reason to shew on this occasion good example to others by how much they were known formerly upon an other quite contrary to have been so active in giving them bad by misleading them from their duty to the utter destruction of their Country and Religion And that now therefore they above others should endeavour singularly and hasten to redeem as much as in them laye by lawful conscientious and Catholick demonstrations of their loyaltie hereafter what they had so perpetrated in former times against the Catholick and Christian maximes of fidelity And that it is no shame to retract an errour but a very great sin to continue in it 7. To the Dominicans That union in an evil cause or purpose is not that union which deserves a blessing but a curse from God And a pursuance of it is not that perseverance to which our Saviour in the Gospel promiseth salvation but a most dreadful condemnation even fire and flames and everlasting torments in Hell That as to those Franciscans was answered it was no shame to retract or repent but the shame was in continueing obstinately an errour and it was never too late to begin to do well and the reward proposed on one side and the punishments on the other by God himself did not only countervaile but surmount infinitely all those vaine apprehensions of being reputed changelings and all that shame which they so much apprehended for doing well but which indeed they ought to have reflected on when they formerly did so ill That their first allegation of their Acts Statutes or Declarations at Kilkenny should be reputed amongst rational men both a sufficient and necessary motive for them above others to wash away the stain which they so deeply were coloured with in graine And their second which was their grand Achilles but only by a fond imagination could be no excuse at all Whereas they cannot but confess their said Oath or said Constitutions or both oblige them not but secundum aequum et bonum where no grand inconvenience follows much less oblige them at all where the laws of God or man of the Church or Kingdom Ecclesiastical or Temporal unto which they must as Subjects conform oblige them to the contrary And they could not but
sinful obedience to the will of others Because the Procurator had out of a particular regard of such honest men of their Society in Ireland as joyn'd with him formerly in the differences with the Nuntio and out of an esteem and affection also for their Society in it self as considered in its primitive foundation institution and observance and in its labours for the training up of youth laying aside the latter prejudices brought upon it by those inconsiderat works of some though too many of their chief writers because I say the Procurator had for those reasons ventur'd so fairly and earnestly both in his More Ample Account and in his private discourses lately and earnestly with some persons of highest rank in both Kingdoms to vindicate as much as in him lay the Irish Jesuits though not every individual of them from those aspersions the generality of that Order lyes under amongst Protestants at least in England and from such aspersions indeed against their practises and against their principles or doctrine not of deposition only but of equivocation mental reservation and of the lawfulness of changing opinions resolutions and practices too at pleasure according to their other maximes of extrinsick probability and in all matters whatsoever and because he had done so much herein that whereas before those great persons had no inclination at all to receive any kind of declaration of Allegiance or faithfulness from men of such principles as the foresaid printed Authors argue in their opinions the Society in general to be yet he prevailed so far with them as not to involve the Fathers in Ireland in the same esteem with such others of the same Order in some other Countries as had so justly deserved their blame and censure 9. To that other excuse common to the three late Orders as well Capuchins and Carmelits as Jesuits the answer was That the Princes or States permission of or connivence with them should more be regarded then that either of Ordinaries or pre-existent Regulars or of the Court of Rome it self And this they could not expect in reason if they they appeared not zealous of His Majesties lawful rights and prerogatives in all temporal matters and for the peace and safety of his People and Kingdoms at least if they shewed themselves perverse and peevish against either or against so lawful and necessary a duty as is a bare naked Remonstrance or Declaration of their loyal principles and affections where and when so justly expected from them by and to assure His Majesty of their better carriage hereafter then Himself or his Father of glorious memory had found in the late wars of their Countrey And if by their cheerful hearty concurrence to such demonstrations of duty they merited a better opinion hereafter to be had of them by His Majesty and great Ministers of State and such as would really deserve protection they needed not fear the opposition of others whatsoever whiles they behaved themselves as men of discretion and their profession should 10. To that Bugbear which those of the Secular Clergy alledged to excuse themselves it was said That they very well knew it was a meer pretence That the Shoo did not really pinch them there That albeit the Regulars were numerous and of esteem yet not of so great or prevalent as in such a matter or any at all which had reason for it and for the Secular Clergy could any way bear them down even in case the Regulars did not concur with them That they were the Pastors and Leaders of the Flock by power command and law of the Church and their authority and jurisdiction established by the Canons from the very beginning That the Regulars had no such authoritative commanding power nor subjection due unto them from the people but was voluntary in the internal Court of Conscience in foro paenitentiali or only in the private auricular confessional seat That besides it had no kind of colour but their example would be immediatly followed by all Regulars by some freely and heartily who were otherwise themselves our of judgment and affection too so principled and so affected and only expected their authority to back them by others out of shame and fear to see by any further opposition themselves reduced to a streight of giving other reasons then such as they could not own or maintain and of discovering so the true cause rebellious principles and affections and consequently of seeing themselves houted at by all sober and good people even of their own religion and communion And as for the false aspersion and scandal raised against that Remonstrance amongst some of the Commons as if it signified in effect as much as the Oath of Supremacy it was themselves suffered that of meer purpose to go oâ— and they might with one single declaration as easily disabuse all pâ—ssessed therewith as it was raised without any ground That no Church-man even the most malicious would before any understanding man own the raising or forwarding of it however it was known that some few of them in private corners did whisper it to the illiterate as I could name a certain Prior of the Dominicans Order Father Michael Fullam to have done most unconscientiously that I may say no more though chiefly of purpose to excuse by such diabolical forgeries their own opposition when upbraided therewith by good honest wel-meaning people as some few others of them had the impudence and I could instance Father W. L. of the Society and Father D. D. of the Franciscans for a long time to say and aver too that the King as being a Protestant should not be prayed for at all by Catholicks either publickly or privatly though some few others also and somwhat more warily though erroneously enough too and against plain Scriptures both in the Old and new Testament and the continued practice of the primitive Church distinguish'd the manner of praying for him and a long time held and indoctrinated others that he should not be prayed for so as to desire the temporal safety of his Crown or Person victory over his enemies or any prosperous earthly success unto him at all but his conversion only and repentance in this life and salvation in the next without any further addition That as this heretical doctrine was soon and quite beaten down by the contrary practice of the whole Clergy both Secular and Regular which now we see and hear at all Chappels and Altars so that calumny and scandal would throughout the Kingdom cease in one fortnight if they pleased to declare it such as they are bound in conscience truth and honesty to do 11. As for the pick of some to the Procurator whom they falsely suppose to be the Author of the Remonstrance though had he been so he would rather glory therein then be ashamed thereof or of the Declaration of loyalty inserted in that Remonstrance if not peradventure for being any way or in part defective or not home enough in some things
for the quarrel of God and for the defence of their Religion Nunc ergo O Filii aemulatores estate legis date animas vestras pro testamento Patrum vestrorum And cap. 13. we find vos scitis quanta ego fratres mei Domus patris mei fecimus pro legibus pro sanctis praelia I know the Author of the Book of the defence of the Remonstrance or Protestation saith that the Machabees made war through ignorance because they understood not their own law nor had the light of the law of Jesus Christ but he must give us leave not to believe him until he produceth some more warrantable authority then his bare word God having justified their war with miracles I have heard some say being pressed by this and other arguments that the wars of the Machabees were just not for that they fought for Gods cause or in defence of their Religion but because the true Prince retaineth his right alwayes and can recover his Kingdom again by force of arms if occasion serveth and he be able though his people be conquered and in a long and continued subjection to another King And therefore the Machabees had right to recover Iudea from the Gentile King and for this reason the war was just of their side But this evasion is a very slight one first because the Machabees are not praised for fighting for that cause but for their Religion Secondly because they had no right to the Crown of Iudea but the Progenitors of our Saviour Jesus Christ but they kept the command to themselves and never gave it to the right line of succession to the Crown among the Jews Besides none will presume to say that the wars of the late Earl of Tyrone against the Crown of England were just though his Ancestors were Kings of Ulster or Monarchs of Ireland What a probable opinion is and when a man may lawfully follow it Potest quis sequi tanquam probabilem opinionem unius doctoris probi docti maximé si adducat aliquam rationem intrinsicê probabilem et non sit contra opinionem communem Ita Sanches et undecimiali Non tamen si ab aliis Recentioribus valde famigeratis recitatur Ita Bresserus et alii Neque eo ipso quo invenitur impressa in aliquo Authore censeri potest probabilis .. Neque approbatio libri approbat omnes ejus opinniones Ita Marchantius et omnes alii communiter Let the Affirmative and the Negative of the above proposed question be be considered with the Reasons and Authors of both sides If they find reasons and authors according to what is laid down here concerning what is a probable opinion he may follow which part he pleaseth otherwise he cannot not follow it as a probable opinion XXVIII That forasmuch as in the Procuratour's Answers to their two or three former Queries they had had particularly cleerly his answer to this also that he found no new matter in this second paper but pitiful though replyes in effect which they can reasons for the affirmative yet such replyes as are grounded solely on the bare saying or opinion either of Pontius one of their own Society or of a confused rabble of such other Neoterick Schoolmen thronging together and treading in the stepps one of another like a flock of sheep without further serious ponderation of the nature of things in themselves or of those reasons would render such their saying intrinsecally probable or even extrinsecally from any decision or at least from any manifest determination obliging to submit unto nor found any thing more then either a full conviction of their not being conversant in those great Classick Authors Gerson Maior Almaine Johannes Parisiensis c. or the precedent or example of the Macchabees rebelling against Antiochus and the answer of the Procuratour to it in his little book entitled The More Ample Account this imperfectly related as ill considered and that worst of all applyed to maintain their affirmative resolve or a power in the Christian Church as purely such to inflict by force of Arms and by virtue of a Divine supernatural power corporal punishments upon any therefore and because too that none came ever after to own this second paper or demaund his rejoynder and moreover because themselves that sent it whoever they were did no longer insist upon it or any thing contain'd therein as shall be seen hereafter he lay'd it by as unsignificant for other purpose then to relate the folly of men that maugre all Christianity abuse themselves and others with such like silly and weak or false or only negative arguments For besides that if they had been pleased to consult Barclay the Father Son against Bellarmine and Widdrington's so many learned works against both the same Eminent Cardinal 's several books writt on this subject bearing either his own proper name or those of Tortus Sculkenius c as also against all the choycest arguments even of Cardinal Peron and so many others of the Society as Parsons and Gâ—etzer and fitz Herbert and Lessius personated under the name of Singleton or if they pleased to read what those other excellent Professors of Divinity of S. Benedicts Order Father Preston and Green apologized for themselves most learnedly to the Pope Gregory the XIIII they would have not only seen the vanity of their maxime of Statists or philosophers as here made use of or of Aristotle in particular so ill understood by them but that meaning of it or that the coercive power must be of the same kind with the directive to be that which was of a great number of most famous Classick Authors of the School besides that it was in all ages the doctrine of the Church and of even all the holy Fathers till Gregory the VII and that meaning also for what concerns our purpose deduced out of clear and evident Scriptures as those most famous Classick Authors perswaded themselves I say that besides all this if the authors of this Quaerie and second paper had considered a little their own allegations here and the arguments to the contrary they would find them partly false and partly unconcluding XXIX First they would find them false where they say that such as hold the negative can scarce produce one Classick Author c. and such as hold the affirmative may produce as many as ever wrote ex professo of this matter and if they mean only that Basilius Pontius sayes so they will find him too notoriously false if they please to consult Alensis Maior Gerson Almain Johannes Parisiensis c. not to speak a word of all or any of the holy Fathers nor of so many whole entire Vniversities nor of the common sense and practise of so many millions of the whole Catholick Church in all ages till Gregory the VII and after that believed and acknowledg'd themselves as a Church of Christ purely such to have no other coercion but
Green and Preston and last of all the most laborious and learned Latin Work In fol. of Father â—edmond Caron entituled Remonstrantia â—â—bernorum which is to be had in Dublin at Mr. Dancer the Booksellers in Castlestreet and which alone may serve for all the rest And then a Gods name such of them as pretend scruple in point of conscience if any of them do yet for I am perswaded certainly it is no more but a bare pretence and I know there are scarce any that alledge even such pretence or any thing at all of conscientiousness in the matter but meer temporal considerations let them determine as conscience not as worldly and mistaken interests shall direct them XXXVI Now to return whence I have so long digressed Soon after â—â—e said papers received and the former answered in writing as you have seen and the latter by word of mouth as you find here upon several occasions the Procurator being somewhat earnest with Father Shelton the then Superiour of the Society for his final resolution because some others of that very Society desired him to be so earnest alledging their own delayes was that only of knowing his resolution pro or con and promising they would themselves even in case of his denyal subscribe nevertheless immediatly Father Shelton having first convoked to Dublin from several parts such as he thought fit to consult with came at last to the Procurators Chamber and without further debate about the merits of the cause told him briefly and positively they would not subscribe that Form nor any other determining the main Question that is any disowning a power in the Pope to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their allegiance in temporal affairs because said he this was a matter of right controverted 'twixt two great Princes Yet they would frame one of their own and such as became them to subscribe Upon which he departed But the Gentleman that accompanied him one of his own Society Father Iohn Talbot who had often before treated of the same matter and promised his own concurrence with several others of his Order whatever the Superiour did told the Procurator in his ear as they were parting that Father Shelton had not rightly delivered the result of the rest But nevertheless being soon after demanded the performance of his own former and free promise excused himself also until he had seen or known it was expected by my Lord Lieutenant himself that they should subscribe of that their subscription was required or desired by his Grace and not by the Procurator only Wherein desiring further to be satisfied the said Superiour Father Shelton and with him two more of the Society Father Thomas Quin and Father Iohn Talbot being called upon waited on his Grace having first sent to the Procurator their own Form or that which they would subscribe even this you have here The Jesuits first Remonstrance Declaration or Protestation of Allegiance AS we do acknowledge King Charles the Second to be our true and lawful King and rightful Soveraign of Ireland and all His Majesties Dominions So we confess our selves to be in conscience obliged to obey His Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs and notwithstanding diversity of Religion in Him and us We protest we are and during life shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever and as either in Spain or France the Catholick Subjects are to their respective Kings and will be ready to detect and discover to His Majesty and to his Ministers whatsoever Treasons or Conspiracies shall come to our knowledge yea and expose if need be our lives in defence of his Majesties Person and Royal Authority and that by no Power on Earth whether Spiritual or Temporal we shall be moved to recede from any point of this our Allegiance and we further from our hearts detest for impious Doctrine and against the Rules of all Christianity to averr That any Subject can murther his Anointed King or Prince though of a different Faith and Religion and much more we abhorr as damnable the practice of that wicked assertion But being told by the Procurator it signified a meer nothing not even as much as a bare absolute or positive acknowledgment of the King to be King much less any thing of the cases controverted as that of the Popes pretended power to depose the King or even of his actual procedure to a deposition excommunication dispensation with or absolution of Subjects from their Allegiance whether he have such power or not they changed that their first Form and prepared this other which themselves delivered my Lord on the 4th of December 62. The Procurator being present and Father Quin speaking first as one formerly known to his Grace and one to that sign'd with seven other Catholick Divines of Dublin the lawfulness and tye upon Catholicks to resist the Irish Forces headed by the Nuncio when the Confederats rejected the peace of 46. and were drawn to besiege Dublin The tenor of their second form was this The Jesuits second Remonstrance Declaration or Protestation of Allegiance WE acknowledge His Majesty King Charles the Second to be our true and lawful King supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and all other His Majesties Dominions We acknowledge our selves bound in Conscience to obey his Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs and notwithstanding the diversity of Religion in Him and us we engage that during life we shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever and as either in Spain or France the Catholick Subjects are or ought to be to their respective Kings and shall be ready to expose if occasion shall require our lives in defence of His Majesties Person and Royal Authority and no power on earth shall move us to recede from any point of this our Allegiance We shall be ready to detect and discover to his Majesty and his Ministers whatsoever Treasons or Conspiracies against his said Majesty shall come to our knowledge We detest from our very hearts that impious doctrine which averreth that any Subject can murther his anointed King or Prince though of different judgment in religion and we abhorr the damnable practice of that wicked assertion Their answer was then from his Grace that he would consider of it next morning That if it came short of the printed one as to the substance or sense they could expect no benefit thereby That it was in vain to use any distinctions or reservations That when he thought fit to act in this matter as the Kings Lieutenant he should not repute any person worthy of his Majesties protection that would not acknowledge the Royal Power independant from any but God alone That notwithstanding Father Quin insisted so much on the loyalty of his own Order in the late controversies and wars of Ireland yet he could not forget how the chief person of them Father Robert Nugent was a great Mathematician at Killkea when
as I have done here but only quotes the books and chapters especially for the two former Which yet is not his custom when he finds the places home to his purpose As for that no less unconcluding and that too but onely one out of the new Testament you have it in the 17th of Matthew verse 23.24.25 and 26. where it is related that our Saviour being at Capernâ—â—m and the tribute gatherers demanding of Peter whether his Master would pay the tribute money or didrachma and Peter having answered yes our Saviour presently knowing of the matter and preventing Peter and questioning him in this manner what thinkest thou Simon of whom do the Kings of the earth take custom or tribute of their own children or of strangers and Peter answering of strangers our Saviour inferr'd instantly Ergo liberi sunt filij Then are the children free Adding further thus notwithstanding least we should offend them or give them cause to be scandalized at us go thou to the Sea and cast a hook and take that fish which shall first come up and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a stater that take and give it them for me and thee Of all these examples and places of Scripture Bellarmine frames his first proof to inferre his foresaid Thesis or fift proposition which is That the exemption of Clerks in all politick or civil affairs and as well of their persons as of their goods from all even the most supream temporal Magistrate for that too he means all along was introduced amongst Christians for this also was and must have been his purpose both by divine and humane law And for humane law he supposed that proved before as himself notes and alleadges these Scripture examples and passages to prove onely that his fift proposition for what concerns divine right or divine law Notwithstanding all which I say the case is clear enough still if we but consider these very testimonies passages either out of the old or out of the new or out of both Testaments For whatever may be alleadged pretended or inferr'd though nothing can be but with very little colour out of any or even all these places taken together for the exemption of the lands goods or persons of Clergiemen from paying tribute customs polemony or other taxes whatsoever yet I am perswaded that no rational man much less any consciencious able Divine can be so blind as not to see the unsignificancy of these Scripture testimonies or examples to prove the persons of Clergiemen exempt in criminal causes by divine right and by the positive law of God from the supream civil coercive power Which onely is that I dispute here with Cardinal Bellarmine or rather with his disciples or defenders in this particular controversy the Divines of Lovain And I am perswaded so 1. Because that of the Egyptian Priests signifies no kind of exemption of their persons from laye Indicatories not even from such as are inferiour and subordinate onely nor in any causes whatsoever either criminal or civil or mixt of both Nor signifies as much as the exemption of their lands or goods from all kind of taxâ—â— or from any at all but onely from the forfeiture or sale of their lands or from paying a fift part of the increase And this exemption too from such forfeiture sale or fift part not to have been made by any positive law of God but by the laws of man that is of Ioseph or Pharao 2. Because That of Artaxerxes concerning the Mosaycal Clergie at Ierusalem signifies no more but that Kings command to his own inferiour officers not to laye any imposition of toll taxes c. on them but not a word that himself had no power to taxe them much less any syllable which might import that those Ministers of that holy Temple were exempt either in other civil or criminal causes from his own cognizance or punishment or even from that of his inferiour subordinate civil Judges or from the Lieutenant that govern'd Palestine under him Besides we know the positive law of Artaxerxes cannot be said to be the positive law of God 3. Because that of Leviticus though confessedly sometime the positive law of God signifies no more also but that the whole tribe of Levi were put under the subordinate care and jurisdiction of Aaron and of his Sons the Priests and of their successors and onely as to the Ministery of the Tabernacle whereof he had charge according to what was expresly decreed in all such particulars by God himself in the law given by him to Moyses and rest of Israels descendants Not a word at all exempting either Levits or Priests or as much as the High Priest himself in other affairs or in either criminal or civil matters from the supream civil Temporal or politick Iurisdiction of Moyses or other succeeding Generals Judges or Kings nor as much as exempting them from tribute or taxe or other imposition if at any time the necessities of their countrey or people or weal publick or kingdom were such as the supream civil Governours should judge it necessary to taxe them proportionably for the publick good or safety as well of themselves as of all the other tribes It is true that although not here yet elswhere God left the tribe of Levi exempted from being bound to be listed for War Nay expresly ordained Numb 1.49 that they should not be listed so but should be exempted from that charge or duty as being there appointed for and applyed wholly to an other special duty that is to carry still and serve and keep and watch the tabernacle which could not well consist nor at all with that of warfaring But what hath this particular exemption from one onely duty to do with a general exemption from all other civil duties whatsoever and from the very supream power it self which was to take care that this duty also as well as others should be discharged Those amongst the Romans who by the laws were priviledged not to serve in the warrs were they exempted therefore in all other matters from the supream power of the state or Empire or exempted generally from the supream Coercive power in criminal causes or must Bellarmine abuse his Reader with such quotations and such implyed but unconcluding arguments Nor certainly does that iterated expression of God in that place of Leviticus or elswhere mei sunt they are mine import any more then a special designation of that tribe for that most special Service of His about the tabernacle For he hath often elswhere in holy Scripture said of all the twelve tribes together that they were his own chosen peculiar people And yet never mean'd to exempt them thereby nor by any other expression from the power of their earthly either supream or subordinate Governours or exempt them at all from such power in either civil or criminal matters or in any whatsoever but in such religious matters onely as himself expresly had reserved for the
cognizance of the Priests alone As appears sufficiently by the contrary practice of their being taxed and punished by their civil Magistrats all along from that time forward while their Commonwealth State or Kingdom was in being So that none of all these examples out of the old Testament alleadged by Bellarmine prove as much as per quamdam similitudinem by some kind of similitude as he speaks that Christian Clerks are by the positive law of God or should be exempt from either the supream or not supream coercive power of the civil Magistrate in criminal causes or any causes whatsoever nay nor that they are exempt by such as much as from taxes if the supream Magistrate shall find it necessary to impose taxes on them which is a farre less priviledge Nor yet as much as prove that any Priests or Clerks whatsoever in any age or amongst any people have ever yet been so exempt by any kind of meer human law from such supream coercive power in criminal causes And as for that onely place which he produces out of the new Testament Mat. 17. these words of our Saviour Then are the Children free and least we scandalize them c give it them for thee and me who sees not further that it is as impertinent as any of those of the old Testament and yet more impertinent then some of them to inferre our present controversy or to inferre that as much as per quandam similitudinem by the positive law of God Clerks are exempt from the cognizance and punishment of the supream civil Magistrate or even to inferre their exemption from the very most inferiour civil Judicatories in any civil or temporal cause whatsoever though it were not criminal any way Our Saviour according to the exposition of St. Hilary intimats onely his own freedom or exemption as he was the natural Son of God from that imposition laid by his Father in Exodus 30. on all the children of Israel of a sicle to the holy Temple or Tabernacle which was yearly paid by the Israelits none at all excepted not as much as those very Levits or Priests What hath this to do with the exemption of others that were not the natural Sons of God or what to do with the exemption of such others from the civil Judicatories in other causes or from the supream coercive power of the Prince in criminal causes Or if we admit the exposition of those who say this Didrachma was a tribute layd by Caesar to be payed to himself not that sicle which by the law of Moyses was to be payed to the Temple or tabernacle how doth our Saviour intimating that himself was Son to a King infinitely above all Caesars and therefore in that respect not bound to pay it if he pleased and that onely to avoyd scandal he would pay it for as much as he was not yet known to others to be the natural Son of that onely supream King of all Kings and Caesars and for that he came on earth in that form he appeared in not to break the laws of God or man but to fulfil the former in all points and to observe the later too wherein they were not against the former how I say doth such intimation made by our Saviour in that passage of Matthew any way or even as much as per quandam similitudinem inferre this conclusion Therefore by the positive law of God all Christian Clerks are in criminal causes exempt from the supream civil coercive power of Princes or Magistrats Yes very well sayes Bellarmine Because all such are of the peculiar family of Christ they are his special servants and Ministers And we know that the children of Kings being exempt from tribute and taxes it is not their own persons onely are so exempt but all their servants and Domestick family Excellent But are not all Catholicks or at least are not all holy and truly vertuous and sanctified Catholicks both men and women and as well those of them as are meer laye persons and have no other relation to Churchmen but that of the Catholick communion or Faith are not I say such of the special family of Christ his especial servants and Ministers as well at least as some Clergiemen or as at least the laye servants of some Clergiemen or as their maid-servants and men-servants their Porters Gardners Brewers Cooks and Scullions And doth not Bellarmine all those of his way extend Ecclesiastical Immunity even that very self-same Immunity which he would per quandam similitudinem as he speaks maintain to be de jure divino positivo doth not he I say at least for some part extend that even to all such laye servants even Landresses Cooks and Scullions of Clergiemen Certainly himself elswhere confesses de Concil Author l. 2. c. 17. avers also as much to his purpose That all Christian Catholicks men and women as well of the Layety as Clergie of the whole earth are of one and self-same family of Christ and fellow servants of the same house under the great Steward and Major domo of Christ the Bishop of Rome And to prove that all are of the same family and house of Christ under the same Steward brings that quaerie of Christ himself in St. Luke 12. chap. Quis est fidelis dispensator et prudens quem constituit Dominis super familiam suam c. But whether he will confess or no that they are equally of Christs household it matters not being it is evident of it self the principles of Christian Religion being supposed that such vertuous holy and sanctified laye persons who are no way obliged to Churchmen nor their domestical servants at all are more truly and properly and excellently of the family of Christ and more truly properly and excellently his servants and Ministers too in general though not by particular designation to that is the special Ministery or function of Clerks then even very many Clerks themselves not to speak of the domestick laye servants of any Clerks whatsoever Besides I demand of any that will answer for this eminent Cardinal whether all that believe in Christ as they should by a living Faith are not not onely called children of light in several places of Scripture are not not onely called servants of Christ and Domesticks of God but also have not the power given them to be the very Sons of God as Iohn the Evangelist sayes Jo. 1. dedit eis potestatem filius Dei fieri and not onely to be called so but really to be so as Paul in an other place ut filij Denominemur et simus to wit by adoption and sanctification And being it must be answered they are so called they have such power given them they are so indeed and not by name onely I farther demand then where is the strength of Bellarmine's argument grounded on our Saviour's intimating in this place of Mat. that himself was free and on the example of Earthly Princes and of their children freed by
them from tribute and of the Domestick family of such Princes or their children free also from paying tribute and lastly on our Saviours bidding Peter to pay for them both least people should be scandalized as if sayes Bellarmine our Saviour himself had thereby declared or said that both himself and his family whose Prefect Peter was should be free from all tribute quasi diceret et se et familiam suam cujus Prefectus erat Petrus liberos esse debere where I say now is the strength of this argument to prove that by the positive law of God as much as per quandam similitudinem all Clergiemen of the world are exempt more then others both as to their goods and persons from the supream civil power or even to prove they are by such law exempt more then others as much as from tribute All Christians are of the family and as such Peter is Prefect of them all And certainly Bellarmine himself hath strugled much in his books de Rom. Pont. and more singularly yet in his others against Barelay and Widdrington to prove that Peter was so in his own days and after his days that other succeeding Bishops of Rome are so likewise even over all the goods and lands and bodies too of Christians and not onely over those of Christians but over all those of the Heathen also For so at last Bellarmine found himself constrain'd to say by the arguments of Widdrington and Barclay to which he could find no other answer But however this be or whether by any kind of similitude it may be concluded out of this passage of Matthew that Clergiemen as being in one certaine sense more especially of the Household or Domestick family of Christ either as he was the natural Son of God or as he was a man should be more exempt from paying tribute or taxes then others of his even holy believers and sanctified family who are not in that certain sense or in that special manner that is by such a special function of his family whether I say this follow or no pâ—â— quamdam similitudinem out of that passage of Matthew yet no man of never so little reason can alleadge for Bellarmine That our Saviour's instance there in his Querie to Peter about the Kings of the Earth and his pronouncing and concluding out of Peters answer Ergo liberi sunt fily must inferre that Clerks should therefore be exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of the civil Magistrate or of any supream earthly King For it is well known that earthly Kings do not exempt not even the most special domesticks of their children from their own Royal supream coercive power or from that of their laws in criminal causes albeit they give them exemption from tributs or taxes and many other priviledges And no less known too That they exempt not from that power and in such causes not even their very children themselves Nay nor in civil causes either so but that they may be sued even before the subordinate inferiour Judges in the Kings Courts of Justice And for criminal causes the Cronicles of England and Histories of Spain can shew us Instances These of a Prince of Spain put to death by his Father King Phillip the Second for some intelligence as some do say with the Turk And those of a Prince of England proceeded against even by an Inferiour Judge for some misdemeanour committed or authorized by him and even proceeded so against without any special warrant from the King but that which the Judge had in the laws of the Kingdom All which being so how can it follow out of that our Saviour's illation from the answer of Peter concerning the practice of Earthly Kings in the case of not exacting tribute or taxes from their own children That by the positive law of God in this place of Matthew Clerks are absolutely exempt from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes Or how indeed I say doth that consequence follow as much as per quandam similitudinem And follow yet upon this account that Clerks are in such a special manner of the family of the Prince or even of the Kings Heir apparant If he shall answer by quitting our Saviours illation implied in the word Erge and that of the similitude from the practice of earthly Kings as to the matter of coercion and by insisting only on these words liberi sunt filii as upon a positive declaration made by our Saviour of the exemption of Clergy-men from all Kings of the Earth and in all matters whatsoever and consequently also by appropriating so the word filii here to Clergy-men alone that not only all other Christians because Lay-persons but even our Saviour himself be not thereby understood in the quality of the natural Son of God I say that if any shall answer by such a systeme of suppositions the Reply is clear and convincing enough 1. That they are all either very false or at least very vain because without any proof or colour of proof 2. That such a positive Declaration by these words Ergo liberi sunt filii is contradicted by Bellarmine himself who expresly acknowledges no divine precept properly such of the positive law of God either in this place or any other of holy Scripture for the exemption of Clergymen either from taxes or judicial proceedings of the civil Magistrate And I am sure both he and all other Divines will confess that a positive Declaration made by Christ in holy Scripture is to all Christians a divine precept and properly such of the positive law of God 3. That if these words were such a positive Declaration neither Bellarmine nor others needed their per quandam similitudinem nor any further going about the bush 4. And lastly that if they were such then certainly St. Paul had been much out of the way when he declared the contrary Rom. 13. and all the holy Fathers expounding him there even for a whole thousand years and all the Christian Church consequently until our new Interpreters and Sophisters came in these latter ages to tell us what Christ declared as will appear evidently in one of the following Sections where I treat of that command of St. Paul or of God rather by St. Paul 13 Rom. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit c. Let the judicious Reader himself be now judge whether the case for what concerns any positive law of God in holy Scripture be not clear enough on my side what ever Bellarmine say or whether he confess that there is no precept properly such of God or of such law in holy Scripture being our Adversaries alledge no other places either out of the old or new Testament but these I have now considered as the only of all which together Bellarmine frames but to no purpose his first argument to prove that Clergymen are even by the positive law of God free or exempt from even the supream civil coercive power of all
been delivered and declared unanimously by the Fathers therein from the beginning as of divine Faith or as the doctrine of Christ or of the Apostles as received from Christ or that the contrary is heretical c. Non enim sunt de fide sayes Bellarmine ubi supra disputationes quae praemittuntur neque rationes quae adduntur neque ea quae ad explicandum et illustrandum adferuntur sed tantum ipsa nuda Decreta et ea non omnia sed tontum quae proponuntur tamquam de fide Interdum enim concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile c Quando autem decretum proponatur tamquam de fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilij semper enim dicere solent se explicare fidem Catholicam vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt vel quod est communissimum dicunt anathema ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt Quando autem nihil borum dicunt non est certum rem esse de fide Whence it must follow evidently and even by an argument a majori ad minus that neither the words or epithets used even by the most general Council may be in their decrees of Discipline Reformation or manners nor the suppositions or praevious or concomitant bare opinions which occasion'd the use of such words or epithets in such decrees bind any at all to beleeve such words or epithets were rightly used or fitly applyed or that those opinions were well grounded or certain truths at all Whereof the reason too is no less evident and obvious To wit that the Fathers or Council had not examined or discussed this matter it was not at all their business to determine it nor did they determine it And that we know laws of Reformation and even the very most substantial parts of such Canons are grounded often on or do proceed from meer probable perswasions or such as onely seem probable nay sometimes from the meer pleasure of such law makers All which being uncontrovertedly true where is the strength of Bellarmines grand or second argument framed of such bare words or epithets did we grant his sense even in the whole latitude of it were that of these Popes and Councils Or how will he seek to establish a maxime of such consequence or of so much prejudice to all supream civil Governours and even to the peace of the world to all mankind it self and a maxime for so much or for what hath reference to the exemption of Clerks as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power so clearly as will be seen hereafter in some of the following Sections against express and clear passages of holy Scripture and against the universal Tradition for a 1000. years at least how will he I say have the confidence to endeavour the establishing of such a maxime upon so weak a foundation which every man can overthrow at pleasure or deny with reason to be a foundation at all for that or any other maxime as I mean asserted to be declared such in the positive law of God either in holy Scripture or in undoubted Tradition For the positive law of God appears not to us but by either of these two wayes of the written or unwritten word of God himself 4. And lastly that besides all said in these three answers to this second argument of Bellarmine if we please to examine further what the places alleadg'd import we shall find that whatever the private or peculiar but indiscussed opinion of these Popes or Councils was or was not concerning our present dispute of the exemption of Clerks and that by the positive law of God as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil or temporal coercive power nay or whatever such words as jus diuinum ordinatio Dei voluntas omnipotentis c. abstractedly taken may import yet the places alleadged or these words or epithets used in them by these Fathers must not by any means be thought therefore to have comprehended our present case or extended to it at all And the reason is 1. That all Divines and Canonists agree that all expressions words or epithets in any law whatsoever must be understood secundum subjectam materiam or must be expounded by and according as the matter which is in debate or is intended requires and further so as no errour inconvenience or mischief follow and yet the law and words thereof maintain'd still in a good sense and to some good use especially according to former wholesome laws 2. That the matter unto which there was any reference in these places or authorities quoted so by Bellarmine was either Ecclesiastical Immunity in the most generical sense abstracting from the several underkinds true or false or pretended onely of it or was it in a less generical sense taken for that of their persons but still abstracting for any thing appears out of these places quoted from that pretended species of exemption of Clerks as to their persons from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes especially when the crimes are high and so high too as they are subversive of the very State it self and are besides in meer temporal matters and no remedy at all from the spiritual superiours And in truth for what concerns the Council of Trent which as of greatest authority amongst us as being the very last celebrated of those we esteem general Councils Bellarmine places in the front 1. it is clear enough to any that will please to read the whole tenour of that twentieth chapter Ses. 25. de Reformatione which he quotes That that Council did even there so much abstract from this matter or so little intended it that on the contrary the Fathers much rather seem to speak onely there of the Ecclesiastical exemption of Clerks as to their persons from onely inferiour secular Judicatories or onely from the inferiour Courts Judges and Officers of Princes but not at all from the Princes themselves or from their supream civil power or that of their laws Which I am very much deceived if this entire passage whereof Bellarmine gives us but a few words do not sufficiently demonstrate Cupient sancta synodus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam in Christiano populo non solum restitui sed etiam perpetuo sartam tectam a quibuscumque impedimentis conservari praeter ea quae de Ecclesiasticis personis constituit saeculares quoque Principes officij sui admonendes esse censuit confidens eos ut Catholicos quos Deus sanctae fidei Ecclesiaeque protectres esse voluit jus suum Ecclesiae restitui non tantum esse concessuros sed etiam suâ— ditos suos omnes ad debitam erga Clerum Parcchos et superiores ordines reverentiam revecaturos neâ— permâ—ssuros ut officiales aut inferiores magistratus Ecclesiae et personarum Ecclesiastisarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu
inconsideratione aliqua violent sed una cum ipsis Principibus debitam sacris summorum Pontificum et Conciliorum constitutionibus observ antiam praestent Decernit itaque c. 2. It is also clear enough these words ordinatione divina or the Councils saying that Ecclesiastical Immunity was constituted by divine ordination imports no more of necessity then that it was Gods good pleasure and special providence and care of the Church and Churchmen that disposed affairs so and moved the hearts of Princes and people to give such exemptions to the Church and Churchmen as they indeed have For so we say that by Gods ordination or divine ordination this or that is as it is Which yet argues no positive law of God nor any law at all of God for it to be as it is As for that of Colen besides that it is but a smale Provincial Synod never yet canonized by any general Synod nor even by any Pope and therefore in Bellarmine's own principles of no authority out of that Province not even were the Decree in a matter of Faith as it is not certainly it is manifest enough the Fathers there or in that ch par 9. quoted by him speake not a word pro or â—â—n of our present dispute or if they do any way indirectly or by consequence that all is against Bellarmine forasmuch as they determine Ecclesiastical Immunity to consist chiefly in two things The one that Clerks and their possessions are free of all imports tributs and other lay duties The other that criminals flying to Churches be not forced thence Now where is a word here of Clerks being exempt even from the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes and even the most haynous crimes imaginable and committed too in meer temporal things These Fathers of Colen did not as much as dream of any such matter At least no rational Divine is to judge or conclude out of their words or expression here that they did For the onely word here whence any such thing might be any way pretended are these aliisque maneribus laicis But who sees not there are other lay duties besides customs oâ— taxes from which by the civil constitutions of the Roman Emperours at first and after by that of other Kings who succeeded them Clerks are and have been exempted nay that their exemption from other lay duties was the first exemption they had and even that which above all other was most convenient they should have as for example from all civil offices of Collectors Bayliffs Constables from the Militia c. Why then should any Divine be so unreasonable as to derive from a position so general so proper and so true of those Fathers of Colen a conclusion so particular so improper and so false as Bellarmine doth in our present case As for those other words of this of Colen jure pariter divino humano I have already said what we must rationally think they understood by jus divinum though only applied here to other exemptions then that from the supream civil power For both the Lateran Councils I confess Bellarmine and some others with him give them both equally the name of General But I am sure withal that according to all truth the latter which he considers first or that under Leo the X. does not merit as much as the name of a General Council truly such nor even of an Occidental Council truly such and that Bellarmine himselâ— elsewhere confesses it is not esteemed as such by many great Catholicks and that moreover whatsoever he thinks the whole Gallican Church many others reject it as not esteeming it such for many reasons which I shall give hereafter in this book upon another occasion As I am sure also that all the Canons of discipline reported to be of the IV. Council of Lateran or of that under Innocent the Third which Bellarmine quotes here in the next place are doubtful though for the present it matters not much whether these Canons be or be not genuine or whether this which is called the great Council of Lateran Concilium Magnum Laterananse was or was not a general Council truly such or whether only a very great Occidental Council but not for all that a Council oecumenical or General properly and truly such of the universal Church As the same for the point of being truly oecumenical or General of the whole Church is disputed by some concerning the Tridentine Synod albeit now of greatest authority with us of all General Councils truly and unconvertedly such Neither doth it matter any more one jot whether the other Lateran under Leo the X. be admitted or not for a General Council truly such For albeit this latter in the IX Session and decreeing somewhat of Ecclesiastical Discipline sayes in general and by way of supposition that by divine and humane law there is no power attributed to Lay-men over Clerks c. and the former under Innocent cap. 24. say that some Laicks endeavour to usurp too much of divine right when they compel Church-men that receive no temporal benefit from them to swear Allegiance or take oathes of fidelity to them yet no understanding person no good Divine or Canonist may therefore conclude that certainly these Councils intended thereby to signifie as much as it to be their own bare opinion much less to declare it as the Catholick Faith which indeed is not pretended of them by Bellarmine himself or any other That Clerks are by a pâ—sitive law of God exempt even in all criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of temporal Princes And my reasons are 1. Because it is a maxime of both Divines and Canonists that priviledges and laws that speak of priviledges are stricti juris or strictae interpretationis when the priviledges are to the prejudice of any third's right as also when out of any other kind of more ample interpretation some either absurdity or falsity or any great inconvenience or any errour and gross mistake attributed to the laws or Law-makers or givers of such priviledge must follow 2. Because it is a maxime too very well known and granted that where a Law or Canon dwells in Generals only we must not understand particulars or such specialties as are not specially express'd and whereof there is or may be a grand controversie whether the power of the Canon-makers could reach unto them and which moreover are such that it is not likely the Law or Canon-makers would comprehend them if expresly thought upon and specially debated 3. Because it is manifest this position of Bellarmine concerning the exemption of Clergy-men in all criminal causes whatsoever c. is such a specialty and such a priviledge And therefore it must follow that whereas these Councils of Lateran do not in specifical express terms discend to it no Divine or Canonist may in reason conclude they mean'd it But on the contrary ought rather to expound them in any other probable and rational
way as by saying they understood not by divine that which is properly and strictly divine but that only which is in a large though somewhat improper acception such and by lay-persons understand only such inferior Lay-persons Judges or Governours as in certain cases haue not from the supream power and civil laws any cognizance of Church-men Which indeed is the only rational and natural exposition of these authorities without any erroneous absurdity falsity inconvenience or prejudice as the very Canon alledged above by me at large out of the Tridentine Synod seems expresly to intimate for as much as it expresly and signally desires or confides for so it speaks that Emperours Kings and Princes will not suffer that their Officials or inferior Magistrats or Judges violat the Immunities of the Church or Church-men out of any covetousness or inconsiderancy confidens c. nec permissuros ut officiales aut inferiores Magistratus Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiasticarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione canâ—nicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu inconsideratione aliqua violent Besides the Reader is to observe two things for that of the fourth Lateran 1. That where 't is said there that Laicks usurp too much of divine right c. by divine right here we ought not nor indeed can if we will not make the Fathers to speak improperly understand the law of God but only the right belonging to God whether that right be derived immediatly from the law of God or law of man 2. That it cannot be truly said that any Clerks receive no temporal thing or benefit from the supream civil Magistrate whereas all Clerks receive from them temporal protection at least And therefore in reason owe Allegiance to such their protectors For Boniface the VIII although his authority or judgment alone without a Council be amongst very Catholick Nations or Universities of no great value or esteem in this or any other which concerns the difference or controversie For we know well enough how his extravagant unam sanctam de Majorit obed is reputed in the Gallican Church and what his Letter Brief or Bull was to a King of France where he declared them all Hereticks that would not acknowledge himself to be supream in that Kingdom and as well in all temporals as in spirituals and that the same esteem indeed and as to our main purpose may be and also truly and groundedly may be entertain'd of Innocent the Third no judicious Divine that will read in Spondaâ—uâ—s Contin his proceedings against most of all the Christian Kings not in Europe only but in Asia will deny I say neverthess that for what concerns only our present purpose of the exemption of Clergymens persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coactive power under which they live and are protected our learned Cardinal alledges this very Boniface to no purpose albeit he alledge him in cap. Quamquam de Censibus in 6. Where indeed there is no such thing For in that place as it is manifest enough out of the whole chapter and purpose or matter treated therein which was only of and against Guidagia that is a kind of toll custome or exaction to be paid for the safeguard of High-wayes and out of the very words which Bellarmine would not quote because not to his general purpose or to that of proving generally all the parts of his Fifth Proposition Cum igitur Ecclesiae Ecclesiasticaeque persâ—nae ac res ipsarum non solum jure humano quin etiam divino à saecularium personarum exactionibus sint immunes it is I say very manifest hence that Boniface in that place and no other is alledged out of him doth not as much as touch upon our controversie or say as Bellarmine imposes on him that Clerks and their goods are exempt from the secular power For be it well or ill said of Boniface here that as well by divine right or law as by humane Churches and Churchmen are free or exempt from all publick exactions of secular persons whereas by such exactions all Divines and Canonists understand only tributes tolls customes or taxes whatsoever of money or other things imposed as payable to the publick and whereas the very matter treated of and determined by Boniface in that Chapter is only that of guidagia or pedagia which was a duty as it seems payable then in Italy by all travellers and for their safe convoy or safe travelling whereas he commands only there that in prosecution of a certain decree made by Alexander the IV. his Predecessor Church-men pay no such guidagia or pedagia for their own Persons or Goods which they carry along or cause to be carried or sent non causa negotiandi who sees not it is a very great inconsequence and meer abuse of the Reader to conclude that therefore Boniface the VIII supposed generally nay says it to be de jure divino positivo taking this jus divinum strictly and properly that Clerks are wholy exempt in all criminal causes and all matters whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of Lay-Princes Certainly neither doth Boniface teach any such matter there nor must any such follow out of what he either supposes or dedetermines there Because it is clear enough that certain persons even meer lay-persons may have a priviledge from all kind of taxes and yet be subject in other causes and other matters both criminal and civil to such as impose taxes For Iohn the VIII That who ever please to consider that whole chapter Si Imperator quoted by Bellarmine will be convinced this Pope intends no more but that as it is fitting the Emperour himself should for what concerns Religion learn from and not teach the Church so in Ecclesiastical matters it was Gods pleasure that Clerks should be ordered and examined and if they chanced to fall into an errour should be also reconciled on their return not by the Lay-powers but by the Pontiffs and Priests Which these words omitted by the Cardinal recipique de errore remeantes do sufficiently insinuat Besides that any man knows it is a very weak and sensless argument of a positive law of God for any thing or any duty or any priviledge that either Iohn the VIII or any other even a whole General Council should speak in this manner Omnipotens Deus voluit it was the will of God unless they had withal and on the debate or controversie it self made of purpose an express Canon declaring that thereby or by such manner or by these words it is or it was the will of the omnipotent God they mean'd to signifie not the general or special providence of God or his good will or pleasure known only to us for example in the present matter of Exemption because we see the Clerks as to many things are exempted so by the laws of Princes and that we know this could never have been done by Princes if God had not moved their hearts to do so For
it is ordinary with all kind of people to speak so of all things happened to themselves or others sin only excepted God will have it so or God hath ordained so And yet no man will be so foolish as to gather out of such expressions that people mean to say there was a positive law of God or law of his known to us for the doing or being of things so or so Otherwise what a numberless infinity of positive laws of God must we assert which the world never yet heard of and such as never any one of all have been yet in Scripture or Tradition For Symmachus finally that which is alledged out of him or his Roman Synod concerns not the present dispute and at most and at best signifies no more then the sense of that Provincial Council speaking to Symmachus and their sense too delivered only in an ordinary way of speech not in any Canon and even this very speech against only the pretence of the Praetorian Praefect of Odoacer to make a law yet without the consent of the Church-men or of the Bishops and other Priests though with a good intention for the preservation of the Church-lands and Revenues and Goods or to hinder any Sale or Mortage of them by the very Bishops of Rome it self even for what concern'd them or their own peculiar See in that City In this case it was the Fathers of that Council spoke thus after they had caused the Instrument or Law of the said Praetorian Praefect or of Basilius to be read by Hormisda the Deacon Licet secundum prosecutionem venetabilium fratrum nostrorum Laurentii Eulalii Cresconii Maximi vel Stephani nec apud nos incertum habetur hanc ipsam scripturam nullius esse momenti verum tamen etiamsi aliqua posset ratione subsistere modis omnibus in Sindali Conventu provida Beatudinis Vestrae sententia enervari conveniebat in irritum deduci ne in exemplum remaneret praesumendi quibuslibet Laicis quamvis religiosis vel pâ—tentibus in quacunque ciuitate quolibet modo aliquid decernere de Ecclesiasticis facultatibus quarum solis sacerdotibus disponendi indiscusse a Deo cura commissa decetur Where it is plain 1. That nothing is said or mean'd of the exemption of the persons of Church-men from the supream temporal power 2. That they neither signifie as much as their Goods or Lands to be exempt from that same power supream but only secundum subjectam materiam to be exempt so far from the subordinat Magistrate that no disposition could be made of the Church-lands or Goods or no provision either for the Church by such inferiour Magistrates how powerful or even religious and well meaning soever without the consent of the Bishops and Priests themselves 3. That much less do the Fathers of this Council signifie their lands or goods not to be subject to any publick taxes or which is it I mean do not signifie that God hath appointed their lands or goods should be exempt from all publick taxes tributes customs c. For the disposing of the Revenues or other goods of the Church to be indistinctly committed by God to Priests and that Priests should be notwithstanding lyable to publick contributions out of such Revenues or Goods for the publick necessities of the common-wealth are things very compatible in reason And here is nothing said by these Fathers to the contrary Besides we know that whatever may be said of that law so published by Basilius the Pretor or whether by the express command of Odoacer no man will deny that both the Pope and other Italian Bishops had reasons sufficient to move them not to regard it much as being made either by an Usurper or an enemy to the Emperour and who yet dared not take on himself the name of Emperour and moreover forasmuch as at that time that very same Usurper or Enemy Odoacer with whose authority it was made or published by Basilius was devested by Theodorick nay dead when the Fathers held that Synod and forasmuch too as in the same law that same Odâ—acer would have usurped also the election of the Pope to himself as Baronius and Spondanus have ad annum Christi 457. But however this be or be not it is evident here is not a sâ—llable for the exemption of Church-men or Clerks as to their persons and in criminal cause and that too by the positive law of God from the supream civil or coercive power And it is no less evident although my present purpose require not my animadaversion hereof That meer Lay-men Kings and Lords and Knights and Burgesses and Squires and Boores and even all masters of Families whatsoever in such contreys as have the laws of property might in a like or unlike controversie 'twixt themselves and the Clergy if the Clergy alone should attempt to make laws for disposing of their estates without their own consent might I say with very much right truth answer the Clergy as the Fathers did the Layety here or thus I mean mutatis mutandis verum tamen etiamsi aliqua c. provida Majestatis vestrae sententia eneruari conveniebat in iâ—ritum deduci ne in exemplum remaneret quibuslibet Ecclesiasticis c. aliquid decernere de laicis facultatibus quarum solis laicis disponendi indiscussè a Deâ— cura commissa dâ—cetur And yet none of them would be therefore constrained or necessitated in point of reason to prove or to suppose a positive law of God for their own exemption as much as to their goods from the Clergy The civil or municipal laws or customs of men and which indeed are those only that make meum and tuum in the world in such a case would be ground enough for them to say that God committed the disposing of their own estates to themselves alone and not to the Clergy To wit for as much as by his general or special providence he had such or such civil laws made and for as much as he commands generally in holy Scripture as natural reason also tells us we must observe all kind of humane Ordinances of the supream civil Power and States we live in which imply no sin Therefore Symmachus and his Council are as vainly alledged by Bellarmine for a positive law of God for the exemption of Clergymen c. as any of those other Popes or Councils And therefore too from first to last I conclude against this most eminent Cardinal that indeed there is not any such positive law of God at least in our case that is for the exemption of the persons of Clergymen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of supream temporal Princes no such positive I say as yet revealed unto us either by holy Scripture or by any Tradition For these arguments which I now have so answered are all he doth or can pretend for such a positive law of God from either albeit I confess he speaks not expresly of Tradition nor also
virtually pretends thereto at least otherwise then by these few and weak places whereof he composes his foresaid second proof for this his fifth Proposition l. 1. de clericis c. xxviii Exemptio Clericorum in rebus politicis tum quoad personas tum quoad bona introducta est jure humano pariter divino But I will not charge him with pretending to any argument of Tradition by either such sayings or any other whatsoever of such late Councils either Provincial or General or of these three or four Popes he alledges there And yet for what other end he should produce them but that of abusing his ignorant Reader I know not verily For we may justly suppose that he and others with him have on the very contradictory question examined searched for and alledged as many places out of Scripture as any of these Councils or Popes could possibly and yet was himself so convinced that none of all these places or texts nor altogether did really amount to a positive law of God that notwithstanding his said so positive and so absolute assertion or fifth proposition for such a positive law of God he falls immediatly to his distinguishing observation of a divine precept properly such and of not being expresly in Scripture and of its being only deduced thence per quamdam similitudinem though an observation in express terms contrary to the very conclusion or to that very proposition for which he brought these two kinds of proofs one out of Scripture and the other out of these Councils and Popes So that if he intended not these Councils and Popes so alledged and so applied by him for to prove Tradition in the case and this he doth not pretend nor any from him wil so weak an argument it must be confes'd he produced them only to abuse the undiscerning Reader as the same in truth must be also confess'd of all his Scripture-places quoted in his first proof nay and of that very proposition of his and also of both parts of it for which he brought these two sorts of proofs LXV 2. For what concerns the law divine natural or which is the same thing in effect the law of nature or the law of Reason or a convincing or concluding evident principle or maxime or position or proposition or conclusion either which is necessary of natural reason to all which the Schoolmen give the name or title of the law divine natural because or forasmuch as at our creation imprinted in our souls by God himself the Author of nature but still without any supernatural infusion being the condition of a reasonable soul requires it even without any order to immortality for what I say concerns this law divine natural the case is clear enough also by the concession of Bellarmine himself l. de Cler. c. 29. where he treats it of purpose Though withal I confess he involve it so as to abuse his Reader with a third but very false degree of the laws of nature or law divine natural of purpose to impose on his credulity or facility or undiscerning judgment and work him to a perswasion that in some true sense the exemption of Clerks is de jure divino naturali even in the whole latitude of this exemption or as he before in the 28. chap. prop. 1 2 3. expounded and maintained it generally as to their lands goods persons or as from taxes and Judgments and Courts and as not from the inferiour Magistrates alone but from the very supream and in all even the most temporal causes whatsoever as well criminal as civil and from both the directive and coercive power of the laws or commands of the supream temporal Magistrate To the end of imposing so on his Reader it must be that this otherwise most eminent and learned Cardinal in the beginning of his 29. chapter immediatly after he had stated or demanded the question An exemptio Clericorum sit juris divim naturalis for he would have it now supposed that in the foregoing chapter he had proved this Exemption in his own and now said latitude of it had been 1. de jure humano civili 2. De jure humano Ecclesiastico 3. De jure divino positivo It must be I say to this end of imposing on his Reader that after all this and after putting this question also whether the exemption of Clerks be of the law divine natural he distinguisheth three several degrees of this law divine natural and then placeth his said exemption in the third of them And yet saw well enough this third degree of his own and of Driedo's and some few Canonists forgery was of so false allay that he dares not stand to it stiffely in a proper true sense of a law of nature or of a necessary principle position or conclusion of natural reason without the free and positive constitution acceptation or custom introduced onely and freely by men and therefore useth so many windings and labours so much to reconcile Authors but all in vain as to his main purpose and finally by his position there and proofs of it which follow so confounds that his own jus divinum naturale with jus gentium and confounds them so too in express words leaving thereby his inconsiderat Reader in a labyrinth and his judicious in a laughter at both his division position and proofs whether these proofs be intended for a jus gentium taken either in a strict and proper or in a large improper sense or whether intended for a jus divinum naturale even in that very improper abusive meaning or sense of our Cardinal Whereof that you good Reader whoever you be so you be a man of reason may be yourself a discretionary Judg for authoritative judgment neither you nor I can pretend Sure I do not this being proper onely to such powers as God hath placed over us either in the spiritual or in the temporal commonwealth in the Church or State I will give here briefly these three degrees of Dictats all and every of which Bellarmine would impose on us as natural precepts and comprehend under the name of jus divinum naturale the law divine natural The first and chiefest and most proper is sayes he of such Dictats which are so perspicuously imprinted in the hearts of men that with the sole light of reason without any discipline or art nay without any discourse of reason they must be judged by all to be just Such are some first principles As for example these Good is to be desired Evil to be shunned life to be preserved with meat and drink children to be educated for the propagation of human kind God to be worshipped not to do that to an other which you would not have done to your self The second degree is of those precepts sayes he again which are from such first principles deduced as the very proximat conclusions or as conclusions naturally flowing by a facile evident and necessary consequence and so too that no discipline no art
or body at pleasure according to the end this rational commandress hath prefixed to her self and on the other side we see that the flesh hath no empire no command over the spirit nor can direct or judge or restrain it in any thing Ergo sayes Bellarmine a paritate it must follow or be That in the same wise the Ecclesiastical power which is spiritual and therefore naturally superiour to the secular may when it is necessary direct judge and restrain or use coercion towards the civil power but never be it self directed judged or restrained by the secular Third argument thus As well in holy Scripture and other writings of holy Fathers as by the common custom of Christians Priests are adorned with the names or titles of Fathers and Pastors But nature teacheth that children are bound to obey their parents and willingly abide correction from them but never to think that they on the other side may themselves command correct or judge their parents And much more doth the same nature teach that sheep are directed and govern'd by their Pastours and when they straye are by the whistle or stick of their Pastors reduced again into their right way and pasture Which is so true that it would be plainly against nature that a sheep should direct or govern her Pastour Fourth argument thus Ecclesiastical persons are the Ministers of God consecrated for his onely service and for this very purpose offered by all the people to God Whence it is that they are called Clerici or Clerks from the greek word Cleros that signifies a lot as if by that name of theirs it were given us to understand that they belong specially to the lot of our Lord Which St. Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus But certainly in such things as are offered and consecrated to God and so in some wise made as if they were the property or peculiar of God no secular Princes can have any right Which both the light of reason doth shew and God himself delivers not obscurely in holy Scripture where he sayes in the last of Leviticus Quicquid semel Deo fuerit consecratum sanctum sanctorum erit Domino Fift and last argument thus God hath not seldom punished miraculously the prophaners of Churches and such as presumed to violate the immunities or privileges granted to sacred places Whereof much may be read with Tilmannus Bredenbachius l. 5. sacrarum collationum But that is a very notable testimony which is read of Basilius Porphyrogenitus Emperour of the Greek apud Balsamonem in Nomōca-none Photij in commentario canonis primi Synodi Constantinopolitanae primae secundae quam nos Latini Octavam appellamus For the said Basilius attributs the cause of the calamities of those days to a certain law made by his predecessour Nicephoras Phocas against the liberty of the Church Ex quo inquit lex ista robur habuit nihil boni penitus in hodiernum usque diem vitae nostrae contigit sed potius ê contrario nullum omninò genus calamitatis defuit From the time sayes Basilius that law of Nicepherus was observed no kind of good fortune happened in our life but rather on the contrary no sort of calamity was wanting And therefore this Emperour Basilius did with much reason abrogat wholly that law And these are the five arguments of Bellarmine The first grounded on his pretended custom of all Nations second on his similitude betwixt the Ecclesiastical power and lay and that of the soul and body third on the titles or names of Father and children and sheepheards and sheep fourth on the title or name of Clerks derived from the greek word Cleros and on the signification thereof and the fift on signs and prodigies as he speaks or calamities which pursued the infringers of Ecclesiastical Immunity liberty or Exemption And these arguments I have given all of them as neer as I could in his own words and form that the Reader may the more clearly judge of my answers and of the controversy in it self for what concerns my present purpose in this Section which is onely as I have often advertised the Exemption or not exemption rather by the law divine natural or law of nations of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream lay civil and coercive power in criminal causes And consequently also judge whether I wrong this most eminent Cardinal if I say as I do say That he hath by his doctrine here or in and as to this particular of such exemption and of such laws extreamly abused his Readers and not his Readers onely but his Religion and reason and Layety and Clergie and Church and State and even all mankind And that for this he pretends a custom of all Nations which never hath been yet of as much as any one Nation in the world both holy and prophane Scriptures neither of which have one word to the purpose a similitude that is lame titles or names latin and greek that to conclude his purpose are no less vain and finally the justice of God and saying of an Emperour that never executed nor this at all pronounced in our present case or dispute LXVII For and for what concerns his first argument and I mean still as he intends it to conclude not some kind of exemption Immunity or priviledge either local or personal given to Churches or Churchmen but even that plenary Exemption of his own or which he pretends of all their lands goods houses and persons too and in all kind of causes spiritual and temporal civil criminal mixt and this also not from the inferiour lay or civil Judges onely but also from all the very supreamest civil both directive and coercive powers on earth it is plain enough That his Assumption or Antecedent is false because he hath not yet nor any other can for him hereafter instance as much as any one single Nation in the world wherein they ever yet had or have at present such Exemption That for all those nations known to us we see dayly the quite contrary both taught and practised amongst them in relation to the supream civil power and as well to the persons of Clergiemen in some cases for what concerns judgement and punishment as to their goods and lands for that of taxes when the Commonwealth is necessitated to laye taxes on them That not one of those places he quotes either out of holy Scripture or other books or Histories prove that Antecedent of his or his Allegation of the custom of all nations in the point or even which is less of any one nation Though if he did or could prove it for some one nation yet he could not therefore be thought to have said any thing for the proof of that antecedent or of his grand position unless he did withal instance it generally That therefore likely it was that he onely quoted the books and chapters without giving the words or contents of those books or chapters whereby the Reader might be
judge of all without further trouble to turn those monuments either sacred or prophane That in the former Section I have already shewen at large the impertinency or unsufficiency as to his general Assertion of his quoting the 47. of Gen. and 1. of Esdras 7. for what concerns the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes and therefore need not say any more of these two Scripture places here That for his other two Scripture places the first out of the thirtieth of Exodus and second out of the first chapter of the book of Numbers neither of both has a word importing as much as a bare exemption of the Levits from all kind of tributs or from any at all but onely from the half ficle which was to be payed for the use of the Tabernacles by all the children of other tribes who came to 20. years So that I cannot but be somewhat troubled when I see this great man alleadge Scriptures after this rate 1. Because this very exemption of the Levits from paying that half ficle is by consequence onely concluded out of the second of these places or both together forasmuch as in the late or in that 1. chap. of Numbers verse 48. God commanded Moyses not to muster the Tribe of Levi and that in the former place or 30. of Exodus 12. v. we find that each one mustered was to pay to the Lord or for the use of the Tabernacle half a sicle ten of our pence 2. Because these very places tell that all the children boys and youths of what ever tribe who were under twenty were as well exempt from that payment because from the muster as the Levit were not to speak besides of the female Sex 3. Because it were certainly most ridiculous to conclude hence that all those young men besides all the women young and old were in all things whatsoever exempt from the supream civil Magistrate from the supream lay Judges and Kings that succeeded those Judges Nay and extreamly ridiculous to conclude from even a general exemption of the Levits from all kind of tribute did such appear as it doth not to conclude I say their personal exemption and in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt from those supream lay Captains Judges Kings whom yet God himself appointed to rule all the Tribes aswell of Levi as others That for his other citations out of Aristotle Caesar and Plutarch for what concerns other nations and Priests of Gentils either Greeks Romans or other soever I took the pains to find these Authors and turn the places quoted and read those whole books quoted by him that is that whole second book of Aristotles Oeconomicks and that whole 6. book of Caesars Gallick warr and that whole life too of Plutarchs Camillus but found all against our learned Cardinals exemption or his latitude of it That Aristotle hath not a word of Priests either in that second book or in his first which are all the books he hath of Oeconomicks or de Cura Rei familiaris as the Latins entitle them but onely in one place of the second where he tells that when on a time Taos King of Egypt was to march his Army and wanted money Chabrias the Athenian gave him Council to tell the Priests of both Sexes that for the charges of the warr he found it necessary to lessen their number That hereupon the Priests every one for himself to be continued gave the King money And that again after this money so received the same Chabrias the second time advised the King to command the same Priests to spend thenceforth but the tenth part on themselves and sacrifices of that they had till then and give him the other nine until he had ended the Persian warr If this import any thing out of Aristotle for Bellarmine's purpose or not rather directly against his purpose of a law of nature or nations for the exemption of either as much as Priestly Clerks or Gentil Priests from the supream Civil power it imports all things els he please That Caesar indeed hath somewhat more likely of the Druides of Gaul Druides à bello abesse consueverant neque tributa unà cum reliquis pendunt militiae vacationem omniumque rerum habent immunitatem And yet here is no more but vacation from warr exemption from tributs and immunity for all their goods Not a word of their being exempt from the supream Civil Magistrat generally in all kind of things or causes or indeed in any thing at all from his supream power And still whatever is said here is said onely of the Druides of Gaul Not a word in all that book of Caesars of the Priests or customs of all other nations or of any in exempting so generally their Priests if peradventure Caesars telling That the Druides of Gaul had their discipline from the Druides of Brittain be not a testimony of such Custom of other nations which cannot be said That for Plutarch in Camillus he tells there I confess how after the Gauls had possessed Rome for seaven months the Capitol onely excepted which the holy Geese of Iuno's Temple by their gagling preserved and after the violence of a great plague and the power of Camillus had beat them away and forced them back to their own territories the Romans nevertheless were in such fear of their return that they made a law for the exemption of Priests from warr so it were not against the Gauls For these are the very words of Plutarch there and all the words he hath in that whole life of Camillus of any such matter or of Priests at all 'T is improbable therefore that Bellarmine ever troubled himself to read Plutarch when he quoted him for his purpose here of a law or custom amongst the Romans for the general exemption of as much as their own Priests in all things or even too in any thing from the supream civil power of their State Here they are not exempted in some cases as much as from the duties of warr That for what concerns that priviledg of Constantine and for what appears out of that his Epistle to Anulinus recorded in Euseb l. 10. cap. 7. I elswhere shew as I bring that Epistle at length in the next Section that Constantine was farre enough from granting thereby any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends either of the persons of Clergiemen from asmuch as the most subordinate inferiour lay-Judges or of their goods from taxes but onely an immunity or freedom from publick offices as those of Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs Constables Collectors c. That finally for those words of Iustinians law who sees not they are to no kind of purpose alleadged certainly how subject soever any Divine or other person on earth will say Clerks are to either supream or subordinate civil Magistrats in all kind of temporal causes yet will the same Divines and all other persons and at the same time freely acknowledg with Iustinian the equity of making a difference twixt divine and human things
Valentinian and with his Arrian Mother about the giving up a Church in Milan to thense of the Arrians did not I say this so great and so holy and so knowing Ambrose tell the Emperour that indeed the lands of the Church were under his power and therefore payed him tribute but that the Church it self was not for such an impious use Therefore our learned Cardinal is much out in his collection here from this Canon of the Apostles when he sayes that by natural reason because the goods or lands of the Church are called Dominicae therefore the cannot in any wise or for any use or in any case be subject to the supream lay Jurisdiction To his fifth and last argument I need not say much because it so little requires other answer than That it is the very worst sort of argument he could use for his Ecclesiastical Immunity and for the being of it as such from the very law of Nations and Nature For to pretend or alledge even true miraculous extraordinary judgments or punishments from God on the Profaners of holy places or even too on the tyrannical Oppressors of holy or Ecclesiastical Persons as also on a Prince or People for having made first or observed after out of covetousness hatred envy pride ambition or any other sinful end such laws as naturally must lessen the holiness or esteem or reverence which must be due to either such places or such persons what hath this to do with the religious worshippers of such places and with the careful protectors of such persons or with either Prince or People that for a just and holy end make a wholsome law which being observed by Church-men will make them more holy and more reverend Besides how often have we read of extraordinary judgments of God pursuing presently the injustice committed by either Prince or People against meer lay men and against such as could pretend no such exemption and against such too as had no right of their side but from the positive civil Institutions or Laws made by other meer lay-men If our most eminent Cardinal had alledged and proved but one only miracle wrought in the case that is wrought by the invocation of God and either expresly or even tacitly for the confirmation of his Thesis or the being of Clergymen so exempt as he would have them in all cases and all respects from the supream civil jurisdiction of lay Princes then indeed he might have had some colour to amuse the Reader with that his fifth Argument Albeit yet such miracle would not be home enough unless withal it appeared wrought to confirm their being so exempt by the law of Nations and Nature But neither for Churchmen or Church doth he as much as pretend to any such material miracle or any such extraordinary punishments from God And good God! what is it to prove such exemption as he pretends That the sacrilegious robbers or any other wicked prophaners of a Church dyed presently That a passionat wicked Prince who did without any form of justice without any just cause at all and who did even against his own laws and his own conscience persecute to death a Religious Prelate or Priest onely for having been a good Prelate or good Priest in reprehending wickedness that I say such a Prince had an evil or strange and suddain end Certainly were it acknowledged of all sides did God himself now expresly and intelligibly and evidently reveal it to all the world that notwithstanding any pretence or even any positive laws of men hitherto all kind of Churchmen and Churches and their persons goods lands houses c. were as other men in all kind of temporal matters subject to the disposition and coercion of not only the supream but also of the inferiour civil Magistrate yet from the providence and goodness and justice also of God we might rationally expect sometime and pray sometime also for such extraordinary and exemplary miraculous punishment of such as would abuse that right or that power given them by God to govern well questionless to govern holily and justly the Church of God and Ministers and lands and revenues of it Besides how often have such extraordinary miraculous punishments seized on the very Ecclesiastical Governours themselves and even on the very supream Ecclesiastical Governours who have oppressed the inferiour Clergie And yet there was no exemption of this inferiour Clergie from them concluded thence Lastly how knows for what injustice in particular did those extraordinary punishments from God and let us suppose them still truly miraculous and from God in a special way which yet will be hardly proved of most of them seize upon such as were said to have violated Churches or Churchmen against that which this learned Cardinal pretends to be Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty Did God reveal it was particularly for infringing that or infringing any part of all that which Bellarmine understands or pretends to be of true and due Ecclesiastical exemption and was moreover to shew by a testimony from Heaven That this Ecclesiastical Immunity of his must be admitted to be such by the law of Nations and Nature Or did God reveal it was not perhaps for some other indeed more unquestionably exorbitant wickedness of those very men so punished miroculously Or must the single conjecture of Basilius Porphyrogenitus be to us a certainty that indeed those evils happened at that time to the Constantinopolitan Empire by reason or because of that law whatever it was made by Nicephorus Phocas and further yet a concluding argument for the being of Bellarmine's such pretended Ecclesiastical Immunity from the law of Nations and Nature which onely is our present business or dispute Nay must we not rather according to reason attribute those very plagues or judgments from God at that time to other causes that is to the undoubted uncontroverted injustices and wrongs done by Nicephorus Phocas in using ill and abusing very much the supream power he had over the Clergie if I say there was any thing extraordinary in those plagues or if they were such as the like or farre worse did not fall on that people or Emperour of Constantinople very often before that law was made and after that law was again abolished and when Ecclesiastical Immunity was as strictly and religiously observed as ever or when the supream civil power as rightly used as ever for the veneration of holy places and holy persons Do not the Greek Historians of those times Curopolates and Cedrenus Zonaras and Glycas do not Baronius and his Abbreviator Spendanus ad Annum Christi 962. 964. confess with those Greeks That Nicephorus Phocas though otherwise an excellent and victorious Prince had been charged with several other exorbitances as with having suffered himself after the death of Romanus to be chosen Emperour by the Army notwithstanding that Basilius and Constantinus both lawful Sons to the deceased Emperour Romanus were yet alive and lawful Heirs of the Empire and
with marrying Theophanes Augusta or the widdow Empress notwithstanding his own former legitimate wife was still alive and no other cause to divorce from her and that besides he had received her or the said Theophanes's Son as a Godfather out of the Sacred Font and with too much liberty given to his army to oppress against all right and reason as well the Layety as the Clergie indulging them whatever they fancied and without any punishment and with robbing the very Churches of their donaries and with laying grievous excessive tributs on both Churchmen and Layemen against the law and with assuming to himself entirely the elections of Bishops and taking to himself also all the spoils of the dead Bishops and finally with endeavouring to have all the Souldiers killed under him in his warr against the Sarracens to be accounted and invoked as martyrs Do not the Greek Historians charge this Nicephorus with all these particulars and not with that law onely And if so as questionless it is so how could Basilius Porphyrogenitus or Bellarmine or we out of either perswade our selves with any certitude it was for a bare law revoking some former priviledges of the Clergie in case I say that law was such that Empire suffered in after days and not rather for some of those other undoubted exorbitancies against undoubted either divine or humane laws or suffered not for that law in it self but for the evil end or evil execution or use of it For a law may be good in it self and yet the intention of the law maker and his use of it very wicked And after all whether it was so or no what proof I beseech you is that bare saving conjecture opinion or judgement of Porphyrogenitus That Bellarmines pretended Exemption of Clerks in all both civil and criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil power hath been established either by the law divine natural or by the law of Nations That saying of Basilius Porphyrogenitus doth not touch this matter at all So that from first to last I dare conclude That for such Exemption and by such law of Nature and Nations Bellarmine hath not brought as much as any one argument which may seem to have the least colour of even probability itself nay nor even of that very worst sort of probability or that which our late Schoolmen call extrinsick onely Which himself did know so well that after having laboured so much to impose on us such exemption by such laws in a whole chapter yet in the chapter immediately following which is his 30. chap. l. 1. de Cleric he dares not give this doctrine of his own any better title or any better assurance not even for the being of it as much as by the divine positive law but onely the title or assurance of a bare probability of consequence And which further yet he knew so well that as he never once thought of the least Exemption of Clerks either as to their goods or as to their persons in politick or temporal affairs criminal or civil causes from any civil power whatsoever supream or not supream not even from the most inferiour civil Courts or Judges or of any kind of Exemption at all established for them in temporal matters by any law divine either natural or positive that I say as he never thought of any such Exemption by such laws in all or any the former editions of his Controversies or not until the very last edition of them by his own commands so it must be confessed he was in this point a very great changling to wit after he had seen all his other arguments out of human law or out of the civil and Canon law for his exorbitant exemption answered home by Doctor William Barclay in his accurate though little book de Potestate Papae particularly in the 15. and 32. chapters of the said book For in those former editions himself taught in express tearms against the Canonists Exemptionem Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona jure humano introductam esse non divino That the exemption of Clerks in politick matters as well concerning their persons as their goods was introduced by humane law not by divine Nay also as Barclay well notes de Potestate Papae c. 15. made it his business to wit in those former editions besides which the foresaid Barclay the Father knew of none to prove the truth hereof by three several sorts of arguments 1. by that of Paul Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit according to St. Chrysostome's exposition and understanding of it to be a command as well for Clerks as for Laycks 2. by other testimonies of holy Fathers in the point 3. because sayes he nullum prâ—ferri potest Dei verbum quo ista exemptio confirmetur there cannot be any word of God alleadg'd for this exemption From which doctrine he was so farre in his last edition that seeing he was left no other argument undissolved no other way unblocked for maintayning or carrying on his Exemption or that of Clerks in his exorbitant latitude of it and yet would not yield to victorious Truth he would needs in his old age trouble himself and others with a new invention or pretension rather nay rather too a meer aequivocation in effect of not onely a positive law divine per quandam similitudinem but even of a natural law divine and further confound the law of nature with that of nations and yet in the end of all pretend no more cap. 30. in solutione primae objectionis but a meer probability of consequence for his positive law of God nor for his natural but such a third degree c 29. as by his own explication of the third degree is no kind of degree at all of any true law of nature Whether this be not to abuse both Clerks and Layicks Princes and Subjects the State and Church being the controversy is of so high concern to all for the peace of the world I leave the indifferent Reader to judge For I have done my part and proceed now to shew by the solution of his other arguments LXVIII That for what concerns human laws too either civil or Ecclesiastical the case is also clear enough of my side both against him and our late Doctors of Lovaine That by neither law Clerks have ever yet been exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power nay nor in any kind of meer temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil from that supream civil power were it necessary for my present purpose to add this as it is not Though I confess they have been exempted and very justly too by several both imperial and other municipal and Royal laws from inferiour civil Judicatories in many civil causes and in some Countries by the peculiar municipal laws of such Countries exempted also in some criminal causes in prima instantia from the inferiour subordinate civil Judges and other Judges that
is Ecclesiastical Judges given them in such exempted causes both criminal and civil but given them so by the supream authority civil and proceeding in so much against them to a meer civil determination execution and coaction by vertue onely of the power derived from the civil laws and supream civil Magistrate and not by vertue of any spiritual power or other whatsoever derived from the Church as purely a Church Because the Church as such hath neither territory nor sword consequently no external criminal or civil Judicatory with any external or temporal power of coaction or coercion properly such but onely a spiritual power of meer spiritual censures which is but secundum quid or diminutively and improperly called coercion or coaction for what belongs to our purpose here But however this be or be not it is clear enough First that by no civil law of the Roman Emperours Clerks have been ever yet at any time exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat or from the supream civil coercive power of his laws Which I take to be so absolutely certain That Bellarmine himself for proof of his third Proposition which he hath cap. 28. l. 1. de Cler. in these general words Non possunt Clericiâ—a Judicâ— seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent had not the confidence to alleadg any other imperial or civil constitution but onely those of the Emperour Justinian's Novells 79. 83. and 123. where yet Bellarmine confesses this Emperour decreed no more but the exemption of Clerks and Monks from secular that is laye judicatories in civil causes onely and not in criminal Nay confesses that for criminal causes the same Justinian particularly and expresly decrees in these very Novels that Clergiemen be subject still to the lay or civil Pretors Jurisdiction with this caution only that judgment of death be not pronounced in the Pretors Court against a Clerk before he be degraded by the Bishop So that by the very concession and confession of Bellarmine himself it is not only clear enough that no civil constitution can be produced for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream lay power but also clear enough that no such can be pleaded for their exemption in such causes from all subordinate inferiour lay Courts being the Pretors Court was a subordinate one at least unto the Princes own supream Tribunal and being that Bellarmine having confessed this much of this law of Iustinians finds no other civil Institution for his purpose in criminal causes to alledge but flyes presently to his Ecclesiastical Institutions in that point saying that albeit the civil law did not so exempt Clerks in criminal causes from the civil Judicatories yet the Canons of the Church did as sayes he appears clearly out of the Epistle of Cains the Pope to Felix and out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and also out of the XI book of Gregory the Greats Register epist 54. ad Joannem Defensorem and saying further that the civil law must yield to the Canon Law cum possit summus Pontifex Imperatori praecipere in iis praesertim quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent whereas sayes he the supream Pontiff or Pope may command the Emperour especially in such things as concern the Church Where it is evident that Bellarmine confesses plainly there is no civil Institution or Law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the civil or lay Courts For the Reader is to take notice here that by the civil law in this matter no other civil law is understood but that only of Emperours From which indeed originally and only all the exemption of Clerks proceeded even in those Christian Countreys which have shaken off the yoke and even in those too which never yet were under that of the Imperial Power or Laws but have made themselves peculiar municipal laws Which yet albeit they be meerly and properly civil laws yet are they not the civil laws whereof Bellarmine treats and his other Associats contend as we are sure they give more exemption to Clerks either in criminal or civil causes then those of the Roman Emperour did But forasmuch as many of our Clerks are ignorant of that spring of their exemption whatever this exemption truly groundedly be as others are no less ungrateful for not acknowledging it I will oblige those and check these by laying here before their eyes the very first laws the several degrees of them whereby they came by the meer favour of the Roman Emperours to that exemption from Secular Courts which they have truly ever since enjoyed more or less in Christendome according as these laws were continued practised or even by other Princes not subject any more or at all to the Roman Emperours and Laws enacted a new or allowed of Therefore and that we may not erre hereafter in this point the Reader is to know that all these several priviledges liberties or exemptions either of persons lands or other goods which the Clergy hath now in Christian Kingdoms and States have not been granted at first by any one Emperour or at any one time The very first exemption ever yet granted to Clerks was that of Constantine the Great whereby after this good Emperour had formerly published his edicts of liberty for Christian Religon in general he particularly gave this priviledge by law to those of that religion were called Clerks that they should not be obnoxious to nominations or susceptions that is that if they were named or elected for any civil office of Magistracy or Wardship or of gathering of Taxes Tributes c. yet they should not be bound to undergo any such whereas before that law or priviledge Christian Clerks being named or elected were bound to undergo all such offices without any such excuse at all But eight years after this law so made the same Câ—nstantine made another whereby he gave a general exemption to such Clerks from all kind of civil offices l. 1. 2. Cod. Theod. de Episcop Cleric l. 16. wherein he gives the reason of this priviledge least sayes he Clerks sacrilego livâ—re quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur may out of the sacrilegious envy of some be called away or diverted from their divine imployments And indeed it is very observable against the ungrateful temerity of some Clerks who are loath to acknowledge the spring of their Immunity to be from the secular power that the same most Christian Prince calls those exemptions priviledges For so he calls them in express tearms Haereticorum factiâ—ne comperimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Clericos ita vexari ut nominationibus seu suceptionibus aliquibus quas publicus mos exposcit centra indulta sibi privilegia pregraventur we have found sayes he that by the faction of Hereticks the Clerks of the Catholick Church are so vexed that they are forced to submit to nominations and susceptions which publick use requires against the priviledges granted them In reference to and
in pursuance of those priviledges so generally granted by this pious Emperour Constantine to all Clerks of the Catholick Communion it was that he writ to Anulinus the Prefect of Affrick that letter whereof I treated before but whereof I have shewed also that Beliarmine made other use then he should or could which Eusebius hath at length in his Ecclesiastical History l. X. c. VII and I give here now wholy out of him to this end also that the Reader may himself be Judge with how little reason our learned Cardinal did quote it for a proof of a law of Nature or Nations for his exemption or in his whole latitude of the exemtion of Clerks from the supream civil coercive power even in all kind of criminal causes whatsoever albeit this consideration belong properly to the former Section Ave Anuline carissime nobis Cum ex multis rebus constet religionem illam in qua summa divinae majestatis reverentia custodituâ— spretam quidem maxima reipublicae impâ—rtasse discrimina eandem verorite susceptam ac cust litam nomini Romano maximam prosperitatem cunctis mortalium rèbus divina id tribuente beneficientia proecipuam felicitatem contulisse placuit ut homines illi â—ui cum debita sanctimonia assidua hujus legis obseruantia ministerium suum divinae religionis cultui exhibent laborum suorum mercedem repâ—rtent Anuline carissimâ— nobis Quocirca eos homines qui intra Provinciam tibi creditam in Ecclesia Cathâ—lica cui Caeciliarus praeest huic sanctissimae religioni ministrant quos Clericos vâ—care consiteverunt ab omnibus omnino publicis functionibus immunes volumus câ—nservari wâ—errâ—re aliquo aut casu sacrilego a cultu summae divinitati debit â—abstral â—ntur sed ut pâ—tius absque ulla inquietudine propriâ— legi deserviant Quispe his summam venerati nem divinâ— numini exhibentibus maximum inde em sumentum republicae videtur accidere Vale Anuline carissunt ac desideratissime nâ—â—is Thirty six years after this letter and the former priviledge of Constantine the Sons of this great Emperour Constantius and Constâ—ns the one an Arrian the other a Consustantialist governing the Roman Empire their father being dead Arbitiâ— Lâ—llâ—â—nus being Consuls gave yet a further priviledge to Bishops and only to Bishops not to other Clerks that it should not be lawful to accuse them of crimes before Secular Judges And so decreed by an express law L. Mansuetudinis 12. eâ—d tit For as for other Ecclesiastical Persons Priests inferiour Clerks or Monks they remained still as they were in all both civil and criminal causes under the jurisdiction of the civil I mean subordinat lay Magistrates until Iustinians time And therefor it was that Leo and Anthemius both and together Emperours about some threescore years before Iustinian to favour somewhat more yet the Clergy and that they might not be drawn too farr by the lay Judges enacted Ne orthodoxae fidei sacerdotes Clerici cujuseumque graâ—us aut Monachi in causis civilibus extra Provinciam aut lâ—cum aut regionem quam habitant ex ullius penitus majoris minorisue sententia Judicis pertraâ—antur sed apud suos Iudices ordinarios id est Provinciarum Rectores omnium contra se agentium excipiant actiones That no Priests oâ— Clerks of what degree soever nor Monks of the orthodox Faith be in civil causes drawn at all out of the Province place or Countrey where they dwel by any higher or lower Judge whatsoever but be left to answer before their own ordinary Judges that is the Rectors of Provinces the actions of all Plaintiffs against them Behold how these most pious and Catholick Princes declared the Presidents of Provinces to be the ordinary Judges of the Clergy Whom yet none of all the holy Fathers or great Pontiffs of those times did rebuke herein or taxed with any errour or with having declared or spoken in such matters and in their publick Institutions or Laws any thing at all less truly less piously or less orthodoxly Whence it appears how injuriously they speak of Iustinian that charge him with usurping any jurisdiction over Ecclesiasticks whereas on the other side they should acknowledge themselves infinitly bound to him for as much as he was the very first of Emperours that in civil causes exempted Clerks from secular that is lay Judicatories to which till his time they had been subject in all such causes Which exemption or priviledge given so by him is to be seen in the before-mentioned law of his Novel 83. but still with the also fore-mentioned caution that in criminal causes of Clerks the Pretor have cognizance however with this other caution also to see them degraded by the Church before he give definitive sentence or at least before he proceed to execution when their crime is found by him to be such as deserves the Gallies or Mines or Exile or Death or any other infamous punishment All which being so or this which I have now related being the true origen and progress of Ecclesiastical Immunity given so by several Emperours and at seueral times from the conversion of Constantine until Iustinian made this law in his 83. Novel First it is clear enough by these very laws without relating to or depending at all of Bellarmines concession that Clerks have been originally subject in all politick matters not only to the supream power of secular Princes and consequently subject in criminal causes to their said supream civil coercive power but also in both civil and criminal causes to the subordinat lay or civil power of inferiour Judges Otherwise certainly neither could those Emperours grant those priviledges at least as priviledges nor would so many learned virtuous and holy Fathers Bishops and Popes as were then in the Roman Empire advise so ill in their own concern and in that of truth also and Christian Religion that they would own such exemption as from the benefit concession or priviledge of such lay Princes if they had believed to have had it formerly and originally from the very essence of Religion For by owning such priviledges from those Princes they confessed themselves to have been subject to such as could give them this exemption being it is manifest that nothing can be freed or exempted which was not bound and subjected before in such matters wherein after the exemption is Besides the very Emperours themselves are sufficiently known in History to have been so pious that if they had been taught by the Bishops or at any time had been of themselves otherwise perswaded that Clergy-men were exempt from their power by the law divine they would have declared so much presently and generally in their own laws edicts without mincing without reserving stil a power even to their inferiour Judges to proceed against Clerks in most or many or some matters For if those good Emperours and other Christian Kings in their dayes bestowed on the Church so profusedly and only out of
godliness piety zeal what they believed to be their own proper goods how much more would they have abstained from usurping on those of the Church and to which they had known themselves to have no kind of right Secondly forasmuch as depends of the testimony or authority of the civil Law it self it is clear enough that Clergiemen have not only been originally or sometime but have continued alwayes or at all times since the very first of christianity are at present stil subject to the supream civil Power therefore not exempt from it For being it appears by these laws that Clergiemen were so first indistinctly in all kind of politick matters subject or not exempt in any either from the supream civil or subordinate civil and being further that none of these laws nor altogether exempt them but in some politick things or some such causes from the subordinat only and in none at all from the supream in any such cause and being moreover that it was from and by virtue of or by a power derived from those very civil laws and consequently from the supream civil Magistrate Prince Emperour that Ecclesiastical Judges were so appointed for other Clerks in any civil or criminal cause whatsoever or in those we call meer lay crimes it must follow that forasmuch as concerns the testimony of those civil laws which Bellarmine quotes here Clerks are still subject to the supream civil power though not in some cases or not even in very many cases to the subordinat civil but in such have other Judges that is Ecclesiastical ones appointed them by the same laws For by the testimony of these laws they are not exempt wherein they were not exempted by those very laws And those laws do not exempt them in any case at all from the Legislator Himself or from the supream civil power nor even from the subordinate indistinctly and universally in all cases but in some only Thirdly it is clear enough also by the testimony authority and warranty of these civil Laws and forasmuch I say as depends of such warranty if joyn'd together with the allowed doctrine of all christian both Lawyers and Divines generally that in such Christian Kingdoms as never have been govern'd by those laws of Roman Emperours or which in after-times did legally shake off the yoke both of the Empire and imperial laws generally and are govern'd only by municipal laws of their own Clerks are not exempt at all in politick matters from either supream or subordinate lay Courts or Judges no further then such municipal peculiar civil laws do exempt them And being that in no such Countrey at all for any thing we know yet or is alledged yet by Bellarmine or by our Divines of Lovaine Clerks are not exempt by such laws from the supream civil power and being at least that whatever may be imagined of some one or other Countrey with or without ground we know certainly there is no such law in England or Ireland nor hath yet ever been it is no less clear that Clerks are not at all exempt in England or Ireland in politick matters from the supream civil power of the Prince or of his Laws forasmuch I say still as depends of the testimony of the civil laws or even of the doctrine of either Christian Lawyers or Catholick Divines Which doctrine is that laws of men when meer laws of men and in politick matters depend not only of public tiâ—â—â— but also of legal reception and hereof also that they be not abrogated again by a contrary establishment or by a general opposition abrogation or disuse in any particular Kingdom or State especially if such as have the supream civil Legislative Power approve of or concurr to such abrogation or disuse Fourthly and Lastly and as a corrollary out of all it is perspicuous that as the very civil laws of Roman Emperours and such other municipal laws of other Christian Princes giving such or some certain and special exemptions and other priviledges to Clergiemen and giving them freely and out of devotion only for the greater decency and reverence of the Church do convince any rational person that secular Princes are still continually as they have been originally Superiours in temporal power to the Clergy even to all Priests and Bishops whatsoever living within their Dominions so they also convince that not even the great Priest and Bishop the very chief and spiritual Prince both of all Priests and of all Bishops too the Pope himself not even this so Oecumenical Vicar of Christ in all spiritual matters throughout the whole earth can be truly said to be at present upon any other account exempted from secular Powers in temporal matters but on this only that he also himself is now as he hath been for some ages though not from the beginning a temporal or secular Prince too and that now he represents a double Person that of the Successor of St. Peter at Rome which undoubtedly he hath from Christ and from the Church purely taken as a Church and that also of a secular Prince with independent secular civil or temporal power which latter he hath no less undoubtedly and even only and solely from the meer devotion benevolence bounty and gift of other Princes and people even I mean of meer lay Princes People But to the end learned men shall not say I take advantage of Bellarmine's not having so throughly examined this matter in his great work of Controversies nor even in his very last edition of that work which yet is the edition I have hitherto answered and shall not object at any time that Bellarmine sifted yet more narrowly the question of the civil laws in a latter book of his when he was in his old age forced to it by Doctor William Barelay's answers and solutions of all the Church-canons whereon chiefly or rather indeed only Bellarmine relyed till then as we have seen and we shall further see yet in the next Section for his so general exemption of Clergiemen from even the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes whatsoever least I say any should object this I will give at large and in Bellarmines own words but Englished all that he replies in that his very last piece on this subject we have now in hand of the civil laws against the same William Barclay and my own rejoynder also though in effect and for the most part made before I confess by another that is by Iohn Barclay the Son in his Pietas and to justifie the quarrel of his then dead Father LXIX Bellarmine therefore seeing by the said William Barclay's work De Potestate Papae in Temporalibus against him that all his former pretences of what law soever civil or ecclesiastical for the exemption of Clergiemen from the supream civil Power could not perswade any judicious Reader of that book of William Barclay regards no more what he had granted before in his great Works of Controversies and even in the very
last edition and after so many recognitions l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. but retracts that and puts on a new face and amasses together all his reading ever since that Edition and all his veteran strength and wit to prove that not only by other arguments but also by the very civil laws of Roman Emperours all Clergiemen are wholly and generally exempt and in all causes both civil and criminal from all even the very supreamest civil coercive power on earth even from that of those very Emperours who made those laws To the fourth proposition sayes he Tractatu de Potestate Papae in rebus temporalibus cap. 35. which was that no writer hath recorded to posterity that Princes have exempted Clerks from their own power but only from the power of inferiour Magistrates I answer that whoever sayes so doth seem either to have read nothing or to have purposed to abuse his Reader For Ruffians writen l. 10. Hist c. 2. That Constantine the Emperour pronounced in express words It was not lawful for him to judge Priests but rather to be judged by them Whereby he declared openly enough that Priests were exempted not only from the power of inferiour Judges but also from that of the very supream To which declaration that law of the same Constantine which is the seventh in Theedosius's Code de Episcopis Clericis is consentaneous where it is said that the Readers of the holy Bible and the Sub-deacons and other Clerks qui per injuriaâ— Hereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt who by the injustice of Hereticks are called to Court shall be absolved and henceforth as in the East shall not be called to Courts minime ad curias devocentur sed immunitate plenissima petiantur but enjoy a most plenary freedom So he Whence being it is clear enough that he absolutely prohibits that Clerks be called to Courts and will have them to enjoy a most plenary freedom and that he excepts nothing at all it must be also manifest his mind was that neither shall they be called upon to the very Princes own supream Courts for it would not be a most plenary exemption if they were obnoxious as much as to the very principal Power it self Such an other is that law of Theodosius and Valentinian Cod. Theodos. l. ultima de Episc Clericis where we read thus Clerks whom without any distinction the unhappy presumer commanded to be lead to the secular Judges we reserve to Episcopal Audience For it is not lawful that Ministers of divine duties be subjected to they pleasure of temporal powers In which law where nothing is excepted all things do seem to be comprehended unless peradventure the Princes power may not be said to be temporal And even Iustinian himself in his 83. Novella so often quoted by our Adversaries as if therein Clerks did not seem to be exempted in criminal causes from the secular Court hath these words That he must be first degraded from his sacerdotal dignity by the Bishop and so be put under the punishment of the law Where we see Clerks as long as they remain Clerks not to be under the power of the laws but onely after they are by the Bishop deprived of their Clerical honour and therefore while they remain Clerks to be not onely exempt from the power of inferiour judges but even from the very laws of Princes for what belongs to coaction And this is it which the Council of Constance did say in the 31. Session That laymen have no jurisdiction or power on Clerks And certainly under the name of Laicks it comprehends even supream Princes whereas these are Laicks Finally that I may pass over many other arguments the Emperour Frederick the second speaks generally in his first constitution where he sayes We also enact that none presume to draw any Ecclesiastical person to a secular judgment either in a criminal or civil question against the imperial constitutions and canonical sanctions So much there But by secular judgment are not onely understood the judgments of inferiour judges but also those of the supream whereas all are equally secular And we see it so observed indeed where the reverence of sacred canons bears the sway Behold here good Reader the very last essaye of a dying cause Our great Cardinal having been unwilling but to say somewhat however himself so knowing a man as we must presume he was could not but know he said nothing at all in all this discourse to perswade any other even but meanly knowing or judicious Adversary That any Roman Emperour did ever yet by any of these laws or other whatsoever exempt or intend to exempt or that otherwise they or any els understood Clerks to be exempt by any other law from their own supream imperial power in temporal matters either criminal or civil though I dispute not at present of civil causes but onely of criminal For 1. who sees not That were the testimony of Ruffinus's being home in any point a convincing argument yet this which is here alleadged is not in any wise to the point or question Ruffinus tells indeed that Constantine said it was not lawful for himself to judge the Priests but tells not that Constantine ever said himself had exempted them so from himself or that they were so by any law of man Albeit therefore Constantine said so to the Bishops of the first general Council of Nice yet is it plain enough out of the very series of that History in Ruffine when they offered 〈◊〉 petitions to him one against an other that as this was said by an ordinary manner of speech onely and by way of complement so the words must not be taken strictly or scrupulously at all but onely as extolling the dignity of Bishops and as intending to deterre them from litigiousness and chieftly 〈…〉 purpose to free himself from the trouble of judging their hateful differences That this was the mind of Constantine appears by these manifold and manifest arguments 1. That for that his saying he gave this reason that Bishops were Gods and received power from God to judge of him de nobis qâ—â—que pudicandi But neither can relate to human constitutions Nor even to those are divine least otherwise it must follow that Constantine farre better understood the law of God when he so refused to judge the Bishops then those very Bishops themselves who in that holy Oecumenical Synod of Nice did repaire and complain to him as to their Soveraign Judg as may be seen in that very History of Ruffinus 2. That otherwise no Clerks Priests Bishops themselves can be Judges of other Clerks sed ille solus de quo scriptum est Deus stetit in Synagoga Deorum in mediò autem Deos dijudicat For so said Constantine to the Bishops on that occasion and consequently if you take his words strictly or scrupulously he said that Clerks were not onely exempted from his own tribunal or that of Princes but from that of Pontiffs
there by Theodâ—sius and Valentinian signifie no more but an unlawfulness of or by their own human civil Emperial laws and where or in such cases onely as by these laws it was unlawful to subject Ecclesiasticks to the judgment of temporal powers And that these other words temporalium pâ—testatum arbitri as there and as per materiam subjectam restrained have relation solely to and onely import or signifie such temporal powers as all inferiour Magistrats are but in no wise the supream of the Emperours themselves Being so that those Emperours themselves Theodosius and Valentinian by this or any other law nor any other Emperour before them had ever granted such a priviledg to any Clerk or Church as to be wholy exempt from their own proper supream civil and imperial power Nay how farre Clerks were under the Empire of this very Valentinian from such an imaginary priviledg or Exemption from the supream imperial power may be learned out of his welfth law eod tit Novel Valentiniani De Episcopali Judicio diversorum saepe cansatio est Ne ulterius quaerela procedat necesse est praesenti lege sanari Itaque cum inter Clericos jurgium vertitur ipsis litigatoribus convenit habeat Episcapus licentiam judicaâ—di praeeunte tamen uinculo compromissi Quod laicis si consentiant authoritas nostra permittit Aliter eos Iudices esse non patimur nifi â—â—â—â—tas juâ—gantium interposita sicut dictum est conditione praecedat Quoniam constat Episcopos praesbyteâ—os fâ—rum legibus non habere nec de aliis causis secundum Arcadii Honorii Divalia constituta quae Theodosianum Corpus ostendit praeter Religionem posse cognoscere Si ambo ejusdem officii litigatores nolint vel alteruter agant publicis legibus jure communi Sin vero Petitor laicus seu in civili seu criminali causa cujuslibet loci Clericum adversarium suum si id magis eligat per authoritatem legitimam in publico judicio respondere compellat Quam formam etiam circa Episcoporum personam observari oportere censemus c. Where it is plain this Emperour acknowledges no judicial power in Bishops not even over their own very Clerks at variance amongst themselves either in criminal or civil causes nor as much as permits licences or suffers any such judicial power in the Bishop over Clerks but onely when it shall please the Clerks themselves to fix on him and besides shall make a compromise to stand to his judgment quâ—niam constat Episcopos Praesbyteros forum legibus non habere c because sayes that law sayes Valentinian who made that law it is manifest that by the laws Bishops and Priests have no judicatory nor according to the divine constitutions of Arcadius and Honrius can take cognizance of any other causes but of those of Religion And therefore decrees that if the parties at variance being both of the same profession refuse Episcopal audience that is the Bishops judgment or if either of them refuse it they are in such case to try their quarrel by the publick and common laws And further decrees that if the Plantiff being a lay person whatever the cause be against a Clerk civil or criminal shall rather choose this way of publick judgment acccording to the laws that then such Clerk be forced by lawful authority to answer And yet further particularly decrees the same form or method to be observed concerning the persons of Bishops To this law of Valentinian may be added an other long after of those other no less Orthodox Emperours Leo and Anthemius L. omnes 33. c. de Episc Cleric omnes qui ubique sunt vel posthae fuerint Orthodoxae Fidei sacerdotes Clerici cujus cumque gradus fint Monachi quoque in causis civilibus ex nullius penitus majoris minorisve sententia Iudicis commonitoria ad extranea judicia pertrahantur aut Provinciam aut locum aut Regionem quam habitant exire cagantur nullus eorum Ecclesias vel Monasteria propria quae Religionis intuitu habitant relinquere miserabili necessitate jubeatur sed apud suos Iudices ordinarios id est Provinciarum Rectores in quibus locis degunt Ecâ—lesiarum ministeriis obsecundent omniumque contra se agentium excipiant actiones Let not any whoever at present are or hereafter shall be Priests of the Orthodox Faith or Clerks of whatever degree or even Monks be at the pleasure or by a monitory sentence of any greater or lesser Iudg drawn to forraign Iudicatories or forced out of the Province place or Region where they dwell Let none of them be commanded by miserable necessity to relinquish the Churches or Monasteries which for Religions sake they inhabit but in such places as they inhabit in the Ministery of Churches let them before their own ordinary Iudges that is the Rectours of Provinces receive the actions of all such as act against them See Clerks of all degrees whatsoever not subjected to Emperours onely but to the Rectors of Provinces who also are in this law said to be their ordinary Iudges Now whereas the priviledges of Clerks are not read to have been any way lessened or recalled by any laws of former pious Emperours from the times of Theodosius and Valentinian until that of this very Leo and Anthemius but rather by little and little daily enlarged by new indulgences or exemptions given to the Church and notwithstanding such daily enlargement the Rectors of the Provinces were yet under the same Leo and Anthemius the ordinary Iudges of Clerks it is sufficiently evicted that those words before in the foresaid law of Theodosius and Valentinian fas enim non est ut divini muneris Ministri temporalium potestatum subdantur arbitrio were spoke or writ in that same sense we have said already whereas I say the Emperors then held it fas or lawful for themselves to encrease the priviledges of Clerks and also at their own pleasure or when they held it fit to leave them to the common law And who sees not further yet that Bellarmine concludes out of Iustinians 83. Novel quite contrary to the express letter of that very Novel Iustinian there expresly orders That as to such Clerks as should be convened in criminal causes at Constantinople where himself lived and the Imperial Court was then the Iudges there should determine the matter but as to other Clerks that lived in the Provinces abroad the President or Judges of those Provinces Si de criminibus conveniantur siquidem civilibus that is if the crimes of Clerks were civil or lay crimes crimina laica and not pure crimes of Religion or Faith hic quidem nempe Constantinopâ—li competentes Iudices in Provinciis autem earum praesides sive Iudices How then may Bellarmine conclude out of this Novel that Politick or lay and meerly civil even subordinate Judges such as questionless the Presidents and Judges of Provinces were under Iustinian could not Judge Clerks in
criminal causes while or during their being Clerks or before degradation For as for that other passage or those other words which Bellarmine takes hold of to abuse his Reader prius hunc spoliari a Deo amabili Episcopo sacerdotali dignitate ita sub legum manu fieri in English these this Clerk to be spoiled first of his sacerdâ—â—al dignity by the beloved Bishop of God and so to be put under the hand of laws who sees not that please to read that Novel nay that please to read what Bellarmine himself before and elswhere l. de Cler. c. 28. most expresly and particularly taught of the contents of that Novel who sees not I say that these words prius hunc spoliari c. ita sub legum manu fieri do not signifie in that law that Clerks were not before the Bishop degraded them subject in such criminal causes to the lay Presidents of Provinces or to the laws but onely after such degradation It is expresly provided in that very law as Bellarmine himself in the book of his now quoted confesses That the lay judg is in the very first place of all and before any such degradation to take cognizance of such criminal causes of Clerks and that in the next place if this lay judge find him guilty the Bishop is to degrade him before the execution or judgment of execution be given by the judge Is it not plain enough that by this very law or Novel of Iustinian Clerks were in such causes subject to such lay Judges and laws before any degradation by the Bishop could such lay Judges take cognizance of any cause or person that were not by law subject to them Therefore it is evident that the words prius spoliari c. in that passage quoted by Bellarmine and words ita sub legum manu fieri must as there be onely understood in relation to a publick definitive sentence of punishment and execution of such Which that Novel ordains for the honour of the sacred function of Priests not to be pronounced before the Judge give notice to the Bishop to degrade such a Priest as is by the same lay Judge upon examination and full discussion of the cause found to have deserved some infamous punishment as for example to be condemned to death or to the mines or perpetual banishment That so it may not be said that a Priest but a man despoiled first of the dignity of a Priest and of the very order it self as much as could be and of all kind of priviledges of the Clerical order was legally condemn'd and suffer'd such an ignominious punishment And by consequence the priority signified by that word prius relates to the posteriority of a definitive publick sentence of such infamy and to the execution of it not at all to a posteriority of power in such lay Judge over such a Clerk in such a cause which power we have now seen by that very Novel to have been anteriour to and wholly independent of the Bishops degradation being that the power of judicial cognizance of the crime was such And by the same consequence that being under the power of the civil laws imported by those other words ita sub legum manu fieri signifies onely a certain kind of being under and that too in order onely to such a subordinate Judge in such a cause but not all kinds of being under nor any kind at all in order to the supream civil Judge As for Bellarmines Allegation here of the Council of Constance Ses 31. it s not to the purpose because whatever may be said to have been meaned by the Fathers in those or any other such words or whether they intended only an exemption from the subordinat ciuil or lay Judges or even from the supream yet they say not here or elsewhere that such exemption whâ—tever was given by the civil laws Besides it is evident that the Fathers of Constance made no Canon at all in this point of exemption and that albeit they have these words alledged here by the Cardinal yet they only have them or make use of them in a particular case decreeing the liberty of the Bishop of Aste from an unjust imprisonment wherein he was by force kept by Philip the Count of Virtues a Philippo Comite virtutum who was not the said Bishop's supream temporal Prince or Lord but a subordinate and who without any warrant from the Supream had by usurpation imprisoned the said Bishop So that the Fathers of Constance alledging in the particular sentence they gave for this Bishop and against this Counâ— and in such a particular that laici nullam in Clericos potestatem aut jurisdictionem habent and alledging this only too by way of supposition or as a reason of their said particular sentence in favour of the said Bishop must not be presumed to have supposed more then was necessary for the justification of their said sentence especially where to have supposed so must have been point blanck without any former canon of the Church or law of the Empire or custom of the world and consequently against plain Scripture Rom. 13. as I will shew hereafter But to be exempt from the jurisdiction or coercive power of subordinat civil or subordinat lay Judges Lords or Princes according to the late civil laws of the Empire and to the custom that by little and little was introduced and then in force in the Christian world was enough for that purpose or justification of that sentence notwithstanding a plenary subjection still of even Bishops to the supream lay coercive power The Fathers of Constance therefore being justly exasperated against the said Earl did rationally and pertinently secundum subjectam materiam make use of these words in the sentence they gave against him attendentes quod subditi in eorum Praelatos Laici in Clericos nullam habent jurisdictionem potestatem For it is a rule in both the canon and civil Law that the sense of words how indefinit soever in any instrument writing or speech whatsoever must not be what they import in a strict Gramatical or Logical sense but what they do ex intentione loquentis according to the intention of the speaker or writer and that this intention must be gathered not only out of the beginning middle and conclusion or end of any such instrument writing or speech and out of the collation of altogether Cum utriusque Juris argumenta nos doceant ea quae in medio ad finem atque principium ea quae in fine ad utrumque vel corum alterum recte referri sayes Nicholas III. in his Decretal Exiit de verbor significatione in Sexto but also as natural reason tells us ex subjecta materia out of the very matter whereof or concerning which the law instrument writing or discourse is What last of all is alledged out of Frederick the Second's Constitution being it is no more but a general ordinance or
an ordinance in such general or rather indefinit terms for the exemption of Clerks in a criminal question from the civil-Judicatory or being it is but a command or law That none should presume to call or draw an Ecclesiastical person in a criminal question or even civil to a secular judgment against the Imperial Constitutions and Canonical Functions and whereas there was never yet any Imperial Constitution or Canonical Sanction either made before his time or in his time or after his time that exempted Clergymen in either of both sorts of questions civil or criminal from the supream civil and absolute power of the Emperour themselves or of other Kings that acknowledge neither Emperour nor Pope nor any other above themselves in their temporal government who sees not that out of this Constitution of Frederick nothing can be concluded for such exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power but only from that of subordinat inferiour and ordinary civil or secular Judicatories Besides we know Fredericks laws were only for those few Cities or Provinces that remain'd in his time which was about the year of Christ one thousand two hundred and twenty and therefore could not pretend nor did pretend to prescribe laws to other Kingdoms or Kings for the exemption of Clerks either in civil or criminal causes or even to the inferiour Iudicatories of other Kings And that we know also that that law of Frederick was not imitated by the like in other Principalities not subject to him not imitated I say generally as to the exemption of Clerks in all either civil or criminal causes whatsoever from the very subordinat inferiour civil Iudicatories nor even in prima instantia So that I must conclude that Bellarmine was put to a very narrow strait for an imperial or civil law wh◠〈◊〉 pitch't on this of Frederick which was not known nor as much as 〈◊〉 of in other parts of even Europe it self as owning no subjection to Frederick And yet a law not to the purpose were it of the same authority those Imperial Constitutions were when the Orient and the Occident South and North as far as the Roman Empire was ever spread at any time or even in great Constantins days were under one Lord. An imperial or civil law in those days or of such others for some ages after which wâ—e received in the wide christian world consequently generally retained might have been to purpose if it had clearly expresly on particularly enacted any thing to our present purpose But conceived in such terms as this of Frederick coâ—lâ— not be to such purpose For it is one thing to be exempted from the subjection due to Emperours or Kings and another to be exempted a forâ— secuilâ—i from a secâ—â—â—â— Iudicatory The Emperours had under themselves and established by themselves and by their own civil laws two sorts of Iudicatories The one termâ—â—â—g meer civil or meer secular Iudicatory where peculars onely or meer â—ay men were Judges And the other termed 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Iudicatory where Ecclesiastical Persons only or persons depâ—â—â—â— by them were Iudgeâ— whatever the cause or question was civil or criâ—â—nal temporal or spiritual or mixt of both And both had their power which as coercive or a 〈…〉 with any coerciâ—â—â— from the Emperours and from their civil law 〈◊〉 So that the Emperours exempting any from the secular Iudicatory 〈…〉 leave or put such under the subordinat pâ—â—er of the Ecclesiastical Judges deputed by the same Emperours or by their laws Which they might have done in favour of meer lay men 〈◊〉 some lay-men and in some or many or all case whatsoever made had it been their Imperial pleasure as often they did by instances grant Epise 〈◊〉 And entiam to meer lay men and in meer lay crimes or lay causes 〈◊〉 civil and criminal at leaâ— in civil Would Bellarmine conclude therefore that those were exempted or should be in such a case and by the Emperours themselves or their laws exempted from their own supream civil coercive power in criminal causes or indeed in any whatsoever Or must it follow that because by the law of England a Lord for example 〈◊〉 be condemned or tryed in a criminal cause but by his Peers that therefore in England a Lord is exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the King himself Or that it is not by a power derived from the King thâ—â— Peer 〈…〉 condemn or free another Peer Or even that by the supream power of the King which formerly established such a law of priviledge for Peers the same law may not be justly again or upon just grounds repealed and a contrary law made in Parliament if at any time it were found by manifest experience that the Peers did manifestly and manifoldly and even to the ruine of the King and Kingdom and against the very primary intention of all priviledges and laws make use of or rather abuse such a former law or former priviledge Or finally and consequently that whatever priviledge of exemption though only from Inferiour lay Judges was so granted as before to Clerks by the supream civil power of Emperours Kings and other States was such that in case of manifest and manifold abuse even to the ruine of the publick and without any hope of amendment it could not be revoked again or moderated by another law and equal power to that which gave it before Therefore from first to last I think it is now clear enough that by the civil law no Clerks are exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of such temporal Princes or States under whom they live LXIX That neither by the Canons of the Church I am now to prove Wherein I find so little difficulty that notwithstanding the general errour so wide spread or supposed amongst as well Divines as Canonists to the contrary but introduced at first and continued after out of some passages of Councils very ill understood considered or examined I dare say boldly that not onely none of all those Councils or Canons of Councils alledged for such exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power but not even any of them alledged for their exemption from as much as the subordinat civil power of inferiour Judicatories hath any such matter at all Though my purpose here be not other then to prove this truth for what concerns the supream power only To which purpose I affirm that no where in any Council is it found that the Fathers attributed such authority to themselves as by their own sole power to exempt Clerks from lay Tribunals â— or which is the same thing to deprive secular Judges or Magistrates of power empire command judgment coercion or Iurisdiction over Clerks or which also imports the very same to prohibit the secular Judges not to take cognizance of or give sentence in the causes either civil or criminal of Clerks brought unto their tribunals or finally and it is still in effect the same
Iustiniani Imperatoris Catholici quam probat servat Catholica Ecclesia constitutione c. XXIV cap. eccl 1. decrevit ut nemo Episcopus nemo praesbiter excommunicet aliquem antequam causa probetur c. In which law of Iustinian it is also very observable that he prescribes meer ecclesiastical punishments to be undergone by the transgressors of it Is autem qui non legittime excommunicaverit in tantum abstineat a sacra communione tempus quantum majori sacerdoti visum fuerit c. On the other side it hath been often seen that the Fathers themselves assembled in Councils made ordinances or canons in matters belonging properly to the politick administration as to wit being certain the Prince would by his own proper authority approve of such canons and consequently give them that force which the onely spiritual power could not or as knowing that by the civil laws or customs of countries such matters ought to be observed but wanted nevertheless for their more conscientious and careful observance the admonition of the Fathers and the severity also of Ecclesiastical censures threatned against the infringers Which to have been so indeed may truly and clearly appear even out of this very Council of Toledo where annuente consentiente Rege some politick canons were made by the Fathers and may appear also out of that former of Matiscon wherein the 14 canon is Vt Iudaeis a caena Domini usque ad primum diem pâ—st Pascha secundum edictum bonae Recordationis Domini Childeberti Regis per plateas aut fâ—rum quasi insultationis causa deambulandi licentia denegetur 3. That if we did absolutely grant without reserve that by the royal authority of King Guntramnus in this first Council of Matisconum and of King Recaredus in that of Toledo the jurisdiction of subordinate inferiour lay Judges over Clerks had been totally extinct in the respective Kingdoms of those two Kings yet nothing hence for the exemption of Clerks from the very supream royal power in it self and in all cases or causes Nor any thing to prove such exemption from inferiour tribunals whatever it was to have proceeded from any power of the Church or even from any temporal power of Kings before Iustinians time and Novels in favour of Clergiemen for both these Councils were held after Iustinians Raign 4. And lastly that Bellarmine was not wary enough in alleadging that first Council of Matisconum For besides that what he alleadgeth out of it hath not as much as any seeming argument for his purpose but that simple Quere which every novice could answer he hath moreover given his Readers occasion to tell him that of all Councils he should ever beware to touch on this of Matisconum being the seventh canon of it is so clear and express against his pretence of divine right or divine law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Magistrate or indeed rather of any law at all even meerly humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for their exemption in all crimes or in all those which are in the canons stiled lay crimes crimina laica that murther theft and witchcraft are by name excepted by this very Council and in the seventh canon from any such priviledge of Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption from the lay Judges however the criminal be a Clerk as may appear to any that is not wilfully blind out of this VII canon it self being as to the tenor of it word by word at leingth what I give here Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque judex absque causa criminali id est homicidis furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum fuerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur So at that time the Fathers of this Matisconensâ—â—â— Council thought it not against any law divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical to acknowledg the jurisdiction of even inferiour Judges over Clerks accused of or as much as accused of murder theft or witchcraft and consequently nor to leave them in such causes to the punishment prescribed by the law And what think you then would these Fathers have any more priviledged such Clerks as should perchance be found guilty of or charg'd with sedition rebellion hostility or any other undenyable treason against the King State or People Or did these Fathers think you harbour at any time the least thought of a priviledge from God or Church or Prince or people to Clergiemen guilty of moveing subjects to take arms against the King himself and his laws And these being all the Councils alleadged by the learned Cardinal in his controversies de Cleric l. 1. c. 28. and those other Councils after added by him in his foresaid other last peculiar little book de potestate Papae in temporalibus against William Barclay undoubtedly because upon after thoughts he found the former in his controversies not convincing at all as no more will you those his additional ones being also already and at large both in my general Answers to them all together and in my particular answers to each a part cleared by me abundantly in my LXIV and LXIX Section where the Reader may turn to them back again if he please for those additional Councils are no other then Lateranense magnum sub Innoc. III. cap. 43. Constantiense Sess 31. Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X. finally the Council of Trent Sess 25. c. 20. de Reformat All which I have though upon another occasion considered in my said former LXIV LXIX Section therefore to perclose this present Section I find my self obliged onely further to take notice of what the Cardinal sayes nay indeed gives for the second main proof of his third Proposition l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. which third Proposition is as I have before noted in general tearms this Non possunt Cerici a judice seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent For after the Cardinal had briefly quoted the Councils of Chalcedon Agatha Carthage Toledo and Matisconum and of these five Councils had framed his first argument for that his so general third Proposition and then for a second argument pretended first the constitutions of Emperours Novel 79. 83. and 123. but immediatly after acknowledging these Imperial constitutions did not reach the exemption of Clerks at least in criminal causes from some even Inferiour or subordinate lay judges but expresly subjects them still in such causes to the Praetors and Presidents he at last for a second proof of his said Proposition to wit as it relates to criminal causes relyes wholly and onely on the authority of the canon law and for canon law in the point brings no other proof then a general and bare allegation of three Popes Caius Marcellinus and S. Gregory the Great without as much as giving us their words but telling us
Matiscon c observed Besides that however it be read the last passage of it or this Nec Laico quemlibet Clericum liceat accusare shews plainly it cannot be a true canon but a manifest corruption and contradiction of all canons if without any gloss understood as the bare words require For who ever yet asserted it unlawful for a Laick to accuse a Clerk at least before the Bishop when there is just cause 5. That for the text of St. Gregory the Great in his 54. Epistle ad Ioan. Defens and l. XI Registri I have consulted that too and read the whole Epistle through and have been for all my pains so farre from finding as much as one word of any such matter as Bellarmine quotes it for the exemption of Clerks â—â—â—m all civil power both subordinate and supream by the canons of the Church that I must perswade my self our learned Cardinal never once turned to that Epistle or read it with his own eyes when he remitted us to it For I will not charge him with imposture Which yet any must do that will grant or suppose he had read this Epistle himself and not taken that sense of it he gives us upon credit Whereas it is plain in the whole tenour of this Epistle that although St. Gregory prescribe to this Iohn the Defender whoever he was going to Spain that he should relieve a certain Presbiter whom he names not otherwise who had been wronged and a certain Bishop whom he names Ianuarius who had been violently drawn out of a Church by some inferior civil Magistrats and another Bishop also called Stephanus who had been likewise violently forced to judgment either to a secular judg or to other Bishops that were not of his own Province or rather both in some civil or criminal case and without the permission of the Emperour yet St. Gregory pleads onely in all these three cases for the said Iohn's warrant to relieve them so the civil laws of the Emperours Leo Augustus Iustinian Arcadius Honorius and Theodosius which laws the Saint quotes expresly and at large all a long that Epistle and disputes out of them onely there to prove the foresaid Praesbiter and foresaid Bishops Ianuarius and Stephanus wronged being these Imperial laws expresly ordain 1. That the causes of Presbiters be first decided or brought before the Bishops 2. That none be drawn by violence out of any Church by the secular Magistrats for any crime whatsoever except onely that of treason against Majesty and except also the Churches of the Royal City of Constantinople where the Prince himself resided and when it pleased him to give orders for pulling any criminal out of them and moreover ordains that it be treason to break these laws of Sanctuary 3. That no Bishop could be forced to a civil or military Judg in either a pecuniary or criminal cause or to appear even before other Bishops then his own Metropolitan But alleadges not as much as a syllable of any canon or institution made by the Church it self or by Ecclesiastical power in any of these cases not even from the first word of that Epistle to the last The very beginning of it being this De persona praesbiteri boc attendendum est quia si quam caeusam habuit non ab alio teneri sed Episcopus ipsus adiri debuit sicut novella constitutio manifesta quae loquitur de sanctissimis Deo amabilibus ac reverendissimis Episcopis Clericis Monachis Iustinianus Augustius Petro gloriosissimo Praesecto Praetorio Si quis contra aliquem Clericuni aut monachum aut Diaconissam aut monastriam aut assistriam habeat aliquam actionem adeat prius sanctissimum Episcopum c. And some what after and concerning the case of Ianuarius in particular proceeding thus De persona Ianuarii Episcopi sciendum est graviter omnius contra leges esse actum ut violenter de Ecclesia traheretur dum si quamlibet aliam injuriam a quccum Episcopo in Ecclesia passus fuerit injuriantem lex capitali poena percutiat sicut Majestatis reum omnibus det accusandi illum licentiam ut hujus serie loquitur Codieis libro primo titulo sexto constitutione decima Imperatores Arcadius Honorius Augusti Theodoro Praefecto Praetor Si quis in hoc genus sacrilegii proruperit ut in Ecclesias Catholicas irruens sacerdotibus ministris vel cultoribus ipsis locoque aliquid importet injuriae quod geritur a Provinciae Rectoribus animadvertatur atque ita Provinciae moderator sacerdotum Clericorum Catholicae Ecclesiae ministrorum loci quoque ipsius divini cultus injuriam capitali in convictis seu confessos reos sententia noverit vindicandum Et post pauca sitque cunctis laudabile factas atroces sacerdotibus aut ministris injurias veluti publicum crimen insequi atque de talibus reis ultionem mereri c. Data VI. Kalend. May Mediolani Honorio Augusto quater Eutychiano ter consulibus Libri suprascripti titu XV. Constitut III. Imperator Honorius Theodosius Augusti Ionio Praefecto Praetor Fideli ac devota preceptione sancimus nemini licere ad sacre-sanctas Ecclesias confugientes abducere sub hac videlicet definitione ut si quisquam contra hanc legem â—â—nire tentaverit sciat se majestatis crimine esse retinendum Data Kalend. Aprilis Honorio Septies Theodosio tertio consulibus Item ejusdem titul constit V. Imperator Leo Augustus Eurithrio Praefecto Praetor Praesenti lege decernimus per omnia loca valitura excepta hac urbe regia in qua nos divinitate propitia degentes quoties usus exegerit convocati singulis causis atque personis praesentanea constituta praestamus nullos penitus cujuscumque conditionis de sacre-sanctis Ecclesiis orthodoxae fidei expelli aut trahi vel portrahi confugas Et post pauca Qui hoc moliri aut facere aut nuda cogitatione saltem atque tractatu ausi fuerint tentare capitali ultima supplicii animadversione plectendi sunt Ex his ergo locis eorumque finibus quos anteriorum legum praescripta sanxerunt nullos eiici aut expelli aliquando patimur nec in ipsis Ecclesiis reverendis ita quemquam detineri atque restringi ut ei aliquid aut victualium rerum aut vestis negetur aut requies c. Data pridie Calend Martii Constantinopoli Leâ—ne Augusto tertium Consule And after this again and concerning the other Bishop Stephanus and his case proceeding further thus De persona Stephani Episcopi ad hoc attendendum est quia nec invitus ad judicium trahi nec ab Episcopis alieni Concilii debuit judicari sicut novella quaedam traditio quae de Episcopis loquitur continet Ait enim sed neque pro qualicumque pecuniaria vel criminali causa ad judicem civilem sive militarem invitum Episcopum producere vel exhibere citra imperialem jussionem permittimus sed judicem qui
ut cumque summus sit non poterit huic immunitati aut exemptioni propriis legibus propriaque authoritate derogare So farr the learned Cardinal hath helped us on in this matter by giving us to our hand the authors and places quoted albeit only to shew against William Barclay that himself was not single in asserting such a power to the Pope But for these natural reasons or theological if you please to call them so which to solve is my business at present he hath left his Reader to seek Which makes me say that he hath not at all removed the cause of Barclay's admiration as he ought to have done Barclay admired that so learned and so judicious a man as Cardinal Bellarmine should maintain that the Pope could exempt the Subjects of Kings from all subjection to Kings and this without any consent from the Kings themselves adding as a further cause of his admiration how it was confess'd that before such exemption by the Pope those very persons so exempted by him or attempted to be so exempted to wit the whole Ecclesiastical Order of Clerks and even as well Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs and the very Pope himself as other the most inferiour Clerks were all of them primitively originally and even by the very law of God subject to the secular Princes in all politick or civil and temporal matters and yet as a further cause adding also that the law of Christ submitted unto in Baptisme deprives no man of the temporal rights he had before baptisme and consequently deprived not for example Constantine the Great when baptized of the lawful power he had before he was baptized over the Christian Clergy Now that Bellarmine should go about to disswade Barclay from his admiration because forsooth he quotes five School-men that is four Divines and one Canonist who taught the same thing and produces only the bare words of the Assertion of two of them on the point but no reason at all of theirs or of any others or of his own for such assertion may seem to men of reason a strange way of perswading another man and master too of much reason As if Barclay should cease therefore any whit the less to admire so gross an errour in Bellarmine that some others also had fallen into the same errour before or after or together with him Nay if Bellarmine had not preposterously fixed on those very men for his companions or patrons who contradict themselves so necessarily that is at least virtually and consequentially in this matter or if he had only fixed on such Divines and Canonists who speak consequently however ungroundedly of the exemption of Clergymen as of divine right which I confess the generality of Canonists do then peradventure he might have seemed to have alledged somewhat though indeed very little to allay Barclays wonderment For truly those he alledges betray themselves and his cause manifestly whereas they hold also manifestly and at the same time that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino Which being once granted who sees not the main difficulties which lye so in their way as not possible to be removed for asserting a power in the Pope to make laws for that exemption independently of Princes Who sees not that the Pope cannot make or impose what laws he please to bereave either Prince or People of their temporal rights or of what part soever of such rights he thinks expedient or convenient And who sees not otherwise that he alone must de jure be ot least may de jure make himself to be the sole supream Prince on earth in all temporal things at least amongst Christians And therefore consequently who sees not that being the Pope is not so nor can be so nor can lessen the Princes temporal authority over his own Subjects where-ever the law of God doth not lessen it and what I say of the Pope I say too of the whole Church who sees not consequently therefore I say that neither Pope nor Council nor other authority of the Church if any other be imaginable can or could so exempt Clerks from the power of Princes being that before such exemption all Clerks were subject to Princes and by the laws of God and nature subject to them But for as much as it appears undoubtedly that Bellarmine was one that did not or at least would not see these either Antecedents or Consequents being he sayes in plain terms and in his own name also de Potestate Papae in temporalibus supra cap. 38. That whether the supream temporal Princes themselves have or have not or could or could not exempt ecclesiastical while in their Dominion from their own supream temporal power potuit tamen voluit summus Pontifex istos eximere aut jure divino exemptos declarare yet the supream Pontiff could exempt them so and hath exempted them so or at least could declare and hath declared them antecedently exempted so by divine right that is by God himself in holy Scripture or at least in his revealed word either written or unwritten Neque possunt Principes etiam supremi hanc exemptionem impedire That neither can the Princes even supream hinder this exemption and That all this is the common doctrine of the Divines and Canonists cui hactenus non nisi Heretiei restiterunt which none hetherto but heretick's have resisted and forasmuch also as not onely Franciscus Victoria Dominicus Soto Martinus Ledesma Dominicus Bannes and Didacus Covarruvias above particularly quoted but even the generality of Canonists and late School Divine Writers seem to be of the number of those that with Bellarmine did not or would see the same Antecedents and consequents and lastly forasmuch as we have already solved all they could say for their contrary assertions either out of Scripture or out of the laws and canons nay and out of not onely some other extrinsick authorities of other authors Philosophers and Historians I mean for what concerns matter of fact or the point of Clergiemens having been already exempted so by any whomsoever but also all the arguments grounded on or pretended from natural reason or which Bellarmine framed above for his law of Nature or Nations for the Clergie's being already so exempted now therefore to fall to that which onely is the proper subject of this present Section let us consider those other arguments pretended to be of natural reason or even of Theological reason if you please to call it so as it may perhaps be justly called because suppoâ—eing some principle of Faith which we find in other Authors as in Dominicus Soto and in Franciscus Victoria for the being of such a power in the Pope or Church or in either or in both together as purely such or as purely acting by a true proper certain or undoubted power of the Church as the Church or as a Church onely For thus it is they must state the question and that they do questionless suppose it stated Though I confess
first are to prove it necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen as the last is to prove it necessary in reference also to their goods Soto's first medium or assumption to prove Ecclesiastical Exemption necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen Whereas Churchmen are divino jure by the law divine ordained Ministers of the Church eidem juri proximum esse videtur vt nequeant a Judicibus secularibus evocari it seems in the very next degree to that law that secular Judges have no power to summon or proceed against them And this he further proves out of that saying of St. Paul Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus No man warring to God intrigues himself to secular businesses 2. ad Timoth. 2. But Soto will give me leave here first to distinguish necessaries that we may understand one another then I will answer directly to his proposition For of necessaries as to our present purpose some are per se et ex rei natura of themselves and of their own nature and at all times such to attain the end of such Ecclesiastical Power and all that are necessary in this sense are likewise de jure divino warranted by the law of God For all such necessaries or all power means rules necessary of themselves or of their own nature for that end the Church hath received from God himself not from any sanctions of Popes or Councils And others are now and then for a time or only by accident occasion or supposition necessary that is are to be necessarily observed because they happen to be commanded by the Church and freely submitted unto by the people as for example Fasting-dayes Holydayes c. Now if Soto mean the exemption of Clerks and I mean too here any kind of exemption of them in temporal matters or of their persons goods lands or houses nay or of even the very sacred Churches to be necessary in the former sense he contradicts himself for he holds Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not of divine but of humane institution If in the latter he touches not the question For at present we dispute not whether now that Clergymen have by either the Sanctions of Princes or Canons of the Fathers or both many Exemptions and if from the Princes only whether now when the Church also layes heavy injunctions on us to observe the laws of Princes in this matter it be necessary for salvation and only during such laws not to violate the true priviledges or exemptions whatever they be of Clerks given them by such laws But the question we dispute here is whether it be necessary or whether it hath been alwayes necessary for salvation that Clerks should have been so exempted at any time or by any law at all either of God or man of Prince or Church for that exemption which is pretended to be now from even the supream civil power or even for that exemption which is from inferiour lay Judges Which distinction and animadversion premised I answer directly to his proposition and absolutely deny that it seems so as he sayes or that the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the civil power seems to be eidem juri divino proximum in the next degree of proximity to that divine law whereby Clergimen are appointed by God to be Ministers of the Church For I demand how that proximity appears by this argument which yet must be the only argument to prove it Clerks are de jure divino by the law of God Ministers of the Church Ergo by the same or other law of God they cannot in civil causes be accused before or judged by the civil Judges For even so will I argue for a proximity of divine law in behalf of the civil Magistrats exemption from the Church in spiritual matters The civil Magistrats are divino jure by the law of God appointed Ministers of temporal things Ergo in Ecclesiastical or Spiritual things they cannot be judged by Ecclesiasticks Besides we have sufficiently shewed before that neither can the Pope himself or Church lay binding commands in all matters which have such or as much proximity or affinity as this of Ecclesiastical exemption hath to the law divine For his allegation of St. Paul's saying That none warring to God intrigues himself in worldly affairs who sees not the impertinency of it Did Paul speak or mean this of Clerks meerly It 's plain he mean'd it of all Christians generally If then to any purpose of Exemption alledg'd it must be necessary that all Christian Laicks be exempted as well as Clerks from the civil power Much different God knows was this divine Apostles sense exhorting that in as much as lyes in us we estrange our selves from worldly cares to the end we may the more simply and perfectly attend the will of God Besides it s also clear enough that by these words he no more interdicted the Clergy from civil Judicatories then from honours possessions moneys all which do no less highly and extreamly involve the lovers or earnest pursuers of them in secular businesses And yet amongst all Clerks in the world who will be found that will believe St. Paul did ever mean it as necessary to salvation that Clerks should not in any circumstances and observing all other commandments modestly and moderatly endeavour to attain honours possessions riches intending still to make good use of them To Soto's second argument in reference to the persons which is that it may happen that amongst some ecclesiastical causes whereof lay-men cannot be Judges some civil causes be mixed and therefore if Clerks be not exempt from the secular power it must follow that in such cases they must remain perplexed as called upon by both tribunals the civil and ecclesiastical not knowing which to obey the answer is facile enough and clear That hence no necessity of their being so exempted follows but only some greater vexation or trouble in such cases of Clerks whose fortune it is to be involved in them For we see Laicks also and not seldom contending about such matters as are partly of spiritual cognizance and partly of civil so that they are forced to appear before both the Judges Ecclesiastical and the temporal Magistrats And yet no man will therefore say it to be necessary that Laicks be exempt either from the one Court or other To Soto's third medium in reference to the persons Quod non esset decorum ut Ministri Ecclesiae qui pastores sunt etiam Iudicum Regum tanduam rei coram ipsis sisterentur That it would not be honourable that the Ministers of the Church who are Pastors even of those lay Judges even of the very Kings should be obliged to appear before them as criminals or guilty persons I answer first that to be honourable or decent is one thing and to be necessary is another Secondly that neither is it undecent As on the contrary it is neither dishonourable nor undecent that the King who in
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
what power he determined it I would I say advertise here such of my Readers that not only not Bellarmine himself but no other whom I could hitherto meet or read hath brought us yet any proof even of this very latter part of his said confident assertion for his voluit that is I mean for as much aâ— any one Popes having by his own papal Power or pretence of such power de facto already whether right or wrong exempted so all Clergiemen from the supream temporal Magistrats in all civil and criminal causes whatsoever or as much as declared them exempted so by any law of God and for any Popes having done or willed so expresly or clearly and indubitably on the very question either by decretal Epistle or by Bull or other Constitution whatsoever defining the case and commanding all Christians or Catholick Churches to believe this Exemption in Bellarmines latitude as given so nay or even as granted by any power or law whatsoever ecclesiastical or civil That Bellarmine hath brought no such proof the matter is clear enough being he alledgeth no more to this purpose for either part but those sayings or decrees of Cajus Marcelline Gregory the Great Symmachus Iohn the VIII and both the Innocents all and every of which I have already answered as they occurr'd in their proper places and shewed that none of them is home enough to this purpose Beside that I have proved some of them either suppositicious or corrupt and others to no purpose at all either this we have here or that for which they were brought there where I treated them And that no other Doctors Canonists or Divines of Bellarmine's way have better arguments for his said voluit or that imported by it any one may perswade himself that please to read them where they of purpose treat the matter of Ecclesiastical liberty and yet more especially where they dispute of the several Excommunications in Bulla caenae pronounced at Rome yearly and with so much solemnity by the Popes against all infringers whatsoever even Princes Kings and Emperours of the said Ecclesiastical liberty Wherein yet the Reader will find no other of any Pope's having so by himself and by his own power exempted Clerks or having declared them so exempted by the law of God but either some of those I have already answered or some other as little pertinent if not far yet more impertinent some of them then some of these I have already given Ioannes Azorius's Martinus Bonacina's collections of such arguments or canons of Popes alledged by them and others to this purpose may serve to judge by of all For I have diligently observed all the chapters of the canon law whereunto they remit us for proof that by the canon law Clerks are so exempted Azor hath them in his fifth book of his moral Institutions cap. 12. And Bonacina who was a professed Canonist a Doctor V. I. as well as of Divinity and who seeks no other rule of truth or justice in any matter but some kind of meer papal determination hath also quoted them in several parts of his moral Theology as de Legibus d. 1. q. 1. pu 6. n. 29. and in oct decalog praeceptum and de Restit disp 2. q. 9. pu 2. and de contrac d. 4. q. 2. pu 1. Parag. 1. finally Bullae caenae d. 1. q. 19. pu 2. And yet besides those texts I have treated already I find no other but cap. non minus de Immunitate Ecclesiae cap. Adversus cod tit cap. Clericis de Immunîtate Ecclesiarum in Sexto cap. Ecclesia sanctae mariae de constitutionibus and cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto But none of all these canons have any such matter at all as a clear express and formal nay or as much as a virtual diffinition of the Popes in the point or as to the case of the persons of Clerks being so exempted by the Pope himself or being so declared by him to have been formerly exempted by the law of God from all even supream civil power in all cases or even in any temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil For besides that some of these canons are not sole and meeâ— papal canons out of General Councils also or of Councils at least reputed General and consequently no proofs of the Popes having by his own sole authority willed so or exempted so the Clerks or declared them formerly exempted so by the law of God it is clear enough 1. That cap. Non minus de Immunitate Ecelesia which is taken out of the nineteenth Chapter of the third General Council of Laterâ—n held under Alexander the Third Pope of that name and Frederick the Second Emperour and as such inserted by Gregory the Ninth into his Decretals speaks only against such particular Consuls and Rectors of Cities as contrary to both the civil laws and customs received amongst Christians oppressed the Church-lands and Church-men by laying more grievous taxes on them then Pharaoh did on the Children of Israel and besides did wholy evacuat the jurisdiction of Bishops and only decrees by this canon as by a canon of Discipline for such only it was that such oppressors should be excommunicated Where you see there is not a word to our purpose For who doubts but the Fathers of this Lateran Council or even the Pope alone might justly complain of and decree against such oppressors notwithstanding the perfect entire subjection of all both Clerks and Bishops in all criminal causes and even of the Church-lands too in other matters to the supream civil Power They might have excommunicated such Consuls and Rectors for oppressing only the Laicks against the civil laws and customs or otherwise against justice 2. That cap. Adversus eod tit which is also not a meer or only papal Constitution but according to the Decretals of another General Council that is of the Fourth of Lateran under Innocent the Third and the 46. constitution of those of this Council if indeed the printed Acts or Canons of this Council be true ones or be the canons of this Council or if indeed this Council made any canons at all and how ever it be is but as the former a canon of Discipline only That I say this cap. Adversus as inserted by Gregory the Ninth in his Decretals and under the above title de Immunitam Ecclesiarum l. 3. tit 49. declares no more but that the said Fourth Lateran Council prohibited likewise the particular Consuls and Rectors of Citties as the former did not to oppress the Church or Church persons with tallies collections and other exactions And besides this nothing else from the Pope himself but that neither should the Churchmen themselves of themselvs freely consent to any taxes imposed or desired by such consuls rectors without the Roman Pontiffs leave and that if any constitutions were made or sentences given to the contrary all should be void Where you see nothing yet is said to our
of a Lay Judg in such a cause of debt challenged on a Clerk should be tearmd heer damnable presumption and temerity Yet reason tels us that Boniface supposed a former law or priviledg exempting Clerks in such a cause the breaking of which law or priviledg most have been it which he calls heer damnable presumption and temerity But who made this law or gave this priviledg whether Emperours and other Kings or whether the Pope alone or even with other Bishops or also whether God himself immediately this canon of Boniface determines not at all And though Boniface therein commands the Ordinarie to proceed with Ecclesiastical censures against such Lay judges as would presume to give sentence in a cause of debt against a Clergieman yet so might Boniface have done nay and justly too have done if such a law of exemption had been formerly made by the supream civil power and onely by this power Because even in this case Clergiemen had acquired a civil right not to be proceeded against by such inferiour Lay judges And consequently the Bishops might use the censures of the Church for defence of it as they might for defence of any other civil right in either Clergie or Layety until the same supream civil power did repeal such law or transferre again such right For so long and no longer should this law of Boniface for excommunicating such Lay Judges by the ordinaries continue So that out of so many heads either joyntly or severally taken it appears this cap. seculares de foro competenti in 6. is no sufficient proof at all that ever any Pope hath as much as de facto exempted Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power though I confess it must have supposed them formerly exempted by some power in some civil causes from inferiour Lay Judges But what 's this to purpose 7. That for the later of these two canons or cap. Clericis de Immuniâ— Eceles in 6. though it cannot be denyed that Boniface flew so high therein excommunicating all Rectors Captains Powers Barons Counts Dukes Princes Kings Emperours c. who imposed on or exacted or even received from Churchmen or Churchlands or goods any kind of burdens tallies or collections and halfs tenths twentieths hundreths or any other portion or share whatsoever of their profits or revenues as likewise all Prelats and Ecclesiasticks whosoever both secular and Regular who should pay any such under what pretext soever without express permission from himself or other Bishop of Rome succeeding him though I say all this cannot be denyed to have been so notoriously done by Boniface that it was necessary to correct so great an extravagancy of his and correct it even in a general Council which soon after his death followed under Clement the V. at Vienna in France and to revoke it wholly as may be seen by Clementina Quoniani de Immunitate Ecclesiarum yet I say withal that Boniface decreed nothing in this very chapter Clericis that may be alleadged with any reason for Bellarmine's voluit that is nothing for a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of very meer temporal Princes nay nor for a power in either to exempt Clerks from such payments Not for the former power because he speaks onely here of such payment and such payments are very different from other causes criminal or civil also Nor for the later because albeit he proceed so vigorously against all such as would either exact or receive such payments how freely soever made otherwise or would submit or consent to such payments without his own express consent yet all this he did as supposing the lands and other goods of the Church and the Churchmen themselves before exempted from all such payments and yet determines not here nor else where it was by the power of either Pope or Church they were so before exempted And Boniface perswaded himself that by what power soever they had been so exempt or by what law soever divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical those of Emperours or Kings or those of Popes or other Bishops it was his own part to see an exact observance of such exemption and that he might to this end make use of his Ecclesiastical or spiritual censures And questionless had his supposition been true in the whole latitude of it concerning an exemption so general from all kind of tributs taxe c. in all contingencies whatsoever and by what power soever even the highest supream civil on earth laid on or received from Churchlands Goods or Persons he might observing due moderation command under meer and pure spiritual censures the due observance of such exemption though granted only by the meer temporal power and civil laws But this supposition was not right and he exceeded therefore and therefore too this Decree of his was totally annulled in the above Clementina Quoniam as I have said already 8. That for the Bull which is commonly called Bulla caenae as being yearly and with so great solemnity published and renewed at Rome on Maundy Thursday when the last Supper of our Lord is specially remembred whence it is that name of the Bull of the Supper is derived nothing at all can be concluded from it for any such voluit of Bellarmine For albeit amongst twenty special excommunications contained therein against several sorts of persons or delinquents there are at least four large ones with a huge variety of clauses particularly against so many sorts of infringers or presumed infringers of Ecclesiastical Exemption Immunity or as that Bull calls it Ecclesiastical Liberty videlicet XIV XV. XVI XVII XVIII Excommunication yet as the Pope assumes not pretends not in this Bull that himself thereby gives that liberty so he determines not therein who gave that liberty immunity or exemption to Churchmen whether God or Man And if man whether the Popes themselves or Church or whether not the Emperours and Kings As neither doth he there determine that in truth they had formerly from either God or Man or Pope or Prince or State or Church all those liberties or even any in particular of those liberties against the infringers of which he proceeds in that Bull with so great severity The Pope therefore only supposes that Churchmen had by some law or some fact of God or Man of Church or State or of the lay Princes and people these liberties But from which he sayes nothing in the Bull. Now we know that suppositions are no arguments of a determination in the case For so our own School-Divines and Bellarmine himself elsewhere de Concilior authoritat and truth it self do teach us whereof I have before given the reason Whence it appears evidently this Bulla caenae is to as little purpose alledged as any of those former papal canons for the Popes having been he that gave de facto Ecclesiastical Exemption from either supream or subordinate secular Judicatories in temporal matters whatsoever
Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption by such his proceedings What therefore might be the cause of his desiring or accepting such a Bull if the story of it be true we may easily conteive to be of one side King Philips inexorable rigour I will not say cruelty first in excluding so many thousand religious and sacred men from all pardon and grace and next in pursuing and destroying them as irreconciliable enemies when he might have made them very tractable Subjects and on the other the Popes pretence of even the temporal Soveraignty or supream Lordship of the Country and Kingdom of Portugal as having been made tributary to the Church of Rome by Alphonsus the first Duke and King thereof according to Baronius ad annum Christi 1144. and the proceedings after of several Popes against some Kings of Portugal upon that ground by excommunicating and deposing some instituting others in their place and by exacting of them yearly at first agreed upon under Lucius the II. four ounces of Gold and after that four Marks of Gold under Alexander the IV. as an acknowledgement of his being the supream Lord of it or of its being held in Fee from the Bishops of Rome King Philip therefore to establish himself against the titles of so many other pretendents to that Crown thought it the safest way when he had done his work to make all sure with the Pope for after-times and get himself acknowledged King of Portugal even by him who pretended to be supream Lord of the Fee Though otherwise it be apparent also in Baronius that the Kings of Portugal did acknowledge so much dependence from the Kings of Castile as being bound to appear at their Court when called upon and give them three hundred Souldiers to serve against the Moors amounts unto But this could be no prejudice to a former independent and supream right of Popes to Portugal if there was any such especially whereas the same Barnius makes Castile it self feudatary to nay all Spain (a) Baron ad an Christiâ—â—â— â—01 〈◊〉 1703 the property of the of See Rome as likewise he doth in several places of his Annals all the Kingdoms of Christendome not even France (b) ad an 702. it self excepted And therefore nothing can be concluded from King Philips admission of this Bull but either his remorse of having abused that power God gave him over those religious men or used it in so much more like a Tyrant then a King unless peradventure he perswaded himself upon evident grounds they would never be true to him or his wariness in seeming so the more observant of the Pope in all things according to the maximes of Campanella while he drove at the universal Monarchy But however this be or not its plain enough out of his so publick refusal in the face of the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile and in that publick Assembly of all the Estates amongst which the Ecclesiastical was the chief and out of his so long and severe prosecution and persecution of those Monks for three whole years till he destroyed them all and out also of the silence even by the Ecclesiasticks themselves of that argument of exemption when the occasion to alledge it was the greatest might be offered at any time and finally out of his receiving continually the most holy Sacraments of the Church all that time without any reprehension or objection made to him by the Church of so publick and so scandalous and so bloody and sacrilegious violation of her pretended nearest and dearest laws I say it is plain enough out of all that whatever the story be of that Bull or whatever the true or pretended motives of King Philip to accept of it neither his own Subjects of Spain or Portugal Clerks or Laicks nor those of other Churches or Kingdoms either Princes or people nor even the Prelats or Pope himself that was then did any way so regard the suppositions or even admonitions comminations nay or even actual censures of other Popes in their Bulla caenae or otherwise as to think perswade themselves that a true obliging canon or law either of God or Man of the State or Church or even as much as of the Pope himself could be concluded thence for any real or true exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power in criminal causes And so I have done with Bellarmines voluit As for his other saying above That hitherto only Hereticks have contradicted this kind of Exemption even this so extraordinary and extravagant exemption of all Clerks in all temporal causes whatsoever civil or criminal from the supream civil and coercive power I remit the Reader to the next following Section saving one where he shall see a farr other sort of Doctors then Hereticks to contradict it even Austins and Hieroms and Chrysostoms and Gregories nay the whole Catholick Church in all ages until these later and worser times wherein the contest was raised first and again renewed by some few Popes and their Partizans against the supream temporal power of Emperours Kings and States Only you are to take notice here Good Reader That 't is but too too familiar with our great Cardinal to make Hereticks only the opposers of such private or particular but false opinions or doctrines of his own as he would impose as the doctrines of the Catholick Church on his undiscerning Readers as on the other side to make the most notorious Arch-hereticks to be the patrons of such other doctrines as himself opposes and would fright his Readers from how well and clearly soever grounded in Scriptures Fathers Councils Reason Which is the very true genuine cause wherefore he gives us where he treats of such questions so exact a list of those chief and most notorious Hereticks who held against him on the point and gives them also in the very beginning of his chapter or controversie whatever it be As in this of Ecclesiastical Exemption besides what I have quoted now out of his book against Barclay cap. 35. he tells us l. de Cleric c. 28. First in general that very many Hereticks contend that all Clerks of what soever degree are de jure â—â—vin by the law of God or by the same law ought to be subject to the secular power both in paying tributes and in judicial proceedings or causes Secondly that Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno though Catholick Lawyers to Lodâ—uick of Bauer the Emperour but esteemed Hereticks by Bellarmine because some tenets of theirs were condemned by Iohn the XXII Pope of that name taught that not even our Sauiour himself was free from tribute and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the didrachme or tribute money he did not freely without any obligation to do so but necessarily that is to satisfie the obligation he had on him to do so Thirdly that Iâ—hn Calvin l. 4. Institut c. 11. Parag. 15. teaches that all Clerks ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of secular Magistrats excepting
were bound to stand or conform always or in all causes Ecclesiastical or even in any at all purely such to the sole decision made by the secular power of what was to be believed in point of Divine Faith or of what was to be acted in point of a good conscience they erre most grossely in this as they did in so many other tenets in other matters And yet all sides must confess that in such causes or in such manner Ecclesiasticks are no more exempt from the civil power then meer laymen For both equally have the same Doctors and Judges of their Faith and of their conscientious or lawful actings in relation to the laws of God or Christianity as both have the same supream civil Judges of temporal corporal and civil coercion LXXI Behold Reader in these eight last Sections which are from LXIII to LXX both inclusively taken the particular proofs or particular reasons of the Procurator's defiance to the Divines of Lovaine by his first general reason for his second answer given LXII Section to the fourth ground of the Lovaine censure For albeit as he noted before in that LXII Section he needed not have given that second answer to the said fourth ground of the Lovaine Divines the first answer which he created at length in the LXI Section immediately foregoing having sufficiently destroyed this fourth pretence of the Lovanians to witt their charging the Remonstrance of 61. and consequently all Clergiemen subscribers of it with renouncing or disclayming in Ecclesiastical exemption yet he would ex superabundanti give that very second answer you have seen in the said LXII Section videlicet That granting the Remonstrance had c. even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity on exemption of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream civil or temporal coercive power of the Prince or Magistrat provided still it did not declare as verely it does not against that which is indeed the real true and well grounded exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour civil Judicatories according to the respective civil laws or customs of several Kingdoms and as farre as the respective laws or customs do allow such exemption from such inferiour Judicatories yet neither the Divines of Lovaine nor any other could justly censure it therefore And the Procuratour would also give this second answer of meer purpose to dilate himself at large and at full on this subject of Ecclesiastical exemption and to ravel the whole intrigue of such tenets and arguments in this matter which have so often occasion so much trouble confusion in Christendom Which was the reason too that of meer sett purpose also he gave those two general reasons in the above LXII for this second answer of which two general reasons the first was that he defied those of Lovaine or any other Divine or Canonist in the world to shew any law divine either positive or natural or any law humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for such exemption or which is the same thing to shew any one text of holy Scripture or any one tenet of Apostolical tradition or any canon at all of the Catholick Church or even as much as any kind of passage out of the civil laws of Emperours nay as much as any one convinting or even probable argument of natural reason to prove power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream evil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or literal at least reputed Citizens or Subjects And the self-same purpose of ravelling that whole intrigue was the cause he spent so much time and took so much paâ—â—â—â—â—ther too in eight long Sections to descend to and give so many particular proofs of the reasonableness of this defiance by answering for fully and clearly as he thinks he did all sorts of arguments hetherto alleadged by Bellarmine or any other against that second answer or against the subjection of Clerks to the supream civil coercive power of Princes or which is the same thing alleadged for the exemption of Clerks from this power But forasmuch as the Procuratour not onely so defied the Divines of Lovaine by that his first general reason for his second answer to their fourth ground but also by his second general reason for the same second answer confidently said writ LXII Section that on the contrary he durst undertake against the Divines of Lovaine to prove there is no such exemption nor can be and with much evidence to prove this even by clear express texts of holy Scripture in that sense the holy Fathers generally understood such texts even for a whole thousand of years I therefore now proceed to those particular proofs also of this second part or of this so confident undertaking whereby the Procuratour in his discourses of that Remonstrance more directly assumed when occasion required the person of an Assailant as in the former he did that chiefly of a Defendant And because these particular proofs or reasons given by him for this second part and the confutations of Bellarmine's replyes to some of them for some also there are which either Bellarmine saw not or if he saw them did neither well or ill replye unto will take up some few sheets more I will observe the same method I have hetherto in answering Bellarmine's arguments for his own assertions that is will treat them in several Sections apart for the Readers more easy finding and understanding what I would be at For my next Section which is in order the LXXII shall give my first three arguments whereof two are out of Bellarmine's own concessions as I shew also by further argument that in point of either Theological or Philosophical reason such concessions and even as inferring my conclusions must be made by him and all other men that will speak according to natural reason or Christian Religion And the third argument I take to be a general maxime granted by all Statists Canonists Philosophers Divines nay by all men on earth though Bellarmine hath not a word of it but tranfiently answering it as ridiculously My LXXIII Section gives at large the fourth argument which is purely Theological and is that grounded on the 13. to the Romans according to the general and unanimous exposition of that passage by the holy Fathers until the age of Gregory the Seventh My LXXIV immediatly following shall give some instances of their practices according to this their doctrine and some canons too of Popes and Councils And my LXXV some few remaining objections and answers to them But my LXXVI and last of all on this subject of Ecclesiastical Exemption or as relating to it or to the fourth ground of the Lovaine Censure shall inferr my finall conclusion out of all that is out of these next following five and out of the former eight Sections shall withal consider the meaning of the word Sacriledge of these
committed according as the respective civil laws or customs of Kingdoms are and who may consequently according to the same laws deprive this or that private man of some civil right enjoyed by him formerly if he find it so expedient for the publick And I grant also what Bellarmine sayes of a power in the Pope to make a Metrapolitane or Archbishop of a simple Presbyter and consequently to subtract him from his former Ordinarie's Jurisdiction and of the like or unlike and even more absolute power in the King to give the creation of an Earl to a private inferiour person and place him in authority above another Earl to whom he was till then subject in many things and perhaps even generally subject also to all his commands But it is therefore I admit both because that not only this simple Presbyter and this private person but this Ordinary other Earl too are subject respectively to the Pope King and that by the civil laws the King may for the publick good and by the canons Ecclesiastical the Pope also may for the like publick regard so and so dispose of such persons no law of God or man being to the contrary Is this to conclude the exemption of Clergiemen from the power of Princes and against the will of Princes and against all laws both divine and humane and against all reason too and given more over by a man who could not exempt himself but was himself as subject as any other Clerk and consequently by a man who had no power at all over either Prince or Clerk in such matters Or is this to prove that the law of Christ doth exempt them or impower the Pope to exempt them in temporal things because forsooth they have a new spiritual creation which yet reason tells us and the Scripture teacheth to be and that it ought to be very consistent both in the creatour and created with their subjection in such temporal things to the proper Rulers of the same temporal things Bellarmine therefore seeing this first answer of his own could not sufficiently defend him against the reasonableness of that maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo not even for all his instances which I have now throughly canvassed as much as is necessary to my purpose found it his best way to have recourse to his Recognitions or last Editions of his great work of Controversies and particularly of his book de Cleric cap. 28.29 and 30. and briefly out of his said latter doctrine there to give a second answer to Barclay here cap. 34. con Barclaium which in effect must be also to that part of my second proposition or minor of this my first argument where also in effect I said That Infidel Princes during the time of their infidelity and before they became Christians had a coercive power in temporal things over all Christians whatsoever as well Clerks as Laicks or in all temporal civil and politick causes or which is that I mean'd and do mean had that power over Clerks not de facto only but even de jure Legis Christianae According to this second answer Bellarmine admits or at least sayes nothing to the first proposition or major of my above first argument but flatly denâ—es my second proposition or minor chiefly for the first part of it and sayes the law of God as well positive as natural exempted Clerks from all earthly secular Authority (a) Ad hoc respondeo Clericos non solo Privilegio Principum sed etiam decretis summorum Pontificum quod majusest divino jure exemptos fuisse antequam Principum privilegio eximerentur Bellae minuâ— contâ— Barel um cap. 34.1 from all meer worldly Principalities and Powers whether Christian or Heathen and exempted them so long before they had been in aftertimes exempted either by the laws of Emperours or canons of Bishops But yet further and most specially and particularly endeavours to mantain this second answer in his said 3â— chap. contra Barclaium for what concerns the Pope's own person or the exemption of the Pope himself what ever be said of other Clerks Priests or Bishops whatsoever For to William Barclaies argument pressing him thus or in this form besides whereas the Pope himself hath not obtained his own exemption or that of his own person only by other law title or right but by that of the bounty and beneficence of secular Princes for as our Adversaries confess he means Bellarmine in the first place and in his former editions which were those which only William Barclay saw the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to Heathen Princes as other Citizens were it is very absurd to say that he might free others from that subjection least otherwise it might be said to him Alios salvos fecit seipsum non potuit salvum facere I say that to this argument of Barclay Bellarmine answers cod cap. 34. contra Barclaium and answers also in these very tearms Respondeo Argumentum Barclaii duplicivitio laborat Nam antecedens habet falsum conâ—ecutionem viti sam Falsum imprimis est Pontificem non alio jure quam Principum largitate beneficio exemptionem suam nactum esse Qui enim Vicarium suum in terris eum constiâ—it is hâ—c ipso eum exemit ab omni potestate Principum terrae Sed etiamsi jure subjectus fuisset Regibus vel Imperatoribus Ethnicis non tamen sequeretur cum subjectium quoque esse debere Regibus vel Imperatoribus Christianis nisi ipsorum largitate beneficio eximeretur Nam cum sit ipse super omnem familiam constitutus Reges atque Imperatores ab eo in eamdem familiam coaptentur ut ab ipso regantur dirigantur certé nulla ratio patitur up ipse illis subjiciatur quibus jure divino praesidet It seems our great Cardinal was reduced to very great streights when he was forced to contradict himself so notoriously even for the matter to change his Faith and Religion if he would have as indeed he fain would have us to hold the exemption of Clerks and especially of the Prince or Chief of Clerks the Pope himself I mean to be a matter of Faith and Religion But however this be of his change or of his faith or of his religion or even sole opinion whether out of interest or out of conscience altered so strangely in his old age from that it was in the dayes of his stronger judgment when he had much less to by ass him and long before Sixtus the V. did threaten to burn his first Edition partly for opposing the direct power of the Canonists and even when first he appeared in the lists so gloriously bidding defiance to all hereticks of all ages in the world however I say this be or not be of his change that this second answer as relating first to the whole Clergy in general nay and to every individual of them of whatsoever eminency
all Catholick Writers as well Divines as Canonists But surely either he was not in earnest or he did not esteem any of the holy Fathers or holy Expositors of Scripture for a thousand years nor any other of those most celebrious and Catholick Authors even Scholasticks even eminent men and even within all along down the very last five centuries of Christianity since the Schools begun to have been Divines Then which to esteem or say nothing could be esteemed nothing could be said more untruly or injuriously as will appear out of my allegations in my next Section of at least those indeed the most eminent nay the only indeed eminent Divines for matter of authority and belief to be given their sayings without further examination or expectation of their reasons And the reasons which he gives and which you have presently seen above being only these two viz. that the Pope absolutely exempted Clerks from Christian Princes but not absolutely from Heathen Princes and that the Princes themselves exempted the Clerks from themselves are both of them demonstrated already by me to be without any sufficient ground even in the very papal canons or Imperial Constitutions whatsoever the first in my LXXI Section and the second in my LXVIII LXIX Section and by consequence proved to be manifestly false though I speak it with all reverence to the dignity and person also of Cardinal Bellarmine Besides I must tell our learned Cardinal that I have also ruined already all those arguments framed by his grauest Writers to prove as much as a power in the Pope to exempt Clerks So that suppose he did flatter himself or impose on others that some one Pope or other or even many or all of them together or one after another had set forth Bulls of such Exemption without the consent of Princes all would signifie a meer nothing to prove that consecution of Barclaye to be no right consecution unless Bellarmine did first prove by better Arguments that the fact of Popes or their decisions must be concluding arguments of their power from Christ to do so or to determine so or so Which I am sure Bellarmine himself hath never yet proved and therefore and for many other reasons yet farr more pregnant am very certain that none else will or can at any time hereafter prove And what I say and have said and proved before of Popes to have no such power the very self same I shall in this very Section and other following arguments therein sufficiently prove of Princes that is that Princes have no power invested in them to exempt the Clerks of their own dominions and such Clerks I mean as acknowledge themselves Subjects or indeed remain so and acknowledge too those Princes to remain still their Princes Kings or Soveraigns that I say such Princes and all Soveraign and Christian Princes are such as all Clerks of their own Dominions are such too have no power invested in them to exempt such Clerks from their own supream earthly lay or secular power in temporal causes Whence also must be consequent that Bellarmine to no purpose alledged against Barclaye's consecution suppose he did truly alledge it that Christian Princes exempted Clerks c. And yet it is certain still he did not truly but for the matter it self falsely pretend this exemption to be given by any Princes Fiftly and lastly how vain that reason is which besides that of Infidel Princes not acknowledging the papal Power and Christian Princes acknowledging it he gives for a further cause why the Pope exempted Clergiemen from the power of Christian Princes but not from the power of the Heathen But to consider the more clearly and throughly how vain not only that reason but his whole answer is in this particular of Heathen Princes and the difference he puts in the case let us repeat his own whole Latin Text of this matter Quoniam sayes he summus Pontifex Clericos absolute exemit a potestate Principum fidelium qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt a potestate autem Principum Infidelium qui ejus potestatem non agnoscunt non ita absolute exemit cum eos censuris Ecclesiasticis coercere non possit A most vain discourse truly in the whole For if all other Clerks were subject to Christian Princes before the Pope exempted them as this second answer must suppose certainly so must even the Popes themselves have been For who I beseech you exempted the Pope himself that he might after exempt others And have not I shewed a little above the vanity of Bellarmine's reasons which he brings to prove that He who is Prince of the Kings of the earth Apocap 1. exempted so the Pope Nor is that diversity which our learned Cardinal puts 'twixt Heathen Princes and Christian any one whit to the purpose or such as you may thence conclude that on the Clerks living in their Dominions or under the one more then on those Clerks living under the other the Pope may bestow the priviledge of such exemption that is any exemption de jure or by right and law not in fact only For and for what belongs to the Popes right or power from Christ if he could de jure by that right or power exempt from Christian Princes Clerks otherwise subject to such Christian Princes he should also the Christian Clerks living in the Dominions of Heathen Princes But sayes Bellarmine there is a diversity a difference in the cases And what is that Quod Papa censuris Ecclesiasticis Principes infideles coercere non potuerit fideles potuerit that the Pope sayes he might not use towards infidel Princes the coercion of censures he means Interdict and Excommunication towards Christian Princes he might An immaterial diversity in earnest a difference to no purpose at all For if Bellarmine's intention be to give this difference for what concerns the fact of exempting effectually it might very well be that Christian Princes though loaden with censures from the Pope though devoted by him to eternal maledictions would no more de facto set Clergiemen free from their own cognizance punishment c. then meer Infidel Princes against whom the Pope could not make use of his Ecclesiastical Censures But if Bellarmine gives this diversity or difference in relation to the pretended right or power from Christ in the Pope for to attempt or endeavour to exempt Clerks then must the reason be yet farr more absurd as if the Pope could not de jure exempt Clerks if he could not by his censures effectually break the rebellious contumacy of Princes For I demand to what purpose would the Pope have fulminated censures in the case Is it that he would command Princes under the penalties expressed that the Princes themselves should de jure exempt Clerks from themselves that is from their own regal Jurisdiction both subordinate and supream If this only be what is intended Ergo 't is not intended that the Pope himself could by himself de jure exempt Clerks but only that
would be not to exempt them but in effect to make them to be no members at all As for that reason of diversity which Bellarmine hath given As it is unnecessary that all the Citizens pay tribute or that all bear arms to defend the Republick who sees not also that it argues no diversity no difference at all in the simile For in the natural body it is not necessary that all the members walke that all see that all hear c. But it is sufficient both in the natural body and in the civil that every member so attend perform that duty unto which it is ordained or applyed that all in common do still in the same body and under the same head what they are enjoyned or destined to Let Bellarmine therefore let his disciples abstain hereafter from such absurd Paradoxes What man of found reason hath ever yet in his own soul inwardly perswaded himself that a King may not de jure King it over that is govern by direction and coercion those of whom he is King nor a head the members of its own body But our Cardinal denye here that from the contrary position and practice any perturbations of the common-wealth should arise because that albeit the King may not coerce transgressing Clerks yet the Bishops may and will To this because I have said enough already I onely saâ— now that to assent this power of coercion of Clerks to Bishops for lay crimes or those committed in meer temporal or civil matters and deny it to King were nothing els in effect but to rayse Bishops from their Office Ministry Episcopal to the power and Dignity Royal of Kings and then consequently to make but meer Ciphers of the Kings themselves For I demand of Bellarmine or of his Schollars why were Kings instituted or to what end their power if it was not to govern the Republick to provide for the peace and safety of all the people of what condition or profession soever Lay or Ecclesiastick and to provide for the security and tranquility of all by punishing and rewarding indifferently according to the respective merits or demerits of every individual But our Cardinal snatches away from Kings this proper function of Kings and gives it to Bishops whereas it is notwithstanding certain that neither can the common-wealth be quiet if Clerks do violate the laws resign themselves over to sedition and yet may not be de jure therefore punished curbed or any way restrained by Kings For who sees not consequently that neither de jure can the King contain his Provinces in peace nor compel his people to live together within the bounds of honesty equity or justice And who sees not consequently also but that the very politick peace nay the very politick being of the common-wealth must depend of the will of the Bishops to whom onely the light of governing of licencing or restraining Clerks our good Cardinal will have to belong that by the severity of their Episcopal censures or other judgments they may as they will coerce the nocent and thereby and in so much pacifie the troubles of the Republick or as they please too permit all wickedness and all the most enormours horrid crimes of Sedition and Rebellion to extinguish quite the face and being of a Republick How farre more piously Christianly and rationally too had Bellarmine taught and writt that by the favour and priviledg given by Kings the Clergie are not subject to any other Judicatory but to one composed of Ecclesiastical judges yet so that as well those very Judges as the criminal Clerks be subject still to and not exempt from the supream Royal power of the King who gave subordinate power to those very Ecclesiastical Judicatories in temporal things nay and in spiritual too for what belongs to corporal or civil coercion and who as the supream temporal Prince may command prohibit and provide that no person of what condition or profession soever breake the peace of his Kingdom and who also may when there is just cause take cognizance of and judg as well what ever delinquent Clerks as the very Ecclesiastical judges of those Clerks To that of Hermannus the Colen Archbishop I will say that Bellarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that jeer wherewith a certain Boor pleasantly checked a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a country clown having first admired and said this pomp was very unlike that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and some of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreover he was a Duke and a Prince too the clown replied but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will become of the Bishop Even so doth Bellarmine write as that servant spoke that this Hermannus whom Charles the V. summon'd to appear was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And even so do I say and replye with the country swain when the Emperour judged this Prince of the Empire did he not I pray judge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he judged the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so For neither do I nor other Catholick Opposers of Bellarmine in this matter intend or mean or at least urge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subject to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Citizens and politick parts of the body Politick which kind of authority as Bellarmine confesses Charles the V. both acknowledg'd in and vindicated to the Emperour Of whose piety what Bellarmine adds is to no purpose For it is not denyed that it becomes good Princes to leave that is to commit the causes of Clerks how great and weighty or criminal soever to Ecclesiastical Judges if it stand with the safety or good hic nunc of the Commonwealth that such causes be discussed before such Judges And yet I must tell the Defenders of Bellarmine that if they please to consult the Continuator of Baronius the most reverend and most Catholick Bishop Henricus Spondenus ad an Christi 1545. they will find that upon complaint of the Catholick Clergy and University also of Colen to as well the Emperour Charles the V. as the Pope Pavl the III. against the said Archbishop as by the advice of Bueer introducing Heresie and licenceing the Preachers of it in that City and Diocess and that at their instance petitioning for help redress in that matter against the said Hermannus it was that the said Emperour Charles the V. did in the Diet of Wormes the said year and about the end of Iune by his Letters or Warrant signed and sealed summon the said Archbishop to appear before him within thirty dayes either by himself in his own proper person or by
this following now as a distinct one and as in order my third And I frame it thus Whatever natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all and every person or persons whatsoever of the politick Commonwealth as such may be necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth as such and consequently in the supream politick Head of it as such whether this Head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy But the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole Ergo the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth and consequently in the supream politick Head of it whether this head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy The Major besides that it is proved already by and in the prosecution of my former argument where I alledged that maxime or principle allowed by all men and which in reason must be so allowed by all men viz. That every well or rightly establish'd civil Commonwealth must by the law of nature have in it self as such and consequently in its politick Head as such too that natural or civil authority over all the parts and members which may sufficiently enable the whole to attain the proper natural and civil ends of the whole and of all such parts as parts both joyntly and severally these ends being the civil peace quiet justice and comfortable secure living of all together I say the Major besides its being already proved so is further proved by this other maxime which even Suarez himself l. 3. de Primatu sum Pontif. c. 1. n. 4. allows and alledgeth for certain and for evident in natural reason Quod humana natura non possit esse destituta remediis ad suam conservationem necessariis That humane nature cannot be destitute of sufficient right and authority to do those things which are necessary for its own preservation in a peaceable and just way of living Now it is clear enough that the civil direction and civil coercion of all persons whatsoever living within the Dominions of the Commonwealth while they live there is necessary for its preservation And the Major is further also proved by a third maxime or principle which Morl. hath in Empor jur 1. p. tit 2. de legibus num 20. vers .. Quia cum regnum To wit this Cui regnum conceditur necessario omnia censentur concessa sine quibus regnum gubernari non potest To whom a Kingdom is given all things that is to say all right and authority which are necessary for the well governing of it are supposed to be given And yet who sees not this principle could not be true if that Major also were not true For whatever is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the Commonwealth is also necessary for the wel-governing of it As for the Minor I have abundantly proved it also before in the prosecution of my second argument And of the conclusion to follow the premisses necessarily there is no man will doubt It remains therefore that for an appendix of these arguments grounded on pure natural reason for the subjection of Clergiemen to or which is the same thing against their exemption from the supream civil coercive power in temporal causes to conclude this Section I shew by natural reason also that the very temporal Princes themselves how otherwise supream soever could not cannot by any law right authority or power given them by God or Man exempt from themselves that is from their own supream civil and even coercive power the Clergiemen of their own Dominions whiles I mean such Clergiemen remain of or in their Dominions and acknowledge themselves or indeed be inferiours and subjects to the same Princes or otherwise that these Princes be either acknowledged by them or otherwise truly and legally be their natural or proper legal Princes But for as much as Bellarmine hath in the often quoted 35. chap. l. contra Barclaium as being mightily startled by this position roused himself again and laid about him no less mightily to ruine it then he had to ruine that other which denied the Pope himself any such power of exempting Clerks from the same temporal Princes I will to avoid here some labour of repetition first give our learned Cardinals arguments against it and then consequently my own proofs for it in the solution of those arguments Ad quintam propofitionem sayes he quae erat non potuisse Principes supremos eximere Clericos a sua Regia potestate respondemus id manifestè falsum esse Nam etiamsi non possit summus Princeps c. To the fift proposition sayes Bellarmine which was that supream Princes could not exempt Clerks from their own Royal power I answer that it is manifestly false For albeit the supream Prince may not exempt all that live in his Kingdom from his own power unless he resign his Principality yet he may exempt some part of his people from some part of his power or even from all parts of his power and at the same time be both truly said and remain still a Prince For it is proper to a supream Prince to exact tribute from the people subject to him as the Apostle teaches Rom. 13. For it is therefore sayes he you pay tributes for they are the Ministers of God serving unto this purpose And yet the King may free such as he please from tributs For it is said 1. of Kings or of Samuel cap. 17. whoever shall kill the Philisthine the King shall enrich him with great riches and shall make his Father's house free from tributes in Israel Even so if some great King do free some one Citty amidst his Kingdom or bestow it absolutely on some body it will not be therefore consequent that he may not be said to be King of his whole Kingdom especially if he still protect and defend that Citty and that the Cittizens thereof do freely observe the laws of his Kingdom So therefore too might Kings exempt from their own Royal power the Clerks living in their Kingdom and yet be said to be and truly be kings not onely of Laicks but also of Clerks who freely observe their politick laws and who being Actors referre or deferre the causes they have with Laicks to their Royal tribunals and acquiesce to their judgment or sentence in such causes And because
maximes of other concessions of Bellarmine himself and partly of pure and clear dictats of natural reason and such as reduce all Adversaries to plain contradiction not onely of their own concessions but of the very notions of Superiority and Inferiority Prefection and Subjection Obedience and Government nay and of the very ends and essence of a commonwealth nay and also of the very nature of Relatives and Correlatives which require that both be at least together understood or neither be as a Father cannot be understood without a Son be also understood LXXIII My fourth grand argument shall take up this whole Section because it is my grand argument indeed as that on which as a Christian I relye more then upon any other however seeming otherwise the clearest demonstration may be in natural reason or the most convincing proof from either Theological maximes of Schools or other concessions of Adversaries For this fourth is wholly and purely grounded on the revealed word of God himself in holy Scripture taken in that sense the holy Fathers delivered it unanimously from hand to hand all along down at least eleven ages of Christianity until the days of Gregory the Seventh Then which it is very sure there can be no surer argument in Christianity for theory or practise of any tenet Therefore upon this ground also I confidently affirm that Clergiemen are by the very positive law of God so farre from being exempt from supream secular Princes in whose Dominions they live that they are universally and absolutely subject to them that is even to their coercive power in all temporal matters To prove which assertion I shall not make any use of either of the Barclayes the Father or Son as I have sometimes made some use of them hetherto nay often too in some or perhaps in most of the former Sections which treat of Ecclesiastical exemption although not in all nor even in any for all parts But I will take an other method and from my own reading elswhere treat this argument at leingth as likewise what shall be given in the following two or three Sections more which end this whole dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity pretended to be quitted and renounced by the Remonstrance of 61. or at least by the Clergiemen subscribers of it And yet I will neither to prove my assertion make use of that no less true then common doctrine of France and of all other the very best Divines and Catholick Churches vz. That earthly Principalities are immediately instituted by God himself and the supream civil power of Kings as immediately from him as from the sole efficient cause and from the people onely even when they elect their Kings tamquam a conditione sine qua non and no less immediately from him then the spiritual power of Popes can or is by any said to be Nor will I for the same end insist upon that command of our Saviour in St. Matthew 22.21 Reddite quae sum Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo or on that precept of St. Paul to Titus 3.1 Admone illos Principibus potestatibus subditos esse or on that other of Peter 1. Pet. 2.13 Subjecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum sive Regi quasi praecellenti sive Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis or finally on the 8. verse of Judas in his general Epistle where he recounts it amongst the most enormous crimes of some wicked persons that they despise Dominion And I will as little insist on what is repeated concerning this in the Apostolical Constitutions l. 4. cap. 12. lib. 7. cap. 17. whoever was Author of the said Constitutions As also I will pass by for this time without insisting on That supream earthly Princes are within their own Principalities and in all earthly or temporal things the very onely true and proper Vicars of God even by as true at least and well grounded title as the very Popes themselves are said to be the Vicars of God or Christ in all heavenly or purely spiritual matters throughout all Principalities and States of the Earth Albebeit there is no man of reason but sees that this very true title of supream temporal Princes would be enough to evict my purpose However because I would take the shortest way Therefore what I insist upon solely now is that of St. Paul in his epistle to the very Romans themselves Rom. 13.1 Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let every soul be subject to the more sublime powers And besides what I insist upon is the whole discourse following of the same Apostle in the same chapter along consequently to the eight verse if not further For sayes he giving the reason of his former precept in the former words let every soul be subject c. there is no power but of God The powers that be are ordained by or of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation For Rulers are not a terror of good works but to the evil Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise for the same For he is the Minister of God to thee for good for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil Wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake For for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Render therefore to all their dues tribute to whom tribute custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour Owe no man any thing but c. And finally what I insist upon is the necessary sense of these very passages of St. Paul and of the like or to the same purpose and is that very sense I mean as delivered to us in the doctrine and practice of the most holy and most eminent Fathers of Christianity all along as I have said before until the enemy of man oversowed tares among the wheat in the dayes and Popedom of Gregory the VII And yet without any peradventure those very Scripture-passages alone that is the very and only letter of them would be sufficient to perswade the general power of Princes over all men both Laicks and Clerks without further help or addition of the sense and practice of holy Fathers if some late Divines or Schoolmen were not far more pervicacious then became either Christians or even any sort of rational men not to speak at all of Christian Divines Which is the cause that being this sort of men that is some late Scholasticks among whom Cardinal Bellarmine is at least one of the chief have strangely endeavoured to distort the said Scripture passages as rudely to the end they might deprive all even the most Christian and Catholick Princes of this power or that the
arguments for it from the positive express law of God in holy Scripture might be rendred at last so farr unsignificant as not to conclude all men nor all affairs though otherwise temporal under it but on the contrary to exempt from it even the very most considerable part of men and affairs and a vast number too of both and consequently to lessen extreamly if they could not totally extinguish it as for any thing at least to be said for it from Scripture I must crave your pardon Reader if I be as prolix in this argument as in any or perhaps more then in any of the former or even in all three together being I am resolved to give long entire passages out of the doctrine of the most eminent of the holy Fathers and out of Ecclesiastical History too the practice of the Fathers to evict that sense of those Scripture passages which is so obvious of it self to have also been that all along handed to us by our said great fore-fathers and consequently that sense to be certain also by Tradition But first or before I come to the doctrine or which is the same thing to the exposition or sense of the Fathers or that which they delivered to us of those Scripture places in their own proper genuine and uncontroverted books I frame my fourth argument thus Whoever are expresly and clearly commanded by the mouth or pen of Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. to be subject to the higher Powers and are further told by the same Apostle and in the same place that there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God that therefore whoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall acquire damnation to themselves that earthly Princes are the Ministers of God that as the Ministers of God they bear the sword and not in vain and finally that for all these reasons every soul must needs be subject to these higher Powers I say that whoever are commanded so and told so are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently threin declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes But all Clergiemen whoever living within the Dominions of any supream secular Prince are commanded so and told so by Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. Ergo all Clergiemen whoever living within the Dominions of any supream secular Prince are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes The Major is evident because that as no man ever yet doubted of any of these passages of St. Paul in the said thirteenth Chapter to the Romans to be of holy Scripture and for so much to contain the very positive law of God that although it may be said also they for so much contain the very natural law of God so it can neither be denied honestly or christianly or even at all rationally that by Higher Powers c. in the text of Paul secular Princes only are understood being those Powers only are there understood who only bear the sword and to whom only tribute and custom is paid c. Nor can it be denied that by the text of Paul all souls are commanded to be subject in some things or some causes and therefore if not in spiritual certainly in temporal whereas all things or causes are either spiritual or temporal Nor besides can it be denied they are said here to be subject in such temporal causes only which are called meerly civil as civil are opposed to criminal because by the text they are subject even in such causes wherein use is to be made of the sword against malefactors and it is plain that such are also criminal and not civil only Nor finally and consequently can it be denied they are commanded here to be subject to the coercive part or virtue of the Princes temporal power whereas the directive as such only doth not cannot make use of the sword to punish evil doers The Minor also is evident because all Christians all men and women universally without exception or distinction of any state or profession or character are so commanded and so told and consequently Clerks being they are Christians and men For so doth the very interlineary Gloss understand it Omnis anima id est omnis homo sayes this Gloss potestatibus sublimiâ—ribus subdita sit And because the end of the precept could not be attained if all Clerks universally as well as Laicks were not so commanded and so told And because too the express doctrine and known practise of the holy Fathers for many ages after the Apostles time do teach us clearly expresly and particularly that in this text of Paul and others like it or of the same nature in the Bible all Clerks indistinctly are understood no less then Laicks As for the conclusion our Adversaries I am sure will not except against the necessity or evidence of it if the premisses be once granted or if they otherwise be in themselves true and certain To the premisses therefore to the Major and Minor it is that several frame several Answers some denying that for some part of it and others this for the whole but all of them equally spurning against truth and even rebelling against the light of their own consciences as those in Iob qui rebelles sunt lumini qui dicunt Deo recede a nobis scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus The first answer then is that by higher Powers in St. Pauls text those only are understood which are truly the higher to wit the powers Ecclesiastical or Spiritual For at least comparatively speaking these are the higher and temporal Powers the lower because the spiritual is of a more excellent nature as more directly tending to God then the temporal And consequently this answer sayes that by the Sword in the same text the material sword of Iron is not understood but the spiritual of Excommunication c. The old Authors of this answer albeit as old as St. Augustine himself for he refutes them as will be seen hereafter and other late readers and embracers of it though without sufficient patronage from its antiquity being there have been heresies confessed of all sides for heresies as old as the dayes of Austin and long before the dayes of Austin even in those of the very blessed Apostles must be obliged to deny the Major or that last part which is the only affirmation of it where I say that whoever are commanded sâ— and told so are by the positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes The second Answer is of a newer stamp indeed but of no lesser both absurdity and heresie in it self and contradiction also to the
under Titus and Vesâ—asâ—an some forty years after the death of Christ Now therefore that of danger that Christians might easily perswade themselves that they were all set free from the laws and power of men by the grace and liberty of the Gospel and that of the consequent danger also of too much scandal to be cast upon them as originally Gallicans and teaching Christian liberty which yet was not rightly understood by some and not of scandal only but of grievous persecutions from Gentil Princes against the religion in general and faith of Christ I say that these dangers fore-seen by the blessed Apostle and his desire of removing such dangers and obstructing also other consequent inconveniencies having been the only cause motive end of that general Edict of his omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit who sees not it was not to his purpose here as not to treat of the spiritual Superiority of Bishops or Pastors or of their spiritual sword or of the obedience or awe beleivers should stand in to either so neither to command or intend that Laicks onely should obey the Lay powers and Clerks the spiritual For if he had intended either those spiritual powers onely or that spiritual sword onely or if he had exempted any at all of the Christians especially so great and considerable a body of them as all their Apostles Evangelists Doctors Prophets Bishops Priests Deacons c. and as all these would prove in time to be who sees not that the secular heathen Princes would think themselves to have a most just cause to rage against them as everting all humane government and power We know and see daily that even Christian Princes even now a days nay even ever since the very first Christian Princes were nor even the most pious and godly of them did ever yet abide that as much as any one individual person how high and holy a Clerk soever should be in their Kingdom and not subject in temporals Therefore the very true primary and proper end of this general edict of Paul concludes against all and every of the above answers no less evidently then the letter or text it self in that whole discourse of Paul Thirdly and yet more particularly and singly as to Bellarmine's own so strange and new and proper invention as I have noted before that some take that answer to be which I have placed as a third answer but certainly his whether it be different or not I am no less certainly perswaded that all disinteressed judicious men will confess that both his reasons for it are convinced again by the very letter of the text or whole context of the Apostles discourse there not onely to be vain pittifull subtilities or rather childish unsignificant captions of words but also to inferre manifest contradiction in that very whole context For though Bellarmine above de Translat Imperij l. 1. c. 2. n. 7. after he had answered Illyricus that S. Paul said not Let every soul be subject to the politick powers but Let every soul be subject potestatibus sublimioribus to the more sublime or higher powers and after he had consequently told Illyricus that before he went about to exalt the politick powers above all souls and by consequence above the Pope himself of whom sayes Bellarmine the chief question is he ought to demonstrate first that the power of the politick Magistrate is more sublime then that of the Ecclesiastical although I say after this Bellarmine interrogates whether S. Paul himself did not openly subject all the faithfull not even the Magistrate excepted to the Bishops where he sayes Obedite prepositis vestris subiacete eis Ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri c. Heb. 13.17 And then produces Nazianzâ—n Ambrose Chrysostome and Bernard who all subject Princes to the Church yet I say withall it is plain enough he brings nothing here to purpose or to prove the reasonableness of or any kind of seeming colour in his answer but those two very bad childish arguments which he most unreasonably grounds on the word powers and on the word higher or words more sublime For no man disputes but grants that all the faithfull including the very Magistrate Prince King or Emperour are bound in spiritual matters purely such or as such to obey the spiritual Superiours of the Church clave non errante which is all can be derived or was intended by St. Paul in that passage to the Hebrews or by those Fathers So that so much of Bellarmines allegations here was impertinent What therefore he relyes upon as material is 1. that as he pretends the word potestatibus powers in that general edict of St. Paul may and ought to be understood in the abstract as Logicians speak vz. as importing onely the authority which Princes have and not the concrete of that power or not the Princes themselves as having that power or authority 2. that as he pretends also the word sublimioribus in that same general command of Paul was intended by Paul comparatively not positively and that comparison also intended by Paul to be betwixt the Ecclesiastical power as more sublime in its own nature and the secular as less sublime Behold his two and onely reasons for an answer so inconsistent not onely with that motive and end we have seen before the Apostle had but so contradictory also to the very letter and all kind too of any litteral sense in the letter For who sees not that by the very letter and litteral sense of that whole context it is evidently seen that St. Paul took the word potestatibus powers in the concrete or which is the same thing that by the word powers he mean'd the very secular Princes themselves who had that power which made them higher or sublimer then others For he sayes that whosoever resist that power acquire damnation to themselves And then presently for Princes are not a terrour of good works but of the evil And soon after will you sayes he not fear the power do well and you shall have praise And then immediatly For he is the Minister of God Whence if it be not evident that by the word powers the Apostle intends the Princes themselves and not their authority in the abstract but in the concrete as affecting and acting in and by the Princes or rather the Princes as acting by it I must confess I understand not how any thing at all can be proved out of any text For besides that the powers or the power in the abstract are not is not resisted or feared but in the concrete it is at least evident that Princes who are a terrour and the Minister of God are powers and power in the concrete And yet nothing is more evident nor can be out of any text then that those which are or that which is called the higher or more sublime powers in the first verse omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit are in the
and which only questionless those framers intended to give their Kings either in spiritual or temporal things or causes But hereof elsewhere It sufficeth at present that these good Abbots of Constantinople by this title of Headship by consequence or implicitly and virtually concurr in acknowledging the supream civil coercive power of the Emperour over all Clergiemen even the very Pope himself being that Headship could be no other but a Headship of civil direction by his civil laws and coercion by the material Sword And it sufficeth moreover to conclude that not those holy Fathers only who purposely expound or expresly apply the text of Paul ad Rom. 13. by Pauls more sublime powers understand the civil Princes but all other holy Fathers also who acknowledge as they all do the subjection of Churchmen to Princes do by consequence or implicitly and virtually understand the very same And therefore out of all said hitherto out of the holy Fathers I conclude my main purpose in this third way that is I conclude that as I have formerly or in my two former wayes both out of the â—etter of the text and end of it ruind all the several three answers of our Adversaries to my fourth grand argument in this Section out of St. Paul so I have now in this third way out of the clear sense or doctrine of the Fathers concerning the sense of that text of Paul as delivered to us by Tradition or especially in their writings or at least by such of them as purposely expound St. Paul To all these evidences nay to the very clearest most express and particular of them to the point for the sense of the holy Fathers generally or of any one or moe of them our Adversaries find no other answer but first to say as Bellarmine doth against Barclay cap. 3. that etiamsi non eximebat Apostolos ab â—â—la subjectiâ—â—e professio Christianae Religionis eximebat tamen principatus Apostolicus qui sublimior est omni principatu naturali albeit the profession of Christian Religion did not exempt the very Apostles themselves from that subjection to say Princes yet the Apostolical Principality which is more sublime then any natural Principality did exempt them Secondly to say as others do cont Fâ—â—g there is a great difference twixt the Sacrament of Baptisme and that other which is of Holy Orders For say they Baptismus relinquit hominem in comwani hominum caetu Ordo verò elevat ad Paternitatem etiam supra Principem Baptisme leaves a man in the common ranke of men but Order rayseth to a paternity or fatherhood above even the Prince himself Albeit not onely the reasons given by several of the holy Fathers in some of those very passages quoted by me already in this present Section evidently destroy these last answers also as they do the three former and shew them to be against the letter of the law and end of the law and against that very sense too which those Fathers themselves conceived and believed to have been of Paul in that general precept omnis anima but also my own discourses and reasons given partly in my two last Sections LXXI and LXXII in answer to some objections or evasions of Bellarmine and of others yet I think not amiss for the Readers more ample satisfaction fuller confutation of our Adversarie's in this also to handle briefly the same matter again with some necessary additions as a further illustration of what I said before And therefore I observe First that for what concern's Bellarmine's said evasion or pretence of Apostolical Principality which he sayes did exempt the Clergie albeit their profession of Christianity did not and must say also if he will answer to the argument grounded on the now given doctrine of the Fathers that the Fathers intended not to teach that that of Apostleship did not I say we must observe first that whereas that of Apostolick principality or Apostleship is as they grant found or continued onely in Bishops nay perhaps according to their doctrine found or continued in the chief Bishop onely that is in the Pope alone it must follow that either onely the Pope or at most the Bishops onely must be exempted by this evasion of Bellarmine Why then doth he exempt and notwithstanding S. Paul by the very law of God pretend to exempt the rest of the infinit multitude of inferiour Clerks from lay Princes whether the same Princes will or no nay why doth he and others of his way pretend to exempt so or even by the sole canons the very cooks and scullions of Clerks or Monks cap. Parrochianos de sent Excom in 6. O Vemerandos lixas for I may here against my Adversaries exclaime and admire so with a certain late Writer extra omnes saeculi potestates positos qui scilicetâ—e monachali culina vncti adeo pulchri emergunt vt sacram ordinis Ecclesiastici vnctionem aequiparent ipsos vnctos Domini Reges dominos suos non agnoscant I know my self sayes the same writer a little pittifull dorp or village in Insula Vegliensi of scarse a hundred straw or thatch'd houâ—es wherein there are above three-score Priests and other Clerks who use to confess ingenuously that so many of them take orders of Clerkship to the end they may be freed from the burdens wherewith other Plebeians or the Peasants are loaden by their Prince especially from rowing in the gallies So that under pretext of Sacred orders Princes are deluded by their own proper Subjects the commonwealth suffers ac interim Ecclesia repletur quisquilijs otiosorum imo sordidorum sacerdotum sayes he But however this complaint be well or ill grounded and however that abuse be of the priviledg of Clerks by the Clerks themselves or by the intention or design of such as receive orders it is not my intention here or elswhere to complain of the observance of all or any priviledges of theirs which the Princes themselves have bestowed or custome hath allowed them In this Authors admiration onely I concurre where instancing the very cook of a Convent he exclaims at the pretended exemption of Bellarmine or of even such a cook from the very supream civil power of all earthly Princes in all causes whatsoever Secondly I observe and answer directly or rather directly refute both the above last answers of Bellarmine and his fellow-stickler that if Baptisme ought not to be injurious to Princes by exempting their subjects from subjection to them so neither should Apostleship nor any sacred Order Because otherwise it is plain enough that Princes would have just cause to apprehend the growth admission or tolleration of the Faith of Christians or of themselves To prevent which apprehension or fear of Princes and of their people too it was the Fathers tel us that even Christ himself would have that subjection which himself did owe presumptively but his Apostles naturally observed not onely in and by his Apostles but even by himself too as
prayer armed and vehemently exhorted them to defend manfully the Apostolical Dogmats went on towards Ister And they being return'd to their town City endeavor to excite one an other and strongly resist the incursions of the Wolves To me truly this Narrative or History seems very admirable where I see that such a man as this Eusebius was that is according to Gregory Nazianzen's testimony of him in epist 28. et 30. a most holy man was of this perswasion that he ought much more to esteem of and observe the natural and Apostolical precept of paying obedience to Princes then to regard his own proper and so great afflictions or even to regard those most dangerous and grievous hazards of his flock to be devoured by Wolves that is by the Arrian Bishops and Priests for whom to make place and that they being once introduced might also introduce Arrianisme to Samosata it was and for no other cause that Valens the Emperour an Impious Arrian himself and cruel Tyrant indeed to all the opposers of that heresy banished the said most holy Eusebius Who albeit he had streingth to resist being he had so much power with the people and they so much fervour in his concern chose nevertheless to obey an impious edict of the Emperour 's and obey it not so much out any feare of the Prince as out of that of conscience For sayes the History he recited the Apostles praecept whereby we are perspicuously commanded to obey the Magistrats and Powers Nor did Athanasius dissent as presently we have seen Albeit some of the Bishops of our dayes and many also of the inferiour Clergie would in such cases and having that power with the people S. Athanasius and Eusebius had beat an allarme and sound a charge incontinentlâ— to opposition sedition and plain rebellion and all over armed with thundering censures and curses would fight obstinatly and hazard all even to dethrone such Princes Third Instance is of Gregory the Great and first of that name A Pope indeed however so great a Saint and withall as carefull to preserve and vindicate his own Ecclesiasticall eminency as could become him yet as perfect an exemplar of subjection and obedience to secular Princes in humane things as any Mauritius the Emperour publish'd a law at Constantinople otherwise called new Rome and sent it to old Rome and to St. Gregory himself wherein it was enacted Vt nulli qui in manu signatus est converti liceret that it should not be lawfull for any who had been marked in the hand to be conveâ—ted Which law hindering souldiers from conversion to a religious life in Monasteries for this was the conversion mean'd by it seem'd unjust to S. Gregory and yet the Emperour commanded him to publish it But he as you may read in himself l. 2. Regist epist 61. indic XI and that he might do his own duty both to God and Caesar and so in all respects discharge a good conscience by his letters modestly admonishes the Emperour of the injustice of the law this notwithstanding at the same time to shew his subjection and obedience to the Emperour fulfills his command by transmitting to several parts of the Empire that very law and having it publish'd And nevertheless in one of his letters to the Emperour he brings our Saviour Christ as speaking thus to the same Emperour Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi tua meâ— servitio milites tuos subtrahis And yet concludes at last with these words I have elsewhere quoted Ego quidem jussioni subjectus eamdem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minimè concordet ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis Dominis nunciavi Vtrâ—bique ergo quae debui exâ—lui qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minimè tacui Three great Instances great examples indeed every one of them but more especially the last by so much the farre greater by how much t is clear to us the commands were so unjust as that they were against God himself because the two first were against the true Orthodox Religion the last against the true genuine liberty of the Church at least as was conceaved by Gregory Yet Athanasius Eusebius Gregory chose rather to execute the divine precept for obeying Princes then trust to their own judgments call that obedience in question And yet in aftertimes even for such laws of Princes wherein farre less injuries were contained or enjoyned Excommunications Interdicts warrs privations depositions were both denounced and executed O tempora O mores Gregory doth not approve of the law nay he reprehends it And yet Gregory doth not onely not annul nor attempt to annul it but also that he may shew his obedience to the Prince is himself the chief Promulger of it Therefore what Pope Gelasius said to the Emperour Anastasius Legibus tuis ipsi quoque parent Religionis Antistites that all three at least both Eusebius and Gregory verified in effect and in all respects and not out of equity and decency as some of our modern Authors Carmelita cont Fulg. both ungroundedly and falsely interpret but out of a true sense of justice and of their obligation of conscience to do so by reason of the jurisdiction and power of Princes as given them by God For therefore also it was that Gregory said to the Emperour that Christ had committed his own Priests to his hands And least any should say or think here that Gregory did onely mean to signifie a bare recommendation of the Priests to the Emperours care but not a subjection of them to his power for this evasion too some of our Moderns have let our Opposers consider the same Gregory's words in his 64. epist ad Theodorum Medicum intimum Mauritji Imperatoris speaking again of the very same law Valde autem mihi durum videtur sayes he vt ab ejus servitio milites suos prohibeat qui ei omnia tribuit dominari eum non solum militibus sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit Where I plainly see dominion over Priests given by God to the Emperours and as well over Priests as over Souldiers in the judgment of Gregory and therefore jurisdiction being Imperial dominion cannot be without Imperial jurisdiction let such Canonists and such late School Divines Summists or Casuists talke contradictory non sense endlesly who treating on Bulla cenae acknowledg in secular Princes in many cases a bare civil and natural power to coerce Clerks as for the preservation of the Common-wealth or the relief of Innocents unjustly oppress'd c. and yet denye them jurisdiction over Clerks as if the latin word jurisdictio had not primarily and originally most commonly and properly meaned that pronouncing of judgment or of the law and right which is in secular Courts or which is by authority of the supream civil Power So great a testimony being that of as great and
spiritual sentence of deposition pronounced by the Nicene Council and a civil Imperial sentence of exile and corporal extermination issued from Constantine For you shall never find that any Council especially this of Nice forced or gave sentence of forceing corporally a Bishop from his See and City and haling him into banishment but onely a bare spiritual sentence or declaration of his being now deposed from such authority as the Church gave him formerly And on the other side you shall never see it was the Prince alone that by his own Royal power onely sent Bishops to exile nay and this too not seldome without any previous sentence of deposition by other Bishops as also that not seldome also the sole exile of a Bishop from his See by the onely sentence of the Secular Prince was by the Church held for a sufficient deposition of such Bishop and that the Clergie proceeded to election and consecration of an other when the Prince desired it as holding the See absolutely vacant And we know moreover that the very same Constantine expelled Athanasius himself from Alexandria and turned him to banishment Theod. Histor l. 1. c. 31. And yet we know that although as well Athanasius himself as others with him acknowledge this banishment to have been unjust because the exiled person was innocent of the crime charg'd upon him yet no man ever opened his mouth herein against Constantine upon account of having usurped jurisdiction over Athanasius nay in the whole procedure or as to the cause it self he is excused by very many Baronius himself saâ—es tom 3. an 336. that deceived by the Arrians he proceeded bona fide to this banishment And certainly Theodoretus alleadges a meer lay crime or temporal cause Accusatus enim fuerat Athanasius minatus esse sayes Theodoret se prohibiturum quo minns frumentum ut solet Alexandria Constantinopolim adveheretur For sayes he Athanasius was accused to have threatned that he would hinder corne to be transported to Constantinople as was accustomed And yet that the Emperour himself assumed to himself the judgement and sate as judge of this accusation offered by other Bishops against Athanasius as also of the accusation which on the other side the same Athanasius offered to the Emperour against them as having unjustly condemned him Theodoret is witness For thus he writes Postquam verò Athanasius ad eum venit de iniquo judicio conquesturus Episcopos quos ea de re accusabat ad se adveniare jubet Imperator And of the same Athanasius the Bishops of Egypt writt thus apud Athanas. apol 2. Cum nihil culpae in comministro nostro Athanasio reperirent Comesque summa vi imminens plura contra Athanasium moliretur Episcopus Comitis violentiam fugiens ad religiosissimum Imperatorem ascendit deprecans iniquitatem hominis adversariorum calumnias postulansque ut legittima Episcaporum Synodus indiceretur aut ipse audiret suam defensionem Imperator rei indignitate motus scriptis suis accusatores citat suamque ipsius audientiam promittens simulque Synodum indici jubet Here we see this very great and holy Athanasius submitting himself entirely to the judgement not of a Synod onely but also of an Emperour Besides we know that when this very same Emperour Constantine heard ubi supra apud Athanas. apol 2. Athanasius accused of Murder he sent letters to Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch warranting and commanding him to take cognizance of this cause of Murder charg'd on Athanasius And we know further that the Egyptian Catholick Bishops of the Synod of Tyrus writt and gave this protestation to Flavius the Count. Libellum hunc tibi porrigimus cum multis obsecrationibus ut Dei metu in animo servato qui Imperium Augustissimi pientissimi Imperatoris Constantini tuetur cognitionem causarum nostrarum ipsi Augustissimo Imperatori reserves Aequum enim est te ab Imperatore missum negotium hoc integrum Imperatori retinere Whereupon I cannot but observe that whereas I see not Constantine reprehended by any writer as if he had boldly usurped Ecclesiastical judgements who in the Council of Nice professed that the Ecclesiastical or spiritual causes of Bishops were to be left wholly to the judgement of God alone it plainly appears that these causes of the Catholick Egyptian Bishops and such others of other Bishops wherein Constantine did carry himself as judge were either of humane crimes I mean those we tearm lay crimes or if they were of heresy that the Emperour admitted of them to be judged by himself not that he thought or carried himself as the proper judge of heresy but that he saw heresies to be such as bred much dissention schysme and trouble amongst the people and might at last if not prevented disturb the peace and whole frame even of the civil Commonwealth and knew that himself was the best and most proper judge to sentence punish and coerce any Doctors or doctrine whatsoever happened to ayme at such disturbance as ayming at such according to that canon which after Constantine's dayes was made in the general Council of Chalcedon Act. 4. Si autem permanserit turbas faciens seditiones Ecclesiae per extraneam potestatem tanquam seditiosum debere corripi In judgeing the causes of Caecilian Bishop of Carthage and Primate of all Affrick and in those too of the Donatist Bishops the same Constantine the Great did not not onely once or twice but three several times interpose his own authority Augustinus epist 28. For it is plain that the Donatist Bishops accused Caecilian to Anulinus the Proconsul and by Anulinus to Constantine of having to witt in time of persecution betrayed and burâ—ied the Sacred books and that the said Donatist accusers did not at first so much desire Constantine himself to judge that cause as that he would be pleased to depute or delegate Ecclesiastical Judges to sift and determine it Who 's saying as this truly was Petitis a me in saeculo judicium cum ego ipse Christi judicium expectem Optat. l. 1. contra Carmenian so it is also true as Augustine and Optatus tell that Maternus Bishop of Agrippina Rhetitius Bishop of Augustodunum and Marinus Bishop of Orleans were commission'd by Constantine to judge that very cause Euseb l. X. c. 5. Whom he sent out of Gaule to Rome that together with Melchiades Bishop of that chief City they might discusse the whole matter and put a final end to it Whence it appears that although Constantine did not himself immediately or personally judge or determine it yet by his own proper authority he committed it to others delegated Judges and appointed the Pope himself Melchiades to be one of the Delegats Aug. epist 116. and that the same Melchiades should by his Imperial Commission together with the said three French Bishops proceed and judge finally this cause August de Captis cont Câ—til c. 16. As for the excuse of Baronius tom 3. an 313. â— â—â— that Constantine did so
restored them back Severus hystor l. 2. in fine Nor doth Baronius himself tom 4. an 381. n. 110. reprehend him in this matter or at all upon account of usurping on Ecclesiastical persons rights or judgments but onely upon account of having favoured hereticks to wit forasmuch as he restored those three Bishops whom himself had before so lately banish'd Ex quo quidem facinore sayes Baronius sibi necem comparavit But this is a most vain judgment of Baronius For the said Instantius and Priscillianus soon after appealing to Maximus the tyrant Emperour Vsurper and murderer of Gratianus were by him as being or at least pretending to be an earnest Catholick called to his own presence to be judged again by his Imperial authority the Catholick Bishops who accused them desiring this of him most earnestly and were at last condemned by him the one to have his head cut off and the other to be carried to a place of perpetual banishment Several other Bishops also the very same great Catholick Hypocritical Zelot Maximus punish'd in the self same manner some by death and some by banishment Prosper in Chron. Severus l. 2. observing still the Catholick Praelats with much respect and above all St. Ambrose himself notwithstanding he saw very well that Ambrose could not be drawn to approve of his treacherous usurpation but stood still firm to young Valentinian the lawfull Emperour though an Arrian profess'd and consequently an Haeretick Emperour Against whom on that specious pretext of heresy Maximus rebelled and usurped the Empire as being himself a Catholick and pretending onely or at least chiefly to maintain Catholick religion against Arrianisme which infected the young Emperour Valentinian and his mother And yet Baronius might know that this very Maximus who so put even those very heretick or Schismatick Bishops to exile and death whom Gratian restored a little before and was himself therefore and by Gods special ordinance or just permission most cruelly murthered by Maximus if we may believe Baronius for what concern'd the cause of Gods permission of the untimely death of Gratian I say Baronius might know that this very Maximus saw suddenly after as violent and fatal an end of his own Empire and life together by the victorious arms of Theodosius Now to observe that heer which is more to our purpose I confess that Severus reproves the inconstancy of those Catholick Bishops who charg'd Priscillian in that they sufferd him to provoke that is to appeal to the Emperour or that they sufferd the causes of the Church to be judged or determined by a Secular Iudg. But to me it seems plainly that the cause of Priscillian and of the rest was not purely Ecclesiastical For that Priscillian himself was charg'd also with meer lay crimes and that having confess'd his own obscenities he was condemned the same Severus tells And that of such crimes nay indeed of all crimes whatsoever so they were found to be real crimes much more when they disturbed the publick peace or endanger'd it the more sublime the meer Secular powers were the Judges and avengers by strict coercion and corporal punishment or by the material sword and pure force S. Paul teacheth and the perpetual custome in all Christian Kingdoms and States confirmeth Arcadius an Emperour also very orthodox received the accusations against John Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople and thereupon having first ordered a judicial procedure against this great and holy Bishop at last condemned and sent him with a guard of Souldiers farr off to exile Socrates l. 6. c. 16. Pallaâ— in Dialâ—g And certainly Pope Innocent the first of that name who then govern'd the See of Rome where he inveighs bitterly against Arcadius and against Eudoxia his Empress as against most grievous persecuters of so great and so holy a man doth not at all object that Arcadius being a meer lay man usurped a judiciary power in Ecclesiastical matters or so against his own proper Bishop nor that he proceeded so against him out of or by a tyrannical power and not by any legal authority over him in the case but onely reprehends Arcadius in that he had not proceeded justly against Chrisostome or in that he had not made right use of the power which he had in the case and in a word in that he expelled Chrisostome from his Episcopal throne before his cause had been legally and throughly sifted or judged as it ought and consequently without observing the due formalities or even substantial or essential procedure in such case required by the law Ejecisti sayes he ê throno suo rerum judicata magnum totius orbis Doctorem Nicephor l. 13. c. 34. Nor doth Chrisostome himself any where complaine of the Emperour as having usurped a power of judging condemning or banishing him And yet we know he writt to several especially to Pope Innocent many letters fraught with complaints of the Emperours unjust judgment and proceedings against him acknowledging Arcadius or at least supposing him still a legal Judg though unjust as to the sentence in the case Theodosius the younger Emperour known likewise to have been still a most zealous and pious Catholick Prince clap'd in prison Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria Praesident of the General Council of Ephesus and together with him Memnon an other Catholick Bishop albeit this good Prince was in the merit of the cause abused by the false informations of John Patriarch of Antioch and of those other Bishops of his faction who met in a private Council amongst themselves at Ephesus too and separated or absented themselves from the rest or from the publick session house where the said Praesident and generality sate And though after by the great Council of Ephesus to wit when all the Bishops met there the second time the cause of Cyril having been examined he was and all of his way declared innocent and John and his complices condemn'd by their Ecclesiastical sentence yet or notwithstanding all this could not the said great Catholick prisoners Cyril Memnon c be set at liberty out of prison not even I say by the authority of this very great and true Oecumenical Council All this great Council did and all they could do as to this of the liberty of these prisoners was to write and petition to the Emperour by their Legats sent of purpose and in this behalf to his Majesty and petition him by this very tenour and forme of words Nunc verò his scriptis per hos Legatos â—ientissimos Episcopos vestra pia genua pretensia manibus attingimus ut quae â—i lenter acta sunt cum sanctissimis pientissimis Episcopis Cyrillo Memnone nullumque canonibus robur habentia prorsus irrita sint c. Relat. Syn. Ephes. apud Cyril in Apologetico And then soon after conclude thus Oramus igitur Vestram Majestatem soluite nos illos a vinculis vinctis enim fratribus ac Praesidibus sancte nostrae synodi etiam nos quodammodo
vincti sumus Where you see a General Council and a Council truely General with their armes or hands wide spread bowing down humbling themselves touching as their phrase is the knees of the Emperour and beseeching him to set free to them out of prison the Patriarchal Praesident of their whole Council And you may see them in some passages going before complaine indeed but with all modesty to the Emperour that his Majesty was deceaved by sinister information But that he oppress'd or infring'd Ecclesiastical Immunity they neither complaine of there nor elsewhere so farr were they from any thoughts of proceeding to excommunications Interdicts or monitories or minatories of either and consequently so farr from the practise of some later Ages The same Theodosius and by the Ministers of his Pretorian Presect exiled Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople who was by the said great Ephesme Council condemned of heresie as may be read in the Acts of that Council And truly Cyril of Alexandria epist 6. writing to Iuvenal Bishop of Ierusalem advises that the extermination of Nestorius should be desired and expected from this Emperour only and from his subordinate civil Magistrates Necessarium autem erit sayes he ut Christi amanti ac religiosissimo Regi universis Magistratibus scribamus consulamusque ne pietati in Christum hominem praeponant sed largiatur orbi rectae fidei firmitudinem ac greges Domini à malo pastore liberent nisi universorum consiliis obtemperaverit Pursuant to which desire this very Theodosius afflicted most grievously several other Bishops for being only suspected of Nestorianism Amongst whom let Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus albeit in himself otherwise a very true and sure Catholick tell how the Emperour punish'd him upon suspicion only let us observe whether he complain that a Laick should take cognizance of judge and sentence and confine a Bishop or whether only be complain of the injustice of the proceeding against him as having no crime at all whereof he was convicted or which he had confessed or that was objected to him at least upon any kind of even but a probable ground Cum enim sayes he himself Theodoretus epist 81. apud Paron tom 6. an 440. num 11. ad Nomum consulem semel iterum scripserim litteras nondum accepi Imperatoris decreto Cyrenssum regionis terminos praeterire prohibeor Nulla vero alia causa hujus damnationis videtur praeterquam quod Synodos Episcoporum congrego licet neque accusatio ostenderetur neque actor appareret neque reus convictus decretum tamen editum fuit c. And then adducing the example of Festus with Paul Act. 25. he adds Et haec quidem dicebat homo qui Christo non credebat sed idolorum erroribus serviebat Ego vero neque interrogatus An Synodes congregem nec ne quorum causa congregem quid mali afferam vel rebus Ecclesiae vel publicis ac si in maximis deliquissem ab aliis arceor civitatibus Quin immo aliis quidem omnibus omnis aperta est civitas non solum Arrii Evnâ—mii sectateribus sed Marcionistis illis qui Valentini Montani morbo laborant nec non Ethnicis Iudaeis Ego vero qui pro dogmatibus Evangelicis pugno ab omni excluder civitate Moreover it was Theodosius commanded Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be not only deposed from his Episcopal See but also degraded of Sacerdotal Order as was actually done in obedience to his command Acta Concil Ephes edit Pelt tom 5. c. 29. And further yet it was this Emperour Theodosius that notwithstanding the foresaid great General Synod of Ephesus deposed the before mentioned Iohn from his Patriarchal See of Antioch as appears in the Acts by his own imperial authority interceded and hindered the execution of that sentence nay commanded it should not be executed and who also by his own self same and onely imperial authority though for a very just end or least otherwise great troubles should arise licenced the said Iohn to return to his former See of Antioch And finally it was this Emperour Theodosius that called both Iohn and Cyril to himself to Nicomedia and forced them to agree among themselves and Iohn also to agree with the Catholick Church wherever by renouncing Nostorius Martianus a no less Catholick Emperour even he who together with Pulcheria the good Empress convoked the fourth General Council or that great one indeed of Chalâ—dâ—n this very Martianus I say was he that by his own Imperial authority removed from the Patriarch of Antioch the cause of â—â—as and brought it to his own cognizance and this too at the Instance of the Priests of the Diocess of Edessa Subjects to and accusers of the said Ibas their own Bishop and because they alleadged that the Patriarch of Antioch to whom the cognizance of their accusation against Ibas immediatly belong'd in the Church was suspected of partiality and committed it to other Bishops to be judg'd by them joyning also to these other Bishops for an assistent Damasium Tribunum Nâ—tarium a meer lay officer Concil Chalced. Act. 9. But that which herein or in this cause of Ibas and in this Imperial cognizance and commission of it is more notable yet is that the complaint of the said Priests his accusers was purely Ecclesiastical as wholly concerning an excommunication which he had pronounced against them But I have elsewhere noted that the Prince hath an external superintendence over and power of the external regiment of even meer Church affairs especially in two cases viz. 1. when manifest injustice is committed or innocency oppressed or whether it be so or no in rei veritate when complaints are made to the Prince that matters are so carried in the Church or by the spiritual or Ecclesiastical Governours of it 2. when he sees that by the carriage however this be of Churchmen or of the spiritual superiours of other Churchmen or laymen the publick peace or tranquillity of either Church or State politick is any way disturbed or hazarded or that any other publick spiritual or even temporal good which implyes no sin is hindered Pursuant to which it was also that Leo Magnus Primus the first and great Pope of that name writ to an other Leo the Emperour and writ in his 81. epist to coerce the Clerks of the Constantinopolitan Church as favourers of hereticks In quibus sayes this holy Pope deturbandis si frater meus Anatolius cum nimis benigne parcit segnior invenitur dignamini prâ—fide vestra etiam istam Ecclesiae praestare medicinam ut tales non solùm ab craine Clericatus sed etiam ab urbis habitatione pellantur Where this Pope desires the Emperour to exercise his own Imperial power not delegats any Ecclesiastical to him though he desires the Emperour not onely to banish those Clerks from the City but also to have them degraded from their order And pursuant to the same
their own civil power both executed and decreed such corporal or civil punishment and consequently who were the sole authoritative Judges of both Priests Bishops and Popes I mean as to inflict or not inflict such corporal or civil punishments on them be the crime whatsoever you please Lay or Ecclesiastical But if you would see yet some instance or some example in particular fact of the continued possession of that authority in Princes even after I mean the tenth century of Christian Religion was compleat You may reflect on Conradus the Emperour who in presence of Benedict the ninth Roman Pontiff of that name sharply arose against and roughly laid hands that is with his own hands seized on Heribertus Archbishop of Millan as guilty of treasonable practices against the Empire albeit this Heribeâ—t saved himself after by flight and in the presence too of the same Pope Benedict in his hearing and seeing all was done decreed banishment from their Sees against three other Bishops and effectually cast them to exile the Bishop of Cremona Vercellis and Placentia Hermannus in Chron. an 1037. and Baronius eod an tom 11. Where this great Annalist Baronius divines after his own manner that surely Conradus did not this or that without consulting first and obtaining the good leave of the Roman Pontiff dreaming so what the Historians of that age were ignorant of did wholy pass over in silence without question because there was no such consultation held with the Pope no such leave asked from him for it is not likely that if any such had been they had given us no kind of hint of it And so too this prophetical or conjectural Annalist gives us his own very vain imagination for a record where he sayes that a suddain pestilence followed to revenge this fact or this usurpation of Conradus But if Conradus with licence of the Pope proceeded so against these criminal Bishops wherefore doth Baronius invent this revenge of an usurpation that was not in the case if his dream be true So little is our great interpreter of God's judgments and scourges consistent or constant to himself And if any should say for him that he meaned not that God reveng'd by such a plague any usurpation of Conrade being the Pope gave his consent also but only mean'd that God thereby reveng'd some other injustice in the proceedings albeit authorized by the Imperial and Papal powers joyntly or both together then I say that such meaning or interpretation of Baronius were it infallibly true in such meaning is nothing to his purpose here or against mine at all as the judicious Reader may himself easily see without any further illustration or observation by me And you may also reflect on Henry King of the Romans afterwards Emperour and the second of this name who continuing and persevering in the possession of the right or authority of coercing and punishing Clergiemen in imitation of his Predecessors wel-nigh a thousand years deprived of his dignity Widgerus Archbishop of Ravenna nay and the Pope himself of his Papacy Gregory the Fifth of that name Hermannus in Chron. Of other Henry's Emperours of Rome I say nothing Because in their time and by the occasion of the too great abuse by Clergiemen of the reverence to and patience of Princes with the Roman See in particular and Ecclesiastical Order in general nay and peradventure also by the occasion of the neglect and sluggishness of the Princes themselves that I may not here enlarge on or give other most certainly true causes as likewise by occasion of the many great priviledges formerly granted by Emperours and other Kings to all Priests and Bishops albeit amongst all such priviledges there was never any such to them in general as an exemption in temporal matters from the supream civil power and moreover by occasion of some special priviledges granted to the Roman See alone and to the Bishops thereof and finally by occasion of the vast both spiritual and temporal Revenues which these Roman Pontiffs were in the dayes of the other Henries possessors of they I mean the Roman Pontiffs were then arrived to such a height of worldly greatness and strength that seeing the former and indeed formidable power of the Roman Empire divided and subdivided in to so many different unsubordinate Kingdoms and seeing themselves could hardly ever want some one or other Prince amongst all to embrace their Papal quarrel against any other either Prince King or Emperour and considering also the great ignorance or blind zeal of many then who as their affections lead them or as their Preachers told them in some or many Provinces of Europe took all the Dictates of Roman Pontiffs for so many infallible or divine oracles pursuant to the doctrine hereof also first invented soon after vented by Gregory the VII I say that by these occasions and by their own improvements of them the Popes were in the times of the other succeeding Henries come to such a height of glory and greatness that they dared resist as they did Kings and Emperours in what quarrels soever and particularly in this of the pretended exemption not of themselves only but of all Bishops of the world nay and of all Priests too nay and also of all other Clerks of whatsoever lower degree from all earthly power add in all criminal causes of what nature soever pretending that such persons as being dedicated to God had no other truly proper and supream Governour or Prince on earth but themselves alone the Popes of Rome And therefore being it was then or much about that time this controversie begun which I have disputed on hitherto I have resolved to bring no instances of other Princes or Bishops since that time or of that time but content my self with these of more antiquity as best sorting with my purpose which only is and was along in this Section to shew the former doctrine of the holy Fathers and their Exposition of St. Paul 13. Rom. confirmed by the practice and in so many particular instances of both Ecclesiastical Prelats and Christian Princes in the more ancient Ages of the Church and for so many ages together all along quite contrary to both the doctrine and practice of some few or many if you please Ecclesiasticks in the later and worser and in this by little and little degenerated ages of Christianity And yet I would have my Readers take notice that I could furnish them were it necessary with a cloud of witnesses and a cloud of such particular instances both in the very said time and after the very said time of even the self same other Henries also and even also all along in every age of these very latter and worser until this present wherein we live and in this present year of it 1667. and could furnish them with these witnesses and produce to them these other such particular instances in matter of fact of Bishops and of Princes and of Roman Catholick Princes too for such only
est auferatur fratremque nostrum Paulum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae Episcopum Regali authoritate vt nobiscum id est cum omni generalitate orthodoxé sapere debeat coarctare degnemini Concil Lateran consult 2. sub Martino 1. they desire the Emperour that by his legal authority and by corporal coercion he force him who not onely was a Priest not onely a Bishop but in the highest degree of the Hierarchy ordained by humane constitution or by the canons of the Church even the very Patriarch of Constantinople For a ninth canon that which is in the Ninth Council of Toledo cap. 1. may very well and properly serve where the Fathers acknowledging this supream coercive power of Clerks in Princes ordain thus against Clerks that defraud the community or the Church of the oblations intended in common for the Church Vt si sacerdotem seu ministrum aliquid ex collatis rebus praeviderint defraudare aut commonitionis honestae conventione compescant aut Episcopo vel Iudici corrigenda denuntient Quod si talia Episcopus agere tentet Metropolitano ejus haec insinuare procurent Si autem Metropolitanus talia gerat Regis haec auribus intimare non differant Where you see this ancient Council of Spanish and very orthodox Bishops ordaining that the excesses of Ecclesiastical persons of Priests Bishops and Metrapolitanes be in the last place or when no remedy is applyed by the Bishops or Metropolitanes themselves complained of to the King to be questionless by him and by his regal authority corrected and coerced Tenth and last of those canons I pitch upon and restraine my self unto here is a canon of the Synod of Ravenna convoked by Iohn the ninth Pope of that name about the nine hundredth year of Christ For in this Council Lambertus the Emperour being himself there in person and at some variance with that Pope who who was likewise present in his own person amongst his Capitula or heads which he proposed to the Council and as to be admitted by the Pope and Council proposed in the first place of all this Si quis Romanus cujuscumque sit ordinis sive de clero sive de Senatu seu de quocumque ordine gratis ad nostram Imperialem Majestatem venire voluerit aut necessitate compulsus ad nos voluerit proclamare nullus ei contradicere praesumat Donec liceat Imperatoriae Potestati eorum causas aut personas aut per Missos nostros deliberare Which capitulum was assented unto and ratified by the Fathers and made a conciliary Act and therefore too a Canon of that Council and all this done so solemnly and even in the sight and with the approbation also and consent of the very Roman Pontiff himself there in person present to the end it might appear to the world that after the more directly spiritual or purely Ecclesiastical Canons had been ended by the Fathers the Emperour would by this particular Canon of another nature have it declared that he preserved still entire his own right of judging the very Clergy of Rome it self as an Emperour and in all matters whatsoever belonging to his imperial cognizance and consequently still preserved intire his own imperial coercive power of criminal Clerks or that of punishing them civilly corporally if or when their delinquencies or crimes or the preventing of such crimes for the future in others required such punishments To conclude this Section of Canons I must give some few and brief advertisements to the Reader concerning them and my purpose in alledging them 1. That I alledge them not as causes or as grounds or springs of such authority in secular Princes but only as testimonies of the sense of the Fathers who made them and for those ages wherein they were made that there was by and from a superiour power such a previous original proper essential independent right in supream secular Princes and that for the more certain more demonstrative proofs of such a right in Princes I relye not somuch on any express Canons of either Popes or Councils as upon those plain texts of holy Scripture and those other so plain and so express of all the holy Fathers generally who in their other writings that are not Papal or conciliary Canons commented upon the same Scriptures and besides these two arguments of Scripture and Tradition which I have before given at length in three Sections for I make that of my Instances of practise part of the argument of Tradition that I do also very much relye upon those other evidences of natural reason which you may turn to Sect. LXXII 2. That although for these Canons which are only Papal that is those which are made or issued by the sole authority of one or more Popes without a Council I pretend them not to be of equal authority with such as had the consent of a Council nor hold those meer Papal Canons or any other in Gratian to be properly and strictly the Canons of the Church being these are such as were made at first or approved at last by a general Council or otherwise introduced by universal consent or custome albeit others too may be Canons for the occidental Church apart or apart for the oriental yet as to my present purpose meer Papal Canons may be justly presumed to be most sufficient testimonies because against the Popes themselves or against the present exemption of Popes by divine right and their pretended power also by any right whatsoever to exempt others I mean still out of their own dominions or those wherein they are themselves at present supream temporal Princes 3. That in my interpretations of those Canons or in my conclusions derived or intended from them I do not tye my self either to Gratian whom I confess to have seen many or most or perhaps all of them or to any of his Glossatours if indeed Gratian himself how otherwise great and earnest soever a Hiero Monarchist or Zealot for and assertor of the Roman and Papal Hieromonarchy interpret conclude or say any thing at all point blanck either directly or indirectly or consequentially or virtually against my interpretations or conclusions here out of these Canons or against my assertions all along of the supream royal coercive power of criminal Clerks For truly he may be very well understood without any such meaning xi q. 1. where he had most occasion to deliver himself as of purpose treating there of the proper Judicatory of Clerks Because that forasmuch as of this matter he treats only according to the Canons of the Church and priviledges given by Emperours and that I have shewed and proved already elsewhere in my LXIX Section â—e brings neither an Imperial constitution nor allowed Church canon nor as much as any true or certain though meer Papal Canon which maâ—y be home enough against my assertion of such an absolute independent supream coercive power in Kings and that also in his last Paragraph which begins thus as even his former doth
this to do or wherein doth this condemnation or judgment reflect on the doctrine which teacheth not of Christ but of the Disciples of Christ and only teacheth that all men who are only men and not Gods or that all mortal and sinful men whether Laymen or Clergiemen who are members of any commonwealth and not the heads thereof do lye under a proper and strict obligation not only of charity for the avoiding of scandal but of justice also to be humbly subject in criminal causes to the supream coercive power of the supream politick head Nay and under an obligation of justice also even to pay him tribute if he himself exempt them not from tribute I mean were it necessary for me to urge that of tribute as it is not And only teacheth moreover that such obligation of Justice ariseth from the very law divine it self both natural and positive or which is the same thing is evidently commanded by reason and by revelation by plain Scripture and Catholick Tradition by the doctrine and practice of the Christian Bishops themselves and of even their very best Christian Princes and people all along from the beginning of Christianity until this present day Certainly there is no man so blind as not to see that that first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or condemnation of it hath nothing to do with this doctrine Nor yet so blind as not to see that my elucidation of this doctrine all along or any where in this Tract hath nothing to do with that first Article taken I mean in that sense wherein as I have declared already and in no other the said Iohn the XXII condemn'd it I confess I have before that is in the 239. page of this first Part by occasion too of speaking somewhat against Bellarmine concerning the doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus or that part of their doctrine which is in this first article said That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether to free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of yet a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condem'd nor censur'd at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters I have said so there I confess But what then or doth it follow that by such answer to Bellarmine I maintain this first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or that I fall under the condemnation of this first article nothing less This first article is as the Pope himself relates it in these words and only in these words Illud quod de Christo legitur in Evangelio B. Matthei quod ipse soluit tributum Caesari quando staterem sumptum ex ore piscis illis qui petebant didrachma jussit dari hoc fecit non condescensive liberalitate suae pietatis sed necessitate coactus And the condemnation of this article or the sense wherein this article was condemned is that which imposes a constraint of necessity on our Saviour for paying the didrachma and which denyes that he paid it not condescensively that is not out of his meer condescension and out of the liberality of his piety Now who sees not first that I do not by any means deny it was out of his meer condescension to the infirmities of weak men and of his liberality and piety that our Saviour commanded the didrachma to be paid nay who sees not that I do rather expresly enough say it was meerly out of his liberality piety and condescension he commanded it to be paid so for himself Do not I say most expresly or at least insinuat most sufficiently that he paid it only to avoid scandal and that he was bound by no other law to pay it but by the law of love and charity or which is the same thing and to repeat here again my own former determinate words that as the fulfiller of the old law and Prophets and as the giver of a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And secondly and indeed consequently who sees not that in that discourse of mine or whole passage quoted above out of my 239. page I have not a word importing any constraint of necessity or any either constraint or necessity for in effect they are both the same or import the same thing taking these words properly or absolutely and simply that is without any dimunitive adjection addition restriction or taking them not any way at all for that which is secundum quid tale as they ought not to be taken but for that which is simpliciter tale as they ought to be taken where other words or the subject restrains them not For to aver such constraint or such necessity incumbent on our Saviour in paying the didrachma were as much as to aver that either he had an inward constraint or necessity on his will or soul for want of that inward essential indifferency which makes the will and soul free in it self inwardly to volitions and nollitions or had an outward compulsion or coaction of his executive faculty for want of outward means as for example twelve legions of Angels at his command to free him from the power of those that would force him to payment whether he would or no if he had denyed it or certainly had the constraint or necessity of an obligation or tye of justice and obedience on him arising from the tribute law it self obliging him as other men under the guilt of sin and other penalties of such law to pay tribute Which last kind of necessity is that which the arguments of Iohn the XXII against the first article of Marsilius do seem to fasten upon it and condemns in it and the whole article for seeming to say that out of such necessity our Saviour paid the didrachma But whether so or no I am not concern'd because I remove all three kinds of necessity from our Saviour and all other kinds too of necessity if there be any other simply such For though I say in the beginning of the said passage page 239. that our Saviour himself by his own non scandalizemus eos Mat 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free c but that he was bound c and consequently say that our Saviour wanted some kind of freedom
potestatem etiam coactivam Cur contrarium Blasphemi praesumut dicere supradicti Rursus advertant isti nequam homines quomodo audent dicere quod ab Imperatore terreno Ecclesiarum Praelati coactivam vel aliam receperint originaliter potestatem cum ut supra dictum est Imperatores usque ad Constantinum Magnum fere omnes Pagani fuerint ac Idololatrae persecutores imo exterminatores quantum fuit in eis Ecclesiae sanctae Dei. Quomodo ergo illi talibus coactivam vel aliam potestatem concederent Vtique nullus sapiens hoc credere debet Where albeit the last argument which speaks of heathen and persecuting Emperours be not as much as in any kind of appearance or seeming or with any kind of colour framed against Marsilius and Iandunus or indeed against any other real Adversary it being credible enough that none hath ever yet been so mad as to say that heathen persecuting and exterminating Emperours had given either coactive or other power whatsoever to those whom they did so persecute and exterminat and albeit these three several passages which he brings out of Paul Arma militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia c and Quid vultis in virga c and In promptu habentes c be all of them three and not they alone but all whatsoever other passages or even Instances or examples either out of holy Scripture or not out of holy Scripture sufficiently convinced by the very first of them that none of them can be justly alleadged for any true corporal coaction or any true coaction by corporal means or by corporal force or by carnal armes or for any carnal or corporal coactive power in the Church or in Paul himself which is that onely coaction and coactive power I deny all along to the Church as a Church for the very first of them sayes expresly that the armes of our militia are not carnal yet forasmuch as Iohn the XXII brings before them three several Instances of corporal punishment inflicted by the power of Peter and Paul as he supposes of all three and that none of all three at least neither of the two former were effects of excommunication or of the power of excommunication it is plain be by his arguments here drives at an other kind of corporal coaction and coactive power in the Church then that of excommunication And yet it is no less plain out of those very instances he brings that he concludes no such corporal coaction nor any such coactive power of such corporal coaction as is denyed by me or by any Catholick at all or even denyed as much as by any Heretick whatsoever not to speak now of Marsilius and Iandunus onely whether they were certainly or were not properly Hereticks and were such or were not such either formally or materially in any true sense and for any tenet which they held and in the sense they held it For the first of those Instances is of Ananias and Saphira Act. 5. strucken dead corporally in the place for having defrauded of the price of the land which they had formerly offered to God and for their lye and hypocrisy in that matter And the second is of Elymas the Magitian who was struck with corporal blindness Act. 13.8 for having resisted Paul by hindering Sergius the Proconsul at Salamina in Cyprus to believe in Christ and the third is of that Corinthian who for his incestuous copulation with his own Fathers Wife was corporally delivered over to Sathan 1. Cor. 5.5 for Paul sayes there he should be in interitum carnis delivered to Sathan And therefore no such corporal coaction nor any such coactive power of such corporal coaction is concluded or could be concluded or driven at hence by this Pope as that is which is denyed by me or by any other Christian to be always proper to and necessarily resident in the Church First because albeit the death of Ananias and Saphira was in it self properly and strictly corporal and the blindness of Elymas was such too in it self and the punishment likewise of that Corinthian was according to the sense of Augustine Ambrose and Chrysostom no less corporal in it self yet they were also purely spiritual and purely miraculous too in the cause means or instruments and inflicted by a pure spiritual onely by a pure extraordinary spiritual miraculous power of those blessed Apostles and by no humane corporal force or coaction or coactive power of such force if at all inflicted by them at least as to the two first of the instances and not rather only impetrated of God by their wonder-working prayer or only prophecied or foretold by their prophecying spirit and by the revelation made to them of things that were to come or to happen and to be done by God himself immediatly for the propagation of the Faith For and as for the two former instances which by the confession of all sides depended not of nor concern'd the power of excommunication nor were any effects of it there is not a word in the Acts or in either of both places of the Acts where they are related that signifies more then that the present or imminent death of Saphira was revealed to and foretold by Peter and the present or imminent blindness of Elymas foretold also to him by Paul in a prophetical spirit of divine zeal there being not so much it self that is not so much as a prediction or threat of death too Ananias much less a prayer made by Peter to God for his death so little ground is there to say or to think that Peter by his proper ordinary Apostolical and judicial power and by his own proper ordinary and corporally coactive power or by a power coactive by humane and corporal force or means or by any that was to be transmitted in ordinary by him to his successors or was promised by Christ to be transmitted in ordinary or to the Church at all pronounced sentence of death against Ananias and Saphira or that Paul by the like ordinary coactive power of his Apostleship to be transmitted by him likewise in ordinary to the Church did judicially sentence Elymas and punish him with blindness Secondly because that as neither Clerk Priest Bishop Patriarch Pope nor universal Church in one collection of Layety and Clergy together do as much as pretend to this miraculous power in themselves always or at all times and that none sayes that this kind of spiritual extraordinary miraculous power is that which is said which is beleeved to be truly the coactive power of the Church being that which is truly the coactive power of the Church is alwayes in her or her Superiours and alwayes in the Pope how ever it be with other Superiours and yet most commonly without miraculous power in them so do not I intend to say nor have said any where nor will say at any time that sometimes past there was not or that sometimes hereafter yet there may not be such a
this definition of Iohn the XXII against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever For these two positions have no contradiction 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal and civil too if you please in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church 2. This coactive power humane corporal and civil too or not civil as you please is not altogether independent in it self but is subordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes That they are not contradictory or inconsistent we see by the example of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals For the inferiour tribunals notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively are subordinat to the superiour And so I have done at last with this long discourse occasion'd by the fourth objection or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church I have proved to be very false as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church Which Catholick doctrine or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently nay abundantly demonstrated by reason Scripture and Tradition Therefore now to The fift and last of all these objections which I call'd remaining for the reason before given that objection I mean built upon the contrary judgment or opinion as t is pretended of St. Thomas of Canterbury and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore and of his canonization also therefore and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious martyrized Saint therefore This objection I confess is very specious at first as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Divine or Canonists or both it appears to and works so T is onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death but what they read in their Breviary which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me though peradventure enough to solve any T is onely amongst those who do not consider duely nor indeed have the knowledg or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely what it amounts to in point of Christian Faith as to others or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto that any one Bishop how otherwise holy soever in his own life should have especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in general or of this or that Immunity in particular or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust I care not which made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities or those were onely pretended I care not also which T is onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion or of moe perhaps and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obedient humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently represented to them because they had other sufficient manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving though I do not averr any such prepossession here nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material T is onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposition to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen and on his exile death miracles canonization invocation appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes who are supream themselves to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoever living within their dominions Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance as you have that Censure of theirs page 120. of this first Part be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines I leave to the Reader 's own better consideration when reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it he observes moreover particularly the day of the date of it so signally express'd by them in these tearms Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die â—9 Decembris gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis Angliae quondam Primatis mortyrio consecratae Anno Dominae Incarnationis 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canterbury as most proper for such a censure I know not certainly but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy glory martyrdom and how that 29. day of December of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal signal date of theirs made me ever since now and then reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground Though to confess all the truth I never met any that fram'd it methodically or put it into any due or undue form of argument for them or of objection against me but onely in general objected that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second Which is the reason and that I may leave nothing which may seem to any to be material unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self I put all which my adversaries would be at in this concern of St. Thomas of
Canterbury as relating to our present purpose and put all that into this special form of argument Syllogisme and objection against my own grand Thesis Whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's cause quarrel or contest with Henry the second must be false But my grand Theirs of a power in secular supream Princes to coerce all criminal Clergiemen whatsoever living within their dominions is such or is a doctrine which condemns or opposes that very cause quarrel or contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury Ergo my grand Thests must be false The Minor will be proved thus and must be proved thus or not at all Such doctrine must necessarily suppose an errour both in the solemn canonization of him at least for a martyr properly such and yet he was solemnly canonized for a martyr properly such by Alexander the Third Pope of that name his own contemporary and must further necessarily suppose an errour too that both in the belief and practise of the universal Church of Christ forasmuch as they believe him to be a martyr properly such and both venerat and invocate him as such For that such doctrine as condems or opposes the justice of his quarrel against Henry the Second must also necessarily suppose such an errour in his canonization veneration and invocation as a martyr properly such appears hence manifestly that it is therefore he was canonized for such and is venerated and invocated as such because that quarrel of his was and is believed to have been just and that it was for maintaining the justice of it he suffered death and suffered death patiently and Christianly as became a true martyr without any resistance at all Now it is plain that such doctrine as must necessarily suppose such an errour in such canonization veneration and invocation of any must be false nay erroneous and schismatical nay and heretical too in Christian belief because it must consequently suppose that not onely the Pope nay not onely this or that particular orthodox nation but even the universality of all true Christian nations even the Catholick Church her self taken in her whole latitude not onely may sometime erre in matters which they she accounts to be part of her holy belief holy practise but hath already and continually err'd and almost for five hundred years compleat that is since the year of our Lord 1173. wherein Alexander Tertius canonized him solemnly for a martyr and she no less solemnly invocated him as such Then which consequent supposition what Roman Catholick can say that any may be more even fundamentally heretical For it must be granted as an article nay and also at least among Divines as a fundamental article of Christian Catholick religion that the true Christian Catholick Church is infallible in credendis agendis both in her belief and in her practise I mean such as she her self accounts divine or holy or certainly it must be granted that we have nothing at all infallible in her or in our religion delivered by her but what may without any special revelation from God or any either particular or universal tradition from her be demonstrated by pure natural reason and consequently that our belief of even the very whole mistery of the Incarnation of the Son of God and of that other no less above our natural reason of the Trinity of persons in one God which are purely credenda as likewise those of Baptisme and the Lords Supper quatenus inter agenda as they are practised are fallible and unreasonable practises being we have nothing to render us absolutely certain of the contrary if the universal Church be fallible in her belief and practise But for the Minor as I confess that I see no other proof possible but by instancing the particulars of the difference 'twixt King Henry the Second and this holy Praelat so I confess also that if in any of those particulars or in altogether my grand Thesis or any part of my doctrine hetherto in pursuance of that my Thesis may be found and that it be clear also that St. Thomas of Canterbury suffered death therefore and was therefore canonized a martyr by the Pope and as such was therefore venerated and invocated ever since or at any time by the Catholick Church then I must consequently grant the objection to be very well or at least very probably grounded as no man can deny it to be syllogistically formed or deny the conclusion to follow of necessity if both the Premisses be certainly true And for the first of them we have already seen it pretty well driven home at least by a very specious discourse and one concluding such an inconvenience as no Roman Catholick will dare allow I mean the infallibility of the whole Catholick Church either in religious belief or practise whatever in the mean time be held or thought of the Pope alone or of his particular Roman Diocess as taken a part from the rest or of any one or moe even National Churches whatsoever of Catholick communion so they amount not to that which we call and is truly the Catholick or universal Church or the general congregation of all particular or National Churches or of the more considerable parts of them or the General Representative of such more considerable parts of them which are now in Ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Bishop his particular Diocess of Rome For this general Congregation of all such particular Churches or of all the more considerable parts of them and this general Representative also whenever it is of all such more considerable parts is it I call now here and elsewhere still understand to be the Catholick Church Whereof I desire my good Readers to take special notice not that I see any special need of it to solve this objection but that I may no where seem either to equivocat or to be unwilling to be understood when there is occasion to distinguish between the sense of the Pope and that of the Church or between the authority of a particular Church or some one of ro moe peradventure and that which is properly of the universal Church Therefore now not onely to shew what may be said or not said and that even out of the very Ecclesiastical History or Annals of Baronius himself of the particulars of the said difference or quarrel and for the proof of the said Minor being it is onely from History all that can be said for the proof of it must be had and that Baronius can not be presumed to relate such matter of fact with any kind of partiality or favour to me or my Thesis or my doctrine against his own pretended Immunity of all Clergiemen or be presumed to omit any material thing which might any way advance his own pretence of such Immunity upon the contradictory question confirmed by the sense by the life and death of so great a Saint and even sealed by the bloud of so glorious a martyr
day murthered him in the Church as he was at evening prayer Seventhly you are to observe good Reader what the ancient Christian civil or municipal laws of England or those I mean of the State politick and civil as they are distinguish'd from the meer canons of the Church were concerning the immunity of Clergiemen from secular tribunals in the punishment of their crimes and were yet in the days of S. Thomas and Henry the second or at any time before that contest not legally repealed then by a contrary civil or municipal law of that land or by any contrary custom admitted or in force For I must confess that often considering with my self how it was not probable that so vertuous and just a man and even so knowing a man also as S. Thomas of Canterbury must have been being he studied so long both in Oxford and Paris and the civil law in Italy and was one of the Justiciers in London before he went to Italy was after Archdeacon and last of all before made Archbishop was five whole years great Chancellour of England sitting and judging in the Court of highest judicature how I say it was not onely not probable but not even really possible that such a man being made Archbishop of Canterbury should upon false grounds that is upon any such vain or trifling grounds as those are of some of our late School-divines Canonists or Historians or as those are of Bellarmine Baronius c. for the exemption of Clergiemen from secular tribunals even the very supream in or as to the judgment or punishment of their crimes whatsoever contend so mightily and so dangerously and so fatally at last with Henry the Second or contend with him at all upon such grounds for any kind of exemption of those two Clerks whereof before from the Kings Judicatories especially when the King himself desired they should be delivered to the secular Court because of their own proper great delinquency and because also or indeed cheifly of the great clamours were then against the more general delinquency of Clerks in England as not regarding much Ecclesiastical punishments or should also but I say still upon the grounds of Bellarmine or his Associats contend with that King upon the matter or subject of the second of those 16. Heads which begins Clerici citati c. and which is the only indeed of all those 16. Heads that any way touches our present controversie or which of all those Heads may at all be made use of against my doctrine of the subjection of Clerks in criminal causes to the supream civil power Therefore I took the pains in reading over all the more ancient civil or municipal laws of England as many as I heard were extant and not only the Saxon laws publish'd of late by Abrahamus Whelocus though formerly translated into Latin out of the ancient English or Saxon language by Gulielmus Lambardus but also the Norman laws made for England by William the Conquerour and his youngest Son King Henry the first as Roger Twisden gives them as likewise I yet further took pains in consulting the Histories of William the Conqueror William Rufus Henry the First King Stephen Henry the Second c. because I perswaded my self it could not be otherwise but that certainly S. Thomas had some good sure ground for himself in the municipal proper peculiar laws of England for that which concern'd his grand contest or even for that second head fingly taken of those above 16. or even also for his not delivering up to secular judgment those two criminal Clerks Nor truly was I deceived in my perswasion nor frustrated in my inquisition For having read the laws of King Inas who began to raign an 712. and ended an 729. of King Alured who began his raign an 871. and ended an 900 of King Ethelred who began an 979. ended an 1016. of King Edgar who began an 959. ended an 975. of King Edmund who began 940. ended 946. of Edward the Second of that name of Saxon Kings who began 900. end 924. and of Guthrun the Danish tributary King those laws I mean which are called Faedera Edwardi ac Guthruni Regum of King Ethelstan who began his raign 924. ended 940. of King Canutus who began 1016. ended 1035. of Edward the Third of that name of the Saxon Kings otherwise called Edouardus bonus Edward the Confessor and St. Edward who began 1042. ended 1066. as likewise those of Gulielmus Conquaestor who began 1067. ended 1087. and of Henricus primus who began 1100. ended 1135. I find enough to my purpose 'T is true those of Inas Ethelred and Aelstane have nothing in particular touching it nor those even of Edgar which were renewed again LXVII years after his death and after that by reason of the intervening wars they had been so long out of use and were so renewed by Edwardus bonus St. Edward the Confessor any thing but that in general which is the first of all his laws Primum Ecclesiae Dei jura ac Immunitates sitas omnes habento deâ—umas quisque c. yet those of Alured determine thus Sacerdos si quempiam interfecerit eorum omnium quae ope domicilii fretus acquisierit confiscatio sequitor eumque gradu spoliatum Episcopus è fano pellito ni Dominus data capitis aestimatione veniam illi exorarit And those of Edmund thus si quis hominis Christiani sanguinem effuderit ad Regium conspectum etsi ei seruierit non admittitor ni prius id sceleris juxta ac fuerit ei ab Episcopo ac sacerdote imperatum compensarit But those of Edward the Second and Guthrum thus Si quis sacris initiatus clepserit dimicarit peierarit aut fornicatus fuerit capitis aestimatione mulcta aut legis violatae paena pro îpsa delicti ratione compensato Deo saltem prout se regulae habuerint Ecclesiasticae faciat satis atque in custodiam ni fidejussores admoverit conjicitor Sacerdos si in diebus festis aut jeiuniis populo indicendis erraverit 30. solidis si quidem id inter Anglos evenerit mulctator fin idem in Dacis acciderit sesquimarcam pendito Sacerdos si ad dies in hoc condictos oleum non pararit sacrosanctum aut baptisma cum usus fuerit denegarit inter Anglos mulctator in Dacis autem legis violatae paenas luctooras nimirum duodenas numerato Si quis sacris initiatus capitale quidquam perpetrarit capitor ut tandem Episcopo criminis admissi paenas dependat And those also of Canutus in part after the same manner and in part otherwise or thus Si eorum qui Arae deservierint aliquis hominem occiderit aut insigne aliquod perpetrarit flagitium gradu honore dispoliatus perinde ei atque Papa circumscripserit habitandi locum exulato ac cumulatè compensato Sin is crimen fuerit inficiatus excusatio tripla esto Atque ni hanc quae Deo hominibus
Leges quas Edovardus tertius utendas dederat in pristinum usum revocat quae tamen sensim absoluerunt Normaâ—â—s pro commâ—do Principis ad incommodum Anglorum leges a Gulielmo primo conditas constantissime usurpantibus And again about the end of his life Tulit initio sui Principatus aliquot leges quas nec ipse nec Reges qui secuti sunt hine servaruaâ— However those I have given were his laws not repealed after by himself in Parment for he began Parliaments in England or otherwise by any publick Instrument declared as a law to the people albeit I deny not but those 16. heads controverted after twixt Thomas of Canterbury and King Henry the Second were first conceived in writing by this very Henry the first but never as a law published by him To all which I will add those further laws yet which were to our purpose also made by King Stephen Henry the First 's immediat or next Successour in two several Parliaments one at Oxford and t'other at London in that of Oxford abolishing quite that kind of tribute or assessment which other Kings had formerly often exacted from every hyde or acre of ground and promising too that neither Episcopacies nor other Ecclesiastical Benefices or Sacerdotal Prefectships should be kept vacant as much as for any the least time and in this of London or Westminster enacting for the Clergy's sake because they had liberally contributed for the warr in hand that whoever should strike any Churchman in holy orders or should without licence from the Court Ecclesiastical or Bishops lay hands upon or seize any criminal Clergymen whatever his crime were should be held excommunicat impious and accursed and should not be restored at all to the communion of the Church or absolved but by the Roman Pontiff onely Of which laws of King Stephen albeit there be no Parliament Records preserved of them as neither indeed are of all or any of those held before King John's days Polydore Virgil tels us expresly and particularly in his 12. book of Histories and life of the said Stephen For these are his words concerning the first Stephanus autem ex sententia summum consecutus imperium Oxonium proficiscitur atque ibi Principum conventum facit quo in Conventu inter caetera ut suorum animos sibi devinciret illud tributi genus quod alij Reges per singula jugera terrae saepe exigere a populo solebant prorsus sustulit atque promisit se curaturum ut deinceps Episcopatus aliae Prefecturae sacerdotales ne puncto quidem temporis vacarent c. And concerning the second these Interea Rex Londinum venit ubi celebrem Principum ac Antistitum conventum peregit in quo talia verba fecit Cum Principes fidelissimi c His dictis cuncti praesidium salutis ac libertatis defendendae se laturos pollicentur At Episcopi cum suis sacerdotibus quia pugnare fas non est pecuniam conferre promittunt quibus ut aliquid gratiae referretur in eodem Conventu constitutum est ut quicumque deinceps sacris initiatos percuterent aut alicujus criminis reos Episcoporum injussu caperent impii importunique haberentur nec ab aliquo praeterquam a Romano Pontifice in piorum caetum restitui possent quemadmodum jure Pontificio iampridem sancitum esset sed apud Anglos ante id tempus minus servatum And so I have given at large whatever I would have the Reader observe in this Seventh place of the proper civil or municipal laws of England before Henry the seconds time concerning our purpose especially the exemption of criminal Clerks even in case of murder from the lay Judges Eightly and in the last place you are to observe but onely out of this present book of my own which you you read now that is out of all said by me formerly in so many Sections from that place where I first began to dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity what my doctrine is against which the objection is made for and to come to the answering of which I have premised so long a discourse in so many observations And you are to observe well that my said doctrine is no other in effect but what I now repeat heer briefly viz. 1. That neither by the law divine positive or natural nor by the canons of the Catholick Church which are properly those are and are called Canones universalis Ecclesiae nor even by those other canons which are more properly and onely stiled Papal Canons Clergiemen living within the dominions of any Supream lay or secular Prince are exempt in criminal and temporal causes from his supream civil even coercive power 2. That not onely they are not so already exempted by any such law of God or man but also that they cannot be hereafter by any pure law of man not even of Pope or Council exempted from the said supream civil even coercive power without the consent of the Princes themselves 3. That neither can the supream secular Princes themselves grant any such exemption to Clerks living still within their dominions and remaining Subjects to them because this implyes a plain contradiction or to any Clerks at all but to such as are at the same time wholly set free from all kind of subjection or acknowledgment of their Principalities 4. That on the other side both by the natural and positive law of God and especially by the 13 of the Romans by the letter and meaning and scope or end of that whole text of St. Paul there all Christian Clerks not even the Popes not even the Apostles themselves exempted are subject in temporal matters and criminal causes even to the coercive power of the supream secular Magistrat 5. That by the doctrine also of the holy Fathers generally until Gregory the VII and by their exposition or understanding of that text of Paul all Churchmen whatsoever were and are so in the dominions of the respective supream temporal Princes whom these Clerks own to be their own legal Princes 6. That by the practise also of so many Christian Bishops Popes and Princes they were and are so 7. That even by the testimony of clear even Papal canons they were and are so that by no argument hithertoo alleadged out of reason scripture tradition Fathers Councils Papal Canons Histories by any of our adversaries the contrary is as much as any way convincingly deduced 9. And finally and in a word that all their true exemptions from either inferiour or supream secular judicatories in any temporal or criminal cause whatsoever as to the coercive punishment of them by the civil power force and sword is originally from and wholly still depending of the supream civil power In all which or in any discourse or clause said thereupon by me you are also to observe that I never said or say or intend to say that Clerks have not a true right to those exemptions from lay judicatories which the
municipal or civil laws of the land wherein they live or the approved customs thereof do give them until the same exemptions be legally repealed by an equal authority to that which gave them nor said nor do say nor intend to say but it is as lawfull for them to maintayn in all just and legal ways their own such immunities as it is for lay subjects in such ways to maintayn their own against the encroachments or usurpations of the Princes themselves or of their Ministers and consequently did not say nor do nor intend to say that they are bound to obey the pleasure of the Prince by subjecting themselves to his lay Judges in such criminal causes or any other wherein the law of the land doth free and exempt them from such judges But say and averre still the quite contrary of all these three sayings because the sublimer civil power which is in the law of the land for them in such case doth warrant them from transgressing in so much that Praecept of Paul 13. to the Romans Those eight observations being so premised and considered it will now be easy enough for me to answer fully and satisfactorily the before given fourth and last of all the remaining objections viz that so specious grand objection built as t is pretended on the contrary judgment or opinion c. of S. Thomas of Canterbury and it will be as easy for my Reader to understand that my answers which I now give are full and satisfactory Therefore My first answer is in general by denying positively plainly and flatly that there is any as much as the least truth in the pretence or supposition or in that I mean which pretends or supposeth that St. Thomas of Canterbury was of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine or to any part or proposion of my doctrine hitherto of the subjection of Clergiemen to the supream coercive power of secular Princes in criminal causes or which pretends or supposeth that because he was so of a contrary opinion in theory or practice or both to any part of my said doctrine he opposed his King fell into his disfavour was exiled by him at first suffered death at last was accounted a Martyr canonized as such and invoked too ever since by the universal Church All which and every particular of which I deny both positively and plainly and flatly Neither do I doubt at all but that in my several observations hitherto taken altogether or if the seven first out of History be compared exactly to or taken together with what is given in my eight and last out of this very book of the particular heads of my doctrine in it concerning ecclesiastical exemption I have given sufficient proofs that I do upon very good very justifyable and unanswerable grounds deny so positively plainly and flatly this whole pretence or supposition and every part thereof For I have shewed what the immediat cause of his death or why he was so cruelly murthered was and that this was no other but for having answered that he would not absolve the excommunicated Bishops unless they had first promised to make satsfaction for the injury done by them to his Church or at least abide or submit to the judgment of the Pope in that case and that his Clerks who came with him from beyond the Seas should not take any oath but such an oath as were just And I have shewed also what the intermediat cause the grand long contest indeed 'twixt him and his King was and that this was no other but of the 16. Heads of customes of Henry the First or of his Grandfather as Henry the Second called them avitas which heads also I have given at length And the judicious Reader may himself clearly see that amongst all those causes or occasions either immediate or intermediat final or original proximate or remote there is nothing at all concerns or which may well or ill be said to concern our dispute or my doctrince but only the second head of those 16. customes as they were called and that of the Saints not delivering up to the secular justice the two criminal Clerks or the Priest and Chanon And the Reader also may clearly see that my doctrine no where teacheth formally or virtually or consequentially any thing contrary to what St. Thomas did either practice or must have held in theory as to either his not assenting to that second Head as neither indeed to any other of all the 16. or as to his not delivering up to secular justice those criminal Clerks For any rational man may very well understand that St. Thomas of Canterbury might without any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety to himself or to these two actions of his nay indeed or to any other opposition made by him to Henry the Second might I say have held or have been at the same time of the very self same judgment or opinion with me hitherto concerning the exemption or subjection of Clergiemen or which is the same thing that he might at the same time have held even positively formally and expresly that by no law of God or Nature or Nations or of the Catholick Church or of Roman Emperours or Pontiffs Clergiemen were or are exempted from the supream civil even coercive power in criminal causes but on the contrary that by Reason Scripture Tradition of the Fathers practice of both Fathers and Princes and even also by the very Canons of as well Popes as Councils they were and are subject to the supream civil coercive power nay and to the subordinate civil or lay inferiour Judges also in all criminal causes whatsoever as far as the civil or municipal laws of the land do subject them or wherein the said temporal or municipal laws of the land exempt them not from the coercion of lay Courts I say that any rational man may very well understand how St. Thomas might have held all this and yet at the same time and without any change in his judgment or opinion or any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety have practised justly conscientiously and holily all that he did in opposition to Henry the Second and particularly that of not delivering up to secular justice the two criminal Clerks and that also of not assenting to the second head of those 16. which were pretended by by the said Henry to be his Grandfathers customes St. Thomas of Canterbury had the very municipal and politick laws of the land or of England for himself in both these Instances as indeed he had them for himself in all other particulars wherein he opposed that King albeit his own proper undoubted Soveraign And that he had them so for himself in all his differences and particularly in these two I have clearly shewed and proved at length in my former seventh observation wherein the Reader may see that by the municipal laws of England still in being or in force as not legally repealed by a contrary law not even till after
to a perpetual cloyster'd life c was derived unto them and wholly depending of the supream temporal or civil coercive power residing originally and independently in the Prince and in his laws for the very Papal canons even Pope Caelestine the III. himself cap. 〈◊〉 homine de judicijs as I have quoted him in the former section confesseth that after and besides suspension excommunication and deposition or degradation the Church hath no other nor any more punishment for any 4. Because the very self same supream civil coercive power which as Legislative authorized the Bishops to be the onely ordinary Judges of criminal Ecclesiasticks and did also both prescribe and warrant that kind of punishment which they inflict on such Clerks and did ordain there should be no other punishment but that for such persons and the very self same supream civil power that made those municipal laws for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Judges may again unmake them upon just occasion or may lessen or moderat that exemption as there shall be cause and consequently criminal Clerks are still in so much under the supream civil coercive power as de facto de â—ure they are indeed and were indeed always for so many other respects and in so many other cases and contingencies notwithstanding the most ample municipal laws for exemption that are or have been 5. And lastly because there is no contradiction inconsistence or contrariety betwixt S. Thomas his being of this opinion and perswasion and the being of the laws of England such as I said they were then Which yet we may easily understand by the example of the priviledge of Peers For certainly the Peers of a Kingdom will not pretend themselves exempt from the supream coercive power of the Prince albeit they cannot by the laws of the land be judg'd or condemned but by their own Peers Therefore an exemption from one sort of Judges doth not argue an exemption from the supream power that is above all sorts of Judges And therefore nothing can be alleadg'd out of the life or death or sanctity or martyrdom or canonization or invocation or even miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury nor out of all these joyntly taken with the laws of the land for which he stood to prove that he was of a contrary judgment or perswasion to my doctrine All that is alleadged of any such matters do onely evidence the purity of his Soul and justice of his cause neither of which my doctrine doth at all oppose but allow approve and confirm But if any should replye that the laws of the land as to our controversy were chang'd by the swearing of those 16. Heads of customes by all the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons Abbots Priors and whole Clergie and even by St. Thomas of Canterbury himself first of all as Matthew Paris tels us in these tearms Hanc recognitionem consuetudinum libertatum Deo deâ—estabilium Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Priores Clerus cum Comitibus Baronibus Proctribus cunctis juraverunt se observaturos Domino Regi heredibus ejus bona fide absque malo ingenio in perpetuum Inter alios etiam his omnibus Thomas Cantuariensis consensit and should replye that after such change by such swearing S. Thomas of Canterbury did fall into his own former opposition of or differences with Henry the second even as to the second head of those customes and in prosecution of his former refusal to deliver up to secular justice those two criminal Clerks and should therefore conclude that S. Thomas must have pretended for himself at such time not the former laws of the land which were so repealed by a contrary law of Henry the second but either the laws of God Nature or Nations or the Canons of the Church or Pope c if I say any should make this objection here the Answer is at hand very facile and clear out of my former observations viz that such swearing alone was not enough without further signing and sealing as it seems the custom then was of the Bishops and Peers in making of laws nor all three together whether signing and sealing was necessary or not without a free consent in those or of those who swore so or sign'd or sealed so and that there was no free consent but a forc'd one by threats of imprisonment banishment death appears out of my said observations and all the several Historians especially Hoveden who treat exactly of this contest Now it is plain that such laws are no true laws or have not at all as much as the essence of laws which are not freely made without such coaction And therefore consequently it is plain that such repealing was no true legal repealing of the former laws Whereof also this was a further argument that Henry the second himself did in the end of the contest wholly quit his challenge to those controverted customs which he did so for a time constrain the Bishops Clergie and people to submit to against their own will and their own true laws Yet as it must be granted by such as are versed in the antiquities of England that there was a time and some ages too of the Christian Church in England even after the conversion of the Saxons before such municipal laws were enacted for such favourable and ample immunities to Clergiemen and before also the Clergie did as much as pretend by custom or otherwise to any exemption in criminal causes from the lay courts so I confess there have passed several ages of the very Roman Religion professed by law in England after the same great immunities and exemptions in criminal causes were in some part or for the greatest part legally repealed by law or custom or both and free consent or submission of the very Bishops and Clergie themselves upon new occasions and grounds being weary of contesting with the lay judges and Kings and that immediatly too or very soon after the days of Henry the second himself the very Popes also themselves at least many of them either consenting or certainly conniving at this change in the laws customs and practice of England in order to Clergiemen Whereat we are not much to wonder being that Roger Hoveden so faithfull an Historian as he was as he was also contemporary to Alexander the third and St. Thomas of Canterbury and was moreover so extraordinary an admirer of this Saint as may be seen by reading his Annals of him being I say this Roger Hoveden tels us in plain tearms ad an 1164. that the said Pope Alexander the third himself before his going to Rome out of France sent express directions to Thomas of Canterbury when the great difference began about the 16. Heads to submit himself in all things to his King and to promise to receive observe and obey without any exception those very customs or laws controverted Deinde sayes our Annalist Hoveden venit in Angliam vir quidam Religiosus dictus
are so many strong confirmations of that which is and which I gave already as in effect my first Answer in general to the fourth the grand and last of all the remaining objections as it is made in general For if I be not very much deceived they strongly confirm not onely the rational probability but the moral certainty of what I have answered so that is that Thomas of Canterbury was not of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine concerning the exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour lay tribunals and their subjection to the supream civil coercive power notwithstanding any true or pretended exemption but that he held as I do that all true Ecclesiastical exemption of either Churchmen or Churches and of the lands or goods of the Church is meerly and onely proceeding from the civil power of the municipal laws of the land not from any other law divine or human and held that by no such even municipal law Churchmen either have been or might be universally in criminal causes exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the supream Magistrat while otherwise they acknowledg themselves or indeed remained subjects And yet for exemplifying this I do not insist on that out of Parker concerning the Asyla because though he sayes 't was made a law yet I do not find it clear in him it was so by authority of Parliament but of a Synod in pursuance of the Popes Bull though for any thing I know it might have been so also by Parliament or otherwise by custom without any relation either to that Synod or that Bull. My Second answer to this grand fourth last objection is more particular cause it is to it as it is framed into a Syllogisme against me and is to each of the particular premisses a part Therefore to the Major which in effect is in these tearms whatever doctrine condemns of opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel with Henry the Second c is false I answer that for my own part and for any thing may be deduced thence I admit it or this Major and admit it simply and absolutely without any distinction and even admit it so not onely as to the immediat cause for which he suffered but as to the intermediat or grand and long quarrel concerning the 16. customs and also as to the very original or that other complex of those antecedent five differences and as to a sixt original too if you please to add a fixt whereof hereafter and which might have been the very first spring or occasion of all that followed if we believe Parker For I confess it is my own judgment whatever judgment some contemporary Catholick Authors though otherwise both true Historians and good Ecclesiastical regular Monastical persons were of to the contrary on the whole matter and for what I can judg of matter of fact in relation to those dayes of St. Thomas and to the laws were as yet then legally unrepealed in England and to that King Henry the Second I confess I say that takeing all these relations together it is my own judgment plainly that Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side in all these several following instances 1. In changing the pomp and vanity and pleasures and delicacies of his former life while he was high Chancellour of England and how splendidly pleasantly and delicatly he lived before in that office and in his other high employments of warr and peace and embassies abroad may be seen in Parker though Parker tax him not even for that time with any injustice sinfulness or viciousness but with a courtly and wordly pleasant and pompous life to the height and to humour the King and Court and in changing all I say into a life devoted wholly to God above all humane esteem and yet also unto the austerities of a most rigid Monk and Hermit as to his own body Which if Parker guess aright was the first cause or rise of the Kings alienation ever after from him before any other difference happen'd Quod he means the Archiepiscopal Pallium simul atque Thomas accepisset sayes Parker in the life of Thomas of Canterbury tam dissimili atque immutato genere vitae a priori illa curiali fuit ut Monachalem superstitionem so Parker cals it sub vestitu Clericalitexerit Nam ut scribit Trivetus and he quotes also in his Margin Roff. Hystor Arch. Nich. Trivetus Will Canter all of them ancient Catholick Historians post susceptum Pastoris officium supra humanam aestimationem factus est Deo devotus Consecratus enim cilicium clam induit femoralibus usus est usque ad poplites alicinis sub vestis Clericalis honestate habitum colens monachalem Et Wil. Cant. Paucis consciis sub lorica fidei militabat gaudens quia in triplici veste triplicem personam gereret exteriori clericum exhiberet interiori monachum occultaret intima Eremitae molestias sustineret Ex quo quidem existimare facile est quamvis Monachorum sibi studia hac dissimulatione this of dissimulation is Parkers own addition and not what he read in his Authors adjunxerit quantum tamen Regis Praesulum atque Procerum animos abalienaverit si quis ea quae de communi omnium voto de Monachis ab Episcopali dignitate deinceps repellendis in Rodolphi vita antea scripsimus animadverterit Atque haec prima esse poterat offensionis dissensionis Regiae causa quod cum antea politius urbaniusque vixisset jam odiosam illam Monachalem institutionem susceperit sive sponte sua sive quod illam obsoletam Papalis excommunicationis sententiam in Elphegi vita antea descriptum timuerit 2. In discharging himself of the Chancellours place especially being that he had no command from the King to the contrary 3. In recovering to his Church of Canterbury and by due course of law those lands which some of his Predecessors had against law alienated to lay persons and secular uses 4. In using his best endeavours that the fruits or temporal revenews of vacant Churches should not be swallowed by the Kings Exchequer 5. In declaring his judgment frankly and compassionatly for the ease of the people according to law in that case wherein the Kings Officers against law extorted from them Hyde money or accridg money and extorted it as a duty whereas it was or should be but a free benevolence at the pleasure of the people and this too but in certain cases whereof none was then 6. In not delivering the two criminal Clerks to secular justice 7. In not swearing first at the Kings demand to receive and observe the 16. customes and when he had through too much importunity and fearfull apprehensions of others and at the entreaty and perswasion and tears also of the Bishops of Salisbury and Norwich and of the Earls of Lester and Cornwal and of those two Templars Richardus de Hastings and Tâ—stes de St. Homero all
great strictness in his own way I mean according to the judgment of the Prelats and Nobles of that Assembly at Paris But for a judgment also given of purpose on that whole controversie and given by a contemporary Historian a Catholick by religion a Monk by profession and writer of very good repute Gulielmus Neubrigensis and a judgment given by him of this matter even after Thomas had been both martyrized and canonized you have it in his third Book cap. 16. and in these words Sane cum plerique soleant in iis quos amant laudant affectu quidem propensiori sed prudentia parciori quicquid ab iis geritur approbaâ—e planè ego in viro illo venerabili ea quae ita ab ipso acta sunt ut nulla exinde proveniret utilitas sed feruor tantum accenderetur Regius ex quo tot mala post modum pullulasse noscuntur laudanda nequaquam censuerim licet ex laudabili zelo processerint sicut nec in Beatissimo Apostolorum Principe arcem jam Apostolicae perfectionis tenente quod geâ—tes suo exemplo Judaizare coegit in quo eum Doctor gentium reprehensibilem deciatat fuisse licet eum constat laudabili hoc pietate fecisse Third reason That he might possibly be imbued with the doctrine which was growing then of the exemption of Clergiemen either by divine immediate right of the positive or even natural law of God or by that which is pretended to be mediatly divine and immediatly canonical or humane from the Canons of the Church or at least from the bad or false interpretation of those Canons or by some prescription and will and power of those Popes who so mightily in his dayes and for almost a whole age before his dayes immediatly and continually contested with the very Emperours themselves and all other Bishops for both the spiritual and temporal soveraignty of the world and this too by a pretence of divine right And that we must not wonder that even on so great a Saint as Saint Thomas of Canterbury himself the authority of the first Apostolick See and the numbers of her admirers adorers and followers then in what quarrel soever and the specious pretence of piety in the cause and education in such principles or amongst such people should work a strong pre-possession of zeale as for the cause of God being it was reputed the cause of the Church however that according to the veritie of things or true laws divine or humane as in themselves nakedly or abstractedly it might peradventure not have either the cause of God or the cause of the Church Fourth reason and it is a confirmation that is a very probable argument though nor perhaps throughly or rigidly demonstrative of the truth of the Third That in the speech or words of St Thomas of Canterbury in the time of his banishment to his King Henry the Second at Chinun which Honeden ad an 1165. calls Verba Beati Thomae Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun we find this sentence of his Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere c. Wherein I am certain this holy Bishop was point blanck contrary to the sense of ten thousand other holy Bishops before him in the more primitive ages of the Church and contrary to plain Scripture and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for at least the ten first and best ages of Christianity Fift reason That it is not so clear in all respects that those sixteen heads of customs passed not legally and long before the Saints death into a just municipal law of the land or of England notwithstanding that St. Thomas denyed and even justly too denyed his own hand and seale or even justly also retracted his own former consent by oath yea and notwithstanding that it was meerly out of fear that the rest of the Bishop did at first consent or gave their own consent by oath likewise For it may be said first and said also upon very probable grounds out of the several ancient Catholick and even Ecclesiastick Historians who writ of purpose of those dayes and matters that they all freely after consented And secondly it may be said that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament having the consent royal whether one Bishop or moe peradventure or even all the Bishops dissent And thirdly yet iâ— may be said that all laws most commonly or at least too often may be called in question upon that ground of fear of the Prince Sixt and last reason That we must rather give any answer that involves not heresie or manifest errour in the Catholick Faith or natural reason obvious to every man then allow or justifie the particular actions or contests or doctrine of any one Bishop or Pope how great or holy soever otherwise or even of many such or of all their partakers in such against both holy Scriptures plain enough in the case and the holy Fathers generally for the ten first ages in their explications of such Scriptures and consequently against that universal Tradition which must of necessity be allowed Nihil enim innovandum sed quod traditum est observandum Behold here six reasons which taken at least altogether may justifie my giving the two last Answers or my adding them to the other two former As for the rest I leave it to the Readers choice which of all four he will fix on though I my self and for my own part and out of a greater reverence to the Saint himself and to the Pope that canonized him or to that Pope I mean in as much as he canonized him for a martyr in such a cause if he did so or intended so taking the name of martyr properly and strictly whereof what we read in our very Breviary of the cause for which the Pope sayes he suffered may perhaps give some occasion of scruple being it is there said of those Laws of Henry the Second and only said that they were leges utilitati ac dignitati Ordinis Ecclesiastici repugnantes but not said that they were laws against the laws of God though I say I could wish for these reasons that all my Readers did fix as I do my self rather on the first and second Answer then on the two last But on which soever of all four they six I am confident none may infer that they or I question Thomas of Canterbury's sanctity in this world either in his life or at his death or his glory in heaven after his death or question the Bull of of his canonization or question the holy practice of the Catholick Church in her veneration or invocation or finally question as much as those miracles which I suppose were sufficiently proved in the process form'd for his canonization or even those which as wrought after that time at his Tomb or elsewhere are alledg'd upon sufficient grounds if any such be so alledg'd Though I cannot here
absolutely or actually yet establish'd Or doth not the very nature of a Parliament and the necessary and plenary freedom of the members thereof evince this 3. T is likewise true that in the great Council or Parliament held at Norththampton and when he saw some of the very Bishops violently bent against him to ingratiat and endear themselves more and more to the King and the rest through fear yielding and saw them all generally conspiring with the lay Peers and joyntly with such Peers condemning and deposing him by their sentence from his Bishoprick he appealed to the Pope from such a sentence and such Judges and such a Judicatory and in such a cause But what then Or was it treason by the nature of the thing in it self or of such an Appeale of such a man and in such a case and from such Judges or was there any law then in England making such appeal to be treason certainly it was not by either Not by the nature of such an appeal as abstractedly considered in it self because neither appeals in a spiritual cause to the Pope nor decisions in a spiritual way of such Appeals by the Pope do of their own nature draw along with them any lessening of the Majesty or supream power of the Prince or of any part of it which is proper to him nor of the safety of the people though by accident that is by abuse only sometimes of the Appellants themselves or of such Appeals or of the decision of them by some Popes and by the neglect of either Prince or Parliament giving way to frivolous appeals or admitting of notoriously corrupt decisions they may prove hurtful Nor was there any law of England as yet then establish'd when the when the Saint appealed so which made it treason or which indeed at all prohibited him or any other Clerk to appeal to Rome in any pure ecclesiastical cause whatsoever or from the judgment of either spiritual or secular Judges or even of both together in any pure spiritual or Ecclesiastical cause such as that judgement was which was pronounced in that Council or Parliament of Northamton against this holy Archbishop even a sentence of his deposition from the See Nay the continual practice of England till then for so many hundred years before and for some time after too warranted by the very municipal laws or municipal Customs or both to appeal to the Pope in such causes which practice in many Instances of even great Bishops and Archbishops both of Canterbury and York and of the Kings also of England sending sometimes their own Embassadours to plead against such Bishops and Archbishops and sometimes to help or plead for them you may see at large everâ— in Matthew Parkers own Antiquitates Britannicae evicts manifestly it was neither treason by law or by reason or by the nature of such Appeals And the practice of other Kingdoms of Christendome till this day continued shews no less that it might have been and may be duly circumstantiated without any lessening of the Majesty of the Crown danger to the safety of the people or without prejudice to any Besides who sees not that it is against the very law of God as delivered to us from the beginnings of Christianity that Lay-men as such may fit in judgment on or give sentence for the taking away the Spirituals of a Bishop As such they can neither give nor take away any spiritual Power Jurisdiction or Authority purely such from the very meanest Clerk whatsoever Indeed if a King be made the Popes Legat in his own Kingdomes as Henry the first of England was you may read it in Houeden in whom also you may see that Henry the Second wrought all he could to get the same power from Rome for himself then such a lay person but not as a meer lay person may give sentence in such causes according to the extent of his commission And who sees not moreover that the Bishops of England who sate in the Council and as sitting there proceeded most uncanonically against their own Primat If they would proceed canonically against him with any colour as much as of the ancient canons of the Church it should have been in a canonical Convocation or Council of Bishops alone and of such other Clergymen as by the canons ought to vote and the Primat should have a fair tryal and be tryed by the canons only Those Bishops failed in all this And therefore Thomas had reason to appeal to the Pope from their sentence For ever since the general Council of Sardica there was at least in the Occidental Church an appeal allowed Bishops even from their equals and even too from their superiours to the supream Bishop or him of Rome as the Fathers of Sardica at the desire of Hâ—sius their President to honour the memory of St. Peter ordained by an an express Canon Though I confess that for what concern'd the temporals of his Archbishoprick which he held only from the King and municipal laws of the land he could not appeal to the Pope understand you otherwise then as to an honourable Arbiter by consent by vertue of any canon only or at all against the said municipal Laws or Customs of the Land if they had been against him in the case of his said Temporals as I have shewed they were not or at least I am sure were not so against him not even I mean in such an appeal concerning his meer Temporals as to render him guilty of treason for appealing so oâ— in such the meer temporal concerns of his Bishoprick And yet I add that Histories make no mention of any such kind of Appeal as this last made by him then when he appealed from the Council of Noâ—thampton though he had reason after to labour in all just meer and pure Ecclesiastical ways to recover the very temporals also of his Church to the same Church T is true moreover that immediatly after his appeal he departed the Council or Parliament the Court and Kingdom and departed the Kingdom incognito in a secular weed But neither was this any treason nor even disobedience or mis-demeanour in him There was no writ of ne exeat Regno against him There was no law of God or man prohibiting him to depart so nor any reason indeed as the case stood with him The King had stabled his own horses in his lodgings to affront him He challeng'd him for thirty thousand pounds which he had administred formerly during his Chancellorship and challeng'd him of so great a sum of purpose to pick a quarrel to him for the Saint had given him an account of all when he was Chancellor and was by the Barons of the Exchequer and Richardus de Luci Lord chief Justice and by the young King himself acquit of all these and whatsoever other accounts before he was consecrated He was notwithstanding his Appeal sentenc'd by the Barons at the Kings desire to be seized on and put in prison The Archbishops of
own King sent Embassadors both to Lewis of France and to the Pope to accuse him and pray them especially the King of France not to harbour him at all and partly also to be recommended by them or either of them to some pious refuge where he might serve God in a retired life and in safety from the power of his own incensed King and might not want necessary sustenance being he had nothing left him of his own to live upon Was there or could there be any treason in this He represented the quarrel so and those 16 Heads or customes controverted 'twixt his King and himself so that the Pope and Cardinals with one voyce condemnd them and consequently his King for contriving and forcing them on him and on the rest of England for municipal Laws and Customes But so did Henry also by his own Letters and Embassadours to the same Pope and Cardinals endeavour to get those Customes approved and Thomas in the same manner indirectly condemned for opposing them And as such application to the Pope and Cardinals by the Kings of England at that time was not unlawful not even I mean by the very Laws of England so neither was it as much as by the same Laws unlawful much less treasonable for the Archbishop of Canterbury to declare his Conscience before the Pope and in matter of such or other whatsoever pretended or intruded or forced Laws or Customes whatsoever or either treasonable or unlawful for him to be with the Pope and his Cardinals the cause or primary Instrument of such a condemnation as is proper to the Pope and Cardinals by a meer spiritual sentence or judgment or reprobation or not allowance for as much as belong'd to them or as their such opinion or sentence was desired of such Laws Besides we know that Histories make no mention at all of any Brief or Bull or other authentick Declaration set out by that Pope of his Cardinals or by any other Pope either procured by Thomas or not procured by him against those pretended Customes or against that King for them only and meerly Moreover we know it is no treason for any Bishop Subject to any Prince whatsoever to declare his own Conscience against whatsoever Laws which are desired by the Prince to be establisht for Laws and received especially when the Bishop sees there were no former Laws of the Land obliging him under pain of treason not to oppose such other Laws or Customes or pretended Customes as the Prince would establish for Laws Nay it is plain there could be nor can be in any Common-wealth or Kingdome such former Laws so obliging Bishops or indeed any other Subjects because such would be against the Law of God and Nature and would oblige men to consent to the making even of the most wicked and impious Laws imaginable or at least would oblige those who are in Parliament concern'd to oppose wicked Laws not to oppose them 5. He took a Legatine power from the Pope over England and the Kings person too even in the time of his exile or proscription We find no proscription of him but a voluntary yet for himself necessary exile though we find Edicts and Sanctions against those in England who would receive any Mandats from him or even from the Pope in his cause during that time of his exile And we know it was neither treasonable nor otherwise unlawful by any even Law of England at that time for an English Bishop especially the Archbishop of Canterbury to receive a Legatine power from the Pope over England The Archbishops of Canterbury were both before St. Thomas and after him some of them Legati nati and others Legati dati and other Bishops too in England were sometimes Legati dati and both those and these sometimes at the Kings desire made or with his knowledge and consent and sometimes also without the Kings previous knowledge or desire at all The Laws indeed of Provisors or Premunire obstructed the Custome of procuring or receiving such Legatine Commissions without the Kings permission and approbation But these Laws were made long after i. e. in the Reigns of Edward the Third and Richard the Second We know also the Legatine power was not of its own nature but in meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or in such as the Law and Customes of the Land then did allow it to be and to be without any derogation to the Kings Majesty or Peoples safety And that if at any time otherwise exercised it was the fault of the Legat and neglect of the Prince to suffer such exercise For so the very ordinary Episcopal power of even inferiour English Bishops might be abused by the Bishops Yet the Law did allow their power though not the abuse of it Nor was it treasonable nor otherwise unlawful not even by the laws of England then that a Commission of meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power and cognizance extending to the Kings own very Person should be received without his consent nay or against his consent from Rome however perhaps it might be imprudential in a subject to receive it so For the very ordinary power of a Bishop where-ever the King resides in his Diocess extends so also to the Kings own Person that laying aside some particular priviledge or exemption given by a superiour Church-power to the King from the spiritual cognizance or jurisdiction of such a Bishop he may if just cause be proceed spiritually against the King himself by name and so proceed that in case of necessity and expediency he may either interdict him from the Church or even also excommunicate him Evangelically that is declare him separated from the spiritual Communion of all the Faithful and may do all this without any treason at all For a pure Evangelical excommunication or such I mean as is grounded in the Gospel whatever be said of Papal excommunication or of excommunication taken with all its rigour extention or effects according to some Papal Canons or Constitutions entrenches not upon the temporal rights of any nor separates any from such civil Communion of the faithful as the same faithful or any or some of them are otherwise bound by the law of God or man or nature to pay to another And consequently pronounced by a Bishop against his Kings own Person by name cannot be any way a diminution of Royal Majesty being this requires not to be exempt from the power or even effect of such an excommunication which hath no temporal effect nor bereaves of any temporal power at all nor consequently can by any just law amongst Christians be made treasonable not even in an Ordinary Bishop who is the Ordinary of the Diocess and hath not his Episcopal power restrained by any Cannon or any command of a superiour Bishop But whether it can or no I am sure there was no Law then in England making it treason in a Bishop as I have stated the case much less in a Canterbury Archbishop Legat. 6. He
was not so neerly concerned he could not but retain still kindness enough for Henry albeit the King of France as nearer him and of greater use could not but sometime cross that very kindness 8. But the former Cardinal-Legats come the first time from Rome to compose the difference 'twixt Henry and Thomas where they had a conference with him betwixt Gisortium and Trie amongst other things objected to him in the behalf of Henry and after they had been with Henry that he had perswaded the King of France to war upon him Adjecerunt etiam querelas sayes Hoveden ad an 1169. injurias quibus Rex Angliae se ab ipso lasum esse conquestus est imponens ei etiam inter caetera quod ei excitaverat guerram Regis Francorum But in these words you see Hoveden sayes that this was an imposture or that Henry imposed on Thomas in this particular And immediately after the same Author tells that Thomas refuted this and all other objections by true and probable reasons Cantuariensis autem sayes he in omni humilitate mansuetudine spiritus post gratiarum actionem Domino Papae illis debitam respondit ad singula rationibus veris probabilibus querelas Regis evacuans injurias Ecclesiae damna intollerabilia patenter exponens You will say that however this be of such actual treason or treason in fact against his Prince by setting on the King of France it cannot be denyed that he held treasonable Principles that is such Principles as were suitable to such practise or such treason in fact because such as lessen the Majesty of the King and Kingdome if not wholly subject it to others forasmuch as his opinion and judgment was that Kings receive their power from the Church as himself declared in his own words to the King at Chinun Is there any man would think so but would also think at the same time that the Church might take away again or transfer the power of Kings But I say that as he cannot in act or fact be accused of treason so neither in habitude or aptitude or inclination or true meaning or natural sequele of that word saying opinion or judgement of his at Chinun may he be charged with any as much as speculative treasonable Principles however otherwise abstracting wholly not only from fact but even from intention or even also from being rendred any kind of way or framed into practical dictates 1. Because it is one thing to say that Christian Kings receive their power from the Church and another to say that after they have once received their power so the Church may either revoke it again wholly or any way lessen it As it is one thing to say that from the people as a civil society of men and not from them as a Church Kings especially in elective Kingdomes receive their power and an other that the people having once conferr'd it and so transferr'd the Majesty from themselves may revoke it againe either at their pleasure or in any case whatsoever without the King 's own consent And because the first or the assertion of receiving such power either from Church or people is no way treasonable either by the nature of such reception or such assertion in it self considered or by any positive law in any Country for ought we have heard not even in England nor certainly was treasonable in the days of Thomas of Canterbury However perhaps it be an errour against the truth of things in themselves to say that Kings in hereditary Kingdomes receive their politick royal power either from the Church or from the people or even in elective Kingdomes otherwise from either then as from bare instrumental or conditional causes or such as Philosophers call conditiones sine quibus non c. not at all from either as from the true proper efficient cause of the power For this efficient is according to the sounder doctrine in Christian Religion and in reason too God alone As even according to the Doctrine of Bellarmine God alone is the onely true proper immediate efficient of the Papal power albeit he had not been Pope if he had not first been elected by the Church or by their Representative now the Colledg of Cardinals or formerly by the Emperours or before that by the Roman Clergy or before that also by the Clergy and people of Rome both joynd together 2. Because that although we find this entire passage Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere non ipsam ab illis sed a Christo salva pace vestra loquor non haberetis Episcopis praecipere absolvere aliquem vel excommunicare trahere Clericos ad secularia examina judicare de decimis de Ecclesiis interdicere Episcepis ne tractent de transgressione fidei vel juramenti multa alia quae in hunc modum scripta sunt inter consuetudines vestras quas dicitis avitas I say that although we find this entire passage amongst those which are called in Hoveden Verba Beati Thoma Cant. Archiep. ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun nay although we did admit it as truly such and admit all the rest of that Speech in Hoveden as words spoke by St. Thomas himself whereof yet I have this ground to doubt that I find not in the whole series of the History of matter of Fact either in Hoveden himself or any other when or how or that at all St. Thomas ever met that King during his banishment but twice once in Paris and in presence of the King of France and another time in the fields abroad when they were at last reconciled by the mediation of the last Legates Where then was Chinun here or any such words However admitting those Words and that entire passage of or amongst those Words as really spoke by St. Thomas and at such a place and Councel I see nevertheless partly in some former passages of that very speech at Chinun and partly also and more fully perhaps in his long and second Letter which no man doubts to be his own true letter to Gilbert Bishop of London and see in both ground enough to answer and say that in this passage I have already given the Saint mean't not at all that from the Church Kings receive so their true civil or politick Royal power or their power of the material sword at least as to the essentials or even as to the necessary appendages of it in pure civil or temporal matters that without such reception as he mean't of it from the Church they had had none at all or that without such reception as he mean't neither their birth-right in hereditary Kingdomes nor election of the people in elective Kingdomes nor any other Title whatsoever in either could be sufficient to give them as man can give true civil and politick Royal Power or to give this I mean antecedently to their receiving what they use to
c. and such other heads wherein he had not the Laws of God or nature positively and clearly for himself in the point And so finally I put a final period to this very long Section and to all those Objections which I called remaining for the reason given in the beginning of this same LXXVI Section LXXVII OUT of which whole last Section as likewise out of the other three or four immediately going before it and which proceed in a positive or affirmative way to prove by invincible Arguments the subjection of all Clergymen whatsoever de jure divino abstracting from humane civil Laws to the Supreme Civil Magistrate in all meer Temporal Causes even those which are Criminal and out also of those other eight or nine Sections immediately going before these five last which proceed in a negative way of denying rationally and solving most clearly all whatever hath been objected to the contrary or hath been said for the exemption of Clergymen as much as in Criminal causes either de jure divino or de jure humano Ecclesiastico or even by any other Law of man or that which is called Civil from the Supreme Civil Coercive power of Temporal even meer Lay Princes within their own respective Dominions out of all these and those Sections I say in all Thirteen or Fourteen or thereabouts which Treat of this Subject of Ecclesiastical either exemption or subjection and Treat of it by occasion and directly too against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines for censuring our often mention'd Remonstrance now in this present Section and according to my promise in my LXXI Section and to my purpose also all along in so long and continual a Discourse of Ecclesiastical exemption from my LX Section to this present LXXVI I am to infer my final Conclusion I mean the Procurator's second answer to this same fourth ground of the Louain Divines For that very second answer which you read before in my LXII and in the very beginning too of that same LXXII Section is the final conclusion of all as being it for the inferring of which and the well and sure grounding of which to the satisfaction of all judicious persons I have taken so much pains in so long a Discourse even this very answer which I now repeat here viz. That granting our said Remonstrance had either in its perclose the Petitionary address or in some other part even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption of the persons of Clergymen from the Supreme Civil or Temporal Coercive power of the Prince or Magistrate provided still it did not declare as verily it does not against that which is indeed the real true and well-grounded exemption of Clergymen from inferiour civil Judicatories according to the respective civil Laws or Customs of several Kingdoms and as far as the respective Laws or Customs do allow such exemption from such inferior Judicatories yet neither the Divines of Louain nor any other could justly censure it therefore even this I say is that final Conclusion I would and do and I think most clearly and necessarily too infer out of my whole Discourse of Ecclesiastical Exemption in so many long Sections from the very beginning of it Sect. lxiii And so at last I have ended all my Answers not only to the fourth ground of the Louain Divines but even to all their four and consequently also to all their at least chief grounds universally if the Agent Father John Brady who procured as well their long Censure which they still conceal from us as brought with him their short one hath told the Truth in this matter For being we could not hitherto by any art or means get a sight of their said first and long Censure wherein they give their grounds it is upon his credit and relation of so many particular grounds as being their onely at least chief grounds and his relation also that he remembred no more such nor other at all which they had and upon the credit likewise and relation of the very Reverend and Learned Father Brian Barry who saw and read and considered attentively the whole tenour of that very first Original and long Censure as who had been then himself at Louain when it was done and been there then chief Superiour of the Irish Franciscan Colledges both of Louain and Prague It is I say upon the Credit or Account of these Two Gentlemen both of them Religious persons of St. Francis's Order and Credit also of the relation they themselves gave my self in this matter that I have disputed hitherto against the said four as against the onely at least chief grounds of the said Louain Vniversity And yet I must confess That whether I had known or not known certainly that the Divines of Louain did specifie these for their own grounds I had nevertheless when occasion was offered to treat of their Censure both alledged these very grounds for it and cleared these self-same grounds as I have done because I knew and know the Divines of Louain could pretend no other especially being they declined the alledging or pretending for it any divine immediate right or rather ungrounded pretence of such right as Bellarmine is for in the Pope to dispose either directly or indirectly of the Temporal power of all at least Christian Princes and being they declined this of purpose for that reason I gave in the very perclose of my liii Section viz. least if they had given it as the ground or as any part of the grounds of their Censure against our Remonstrance and against that indispensable Obedience we acknowledge therein due to our King They should bring on themselves a more dangerous Censure of their own King and raise the power and just indignation of all Kings States and People even of their own communion to punish their temerity For who sees not that on the same ground they would or might challenge a power to the Pope to depose when it listed him all even the most Christian and Catholick Kings in the world as well as any Hereticks or Heathens Or who understands not how easily this may be demonstrated in their principles who challenge such a jus divinum to the Popes And yet also I must give my Reader this Advertisement here That in my Disputes against those very grounds whereon as is said the Divines of Louain insisted without pretending any such jus divinum over the Temporals of Kings and insisted partly at least for that reason I now gave But whether they had any other reason more divine or conscientious I know not I hope they had though having such they would very inconsequently proceed to their Censure That I say in my Disputes hitherto against those very four grounds I mean where I particularly though briefly Sect. liv dispute against the second viz. That of the Popes binding and loosing power divine as made a ground of their Censure and
Supremacy of the Pope whatever this be which the Catholick Church allows him For a pure Supreme Temporal in one and a pure Supreme Spiritual in another and over the same persons and causes are very truly certainly and evidently consistent The second Period or Clause being this And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal Affairs as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands and consequently being only and wholly of the obedience due by Catholick Subjects to Hâ—s Majesty and being it doth in formal express words determine this obedience to all Civil and Temporal Affairs as you see it doth there can be therefore no dispute of this Period The third Period also containing only in effect an acknowledgment of their resolution to acknowledge evermore and perform their Loyalty and true Allegiance to the King notwithstanding any contradiction by or from the Pope or by or from any other deriving power from the Pope or See of Rome for the words are these And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against Your Majesty or Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our Abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty I say that being the third Period hath no other words or matter it 's very evident that the whole entire Subject of it is nought else but obedience in Temporals because the Loyalty and true Allegiance of Catholicks to their at least Protestant Prince can be no other but obedience and fidelity towards Him in all Temporal matters and because that by these words Our Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty neither His Majesty Himself nor other Protestant nor any indifferent and judicious Catholick ever yet understood nor indeed ought to understand any other Loyalty or Allegiance but that which is in meer Temporals Nor can it be said upon any rational ground that because the Remonstrants do here acknowledge That notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope c. or any sentence c. or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal c. it must follow That they either deny the true spiritual Authority of the Pope over any Christians or any part of the world or even his Temporal within his own temporal Territories or within those Territories I mean which are His uncontroverredly even also as to the temporal Government or that they are resolved or that they promise or declare that they will disobey or oppose any just sentence or declaration of his obliging themselves or any other Nothing less then either doth follow by any kind of consequence whereas indeed no more but that they are persuaded that the Pope hath neither any true Spiritual nor any true Temporal power from God or man to devest the King of his Temporals or to hinder them from being His loyal liege men in such Temporals and that if he pronounced any sentence or gave any command to the contrary though it were even by Excommunication such sentence and such command and even such Excommunication would be as to all effects and purposes null and void because against the Laws of God and man and nature and not proceeding from any true power he had from God or from the Church of God but only from a vain and false presumption of power or authority in the case and a clave errante from a Key errant or which is the same in effect at most and at best from such an abuse of his authority as invalidates and annulls his sentence in all respects whatsoever They do not therefore at all hereby or in this Clause as neither in any other not even as much as virtually or consequentially in any manner soever deny or oppose his true and pure spiritual power of judging or binding or that which truly and really is in him to judge and bind spiritually or in a spiritual manner both King and Subjects or to pronounce even Excommunication against either themselves or the King if or when there shall happen any just cause thereof But they only deny 1. That he hath no kind of Temporal power acquired either by divine or humane Right that reaches to the King or his Crown People or Dominions 2. That the spiritual power which he truly and really hath either from God immediately or from the Church and which the same Catholick Church acknowledges to be so in him or which the Subscribers admit to be in him can have no such effect by Excommunication or other sentence or means as is the bereaving the King of his Temporals or as is the hindering the Subjects to obey or making it lawful for them in point of Conscience and Religion not to perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to His Majesty And that this third Period or Clause or words or meaning of them import no more but this or that such Clause or Subscribers of it cannot be rationally said to deny or declare against any true power of the Pope or any true or just or legal or even as much as only valid sentence of his I shew evidently thus by two several examples of the like expression used in another matter For without denying or opposing the Popes true power or any true just or valid or binding sentence of his his Sons may declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against their natural Father or his Fatherly Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their natural duty and filial obedience to their said Father And without denying or opposing the Kings true power or any true just or even any valid or binding sentence of his the very Subscribers themselves may declare as I for my part do here declare and I am sure all the rest are ready to declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the King or of His Crown or Kingdom or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by His Majesty His Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from Him or His Kingdoms against their spiritual Father the Pope or his true Papal Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their Canonical fidelity and all that true obedience they are bound unto by
people and that obedience also in Temporals which is in all other Subjects to their own respective Princes and States or an obedience which tyes them not to raise Tumults bear Arms c. against the Princes Person Royal Authority c Lastly Who sees not there was very much both expediency and necessity in these Kingdoms of England Ireland and Scotland but more especially in Ireland for Catholick Priests amongst such a world of Sectaries and under a Protestant King and State to make such a Remonstrance or one in such even formal words of disclaiming and renouncing in so much any Forreign power being the generality of Romish Priests in these Kingdoms or at least in Ireland have been these many Years and are as yet upon so many sufficient grounds suspected to own such a Forreign power both Papal and Princely Spiritual and Temporal as in their opinion at least may seem nay is able and may even justly pretend to free discharge and absolve them from all obligation of Loyalty even in the most Civil and Temporal Affairs whatsoever and give them leave and licence to raise Tumults bear Arms and offer violence to His Majesties Person Royal Authority and to the State and Government of both Ireland Scotland and England So that from first to last you see by this Discourse even the very grand Block of stumbling and chief Rock of scandal quite removed or rather see there hath never been any such at all in the Remonstrance being this fourth Clause or Period of it is free of any such and hath neither Block nor Rock in it self at all the Block and Rock being onely in false and even wilfully and maliciously false Representations of it by perverse Interpreters Fifth Period or Clause follows Being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to Your Majesty and to Your Ministers all the Treasons made against Your Majesty or them which shall come to our hearing but also to lose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person and Royal Authority and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what Forreign Power or Authority whatsoever But certainly here is nothing else Remonstrated but their being ready to perform their Duty in meer Civil or Temporal Affairs or which is the same thing I mean to perform a meer Civil and Temporal Duty and to perform it in a meer Civil way as all Subjects ought to their meer Civil or Temporal Prince To reveal Treason and defend the Kings Person Royal Authority and State even with the hazard of their Lives Are not both meer Civil and Temporal Duties As for that which some either too grosly stupid or too ridiculously malicious object 1. That Confessors who subscribe this Period or Clause of the Remonstrance declare they are ready and oblige themselves thereby to reveal in some case Sacramental Confessions and break the Sacred Seal of such Confessions made to them forasmuch as they say here They are ready to reveal all Treasons which shall come to their hearing And 2. That all sorts of Catholicks both Laymen and Clergymen subscribing this Clause bind themselves thereby to reveal that also which they cannot in Conscience reveal forasmuch as this Clause binds them to reveal all Treasons and we know 't is Treason by the Law at least in England 't is so to Reconcile any man to the Pope or to be Reconciled so to be made a Priest beyond the Seas by the Popes Authority and afterwards to return to the Kingdom of England as it is also Treason to deny that the King's Majesty of England is Supreme Governor in His Kingdom even in Ecclesiastical Causes and yet 't is plain they cannot nor ought not by any Law of Conscience as it stands not with the Laws of their Communion or Religion to reveal such matters To the first or that of Confessors I have already of purpose and at large answered in my LV Section where I Treated this Subject against the Third ground of the Louain Censure And to the Second or that of all Catholicks generally I say in brief here That Widdrington hath in his Theological Disputation Cap. 4. Sect. 3. upon the Oath of Allegiance most learnedly clearly and even diffusely answered this very Objection made in his time by some especially by Antonius Capellus Controvers 1. Cap. 2. pag. 30 seq against which or in answer to which the learned Widdrington or whoever was Author of those Works which go under his name in effect sayes That neither King James himself nor His Oath of Allegiance nor the Statute thereupon by the Clause of that Oath which tyes to the discovery of Treason did intend to bind or does indeed any way bind to the discovery of other Treason or Trayterous Conspiracy than that which is truly such by the Laws of God Nature and Nations even that which is truly such in all Catholick Nations against Catholick Princes but by no means to the discovery of such matters as are only of late by the peculiar Law of England called or made Treasons Treasonable or Trayterous Conspiracies and are not otherwise in their own nature against the natural Allegiance Truth Fidelity and Obedience of Subjects to their Prince And I say besides that neither any indifferent Catholick or even Protestant ever yet understood by the word Treason in such a Clause whereby Catholicks in an Oath or Declaration especially made by themselves oblige themselves to discover all Treasons any other kind of Treason but that which is such of it 's own nature or by all the Laws of God Nature and Nations or that which is such in all Catholick States and Kingdoms not that which is such by the positive Law of only this or that Kingdom or is only such by Laws made against even the very profession of the Roman Catholick Religion for such might be made Treasonable by an unjust Law of men were it left to the greater vote at least in some Contingencies and in some Countries And I say in the last place That words bind not against or besides the intention of such as speak or subscribe them not are by any Rule of Reason or Law to be construed so to bind whensoever the obvious and common sense of such words in all Nations or in the generality of Nations and Religions require no other intention but may subsist very well without any other intention and the Speakers and Subscribers of such words be thought to deal honestly and conscientiously and to be without fraud equivocation or mental reservation in such their speaking and subscribing Out of all which jointly taken with what I have said before on the other Clauses it is apparent enough That notwithstanding such capricious and foolish Objections the fifth Period contains no other than a promise or purpose of the Subscribers of being faithful in performing their natural Duty in Temporal matters without any kind
England or Ireland in temporal things as indeed I confess our said Remonstrance denies him to have any such 2. That albeit our Remonstrance denies the Pope any kind of power to dispense in our temporal or civil Allegiance yet it no way therefore or even for any cause or in any other clause whatsoever denies the Pope that binding or loosing power which is proper to the Church or which is any way given the Pope either by Christ himself immediately or immediately by the Church 3. That albeit our Remonstrance also tye even the Priestly Subscribers to reveal all Treasons which come to their knowledge as to be perpetrated hereafter yet it touches not on nor binds to the breach of the Sacramental Seal of Confession 4. That should it as indeed it ought not be expounded so as to renounce all Ecclesiastical both liberty and immunity of Church persons and places wherein either is contrary to the Supreme politick power of Princes in temporal matters over all persons and places whatsoever within their own respective Dominions and inasmuch as such power is necessary for the preservation of the Commonwealth either spiritual or temporal and is own'd by the municipal Laws yet it would not therefore nor doth for any cause or in any clause whatsoever disclaim in or quit in any wise the true Ecclesiastical Liberty or true Ecclesiastical Immunity And these being all the specifical grounds of charging our Remonstrance with Sacriledge in either sense of the word it must be consequential that these being overthrown as they are already and most clearly and most diffusely too the Censure of Sacriledge must be also overthrown as having no subsistence but in these four grounds or in some one of them For to ground a Censure of Sacriledge on the bare naming or mentioning at all the special Title of the great Bishop or on the word Pope expressed in our Remonstrance or on the words We disclaim and renounce all Forreign Jurisdiction be it Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from our faithful Loyalty and due Allegiance or to ground it I say on those two former words disclaim renounce of this clause as not Reverential enough or less Reverential than other words expressing the same sense is the greatest vanity and folly and nonsence can be Because Sacriledge either properly or improperly strictly or largely taken must be a sin and therefore against some true binding Law divine or humane and therefore also must be a violation of some Right belonging to divine persons or things and belonging to them by some Law divine or humane positive or natural and consequently too must be an injurious breach of their priviledge or right by some such Law But herein or in these bare words and sense of them as explained by the other following words is no sin because no such violation or breach being there is no Law to the contrary in the case nay being all Laws divine and humane positive and natural are for those words and senses of them as explain'd by the other words following Besides there was either an absolute necessity or at least very much expediency to use those very words Pope renounce disclaim as I have shewed before Now doth it matter at all that other words might be found more Reverential For as magis minus non variant speciâ—m or do not make that which is Reverential in the positive to be Irreverential in the negative So I am sure no rational man will say that we are under the sin of Sacriledge or other whatsoever bound to use at least in a doctrinal declaration and speaking of a third person the most or even the more Reverential words or even also any words at all of Reverence so we use none of Irreverence being there is no Law binding us in such a case to use such words but only words expressing truly and plainly such meaning as is lawful for us to express Lastly who sees not but that we commit no Irreverence if speaking of the King as a third person we call him barely the King Nor also any Irreverence if upon a just occasion we should say that we disclaim and renounce his Royal power as certainly we do inasmuch as it might seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from that obligation which we have on us by the general Canons or consent of the whole Catholick Church or at least of the Occidental or Western part of it to acknowledge and obey them in meer spiritual things and according to the true undoubted Canons of the same Church and in that sense wherein the universal Church understands the same Canons Or if upon a just occasion and being required we should renounce and disclaim in the King or in His Royal power inasmuch as he or it might seem able or should pretend to the preaching of the Word Ministration of Sacraments or to that spiritual power of binding and loosing sinners or of shutting and opening the gates of Heaven or of the Church which Christ gave to his Apostles and by his Apostles to the same Church that is to the meer spiritual Rectors and other meer spiritual Ministers of it And as I am sure this expression could not be at least in such case Irreverential much less Sacrilegious against the Sacred person of the King or His Sacred power Royal or against His Sacred unction so neither could that of ours in our Remonstrance and in that case which was really ours be any way Irreverential much less Sacrilegious or any way at all sinful or unlawful IV. My fourth and last Argument and Syllogism is against the virtual affixion of Schism or Heresie or both to our said Remonstrance by the often mention'd Louain Theological Faculty and Censure And I frame it thus No Remonstrance is either Schismatical or Heretical and much less both which contains not some proposition or some clause either formally or virtually Schismatical or Heretical for if it be both as it must contain both so consequently it must contain either Our said Remonstrance is a Remonstrance which contains neither that is which contains no such proposition or clause c. Ergo c. And because the Major of this last Syllogism is evident and even per se nota ex terminis amongst Divines and all men of Reason who understand the terms and withall consider that I take here Schismatical and Heretical or Schism and Heresie in the proper sense of the words or as they import a special sin distinct from all other sorts of sins and consequently because it needs no further evidence it s own native light abundantly sufficing I proceed to the proof of the Minor And first as to the first branch of it which is that of our said Remonstrances not being Schismatical In the deduction of which proof I will make even St. Thomas of Aquin himself 2. 2. q. 39. ar 1. ad 2. and
Dispensation Absolution or any other pretence or cause shall alter or make us recede from the same Fourth Paper and it given the DUKE by James Dempsy late Vicar Apostolick of Dublin and Capitulary of Kildare April 1. and same Year also 1664. present Lord Dillon and Milo Power FOrasmuch as we cannot own any Authority whatsoever that may be pretended in any wayes neither Spiritual nor Temporal derogatory from the right Power and Authority of His now Majesty CHARLES the Second and His lawful Successors we do therefore engage our selves to expose our Lives if and as often as occasion shall require in defence of His Majesty and His lawful Successors their Persons Crown Authority and Dignity against any Prince Potentate or power Spiritual or Temporal whatsoever who shall by force of Arms or any other way invade any of His Majesties Rights or Authority or Dignity in any of His Dominions and particularly we shall oppose to the utmost of our power all Attempts whatsoever tending to the depriving of His Majesty of any of His Rights Kingdoms or Dominions or the lessning of His Dignity Right or Authority in the Government thereof A fifth Paper yet and far more formal and material too than any of those four was given the DUKE in the month of May the same Year and given his GRACE as from or to be Subscribed by the Clergy both Secular and Regular of the City and Diocess of Dublin as in order also to and with promise of their endeavors and hopes it should be Subscribed by all the rest of Ireland so his GRACE would prevail with His MAJESTY to accept of it and be content with it in lieu of that subscribed and presented at London in 1661. But forasmuch as this Paper was not sign'd by any as neither was any of those other four only Daly's excepted but in that form wherein it was given the DUKE was disown'd generally even by the very Dublin Clergy and no man at all of them would own it as to the most material passages I say no more of it nor will trouble the Reader with a Copy here Yet this much I will advertise the Reader That if he be taken with the first perusal of any of the said Papers or Formularies he may be pleased to suspend his judgment till he first read also not only my observations on the Franciscan Formulary which he shall find in the last Section of this First Part of the First Treatise but also the Second Part of this same First Treatise which Second Part is of bare matter of Fact in the general Congregation held in 66. and read moreover my Second and Third brief Treatises following which declare the meaning of the Remonstrance framed and exhibited by that Congregation and likewise the meaning of the three first Sorbon late Propositions as applyed subscribed and presented by them also and lastly read the fifteen Propositions of the Doctrine of Allegiance which follow immediately the Fourth Treatise in this same Book And then let him judge in Gods Name according to Reason and Conscience and circumstances too of the place and persons whether any such Formulary as you see here be sufficient as from such a Clergy LXXX ABout this time being June 1664. the chief opposers of the Remonstrance of 1661. were grown too too insolent and not insolent only but extremely injurious to those who had subscribed and constantly maintain'd it as both expedient and necessary To such insolency and injuries they were encouraged by several Accidents of the last six or seven Months 1. That when the DUKE was to send with a Guard of Horse a certain Churchman of their Religion and Combination Prisoner from Dublin to Carrigfergus and for an Example to the rest albeit he was not made Prisoner upon account of not subscribing his GRACE upon Letters from the QUEEN or others at Court in behalf of the said Churchman did not command him so away as was intended but permitted him to enjoy all freedom at Dublin 2. That much about the same time another certain person whom I will not here name and a Churchman too by his calling as a Gentleman by his birth and one moreover who not only had some interest in several persons of Quality at Court and a power to persuade them but was ingenious and inventive enough to find out new pretences for any intrigue upon and for a promise made to him by some other Irish Churchmen of Five hundred pounds for his pains wrought so at Court and by his specious pretences that having to this purpose gone thither from Ireland he procured a Letter from one of the Secretaries of State to his Grace the Duke of ORMOND LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland to suspend his farther prosecution of any endeavours for getting that Remonstrance of 1661. sign'd or pressing any other such on the Irish Clergy Albeit I confess the DUKE soon after receiving this Letter having replyed got it revoked again And that the Gentleman who procured it came so short of his expectations of the Five hundred pounds promised him that being return'd those who promised him that Sum finding all his endeavours were suddenly thwarted by a later Letter did not give him as much as Five pounds nor Five pence of it For so himself told me as he told me the particulars of his own Acting to procure the foresaid Letter but told me then only when he failed of the money and not before 3. That notwithstanding the Jesuites Dr. Daly and James Dempsy were sent for appeared and refused to sign that Remonstrance of 1661. or come home in other words to it yet they were dismissed again and both they and all other even the most violent opposers of it were as free or had as much liberty to exercise their Functions both in Countrey and City as any of the most Religious and most Affectionate Subscribers of it 4. That some of the Catholick Lawyers their own Countreymen and Friends assured them They could not by Law suffer either Banishment Imprisonment or other penalty for not subscribing it because it was a Declaration which was not yet Enacted by any Law and therefore they could not by any kind of penalty be forced to it 5. And lastly That my LORD LIEUTENANT was then forced to go for England and consequently none to look much after that business till his return besides that his return at any time in the former capacity was uncertain These five several Accidents of the last six or seven Months taken all together jointly with the general persuasion grounded on former experience that if any of the opposers of that Remonstrance of 1661. should peradventure on that pretence or other whatsoever warranted by the Laws chance to be restrain'd or imprison'd the rest abroad at liberty would get and send them for such their opposition and constancy or rather obstinacy therein sufficient contributions to maintain them in Prison and that too much better than if they were at liberty and cry them up
was admonished and cited by name but the rest in general who had medled with that business for these are the very words of the Letter to appear at Bruxels or Rome to render an account of their actions That Father Caron and some other Fathers of those who had subscribed the Protestation and were then at London guessing neither could it be other than pure guess that they were the persons meant immediately by another Letter answered the Commissary General and in it gave their Canonical Exceptions against such a Citation and alledged very just Reasons why they could not obey it by going beyond Sea in case I say they were the persons whom he meant in his Citation which nevertheless was neither peremptory nor one for three neither did it contain a precept nor commination of Ecclesiastical Censure That after this Father Caron sent to Walsh in Ireland and the rest of the Subscribers there the same Citatory Letter of the Commissary General and withall a Copy of his Answer to it That Walsh upon the Receipt of them advising with the rest who were thought concerned if nevertheless we did not think amiss for to this very day we know not writ at large both in his own and the name of all the rest in Ireland to the said Commissary alledging very clear Exceptions both of Law and Fact Copies of all which Letters I have here annexed Lastly That Father James de Riddere Commissary aforesaid upon the Receipt of both our mentioned Answers sate quietly down and transmitted and devolved the whole business to the Minister General of the whole Order For so he answered me in a short Letter and so it appears by his perpetual silence in that matter to this very hour Where now is the disobedience here No man was Cited but only Caron and he but once and that neither under Precept nor Censure Caron answered once and alledged rational Exceptions and Reasons not only probable but necessary why he could not obey And the Superiours desisted from any farther trouble of Citations not replying the least word or shewing they were not satisfied In like manner Walsh and the other Subscribers answered too though neither named nor certain by any circumstance of words or things they had been Cited Where then is the disobedience Shall we say perhaps that those Prelates of the Church and other Ecclesiastical Judges and Subjects and even Lay-men are disobedient to the commands of the Pope who refuse to execute the orders even of the Pope himself though propos'd under penalty of the most grievous censures even Excommunication latae sententiae which intermination of Hell and eternal malediction with a formal precept of most strict obedience nay by the authority of the Holy Apostles St. Peter and Paul and in vertue of the Holy Ghost himself in case they see some cause I do not say every way necessary but only reasonable of not obeying before they declare this cause to his Holiness Plainly whoever say this are wonderful unskilful in the Canons in Divinity and all Law both Divine and Humane and Equity and Justice too Or perhaps are not our Superiours to be judged according to the Rule of the Law to consent in our case where they are silent Where then is the disobedience But my Lord be it supposed which can never be proved that we have in this point been guilty of some disobedience and if you will of such a disobedience as is properly called Contumacy and is a mortal sin and in our Seraphick Order a most grievous crime and in our Statutes of that kind which is reserved by Clement VIII which only then according to the said Statutes has place when after three Admonitions a man for a whole natural day resists the command understand a lawful one are we therefore to be termed Apostates or Schismaticks Those who desire and endeavour to persuade your Lordship this are to be esteemed not only ignorant but mad and full of malice and diabolical fury For who has ever read the Summist's Canonists or Divines where they treat of Schism or Apostacy cannot but see these spiteful Calumniators are blinded by the highest degree of malice nay if he have but attended to the common acception of words even of the most ignorant vulgar For no disobedience how obstinate soever it be makes a Schismatick to wipe first off the infamy of this Reproach unless accompanied with denial and denial too with a kind of Rebellion to be subject to the Pope or Church or acknowledge Her or Him for Superiour Which that learned Cardinal of Cajeta Thomas de Vio following other Canonists and Divines has expresly taught 2. 2. q. 39. ar 1. ad 2. These are properly called Schismaticks sayes St. Thomas in the same place who of their own free will and by design separate themselves from the Vnity of the Church and refuse to be subject to the Pope and communicate with the members of the Church subject to him It is not Schism sayes Cajetan here to refuse even pertinaciously to obey the Pope but to refuse to be subject to him as Head of the whole Church is Schism For mark diligently that to refuse the command or iudgment of the Pope may happen three wayes First on the part of the thing judged or commanded Secondly on the part of the person judging Thirdly on the part of the office of the judge himself If any one pertinaciously contemn the sentence of the Pope because he will not put in execution what the other has commanded for Example to abstain from such a War restore such an estate c. although he err most grievously nevertheless he is not for this a Schismatick For it happens and that often that a man will not do what his Superiour commands and yet retains this Acknowledgment that he is his Superiour But if any one do reasonably hold the person of the Pope for suspected and therefore refuse not only his presence but even immediate judgment and be ready to receive from him Judges not suspected he neither incurs the crime of Schism nor any other fault For it is natural to provide against harms and beware of dangers And the person of the Pope may govern Tyrannically and so much the more easily by how much he is more powerful and stands in fear of none to punish him on earth But when a man refuses the command or judgment of the Pope upon the account of his office not acknowledging him for his Superiour although he believe him to be so he is then principally a Schismatick And according to this sense are the words of this Text viz. of St. Thomas supra to be understood For disobedience how pertinacious soever it be does not make Schism unless there be Rebellion against the office of the Pope or Church so that one refuse to be subject to him to acknowledge him for our Superior c. Thus far Cajetan and with him all Divines Canonists and Summists If I say we look upon
and by his blessed Disciples preach't and declared to the Gentiles of the whole Earth But why this Discourse of the way of the Cross of the way of Religion and Christian Faith to an Abbot of Mount Royal 'T is paint not substance with which you colour things You pretend Religion but intend it not and so with notorious Sophistry alledge a not cause for a cause In St. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations of Peace where he treats of the great differences which then were amongst the Clergy especially the Bishops I find the true cause of that vehement spirit of yours and your and his Eminence Cardinal Barberin's opposition Besides ignorance in many of your Informers and Whisperers there is impetuous anger my Lord and hatred and spite and envy and there is avarice my Lord and pride and ambition and a blind passion to domineer and the glory pomp and vanity of the World But this too is it not o' th freest I confess it but 't is a freedom which the thing requires and which becomes a Christian Priest and old Divine and faithful Subject of His King in a Controversie no less great than unhappy between some of the Clergy with the whole Laity with supreme Princes themselves and Kings and Emperours of the World concerning Right in Temporals Nevertheless to say and write as I have done to the Internuncio of his Holiness and of a Cardinal Is it not misbecoming This I deny For as for your Lordship if in dignity as a Commendatory Abbot and Internuncio of the Pope you go before me yet in Order and spiritual power and in the Hierarchy you come behind me Nor is there in that respect so much difference betwixt a Bishop and the meanest Priest as betwixt you and me Nevertheless I respect and reverence an Abbot and much more an Internuncio nay honour your person without those titles if you respect me as is fitting For what concerns his Eminence as I have a great veneration for the height of the Sacred Episcopal Office as instituted by Christ our Saviour and the Dignity of Cardinal as constituted by the Supreme Bishops so I have a far greater for both in the person of his Eminence Cardinal Fr. Barberin and so much the greater as by the rule of our seraphick Father I know my self obliged by a stricter tye to reverence not only the Governor Protector and Corrector but as I am informed a Friend and Patron and singular Benefactor too of our Order and a man besides if this unhappy Controversie had not lessned his esteem pious and good Notwithstanding I maintain I have used no greater freedom against either than becomes the Cause than becomes Walsh or any other Priest who is a Divine and pious in the same Cause The Cause I must confess is in one respect proper to Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers but in more and more important respects 't is the Cause of a Kingdom of the British Empire of England Scotland and more particularly Ireland nay of all Common-wealths Kingdoms and Kings of Christian Faith over and above and by consequence of the universal Church People and Clergy and all Priests 'T is a Cause besides which for the side you take is wonderful bad and most false which has long since been exploded condemned adjudged and adjudged as seditious scandalous erroneous contrary to the Word of God Heretical and moreover dangerous to Kings and People destructive of the peace of the World apt even to make the Pope and Church of Christ be abominated hated and abhorred And yet so I say or as such adjudged exploded and condemned in all ages all times from the dayes of Gregory the VII to this present and at present also and that most of all by renowned Prelates famous Doctors Universities Churches most Kingdoms and Commonwealths through all Europe preserving notwithstanding the Faith and Communion of Rome Besides 't is a Cause for which and for that part I mean which you have undertaken to maintain albeit that were but only for the Popes indirect power and that also only in some cases over the Temporals of Christian Princes its most learned and eminent Patron Cardinal Perron demanded no more but that as problematical or as uncertain and doubtful it might pass uncensured and demanded this in an Assembly general of the Three Estates in France Lastly 't is a Cause which for that very unwarrantable part the Internuncio and Cardinal do so persuade urge press and to their power constrain also to be embraced and this with all manner of art and craft with all manner of industry and fraud but yet onely in a corner of the World amongst a company of ignorant Islanders the miserable Irish I mean far from the great Continent and but there indeed where such arts are not so well known that not content with the late and entire destruction of a miserable Nation procured by such frauds and fictions for Faith forsooth they would again ensnare them and would rather have them lose for ever the present small such as it is and all future hope of being restored to their Countrey or Religion or as I gladly would to the publick and free exercise of their Religion under a most clement Prince or even to any either temporal or spiritual advantages then not to embrace not believe this most impious Assertion and believe it as an Article of Faith without which they cannot be saved And would have them serve over again their wretched slavery undergo Prisons Banishments and Death And as heretofore in the persecution of the Vandals would have the whole Clergy Bishops Priests Religious as Traytors Rebels and Outlaws either be hanged at home or banishâ—t again to Beggery abroad leaving none in that Island of Saints to baptize the new born or confirm the baptised or absolve those of years or anoint the dying or consecrate or administer the holy Host to any Now if Walsh have expostulated defended and reproved as above and this after two nay almost three years of patience and silence in such a Cause against such an assertion such enormous errours and impostures such more then abominable plots and attempts who that considers the thing as it deserves can object against him that he has spoken more freely than became him But the Cardinal is Protector Corrector and Governour of the Order of the Minors and by consequence has the power of a Prelate and lawful Superiour over Walsh and yet against him much here is said I have granted this before But is it therefore not lawful for Walsh in this or the like case to use the freedom which he here uses or what do you think of St. Peter what of St. Paul what of that reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul St. Paul was the last of the Apostles was called not the ordinary way was the Thirteenth was one who said He was not worthy the name of an Apostle St. Peter was the first chief greatest Prince of the Apostolical Order and Prince
where Pope Innocent the X. was to pass cryed to His Holiness against him Justitia Pater Sancte and together exhibited a Memorial accusing him not only in general of being a Correspondent of the English Hereticks Patron of Apostates Enemy to the Catholick King but in particular also of other several even the most infamous personal Crimes For albeit his own true innocency and strong belief thereof amongst the generality even of the great Ministers at Rome as also the inward guilt of those Calumniators and other the Diabolical contrivers of their malice soon dispersed both the raisers and contrivers and the cloud it self of infamy which they had so gathered and raised against him yet he took this procedure of his Countreymen so to heart that he carried the grief thereof with him not long after to his Grave And yet I must here tell my Reader that the onely true original motive of so vile an enterprize against him was no other but a Letter they understood to have been written out of Ireland to him in the year 1649. by the Marquess of Ormond then Lord Lieutenant of that Kingdom wherein he was desired That in pursuance of his other good offices for His King and Court he would take also special care thenceforth to see the abuses both of the Irish Clergy in general and particularly of those of his own Order rectified by more religious and loyal Superiours than those were that of late times had by their unchristian doctrine and bad example well nigh utterly ruin'd their Countrey and mightily scandal'd their Church And so having done with those Heads of some few particular instances which out of a far greater nay indeed prodigious number if all were known of those of persecution abroad I thought fit to give here as they occurr'd to remembrance now I proceed to the remainder of the more general causes of that paucity enquired after Wherefore you are now to observe 11. That in the year 1655. the said Nuntiotist party having as to the affairs of their own Countrey all power at Rome prevail'd at last with His Holiness then sitting in the Chair Alexander the VII to grant a Bull of extraordinary Delegation dated at Rome Aug. 27. 1655. directed to and for the most vehement and thorow-paced of all the Irish Bishops of the Nuncio's party then surviving except peradventure Antony Mageoghan the Franciscan Bishop formerly of Cluanmacnoise but now about this time Translated to Meath But it was supposed his own act to be left out of that Bull because not only that he foresaw the employment might prove in time if not invidious at least very odious but also that himself living then at Rome and indeed the onely Irish Bishop at that time there was the chief procurer of it However to these four viz. one of each either Temporal or Ecclesiastical Province of Ireland John sirnamed Cullenan if I be not mistaken Bishop of Raphoe in Vlster Walter Lynch Bishop of Cluanfert in Connaught Edmund Dempsy alias Deemusvy Bishop of Leghlin in Leinster and Robert Barry Bishop of Cork in Munster though all four even that very time as alwayes after till they all every one dyed living abroad in Banishment and wide enough dispersed and separated the first in Brussels second in Hungary third in Galicia or elsewhere in Spain and fourth at St. Malos in France to these four I say a plenary Apostolical power was delegated and given by the said Bull to reconcile and absolve in forma Ecclesiae consueta all Irish whatsoever that appearing penitent for having opposed the Nuncio in Ireland or consequently incurr'd his Censures would come to any of them humbly submit crave absolution and perform what the Delegate should impose This Bull although granted through several false Informations besides many more false suppositions as out of the very tenour thereof was and is manifest to such as knew the Transactions either of the grand Controversie at home in Ireland or of the prosecution of the Appeal at Rome but more especially granted through that of those two notoriously false informations 1. That the Nuncio had to his Excommunication and Interdict the concurrence of the lawful Delegates and Sub-delegates then of the other Irish Archbishops and Bishops in general 2. That Innocent the X. had rejected or condemned the Appeal as frivolous both which material falsities rendred that whole Bull void yet the foresaid John Bishop of Raphoe living then at Bruxels and entituling himself Vice-Primate of all Ireland by the advice of his factious Party in Flanders caused to be immediately Printed with a Preface or Admonition prefixed to it Ad populares Hibernos excommunicatos both in his own name and in that also of his other Three fellow Delegates but a Preface much yet more injurious false injurious and malicious too than the Bull it self as either in it self or as proceeding from the Informers Procurers or Framers of it considered For as for the Pope himself that granted it we must suppose neither injury nor falsity nor malice in him as to his grant but that injury only of granting any such Bull at the instance or upon the information of one side But for the admonishing Delegates or rather perhaps the onely one of them that in the name of all the rest prefixâ—d the said Preface or Admonition you may judge of their justice and charity and somewhat also of the whole of that excellent piece of theirs and may judge of all I say out of this one passage of it paraphrasing on the words in forma Ecclesiae consueta inserted in that Bull. Upon which words they speak thus Quinto denique ut alia omittam in eodem Brevi habetur poenitentes debere absolvi in forma Ecclesiae consueta ut scilicet denudatis scapulis virgas excipiant pro offensa admissa satisfaciant aliasque subeant poenas quae in Rituali Romano exprimuntur And yet that Bull although so plainly subreptitious and void and although moreover so paraphrased all along as tamquam ex ungue Leonem you may judge out of that one passage yet being Printed published and dispersed amongst all the Irish in all parts of Europe and not only in Flanders or at home in Ireland amongst the miserable but still divided both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks and in such a time and conjuncture of things when there was no hopes of better dayes for those against whom it was procured we must not wonder much if it and the other endeavours of the Publishers join'd with it made them but too too many Proselytes though rather for fear and out of despair than love or inward persuasion nor wonder if those Proselytes having purchased some little quiet though but little credit or trust thereby not even amongst their Adversaries were loth even after the Kings Restauration or by signing the Remonstrance to hazard that quiet any more until they were sure to be protected by the King and his Laws against the insulting power of Rome and malice of
the Lay-people of the same extraction to any design of such nature than a whole Hundred if not than a Thousand of the other could or can Which being well enough known to the Roman Court is it indeed and no other consideration at all of justice or equity in the case hath made that Court as sometimes informer dayes when the carrying on of their designs requir'd it so lately again since the year 1668. seemingly for some part and only for the present occasion and necessity decline Ferral's advice in that one point of such a National distinction so universally taken or observed without any discretion But to leave this digression how useful soever and come to a conclusion of all I would be at to answer the first Querie proposed in the beginning of this Section you are now in the last place to observe what did and must have followed or been annexed to so many other causes or so many other previous influential and effectual both dispositions and predeterminations viz. 13. That while those Loyal Irish Ecclesiasticks who in the grand Controversie with the Nuncio declared and stood firmly against him were every day more and more wasting and decaying at home since the coming in of Owen O Neill â—s Party about the end of the year 1649. but much more also abroad since they had been forc'd to Forreign Countries on the other side the Nuncio Party both Regular and Secular not only at home for the generality of them preserved themselves from the undistinguishing Sword of the Parliament Souldiery by retiring still into the fastnesses of the Countrey Boggs and Woods and Mountains in their own quarters when the former as being most of them Natives and Inhabitants of the Cities Corporations and other the more civilized Champion Countries seized first by the Parliament could not or would not do so but abroad in other Countries recruited mightily as having all the Superiours of their Faction and all the Irish Monasteries and Seminaries in their possession and all the authority and power of the Court of Rome to favour them and recruited so mightily I say by a young Frye of their own inclinations received into the Monasteries Colledges and Seminaries bred and brought up throughly paced in their Principles than ordered Priests Professors Confessors Preachers c. and after that besides very many of the old ones their masters sent home as so many Apostles into Ireland one after another as soon as there seem'd any quiet or harbour for them there even many of them before the King had been restored but in far greater numbers immediately after His Restauration Behold Reader in Thirteen several Heads and most of them complex and all mark'd or distinguish'd by so many arithmetical numbers in the margin a final full and satisfactory Answer to the former of the two Queries you have in the beginning of this incidental or occasional Section that former being in effect this How it came to pass that so many Irish Ecclesiasticks of the Roman Communion both appeared and prevail'd so as they did against the Pope â—s Nuncio in Ireland and all his Party and Censures in the year 1648. and yet now for so many years after His Majesties happy Restauration of so great a Body as at least 2000 Irish Ecclesiasticks at home in Ireland Sixty nine onely have been found to appear professing openly as much as in Temporals their due Allegiance to His Majesty by Signing the Loyal Irish Remonstrance presented to His Majesty in the year 1661 For although I have of purpose and to avoid too much prolixity omitted many things more which might have been truly and materially said in answer yet I am sure I have said enough here to inform any rational indifferent person how or by what means that which is demanded or enquir'd after came to pass on either side and how so great a change of the Irish Clergy happen'd in Fourteen years from 1648. to 1662. for in this year 1662. the grand opposition which continues ever since against the Remonstrance begun And have given enough of the true motives occasions causes and degrees of that change And further yet have said enough to persuade any indifferent man that the whole of those very motives occasions means causes and degrees of either side may be reduced to or referr'd as springing from one of these two more general causes 1. The Civil Magistrates Authority Power Sword being careful and vigorous and executive in supporting and protecting those Ecclesiasticks that stood firmly for it against the usurpations and encroachments of Rome and likewise in prosecuting and punishing all other Ecclesiasticks who being meer dependents of and Emissaries from the Roman Court were manifestly known to undermine the Civil Power and Magistracy 2. The same Temporal Magistrates or Governours being grown careless or remiss therein or having not force or strength enough left to execute and having at last through Gods unsearchable pleasure or permission been utterly disabled ruined and come to be no more if not in title only the Magistrate or Governour The former is sufficiently grounded in what you have before from number the 1. to number the 6. And albeit the latter even as to all Parts be also in the following numbers or paragraphs abundantly shewn yet I think it not amiss to give more particularly yet of the First Part and perhaps Second too thereof the very first original and manifest proof whence all the rest followed which I my self as having been singularly concern'd have observed when it was but yet under deliberation It is and was the weakness of our Temporal Government in yielding in the year 1648. to Owen O Neill and Bishop of Clogher's demand as the first preliminary Article of their Treaty with the Marquess of Ormond then His Majesties Lieutenant of Ireland That all who had opposed the Nuncio's Censures or in their behalf the Twelve Roman-Catholick Commissioners of Peace should humbly Petition the Pope for a general Absolution from the said Censures Indeed Ferral sayes in his Book to the Congregation de propaganda it was absolutely the very first of the Articles concluded then by Owen O Neill's Party without mentioning whether it was only preliminary or otherwise This much I know That when after the fatal breach at Rathmines and taking of Droghedagh by storm and the revolt of the Sea Ports in Munster and the march to and storm and surprizal of Wexford by Cromwel and consequently after Owen O Neill's further application to the Parliament of England had been rejected and the Cessation with him notwithstanding his service to them had expired that when I say in this conjuncture the Lord Lieutenant then Marquess of Ormond had sent the Bishop of Ferns and Sir Nicholas Plunket as Commissioners to offer Conditions to and treat and conclude with Owen O Neill and the Army and Party till then siding with him these two Commissioners writ back to Kilkenny and either to his Excellency or to the rest of those called
the General Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks at Kilkenny during Petrus Franciscus Scarampus's Negotiation there from Pope Vrban the VIII and before Rinuccini came under Innocent he was created Bishop of Ferns In the year 1666 when the fatal Congregation of the Irish Clergy assembled at Waterford under the said Nuncio Rinuccini for rejecting as they did reject the first Peace he was Chancellor of that same Congregation Soon after this it was that I had the honour of some little personal acquaintance with him and that upon a very extraordinary occasion indeed viz. The Nuncio having presently after both possessed himself of all even the very Supreme temporal power of the Confederates and which was consequential no less suddenly design'd the utter ruine of the King's Lieutenant at Dublin resolved therefore to command away out of Dublin and all the English quarters every one of the Priests that lived there for the comfort of the Lay-Catholick inhabitants For besides many other motives the Nuncio had heard that all the chief if not every one of the Romish Priests remaining at Dublin especially Mark Rochford a Dominican Peter Darcy a Franciscan Thomas Quin a Jesuite three eminent men and famous Preachers with some five more being sent for had given the Lord Lieutenant under their hands That the Roman-Catholick Inhabitants of Dublin not only might but ought in conscience to fight in defence of that Town against the Nuncio's Army and to be in all such matters faithfully obedient to his Excellency Wherefore by command from the Nuncio but by whose contrivement I know not a small Committee of three was appointed viz. our present Bishop of Ferns Walter Enos Dr. of Divinity Author of the Book against the Peace of 1646. and my self to consider of and draw in writing a Formulary of precept and censures to command all the Romish Clergy Secular and Regular every one residing either in Dublin or elsewhere under the said Lord Lieutenants command or power to withdraw totally out of all such quarters and retire into those of the Catholick Confederates On this occasion and first of any time that I remember my judgment of and disaffection to the Nuncio's cause did appear to them For I not only opposed that design with unanswerable reasons and a plain assertion too that there was no power from Christ not even in the universal Church of Chirst to lay such a command on the said Clergymen or others in the case but also broke it utterly so that there was no more of any such general precept Within some few months after this Bishop * Having been also presently or at least soon after the rejection of the said Peace of 1666. made a Supreme Counsellor and Nicholas Plunket Esq as persons in all respects worthy of and answerable to the employment were sent Ambassadors to Rome from the Confederates to crave assistance from His Holiness Innocent X. for carrying on the War now that to please that Court they had rejected the first Peace though otherwise concluded with the King and even publish'd and accepted both at Dublin and Kilkenny However about the end of the year 1648 being return'd to Ireland bringing with them some holy reliques but no money and finding the affairs of the Confederates wholly altered the Nuncio and Owen O Neal's party worsted Inchiquin's Army declared for the King the Marquess of Ormond as the King 's Lieutenant living in his own Castle at Kilkenny a general Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks sitting in that Town and treating of and concluding a second peace with his Excellency the Nuncio retired or rather forc'd to flie as far off as Galway expecting only the issue of that general Assembly in a word the generality of the Nation crying for Peace with the Protestants of the Royal party the said two Ambassadors and consequently our Bishop of Ferns saw it was but reason to give immediately in person the best account they could of their Negotiation to those Estates assembled in whose name they were sent to Rome as only by Letters they did after to the Nuncio And if I be not mistaken that given to the Assembly did either hasten or facilitate the conclusion of the later Peace then concluded in 1648. This I remember well that after all Articles thereof had been agreed upon in the Assembly and that it was thought fit to call an Ecclesiastick Congregation of all the Prelates then at Kilkenny and some other Divines to give the Clergy in particular all the best satisfaction could be before all things had been finally determined and this Congregation sate my self being one of those Divines and our Bishop of Ferns placed in the Chair he spoke excellently well to allay the scruples of such Clergymen as seem'd to apprehend or made a Bugbear of the Nuncio's dissent nay and to that end amongst other Arguments produced a Copy of the Articles of Peace lately before concluded between the great Catholick Emperour of Rome and the Protestants of Germany Articles quitting even the very spiritual Jurisdiction of so many Churches to Lutherans and yet Articles granted by the said Emperour yea notwithstanding an express Protestation made by the Popes Nuncio against them and Peace founded on them The later Peace of Ireland being hereupon immediately concluded in pursuance of the Articles thereof our Bishop of Ferns was made and sate one of the Twelve Commissioners of Peace for the whole Catholick part of that Nation as who were to abide in the nature of a Council with the Lord Lieutenant until Parliament but invested with a greater power than that of bare Counsellors In that quality and while fortune smiled on the Royal Affairs in that Kingdom for Six months after the conclusion of the second Peace the Bishop seem'd constant enough to his new engagement But after the breach of Rathmines and so many other disasters which in the year Forty nine followed and that he with Sir Nicholas Plunket being sent special Commissioners from the Lord Lieutenant to Owen O Neill had upon Treaty brought in the Northern Army and yet nothing mended not even for so many Months after in the year 1650. but all things daily worse and worse either the common calamity of the Nation or special and particular of his own beloved Diocess of Ferns and County of Wexford the County so considerable indeed in the dayes of the Confederacy that it paid to the publick Threescore thousand pounds one year only had the strong Fort of Duncannon the great Towns of Wexford and Rosse besides so many other Corporations as together with the two Knights of the Shire made Eighteen Parliament and General Assembly men and the County moreover wherein as he seemed to have been for many years the only chief and principal leading man so whereby he was rendred throughout the whole Nation a man of more than ordinary credit and esteem when I say the Bishop saw so great a change both in the publick and his own private Affairs by the
to give a right account to my God of a sacred depositum the charge of Souls committed by him to my trust and care Which Commission can hardly be discharged by me without some toleration and liberty Both I may in some measure enjoy supported by his Grace 's protection against surmises murmurations calumnies and many vapours of that kind which will be elevated from the envy of men that will hate me more for being the man I am than for my enmity against the Commonwealth Such men I foresee will seek to black my innocency and in such an article I hope his Graces benignity will be a refuge to me Truly if a person of my mind who intends not abire in consilio impiorum neque in via peccatorum stare in pondere mensura Deo quod Dei est reddere quod Caesaris Caesari if such an one may not pass his dayes unafflicted I may well say that is a Land of misery But let us suppose the worst which I hope will not happen to wit that his Excellency by my Letter and clear intention will not be satisfied if so I shall truly hold my fortune hard having suffered so much and so sharp afflictions and reproaches in Rome Spain and Flanders upon the score of being taken for a great friend and servitor of his and that I may use the language of those vexed me a principal Leader in the Anti-catholick Ormonian Faction Collige ex ungue leonum by the confession of Father Patrick Hacquet But one thing which is more home I will say to you which I never said before in verbo Sacerdotis verum dico I have done his Grace a certain good turn that claims and merits I dare boldly aver it a greater recompence than what I now demand from him or ever shall If that with the contents of my Letter and the good intents also I bear to heart shall not be able to pacifie his jealousie and anger I will say my luck is harder than that of many others that have more offended him and less served him But if it shall come to that extremity what is to be done I seek advice from you that is a Priest and Missioner whether I am to stay where I am or adventure unto that Countrey In my opinion it would be the resolution of a languishing spirit if the fear of men in such an article would be able to deter a Bishop from doing the work of God and attending his flock You know Kings themselves have no power to hinder those divine Functions If I am put to it in this matter I conceive my best answer will be that of the Apostles obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus If St. Paul said vae enim mihi est si non Evangelizavero he said so quia ei incumbebat necessitas Evangelizandi what shall I be able to say for my self in the last day if I shall in this short day of life leave off this Divine duty for the fear of men how shall I escape that anger of God what priviledge can I pretend to the Apostle had not I going into that Land with the Spirit of peace and meekness for attending the saving of Souls in all humility and charity intending to give all due obedience to my Prince in Civilibus and to all those he shall appoint to govern under him and to pay each one the Tribute due unto him cui timorem timorem cui honorem honorem and in all my functions and proceedings so to carry my self as none shall have just cause to complain of me and I confidently hope God will give me grace and power to perform all I here promise Of this long Letter which will I fear weary you in the perusing as it did me in the penning you may impart to his Grace what you think fitting who may not as I conceive be offended with any branch thereof I conclude all with that noble saying of an ancient Sage Nocens veretur legem innocens fortunam I may fear the last being confident no just Law will ever do me harm My great freedom is an evident argument of my confidence in you which indeed is great for my opinion of you is better and far more benign than that of many others c. The rest were onely private business and salutes to Friends After which he subscribes thus Reverend Father Your true Friend And affectionate Servant Nico Fernen St. James 's in Galicia 19 Sept. 1665. His submissive Letter from the same place but dated Sept. 22. the same year to His Grace the Duke of ORMOND Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of IRELAND May it please your Grace A Friend from them parts advised me to write a Submissive humble Letter begging pardon of your Grace and that after such a Letter nothing would remain to obstruct my going home and your Graces Protecting me hereafter Your noble inclination and desire of making Peace even with those have offended you is so manifest as I presume your Grace is of Seneca's mind who said penitens est fere innocens being then in my self truly penitent for any thing coming from me that hath or could have displeased your Grace I have made a fair step to be innocent in your Consideration and I truly make account my luck is good that am to appease an anger that of itself begins to be pleased I do not say this with intent to tickle or flatter your Graces ears for this is not my Custome who have as is well known to all that know me offended men more by freely speaking truth then pleased them by flattering them I will say one thing more perhaps in some mens judgment insolent that displeasing your Grace I am in less danger then offending a man of a low condition that should have any power to avenge himself of me The reason is evident because the low man Dum cuncta timet cuncta ferit But the anger of great Men is like a Thunder and Lightning that bringeth more fear than destruction To come nearer the Point as a Christian I may not deny a rational satisfaction even to the meanest person injured by me Leaving that so the question is What is the Crime I should seek Pardon for how great and when committed against your Grace for what hath passed before the Peace if not Murther or some black doings of which I am no way guilty the Act of Oblivion giveth me and all a freedom and safety Since the Peace I have faithfully observed the Articles thereof and never betrayed the common Interest There is not any man living can accuse me that way But the doings of Jamestown are objected as Treasonable a breach of the pacification and an attempt of pulling down Kingly Authority I was then upon a common bottom and can truly say for one and all of us that me no way intended to despise your Person or Dignity or act an thing against Kingly Authority or the Interest of the
truely declare it is not their or it is not our Doctrine though in an other sense they cannot nor intended so to do And for to justifie this declaration distinction or equivocation they will according to the principles of equivocating Divines readily make use of that passage or words of our Saviour in the Gospel mea doctrina non est mea sed ejus qui mifit me Patris And yet when they shall find it for their advantage they will no less readily acknowledge that their intention also was to declare by those words that what follows is not the doctrine of even those very Doctors or Popes nor consequently of the Church And yet will acknowledge too this much without any prejudice to their own opinion or judgment in the points controverted and without holding themselves obliged by this Declaration understood as it ought or may not to practice accordingly For all they say in this first part of that first Proposition is We the under-named do hereby declare that it is not our doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second They will here presently when they please and shall think fit have recourse to the several meanings of the word Authority And without any necessity of using the distinction which yet is obvious enough and frequent with them of authority in fact and authority of right they will say although not with the Doctors of Lovaine in their censure of the Remonstrance of 61. that they declare it is not the doctrine of the Romae Church that the Pope hath any authority which is purely or meerly temporal or even humane at all or by humane right ways or title acquired over the King in his temporal Affairs And that neither hath he any Divine or Spiritual which is ordinary over him in such or which at his pleasure may at all times and in all cases dispose of the Kings Temporals And after this or notwithstanding any thing here declared they will say with Bellarmine that all the most supream right or authority challenged by Popes to depose Princes and dispose of their Temporals is entire and safe enough For this grand Authority indeed they have or challenge thereunto universally is not in the rank of temporals nor in the order of humane Authorities but in that of wholy spiritual and purely divine and supernatural Is not ordinary but extraordinary or as Innocent the 3d. speaks casual only that is in some particular great and extraordinary cases or emergencies and this too ratione peccati alone as the same Innocent further saith And consequently they will say that by any such general though negative Declaration or by a Declaration in such general words only or against any Authority in general to be in the Pope this very specifical this extraordinary casual spiritual celestial divine Authority in such great unusual contingencies must never be thought to be declared against according to the maxime of Lawyers and Law before given in my Exceptions to their Remonstrance For which saying they will further yield this reason That without any such specifical meaning intended their said Declaration or Proposition may be useful to shut out of doors the Popes humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right said to have been acquired and by the present Faculty of Lovaine maintained to continue still in force to these Kingdoms by donation submission prescription feudatary title and forfeiture And that such Declaration or one against such humane pretences in particular to his Majesties Kingdoms of England or Ireland nay and Scotland too was enough to be expected from them by his Majesty without putting them to the stress of resolving on that other supereminent divine pretence and which really is to all other at least christian Kingdoms in the world or all those of other Kings and in such extraordinary cases as well as to his Majestie 's They have yet in store a third explication equivocation distinction but as fallacious as if not more than any of these two already given And I call it a third way of evasion though as to the first part of it and as to the matter in it self of that first part however the words be different it varyes not or but very little from what is already said in effect It does in indeed in the second Part as will be seen They will as occasion requires or they find it expedient say nothing of the first on the words our doctrine nor of the second on the words authority in temporal affairs But when they come to Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will instantly tell you as Logicians or Sophisters of their specificative and reduplicative sense And that these words bear it And that the cause it self and the conjuncture of circumstances make their recourse to this kind of distinction very lawful They will therefore when they please to proceed a third way allow it is not the doctrine not even of the Catholick Church that the Pope hath any authority not even spiritual or divine in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will I say allow this Proposition or this part of that first complex Proposition but allow it only in sensu reduplicative in the reduplicative sense or as the reduplication falls on these last words Our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second In the specificative they will deny it and withal deny it was their meaning what ever the Sorbonists meaned by the like to their own King to declare at any time or by that Proposition that the Pope had not some authority in temporal affairs over our King considered as a Criminal or Sinner though in such not any over him considered only as our Soveraign Lord and King Charles the Second They will further say that while the Pope himself or people or both joyntly suffer or tollerat Charles the Second as King the Pope hath no authority in temporal affairs over him But yet when he finds it convenient and necessary in any of those great extraordinary emergencies not to tollerat him any longer he may by his divine authority in such cases depose and deprive him of all his temporals together and transfer the right of them to another and this by way of Jurisdiction over his person as a criminal and sinner not over his person as a King not criminal or sinful They will further say and though I meaned it hitherto as the second part of this third way yet it may be also and is a fourth way of explication or evasion that allowing it not to be the doctrine of the Church that the Pope hath any Authority of Jurisdiction Power or Superiority properly such in temporal affairs over the King considered either in the reduplicative or specificative sense and allowing too that themselves intended to declare so much by the said former part of their first Proposition yet the last refuge is alwayes open A Power and Authority in the
Catholick faith and Christian Religion That all the Catholick Vniversities of France which are Eight in number and many more which are in Poland Germanie State of Venice c. do not otherwise controvert this proposition For they hold it positively for certain and undeniable ever since the Council of Constance that a general Council is above the Pope That finally not so many Catholick Vniversities alone maintain this maxime but even the whole Gallican Church nor the whole Gallican Church alone but the Vniversal or Catholick Church in its latitude and by its lawful Representatives even in two general Councils that of Constance I mean about 300 years since and that of Basile immediately after or within 12 years after have amongst their Canons defined this to be a catholick truth All which joyntly with what is said before in this matter if the congregation had seriously considered it is like they would have declined their vain pretence of a School question of Divinity controverted in all catholick Vniversities of the world as they speake What more I have to say on this Subject of that 5th proposition abstractedly in it self considered though by occasion of the said first unreasonable reason of the Congregation or of their absolute refusal to subscribe it upon this or any other ground whatsoever they know best what that ground was will more conveniently be said in a distinct Treatise which will be the 5th in order of this work and followes immediatly after my answers to their allegations for not signing the sixth and laâ—â— proposition and after some few more additional propositions of my own added there Secondly or to their second specifical reason whereby they labour to prove the Subscription of this 5th proposition to be not onely impertinent in it self but dangerous in its consequents and unseasonable c Its answered that indeed to take of any question so as this talke in all the circumstances of it without any profit quiet or other good to the King or his Subjects should be thought in â—ight reason to be a cause of breeding new jealousies or renewing the old between the King and his people or of giving the least overture to such odious and horrid disputâ— concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late experience hath taught us would be now unseasonable though not therefore nor at all impertinent That nevertheless to talke of this specifical or particular question whether the Pope be above the general Council and talke of it now or in this present conjuncture in Ireland and talke of it so as the Congregation might and should and as expected from them or talke of iâ— so as their talke would be to those good and rational ends of bringing dissentors of their country and Religion to a free conscientious and vnanimous subscription of the negative and of thereby obstructing much occasion of new troubles and further of rooting out the seeds of Rebellion from amongst the Roman-catholick Clergie of Ireland on pretence of Papal decrees alone or letters from the Court of Rome that I say to talke of this specifical or individual question and talke of it in this manner or to these or other such good ends and in that Congregation would not be to talke of a question either impertinent in it self or dangerous in its consequents or unseasonable in any kind of respect either of the matter persons time Prince or other people but on the contrary most pertinent safe and seasonable and bringing a long with it naturally much profit both to King and Subjects because much peace and quiet by setling a truth so necessary and of so great importance against a sly error of so pernicious destructive consequence as is the contrary position That if from such talke of this specifical or particular question in such manner to such ends and in such a Congregation any should either out of ignorance or malice fall into such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late sad experience hath taught us it could not therefore be dangerous to give in such an occasion to such disputes so little overture as talke so qualified can be rationally thought by any indifferent man to give being this overture at most and worst could not be to other than the speculative part onely of those other odious and horrid disputes but not by any means to the practical at least for the present in that Congregation or Catholick Clergie of Ireland whom that Congregation represented and commanded That in giving so little overture to that speculation or speculative part onely of that other question and giving such overture not at all necessarily but accidentally and onely out of the biass and malice or ignorance of some of themselves both which themselves too partly and partly others also as was offered might and would easily rectifie if they pleased there could be no danger at all as to the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland or as from them But that in relation to others of the Monarchy of great Brittain who of late or in the late Warrs engaged themselves practically or in the practical part of those other odious and horrid disputes it is nothing this Congregation could say or unsay on that point or any other would engage anew or disengage them That Sorbone and the whole Gallican Church and the French King himself and his Council who all maintain without contradiction as even do his very Parliaments nay his general Assemblies of all the three estates of that Kingdom the most absolute Soveraignty of the French Monarch over all his people even collectively taken in what assembly soever the most independent from them or from any els but God alone can be desired in pursuance of that other tenet they all hold in the said Gallican Church of the Kings power to be given him immediatly by God alone as by the onely efficient of it that I say that learned subtile Faculty Church Prince or people never found that impertinency or danger or unseasonableness in the subscription of Sorbone to the said Proposition But on the other side much pertinency and safety and seasonableness towards the perpetual establishment of that absolute independent power in their King whereof they are jealous as of the apple of their eye and I fear much more incomparably than most Fathers of the Congregation were of the like in their own King if not to deny it him That as these good Fathers declared publickly in their said Congregation and privatly one to another the precedent of Sorbone was enough to secure them in their subscription of the three first Propositions nay and of all for this too they said so they might and ought for the same reason perswade themselves effectually no less at least of the pertinency and safety and seasonableness of their subscription to this 5th also than of the Catholickness and lawfulness of it That further yet or even abstracting as well from all precedents as from
all ignorance malice and other preoccupation whatsoever nay and from their subscription too the Fathers will find it a very hard taske to shew I say not impertinency for this I am sure they can not after what is said before with any colour insist on any longer but any such danger in the consequence of this Proposition It is not our doctrine that the Pope is above a general Council or of this simply The Pope is not above a general Council or of this other as simple which yet is the same in effect A general Council is above the Pope That such Divines of either Greek or Latin Church either Catholick or not as affirm the Papacie or Papal authority as such or as allowed either by those Canons which in opposition to others or by way of excellency are commonly stiled Canones Vniversalis Ecclesiae or as approved even by those other Canons which are properly and onely Papal Canons and are those of the Western-Church whether all or how many of them received generally in the Western-Church or not it matters not at this time that such Divines I say of either Church Greek or Latin as affirm this Papal authority over all other Churches in the world to be onely at the utmost and immediatly such by ecclesiastical and human institution of the Church not by any of Christ otherwise then by his approbation and ratification above in Heaven of what the Church long after his Ascension had here on earth ordained will find no kind of difficulty to shew the inconsequence of the Parliament's being above the King if a general Council be above the Pope First Because the power of a general Council truely such representing the Catholick diffusive Church is by all sides confessed to be originally and immediatly de jure divino or by the immediat institution of Iesus Christ himself whether in that passage of the Gospel dic Ecclesiae or in some other Secondly Because this power is unalterable undiminishable unsubjectable even by the Council it self to any other without a new revealed command from God himself which hath not been hitherto And therefore and out of that very passage of Mathew Dic Ecclesiae must be above the Pope being the Pope can not deny himself to be one of the faithful brethren and being all faithful brethren without exception of any are commanded by Christ himself in that passage of Mathew to be under pain of Excommunication obedient to the sentence of the Church in case they be accused or charged with any guilt before it Thirdly Because on the other side the power of Parliaments is by them not onely denied to be originally or immediatly either jure divino or humano over all persons whatsoever of the respective hereditary Kingdoms if we include the Prince amongst such persons but as such denied also to have been as much as in after times introduced by any allowance or Custom approved either by God or man Prince or people themselves Fourthly Because the very same divines assert constantly the power of supream or soveraign temporal Princes or Kings at least hereditary such as our King is and of which consequently the present dispute is to be jure divino or to be given them from God himself immediatly not from or by the people Or if these divines or any of them allow it has been originally and immediatly from the people at first even as from an efficient cause yet withal maintain that the people also did originally and immediatly so transferr the whole supream power from themselves even in all contingencies whatsoever that it must be ever after irrevocable by them Alleaging for proof that the Scriptures are so clear for the Subjection and obedience of the people even to had tyrannical Kings and not for fear alone but for conscience And further alleaging that there is no tribunal of the people and consequently there is no Parliament appointed by the law of God as neither by the laws of man or nature not even in the most extraordinary cases against their Prince or against any other offending besides that erected by the Princes power Whereunto certainly he never subjects himself so as to give the people or Parliament a supream power above his ownself or a power of superiority or jurisdiction over himself and coercion of himself though he some times bind himself and limit in some cases his own power but by his own power and will alone not by any inherent in the people And who sees not in this doctrine the great and cleer and evident inconsequence of this argument The Pope is not above a general Council Therefore the King is 〈◊〉 above his Parliament Or therefore whoever subscribes that antecedent gives an overture to those late horrid disputes Would not these divines rationally say upon their own grounds this were not to argue à simili but à dissimili Would not they tell you presently what the six hundred Catholick Bishops convened in the 4th general Council that of Calcedon I mean declared in their 27th Canon albeit some great and even holy Bishops of Rome complained of it grieviously that it was the Fathers that gave the priviledges to the Bishop of ancient Rome and that it was therefore they gave such priviledges to him because ancient Rome was then the Seat of the Empire That by consequence the Papacie and power thereof as such must be acknowledged to be as instituted by the Church onely at first so till the last to be dependent subordinate and under the power of the same Church because this power of the Church is for ever unchangeable while the world continues as having been given to it by Christ himself when upon earth And therefore the Pope cannot be above but under a general Council being it is either of all sides confessed the whole power of the Church is in a general Council truely such of it must be so at least in their grounds whether any els confess or oppose it And would not they further tell you the case is quite contrary in that of King and Parliament That first there is no such thing by divine immediate institution or by that of Christ or God immediatly as a Parliament or a power thereof That neither by the mediat institution of God that is by the laws of man there is any such thing or power at least in hereditary Kingdoms which may stand in opposition to the power of Kings Nor any at all in or without such opposition but what they derive originally immediatly and solely from the pleasure of Kings at least and as I mean still in hereditary Kingdoms That secondly or in the next place the power of Kings at least hereditary Soveraign and Supream is immediatly originally and onely from God himself Or if at first any way from the people yet so from them that after their institution translation and submission hoc ipso they must be so absolute and independent that they do not acknowledge nor any way have
to have no other judgment of these or any of them but what should be wholly and purely conformable to the Doctrine of the Holy Roman Church to the inviolable Decrees of Sacred Canons to the common sense of most famous Divines to the known practice of other Catholick Nations and to the manifest Principles of the very Law of Nature and after diligent perusal of all the proceedings past between your Lordships and the Lord Baron of Inchiquyn and the Lord Nuncio and Congregation from the first day this Cessation was entertained by Treaty until the present having duly pondered all and each of the said Lord Nuncio's and Congregations Arguments against it with the satisfaction given them alwayes by your Lordships and withal after much labour taken by us for several dayes in turning Divines and Canonists and weighing the strongest Objections either made by the Lord Nuncio and Congregation which indeed with all submissive reverence be it said are but groundless and too too weak suspitions no way proved or which our selves could frame against our selves we have fixed unanimously and constantly on the following Answers without as we call God to witness the least scruple of swerving from Divinity Law or Reason And although we are not ignorant how the Dean of Firmo by authority from the Lord Nuncio published Commands Censures and Penalties against all Divines and Canonists who should deliver their opinions for the Cessation until or before they had accosted his Lordship and Congregation to hear from them the Reasons which oppose it yet in regard it appears unto us evidently after mature deliberation and exact debate That such Commands Censures and Penalties are not only most unreasonable and unjust but also invalid since they would take away from us that just liberty which throughout all the world is of right belonging to and absolutely requisite to be resident in Divines viz. to answer Cases of Conscience occurring or proposed it being otherwise impossible for them either to govern their own Consciences or direct others but all should often live in tormenting perplexities which is repugnant to the Law of God And since our going to the Lord Nuncio and Congregation would be to no other purpose than to hear and see his Lordships objections against the Cessation all which we have already to the least word perused in the Books given us by your Lordships directions for there can be no kind of likelihood that we should receive from his Lordship or Congregation any better or stronger Reasons than what he hath given your Lordships to whom questionless it was more material and for their purpose to give them and with whom they laboured so much for point of Conscience as they pretended to hinder the conclusion of this business since also there are such considerable difficulties in going to his Lordship neither day or place prefixed for any that would go the distance and dangers of the wayes being such as are known and which is above all his Lordship residing in a place and amongst an Army which stands in opposition to the Council and seeming to have made himself with these few Bishops about him a party to side with Refractories and open Enemies to the Kingdom besides no fafe conduct given or offered us and the setling of our own and of all other Souls committed to our charge admitting no delayes in so great a difference and so near concerning us since likewise it is manifestly consequent out of our Answers given to the first and second Querie That as the Lord Nuncio's Censures against your Honours and your Adherents in the principal cause are of no force as well by reason of the intolerable Errours which with much reverence and due submission we say they contain as of the Appeal interposed both which do jointly and severally disannul them so the Deans Censures and all others if there be any else issued hitherto or henceforth to be issued against us or any who should give their opinion for or approbation to the said Cessation are for the same Reasons throughly invalid yea should we grant that such persons as issued them had even in righteous causes a lawful power over every and each of us which is yet very questionable we are therefore so far from apprehending any unlawfulness in delivering freely before the World our Opinion in this matter that in the present circumstances specially being required by your Lordships we conceive it our duty to the Publick and a merit before God praying heartily to Heaven that the ignorant may find instruction the wavering settlement and the refractories that reproach of their unjust proceedings which may reclaim them in these Answers of Our very good Lords Your most devoted Servants David Ossoriens And the rest who subscribe to the Answers The First Querie answered SUpposing here as a Tenet undeniable by any Catholick That the Faithful may without breach of Conscience conclude and observe a Cessations of Arms yea constant Leagues (n) Vid. Bonacin tom 2. d. 3. q. 2. p. 8. Turrian de just jur d. 87. dub 2. Layman Becan infra citandos and Peace with Infidels and Hereticks whereof we see before our eyes most warrantable presidents even in holy Scriptures and practice of the Saints of God as that of Abraham (b) Gen. xxi ver 27. with Abimelech of Joshua (c) Josh ix ver 9 15. with the Gibeonites of Samuel (d) 1 Reg. 7. ver 15. with the Amorites of many faithful Kings of Judah (e) 4 Reg. 3.2 Paralip 16. ver 3. 18 3. 36. 1 Reg. 28.29 with the Idolaters of Israel or Samaritans and of the valiant Maccabees (f) 1 Maccab 10. ver 6.44 12.43 2 Mac. 11. ver 15. 14. ver 23 24 25. who in their time were the Champions of Religion and approved by God with the Romans Spartiats and some Successors of Alexander to whom they gave Donaries and whose Regality they acknowledged whereof also we have for so many Ages the alwayes allowed practice of almost all Christian Catholick Princes (g) Knowls Turk Hist and States of the Emperour of Constantinople and Germany the Kings of Hungary Poland France the State of Venice and many other Catholick Princes with the Turks of the Kings of Spain (h) Vindiciae Gallicae with the Moors of Sivil Granado Valentia c. of St. Gregory the Great Pope of Rome with the Arrian Longobards (i) Baron Spond ad an 598. of Charles the Fifth no less mighty than religious Emperor and of his Successors with the Lutherans (k) Auctar. Chro. ad annal Baron ad an 1547. Hist Turc in Achmat. of Germany with Henry VIII excommunicated and with Denmark Holland Scotland Swedeland c finally of the Most Christian Kings of France with Huguenots (l) Surius ad an 1567. Supposing likewise another undoubted Truth maintained by all Divines who ever yet put Pen to paper as Beacan (m) Becan in Opuscul Theol.
for such proceedings and Censures cannot be either justly or validly but from persons who are Judges in the case and whose Jurisdiction is not suspended in the same cause Hence is manifest That the Lord Nuncio â—s renovation and confirmation in his Apostles refutatories of his former sentence his execution of the Interdict and all other his proceedings against any of the Confederates on this ground and since the Appeal are unjust and invalid for what either concerns Conscience or the Canons do determine Which is further proved out of cap. Dilectis filiis 55. de Appellat § Quia vero Where Innocent the III. decreed against the Dean of Altisiodorum for having proceeded to the execution of an Interdict notwithstanding and after an Appeal made to Rome The reason of which Decree the Pope gives in these words Cum Appellatione ad fidem Apostolicam interposit a nihil debuerit innovari Where likewise he declares for the same reason That the Excommunication pronounced by the Archbishop of Sein or Senonensis against the same Dean and denunciation made to have been of no force from the beginning and that the said Archbishops Canons did without guilt notwithstanding the denunciation communicate with the Dean so censured and lastly that all proceedings attempted after the Appeal were in themselves void as he does by his Decree disannul them yielding for reason that the accessory is of the same nature with the principal which we have before touched Can we desire any more Canons more pertinent or fitting our purpose it's needless we alledge them though many more we have But because peradventure besides these Tears of Law the sense of Doctors may yet be expected let the Authors seen in the opposit margin (e) Candidus disq 22. art 39. dub 4. ubi citat Lopez par 2. tr de clavibus cap. 12. Pal. in 4. d. S. q. 1. art 4. con 2. Sayrum lib. 1. de Censur cap. 16. n. â—3 Bonac too 1. tract de Censur d. 1. q. 2. punc 2. numer 3. Diana P. 5. T. 3. R. 30. Silvester verb. Appellat Hieron Rodriq ibi Porte eod verb. be read and it will be found that the common Doctrine of Summists Divines and Canonists hath hitherto been That a just Appeal of it self and presently when 't is made devolves the cause to a higher Tribunal suspends the sentence given and withal hinders the inferiour Judge from proceeding any further All which the Doctors comprehend in the double effect which they say is necessarily annexed to a just Appeal to wit devolving and suspending Now for a just Appeal (f) Cand. supr disq 3. reliqui apud ipsum Candidus Boâ—acina Sayrus and others commonly affirm two only conditions are necessary The first that it be made with expression of sufficient probable or likely causes or such as the Appellant thinks bona fide are just probable likely or sufficient motives for appealing but that no other expression or of any other causes is acquired And truly with the Doctors herein the very Canons and Glosses do concur cap. ut debitus (g) Cap. Bonae memoriae §. Praemissâ—s extr de Appel Praemissis igitur diligenter inspectis praedictoâ— Aâ—batem Monachos in eum statum in quo tempore Appellationis lactae ex versimilibus probabilibus ad nos legitime interpositae nostuntur proprietatis parti uttilibet salvo Jure decernimus reducendos ac fructus mediâ— temporis perceptos câ—nsuimus parâ—â—r assignandos eisdem verb. ex rationabili ext de Appellat cap. Dilectis filiis 55. verb. Legitime eod tit cap. Cordi nobis eod tit in 6. often in the case of the Glos and c. Bona memoria § Praemissis ext eod tit where Innocentius III. clearly determines the Appeal to be just and the causes of the Appeal to be sufficient when it is made ex probabilibus aut verisimilibus that is when they are probable or seeming true though indeed they be not in themselves true It sufficeth therefore sayes the Glosse (h) Glossa ibid. Sufficit ergo quod sit probabilis causa Appellationis licet non sit vera vel necessaria Talis videlicet debet esse quod si esset probata legitima esset tunc valet Appellatiâ— further declaring this matter that the cause of Appeal seem probable though it be not certain or true It is enough it be such as being proved may seem lawful for then the Appeal is valid The very same in effect is affirmed by Glossa in cap. Cordi nobis (i) Glossa in cap. Cordi nobis de Appellat in 6. Causa rationabilis ad appellandum aâ— interloquutoria vel gravamine aliquo illa est quae si esset vera deberet legitima reputari aut quae si esset vera necessario inferret appellantem fuisse gravatum de Appellat in 6. as may be read in the margin The second condition necessary and which accomplisheth a just Appeal is that it be made and tendered to the Judge from whom before the dayes prefixed for admonishment or the condition be fulfilled when the Appeal is from a conditional Excommunication Censure or sentence as that against the adherents to the Cessation was or at least within the time limited for entring Appeals That both conditions have been observed punctually in the Appeal made by the Council in their own and in the name of all the rest of the Confederates is apparent to all have read it who have weighed the motives therein expressed and noted the dates both of it and of the sentence against which it was interposed this having been of the 27th of May 1648. and that of the last of the same month dispatch'd away presently to their Lordships the Nuncio and his Delegates But of the second condition there is no controversie All the question is of the first that is Whether the causes or motives of the Appeal were sufficient Yet even herein we see no difficulty Doubtless the Council and many Thousands more of the Confederates were persuaded bona fide that the Nuncio proceeded with due observation of his Lordship may it be said unjustly and that they had expressed before his Lordship most just motives to appeal from his Censures and complain to his Holiness of such proceeding Which bona fides alone would suffice us for securing our own Consciences in opposing his sentence and in hindring to our power the execution of his Censures and all his other proceedings on the same ground yea though the motives were only just in the opinion of the Appellants Which is the doctrine of Authors now cited and must be of all Divines who generally teach and it is in it self most certain and taught us by natural reason That the immediate and next Rule according to which we must square our actions in matters of Fact and cases of Conscience is our own proper bona fides and opinion However this be of our bona fides whether we had it or
no yet doubtless even the Lord Nuncio and Delegates will not deny but the causes expressed in the Appeal are probable or likely or such as if they can be proved to be true will be thought sufficient There is no man of judgment hath ever yet seen or will see the Appeal that can or will deny this And if so how could it be rejected in foro exteriori as unjust whereas it hath the conditions prescribed by the Doctors Canons and Glosses for a just Appeal the one to have been made in due time and the other to have expressed in it motives which may seem in facie Ecclesiae to be probable likely or such as being proved would be thought lawful For that of bona fides mentioned by some of the Divines is not required by them but only for securing the interiour Conscience of the Appellant and not for any thing might concern the exteriour Tribunal wherein judgment is not given of the interiour opinion or bona fides of the Appellant but of that which appears exteriourly as of the causes expressed in the Appeal c. which if secundum allegata probata they be found true the Judge ad quem to whom only it belongs will give sentence for the Appeal whether in the mean time the interiour opinion of the Appellant was a bona fides or no. For of the interiour God alone is Judge not the Church And this is the reason why the Canons and Glosses speaking of the reasonableness and justice of the causes which being expressed makes the Appeal just require only such motives as seem probable or true though in themselves they be not true or such as being proved to wit before the Judge ad quem would make the Appeal lawful and say nothing of the bona fides conceiving this to be impertinent and not belonging to the external Court of judgment which they do chiefly regard Yet because the bona fides of the Appellants may be sufficiently conjectured out of the probability likelihood or evidence of the motives expressed in the Appeal who can doubt that knows the state of Ireland and looks on our condition with an indifferent eye but the Council and Confederates had not only probable motives but even reasons in themselves and before the World most evidently just which necessitated them to make their address to His Holiness and throw themselves into His protection though for point of Conscience this was needless from the violent proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and his either Delegates or Sub-delegates as being for private ends opposite to the advancement of Religion and of the common Cause destructive of the Kingdom and illegally thwarting the Supreme Civil power of the Confederates by drawing the people in as much as in them lie to Sedition and Rebellion All which motives and many more your Honours expressed at large in your Appeal and their truth may be manifestly inferred out of our sad condition the great necessity the Countrey stood in of a Cessation and the no less utility might be derived from it for the Catholick Cause as your Honours of the Council declared in your said Appeal and we have shewed in our answer to the first Querie Unto which motives may yet be added according to the power for adding your Lordships reserved to your selves in your Appeal what is consequent out of them and out of other particulars expressed in the Appeal videlicet That your Honours and the rest of the Confederates were commanded on pain of Excommunication and Interdict not to adhere unto a Cessation concluded upon actually and from which neither you nor they could fall without omission of most vertuous acts Fidelity in performance of Promises Religion in sacred Oaths and Disobedience to Authority nor without commission of sinful acts unfaithfulness in Contracts Perjury in Oaths and disobedience to Authority From which likewise you could not fall without extremely endamaging and hazarding the Commonwealth by reason of the strength and multitude of enemies which that Cessation rejected would on all sides come upon us besides the judgments of God would hang over us for our perfidiousness (k) See both in Sacred and Prophane Histories the dreadful punishments that attended alwayes the breach of Publick Faith and Perfidiousness See in the 2d of Kings 2â— how Heaven pursued with vengeance the King and whole Kingdom of Israel for having broken Faith with the Gibeonites though no less than a Hundred years since the Covenant made with them Josh 9. yea and though in that Covenant the Gibeonites used subtlety and were by profession Infidels Were not the chosen people and Nation of God for this breach of Faith scourged with an universal Famine even in the dayes of holy King David propter Saul domum ejus sanguinum quia occidit Gabeonitas And notwithstanding so many Thousands starved to death by this Famine was the Divine wrath appeased until Seven of his Sons who brake the League were resigned over by King David to the pleasure of the offended Gibeonites and were Crucified alive by them upon a Mount before the face of God Et dedit eos in manus Gabaâ—nitorum qui cruc fierunt eos in monto coram Domino repropitiatus est Deus torrae post hac See in the 36 of Paralipâ—m the deplorable fate of the unfortunate King Sedecias and of his Kingdom for having contrary to promise made renounced his Allegiance broken League with and taken Arms against Nabuchadnezzaâ— the Monarch of Babylon A â—ege quoquo Nabuchadâ—â—sâ—â— recesserat qui adjuraverat eum per Deum Was not his Kingdom therefore utterly destroyed the holy City râ—zed the Temple of God burn'd the miserable King deprived of those eyes wherewith before he beheld the Covenant broken finally his Countrey planted with Aliens and both himself and the remainder of his people translated to Babylon for to lead the life of Slaves in a long Captivity of 70 years Yet Sedecias was drawn to this breach of Peace through causes no less specious than Nebuchadnezzar's Idolatry in Religion and Tyranny in his Government of the elect Nation of God See in Gregory Sceidius and in Knolls's Turkish History the formidable event of a Cessation or Ten years Truce broken formerly concluded 'twixt Vladislaus the Christian Catholick King of Hungary and Amwâ—ath the Turkish Monarch but broken by the Christian King soon after 't was published by the persuasions and overmuch importunity of part of the Clergy specially of Julian the Florentine Cardinal then Legate Apostolick in the Kingdom of Hungary who needs would dispense in the Oath interchangeably taken by Christians and Turks for observing the Cessation Alas how late came repentance when the poor Hurgâ—rians beheld their valiant and good Vladislaus slain before their faces in the Battel of Varra their Nobility slaughtered â—â—lian himself with oâ—her Authors of this misfortune all naked covered only with blood and yielding the ghost their Army ever before this faithless dealing victorious totally destroyed and
their dear Countrey with so many other bordering Kingdoms of Christianity lest open as a prey to the fury of Barbarians what reproach and what confusion to see a Turk obtain a victory from Christ against Christians when Amuâ—â—th in the heat of that Battel observing his own army put to the worst by the valour of Vladislaus drew forth out of his bosome the scroll of the articles of Cessation signed by the Christian King and casting his eyes to Heaven challenged Christs Divinity if he did not presently shew himself a revenging God for that dishonour done his Name by this perfidiousness of Christians What some would fain here say yet it is only to say somewhat not because they conceive it hath any colour of reason that it belongs to the Judge from whom not to the Appellant or others to know whether the causes of the Appeal be probably or evidently just is answered by Glossa in cap. Cum Appellationibus de Appellat in 6. where these express words are That it belongs to the Judge Superiour to whom the Appeal is made to examine and judge of the lawfulness of the Appeal and by Glossa in cap. ut debitus extr de Appellat That this depends not of the Judge from whom but of the truth it self Whence may be inferred That the Appellant as he really sees probability or evidence in the Causes alledged may accordingly address himself to the superiour Judge and obey no more the inferiour to whom it no way belongs to judge of the Causes when they are such as being proved they would be thought reasonable otherwise than by giving a bare answer or apostles And this is it the Glosse intends For doubtless he intends not to exclude the power of the superiour Judge in examining and giving sentence for or against the Appeal Yet certain it is That if the Appellant sees the very superiour Judge not to sentence aright either in the matter of the Appeal or any other it is lawful to appeal further even from him to his superiour if any be Gloss cap. Romana verb. Minus legitima de Appellat in 6. Lastly and most directly to the purpose by Gloss in cap. Sollicitudinem extr verb. Episcopus posset (l) 〈…〉 in 〈…〉 ext 〈◊〉 Appell verb. â—â—icopus pâ—ssâ—â—bâ—d quare judâ—x non pâ—â—est cognâ—scâ—râ—e Appellatione ab ipso facta sicut cognoscit an sua sit jurisdictio Ideo non potest cognoscere de Appellatione quia cum probabilis causa exp sita est in Appellatione jam exemptus est a Jurisdictione illius est illi suspectus praesumptio est pro ipso quod semper vellet judicare pro sua Jurisdictione c. Where 't is demanded Wherefore cannot the Judge from whom an Appeal is made know that is call in question examine juridically and judge or give sentence of the same Appeal And 't is answered That therefore he cannot be a Judge of the Appeal made from him because that a probable cause being alledged in the Appeal the Appellant is exempted from his Jurisdiction â—e me suspected to him and because it may be presumed that the Judge in this case wouâ—â— give sentence in favour of his own Jurisdiction c. Nay the very Text of cap. ut debitus § Cum autem puts this business out of all debate where it is said (m) Cum autem ex rationabili causa putâ—verit appellandom coram eodem Judice causa Appellationis exposita tali viz. quae si soret probata deberet legitima reputari Superior de Appellatione cognoscat c. That it belongs to the superiour Judge to examine and give sentence whether the causes were in themselves reasonable or no As for the inferiour Judge the Appellant is bound only to expose or alledge before him probable or reasonable causes to wit such causes which being proved ought to be reputed lawful And therefore the Judge from whom hath no right to examine juridically the truth of them since the Appellant is only bound to expose or alledge them before him and not to prove them for who sees not that to be bound to alledge and to be bound to prove are far different And consequently he cannot hinder a just Appeal by saying it belongs to him to know and judge whether it be a just Appeal or no or whether the Causes expressed be reasonable or no Which is yet more plainly and indeed throughly cleared without any place left for expositions or distinctions by cap. Si a Judice de Appellat in 6. where its expresly decreed by Boniface the VIII (n) Si a Judice a quo propter gravamen quod tibi proponis illatum appellas ad docendum resore gravatum ad audiendam revocationem ejusdem gravaminis si de ipso docuerâ—s nam supponit quod ad hoc non teneris ut infâ—a statim tibi terminus praefigatur Nec corameo cum ipse per se id videre habeat docere nec etiam tanquam coram Judice cum per appellationem sit suspensa ipsius Jurisdictio comparere teneris nisi ad hoc solum ut revocationem ipsam audias si eam duxcrit faciendam That for to prove you had just or probable causes to appeal you are not bound to appear or answer before the Judge from whom you appealed in regard sayes Boniface that he is no more your Judge whereas by your Appeal especially when it is from an extrajudicial or a gravamine as our Appeal is his Jurisdiction is suspended Only one case excepted which is not to our purpose yet that is when the Judge from whom saniori ductus consilio being better advised would recall his past sentence whereby the Appellant was grieved for only in this case he is bound being called to appear before the Judge a quo to the end he may hear the sentence of his grievance recalled What can be desired more manifestly convincing If the Judge from whom once the Appeal is interposed from a grievance and probable Causes therein expressed that is such as being proved ought to be accounted probable if he be no more Judge if he have no more jurisdiction over the Appellant but only in that one case if the Appellant be not bound to appear before him for to prove the truth or justice of his motives of Appeal how doth it belong to him to examine juridically the truth of these Causes or to sentence the Appeal to be good or bad or on pretext hereof to hinder the Appellant from the prosecution of the Appeal or getting the benefit of an Appeal Certainly it cannot be unless we admit a plain contradiction And certainly as yet we have not seen one Chapter Passage or Glosse of the Law could be produced to the contrary by such as seem to maintain the invalidity of the Appeal though they have laboured much in heaping together Citations But all to no other purpose then either that as we grant and never denied probable causes of the Appeal
are to be alledged (o) This only and no more for what concerns this matter can be deduced out of c. Pastoralis §. verum de appellat cap. Legitima eod Gloss § Legitima in 6. c. Romana eod §. quod si objiciatur Glossa ibid. §. Vera Nota insuper c. cum appellat eod See all this confirmed by c. Interposra de appellationibus extr where it appears sufficiently though it be for the contrary opinion produced that the validity of an Appeal is to be proved before the Judge ad quem For the case of the said Chapter is One appealed who expressed only a probable cause in his appeal The question was whether it were sufficient for the Appellant to prove before the Judge to whom that his cause was probable although perhaps not true And it was resolved That he ought to prove it to be both probable and true unless he offered of his own accord to prove this truth before the Judge from whom and yet was not heard for in this case it is enough he prove before the Judge ad quera that the cause of his Appeal was probable though not true In which question and answer made by the Pope there is not a word for the adversaries but much to our purpose as appears by the Glosse partly and partly by these words nisi hoc se offerens probaturem c. Whence is gathered that he had no obligation to prove it before the Judge a quo but what was done by him was of his own accord not by any tye of the Law At least we may confidently say that nothing may be inferred against us out of this Chapter Nay this Text speaks in case the Appellant even before he enters his Appeal do offer to prove his allegations to be true and not after the Appeal is made as appears in the Glosse there and by the Glossa of cap. Si a Judic verb. teneris de appellat in 6. ibi per Dominic which the common pâ—actice proveth Whence further is manifest that there is no obligation by this Chapter to prove before the Judge a quo the truth of the appeal since questionless before in given in there can be no such obligation therein and before the Judge from whom though not their truth to be proved before him or that when the Judge is refused or excepted against or to speak the terms of the Law when there is a recusation of him not an Appeal that then the recusatorie exceptions are to be proved before Arbiters given by the Judge and chosen by common consent of the Plaintiff and Defendant It is in this case of recusation that cap. cum speciali de appellat extra and cap. Legitima eod tit in 6. speak and not in case of Appeal which is far different from the former It is true that the Judge a quo hath so many dayes allowed him by the Canons to consider what kind of apostles he is to give and that in admitting or rejecting the Appeal he doth in so much ex animi sui opinione out of his own private opinion judge of its probability or improbability yet followeth it not hence that he giveth any juridical or binding sentence or judgment of the Causes obliging either before God or the World the Conscience of the Appellant For the giving of the apostles is nothing else but a bare answer to the Appeal which the Law permits him to give either dimissory or refutatory that is either admitting or rejecting the Appeal either right or wrong but at his own peril if he give not a right answer and admit the Appeal when it is from a just and probable grievance and hath in it expressed probable Causes the Law providing likewise for the liberty and safety of the Appellant that whatsoever answer this be he is not bound to conform himself to it if it be to his disadvantage since he hath once lawfully appealed or with expression of reasonable Causes and since this Judge from whom hath no power to summon him nor to examine Witnesses nor to form any Process concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Causes expressed which power notwithstanding for to summon examine form a Process must be supposed in him that is the proper Judge and can give a binding sentence of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Appeal Whence followeth that they say nothing to purpose who object That the Lord Nuncio and Bishops did not conceive such pressing necessity for concluding the Cessation or such great profit to arise thence which are the prime reasons alledged in the Appeal for excepting against the Censures but rather that it was fixed on with intention to bring in the late rejected Peace and for other consequences following that business and consequently that they conceived no truth in the Causes alledged For in case we did grant their suspitions to be true before God as they are not yet nothing hence may be inferr'd for disproving the lawfulness of the Appeal in foro exteriori wherein only they proceed since they cannot deny but the Causes alledged are such as if they can be proved they ought to be thought lawful and since they are not to be Judges herein as hath been now seen by so many Canons Glosses and Reasons and lastly since we are bona fide persuaded of the probability if not evidence of our motives nay though we had no bona fides interiourly but only seemed exteriourly to have it And verily this Answer satisfieth (p) This great opposition and seeming alteration of judgment in the Lord Nuncio must be very strange to such as know that it appears out of Letters and Messages from his Lordship to the Council which are on Record how his Lordship about the first of March when there was but a bare report of a Cessation to be made with the Parliamentary Scots desired the Council that business to wit the Cessation with the Scots should go on for that he expected a blessing thence not only to this but also to other Kingdoms Nay a little before Inchiquyn was declared for His Majesty did not he approve a Cessation to be made even with him What is the reason of so much desire expressed for making a Cessation with the Parliamentary Scots rather than with Inchiquyn or others or why with I chiquyn himself when he was for the Parliament and not much more now when he is for the King Neither doth the Lord Nuncio's answer seem in any wise to satisfie where he sayes in another of his Letters to excuse this that his intention in his former Letters or Messages was to have an accomodation or league made with him not a Cessation For who is it conceives not that a Cessation of Arms with Sectaries must be conscionable even by the Lord Nuncio's own concession and no just ground for Excommunication if an Accomodation or League be lawful since the Cessation of its own nature brings along withâ—t less communication with
hisce subscripsimus Kilkenniae 28 Januarii 1648. Jo Archiepiscopus Tuamen Fran Aladen Ed Limericensis THE ARTICLES OF PEACE Made and Concluded by his Excellency JAMES LORD Marquess of Ormond LORD LIEUTENANT GENERAL AND General Governour of His Majesties Kingdom of Ireland on the behalf of His Majesty WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Roman-Catholicks of the said Kingdom on the behalf of His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects of the same Re-printed in the Year M.DC.LXXIII BY THE LORD LIEVTENANT GENERAL AND General Governour Of the Kingdom of IRELAND ORMONDE VVHEREAS Articles of Peace are made concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between Vs JAMES Lord Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of His Majesties Kingdom of Ireland by vertue of the Authority wherewith We are entrusted for and on the behalf of His Most Excellent Majesty of the one part and the General Assembly of the Roman-Catholicks of the said Kingdom for and on the behalf of His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects of the same on the other part A true Copy of which Articles of Peace is hereunto annexed We the Lord Lieutenant do by this Proclamation in His Majesties Name publish the same and do in His Majesties Name strictly charge and command all His Majesties Subjects and all others inhabiting or residing within His Majesties said Kingdom of Ireland to take notice thereof and to render due Obedience to the same in all the parts thereof And as His Majesty hath been induced to this Peace out of a deep sense of the miseries and calamities brought upon this His Kingdom and People and out of a hope conceived by His Majesty that it may prevent the further effusion of His Subjects Blood redeem them out of all the miseries and calamities under which they now suffer restore them to all quietness and happiness under His Majesties most gracious Government deliver the Kingdom in general from those Slaughters Depredations Rapines and Spoils which alwayes accompany a War encourage the Subjects and others with comfort to betake themselves to Trade Traffick Commerce Manufacture and all other things which uninterrupted may increase the wealth and strength of the Kingdom beget in all His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom a perfect unity amongst themselves after the too long continued division amongst them So His Majesty assures Himself that all His Subjects of this His Kingdom duly considering the great and inestimable benefits which they may find in this Peace will with all duty render due Obedience thereunto And We in His Majesties Name do hereby declare That all persons so rendring due Obedience to the said Peace shall be protected cherished countenanced and supported by His Majesty and His Royal Authority according to the true intent and meaning of the said Articles of Peace Given at Our Castle of Kilkenny the Seventeenth day of January 1648. GOD SAVE THE KING ARTICLES of Peace made concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between his Excellency JAMES Lord Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of His Majesties Kingdom of Ireland for and on the behalf of His Most Excellent Majesty by vertue of the Authority wherewith the said Lord Lieutenant is intrusted on the one part And the GEMERAL ASSEMBLY of the Roman Catholicks of the said Kingdom for and on the behalf of His Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects of the same on the other part HIS Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects as thereunto bound by Allegiance Duty and Nature do most humbly and freely acknowledge and recognize their Sovereign Lord King Charles to be lawful and undoubted King of this Kingdom of Ireland and other His Highness Realms and Dominions And His Majesties said Roman Catholick Subjects apprehending with a deep sense the sad condition whereunto His Majesty is reduced as a further humble Testimony of their Loyalty do declare That they and their Posterity for ever to the uttermost of their power even to the expence of their blood and fortunes will maintain and uphold His Majesty His Heirs and lawful Successors their Rights Prerogatives Government and Authority and thereunto freely and heartily will render all due obedience OF which faithful and loyal Recognition and Declaration so seasonably made by the said Roman Catholicks His Majesty is graciously pleased to accept and accordingly to own them his loyal and dutiful Subjects and is further graciously pleased to extend unto them the following graces and securities I. IMprimis It is concluded accorded and agreed upon by and betweeen the said Lord Lieutenant for and on the behalf of His most Excellent Majesty and the said General Assembly for and on the behalf of the said Roman Catholick Subjects And His Majesty is graciously pleased that it shall be Enacted by Act to be past in the next Parliament to be held in this Kingdom That all and every the Professors of the Roman Catholick Religion within the said Kingdom shall be free and exempt from all Mulcts Penalties Restraints and Inhibitions that are or may be imposed upon them by any Law Statute Usage or Custom whatsoever for or concerning the free exercise of the Roman Catholick Religion And that it shall be likewise Enacted That the said Roman Catholicks or any of them shall not be questioned or molested in their Persons Goods or Estates for any matter or cause whatsoever for concerning or by reason of the free exercise of their Religion by vertue of any Power Authority Statute Law or Usage whatsoever And that it shall be further Enacted That no Roman Catholick in this Kingdom shall be compelled to exercise any Religion Form of Devotion or Divine Service other than such as shall be agreeable to their Conscience and that they shall not be prejudiced or molested in their Persons Goods or Estates for not observing using or hearing the Book of Common Prayer or any other Form of Devotion or Divine Service by vertue or colour of any Statute made in the second year of Queen Elizabeth or by vertue or colour of any other Law Declaration of Law Statute Custom or Usage whatsoever made or declared to be made or declared And that it shall be further Enacted That the Professors of the Roman Catholick Religion or any of them be not bound or obliged to take the Oath commonly called the Oath of Supremacy expressed in the Statute of Secundo Eliz. cap. 10. or in any other Statute or Statutes and that the said Oath shall not be tendred to them and that the refusal of the said Oath shall not redound to the prejudice of them or any of them they taking the Oath of Allegiance in haec verba viz. I A. B. do truly acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World That our Sovereign Lord King CHARLES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of other His Majesties Dominions and Countries and I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to His Majesty His Heirs and Successors and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my
Kingdom Lastly That a present course be taken for means for Our support in proportion answerable to Our place yet with regard to the state of the Kingdom VVhich last VVe should not propose but that We are deprived of Our private Fortune whereupon We have solely subsisted ever since We came to the Kingdom To all which We expect your present Answer And so We bid you heartily farewell and remain at Enis the 23d of October 1650. Your very loving Friend ORMOND What more could in this case be offered by Us or upon what more necessary conditions We know not And that this Our offer was satisfactory to the said Commissioners appears by their Letter to Us in these words May it please Your Excellency YOur Lordships of the 23d of this instant we have received and therein to our unexpressible grief we find that His Majesty hath been induced to declare the Peace concluded in this Kingdom in the year 1648 to be void and that he is absolved therefrom taking for the principal grounds for such his Declaration the unlawfulness of the Act. And howbeit we cannot without a very feeling sense of the grief the Nation with just cause may entertain of the prejudice thereby brought upon them and the blemish cast upon those hearty endeavours of theirs to restore His Majesty to His former estate and power over His Subjects look upon those unexpected fruits of their blood and substance so chearfully spent in his service yet it greatly comforts us to understand that notwithstanding that Declaration by some undue means obtained from His Majesty Your Excellency is resolved by all the means that it shall please God to offer unto You and thorough all hazards in the behalf of this Nation to insist upon and assert that Peace and persist in so doing until Your Excellency and such as shall be entrusted and authorized by the Nation shall have free and safe access unto His Majesty And as to those Provisoes which are expressed as necessary conditions whereby His Majesties Authority which notwithstanding that Declaration we still do embrace and revere may be continued among us besides our general profession to act what lies in our power in the wayes of His Majesties service and to Your Excellencies satisfaction we do return the ensuing Answers And To the first Proviso concerning the revocation of those Acts Declaration and Excommunication issued by the Bishops met at Jamestown and the assurance demanded that nothing in that kind shall be attempted for the future we do humbly answer That Your Excellency to whom we have often expressed our resentment of such their proceedings may be confident we shall labour so far as in us lies to see Your Excellency satisfied in this particular and to that end we will all or some of us with Your Excellencies allowance and as You shall think fit repair to Galway to Treat with the Prelates upon this Subject To the second we humbly return as Answer That albeit we know that by those Censures of the Bishops met at Jamestown His Majesties Authority was invaded and an unwarranted Government set up contrary to the Laws of the Kingdom and that we are assured no Subject could be justly warranted by that Excommunication to deny obedience to His Majesties Authority in Your Excellency yet being of opinion that a publick Declaration of this kind in this conjuncture of affairs ought properly and would with more countenance and authority move from an Assembly than from us and that by such a publick Declaration now from us we would wholly obstruct the way to prevail with the Prelates to withdraw those Censures or act what is desired by the former Proviso and likewise endanger what union there is at present in opposing the Common Enemy and prejudice the hopes of a more perfect union for the future wherein the preservation of the Nation doth principally consist we do therefore humbly beseech Your Excellency to call upon an Assembly of the Nation from whom such a Declaration as may be effectual in this behalf and may settle those distractions can only proceed Yet if in the mean time and before the meeting of that Assembly those Censures now suspended shall be revived we will endeavour to suppress their influence upon the People by such a Declaration as shall become Loyal Subjects and men entrusted to see all due obedience paid to His Majesties Government over this Kingdom To the third we do humbly return as Answer That we shall at all times and in such manner as Your Excellency shall think fit to prescribe invite all or any His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects to such a Declaration which yet until we shall understand the Clergies sense upon the first Proviso we do humbly represent as fit for a time to be forborn To the fourth we humbly return as Answer That whatsoever Your Excellency shall find to be properly within our power and will direct to be done for procuring a free residence for Your person in any place you shall choose within the limits not possessed by the Rebels we shall readily obey Your Lordships Commands therein To the fifth we humbly return as Answer That upon debate with Your Excellency of the places fit to be Garrisoned and the number of men fit to be received thereunto we shall according to the Articles of Peace use our utmost endeavours to have such Garrison so agreed upon admitted To the last we humbly return as Answer That as we have at all times heretofore been ready and willing Your Excellencies charge should be supported out of the Revenue of the Kingdom so we are now very ready to concur in assigning any of the dues already accrued or such as shall grow due hereafter or to impose a new applotment upon the Subject towards Your Excellencies maintenance Thus humbly taking leave we remain Inis 24 Octob. 1650. Your EXCELLENCIES Most humble Servants N Plunket Ri Barnewall Ri Everard Gerald Fennell Arthunry Lucas Dillon Ric Bellings Geff Browne In pursuance of their desire expressed in the now recited Letter We gave way to their Treating with the Prelates at Galway Accordingly they went thither and proposed to the said Prelates the Revocation of their Declaration upon the motives expressed in these ensuing heads Proposals of the Commissioners of Trust made to the Committee of the Congregation the 29th of October 1650. and the Answers of the Committee I. FIrst They offered to our consideration part of a Letter of the Lord Lieutenant to them written at Enis the 23d of October last II. They shewed us the King 's Declaration made touching the Covenant and the disavowing the Peace and pursuant to that acquainted us with the condition of the Kingdom as in relation to the Kings party engaged to the Covenant and in relation to the Independents so as the onely seeming safety for the Nation is that of the Peace III. They desired to know from us what way we conceived remaineth that may tend best to the preservation of the Nation
is requisit but onely that simple or natural ratiocination or discourse which all men can have Such for example sayes he thirdly are all the precepts of the Decalogue For out of that first principle imprinted in the hearts of all men That God is to be worshipped must follow that Idols ought not to be worshipped and that we ought not to swear God in vaine As likewise out of that other first principle what you would not have done to your self you must not do to an other must follow that you must not kill you must not commit adultery you must not steal c. It is true indeed sayes our learned Cardinal and perhaps truly too in so much that some such precepts as these of the second degree or some such conclusions have been sometimes and in some nations blotted out of the hearts of men by too great a blindness which did seize their understanding faculty as appears out of Caesar lib. 6. de Bello Gallico where we read that amongst the Germans theft was esteemed no vice but a vertue and out of St. Hierom l. 2. in Iovinianum and of Theodoret l. 9. ad Gracos who relate many vices against nature which have been approved as lawful in some countries not onely by the people but by their laws and law-makers And yet notwithstanding this ignorance or blindness of some concerning the precepts of nature in such matters it is also and alway true that such precepts do truly and properly belong to the law divine natural as St. Thomas of Aquin teaches 1. 2. q. 94. art 5. q. 100. art 8. where he holds that no dispensation can take place or be given at all in the precepts of the Decalogue or in such as we commonly call the ten commandements because these are properly of divine natural right or law The third degree of natural precepts is of such others as are deduced indeed from the principles of the law of nature but not by a consequence absolutely necessary nor altogether or any way evident and therefore do want humane institution And these are they which the Divines properly referre to jus gentium the law of nations This being the doctrine of this great Cardinal and his division or distinction of the several degrees of the law divine natural and his Resolve of the above Quere being that which a little after he gives in these words His ita explicatis dicendum videtur Exemptionem Ecclesiasticorum non pertinere ad primum vel secundum gradum naturalium praeceptorum nec tamen esse juris tantum positivi sive canonici sive civilis sed referendam esse ad tertium gradum praeceptorum juris naturae seu quod idem est ad jus gentium that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks belongs not to the first or second degree of natural praecepts and yet is not from any law positive onely either canonical or civil but must be referr'd to the third of those are praecepts of the law of nature or which is the same thing sayes he to the law of nations I leave it now to the judgment of all judicious men whether he do not abuse the name of the law of nature or law divine natural and of precepts of such a law and consequently his undiscerning Reader by attributing that name to those dictats which are not indeed any such law or any precepts at all of such law not even I say according to his own doctrine here For a law divine natural hoc ipso that it is such a law or indeed any true law at all and precepts of the law divine hoc ipso that they are such precepts or even any true preceps of any true law must be of necessity binding this property or quality of binding as it is confessed of all sides being essential to a true law and true precept of such law I mean still according to that proper sense wherein I must be understood to speak here of laws and precepts that is as they are distinguished from other free unobliging rules of direction council or advice which not a superiour onely but every conscientious and knowing Inferiour also may give And yet Bellarmine here confesses in effect that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks was not obliging any nor binding by the sole vertue of any pure dictate of natural reason or not at all antecedently to an institution made by man forasmuch as it is onely of the third degree and therefore positive and consequently not a conclusion that follows any way at all evidently or necessarily out of any evident or certainly true principle of natural reason And what is this els but the dictat thereof not to be binding at all by natural reason and therefore consequently no law no precept of that same reason For if we see it doth not follow certainly out of any evident or allowed principle as our natural reason will not suffer us to be bound by it upon the bare account of such an uncertain false illation so will not our natural reason suffer us to esteem it upon that same bare account a law of meer natural reason and consequently nor a law divine natural Whence also it must be evident enough that Bellarmine seeks without any sufficient ground to impose again on his Readers credulity where he sayes in his said Resolve that this Exemption is not onely juris positivi sive canonici sive civilis For if it was not at all as his own doctrine here confesses it was not before the institution or determination of men however this determination was made by custome onely or otherwise how can it be true that it is not onely from or by a positive law institution or determination of men and this law either civil or canonical or both being there is no other way of a positive determination Behold the reason partly wherefore this learned Cardinal seeing well enough his doctrine and Resolve or both together could not but argue him of absolute contradiction if he would be understood so as to speak properly or even to speak sense at all flyes immediatly from the name or title of law divine natural to that of a law onely of Nations or rather confounds both together that is the law of nations and his third degree of the laws divine natural But so he might have without any authority to impose new names confounded together and comprehended under the self-same appellation heat and cold and vice and vertue or at least as many different species's of qualities as have no contrariety in the same subject However allowing him this priviledge or passing by this shifting of names or appellations and his attributing in some sense though an improper abusive sense the titles of a law of nature and of a law of nations to the exemption of Clergiemen in his own greatest height extent or latitude of this exemption or as it imports even that exemption which he maintains to be of the persons also of Clergiemen and even in all temporal causes
whatsoever civil and criminal and not from the inferiour laye Magistrats onely but from the very supream which of persons and in relation to the supream coercive power is that onely which is my present purpose to examine and oppose let us now see how well he maintains by his arguments what he so undertakes or asserts here and see whether any of the four proofs he frames or all together can perswade any man of reason that his said Exemption of Clergiemen is in any sense at all de jure positivo naturali of law divine natural or even as much as de jure Gentium of the law of nations Onely you are first to take notice that Bellarmine himself hath transiently discovered his own principal design or end in strugling so much for this title or name either of a law divine natural or law of nations nay of both and attributing both to that which might establish the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks in the height and latitude he asserts it for their lands goods Churches Houses Persons c. from all kind of laye power subordinate or supream That end I give in his own words and corrollaries which you may read in himself a little before his proofs c. 29. l. 1. de Cleric Rursus sequitur ut ea quae sunt de jure gentium quia sunt aliquo modo naturalia non possint a Principibus vel Magistratibus abrogari vel immutari contra autem quae sunt de jure civili quia sunt pâ—rro positiva sicut a Principe vel Magistratu constituuntur ita posse a Principe vel Magistratu abrogari And a little beneath where he though all in vain endeavours to reconcile Driedo and some Canonists to the Divines especially to Victoria and Sâ—to and to St. Thomas himself those asserting the Exemption to be of the law of nature or law divine natural and these that it is onely of positive human law Et ideo addunt sayes he meaning Victoria and Sâ—tus in hanc Exemptionem câ—nsensisse omnes gentes ac pretterea non posse mutari vel abrogari a Regibus et Principibus etiamsi omnes simul coniuncti eam abrogare conentur Where you see plainly his end is no other in pleading either a law divine natural or a law of nations for his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks but that his Reader might go away with this perswasion That in case either can have any colour out of his arguments then it must be further concluded that no power on earth can at any time hereafter pretend to change or lessen this Exemption And so the Pope alone must be for ever the onely absolute supream Monarch even in all temporals of all Clergiemen wherever in the world and even his temporal kingdom for goods lands houses persons must be at least on this account if all other pretences be overthrown diffused throughout all Kingdoms and States of the earth And France alone for example must acknowledge at least three hundred thousand French men and women though born within and never out of France to be with all their goods lands houses revenues persons properly and onely accountable to him even I mean still in all temporals as to their onely supream Lord and not accountable at all in any thing to him we call or who is truly the French King Lewis the XIIII All which must be concluded according to his design if his Reader can be once perswaded by his arguments that his Ecclesiastical Immunity is as much as de jure Gentium of the law of nations For he would have us believe him that a law of nations cannot be so purely positive but that it must be partly also natural or at least cannot be at all so positive or so from the consent or custom of men that any less number then that of all nations wherever and of all even the Subjects of all nations that is of all men both Princes and Subjects can in any particular Kingdom or State revoke or change it because forsooth his unevident unnecessary conclusions of the third degree are those whereof the laws of nations are framed and consequently those laws of nations are in so much or aliquo modo natural and that even such or aliquo modo natural institutions cannot be otherwise altered and his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks must be ranked amongst those institutions or laws of nations or amongst those dictats which are aliquo modo naturalia LXVI Having so considered his design let us now to his arguments whereby he pretends to prove his Assertion or that of his Ecclesiastical Exemption or Immunity even as to the persons of Clergiemen from the very supream civil power and even in all temporal matters and causes whatsoever civil or criminal to be aliquo modo de jure divino naturali and without any modus at all to be de jure Gentium or of the law of nations Four several arguments are formed by him to prove this Assertion Whereof the first argument thus It is the custom of all nations that Clerks be so exempted Therefore c. For sayes he what is every where descends from nature it self which is common to all And to prove this Antecedent he alleages That amongst the Hebrews the Levits were exempt from tributs out of the 30 of Exodus and 1. of Numbers That amongst the Egyptians under Pharao the Priests were exempt Gen. chap. 47. That the same exemption was enjoyed by the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes 1. Esdras 7. chap. That the same too as enjoyed by the Gentil Priests may be known out of Aristotle l. 2. Oceonom out of Caesar l. 6. de bello Gallico out of Plutarch in Gamillo and out of others And amongst Christians That the Emperour Constantine the Great no sooner was openly professed Christian then he incontinently as if nature her self had taught him declared the Priests exempt from the common duties of other Christians as appears out of his Epistle to Anulinus recorded by Eusebius l. X. Histor Eccles. c. 7. Wherein other Christian Emperours did imitate him But to this purpose Iustinians words are to be noted particularly l. Sancinius 2. Cod. de Sacrasanctis Ecclesiis For when he had in this law priviledg'd the Churches that is the publick places of prayer he added presently Cur enim non facimus discrimen inter res divinas humanas cur non competens praerogativa caelesti favori conservetur by which words sayes our learned Cardinal this Emperour signified that exemption not to be the pleasure of men or arbitrary but due and necessary Second argument thus or from some kind of similitude which we may conceive betwixt the Soul and Body of one side and the spiritual and temporal power on the other The soul or spirit is ordered so by nature in relation to the body or flesh that although she hinder not the actions of the body while or when they are regular yet if otherwise she curbs them and absolutely in all cases governs the flesh
and criminal causes all alike all from from the Pope himself to the most inferiour Clerk in the Church without any other distinction in such temporal subjection and consequents of it but what the supream Prince himself and his own proper civil laws do make being that by the law of God declared by the Apostle ad Rom. 13. for as much as concerns or depends only of it the precept is in general as well to the Pope as to the meanest Acolyt Omnis anima potentatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Even as the disparity or inequality of temporal authority and civil jurisdiction between the temporal estates of a Kingdom and the civil diversity of degrees of superiority amongst them by whomsoever instituted hinder not their parity and equality and unity also of subjection in meer spiritual things to the spiritual Prince or Bishop and to his supream spiritual corrective power as purely such and wherein it is purely such Whereby you may clearly see I am not any way concern'd in John the XXII's condemnation of this fourth Article though I also condemn'd it in his sense and in the very words too he gives it us yea notwithstanding I do not approve at all either his allegations or supposititions or the strength of his arguments where he disputes against it And for the last article of all the five which only remains yet unconsidered and is this Quod tota Ecclesia simul juncta nullum hominem punire possit punitione coactiva nisi concedat hoc Imperator as it is related in the beginning of the said Bull or this other form of it as in the repetition about the end of the same Bull where 't is censured Quod Papa vel tota Ecclesia simul sumpta nullum hominem quantumcunque sceleratum potest punire punitione coactiva nisi Imperator daret eis authoritatem I say the very same I did of all the rest Although I confess this Article at first appearance seems to come nearest home of all the five to that part of my doctrine or suppositions explications answers in so many passages hitherto and hereafter in some other parts of this Book where I say the Church as a Church hath neither sword nor territory nor any civil or corporal force coercion or penalty to be inflicted by her self immediatly or even by her mediatly that is executed indeed immediatly by any other but by vertue only of her authority derived to him or injunction laid upon him For this Article seems to say the very same thing in asmuch as it sayes that neither Pope nor universal Church joyn'd together in one can punish any person how wicked soever with a coactive punishment unless the Emperour give them authority to do so Notwithstanding both which it will be facil enough to shew out of this very Bull and out of a great part of Iohn the XXII's own proper discourse therein against this fifth Article in specie that he would understand a quite other thing by coactive punishment here then I do any where consequently it will be also facil enough to shew that this Article of Marsilius and Iandunus taken so or in any bad or heretical sense and my said doctrine which denyes coactive punition or civil and corporal punishments to the Church as a Church or to be inflicted by her and by virtue of her own proper native authority are in the reality of things as wide from one another as from East to West albeit according to the equivocation or rather clear mistake of these two words punitione coactiva or of this one single word coactive or of its proper strict signification they may seem the same thing but to him only that is willing to be deceived or to such a one as Iohn the XXII himself either censuring this fift Article or disputing against it or at least in some part of his disputes against it in this Bull seems to be For immediatly after this learned Pope had given the said fift Article and even in this form Adbuc isti blasphemi dicunt quod tota Ecclesia simul juncta nullum hominem puniâ—e possit punitione coactiva nisi concedat hoc Imperator he proceeds immediatly to disprove it thus Quod utique doctrinae Evangelicae noscitur obviare Constat enim quod à Christo Petro in persona Petri Ecclesiae potestas coactiva concessa vel saltim promissa extitit quae quidem promissio fuit postea adimpleta cum Simoni Christus dixit quodcumque ligaueris super terram c. Ligantur enim non solum voluntarii sed inuiti Adhuc constat sicut ibi legitur in Mattheo quod si aliquis damnum alii indebite dederit illeque ad mandatum Ecclesiae noluerit emendare quod Ecclesia per potestatem à Christo sibi concessam ipsum ad hoc per excommunicationis sententiam compellere potest quae quidem potestas est utique coactiva Circa quod est advertendum quod cum excommunicatio major nedum excommunicatum à perceptione sacramentâ—rum removeat sed etiam à communione fidelium ipsum excommunicatum excludit quod corporalis etiam à Christo coactio Ecclesiae est permissa cum etiam secundum Imperiales leges gravius reputetur inter homines conversari ipsorumque privari suffragio quam ab hominibus separari Ex quo sequitur potestatem câ—activam non ab Imperatore terreno sed ab ipso Christo fuisse originaliter Ecclesiam consequutam Where it is clear enough out of all his arguments here that by coaction punition and coactive power to punish so or to use such coaction and which he attibutes to the Church as a Church and as given her originally by Christ he understands no other kind of coaction coactive punishment or coactive power but that which is only and purely spiritual because none other but that which is of excommunication or to punish by excommunication and by that kind of excommunication too which is certainly properly and purely Evangelical or grounded in the Gospel And consequently it is clear enough that albeit this kind of coaction be called by him here a corporal coaction also yet as I must say that he somewhat improperly calls it so or corporal coaction or even indeed coaction at all being there is no corporal force used or which may be used by the judge that pronounceth it to put it in execution I mean which may be used by vertue of the same spiritual Church-power out of which or by vertue of which it was pronounced so I must say that whether he call it so improperly or no or whether or no he may not properly call it both coaction and corporal coaction too for asmuch as it brings some kind of necessity on the excommunicated to submit and that this necessity relates also in some degree to the very corps or body of the excommunicated by reason that all others do shun even his corporal communion company or conversation excepting only such as are by
dangerous consequence or overture of such horrid disputes cannot follow the subscription of this fifth For to make good this consecution or to prove those consequents to follow the only medium must be this other proposition The Parliament or people in such an Hereditary Kingdom have the same power respectively in temporals over all persons even that of the Prince himself and even to deprivation or deposition too which the universal Church or general Council hath in spirituals over all faithful brethren amongst whom the Pope must be Which proposition doubtless the congregation might see if they pleased that neither Bellarmine nor Suarez nor any other Divine of their way ever yet evicted or sufficiently proved And from those Divines of either of both the other wayes there could be no reason to expect a proof thereof since those made it their work to disprove it by laying quite contrary principles which they abundantly evidence as I also my self have in my little Book on the Remonstrance of 61. Where I have by two clear Demonstrations More ample Account pag. 67 c one a priâ—ri and the other â posteriori and by Scriptures and Fathers and practice of the primitive Church by answers also to all material objections proved the Soveraignty or as Bodin speaks the Majesty to be in the Prince in all cases not in the Parliament or people not even in any extraordinary case or contingency whatsoever speaking at least as I do here of Hereditary Kingdoms So that the Fathers of the congregation would have dealed more ingenuously if they had omitted the second reason and in lieu thereof only said they conceived it their interest or it was their pleasure to adhere to Bellarmines doctrine as to this point rather then follow the example of Sorbon or doctrine of the Gallican and other national Churches or even that in those two General Councils above rehearsed And yet I confess they would have said this inconsequently withal forasmuch as they had already relinquished Bellarmine in the three former propositions if understood without vain distinctions and yet had not such clear authorities of General Councils therein for themselves albeit they had enough besides Scripture and Reason the Faculty of Sorbon directly on those very controverted points And further they would have said it against the chief purpose which must have been Sorbons and should be theirs to obstruct those other indeed no less certain evident natural then bad sad and dismal consequences of the Popes being asserted to be above General Councils I am come at last to their two last last paragraphs Which I give together because they are of one subject the sixth and last also of those propositions of Sorbon You have it above rendred in English by the Congregation and in these words That it is not the doctrine or dogme of the Faculty that the Pope without the consent of the Church is infallible Why the said congregation would not subscribe this proposition mutatis mutandis or taking it thus It is not our doctrine c. they give their reasons such as they are in these two paragraphs here following in their own words The sixth regards the Popes infallibility in matters of Faith whether the Pope not as a private Doctor but with an especial congregation of Doctors Prelats and Divines deputed can censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie or whether it be necessary to have a general Council from all parts of the world to decide define censure and condemn certain Propositions of Heresie The Iansenists already condemned of Heresie by three Popes and all the Bishops of France to vindicate themselves from the censure contest the first way they write in their own defence and many more against them on which subject is debated the questio facti whether the propositions condemned as Herefie by the Pope be in the true sense and meaning of the Iansenists or no whether in his book or no as may appear by such as we can produce if necessary The Vniversities of France say That it is not their doctrine that the Pope c. Whether this touched our scope or no we leave it to all prudent men to judge If they think it doth let them know that we should not hold the Popes Infallibility if he did define any thing against the obedience we owe our Prince if they speak of any other infallibility as matter of Religion and Faith as it regardeth us not nor our obedience to our Soveraign so we are loath forreign Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a question in a Country where we have neither Vniversity nor Iansenist amongst us if not perhaps some few particulars whom we conceive under-hand to further this dispute to the disturbance of both King and Country Where I observe the sum of what they would say after mistating the question and after so many disguises and windings to be that this sixth Proposition is impertinent odious unprofitable unfit to be disputed in this Country relates to Jansenisme is suspected to be under-hand furthered by some of that way and finally tends to the disturbance of both King and Country And therefore they thought it fit not to subscribe to it But the contriver of these reasons will now give me leave to clear this fogg which as Sorcerers use to do he hath raised before the eyes of the Reader Whom therefore I must tell That Father N. N. hath first mis-stated the question That the question was not is not whether the Pope either as a private Doctor or as a publick of the whole Church or which is the same thing as Pope either without or with a special congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats can censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie Or whether it be necessary to have a general Council from all parts of the world to decide define censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie But the qustion was and is whether the Pope even as such or even as the publick Master Doctor Director and Superiour in spiritual matters of all the faithful and even as joyntly taken with or sitting in such a special Congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats can so decide define censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie that without the joynt consent or concurrence antecedent concommitant or subsequent of the universal Church at least in its Representative a General Council such decision definition censure or condemnation must be in it self infallibly true or must be as such only without any kind of even internal contradiction opposition or doubt received and believed by all the faithful or accounted infallibly true or de fide divina Catholica of divine and Catholick faith and I say accounted such or of Divine Catholick Faith hoc ipso that the Pope hath defined it so That no Catholick Writer hath ever yet questioned or denied a power and lawful authority in or to even a particular Bishop much less in or to a
great Archbishop Primate Patriarch and least of all in or to the chief of Patriarchs to decide define censure and condemn in his own Diocess and in his own Diocesan Synod or when he shall see cause even without any such Synod certain propositions of Heresie provided he carry himself warily circumspectly have sufficient knowledge of or in the divine Scriptures Traditions Canons or Faith of the universal Church concerning the points controverted That notwithstanding the Catholick Church or Doctors thereof require submission and obedience at least externally even to such decisions and from all kind of persons respectively subject to the direction of such Deciders and require that submission and obedience universally where ever and whensoever the decision appears not or until it appear by sufficient and clear evidence to be in it self indeed against the faith received or at least to be very much doubted of by the rest of the faithful or by a considerable party of the learned and pious yet not only in the opinion of Jansenists but even of most of the most Orthodox Anti-Jansenists the same Catholick Church hath never yet attributed infallibility to any such decision as barely purely and only such but on the contrary held it alwayes as such to be fallible That in the same opinion likewise and as well of most of the severest Anti-Jansenist's as of the very most rigid Jansenist's when the Propositions defined so are in themselves infallibly true and of divine Catholick belief they must not therefore nor are by the Catholick Church required to be by the faithful believed to be such that is infallibly true ratione formae or by reason onely or at all of any such decision definition censure or condemnation or of any how formal soever so made as above even by the Pope himself and even with an especial Congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats but ratione materiae by reason of the matter onely whereon such decision falls Although to the vulgar and ignorant such particular decision onely may and ought to be a sufficient motive of even the most internal submission of their Soules as long as they hear no publick contradiction of the points by any of the rest of the Churches or pious and learned Doctors which are within the pale of the Catholick Church That as it is confessed notwithstanding that there are some other Divines of the Catholick communion who in those later and worser ages of the Church attribute infallibility to such decisions made by Popes onely without any further consent or concurrence of the Catholick Church by a general Council or otherwise than by such few Divines or Canonists as the Pope is pleased to consult with nay or otherwise too than by his own onely judgment declared to all Christians by a Brief Bull or Decretal Epistle though even against the judgment of all other Divines Canonists Prelats even those of his own particular Diocess Church or City of Rome for they place all his infallibility nay that of the whole Church in his own judgment alone declared by him as Pope or ex Cathedra that is in their explication of Cathedra declared by him to all the faithful in a Brief Bull or Decretal Epistle authoritate Petri et Pauli Apostolorum or commanded by him under pain of Excommunication or anathema or forfeiture of Salvation to be followed as the faith delivered once by the Apostles of Christ so most of this way or this opinion have been long before there was any Iansenist in the world before Iansenius himself had ever put penn to paper nay before he was born Though it be confessed withal it took strongest footing in many Schools since Bellarmine undertook the patronage of it but this too was before Iansenius's time That therefore the question in it self and even as well in relation to the Parisians or Sorbonists as to us here in Ireland and certainly of us there can be no kind of dispute abstracts wholy from all kind of Iansenisme as it is also well known the former or that of the Pope's authority over or subjection to a general Council does That whether the Sorbonist's or any of them in subscribing the 6th Proposition took occasion in part from that Bull of Alexander the 7th wherein he declares the five condemned Propositions to be in Iansenius or further took any from that Blasphemous thesis of Cleremont asserting the same infallibily to the Popes declaration even in matter of fact which Christ our Saviour had when upon earth or whether they took from neither any such occasion as indeed they might and should very justly from that of Cleremont and therefore likely have it is manifest enough that the Sorbonist's who subscribed this 6th Proposition or declaration against the doctrine of the Popes infallibility are no Iansenist's as being men that are all known to have subscribed the condemnation of the five Propositions of Iansenius and men too that most of them have been earnest all along against his doctrine and against the Patrons of it how ever some time of their own Faculty but not at all long before the date of these six Propositions That besides considering the State of the Kingdom of France and affairs of their King in the month and 8th of May 1663. when the Sorbonist's made these declarations and His being at defiance with the Pope at that very time and considering also that the four first import directly and onely for the matter what concerned their said Kings security against all such future pretensions or attempts of Popes as those were of Boniface the 8th or Iulius the second and considering besides that the whole Vniversitie of Paris not Sorbone onely went altogether with the Arch-Bishop of that See heading them to present the same declarations to their King and that his French Majesty took such special care to publish them in Print throughout his Kingdom with his own declarative commands prefixed to them and moreover considering that the former five without the 6th could not be sufficient in point of doctrine to secure him of his Catholick Subjects against the Pope and further yet considering that the said French King himself was constantly and is so farr from being a Iansenist that he hath always been and was at that very time as he is now at this present a great persecuter of them and finally considering that all the Bishops of France with all its Vniversities and for the matter the whole Gallican Church concurred with those three Popes in the condemnation of that which is reputed Iansenisme I mean the five Propositions commonly said to be found in Iansenius I say that considering well and joyning all together it may be easily and rationally concluded that amongst other motives as that of Cleremont concerning the Popes infallibility in matter of Fact equal to Christs and as that of Sorbone's wiping of the imputation of the same doctrine also of the Popes infallibility in general according to Bellarmines way so lately
Law and Appeal had not been interposed yet must we hold that your Honours Appeal in your own behalf and in the name of all the Confederate Catholicks who did or do adhere unto your Honours having been so made within due time and after the form of Law tender'd with expression of reasonable causes therein for provoking to His Holiness and Apostles being demanded and granted though these Apostles are no other than Refutatories must notwithstanding suspend the Monitory or conditional Excommunication and Interdict with all their effects and consequences and all other proceedings of the Censurers in pursuance of the same It s plain by the Sacred Canons undoubted by the Doctrine of Divines and Canonists and clear by the very light of Reason which God hath given intelligent Souls Read cap. Praeterea 40. ext de appellatione cap. Si a Judic de appellat in 6. that we may pass over to shun tediousness many such places and you shall find nothing more plainly resolved in the Canons We have (a) Praeterea requisiti suimus si quis Judex ita protulerit sententiam Nisi empronio infra viginti dies satisfeceris te excommunicatum vel suspensum aut interdictum cognoscas Ille in quem fertur sententia medio tempore appellans ad diem statutum minime satisfecerit utrum ille taâ—i sententia ligetur aut interpositione Appellationis tutus existat Videtur autem nobis quod hujusmodi sententiam Appellationis obstaculum debeat impedire been demanded sayes Celestine the III. in cap. Praeterea in case a Judge pronounce sentence thus If you do not satisfie Sempronius within twenty dayes know that you are excommunicated suspended or interdicted and he against whom the sentence is given appealing in the mean time that is sometime within the twenty dayes makes no satisfaction to Sempronius at or before the day prefixed whether he to wit the party against whom the sentence was pronounced hath incurred the Censures as bound by the sentence or hath his Appeal interposed saved him harmless We think that the interposing of the Appeal hinders and takes away the force of the said sentence And thus sayes Glossa (b) Glossâ— in verb. impedire ita suspenditur sententia quae non dum tenet non enim tenet nisi extante conditione Ex quo autem reneret non suspenderetur ejus affectus c. on the word Impedire the sentence is suspended which doth yet bind or which is not yet of force he means until the time prefixed for admonition be expired and other conditions if any be as that was in this case of not satisfying performed for it is not binding until the condition be extant But if it were once binding its effect could not be suspended by an Appeal coming after c. Behold here our very case Our Judge or Judges the Lord Nuncio and his four Delegates as they are called though really it be much doubted whether the Congregation held last at Kilkenny gave them any such delegation to proceed with so much rigour against the whole body of the Kingdom to bring so much danger upon it and throw so much confusion sedition and wickedness into every corner and into the very intrals of the Confederates and this by abuse of Ecclesiastical Censures to bring scandal on the Church notwithstanding the Lord Nuncio with his four Delegates commanded the Supreme Council and their Adherents who embraced the Cessation to reject the said Cessation within or before nine dayes after the intimation of their command and likewise enjoined all others of the Confederates not to join with or consent to this Cessation otherwise declared the former excommunicated and interdicted if they fell not from it within that term prefixed and the later likewise in case they transgressed after they had got sufficient notice of their Lordships determination and Censures in this behalf The Supreme Council interposed an Appeal to His Holiness for themselves and for all the rest unto whom the Censures might be extended and tender'd it according to the form of and within the time prescribed by the Canons Is it not then consequent that these monitory and conditional Censures were by such an Appeal suspended It followeth manifestly if the judgment of Celestine was just or the Law doth not err In both monitory and conditional Censures In both an Appeal made before the dayes of admonition or allowed for deliberation were expired or before the condition was in being that is before a new transgression of the precept after sufficient notice had thereof no Appeal being interposed and after the dayes allowed for appearance were once past therefore in both cases the Appeal must have the like effect Videtur autem nobis quod hujusmodi sententiam Appellationis obstaculum debeat impedire Non enim tenet sayes (c) Celestinus in Praeterea supra Glossa ibid. Glossa nisi extante conditione c. ut supra The first branch of this second Querie and of our assertion in answering it being thus declared the next branch that is whether the effects and consequences of the Censures be likewise suspended is of easie resolution and the resolution of as easie proof For it is a known Maxim in the Canons That accessories do follow the principal cap. (d) Accessorium sequitur principale Dilectis filiis de appellat and it is certain That the Censures we speak of are the principal and that the effects and consequences are but accessories Wherefore the Censures being in themselves suspended by the Appeal the effects and consequences must be of necessity suspended And verily there is no difficulty may be moved in this point What effects and consequences of excommunication and interdict See at full in Tolet. l. 1. Bonifac. 8. in c. Si a Judice de Appellat in 6. But some controversie perhaps may arise about the third part of this Querie where it 's demanded Whether all other Censures or proceedings of the Lord Nuncio Delegates or others in pursuance of the former on the same ground are likewise suspended or hindered by the said Appeal yet even this branch is so cleared by cap. Si a Judice de Appellat in 6. that nothing more can be desired For in this Chapter Boniface the VIII both determines and declares That an Appeal once made the Judge from whom is no more Judge over the Appellant and that his Jurisdiction is suspended understand in the case and others thence following wherein the Appeal is made and that therefore the Appellant is not bound to appear before him If the Judge from whom be no more Judge if his Jurisdiction be suspended the Appeal being interposed if therefore the Appellant be not to appear before him what is more evident then That the said Appeal is a suspension of all other proceedings or Censures issued or to be issued in pursuance of the former or on the same ground from the Lord Nuncio and his Delegates or any other deriving Authority from them