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
the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury and by the Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along till Henry the Second himself 's own raigne and until after this controversie happen'd criminal Clerks even guilty of murder were to be judg'd and punish'd only by the Court Ecclesiastical â—ay that not only by the same laws all Clergiemen 〈…〉 all crimes whatsoever to be judg'd only by the Bishops but that all the very 〈◊〉 of the Church were â—â—all causes whatsoever to be adjudg'd only in the Church of Ecclesiastical Tribunals nor should have recourse to those were by way of distinction commonly called the Kings Courts but only in default of justice done according to law in the Courts of the Church Which being in or as to both differences the law of England contrary to which iâ— both differences oâ— cases Henry the Second would have forced St. Thomas and no other law of God or Man commanding St. Thomas to submit to the King in either as the case stood not even that of St. Paul 13. to the Romans because St. Thomas had in both as in all his other differences the sublimer â—oâ—â—ers in the law of the land for himself who sees not that St. Thomas needed not for his own justification in either differences pretend either the positive law of God or the natural law of God or the law of Nations or the Imperial law or even any Church law or Papal law or Canon for the exemption of criminal Clergiemen from the secular Courts when he denyed to deliver up the two criminal Clerks or when he refused to sign or seal that second Head of Henry the Second's customes which second head was such as subjected all Clergie-men in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt spiritual and temporal to the cognizance of the Kings even ordinary lay Judges and Courts as you may see by turning to and reading over again in my fourth Observation that second Head of those 16 And who seeâ— not but he might at the same time without any contradiction inconsequence oâ— contrariety maintain that still it was true that abstracting from the laws of England then as yet 〈◊〉 because not legally repealed all Clerks in England were by the laws of â—eason and laws of God and doctrine of the Fathers and many Canons too of Popes and Councils subject in all temporal causes both civil and criminal to the lay civil Courts and Judges of Henry the Second Nay who sees not but for any thing alledg'd or known out of the Histories of either his life or death or martyrdome or canonization or miracles or invocation of him after as a glorious martyrized Saint and even martyrized only too if you please in meer defence of the Church liberties and immunities who sees not I say but that notwithstanding any thing hitherto so alledg'd out of all or any of those Histories he not only might be but was rigidly and constantly of this judgement and opinion especially being these Histories tell us in one instance that when he was so much pressed to sign to those 16. Heads as the royal customes of Henry the First he doubted they were no such customes of Henry the First or were no customes at all and therefore chiefly and only fell off after swearing them and would not sign or seal them at all as was desired and expected from him albeit his Cross-bearer's check did forward his repentance for having sworn Sed cum descriptas consuetudines sayes Parker himself in the life of our Saint perlegisset Thomas for when he swore to observe them he did not see them in writing nor were they digested at all into heads and therefore he only swore in general to observe those customes which Henry the Second called â—nitas consâ—â— tudines his Grandfathers customes and royal customes â—ulâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 an ill â—um quaedam inter consuetudines essent habendae itâ—â— diem deliâ—â—◠〈…〉 sigillum chirographum adhiberet petiit and whereas also he could not be ignorant of the laws both Imperial which he had studied and of the laws of England where he lived and judged so long as Chancellor Or who sees not briefly that that there is no contradiction that a most rigid 〈◊〉 Bishop should dye for the rights of the Clergie and be therefore a Marâ—â—◠〈◊〉 yet acknowledge all those rights or at least many or some of them 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ch he dyed as for example that of exemption came to the Clergie from the meer civil or municipal and politick just laws of the land and only from such laws of the land and not by any means immediatly from any other law divine or humane of nature or Nations or of the Church Pope or Emperour if not in so much only as the laws of God and nature approve all just laws of every land 〈◊〉 they be repealed by an equal authority no that which made them Finally who sees not also that notwithstanding all this or notwithstanding the municipal laws of England were for St. Thomas in every particular of his said manifold opposition to his King or that by the same laws the English Clergie had such exemptions from secular Courts yet St. Thomas might have been of this opinion also and perswasion at the same time and was so too most rigidly and constantly for ought appears to the contrary out of the Acts of his life or other Historians that as by no other laws of God or man or reason so neither by those very laws of England either himself or any other Clergieman was exempt from the supream civil coercive power or even could be exempt during their being subjects or their acknowledging to be so or their living in the quality of subjects 1. Because the very name and nature of subjection draws along with it and either essentially or at least necessary implyes this which is to be subject to the supream coercive power at least in some cases and some contingencies 2. Because that if both himself and all other Ecclesiastical Judges and Bishops taking the Pope himself too in the number did fail in their duty of punishing Clerks notoriously scandalously and dangerously criminal or that if the criminal Clerks themselves would not according to the law of the land submit to the sentence and punishment prescribed into them by the Bishops or if even also the Bishops themselves were altogether guilty of the same crimes or patronizers of the criminals and would not amend or satisfie of themselves without any peradventure t is evident that the supream civil coercive power might and ought in such cases to proceed against them by plain force and corporal coâ—rcion cuia salus populi suâ—rema lex esto 3. Because the power whereby S. Thomas himself and all other Bishops and Ecclesiastical Judges proceeded in a compulsory way to any civil or corporal coercion of criminal Clerks against the will of the same Clerks as to seizing their persons imprisoning them whiping them taking away their temporal goods confining them
submission most heartily and freely appeal That you may determine for what concerns you of the truth or falsity likelihood or unlikelihood of that worst of Scandals viz. Desertion of my Order and Religion wherewith I have been frequently asperst on several occasions as in former times even Twenty years ago by some of the Nuncio's Faction so of late during all these four last years by others of the Anti-remonstrants especially by some Church-men who so little consider their holy Function that they seem to have lost all regard to Truth and Honesty and do not boggle at the shame of being daily found in manifest Forgeries so they may but do their work to serve themselves by it or to rid out of their way any person who they fear may obstruct their ambition i. e. their design of confounding all again if they alone cannot otherwise command all Onely I shall further beg as to this matter that before you determine of it you would be pleased to read over these following Appendages First Appendage relating to the Fourth Querie That in regard of the times places and occasions I lived in and employments I had and Books and persons I conversed with of every side and my own both curiosity and concern to understand matters aright and to see into their genuine causes I may without vanity say of my self That I have had more than common opportunities to know the Doctrines and Practises of the Roman Court what they are and how hurtful how pernicious to these Kingdoms and to the Roman-Catholick Religion And that ever since I came to see into these things at least ever since I gave my self to a serious and full consideration of those principles and wayes which was about Twenty seven years since upon occasion given me by that Faction I have most heartily abhor'd and at all times and upon all occasions protested against them and the more I have known of them still the more I have seen cause to detest and to protest against them as I do at this day Second Appendage relating to the Fifth Querie That I can and do appeal to God Himelf That next after the regard of not wounding mortally my own Conscience by a manifest desertion of Truth and equivalent profession of such Errours as I know certainly to be against the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and Gospel of Christ the chiefest motive I had for bearing up constantly so long a time against all Censures Precepts Monitories Denunciations Affixions Decrees and other grievous concomitant Persecutions in the often mention'd Cause of the Loyal Formulary was the regard of not doing you all the Roman-Catholicks of His Majesties Three Kingdoms the greatest injury that I could possibly do you or perhaps any man of my degree by confessing the grand Objection against you to be insoluble For I saw clearly That if either the temptation of preferment to Offices and Dignities or the tryal of punishment by Censures and Calumnies and all their Consequents at the pleasure of some Grandees at Rome should have had that influence on me as to make me in effect absolutely to renounce my Allegiance to the King by retracting the Subscription of my hand to that Instrument professing it in meer Temporal things onely the Argument thence derivable must have been obvious to any judicious knowing Protestant inclin'd to do you a prejudice as soon and as often as the Parliament sate and were moved in your Concerns Such an Argument I mean as urged home by a good Orator would even before indifferent Judges give much colour to that grand Objection viz. The inconsistence in these Nations 'twixt the safety of a Protestant Government and the giving of Liberty to Roman-Catholicks by repealing the penal Laws yet in force against them In substance it would have been alledg'd That the Roman-Catholicks at least for the generality of them would be alwayes right or wrong directed by their Priests That their Priests are most of them on the Popes side in this Controversie And if any of them be so hardy to oppose his usurpations there is no trusting of them for there is no reason to expect that any of them will stand to his principles and hold out For Example they might have instanced in unworthy me if I had fallen off after so long and such manifold tryals of my constancy for Twenty years past and after so many and so great obligations to persevere until the end of my life This and much more would in all probability I am sure might in all reason be alledg'd to make that great Objection hold against you had I hitherto submitted to the dictates or pleasure of the Roman Court in either Cause But it is not my business here to open more at large or press more home this Argument with all the aggravating circumstances both such as are fresh in memory and such as might be derived from the memory of former times My purpose was to hint it onely as believing this enough to shew you the reasonableness of that second Motive I had for holding out so constantly in such a Cause and in the very manner I did all along against so numerous and so dangerous Adversaries especially seeing that very manner of my holding out so or of defending my self the best I could against them was and is authorized not only by the Divine Laws of Nature and Christianity but also most expresly and clearly by the positive Constitutions of men even of Roman-Catholicks viz. the fundamental Laws of England and Ireland not to speak now of other Catholick Nations of Europe so many Hundred years since Enacted by the Roman-Catholick Princes and Parliaments of these Kingdoms against all Forreign Citations or Summons from a Forreign Power beyond the Seas and also the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Catholick Church throughout the World nay of the very Papal Canons themselves forbidding in express terms Judicia Vltramarina (a) Vid. S. Cyprian Epist 55. ibi Statutum esse omnibus nobis c. Concil Affrican Episcop 217. inter quos Divus Augustinus erat Can. 92. relatum pariter in Cad Can. Eccles Affric Can. 125. Synod ad Coelest Item 3. q. 6. haecce capita viz. Ibi. Vltra Si quis Clericus Peregrina Qui crimen q. 9. cap. Nec extra Item cap. Nonnulli de Rescrip Item Stat. General Barchinonensia Ord. Min. cap. 6. §. 1. num 1. 2. ubi Patres rationem habent illius naturalis Canonum aequitatis and expresly decreeing against many other special Injustices and Nullities on other grounds in the late procedure against me (b) If you would see more Quotations both of the Canon and Civil Law against every particular Injustice committed in Summoning me to appear beyond Seas and which do justifie in all respects my procedure in not obeying such Summons you may consult my Latin Epistle to Harold pag. 6 7. besides my Latin Hibernica Third Part and you will find a very great abundance of the
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
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
bounty how much more in reason must we not deny the Church a power to deprive such of her own favours as will not perform the conditions enjoyn'd by her for the continuance of such favours Thirdly against that which is said by Barclay and which I too have said above that this canon was made by the Fathers to restrain the giddiness and rashness of such Clergiemen as would appeal from the Church to a secular Judge after the cause had been begun to be discussed in the Church against this I say of a provision made here for such a case only of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical and nevertheless before any judgement given transferr'd by a caprichious Clerk Bellarmine argues by objecting the Council of Milevi Concilium Melevitanum and it must be the second of Milevi under Arcadius and Honorius where it is prohibited in the ninth canon not that Clerks transfer to secular Courts a cause begun already in the Church but absolutely prohibited that by no means they go to the Emperour to demand of him secular Judges But the answer is obvious 1. That divers canons may be made by divers Councils And that it is most evident that whatever the Fathers of Milevi ordained in the case those of Carthage ordained no other then what William Barclay said and what I too have after him said without any kind of interpretation or paraprase of the Council but in the very words of the Council or Canon it self For these are the words precisely of that Canon Cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commâ—ta Let any one say now for Bellarmine that ought else is decreed by the Canon then what is against such Clerks as transfer a cause already begun in the Church 2. That for that Council of Milevi albeit the Fathers prohibit in the Canon cited out of it that Clerks desire no secular judgment of the Emperour yet they prohibit not the Emperour himself to assign lay Judges to a Clerk if his Imperial Wisdom think it fit to assign such Nor even prohibit Clerks to answer if called upon by such lay Judges and obey their sentence as binding them So that both Councils that of Carthage and this of Milevi say the very same thing in this matter without any other difference but only that this of Milevi extends the prohibition further that is not only to the transferring of causes already begun before or in the presence of an Ecclesiastical Judge but even to causes not so begun For it simply or absolutely prohibits Clerks to transferr as much as in them lyes any civil or criminal cause whatsoever whether so begun or not so begun to secular Judges Where yet it is apparent there is nothing at all for the Immunity of Clerks from secular Judges being the command is only to Clerks not to demand such lay judges and no command to no restriction at all of the lay Judges to proceed ex offiâ—iâ— when the causes of Clerks are brought before them The second Council that prescribed any thing in this matter was that truly Oecumenical or General of Chalcedon for the former of Carthage though of very great authority was but a National Council of Affrick however canonized after by approbation of truly General Councils held in the year 451 under Martianus the Emperour and Pulcheria the Empress who were both present and often sate in it Wherein the ninth canon made for discipline and regulation of Church affairs or those of Clergymen was this Si quis Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non derelinquat preprium Episcopum ad secularia judicia non concurrat sed prius negotium agitetur apud proprium Episcâ—pum vel certe si fuerit negotium ipsius Episcopi apud arbitros ex utraque parte electos audiatur negotium Si quis vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diaecesis Primatem aut certeâ—ad Constantinopolitanae Regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur If any Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk let him not leave his proper Bishop nor run to secular Iudicatories But first let the matter be agitated before his proper Bishop or certainly if the controversie be with this Bishop himself let it be heard by arbiters chosen by both sides But if any Bishop or Clerk have a controversie with or against the Metrapolitan of the Province let them go to the Primate of the Diocess or certainly to the See of the Constantinopolitan Royal City that the business may be ended there And this is all this canon sayes Where it is plain enough 1. That the Fathers direct their speech to Clergiemen only prescribe a rule to them only but none at all to lay Magistrats or Iudges not even to the subordinat inferiour Iudges so little do they meddle with or ever as much as thought to meddle with the supream That although they bid Clerks not to go first to secular Iudgments yet they do not bid them not to go at last or in the next or second instance to such if they cannot agree That even to the Clerks themselves they prescribe only in such cases as a Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk but not in case a Clerk have a quarrel with a Laick or a Laick to him 2. That they declare not here enjoyn or prescribe that it was not is not of shall not be in the power of a lay Judge to determine of the causes of Clerks one against another or of that of a Clerk against a Lay-man or of a Lay-man against a Clerk when either voluntarily and by the parties themselves brought before him or when by his own authority or by due course of law or by summons from him to either or both parties they appear in his Court. So that this Canon meddles not at all with the power authority or jurisdiction of the lay Magistrates or Judges but only prescribes a rule to the Clerks themselves that themselves should not freely or voluntarily sue one another at least in prima instantia in secular Judicatories and as we may justly presume upon the same grounds and for the same ends we have before noted the Fathers of Affrick did in imitation of St. Paul or of his advice or command as you please to all Christians in general to abstain from suing one another in heathen Judicatories least otherwise they would questionless betray their religion and belye it before the haters and persecutors of it 3. That in case there were as there is not any word or matter in this canon of Chalcedon restraining any way the Jurisdiction of even inferiour lay Magistrates or Judges yet it would be to no more purpose alledged against me or against any thing I have said before in this Section concerning even the very same inferiour lay Magistrates and their Jurisdiction over Clerks in politick or temporal
ancient and where according to our own very common doctrine in Schools they give no sufficient ground at all to derive such unreasonable conclusions from their decrees nor ever I am confident as much as once imagined any would be so extravagant as to derive such Fourthly That although we admitted as we neither do nor can that the Fathers of Agde in the second part of this canon and by these words sed si pulsatus fuerit non respondeat nec proponat nec audeat criminale negotium in judicio seculari proponere were intended absolutely and generally to forbid their own Clerks in any case to answer in the publick lay Courts and in criminal causes notwithstanding the Judges themselves should expresly and particularly summon and command them to appear and answer yet nothing could be concluded hence against either of my above affirmations First nothing to prove as I will presently shew that which indeed is the only thing to be proved against my main or rather only purpose that is nothing to prove that the Fathers therefore intended that Clerks should not appear and answer if by the supream secular Judge himself or by a warrant come immediatly from the King himself or from his special Delegate in such a matter they were commanded to appear and answer before him Secondly nor any thing to prove that by the pure and sole authority of the Church or of any Councils or Bishops Cergiemen were warranted as much as in point of conscience not to appear and answer even before the subordinat inferiour lay Judges Nor thirdly yet any thing at all to prove that these Fathers of Agde or other Council declared by that other canon that Clerks were generally in all Countreys and in all causes or all matters even the most criminal and horrid soever at that time which was indeed before Iustinians time exempt as much as by the civil authority of Emperours or even of other Kings from all inferiour lay Judicatories and so exempt that if in any case these inferiour Judges themselves did ex officio proceed against them yet they were not bound to answer or obey or observe their judgement or that if those same inferiour Judges gave sentence for or against them in any temporal cause whatsoever or in any cause not purely spiritual such sentence would not hold when pronounc'd according to the civil or municipal either Imperial or Royal Laws inforce in the respective Countreys Such forbidding of their own Clerks might have been grounded on a particular custom introduced by the people in that Province of Guien and by the consent or permission or connivence or tacit approbation of the former civil Magistrats themselves or of King Alaricus himself or his Predecessors And in such case the Bishops there might have justly forbid their own Clerks to appear even at the summons of inferiour lay Iudges because the peculiar civil custom of that place not any spiritual power or canons of their own did so priviledg them albeit in all the rest of the world where the imperial written laws were still in force and strict observance no law or custom did so priviledge them or other Clerks at that time which was before Iustinians time and his law Novel 83. not to appear before the subordinat Magistrats or civil Iudges when summoned by them in a criminal cause nor priviledge the Bishops at all for holding coercive Courts either in civil or criminal causes but only by consent of both parties in difference And that it was introduced so or that such custom had been so in Guien and that only pursuant to the humane civil right or priviledge or exemption derived only from such custom and to maintain it until it had been legally revoked again by the supream civil power the Fathers of Agde made that canon or second part of it we have all the reasons to perswade us which perswade us also and clearly convince us that Ecclesiasticks are by the law of God as well as Laicks under the coercion of the lawful supream lay Magistrate and of his inferiour lay Iudges too if not or where not particularly exempted by him and those reasons besides which tell us we must have that reverence to all such Catholick ancient Fathers and especially in Council together as those of Agde are confessed to have been St. Cesarius the Archbishop of Arles and Primate of all France having been their President and so venerable an opinion of them as not to fix or give such a sense or interpretation to any of their canons however only canons of Discipline as would argue the canon-makers of ignorance or rashness or of any perversness at all or even such their canons of containing any thing either formally virtually or consequentially against the only infallible divine canons of the law of God and I mean still not to give or fix such interpretation to such canons where we can choose that is where the words are not so specifical and particular as to require it Now it is plain enough the words above-rehearsed are not so specifical or so particular as to require a contrary interpretation to that of them I have given here And yet that it was so or that in pursuance and by virtue of such a peculiar custom only of that Province or that little Kingdom there of Guien and of the supream civil Magistrats pleasure permission approbation and consent the Fathers of Agde made this canon or second part of it forbidding Clerks to answer in a criminal cause before lay Judges to wit before inferiour lay Judges we have secondly a sufficient other argument out of the first part of the same canon or out of the sense and natural consequences of it if compared with the practice of the Christian world in all other parts both at that time and at this For the first part being that no Clerk shall presume to sue a lay man before a lay Iudge without the Bishops licence and this importing as much as that an Ecclesiastical Plaintiff shall not without his Bishops leave conveâ—e a lay Defendent before his own proper lay Judge even I say in a meer lay cause or crime and this consequently being against the general rule Quâ—d Actor sequitur Forum Dei it is plain enough that if any will maintain those Fathers intended else here then only to prescribe to Clerks the first peaceable way they should take for righting themselves by letting the Bishop know the wrong done them to the end he might call the lay pretended injurer and try whether he could induce him fairly or by fatherly admonitions if first he had found a real injury done by him to the Clerk which also was christianly ordained as a rule by the Council of Tribur can 20. a German Council of two and twenty Bishops held in the year 895 under Arnulphus the Emperour and indistinctly ordained by this Council for lay men also to observe in case they pretended injuries done themselves by any Clerks I say it
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
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
all the power of the Emperour Frederick accompanied with such numerous and formidable legions and with all the Princes of Empire and Kings also of Denmark and Bohemia at Avignon whether this Emperour of purpose to entrap Lewis in a conference and force him to quit Alexander and 2. when immediatly after this he also personally visited this Pope Alexander apud Bobiense Monasterium where he was then retired presented him richly and did him so much honour and reverence that after kissing his toe he excused himself from sitting in the chayre prepared for him and with all his Barons sate on the bare ground at his feet and 3. That together with the said King Lewis of France at their meeting upon the River Loyre where this Pope mediated and concluded a peace betwixt them he out of exceeding reverence towards him and to countenance him the more against the Antipope Victor and Frederick the Emperour and for example to his own Subjects and those of France too and all others performed the office of a yeoman of the stirrop upon one side as the King of France did on the other leading his horse by the reyns both of them a foot on the right and left hand till they left him at his lodging as he after continued constant in his observance of this same Pope Alexander all along during the whole Schysme of three Antipopes created against him at such time and such a conjuncture as this Thomas Becket having been so elected by this Henry the Second as we have seen and so confirmed by this Pope Alexander the Third nay and immediatly upon his election and before any word sent to or received from Alexander though so neer him then as Mons Pessulanus in France having received investiture as the custom then yet was in England from a lay hand from that King 's own hand by receiveing from him a staff and a ring the first occasion spring or motive of all their following great long and fatal differences was very soon after unluckily happen'd even the very second year of his Archbishoprick that is immediatly after his return from that great Council of 17 Cardinals a hundred and four and twenty Bishops four hundred and fourteen Abbots and of an infinit number of other Priests and Clerks held in the month of May 1163. by Alexander at Tours in France concerning the Schysme where Alexander did such extraordinary honour to this our Canterbury Archbishop Thomas Becket as to send all his Cardinals two onely excepted who assisted himself out of town to receive him as he came to the Council But that which you are specially to observe here and first of all in order to our main purpose is what the particulars were of this first occasion spring or motives And indeed I confess that as Gulielmus Neuhrigensis tells us in the 16. Chapter of his History that at this Council of Tours though not publickly in the Council but privatly this our St. Thomas of Canterbury resigned his Archbishoprick to Alexander as not being able otherwise to bear the stinging pricks of his own conscience for having received the investiture of it from a lay hand and that Alexander again with his own hand invested him so he also tells us that the sole original cause of all the following fatal differences 'twixt St. Thomas and his King Henry the Second was that he would not suffer the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests that is would not suffer him to have them tryed sentenced and punish'd in the civil Courts or by the civil Judges according to that law which the King said was the law of the land the law and custom of his Predecessours But Cesars Baronius ad an Christi 11â—3 corrects Neubrigensis in both particulars And yet he or his Epitomizer Henricus Spondanus ad an Christi 1163 sayes that Neubrigensis was an Author of that time and both a faithful and accurat Writer Willelmus Neubrigensis sayes he hujus temporis scriptur fidelis aâ—â—enatus However Baronius corrects him in both the said particulars and sayes that as the first of Thomas of Canterburie's resignation happen'd in the year 1164. when being fled out of England he the second time accoasted the same Pope Alexander and presented the heads of those laws about which the consequent main contest was 'twixt the King and him so it appears out of the Acts of our Saints Life written by the before named four Authors of the said Acts that besides that of not suffering the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests which he confesses interceded yet several other causes preceded and most just causes too which imposed a necessity on the Saint to reprehend the King For sayes he these Acts relate how the King came to be incensed against him viz. because he endeavoured to recover from the hands or possession of Lay-men some lands which formerly belong'd to the Church of Canterbury and were unduly alienated by his Predecessors and because he endeavoured likewise to abolish the bad custom which had long prevailed in England that the revenues of vacant Churches should be payed in to and challenged by the Kings Exchequer whereby it came to pass that the Churches were too long of purpose kept vacant and yet because that being Archbishop he quitted his former office of Chancellorship against the Kings will who desired he should keep it still together with his Episcopacy which yet he would not reflecting on that of St. Paul Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus and because moreover he prohibited the exaction of an unjust assessement laid on the subjects and further also because he delivered not to the secular court a certain Priest condemn'd of murther but only degraded him and shut him up in a Monastery for his pennance nor delivered to secular punishment as the King desired another certain criminal Chanon but only laid him under Ecclesiastical Censures And these were the causes or springs of the great contest which followed as Baronius sayes out of the said Acts. And yet I must say that as he doth not as yet out of the same Acts or any thing here said by him out of them disprove what Neubrigensis said to be the only that is the first or sole first cause motive or spring for all these four or five did not happen altogether and that of not delivering the criminal Priest and Chanon to the secular court might have been the first of all for any thing related by him out of those Acts being they distinguish not or declare not particularly as he relates them which was first or last in time so it is clear by Baronius's own prosecution of the history of this Saints troubles and the Kings quarrel to him that this of not delivering those criminal Ecclesiasticks was that onely which occasion'd all the ensueing differences or that onely at least which the King took as the immediat pretence of his first publick quarrel with him and rest of the Bishops
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
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
THE History Vindication OF The Loyal Formulary or Irish Remonstrance So Graciously Received by His MAJESTY Anno 1661. AGAINST All CALUMNIES and CENSURES IN SEVERAL TREATISES WITH A True Account and Full Discussion of the Delufory Irish Remonstrance and other Papers Framed and Insisted on By the National Congregation at Dublin Anno 1666 And Presented to His MAJESTIES then Lord Lieutenant of that Kingdom the Duke of ORMOND But Rejected by HIS GRACE To which are added THREE APPENDIXES Whereof the Last contains The Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland His LONG EXCELLENT LETTER Of the Second of December 1650. In Answer to both the DECLARATION and EXCOMMUNICATION of the Bishops c. at Jamestown THE AUTHOR Father Peter Walsh of the Order of St. Francis Professor of Divinity Melior est contentiâ— pietatis causa suscepta quà m vitiosa concordia Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 1. pro Pace Printed Anno M.DC.LXXIV TO THE CATHOLICKS OF ENGLAND IRELAND SCOTLAND And all other DOMINIONS UNDER His Gracious Majesty CHARLES II. My Lords Fathers and Gentlemen HOw customary soever amongst Writers both ancient and modern sacred and profane the Dedication of Books hath been as well sometimes only to desire patronage as at other times gratefully to acknowledge benefits yet I do ingenuously confess it was nor this nor that end nor indeed any private regard whatsoever made me after some debate with my self resolve at last upon a Dedicatory Address to the most illustrious name of British and Irish Catholiks that name of names and most glorious of titles so peculiarly challeng'd and zealously contended for by you as the proper inheritance of those in this famous Empire of Great Brittaine that continue in Ecclesiastical Communion with the Catholick Bishop of old Rome What induced me to this Dedication or rather what required it as a duty of me was your undenyable concern above others in the subject or matters treated in this Book and indeed whole design of it even that very publick and great concern of yours appearing all along to be so proper so intrinsick nay so essential to the Book it self and if I may speake freely that very concern of yours the most universal and most considerable of any can be thought of at present by you To evidence your being every one so concern'd I think there needs no more than to consider what the said subject is It is 1. in general the old and fatal Controversie of late again much more unreasonably and vehemently if not more unhappily too then at any time before renewed amongst his Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects especially those of Ecclesiastical Function about the nature measures and obligation of Allegiance due to His Majesty from them in meer temporal things only And 2. in particular it is for one moyety or principal part thereof the Loyal Formulary of remonstrating promising and protesting indispensable Faith and Obedience to our Gracious King Charles the Second in all civil and temporal tâ—ings whatsoever according to the Laws of the Land or of His Kingdoms respectively Which Formulary was first conceived and agreed upon in the Reign of His Majesties Father of glorious Memory about five and thirty years since by the Roman Catholicks of England or at least some leading persons of them but more lately viz. after His present Majesties happy Restauration and more effectually too was espoused by considerable numbers of those of Ireland for many evident Reasons The chief Reason was the rather by that means to induce His Sacred Majesty to command the ceasing of a rigorous persecution which was then * 1661. actually on foot in that Kingdom under the Triumvirat of Sir Maurice Eustace Lord Chancellor and the Earls of Orrery and Mountrath against all Roman Catholicks universally without distinction or exception of any After much both private and publick debate about this Formulary in the years 1661 and 1662 it not only was subscribed at several times and places by the proper hands of threescore and ten of their Clergy whereof a Bishop was one and a hundred sixty four of their chiefest Lay Nobility Gentry and Proprietors whereof one and twenty were Peers viz. seven Earls nine Viscounts and five Barons but immediately after the first Subscription at London anno 1661. was solemnly presented to and graciously accepted by His Majesty And I suppose they that had any dislike of it in those dayes were well enough pleased with their shares of the success which was His Majesties effectual countermanding the winds and tempest of persecution throughout Ireland and his gracious smiling on the distressed Catholicks both People and Clergy of that Island This honest Formulary now commonly called the Irish Remonstrance so necessarily and piously espoused thus by so many good Patriot-Subscribers as a conscientious Christian full and satisfactory profession of the duty which by all Laws divine and humane they as well as all other Subjects owe His Majesty against all pretences of the Pope to the contrary was even for that very cause i. e. for being so Christianly honest and sincerely loyal soon after traduced and impugned by sundry Ecclesiasticks of the Roman Communion and chiefly by many of those Irish who had received most benefit by it These good men were not content by their reproaches and calumnies to make it odious at home but also dealt so by their disloyal Arts and powerful Friends in other Countries that they got it to be censur'd and condemn'd in formal terms as unlawful detestable sacrilegious yea in effect as schismatical and heretical by the publick Censures of the Lovain Theological Faculty and publick Letters also both of the Bruxell-Internuncio's De Vecchii and Rospigliosi and of the Roman Cardinals De propaganda Fide under the presidency of Cardinal Francis Barbarin himself though amongst other his many titles at Rome stiled Protector of England Having thus gotten the face of Authority on their side they have not ceased ever since for twelve years to the present 1673 but especially these five or six last years have in a most furious manner proceeded even with all the vilest arts of malicious Cabals Conspiracies Plots Libels and an Impostor Commissary and a forged Commission and all the most lying slanders imaginable to persecute and defame the few remaining constant Ecclesiastical Subscribers They have kept them in continual chace with all the greatest and all the most illegal most uncanonical extent of an abused Power with monitories citations depositions excommunications denunciations and even publick affixion or posting of them Of which extremely unjust and scandalous procedures against men no way contumacious as I have sufficiently proved * Vid. Hibernica Valesii Tert. Part. Epist Prim. ad Haroldum there was no cause in nature that appeared or was pretended but a manifest design to force them to renounce their Allegiance to the King by retracting their Subscriptions When they had found them of proof against these attempts under colour of Law they broke out into rage and being
now resolv'd to hunt them to death they left no way untried direct indirect overt covert of truth and of lies of force and fraud of secret machinations and open violence They laid about them every where both abroad in other Countries of Europe and at home in His Majestie 's Dominions being every where back'd with the special authority of the Court of Rome and even here at London which may be thought stranger being assisted by the special ministry of those who pretended still to be nevertheless very loyal Subjects to the Crown of England But no where so effectually as in the Kingdom of Ireland where His Holiness made thirteen Prelates viz. four Archbishops and nine Bishops in a very short time * 1669. 1670. 1671. that is immediately upon and soon after the Duke of Ormond's removal from the Government of that Kingdom in that very nick of time and opportunity so long expected and so passionately desired by them of meer purpose for that very Apostolical work So dangerous a thing it is reputed at Rome for the Subjects to give their natural Prince any pledge of their Faith which the Pope cannot undo It is no less criminal in the esteem of that Court than if the triple Crown it self and Keys of Heaven and Peter's Chair i. e. all the authority of the Holy See and all the very essentials of the Papacy were invaded by it In opposition to this no less persecuted than Loyal Instrument there was after four years consultation another of quite different words matter ends and consequently fortune set up by a general consent or rather intrigue of the Adversaries And this other Instrument is it which at least occasionally makes up the other half of the whole subject of this Book as it is that which was the Remonstrance Act of Recognition or Formulary propounded in and approved and subscribed by the National Synod or Congregation of the Roman Catholick Clergy both Secular and Regular Archbishops Bishops Provincials of Orders Vicars General and other Divines of Ireland convened at Dublin and there continued from the eleventh to the twenty fifth of June 1666. Now this being the onely National Synod or Assembly of Roman-Catholick Ecclesiasticks that with licence or connivence from the lawful Magistracy hath been held in any of His Majesties Kingdoms at any time since Queen Mary's Reign Who would have thought but that this singular Grace of His Majesty should have produced and even extorted from them some sutable extraordinary demonstration of their Loyalty It appeared not in their said Remonstrance or Formulary which was so fallacious and delusory so void of any assurance or so much as a promise of that indispensable Obedience and Faith which we owe to His Majesty in all Temporal things according to the Laws of the Land nay which was so void of so much as a promise of such Obedience or Faith in any one Temporal thing whatsoever according to those Laws that it was in effect little less than an open profession of Disloyalty in the Contrivers of it And therefore no wonder it was not censur'd or condemn'd but rather approved and applauded in the Roman Court. And indeed there was no other to be expected from that Synod At the opening whereof it being propounded by a Subscriber of the persecuted Remonstrance and by many clear unanswerable Reasons both urg'd and evinc'd by him that they should desire His Majesties pardon to the Irish Clergy in general for their guilt or the guilt of such of them as were obnoxious to the Laws for their carriage in the late Rebellion and Civil Wars in which even many there present were known to have been deeply engaged the prevailing Party for the rest were silent refus'd not only to ask pardon but so much as to acknowledge that there was any need of it From the acknowledgment of which they were so far as in express words before all publickly to speak and answer That they knew none at all guilty of any Crime for any thing done in the War Nay when His Majesties Lieutenant the Duke of ORMOND at that time Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of the Kingdom desired this of them at least that they would give His Majesty some assurance of their future obedience or peaceable demeanour upon any contingence either of Deposition or Excommunication by the Pope they refused even this without so much as putting it to the question It was more indeed than they thought fit to undertake for themselves But whatever their thoughts upon that or any other Subject were what I am now to re-mind you is That these two so different Formularies Remonstrances or Acts of Recognition whereof I have given hitherto that brief account which is proper in this place and all the Disputes concerning the former and all the Intrigues of the latter and all the material proper immediate Antecedents Concomitants and Consequents of both are equally the Subject of this present Book And that both of them equally concern although with different Aspects the Roman-Catholick Faith and Professors especially in these Kingdoms the former tending directly yea necessarily to the true advantage of that Religion but the latter by no less necessity of evident reason tending to the great disadvantage nay to the utter destruction of that which you hold dearer than your lives Without peradventure then you are universally so concern'd in the Subject of this Book as I have said and not only you but your Posterity after you and your Priests and your Nobles your Gentry and People your Peace and Quiet Religion Estates Liberty and Lives in short all your happiness and being in this World not to say also in the future If any yet doubt of this I desire him to look back and consider how many thundering Bulls have been issued from the Roman See at several times since the year 1535 some excommunicating others deposing our Princes and others even disposing of their Kingdoms and exposing them as a prey to Forreigners How many dangerous Invasions from abroad and rebellious Insurrections at home How many other treasonable Conspiracies and horrid Plots that followed those Papal sentences And all the ill success of such unchristian bloody undertakings the extinction of so many hundred illustrious Families the desolation of so many thousand ancient Houses the destruction of so many Myriads of poor harmless innocent People on every side and all the unspeakable miseries of the vanquish'd Party the pitiful Groans of surviving Heirs and the penitential Sobs of their dying Fathers for having under pretence of Catholick Religion or for any other cause whatsoever lifted up an armed hand against their Prince or his Laws I am deceived if these be not as many unanswerable demonstrations that you are without any doubt so universally and deeply concern'd in that Subject Whereunto if the penal Laws be added what can be desired more to evince even perceptibly to sense your great concernment therein All Roman-Catholicks universally without any
distinction of Countrey or Degree or Sex or Age Men Women Children from the most illustrious Peer to the most obscure Plebeian wheresoever in any of His Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions even at this present lie under all the rigorous Sanctions and all the severe Penalties of so many incapacitating so many mulctative Laws nay and so many sanguinary which reach even to life in several cases And your Predecessors before you have well nigh a whole Century of years been continually under the smart or apprehension of the severity of them And so may your Successors and your Children and Posterity after you for so long more if the true causes of Enacting at first those Laws and continuing them ever since be no better considered i.e. no more narrowly search'd into nor more effectually regarded by you than they have been by your Fathers for you or themselves But whatever Gods providential care of or goodness to your Posterity after you may be I am sure it cannot be denied but all Roman-Catholicks universally now living any where in England Ireland or Scotland must upon due reflection find themselves highly concern'd in having the Sword-point of those penal Constitutions hanging continually and even perpendicularly over their heads Do not we all manifestly perceive they are with-held at present from execution by a very small and weak Thred not only of one life that is mortal but even of one will alone that yet may be alter'd of a sudden upon many occasions which may happen when least expected Now seeing you are all every one thus concern'd in those Laws surely so you must all be in the causes of them i.e. in those genuine true proper and onely causes which continued must necessarily continue those very Laws and which removed will naturally remove them But if in those causes your concernment be such how can it be other or indeed how can it be any way less in the Subject of this Book All the several Treatises and Parts thereof and all the several Relations Discourses Disputes Animadversions therein occasion'd by either of the two Formularies drive ultimately at a plain and full discovery of those very causes and of their continual dependance on your own proper will alone and how lawfully and justly you may or rather how strictly you are even by all the known Maxims of Christian Religion Catholick Faith and Natural Reason bound in Conscience to remove them Your Concern therefore above all others in the Subject being thus at last clearly manifested I need no further Apology for the Dedication A Consecratory Address to you appears now evidently enough to have been required by the Nature of the Work it self as a necessary Appendage of that real duty which I have endeavoured to the best of my understanding all along in this Book to pay the most sacred name of Catholicks And in truth to whom other than to your selves ought or could I upon any sufficient ground dedicate a Book of so universal and weighty a Concern of yours Yet after all I must acknowledge that besides your propriety in the Subject I had the current of my own desires and my own Ideas to exact this Duty I have in truth these many years had continually even passionate desires of some fair opportunity to offer unto you but with all due submission still some farther and more particular thoughts relating both to the proper causes and proper remedies of all your foresaid evils And have at last entertain'd the pleasing Idea of a Dedicatory as the fairest occasion I could wish to speak directly and immediately to your selves all whatever I think to be for your advantage on that Subject and sutable to the measures of a Letter and what I moreover know some others think who yet have not the courage to speak or to inform you And therefore to pursue my old method I call it old having held these 26 years of delivering my thoughts fully and throughly in all Points which I conceive to be material though at the same time expecting from some contradiction and from others worse but comforting myself nevertheless with the conscience of very great Truth with the zeal of your highest advantage and with the certain expectation that all judicious good men will approve what I shall say and lay all to heart as they ought I must now tell you that if we please to examine things calmly with unprejudiced reading and unbyass'd reason we may find without any peradventure I. That the rigour of so many Laws the severity of so many Edicts and the cruel execution of both many times against even harmless People of the Roman Communion have not intentionally or designedly from the beginning aim'd nor do at present aim so much at the renunciation of any avowed or uncontroverted Articles of that Christian or Catholick Religion you profess as at the suppression of those Doctrines which many of your selves condemn as Anti-catholick and for the prevention of those practises which you all say you abhor as Antichristian II. That it is neither the number of Sacraments nor the divine excellency of the Eucharist above the rest either by the real presence in or Transubstantiation of the Consecrated Host nor the communion thereof in one kind onely nor the more holy and strict observance of Confession nor the ancient practice of Extreme Vnction nor the needless Controversies 'twixt Vs and the Protestants if we understood one another about Faith Justification Good Works or those termed Supererogatorie or about the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques Worshipping of Images Purgatory and Pardons nor is it the Canon of the Bible or a Learned Liturgy or Continency of Priests and obligation of certain Vows or holiness of either a Monastick or Cloystered life in a well-ordered Community of devout Regulars nor is it either a Patriarchical power in the Bishop of Rome over the Western Church according to the ancient Canons and Customs or which is yet somewhat more an universal Pastorship purely spiritual acknowledg'd in Him such I mean as properly flows from the Celestial power of the two Keyes of Peter as far as ever it was acknowledged by all or any of the ancient Councils I say it is not any of all these Articles or Practises nor all together not even join'd with some others whether of lesser or greater note that is the grand Rock of scandal or that hath been these last Hundred years the cause of so many Penalties Mulcts Incapacities of shameful Deaths inflicted and more ignominious Characters given us III. That of our side the original source of all those evils and perpetual spring of all other misfortunes and miseries whatsoever of the Roman-Catholicks in England Ireland Scotland at any time since the first change under Henry VIII hath been a System of Doctrines and Practises not only quite other than your selves do believe to have been either revealed in Holy Scripture or delivered by Catholick Tradition or evidenced by Natural Reason or so much as defined by
or whoever else indoctrinated Him there have been of the other side and of the same Church as there are even at this present day many Thousands or the most Learned most Zealous most Godly Prelates and Priests and Doctors besides Laicks who have cryed them down as not only false wicked impious heretical unchristian but as absolutely tyrannical and as plainly destructive of all Government and Laws and of all Property and Peace and of all whatsoever is or can be the felicity or comfort or even freedom of the children of men This hath sufficiently appear'd in the mighty oppositions made as well from the Pulpit and by Writing as by Arms in all Countries of Europe to so many fulminating so many King-deposing pretended universal Monarchs of the World in all things both Spiritual and Temporal to these only Vicars of Christ on earth to these onely infallible Judges of his Faith Witness the Concordates of Germany the Sicilian Monarchy the Pragmatical Sanction of France the Laws of Provisors and Premunire in England and Ireland and the two Oecumenical or at least Occidental Councils of Constance and Basil and many more National Synods both before and after them held some in Italy others in Germany and others in France and held in plain contradiction to those high claims and usurpations Witness also of very late dayes the Third Estate of France in the General Assembly (t) Jan. 1614 5. of the Three Estates held under Lewis XIII Jan. 1614 3 yea notwithstanding Cardinal Perron's Oratory and of later yet all the eight Universities of that Kingdom in their sentence of Sanctarellus (u) 1626. ann 1626. and of others too before and after besides the known practice all along of their Parliaments and â—â—st of all the Theological Faculty of Sorbon and the rest of the Paris (x) 1663. Divines in the year 1663 May 8. headed by the Archbishop of that See and presenting their siâ— Declaration against the Pope to the present French Monarch Lewis XIII All which are certainly manifold clear undeniable demonstrations of what I said immediately before viz. How of the fame Roman-Catholick Church or Faith and Communion there have been all alone as there are at this present many Thousands of the most Learned Zealous 〈◊〉 Godly 〈◊〉 Priests and Doctors as well as Laicks who never approved of the foresaid either Practices or Principles but alwayes reproved condemned abhorred detested and protested against them both as not only heretical but tyrannical c. IX That consequently since the owning of such intollerable Maximes and wicked Actions or the not disowning of them cannot be justly said to be any of the peculiar Notes or characteristical Marks of a Roman-Catholick in general but only of a certain Sect or 〈◊〉 or Party amongst them whom some call Papalins others Puritan Papists and others Popish-Recusanta and since none of all the undoubted either Articles or Riâ—â—â— which all Roman-Catholicks universally without any distinction of Party or Faction do and must espouse have been hitherto reputed accused or suspected of being in themselves abstractedly and purely taken in any manner dangerous to any Government Temporal or Spiritual or to any persons either of Princes or Subjects or to the property or liberty of any Man or Woman or to the peace or quieâ— or security or conteâ—â—â—f any humane Creature however in the mean 〈…〉 â—â—al or some of them do or may seem erroneous to the learned 〈…〉 Protestants and further since King Henry VIII and the Protestant 〈…〉 Parliament of England Ireland and Scotland after him a◠〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 could not 〈◊〉 throughly understand both these things which I have now mention'd so on the other hand they could not but observe how ever since the Oath of Supremacy though framed only by Roman-Catholick Bishops Abbots and Doctors of the English Nation and defended by the Principal (y) Bishop Gardiâ—er in his Book de â—eâ—a Obedienâ—â—â— and Bishop â—oâ—â—â—r in his Preface before it of the same occasioned the first Separation or Schism amongst the Subjects of England and Ireland the far greater part of such as continued in the Communion of the Roman Church did seem also to adhere to the foresaid dangerous Doctrines and Practises i. e. to all the pretenses and actings of the Roman Court forasmuch as they generally refus'd to disown them either by that Oath of Supremacy or by any other and moreover by consequence since the same Princes and Parliaments could not but manifestly discern all their own very being as also that of all the People under their Government to be singularly marked out and even devoted to utter extirpation by a party of men so madly principled and furiously bent living amongst them out of all that has been said it must follow That the onely original and the onely true principal causes which moved them to proceed with so much severity of Laws Proclamations and Executions against all Roman-Catholicks in general of these Dominions could be no other of our side than our Fathers and our own very great neglect and folly or contempt and wilfulness not to disown and renounce for ever publickly as we ought all such whatsoever wicked Positions and Practises nor any other indeed of their side than their firm persuations of our being therefore so desperately both principled and inclined nay resolved also and ready to give the greatest possible evidences of fiery Zeal whensoever the Commands of His Holiness from abroad shall meet with a fair opportunity at home X. That it is unreasonable to think and incredible to believe That so many judicious Princes Parliaments and Convocations who had themselves gone so far and ventured so much as they did only because they would not suffer themselves or the Protestant people govern'd by them to be imposed on against their own reason in matters of Divine Belief Rites c should at the same time be so concerned to impose on others in the like i. e. in Spiritual matters purely such in those I mean of Religion and Rites no way intrenching on the Jurisdiction or other Temporal or Spiritual Concern either of King or Bishop or other Subject whatsoever as to Enact Laws of so many grievous punishments yea of Death it self in some cases of meer purpose to extort from them a complyance or submission in such matters It is no to be believed that they would Enact those Laws against their own flesh and blood and some their nearest Relations too only for not renouncing such harmless and meer Religious Tenets or Rites which all their Predecessors before them had for so many Ages held without disturbance to the Publick or inconvenience to private Persons or hindrance to Virtue or countenance to Vice if the testimony of all Christendome for so long time be of any weight and to Enact those Laws intentionally or designedly against those things which at the very worst in all possible and conditional Contingencies are but erroneous Tenets and insignificant unprofitable Rites not
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
amongst the same Protestants to perswade themselves that however in our neighbouring Catholick Kingdoms the Article of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of the Bishop of Rome's universal Monarchy or of his both spiritual and temporal supreme Jurisdiction do not walk hand in hand together yet amongst the generality of Roman Catholicks in these Nations it hath been otherwise continually these last hundred years and is at present whether in the mean time this proceed out of Ignorance or Interest or both XIII That thus at last the only true both original and continual causes on our side of all the severe Laws and of all the other grievous misfortunes and miseries past and present which we complain of and groan under as peculiar to the Professors of the Roman Catholick Religion in these Nation appearing to be and really being such as I have hitherto discoursed none can be so short sighted or so unapprehensive as not without further discourse to understand likewise the only Christian and proper efficacious remedy of all the said evils for what I mean concerns the future and our own endeavours and concurrence with God and man to help our selves For certainly nothing can be more obvious to reason than that since our own either formal or virtual express or tacit owning of so many uncatholick Positions and so many unchristian practises by our continual refusing to disown them or either of them in any sufficient manner or as we ought by any proper Test hath been of our side hitherto the only immediate cause of all our woes and especially of all those legal Sanctions which upon due reflection do without doubt render our best condition even at present anxious it must follow That the only proper true and efficacious remedy on our side also must be at last our own free and unanimous and hearty and conscientious disowning of all and every the said erroneous Positions and wicked practises even by such a publick full and clear Instrument or Declaration and Oath as may satisfie all Protestants of our utter Aversness and Enmity to all Rebellious Doctrines and Practises whatsoever especially to those which tend to the maintaining of any kind of temporal Dominion or Jurisdiction direct or indirect or even any spiritual Power or Authority which may have the effect of such temporal in the Pope or See of Rome over his Majesty or any of his Majesties Subjects or at all within the Realms of England Ireland or Scotland or within any of the other Dominions acknowledging his Majesty even in any case of contingency imaginable especially in case of either true or only pretended Apostacy Heresie Schism c. and such publick Instrument Declaration and Oath so full and clear even also against all equivocations and both mental and vocal evasions whatsoever to be in your name together with your Petition most humbly presented to the King and Parliament some time this present Session by your sufficient Representatives the Roman Catholick Lords or such of them as will be pleased to take these matters to heart XIV That when in such manner as you ought you have performed that duty which you have so long owed to God and the King to your Country and Religion to the Christian Church in general and all mankind and amongst them to your selves and your posterity after you and when you have thereby done your part to disarm all the anger of the Presses and to silence all the clamor of Pulpits and put an effectual stop to a thousand new Invectives and ten thousand more Sermons preparing to incense the Protestant people against you i. e. when by such a publick Instrument or solemn Declaration and Religious Oath of the generality of your Nobles Ecclesiasticks and Gentry you shall have quite rendred unsignificant their I know not which more affrighting or bewitching Theme quite destroyed their Common place and no less effectually than clearly answered their only grand Objection against your Liberty viz. That of The inconsistence of the safety of a Protestant Prince or State or Kingdom or People with Liberty in the same Dominions given to Roman-Catholick Subjects and consequently when by doing so you shall have done your selves all the greatest right you can think of viz. you shall have conform'd to the inward dictates of a good Conscience wiped off from your holy Religion the outward scandal of most wicked Principles yielded to victorious Truth wheresoever you behold her and which is and must be consequential when you shall have thus after a tedious contest of above a hundred years advanced on your side the first considerable step to meet half way the Right Reverend Prelates and other learned Teachers of the Church of England in order to a happy reconciliation at last of the remaining differences then may you confidently expect from their side also i. e. from his most Gracious Majesty and the great Wisdom and Piety of both Houses of Parliament all that ease relaxation indulgence peace kindness love which by any men dissenting yet in so many other points from the Religion established by Law can be in reason expected even a Repeal at least of all the Sanguinary and Mulctative Laws For to expect an equality in all priviledges with those that are of the Protestant Church until God be pleased to bring you nearer them or them to you than in a meer profession how real and cordial and universal or comprehensive soever of Allegiance to the King in Temporal or Civil Affairs only I say till that day come which we pray for it will I believe seem unreasonable to your selves to expect that equality with them which they were not to expect of you if you had the power in your hands and they were in your condition How can they in reason expect so much favour as they now shew us if they retain any memory of former times and consider the now prevailing Party amongst us and Papal Constitutions even at this present governing that Party at least in relation to such as are reputed Hereticks or Schismaticks by the Consistory at Rome XV. That of those Ecclesiasticks who as the English Opposers of the Oath of Allegiance or the Irish Persecutors of the Loyal Remonstrance shall endeavour to persuade your continuing alwayes Rigid Papalins maugre Heaven and Earth and to stifle any motion or thought of giving a Protestant Prince or Parliament any more satisfaction in the principal point either of Consistence or Inconsistence c than your selves or your Predecessors have given hitherto some of them are naturally averse to the Crown of England and would be so though it were as entirely devoted now to the See of Rome as it was at Dover when King â—ohn laid it there at the Legat's feet others are daily expectants of Mitres and Titles and Bulls and Dignities from that City of Fortune others have already taken the Formal or Ceremonial possession of their now most Illustrious and most Reverend Lordships and these also have already at their Consecration
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
one tittle or any one action hitherto alledg'd against me as such other than what is in effect and substance my Assertion or Vindication of the Supreme Temporal Sovereignty of the Crowns of these Kingdoms i. e. of their being in all Temporals and all Contingencies whatsoever independent from any but God alone and therefore in Temporals no way dependent from the Pope either by divine or humane right Whether any person may on such ground call in question the sincerity of my believing or professing as I ought all the undoubted Articles of the Roman-Catholick Faith 3. And seeing there was never yet any other matter not even by my greatest Persecutors at any time objected articled oâ— pretended against me beside that i. e. besides my former opposing the Nuncio's Censures and my later promoting the Remonstrance and my endeavours in both against the pretences of the Roman Bishops to the Crowns of England Ireland Scotland c Whether it may in any wise be said or thought by unbyassed learned men That I have given any real ground for the vile detraction of those who treat me every way as if I had been a desertor of the Church 4. Nay Whether considering first The nature of those two grand Controversies wherein I have so freely engaged against all the power of the Roman Court abroad and all the endeavours of the Nuncio's Party and Antiremonstrant Clergy at home secondly The most grievous manifold and continual persecutions I suffered in both Causes one while by Suspensions and Deprivations another while by Excommunications then by Imprisonment in a Forreign Countrey even as far off as Spain and then again by new Thunders of Ecclesiastical Censures and by scandalous Declarations and posting of my Name besides other frequent enterprizes on several occasions against both my Liberty and Life thirdly My continuing constant in both Causes even all along to this very day even also then and that not only once happening when I had no support in this World but my own Conscience of suffering i. e. my own certain knowledge of my suffering onely for Righteousness sake nay then also when some of my chiefest Adversaries laboured with all their powerful malice even here at London to compel me and spared not to speak openly that either they would compel me to renounce the Roman-Catholick Church and declare my self an Heretick or they would make me submit to the Roman Court in the latter of these two Causes viz. that of the Loyal Remonstrance it being the onely matter then prosecuted against me fourthly Their failing nevertheless to this present in obtaining their will of me in either the one or other Whether I say considering all this whereof besides many men I am sure the All-seeing God is witness it be not more likely That no kind of prejudice against the Roman-Catholick Faith or Church but a true and powerful zeal according to knowledge for the primitive Christian purity of both is it that hath set me against those opinions and practices flowing in the corruption of latter Ages from the Roman Court which have shaken Religion divided Christendom and brought a scandal upon Faith as if it were to be supported or advanced by the wrath and rage of men by Rebellion and Slaughter by Subversion of Government and Confusion of the World so making it a ground of jealousie to Magistrates and diverting peaceable and charitable Souls from that union which ought to be amongst the Disciples of Christ 5. Also whether it may not by rational men be at least charitably believed That I would not so often at several times and upon several occasions since first I engag'd in either Controversie especially in the last have refused many Preferments in my own Order have rejected many tempting proffers too even of Episcopal dignity in my own Countrey have also particularly and lately in the National Synod or Congregation held at Dublin anno 1666 and that in publick before all the Fathers refused to yield by any means to their pressing offer not only of all the best Commendatory Letters that could be drawn on Paper in my behalf both to His Holiness Himself who then was and the Cardinal Patron and the Congregation de Propaganda and all other Ministers of the Roman Court as many as were concern'd in the Affairs of Ireland but also of a yearly and very considerable Salary too by general Applotment amounting as they esteemed or computed it in Three years to Two thousand pound English money and in lieu of all these offers have deliberately chosen to run the manifest hazard of undergoing and accordingly since to have in very deed undergone all the vexatious infamy of Ecclesiastical Censures in my own Church Order and Countrey and all the further Evils not only of some at least consequential hardships but of many black Calumnies many bitter Reproaches yea and some yet more inhumane Machinations of cruel men even here in England these four last years since 1669 Whether I say it may not by rational men be and be at least charitably believed That I would not have rejected freely all those tempting offers and in lieu of them voluntarily chosen to lie under all these Sufferings for any thing less than the keeping a good Conscience and the preserving the honour of Christian Catholicism untainted at least in some Priests and Religious men of the Roman-Catholick Religion in these Nations and the justifying my self and those of my way the few Irish constant Remonstrants with such others who communicate with them Loyal Subjects to our Prince the King of England and the winning also for the good of Catholicks in general upon His Majesties Councils Parliaments and all good Protestant people by our peaceable Conversation and Faithfulness amidst all our Sufferings from every side notwithstanding any difference from the Protestant Church in some few Articles of Religion Whereas such other Church-men of the Roman Communion as by their practises or principles have formerly shewn themselves and still appear to continue Enemies to the Supreme Temporal Government of these Kingdoms may in all reason expect the severest Laws to be edg'd against them by Authority under which it will be sad to suffer as evil doers 6. Lastly Whether it had not been very much for the advantage of Roman-Catholicks in general and their Religion in this Monarchy That these last hundred years they had been indoctrinated onely and wholly guided as to their Consciences by such Roman-Catholick Priests and Church-men as are of my principles in relation to the Temporal Powers independence from Rome and the indispensable obedience of Subjects in Civil matters and both the injustice and invalidity or nullity of Ecclesiastical Censures pronounced against either Prince or People or Priests for maintaining these not onely Rational but Christian Principles or asserting any of all their necessary Antecedents Consequents or Concomitants And now my Lords Fathers and Gentlemen to your impartial judgment on all and each of these Queries I do with due
in the Title of it before the Introduction and in the Argument of the whole immediately following that Introduction yet when I came to the Censure of Louain and to their four chief grounds c I found it expedient to give there at length what in substance was for the greatest part on several occasions and for the rest might on other the like occasions be unanswerably said against all and every of the said four grounds of that nevertheless ungrounded Louain Censure the rather that Father Caian neither in his Remonstrantia Hibernorum not in any other Book had lifted any of the said grounds in specie VI. Pursuing this incidental matter I dispute against those Louain Divines nay expresly also and purposely too against their Leaders the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine Baronius c from Sect. LII pag. 117. to Sect. LXXVIII pag. 487. First Part of the First Treatise that is throughout Fourstore and odd sheets consequently Which having done I return again to pure matter of Fact according to the principal design of the said First Treatise VII The searching throughly into the bottom of their Fourth Ground takes up Threescore and ten sheets of that long but necessary Insertion Which no man will admire it should who shall consider That by ruining that Fourth Ground onely which is the pretended Exemption of Clergymen from the Supreme Temporal or Secular and Civil both directive and coercive Power and consequently by proving the subjection even of all Clerks i. e. of all Ecclesiasticks Priests Monks Bishops Archbishops Primats Patriarchs and Popes nay of all Apostles Evangelists and Prophets c to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate to have been from the beginning de jure divino and never to have been after at any time altered or otherwise determined by any Laws of God or man I must without further trouble have both consequently and evidently ruin'd all and every the pretences of the Pope or Church to any Dominion Jurisdiction or Prefection whether direct or indirect over the Temporals of the Supreme Lay-Magistrate For natural reason shews every man That Subjection and Exemption how much more That Subjection and Prefection Jurisdiction Dominion in order to the same Temporal Magistrate and Temporal matters are incompatible in the same person or persons whatsoever Because they are such contrary Attributes as being affirm'd of any thing infer a manifest Contradiction v. g. To be subject and not to be subject at the same time and in the same respect to the self-same Temporal Powers And therefore by proving clearly no Exemption at all of any Ecclesiasticks whatsoever from the Supreme Civil either directive or coercive Power nay by proving consequentially and by no less clearly and positively evincing a total subjection of them to the said Power I must likewise of necessity evince that they can pretend no kind of Authority either direct or indirect in any case whatsoever to dethrone depose deprive suspend or lessen that same Power unless peradventure they can make Contradictories true VIII My purpose to pull up thus by the very root and overturn the sandy foundation of that so vain pretended Authority over the Temporals of Lay-Princes and States is it that made me unravel the whole matter of Ecclesiastical Immunity and dispute it so largely with all the exactness I could For I have therein proceeded first in a negative way answering all and every material Argument of Bellarmine yea and of others also to a tittle as well those in his Book de Clericis as those other in his latter Work against William Barclay and consequently as well those so unconsequentially derived by him either from the Laws of Nature or Laws of Nations or from the authority of Ethnick Historians or other Authors as those which he no less ungroundedly grounds partly on the divine and positive Laws of God in Holy Scriptures partly on the humane Laws of Christian Emperours in the Code of Theodosius or Institutions of Justinian partly on the Canons of either old or new Ecclesiastical Synods partly on the bare sayings of some ancient Fathers or even Popes in their own Cause and partly too on the bare Testimony or Authority of some of our Church-Annalists or Historians Next I have proceeded also on that Subject in a positive or affirmative way by proving manifestly and I think unanswerably too from all the same Topicks of the Laws of God and man of those of Nature and those of Nations of those of Holy Scriptures in the Old and New Testament and those not onely of Imperial Constitutions but Ecclesiastical Canons yea and meer Papal Canons too and from the judgment also of ancient Fathers in their Commentaries and the Testimony of other even Ecclesiastical Writers in their Histories and in the last place from and by the intrinsick Topick of pure natural and obvious Reason That never yet hath any such Exemption of Clerks i. e. Churchmen from the Supreme either directive or coercive Power of the Civil Magistrate had any being at all in rerum natura or any right to such being Nay I have shewed also by manifest Reason I think that neither at any time hereafter can Princes give such Exemption to Clerks their Subjects without either manifest contradiction in adjecto as Logicians speak or devesting themselves wholly and really of the name and authority of Kings or Princes over them IX If any except against my deriving of Arguments or alledging of Precedents from the Facts of Justinian the Emperour as you find I do Sect. LXXIII pag. 359. or shall out of ignorance or spleen follow the examples either of Baronius Spondanus and Alemannus or of Evagrius long before them so inconsiderately and falsely blasting the glorious memory of that most Christian most Catholick most pious and virtuous Prince as if he had been not only a violator of Ecclesiastical Immunity and an Usurper of the Sacerdotal Office in many respects but a Defender and Believer of manifest Heresie (a) Haeresis Apthartodocitarum sive Incorruptibilium vel Phantasiastarum viz. of that which believed or taught our Saviours flesh to have been alwayes incorruptible and as if he had therefore been eternally damn'd to Hell if any I say except or object thus against my alledging the Facts of Justinian it will be satisfaction enough at present to let him know 1. That Evagrius who is the first Author of this Relation and Invective against Justinian writ onely by hear-say of that matter as who both writ and ended his History long after Justinian's death viz. in the Twelfth year of Mauritius the Emperor * Justinian dyed an Chr. 565. The twelfth year of Mauritius was an Chr. 595. which was thirty years after Justinian's death 2. That the Christian World both East and West in those very dayes of Evagrius held a far other opinion of Justinian's Faith as may appear even out of Pope Agatho's Letter to the Emperours Constantinus Heraclius and Tiberius who Reigned both successively after Justinian and
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
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
compassing as yet any of his designs XXIII Likewise about the same time the R. R. Father in God Iohn Burk the Catholick Archbishop of Tuam very aged infirm and sickly and looked upon as not able to live one year longer came unexpectedly from St. Maloes and in my Lord Lieutenants absence arrived at Dublin privatly accompanied with father Thomas Quin the Jesuit and another of that Society in whose power and under whose directions this aged venerable Prelate wholy was The Procurator having done his first respects of visit to his Lordship desired to know his cause of venturing so confidently without acqainting first and having by some way addressed himself to my Lord Lieutenant and understood of some connivence for his return Minded him of the carriage and proceedings all along of the Clergy and especially of the Bishops of Waterford and Iames-stown That although his Lordship carried himself fairly and loyally in opposing the Nuncio even to his face at Galway and forced open the Church there which the Nuncio would have to observe his Interdict other Censures that he had sided all along with the Cessation supream Council at Kilkenny in that business and further too in concluding the second Peace yet he could not forget how he sullied all his former glory by his after unfortunate sitting and concurring at Iames-stown with other Bishops to those disloyal Declarations made there That he had not since by any publick or private application to His Majesty or Lord Lieutenant or by submission and repentance declared to either washed of the stain of that scandalous horrid transgression nor given any assurance of his more loyal carriage hereafter That yet both were of absolute necessity from a Prelate of highest rank such too as for example and for the satisfaction of God and men should be publick That he should therefore petition for himself and by his example induce the rest of the Irish Clergy to do the like and most humbly beg pardon for the time past and for the future sign that Remonstrance whereof to that end he had in France from London a sufficient account All which and much more to this purpose the Procurator humbly and earnestly minded him of even sometime in the presence of the above Father William Burgat Vicar General of Imly The good Archbishop heard him all out both attentively and patiently enough without sign of displeasure but return'd no other answer then That he was now so broken with age and many diseases of body that his mind also or understanding was no more of any kind of strength or capable to discern what he was to do in that or other things That he was for the matter dead already That he ventured this journey from France by Sea all along for otherwise he could not of purpose only to die and lye down at rest in his grave native soil That he would not have been to bold as to land at Dublin but that he supposed my Lord Lieutenant away thence in the Countrey at that time as it happened and that he might be carried away privatly to his own Province of Connaght without any further noise of his arrival or knowledge thereof given to my Lord Lieutenant And that being his Grace the Lord Lieutenant was now returned to Town he desired the Procurator should most humbly present his most submissive respects and make that true Apology for him of the design of his coming and desire of being connived at for so short a time as he had to drag a miserable life and end it by a death more welcome which he daily expected But the Procurator saw well enough that how infirm soever this good Archbishop was in body yet he had still sufficient apprehension and this excuse proceeded from the Fathers by whom he was led of late in all things perswading themselves his behaving himself so would give both countenance and authority enough amongst Catholicks not to themselves alone but to all others of the Clergy in denying or opposing a subscription which he had so declined That his name or extraction and his known affection sometimes formerly to the King and English Interest we 〈…〉 himself sufficiently of entertaining other scruples in that matter then those of religion and reverence to the See Apostolick And his quality of Archbishop and the only then of that Nation and Religion at home and the only moreover known to have formerly declared against the Nuncio would be a strong confirmation thereof at least might be a very probable excuse for all others of inferior degree until he had declared himself on the point All which and the use thereof notwithstanding the Procurator did well enough perceive and foresee yet he could not help having done his own duty But however advised this good Archbishop to retire as he did immediatly in a litter to Connaght where he remains ever since guided still by the same Fathers as wholly in their power The sequel whereof shall be seen hereafter in its proper place or second Part of this Narrative XXIV The Procurator therefore and by several other arguments seeing now certainly where the first obstruction to a further progress lay which should be removed and seeing that albeit the Fathers of the Society were but a very few in Ireland and most of them in or near Dublin yet their correspondency both at home and abroad especially at Rome was look't upon by most of the Pretendents in or Dependents of that Court and their own confidence withall in themselves was great partly because they had so dexterously behaved themselves in the Nuncio's quarrel that as they were perswaded much could not be objected to them on that account and partly for other causes and for that in particular of their extraction generally as for that also of some powerful Relations of some of them and albeit he saw well enough at the same time what influence the example of the Dublin Clergy in general both Parish-priests and Religious Orders of which Orders there he had only yet won the Franciscans and two of the Dominicans but none at all of the Augustinians Carmelits Cappuccins or Jesuits no more then he had none of the Parish-priests who were four or five and together with the said Regulars made fifty Priests or there abouts in that City albeit I say the Procurator saw well enough what influence the example of the Dublin Clergy in general would have upon the rest abroad in other parts of the Kingdom and that it would be to no great purpose but altogether vain to expect a concurrence from these if those had refused even there where the Lord Lieutenant and Council and Parliament sate and where notwithstanding the Dissenters had as much favour or freedom tolleration or connivence or whatever else you call it as the Subscribers and that on the other side the Dissenters had the advantage of the Subscribers at Rome and with the Generals of Orders beyond Seas of whose special favour
answer that Affrican Synod where those Fathers reprove the injustice of Celestine's demand of such transmarine judgments in the case of Apiarius requiring it to be transmitted out of Affrick to Rome and reprove I say that injustice in these very words which you may read in the now mentiond Synodical Epistle a few lines after the former words Or how can that kind of transmarine judgment be rational or legal whereunto the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought because either of their sex or infirmities of old age or of many other intervening impediments But that neither within the limits of the same Province nor even where the crossing of the Sea is unnecessary the parties accused be drawn too farre from their dwelling places and so molested too much by the Judges on pretence of a judicatory Innocent the Third has enacted even in a Councel Oecomenical of the whole earth cap. Nâ—nnulli Extra de Rescriptis But all this and very many other passages to this purpose I pass over at present as I have said before I pass over likewise that exception which the Canons allow against the unsafety of the place to which the summons are the unsafety of it I say if the nature of the controversy and present circumstances be considered Especially if we call to mind what several Religious men and of several Orders too that to clear themselves from calumnies in a Controversy not altogether unlike this and being not even summond in that or any other cause whatsoever nor convicted of any kind of crime the Judges themselves confessing both did venture hence to goe and appear at Rome or Madrit have suffered in our own days in our own late memory and suffered too without so much as any kind of even the very external formality of law or canons observed towards them and suffered so too most plainly against all the laws of God and nature And if we call moreover to mind those inhumane plots contrived in forraign Countries against the very lives of some even of our secular Nobility that having been formerly engaged with us in the same controversy were after in the ruine forced to shift abroad plots layd by some of those very men that now again endeavour to embroyle all anew commixe heaven and earth put all things out of frame the second time into the most horrid confusion they can of purpose partly to asperse and be revenged of us In fine I pass over the greatest exception of all The quarrel against us and the controversy in all parts to be such as concerns the temporal rights of all supream lawful Magistrates or Governours Kings and States Kingdoms and Common-wealths that acknowledge no dependency in temporals but from God alone whether they be Christians or Pagans Orthodox or Heterodox believers And consequently such whereof the Minister general or Commissary National of St. Francis's Order is so farre wide from being judge I mean as to any effect of being able and I speake onely here of ability in point of conscience to oblige their Inferiours to determine in any part against the right of Princes or silence the truth of the Gospel of Christ in this matter chiefly where the declaration of such truth is needful amongst Sectaries that are partly for want of such declaration made to them by Catholicks known to continue their separation walke in darkness and have a most strange aversion from the Church of Rome that neither is the great and most blessed Pontiff himself alone reputed a competent much less infallible Judge in this controversy not I say reputed so even by most celebrious and most excellent Catholick Divines though earnest renowned Champions for the Roman Faith in all its tenets and latitude Which manifestly abundantly appears not onely out of the late Decree of the Theological Faculty of Paris of the 8. of May this present year 1663. and many other decisions not of that Faculty of Paris alone but of all other Vniversities of the Kingdom of France and of the Gallicane Church too in general since the horrid murthers of Henry the Third and Fourth even of National Councels of the Bishops of the same Church against the several attempts of Boniface the Eight and Julius the Second but also out of the carriadge books actions of the Divines and Prelats of the Venetian Republick and Church against Paul the Fift in the year 1606. out of the sense and sentence of the Archbishops Bishops and Abbots of the Catholick Church of England in the Raigns of Edward the Third and Richard the Second above 300. years since Gregory the Eleventh and Martin the Fift strugling to the contrary but to no purpose as you may read even in Polydore Virgil in his life of Edward the Third out of the German Italian and other Churches truly Orthodox of several Nations of Europe their Prelats and Clergie who adhered to the Roman Emperours where the temporal rights were concernd against Gregory the Seventh and some other great Bishops of the Roman Sea lastly and yet more particularly our of our own William Occam in the cause of Lewis of Bauier and out of Iâ—â—nnes Parisiensis Gerson Major Almain Cardinal Cusan c. most famous writers and Doctors too both Catholick and Classick nay if any credit be given to Aventinus in his Seventh book of his Boiarian Annals where he relates the Decree of the foresaid Emperour Lewis of Bauier out of that General and celebrated Chapter of the whole very Order of St. Francis held at Perusia in Italy or out I mean of the famous Appeal they all that is their General Provincials and Doctors of Divinity made therein from Iohn the two and twentieth Pope of that name to a future Oecumenical Council of Christendom although I do not deny but the most immediate occasion of their appearing so as is related in that History against the Pope and appealing from him was his condemning the Franciscans for teaching That neither Christ nor his Apostles had any temporal right or property in earthly goods but onely simplicem usum facti Whom therefore in shew but really for an other cause that is for their siding against him with the Emperour and maintaining by their pens and Sermons the Emperours temporal rights he tearmed foolish animals pernicious foxes that by a seeming strictness of religion and hypocrisy abused the world and seduced the people having first set forth those Extravagants which you may read in the Canon law against the Order it self All which I say and very much more of this kind I pass over at present Nor least I exceed the measure of an epistle do I at this time alledge either those other arguments derived from the intrinsick nature or as they speak commonly from the very bowels of the cause it self or those which may be brought from or out of Canonical Scriptures or the monuments of holy Fathers who in a continual succession for nine hundred years compleat nay till the eleventh age of Christianity delivered
pretence or even true real only cause of Warr so declared and prosecuted by the Pope against our King is purely and solely for unjust laws made and executed against Catholicks and against as well their temporal as spiritual rights and only to restore such rights to the Catholick Subjects of great Brittain and Ireland and be it further made as clear and certain as any thing can be made in this life to an other by Declarations or Manifestoes of the Popes pure and holy intentions in such an undertaking and of his Army 's too or that they intend not at all to Usurp for themselves or alienat the Crown or other rights of the Kingdoms or of any of the people but only to restore the Catholick people to their former state according to the ancient fundamental laws and to let the King govern them so and only disinable him to do otherwise and having put all things into such order to withdraw his Army altogether let all this I say be granted yet forasmuch as considering the nature of Warr and conquest and how many things may intervene to change the first intentions so pure could these intentions I say be certainly known as they cannot to any mortal man without special Divine revelation what Divines can be so foolish or peremptory as to censure the Catholick Subjects for not lying under the mercy of such a forraign Army or even in such a case to condemn them either of Sacriledg or of any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith only for not suffering themselves to lye for their very natural being at such mercy Or if any Divines will be so foolish or peremptory as these Lovain Divines proved themselves to have been by this second ground of their Censure I would fain know what clear uncontroverted passage of Holy Scripture and allowed uncontroverted sense thereof or what Catholick uncontroverted doctrine of holy Tradition or even what convincing argument of natural reason they can alleadg in the case And as I am sure they cannot alleadg any so all others may presume so too being their said original long Censure wherein they lay down all their grounds and likely too their best proofs of such dare not see the light or abide the test of publick view And if all they would have by this ground or pretence of ground or by the bad arguments they frame to make it good were allowed it is plain they conclude no more against a Remonstrance which assures our King of his Roman Catholick Subjects to stand by him in all contingencies whatsoever for the defence of his person Crown Kingdom and people and their natural and political or civil rights and liberties against the Pope himself then they would against such a Remonstrance as comprehended not such standing by against the Pope but only against French Spanish or other Princes of the Roman Church or Communion For the Pope hath no more nor can pretend any more right in the case to make Warr on the King of England then any meer temporal Prince of that Religion can being if he did Warr it must be only and purely as a meer temporal Prince for as having pure Episcopal power either that wich is immediately from Jesus Christ or that which is onely from the Fathers and Canons of the Church or if you please from both he is not capacitated to fight with the sword but with the word that is by praying and preaching and laying spiritual commands and inflicting spiritual censures only where there is just cause of such And I am sure the Lovain Divines have not yet proved nor will at any time hereafter that the non-rebellion of Subjects against their own lawful Prince let his government be supposed never so tyrannical never so destructive to Catholick Faith and Religion or even their taking arms by his command to defend both his and their own civil and natural rights against all forraign invaders whatsoever and however specious the pretext of invasion be is a just cause of any such spiritual Ecclesiastical censure Nor have proved yet against them or can hereafter that such censures in either of both cases would bind any but him alone that should pronounce them and those only that besides would obey them Yet all this notwithstanding I am farre enough and shall ever be from saying or meaning that Subjects whatsoever Catholick or not Catholick ought or can justy defend any unjust cause or quarrel of their Prince when they are evidently convinced of the injustice of it Nor consequently is it my saying or meaning that Catholick Subjects may enlist themselves in their Princes Army if an offensive Warr be declared against the Pope or even other Catholick Prince or State soever and had been declared so by the Prince himself or by his Generals or Armyes and by publick Manifesto's or otherwise known sufficiently and undoubtedly to be for extirpation of the true Orthodox Faith or Catholick Religion or of the holy rites or Liturgy or holy discipline of it Nor doth our Remonstrance engage us to any such thing but is as wide from it as Heaven from Earth It engages us indeed to obey the King even by the most active obedience can be even to enlist our selves if he command us and hazard our lives in fighting for the defence of his Person Crowns Kingdoms and People amongst which people our selves are but only still in a defensive Warr for his and their lives rights and liberties but engages us not at all to any kind of such active obedience nor ever intended to engage or supposed us engaged thereunto in case of such an offensive Warr as I have now stated What obedience the Remonstrance engages us unto in this later case is onely or meerly passive And to this passive obedience I confess it binds us in all contingencies whatsoever even the very worst imaginable But therefore binds us so because the law of the Land and the law of God and the law of Reason too without any such Remonstrance bound us before The Remonstrance therefore brings not in this particular as neither indeed in any other any kind of new tye on us but only declares our bare acknowledgement of such tyes antecedently Even such tyes as are on all Subjects of the world to their own respective lawful supream politick Governours Which bind all Subjects whatsoever to an active obedience when ever and where euer they are commanded any thing either good of its own nature or even but only indifferent and where the law of God or the law of the Land doth not command the contrary or restrain the Princes power of commanding it And to a passive obedience when he commands us any evil or any thing against either of both laws That is to a patient abiding suffering or undergoing without rebellion or any forcible resistance whatever punishment he shall inflict on us for not doing that which he commands and is truly evil in it self as being against the laws of God or is
nay and meritoriously too abide the sentence of death even in prima instantia from a Judge of Assize according to the laws of England or Ireland or both and the Execution of it and even at the same time acknowledge himself bound under pain of sin to abide this sentence and this execution patiently and christianly without resistance and yet at the same time also challenge the priviledge of the Canons or at least not renounce the priviledge of the Canons and even of such as he really conceives to be obliging Canons whether groundedly or ungroundedly he conceives or alledges such Canons it matters not to our purpose or that he may at the same time also alledge and the case may be such that he may truly too alleadge that he is proceeded against unjustly both by the Inferiour supream Judge both against the legally established received unrepealed obliging Canons of the Church and the uncontroverted clear just and wholsome laws of the State And therefore it is no less evident that there can be no inconsistency no contradiction at all betwixt a Priests acknowledging the duty of such an obedience and his challenging alwaye nevertheless a right not to be proceeded against by such a sentence That our further declaring in the said Remonstrance That notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication deposition c. we will alwayes be true obedient faithful Subjects to the King that we renounce all forreign power spiritual or temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to absolve us from us Allegiance or dispense with us therein or give us leave to raise tumults bear arms c. against his Majesty or Laws That we bold the doctrine impious and renounce â—t as such which teacheth that any Subject may murder the anointed of God his Prince though of a different Religion from his That we acknowledge all supream temporal Princes to be Gods Lieutenants on earth or in their Dominions and obedience due to them respectively in all civil and temporal affairs by their own Subjects That finally we protest against all contrary doctrines and practices That I say our further declaring any or all these particulars together doth not either formally or virtually or expresly or tacitly draw with it our declaring against or our disacknowledging renouncing declining or quitting the Exemption or Ecclesiastical immunity of Clerks either as to their Persons or as much as to their Goods if by this Exemption or Immunity that be understood as it ought certainly which all Catholick States Kingdoms Nations Councils Parliaments People Divines Universities Bishops Clerks and consequently Churches do understand in France Spain Germany Italy Venice Poland c. For the truth of all and every such declaration and obligation consequent may and doth very well stand in their opinion and according to their practice with such Exemption being they all hold this Exemption to be not independently from the soveraign power of the Princes or States or of their Laws but with dependance alway in relation to that soveraignty or supream Majesty from the inferiour Judicatures and in such cases only whether civil or criminal as are priviledged and only too in prima instantia or at most in so many other instances as will not require manifestly or by manifest necessity an appeal or recourse to the Prince or State civil or pollitick â gravamine or the interposition of the Prince's or States supream power in the case without any such appeal or recourse of either Plantiff or Defendant but ex officio where the Prince or State see a manifest necessity of such interposition as the case may be very well as it hath often been that the Ecclesiastical Judges are themselves involved in the same crime for example in treason or sedition and therefore will not punish the criminals accused before them but rather encourage them as much as they dare That moreover as it appears manifestly out of all the foresaid passages either separatly or collectively taken there is not from the first word to the last of the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance not I say any passage at all any word or syllable in that whole Declaration being these I have given are all it contains of any matter soever that may be formally or virtually expresly or tacitly directly or indirectly understood by any rational impartial man to dis-acknowledge or declare against Immunity Ecclesiastical or the Exemption of Clergy-mens either Persons or Goods as this Exemption is allowed or approved by the Catholick World or Church or as by either understood so it appears no less manifestly that in the petitionary address which immediatly follows the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance and of principles belonging to such Allegiance there is neither as much as one word which may import to an impartial understanding Reader or to any that is not clouded by ignorance or byassed by malice any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such immunity or exemption And that if in this petitionary address there be nothing to this purpose or any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption it must be and is confess'd by the very most scrupulous or most invidious Adversaries there can be none at all in all or any part of that Remonstrance or in that whole Instrument entituled The humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland To prove this last conditional assertion I need not add any thing more to what I have said already or observed in considering all the several distinct parts of the Act of Recognition in it self and other declarations following therein and to what moreover I have presently hinted of the confession of our most carping Adversaries but only this one advertisement more to the Reader whereof himself by reading only over that whole Instrument can be Judge that nothing else is contained in the paper but a bare Remonstrance of grievances persecution odium c. which no man ever yet quarrel'd against as pretending therein a ground for this fourth Exception or any other whatsoever What remains therefore to be cleared is the petitionary address of that paper as that indeed against which for ought I heard from the Dissentors themselves or any of them all their quarrel is on this pretence of quitting Ecclesiastical Immunity and subjecting Clergy-men to Lay Judicatories or to Secular Courts in criminal causes But how justly or unjustly be you Judge good Reader when you have considered the words sense and scope of that Petition so often returned for answer to this invidious Exception The words and whole tenor of that perclosing Address are these and no other These being the tenets of our Religion in point of Loyalty and submission to your Majesties commands and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrenching on that perfect obedience which by our birth by all laws divine and humane we are bound to pay to
your Majesty our natural and lawful Soveraign we humbly beg prostrate at your Majesties feet that you would be pleased to protect us from the severe persecution we suffer meerly for our profession in Religion leaving those that are or hereafter shall be guilty of other crimes and there have been such in all times as well by their pens as by their actions to the punishment prescribed by the law Against these very last lines of this Petition or against this final perclose of of all leaving those that are or hereafter shall be guilty of other crimes c. to the punishment prescribed by the law our Adversaries labour so mightily to except as unlawful to be owned or subscribed at least by Catholick Priests or as acknowledging Clergy-men subject to the Secular Court and consequently as either disacknowledging or at least renouncing the priviledge of their Order whereby they are for their persons especially in criminal causes wholy exempt from the jurisdiction of Lay Judges let the crimes be never so hainous until they be first judged in the Ecclesiastick Court before their own proper competent Ecclesiastick Superiours or spiritual Judges and before they be further condemned by such and after all degraded or at least delivered over also by such to the Secular Court or Lay Judges But who sees not the vanity and nullity of this objection or of this consecution Who sees not the Objectors were resolved to seek here a knot in the bul-rush Clergy-men of the Romish Communion living in a Country where all the laws are against their very profession where all the prejudices imaginable were and with much ground too against the very persons of many as enemies to the Crown and State and where as yet no endeauours had been used by them to secure the State of as much as their Allegiance only for the very future and in a Countrey also where no such priviledge at least as to them is or hath been owned by the Kings Laws Magistrates or Judges for a whole century of years such Clergy-men I say and such of them too I mean as find themselves not guilty of other crime then that which according to the law of God is no crime at all addressing themselves to a just and merciful Prince but a Prince nevertheless that is not of their communion nor doth acknowledge or admit of such their Exemption and attempting by a declaration and promise of their future Allegiance to free themselves from a severe persecution raised against them cannot such Clergy-men as observe strictly and religiously that precept in particular of St. Peter to all Christians in general whether Lay-men or Clergy-men Nemo autem vestrum patiatur ut homicida aut fur aut maledicus aut alienorum appetitor let none of you suffer as a murderer or as a thief or as a rayler or as a coveter of other mens Goods 1 Pet. 4. Cannot such Clergy-men I say and cannot they too according to all the rules of prudence and conscience intreat and implore the Princes compassionat regard of their innocent profession and harmless behaviour in the pure exercise of a holy Religion and humbly beg his protection of them from suffering on that account only and for a further inducement of such Princes favouring them on that account remonstrate also unto him what should and ought to be consequent in the case that they are not Supplyants for any of their function who is or shall be hereafter guilty of any true crimes as theft murder sedition rebellion c. but only for such as are or shall be charged with such matters as only in the presumption of the present laws of the Land are crimes and only too even by such presumption religious crimes Or cannot they in such a Countrey and circumstances prudently and lawfully too for what concerns conscience do so and remonstrate so especially in such discreet wary general terms as these leaving those that are or shall be hereafter guilty of other crimes c. to the punishment prescribed by the law without dis-acknowledging or even renouncing even as much as to themselves alone where they can choose the priviledge or pretence of priviledge of Clergy-men for being exempt Or must it follow that they acknowledge that priviledge whatever it be or how ever expounded or extended by some not due to them by any law divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical Or must it follow that they do absolutely renounce it either for themselves or others if it be probable or possible they may to any real purpose challenge the benefit thereof Or rather is it not manifest and as clear as the Sun that no such consequence follows out of such Remonstrance or such words or such leaving in the circumstances or cases but at most and at worst a conditional resignation of their own souls or conditional renuntiation of such priviledge or pretence thereof and as to themselves alone and in such circumstances only or while the laws of the Land are such and the Prince and People observant of such laws and that Romish Clergy-men must will they nill they be judged by and according to such laws And consequently too as clear as the Sun that those words above leaving c. which end that petition and whole paper of that of 61. and which are the only pretended ground of that objection cannot be justly taxed at least in the case or circumstances with other meaning or sense then can be justly derived from this other expression which might be of it in these other words we do not beg your Majesty to protect us from any persecution can be against us upon account of Theft Murder Treason Rebellion or any other of those true crimes crimes which are otherwise stiled in the Canons lay-crimes nor we intercede or supplicate for any persons guilty of or in as much as they shall be charged with any such true crime but for what concerns us resolve to let all such answer for themselves and stand or fall according to law Now it is plain that all this imports no more then a greater detestation of such crimes in Clergiemen and of the persons of Clergiemen as guilty of such And further and at most and worst but a resolution not to be concern'd in such nor to petition the King in their behalf nor to interpose at all twixt them and the law though meaning without any peradventure that which is by His Majesty understood the law For they exclude above expresly all equivocation And yet the Divines of Lovaine and sticklers for them in Ireland must needs censure so harmless so prudent and so necessary a petition or expression and censure it as renouncing or declaring against Ecclesiastical Immunity and further censure it as even sacrilegious and containing somewhat against the sincerity of Catholick Faith Certainly if so or if they be not abused by misinformation or misrepresentation of their grounds of censure I cannot otherwise judge of them but that they have been
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
of the rest none at all The first Council then which decreed any thing concerning this point was the third Council of Carthage held Anno Domini 307. St. Augustine being one of the Fathers and subscribers of it Whereof the 9. Canon is of this tenour and very words Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum Praesbyterorum Diaconorum seu Clericorum cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commota si relicto Ecclesiastico judioiâ— publicis judiciis purgari â—â—luerit etiamsi pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia locum suum amittat hoc in criminali judicio In civili vero perdat quod evicit si locum suum obtinere voluerit Cui enim ad eligendos judices undique patet authoritas ipse se indignum fraterno câ—nsortiâ— judicat qui de universa Ecclesia male sentiendo de judicio seculari poscit auxilium cum privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri atque ibi determinari praecipiat Also we have ordained that if any Bishop Priest Deacon or other Clerk being charged in or before the Church with a crime or having but even a civil suit commenced against him shall decline Ecclesiastical Judgment and choose rather to have his cause tryed in publick Courts or Judicatories though he have sentence given for him yet he shall loose his place and this in a criminal judgment But in a civil that he forgo what he hath wonn if he desire to hold his place For he that is at full liberty to choose his Judges where he will shews himself unworthy of the fellowship of his bretheren when judging ill of the whole Church he sueth to secular judicatories for help whereas the Apostle commandeth that the causes of private Christians be brought to the Church and there determined Is there I beseech you any word here out of which may be gathered by any probable consequence That this Council intended to exempt Clergie-men from the jurisdiction of secular Magistrats or to declare that no Laicks are lawful Judges in any causes of the Clergie So little of any such matter that on the contrary the whole tenour shews plainly enough those Affrican Fathers beleeved that Laicks were always very legal and competent Judges in the politick or temporal causes of Clerks And shews plainly enough those Fathers endeavoured onely by this Canon to bridle the stubborness and restrain the giddiness of such Clerks as when their causes were already begun to be debated in the Church before Ecclesiastical Arbiters did nevertheless without any cause and before sentence renounce them and run to the secular Judges for a determination In which case yet this Council disallows not the sentence given by the secular Judge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Judge but onely for punishment of the levity and improbity of such a Clerk prescribes him to quit the benefit of such a sentence or els to loose his place But that those Fathers at the same time acknowledg'd the civil Magistrats to be lawful Judges of Clerks may hence be sufficiently evicted that they restrained this decree to that case onely wherein a crime is in the Church that is before an Ecclesiastical Judge charg'd on a Clergieman or a civil suit commenced against him in the Church quo crimen Clerico in Ecclesia fuerit intentatum aut civilis causa commota Out of these two cases therefore it was lawful for a Clerk notwithstanding this Canon to have recourse to lay Judicatories and secular publick Judges How clear soever this matter be yet Bellarmine would needs argue against it in his book against William Barclay cap. 34. where he tels us that himself sees in this canon many things for the exemption of Clerks Primum enim sayes he aperâ—è damnant Patres recursum ad judicia secularium Magistratuum quod certe non facerent si seculares Magistratus omni ex parte legittimi judices Ecclesiasticorum fuissent c. For first sayes he the Fathers openly condemn a recourse to secular Magistrats which truly they would not have done if the secular Magistrates were in all respects lawful judges of Ecclesiasticks For what sin or fault had it been to appeal from the judgment of the Bishop to the judgment of the President of the Province or of the Prince himself if the President or Prince were a lawful Judge not onely of the Clerk but also of the Bishop Next this Council rescinds the sentence of the secular Judg pronounced against a Clerk forasmuch as the canon decrees that a Clerk absolved in a criminal cause by a secular Judg shall loose his place and in a civil cause shall loose that which was adjudged to him and so shall in neither of both causes reap any benefit by a sentence pronounced in his behalf by a secular Judg. For albeit the Fathers decree so by way of punishment yet the punishment had been unjust if it had not been a crime for and in a Clerk to acknowledg any secular judgment Lastly because Barclay sayes this Council doth reprehend onely those Clerks that after a cause begun to be discussed before an Ecclesiastical judg transferre it to a secular which may seem to be injurious to Ecclesiastical judges let him see what the Council of Milevi of the same age and celebrated in the same Affrick sayes For thus it speaks in the Nineteenth canon Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitinem judiciorum publicorum petierit Honore proprio privetur si autem Episcâ—pale judicium ab Imperatâ—re postulaverit nihil ei obsit It hath been our will that whoever shall of the Emperour demand the cognizance of publick judgments shall be deprived of his proper Honour but if from the Emperour any demand Episcopal Audience that such demand shall not disadvantage him Where we see the Fathers do not treat of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical but absolutely prohibit Clerks under a most grievous penalty that they shall not have recourse to the Emperour to demand any secular discussion and yet do licence the recourse of Clerks to demand Episcopal Audience to wit for avoiding secular judgments Hetherto Bellarmine Notwithstanding all which it is always clear enough that not onely nothing at all is decreed in this canon of Carthage for the exemption of Clergiemen from secular Iudicatories but even very much against it if the canon be considered without prejudice For if it had not been lawful even I mean in point of conscience for the secular Magistrate or judg to here the causes of Clerks wherefore did not the Fathers in this Council of Carthage forbid under censures the secular Iudges themselves not to admit Clerks to their Courts or not to give judgment in their causes But here is not a word against the judges that do so Besides when the Fathers give the reason of their said decree forbidding Clerks to go spontaneously of themselves to try their causes in secular Iudicatories they
said not they decreed so because Laicks were not lawful judges in the controversies of Clerks but quod ipse se indignum fraterno consortio iudicat cui cum possit per Ecclesiastices judicari de universa Ecclesia male senâ—iendâ— de judicio seculari poscit auxilium because he renders himself unworthy of fraternal society who whereas he might be judged or have his case determined by Ecclesiastical judges men of his own fraternity entertains an ill opinion of the whole Church when he desires help of the secular judges I say therefore it is clear enough these Fathers believed that the secular Magistrate or judge might without sin and for what concern'd himself or his own person lawfully determine of the causes of Clerks whereas condemning Clerks who leaving their Bishop go to the lay Court or Bench they do not therefore or at all for any other reason condemn the secular judg himself admitting such Clerks nor condemn the Clerks themselves upon account of having recourse ad judices nonsuos to judges that were not their judges but on this other account onely that whereas they might be judg'd by Ecclesiasticks yet would not they did thereby render themselves unworthy of Ecclesiastical Society For it was by the laws in the power of a Clerk in controversy with an other Clerk to sue him before the Bishop or before the judg which was it these words of this canon did mean Cui enim ad eligendos judices undique patet authoritas c. And Clerks might be convented before the judg Ecclesiastical but yet so as a Laick Plaintiff was not bound to make use of the Court Ecclesiastical Which is it we read enacted also by Martianus the most Catholick Emperour some few years after the date of this Carthage Council in his law Cum Clericis 25. Cod. de Episcop Cleric where it is said that if the Actor will not convent a Clerk before the Bishop he may convent him before the Prefect of the Praetorium And yet the Fathers of Carthage had reasons enough to forbid Clerks to choose spontaneously this way of secular Iudicatories videlicet that they should not be thereby made rocks of scandal to seculars who as the manner is would from the pleas and contestations of Clerks take occasion often to fall into vile detraction of the very order of Clerks and that such as should be exemplars of charity to others should not fall into such contentions as they would not suffer to be taken up or composed amicably or peaceably and without noyse by their own Ecclesiastical brothers or superiours Which were the very genuine reasons moved the Apostle when he either commanded or advised the Corinthians 1. Cor. 6. to forbear sueing one an other in the publick Iudicatories of Heathens In imitation of which these Carthaginian Fathers themselves declare they made this canon Cum say they privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri atque ibi determinari praecipiat But it is very certain the Apostle did not forbid the Corinthians to appear in publick Courts and before the lay Heathen Imperial Judges when summond by these judges or called before them by any other nor did either command or advise the Christians not to obey the sentence of these very Heathen judges in any temporal cause whatsoever civil or criminal Which not onely St. Thomas and Lyranus do expresly teach in their Commentaries on that passage to the Corinthians but our most eminent Cardinal himself is forced also expresly to confess in his foresaid Book against Barclay cap. 20. Therefore neither do the Fathers of Carthage forbid Clerks when so called upon to appear before and stand to the sentence of the lay Judges albeit they forbid Clerks to go of themselves freely or spontaneously to secular Iudicatories or to sue one an other in such Courts But let us examine yet more particularly what the Cardinal objects He sayes first that these Fathers openly condemn the recourse of Clerks to the judgments of secular Magistrats They do indeed but then onely when a Clerk may without any such recourse have his cause decided by an Ecclesiastijudg And in such case they condemn the contumacy of such a Clerk in relinquishing and contemning also thereby all his own brethren collegues and Fathers but in no case condemn the lay Plaintiff or Actor that draws a Clerk to the forum seculare or lay Court nor in any case at all condemn the lay Magistrat or Judg that pronounceth judgment either against or for a Clerk As for the sin or fault which Bellarmine desires to know what it should be committed by a Clerk who relinquishing his own Bishop goes freely of himself to the secular President for Justice if the President be a lawful judg of the Clerk or of his cause I have already said it was the sin of contempt of the Church and of scandal to others c. That I may pass over in silence the sin of disobedience and contumacy against this very Council whom other Clerks should observe as their Fathers and consequently their canons too as the most religious commands of their Fathers In the second place he sayes The Fathers rescind the sentence of a secular judg pronounced against or in the cause of a Clerk Nothing less But onely punish Clerks transgressing their canon and punish them onely too in wayes or by means or penalties sutable to their own jurisdiction For it is proper to the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical to judg whether a Clerk be worthy of that place he holdeth in the Church This canon therefore punisheth the disobedient Clerks but rescinds no sentence of the secular Judg. For it sayes onely thus Si pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia locum suum amittat hoc in criminali judicio If he have the sentence for him let him loose his place and this in a criminal judgment Behold how they call not in question the sentence of the Iudge nor command that it should be retracted or revised or that it should be discussed again in the Court Ecclesiastical whether the crime was justly charged or no after it was determined by the secular Court But only depose the Clerk that in contempt of this Canon made choice to be tryed and purged rather in the secular Court then in the Ecclesiastical In civili vero perdat quod evicerit si locum suum obtinere voluerit But if it be a civil action let him loose what he hath wâ—n by such a sentence if he will hold his place Is this to rescind the sentence of the secular Iudge Certainly even the most privat lay person may to his gifts or legacies add the like conditions as for example that the Legatee or Heir shall not sue before a Iudg for the legacy or inheritance Can such a private man therefore be said to have rescinded the sentence of the judg¿ If to private men it be lawful to bereave such as they think fit of the benefit of their own free
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
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
tale aliquid sive ex scripto sive ex non scripto praesumpserit imperare post cinguli privationem XX. librarum auri poenam exolvere jubemus Ecclesiae cujus Episcopus produci aut exhiberi jussus est executorem similiter post cinguli privationem verberibus subdendum et in exilium deportandum Item post multa si autem a Clerico aut Laico quccumque aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam apud sanctissimum ejus metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas et nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum Patriarcham Diocesees illius referatur causa et ille secundam canones leges huic praebeat finem Finally but yet moreover after quoting the law of Gratianus Valentinianus and Theodosius out of the Code l. VII titu XLVII constit III. in the point of nullity of a sentence when pronounced a non suo Iudice and the laws of Arcadius Honorius C. l. IX titu I. censtit XX. in the point of accusation made by Servants or Slaves except only the case of treason or crime against Majesty and the judgment of Modestinus the Lawyer ad legem Iuliam Majestatis l. Famosi lib. Pandectarum XLVIII in the point of credit not to be given to such accusers even in such a crime if the life or esteem of the accused was not such before as might render him suspected and another Novel Constitution as he calls it which is Authent de testib Parag. Et hic vero in the point of not condemning any by or for testmonies of witnesses to near which he was not called and of not receiving the testimonies of vile persons sine corporali discussione as he begun with and proceeded all along only out of the civil laws so he concludes at last that whole epistle out of the same civil laws tit XLIV lib. Câ—diâ—is in the point of giving sentence in writing quia scriptis debuit judicaâ—i Nam ibi inter alia dicitur atque praecipitur ut sententia quae sine scripto dicta fuerit ne nomen quidem sententiae mereatur sayes Gregory putting a final perclose to this 54 epistle ad Joan. Defensor l. XI Registri And this being the whole tenour as to the substance of that letter of St. Gregory and not as much as any one Canon at all as much as related unto by him therein from the first word to the last but only those canons in general which concern the order of Appeals in a Bishops cause not in that of other Clerks from the Metrapolitan to the Patriarch and yet these Canons too related unto here not by Gregory but by Leo Augustus himself and this also according to former civil laws of other Emperours and with so many exceptions still particularly for the cases of treason against Majesty and of a special warrant from the Prince himself to a lay subordinat Judge who sees not that Bellarmine had no kind of ground in this Epistle to abuse his Reader with quoting it as containing some argument to prove that although the civil law or Novels of Iustinian did not generally exempt Clerks in criminal causes from all publick or civil Judicatories yet the canon law did exempt them so or in such causes from all such Tribunals even the very supream But as for that other proposition which to compleat his second argument he assumes as a maxime That the civil law must yield to the canon law and for that also which to prove this maxime he further sayes That the Pope may command the Emperour especially in such matters as concern the Church which say at present of each a part and both together and of this manner of arguing is that in all I see nothing alledged or proved I mean to his purpose here but ignotum per ignotius and that my following Sections will further shew that in his sense or as applyed to his purpose or at least is necessarily inferring his Thesis or grand proposition or assertion of his Ecclesiastial Immunity both maxime and proof are absolutely false and yet and moreover consequently that his ratiocination or discourse composed of both is nothing else too but falsum per falsius However because neither the truth or probability as neither the untruth or improbability of any thing before said by me in this present Section depends of the truth or falsity of either that maxime or that other proposition assumed to make good that maxime being the dispute hitherto hath not been whether the Church could heretofore make or hereafter can make such canons as Bellarmine would have for such exemption or consequently whether in such case the civil laws being contrary must and ought to yield and be corrected by the canons or whether in such case too that maxime and proposition assumed to prove it might not be alledged and ought not to be admitted as out of controversie but the dispute hitherto in this Section having only been of the fact of the Church not of the power that is having been whether indeed she hath either justly or unjustly right or wrong validly or invalidly made at any time already or heretofore until this very present any such canon and because I perswade my self that I have sufficiently enough and very clearly too solved all that ever Bellarmine alledg'd either in his great work of Controversies and even in the very last edition of that great work or in his little book writ after of purpose by him De Potestate Temporali Papae adversus Gulielmum Barclaium for any such canon hitherto made I will now finally conclude that wherewith I begun this Section which is that neither by the Canons of the Church there hath ever been yet any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends or his Schollars in this the Divines of Lovaine of any Clerks whatsoever Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs c. from the supream civil temporal or lay power or Magistrats under which or whom they live And I conclude also my two several Affirmations immediatly following that Assertion and given or made there so immediatly as further illustrations of my meaning And to this conclusion add only here That I have taken so much pains in examining the canons alledg'd by our great Cardinal not indeed out of any purpose desire or inclination to exagitat the priviledges of Clergiemen or that I do at all or would envy them such priviledges or endeavour to lessen the reverence or esteem due or the honours or favours done or bestowed on their sacred functions and persons which any one may easily believe that knows me to be one of them my self through Gods mercy and favour to me how otherwise undeservedly soever But that next to that of speaking all necessary truths as it becomes a man of my profession in defence also of this so certain and christian truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from the supream secular civil Power as likewise of so many
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
probability how great soever so it retain still the true ond onely nature of probability and arrive not to evidence and consequently be no more that which is meer probability but a quite other thing can serve our adversaries to quarrel against my doctrine which maintains no exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat For if their arguments or reasons whatsoever be but probable or should I admit any of them to be probable how intrinsecally soever yet admitting them but as onely such and not convincing and further shewing clearly they are not convincing the consequence of my admitting them for such onely that is for even intrinsecally probable and no more must be also that the tenet grounded on them cannot be certain And therefore that by the common doctrine of Divines and Lawyers Princes cannot be deprived of their supream power over Clerks whereof they are and have been alwayes in possession Because upon or for an uncertain title or uncertain allegations and all reasons which are onely probable are uncertain as to us none may be justly thrown out of a long continued possession and a possession which was bona fide such and a possession too which in the case and according to reason must have at least the same or as much even intrinsick probability for it in point of natural reason as is pleaded against it from pretences of the like natural reason This being the nature of meer probability of reason if understood to be such to inforce by a necessary consequence the like probability of reason producible for the other side of the contradictory Which advertisement I premise for the less acute or less discerning Readers sake not that I do my self apprehend any such true intrinsick probability in the propositions or assumptions of any the above reasons of Soto or Victoria as inferring their intended consequence nor that I fear any other judicious uninteressed or unbyassed person will apprehend any such in them whereas on the contrary I doubt not my solutions or answers to them will no less clearly in the point also satisfie the Reader then my former to Bellarmine's Scriptures Laws and Canons have Therefore to pass by at this time what I could answer in general to all those arguments both of Soto and Victoria and to all other such of others if any other such be which is that learned men would in such a matter of so great weight and consequence and of such infinit prejudice to Princes and the State Politick universally expect a demonstration if not a pure Philasophical one of both Premisses and conclusion at least a Theological one and not such pittifull aequivocate Sillogismes or rather ill assuming and ill concluding Parologismes to which there are as many clear and convincing answers as there are propositions or even almost words And that it very ill becomes so great Clerks to lay so weak a foundation for so vast a fabrick as they would build thereon a power in the Pope to exempt all Clerks nay to exempt so many millions of men and women subjects and free them all from that subjection which they all owe to Kings by the laws of God and nature I say that to pass by now this general animadversion and To answer first in particular to Soto and to all the particulars of his argument I distinguish the Ecclesiastical power which he sayes to be per se that is of it self or of its own proper nature self sufficient and independent from the civil For if thereby Soto understand that the spiritual authority given to the Apostles and Church viz. that of preaching the word administring the sacraments interpreting of scriptures absolving from sins excluding contumacious sinners out of the Church receiving them again when they are penitent and of doing or discharging all such other functions which are purely spiritual and are sufficient for eternal salvation of mortals I confess that Ecclesiastical power so taken is per se of it self or of such its own nature sufficient to attain its own true proper ends that is to lead people to salvation or which is it I mean can without any help from the civil power lead unto this great end And consequently may enact such proportionable laws and sanctions as are necessary in circumstances to attain this self same happy end But withall I say that as it is one thing to say as it must in truth be said That Ecclesiastical power so taken and so sufficient for such end is in such respect independent from the civil power because the civil power can neither give it nor take it away and a quite other thing to say that the persons who have this Ecclesiastical power are not or may not or ought not to be in other respects dependent from the civil power and civil Magistrats so it is perspicuous That a law for the exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power and this law of exemption made also by the very Clerks themselves of themselves and by vertue onely of a pretended power in themselves and without any consent nay with manifest reluctance of the said civil supream power and Magistrat I say t is perspicuous that such a law of such exemption so made nay indeed or any way made either without or with the consent of the said supream civil Magistrat or even by either spiritual or temporal power or even by both powers together cannot be numbred amongst such other laws or sanctions as are necessary to lead unto or attain salvation For who ever yet doubted that Christians whatsoever Clergie and Layety can or could be saved notwithstanding that all Clergiemen were subject still to the civil jurisdiction of even the subordinate lay Judges and were in all politick or temporal matters or causes whatsoever both civil criminal or mixt of both convened in civil courts tryed by the common laws and received sentence from the lay Judges as formerly it hath sometimes been a long time been under not onely Heathen but very Christian Emperours Or whatever others answer how can Soto in particular say otherwise then that such a law or such exemption cannot be necessary For upon one side he teacheth as we have seen before that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino and on the other no man in the world and consequently nor Soto himself will deny nor can deny That all kind of things provisions laws c whatsoever accounted necessary for salvation must be confess'd to be de jure divino But forasmuch as Soto adds That the power Ecclesiastical may not only enact such laws as are necessary for its administration but such laws also as are congruent I would fain know of him what he means by congruent If laws so agreeable meet fitting or expedient for the due exercise or execution of the same true genuin pure Ecclesiastical Power that without such laws no such due exercise or execution may be of such power then indeed or understood in this sense he
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
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
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
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
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
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
time limited by the canons for deliberation the law of Christ deprives him not per se but consequently of that right for the law of Christ intends not to deprive him of his right but to honour her being now raysed to a higher degree Finally a Son hetherto in his Fathers power being created Bishop the Father is by the same law deprived of his Fatherly power not as intending any injury to the Father but because it is undecent that a spiritual Father should be subject to the power of his carnal Parent Hetherto Bellarmine But who sees not that however this answer or this distinction of Bellarmine as made to Barclay insisting onely on that bare maxime in such general tearms might at first hearing seem to drill on a little more time yet as made to my argument here and my restriction caution and modification of that very maxime it must both seem and be altogether impertinent and unsignificant even as to require any further time to retort or oppose either member of it For I added expresly in my Major as in my Minor what was answerable unless or if not in a particular case wherein the same law of Christ disposed otherwise by an express formal or virtual caution or provision such as this is and onely this case is of an unbelieving husband and believing wife wherein the law of Christ by the writings of the Great Apostle St. Paul expresly provided otherwise Yet forasmuch as abstracting from it as made or possible to be made by any and with any ground against my argument here it may nevertheless contribute to the understanding of the more unlearned that I consider and examine it throughly and all the instances of it as objected to Barclay or even whether objected or not objected to him or any other the Reader may be pleased to observe 1. The vanity and unsignificancy of this solution or distinction of Bellarmine For indeed in his words per se ac propriè quasi hoc ipsum intendat and in his other word consequenter which are the two members of his distinction he gives us different words or sounds onely but not different things imported in the case by such words because that which by a contradistinction he would have onely to follow consequenter and not propriè or per se quasi hoc ipsum intendat that is to follow onely consequently and not properly and of it self as intended by the Pope doth indeed follow properly and per se and is indeed most directly intended And consequently Bellarmine's distinction is no distinction at all because in effect it hath not a second member being that which he gives for a second is not excluded by but comprehended under the first Which I demonstrate thus The better and sounder part of both Divines and Canonists maintain the exemption of Clerks whatever it be to be de jure humano and that it is not against the law divine that one be a Clerk and being so be also always or in all temporal causes whatsoever subject to the civil Magistrates both supream and subordinate So that the constitutions or laws made for the exemption of Clerks were not at all necessary for the essence or being of Clerkship that is that to this of any mans being ordered a Clerk or Churchman and so assumed to a higher order and ranke it was not necessary that there should any law at all have been made for the exemption of Clerks If therefore the Pope had by his constitutions or canons decreed that Clerks should be exempt from the power of secular Princes is it not clear that he had not intended to rayse them to a higher order above Laicks being they are allready so and might be always so without any exemption both they who were already Clerks and all others too that pleased to be hereafter Clerks but that he had by the power or at least pretended power of the law of Christ deprived secular Princes of their civil right and dominion over Clerks and which before such canons they had over Clerks and even I say deprived them so per se ac propriè quasi hoc ipsum intendens even properly and necessarily or by the very nature and essential import of such canons or constitutions and even as intending to do so for he had question lets intended this very thing vz that Clerks should be no more subject to secular Magistrats not even to the very supream But our most eminent Cardinal denyes in plain tearms or in the first member of his distinction here that the law of Christ hath any such effect for in answer to this maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo his own words are these Verum est per se ac propriè quasi hoc ipsum intendat c. Therefore he must also denye with Barclay that against the will of Princes any such exemption might be given by the Pope or Church by vertue of the law of Christ But whether by such Exemption the Pope intend primarily to honour Clerks and not primarily or directly to incurre or lessen Princes but this onely consequently as Bellarmine speaks or whether the contrary be intended by him who sees not the vanity of the solution and that it is but a meer sound without substance For if Bellarmine will have the exemption of Clerks to be de jure divino as in his Recognitions or last edition of his controversies and in his book against Barclay he pretends but not easily perswades any that himself believed or was perswaded it to be then follows manifesty that what Barclay so often with him assumed and praysed must be simply and without any distinction false vz legem Christi neminem privare jure suo the law of Christ not to deprive any of his right It must follow I say that this maxime or saying must be absolutely false whereas these two are plainly repugnant and contradictory Non privat jure suo Principem quod habebat in Clericos and privat jure suo Principem quod habebat in Clericos Nor is it material to this of your being truly said to have done any thing that you alleadg or plead your self to have done so out of favour to one but not out of hatred to an other being it is equally true that you have robbed me of my goods whether you have taken them away out of meer design to empoverish me or to enrich an other 2. That for the first instance of Bellarmine or the case of a believing wife and unbelieving husband besides that it hath no place against my argument being it is a case and the onely case indeed expresly and particularly or even as much as virtually or tacitly provided for as to our purpose in the law of Christ or against the generality of that maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure suo expressed in such general or indefinit words without any exception and that I have in my said argument or frame of it expresly provided
against this instance I say moreover against Bellarmine and for Barclay that to conclude thence as our Cardinal would is nothing else but to conclude Sophistically And that Bellarmine himself were he alive again and being he is not that his defenders must acknowledge so much is very evident hence that Barclay's argument as mine here or his assuming this maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo as this very maxime in it self proceeds onely and is understood onely or certainly should be amongst Christian Divines of meer natural civil or politick rights or such as are not by that law of Christ expresly or tacitly but certainly however spiritualized or made properly and purely spiritual and supernatural by the proper signification of a Sacrament of the new law to which they are elevated by Christ himself who is questionless the onely Institutour of such Sacraments and who might rayse any otherwise natural thing whatsoever as he pleased to this Sacramental dignity spirituality and supernaturality both as to signification and effection too or production of what effects he had thereby designed Now who sees not or at least what Catholick Divine or Canonist sees not that Matrimony or the matrimonial contract ordained for every Christian that would choose that course of life however amongst Heathens it be onely a meer natural and civil contract yet as engaged in by a Christian it is raysed by the law of Christ himself to that purely spiritual and supernatural notion And therefore who sees not that Matrimony and all the rights acquired thereby being now it is in Christian Religion a true and proper Sacrament of that Religion and consequently a spiritual matter and of pure Ecclesiastical notion as such must be dispensed and ruled by and according to the peculiar law of Christ and his peculiar precepts for it given either by himself immediately or by his Apostles and appearing to us either in the written word or even in that which is called unwritten but universally in all ages and amongst all true believers received as such And who moreover sees not that not onely in that case of an unbelieving husband nor also in that other case which Bellarmine instances of Matrimony contracted onely by words or consent betwixt a believing both man and woman but not consummated which kind of Matrimony they call matrimonium ratum but also in other almost innumerable cases in this matter of matrimony the right of a Christian husband or wife is taken away or lost which yet would not have been lost to or taken away from a Jew or Infidel in the like case It was lawful for for a Jew or Infidel to marry his Uncle's or Aunt 's daughter By the common laws and canons of Christians this is now prohibited to Christians It was lawfull for them in many cases to give a Bill of Divorce In the self same cases this is unlawful for us even Christ himself and by his own express command or Declaration enjoyning as not to do so Behold how this maxime The law of Christ deprives none of his right is not to be understood of Sacramental and purely Ecclesiastical matters or of such wherein that very law made express or undoubted provision Therefore to speak yet further no less truly then precisely we must say that albeit the law of Christ deprive no man of his right in any case whatsoever yet this law by its own proper true genuine right and power by that of Christ himself who as the natural Son of God had all right and all power in himself as Lord of all ordered this particular matrimonial right so as to be of spiritual and Ecclesiastical notion amongst Christians and therefore to depend in many or most cases not of the temporal but of the spiritual power not of the state but of the Church What hath this to do with other meer civil natural or politick rights or such as have not been at all spiritualized or supernaturalized by their elevation to the nature of a Sacrament or otherwise nay concerning which there hath not been any express or tacit provision made in the law of Christ for their being of Ecclesiastical notion at all or subject to the power of the Church but rather the contrary most expresly To prove that such remain still untouch'd unaltered in Christian Princes notwithstanding their submission to the law of Christ and remaine the very same that they were in these self same Princes or in other before they were Christians or even in any other Princes still as yet Heathen that so commonly applauded and generally received maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure suo was insisted on by William Barclay and by his Son after him against Bellarmine in this matter of Ecclesiastical exemption as intending onely to prove thereby that Christ did not by his law alter or abolish the meer political rights of any Prince or Subject but left them still in their former state so farre from being abrogated that they were absolutely confirmed unto them as will appear evidently in my next Section they were and were so even by express decrees of that very law And that amongst those meer political rights that of a coercive power in Princes and in all temporal causes of and over all Clerks whatsoever living within their dominions is not one or that the exemption or subjection of Clerks in such matters hath been spiritualized or supernaturalized by the law of Christ or that in the same law there is any express or tacit provision or caution that Clerks should not be subject so to secular Princes I make no question the intelligent Reader understands by this time that Bellarmine hath said nothing yet here to move the least scruple to any rational man And therefore to proceed to the rest of his Instances the Reader is to observe 3. That what our learned Cardinal sayes heer of a natural Father's loosing his Fatherly power over his Son when this Son of his is created Bishop must be alike erroneous with that of his depriving the Prince of his Princely power of any persons when ordered Clerks For it his meaning be that Bishops are freed from that Fatherly power which is of divine right both natural and positive I say that sentence must be very Blasphemous because expresly against the known law of God and Nature Wherein to dispense no creation nor elevation to what dignity soever even Papal or Imperial no law of man nor power on earth spiritual or temporal or both together can be alledged But if his meaning be that a Bishop hoc ipso that he is made Bishop is freed from that fatherly command over him which meerly and only depends of the civil laws I say this very commanding power authority Jurisdiction or whatever you call it cannot be taken away or that the Father cannot be deprived of it without permission from the temporal Prince to whose care and will the keeping strictly to or dispencing in the civil laws is
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
writ indeed and gave as from Christ or in his name or as from themselves such or such precepts but gave them onely as time serving precepts to hold no longer then pleased the Christians that is until the Christians did find there was no worldly danger from Prince or State or other men in breaking them Then which if any thing can be said more impiously and blasphemously any thing more pulling up all Christianity by the very roots being it by a necessary consequence makes of the Apostles and Evangelists nay and of our Saviour Christ himself but meer impostors and the whole Gospel too of Christ but a grand imposture because it makes them but dissembling temporizers and this but a book of tricks and cheats to amuse the world I leave the Reader to judge Therefore that is because this answer involved such horrid consequences I pas'd it over in silence where I gave the rest Yet now finding it by chance in my before last given quotation of Chrysostom forasmuch as I see there his animadversion against it Non igitur assentandi gratia hujusmodi mandatum dedit I changed my mind and thought fit though incidentally or accidentally to enlarge my self so farre and to prove as now I have done the manifest impiety and blasphemy thereof But to return again to that which is my purpose and out of the same Chrysostome also in other places to shew that in his doctrine they are the temporal Princes onely were mean'd by Paul or by his higher or more sublime Powers what else I beseech you does he teach where he speaks thus in 2. ad Corinth hom 15. Sunt enim Principatus genera multa Nam in vno genere populis civitatibus imperant homines civilem hanc vitam moderantes id quod Paulus manifestans dicebat omnis anima c. In alio autem genere vnus quisque mentem habens sibi ipsi imperat Quod illie manifestavit dicens si autem non vis timere potestatem bonum fac insinuando sibi ipsi imperantem Hic autem est etiam alius principatus civili sublimior Quis igitur est ille Is qui in Ecclesia Cujus Paulus in Epist ad Hebre. cap. 13. meminit dicens Obedite Praepositis vestris c. where you see Chrysostome distinguishes principality into three sorts that of Princes over all their people that of every mans mind or will over his own passions and that of the Superiours Ecclesiastical over the children of the Church And sayes the first onely is understood by Paul where he sayes Rom. 13. Omnis anima let every soul c the second insinuated by him where he sayes again in the same Epistle and chapter will you not fear the power Do good and you shall have praise c and the third in that passage of his epistle to the Hebrews 13. chap. Obedite Praepositis vestris c. And what else too means the same Chrysostome again serm de Principatu Tom. 6. Antwerp where he speaks thus Iam vero qui Praefectis Principibus obtemperat non illis imperantibus so submittit sed Deo qui hoc ita constituit paret At qui illis morem non gerit Deo bellum infert Nulla enim potestas inquit D. Paulus nisi à Deo Therefore he applyes here too the same texts of Paul Rom. 13. to and onely to the meer temporal Principalities saying that who submits to them doth not so much submit to them as to God who hath commanded they should be so submitted unto and that whoever doth not submit to them makes warr on God Because sayes he as Paul teaches there is no power but from God Rom. 13. S. Basil hath the very self same exposition of that whole passage to the Romans in Constitut Monastic c. 22. where he expresly affirms that by the more excellent powers of Paul in his epistle to the Romans the worldly or secular Princes onely are understood and not the spiritual as by the same Paul's praepositi in his epistle to the Hebrews the Church Superiours are Paulus sayes he Apostolus in ea epistola quam ad Romanos scribit ipsis praecipit ut excellentionibus illi pâ—testatibus omnibus subjectii sâ—nt potestatibus inquam mundi non spiritualibus atque hoc exijs quae deinceps adiecit declaravit cum de tributis vectigali lâ—cutus est And then forms his argument a minori thus Si potestatibus Laicis omnino praecipiente Apostole parendum est quorum tamen vita tota sayes he erat impietas quanto magis obedientia prestanda est ei qui Antistes Praepositus est rerum spiritualium juxtu ejusdem Pauli aliud preceptum Obedite Praepositis vestris c I confess indeed S. Basil in the same place affirms Princes to have had their power from the laws of men But I say withall that if this saying be taken rigidly and exclusively I understand not how it may stand with St. Pauls doctrine and commands because Paul expresly teacheth all power to be from God as we have seen already Therefore S. Basil for so much must be interpreted piously as not excluding the derivation of it from God as from the primary immediat efficient but intending onely the secondary instrumental causes or those which Philosophers call conditiones sine quibus nâ—n videlicet those of humane election of a just conquest or of the humane laws of succession donation inheritance c. Ambrose also in his commentary of this epistle to the Romans c. 13. expounds the same passage wholly and onely of the secular or lay power Principes hâ—s sayes he Reges dicit qui propter corrigendam vitam prohibendâ— adversa creantur But Augustine again directly expresly and of sett purpose nay and not without laughter and scorn of the Authors of his time of the distinction or answer of Bellarmine confutes all that say the Apostle is to be understood of the Ecclesiastical powers as being indeed or in an other order the more sublime It is in his work cont epist Parmen l. 1. cap. 7. that S. Augustine discourseth thus against such Authors Propter quid ergo gladium portat qui dictus est Minister Dei vindex in iram eis qui male agunt Nisi forte quemadmodum nonnulli eorum sane imperitissimi hoc intelligere solent de honoribus Ecclesiasticis dictum esset ut gladius intelligatur vindicta spiritualis qui excommunicationem operatur cum prudentissimus Apostolus consequenti contextione lectionis satis aperiat quid lequatiâ—â— Ille quippe addit propter hoc enim tributa praestatis Ac deinde subjunxit reddite omnibus debita cui tributum tributum cui vectigal vectigal â—ui honorem honorem cui timorem timorem Hoc ergo iam restat vt istis disputationibus suis prohibeant Christianos tributa persoluere cum Dominus talia sentientibus Pharisaeis quos imitantur isti nummo inspecto responderit Reddite inquit quae sunt
or in bringing these words to expound those other of Gregory in his foresaid two epistles to Mauritius and Theodorus To return therefore to those most true and proper words again of these two epistles of Gregory I say now that if you add to them the fact of Gregory whereof also before that is his actual and effectual obedience to Mauritius in promulging that law albeit Gregory thought it an unjust law and if you add also his notable profession of obedience and subjection in these tearms Ego quidem jussiâ—ni subjectus c and I say that if you take alltogether I see â—â—â—t how it is possible that you may doubt hereafter of Gregory's sense in this matter but be absolutely and firmely perswaded it was Gregory's doctrine that all Christians universally both Layety and Clergie not even the very great Pontiff himself or the Bishop of Rome excepted are bound in conscience and according to S. Paul's command to be most humbly obedient in all civil affairs to the sublimer powers of King Emperours or other supream politick States within their respective dominions And I say also that I do not see how any professing the law of Christ much less any Priest can have the confidence to say that Gregory's acknowledgement of his due subjection or submission and obedience to Mauritius hath any thing of a dejected Soul any thing flaccid or weak or any thing at all unworthy of the Apostolical vigour as Barenius very little piously excusing the expressions of Gregory speaks For even this great Annalist himself could not but know it was the perpetual custome of the Church in its spiritual Rectors and before the later and worser times of the too much worldly greatness and ambitious designes of some of them to treat with all humility and greatest submission could be with earthly Princes Kings and Emperours and to treat so with them even when they were evil and wicked Princes as Christ himself did and his Apostles did and as even very many of the most holy Pontiffs of Rome did before too much avarice and ambition seized some others that succeeded in that holy See of Peter and in many other particular Sees too parts and persons of the vniversal Church Which indeed is it and nothing else made Baronius give here his animadversions of fear on these epistles of Gregory least any pious Reader should cast down his brows eo quòd abjectè nimis visus sit tibi loquutus S. Gregorius But certainly the vigour Apostolical the nerves and strength which are truly Pontifical or Episcopal do not consist in vain worldly and proud ambition or desire of dominion or imprudent stiffness hardness or obstinacy against Princes and for any matters that are temporal but in the preaching of the Gospel in the propogation of the Faith and in sowing the seed of the word of God although it were certain that for doing so the Apostolical man or Bishop should be an object of scorn and a subject too of pain Ibant Apostoli gaudentes a conspectu Concilij quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine Jesu contumeliam pati Act. 5.21 Therefore Gregory is rather very much to be praised herein that in his own very Episcopal Patriarchal or Papal person which you please not in any comical or scenical he speaks to the Emperour withall respect and modesty For albeit he sayes in the beginning of his epistle to Mauritius that he writes not as a Bishop but as a private man this he sayes to the end he may the more easily prepare and obtain the benevolence of Mauritius with whom in a private quality he was long before both personally acquainted and in that quality held an especiall friendship when as yet neither Mauritius himself was other then a private man Besides he writes in this manner that he might give no cause of indignation or of supposition that he mean'd for the matter in agitation to deal with him as a Bishop or Pastour with his sheep or to correct or rebuke him with authority And therefore least Mauritius should think that which was to follow by way of reprehension of that law in it self proceeded from Gregory as pretending to have an authoritative power though onely episcopal to reprehend him and alter it but that he should rather take what followed in good and friendly part it was therefore I say Gregory protests in the very beginning of his letter that he writes not as a Bishop but as a friend to a friend Which is not to personat or assume an other person as in a scene according to the most vain conception of Baronius whom the due modesty and subjection of Gregory so contrary to that of our days did beyond measure gall Yet I would have the Reader observe that Gregory might justly as or when occasion required admonish and rebuke more severely the very Emperour himself and that he had from God authority to do so For I do constantly profess that even all Kings and Emperours no less then all other men are as faithfull men or as Christian believers subject to the spiritual correction of the Church where it is necessary or expedient And yet Gregory chose rather onely to insinuat the iniquity of that law as he conceaved it and this with the greatest modesty could be then to rebuke Mauritius with any kind of severity However Baronius cannot abide that Gregory should have obeyed the Emperour in the promulgation of that law albeit that at the same time or before he had so insinuated the iniquity of it What doth he invent to rid himself out of this labyrinth He makes Gregory not the censor onely but the corrector also and amender of this very law and so that Gregory gave thereby arguments enough of his sacerdotal vigour Pontifical authority and power too over the very Empire it self Dum accedens sayes Baronius tom 8. an 593. nu 21. censor arbiter constitutionis Imperatoriae admovens ad sacram quam vocabant tabulam stylum edicti illius quaedam addidit jungent ac minuens pro arbitrio ut ad rectam Catholicae Ecclesiae normam disciplinam aptaret nihilque penitus in eo quod Ecclesiasticae officeret libertati sacris canonibus contradiceret praetermittens intactum posteris egregium relinquens exemplum quicquid leges sanciendo delirant Imperatores ac Reges a Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificibus esse pretinus emendandum corrigendum sicque ab ipsis favendum eorum votis ut eos errantes cum mansuetudine ut vidimus Gregorium fecisse corrigant Pontificia potestate quod perperam factum nossent Apostolica censura castigent seque exhibeant eorum Magistros Doctores correctores juxta illud divinum oraculam Hier. 1. 10. non illi tantum Prophetae pronunciatum sed omnibus qui pro Deo ad populum divina legatione funguntur Constitui te hodie super gentes super regna ut euellas destruas disperdas dissipes edifices
himself and to Theodorus in his said epistles to them that this other epistle whereof Baronius brags so much was writt some time after the said publication by S. Gregory and after he had obtained by those very two letters or perhaps by other letters too and messengers also from the Emperour himself this moderation of that law which he signifies so as you read in this later letter to the Metropolitans Whereof a great argument also is among others that those letters to Mauritius and Theodorus are dated the third year of Gregorie's Pontisicat which was in the eleventh Iudiction but this other which Baronius insuls upon is dated the first Indiction to witt five whole years after those According to which diversity in the date or years those to Mauritius and Theodorus are placed in the second book of Gregory's epistles ex Registro but this to the Metropolitans which intimats the pleasure of Mauritius concerning some moderation of that law in the Seaventh book For to that which Baronius sayes here to this last animadversion of the place or book wherein this which I call the later epistle is ranked vz that it is not duly placed ut de multis alijs sayes he nu 22. accidisse vidimus I need say no more being he brings no particular proof as to this but that he either divines or dreams And yet I do not absolutely or positively contend that this epistle was not written then when the promulgation or publication of that law was made by Gregory nor absolutely or positively contend but that peradventure this very epistle was that publication which was done by Gregory the law it self being sent along with it either annexed or enclosed by Gregory to those Metropolitanes But that which I contend is that supposing or admitting this very case yet Baronius therefore hath no cause to triumph as he does For then too it must be granted that either S. Gregory told a manifest and scandalous untruth to the Emperour himself and of this very matter as likewise to Theodorus also or that together with this letter to the Metropolitans he sent that very law either annexed or enclosed without any correction expunction diminution or other change whatsoever but as it came first from the Emperour that is as it was in Gregory's opinion displeasing to God the all-powerfull Although Gregory building on his own former old friendship with the Emperour and relying on the good offices and sedulity of Theodorus the same Emperour 's intimate Physician added concerning the observation or execution of this law but added onely in his own said monitory letter apart not in the law it self some moderation to be observed by the Bishops least otherwise observed it might be some hinderance to the salvation of Souls as Gregory was of opinion This confidence in the Emperour Gregory expresses in this very same epistle wherein he sayes that he confides or at least hopes very much nay that he doubts not but that the most Serene and Christian Emperour for these are the titles which Gregory gives him there will take these moderations concerning the use of that law in good part and will ratifie them Nay and peradventure also that he had already obtained the Emperour's consent is signified to the Bishops by Gregory in this letter and by these words of it Qua de re etiant Serenissimus Christianissimus Imperator mihi credite omnimodo placatur libenter eorum conversionem suscipit quos in rationibus publicis implicatos non esse cognivit Do you therefore now consider good Reader whether this moderation which it pleased Gregory to express so or insert in his own letter onely out of such confidence and with all entire dependence from the will of the Emperour or even perhaps out of the express consent of the Emperour already obtained whether I say this moderation so expressed or notified import as much as the admotion of Gregories pen or style to the Sacred Table with expunction of some parts of the Edict with addition and diminution at his own pleasure without any relation to or dependence from the Emperour with correction and amendment of that law in the making of which the Emperour doted and raved and finally with a plenary power over the Empire it self Of such impostures this great Annalist is full in many places though otherwise I confess where the worldly greatness of his own Roman Court is not too neerly concern'd a most labourious and excellent writer of Ecclesiastical History and one to whom on this account besides that other of his eminency of Cardinalship very much respect is due from all writers and other persons also whatsoever And yet I must say too again for the love of truth and according to my own judgment but still with all due respects to his eminency that where that worldly interest which he would make to be the Papal Interest is any way concern'd as an Historical Annalist and even also as a Theological Interpreter he is in many places full of imposture faining that which was done one way to have been done farre otherwise nay and often to have been done the quite contrary way and painting all things of such concern so with false colours to deceave the weak eyes of his unlearned or unconsiderate Readers And yet also I say of Baronius that he is very unconstant even to himself in this very matter we have here in hand For he that so earnestly and mightily contends now for this law 's not having been promulgated by Gregory as it was prescribed by Mauritius but corrected and amended first by Gregory and by vertue of the sole Pontifical power of Gregory without any regard of the Imperial power of Mauritius even he the very same Baronius a little after confesses that Gregory was forced to suffer and observe for some time that very unjust law of Mauritius And this he gathers out of some words which Gregory himself hath in the Preface to his first book of Dialogues to witt these here Quadam die nimijs quorumdam saecularium tumultibus depressus quibus in suis negotiis plerumque cogimur soluere etiam quod nos certum est nâ—n debere On which words of Gregory Baronius spends his judgment thus Ista dicens sayes he videtur plane alludere ad controversiam illam quam exercuit cum Mauritio Imperatore de iniqua lege ab ipso edita quam ad tempus perferre cogeretur licet ea minimé posset perstringi But if as he sayes here Gregory was constrained for some time to beare with and lye under this wicked law of Mauritius surely Baronius cannot pretend it was corrected or amended or made conformable to the laws of the Church and of God by Gregory at least during that time in which 〈◊〉 was constrainâ— so For it cannot be â—aid that the law amended and as amended by Gregory was iniqua â—ex a wicked law as neither said properly or truely at all that Gregory was forced to observe oâ— that
against his will that he was as yet then a Novice in the Faith and that he â—â—mitted the matter to the Roman Pontiff I say this excuse is wholly vain For first who could constrain him next he was no late Convert and the matter of usurping jurisdiction over the Church was so great notable extraordinary among Christians and of such important consequence too that t is impossible he should not be instructed in it and especially in such an instance of it though he had till then been a meer Novice or even Catechumen And in the last place who sees not it is one thing to acknowledge himself an incompetent Judge and remit the parties to their own proper Judges and an other to assign and delegat Judges to the parties which Constantine did Nor was he reprehended herein or instructed either by those three French Bishops or by Melchiades himself not even although it was known that he was most pious and most ready both to heare and obey all divine instructions Nay so farre were these French Bishops was Melchiades himself from any such exception that in pursuance of this Commission or delegation from and by Constantine a Council was gathered together at Rome to the end this troublesome cause of Caecilian and the Donatist Bishops might be the more throughly and fully discussed Optatus l. 1. wherein yet onely they did sit as Judges who were so delegated by Constantine Melchiades Maternus Rhetitius and Marinus who also the matter having been heard and examined from first to last absolved Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists Augustinus in Brevic. coll di 3. c. 22. Nay Augustine insinuats no less then that the sole judgement of Melchiades had he undertaken any such himself alone in this controversie as it was then had been usurped or had been so if he had without the Emperour 's special delegation presumed to determine it but together with those other his French Collegues For Augustine treating of the pertinacy of the Donatists in their refusing to yeeld to so many former Judgements which absolved Caecilian and labouring to clear those former judgements from all opposition he objects to himself in behalf of the Donatists epist 162. thus An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare juditium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi primus Tifigitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum To this what doth Augustine answer Certainly he does not denye that such judgement of Melchiades might be justly thought in the case to be usurped but excuses the judgement of Melchiades which really de facto was not that which onely might be falsely supposed or bruted to have been and defends it that so was truly by saying again thus Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo viderent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent Hoc probamus Donatistarum precibus verbis ipsius Imperatoris So c. So Augustine above or in the foresaid epistle The appeall of the Donatists to the Emperour himself doth follow upon and against the foresaid judgement of the Bishops at Rome Optatus l. 1. cont Parm. And what doth Constantine then t is true he breaks out into this no less just then admiring exclamation O rabida furoris audacia sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerant Yet this imports not signifies not by any means that Constantine abominats the ignorance of the Appellants for having or as if they had against any divine or humane rule or canon had recourse to a laye tribunal For had it been so or had this been the motive of his exclamation he had dismissed them and remitted them back again to their own proper Episcopal Judges which yet he did not but admitted their appeal Therefore this exclamation of Constantine imports no more but his great wonder at the too great obstinacy of these Donatist Appellants and their too much want of Christian humility resignation simplicity and even of their too much want also of either peace or charity that they in professing themselves to be Christian Priests and Bishops would never leave of persecuting an other Bishop not acquiesce at all in such manifold Judgements of even stranger Bishops who sate so numerously on the cause both in Affrick and Europe but would rather as contentiously as even the meerest Gentils in the world by all the most odious and tedious advantages of secular laws and in so improbable a cause and even by such an appeal from the Emperours such Delegats continue then inveterat malice against an other Christian Bishop But however this be or whatever moved Constantine to this exclamation the matter of fact which followed cannot be denyed For sure enough it is that Constantine admitted this Appeal and not onely admitted it but would have it and had it discussed in an other Council of Bishops which he summond and convened at Orleance in France wherein too himself would be and was present to heare and see this cause again discussed and the late judgement thereupon of Melchiades the Roman Bishop and of the other three Delegats reviewed Euseb l. x. c. 5. Aug. epist 68. This admission of the appeal and this reexamination by Constantine and by his Councel of Orleance seems very harsh to Baronius tom 3. an 314. n. 35. And therefore sayes that Constantine was drawn against his will to admit so unjust an Appeal from the judgement or sentence of the great Pontiff But to that of being drawn against his will we have said before enough or that there was none could force him And for the fact in it self that is for his admission I am sure Augustine never once reprehends it how reprehensible soever the Appeal was in it self or on the behalf of the Appellants Nor did any other of the Bishops of those times reprehend Constantine's said admission of it But if Constantine however against his own will or rather inclination did so any way tyrannically or by usurpation extend his imperial power to Ecclesiastical matters or to such matters of the Church as by the law of God were out or beyond the proper sphere of his lay or civil power why were the Roman Pontiff silent Why did not Caecilianus except and not obey as he did Why so many other Bishops of greatest name and fame gathered together and celebrating great Councils and sitting as Judges to obey the command of Constantine Therefore it must follow that all the Bishops then were meer stupid brutes or certainly that Constantine was so a most cruel raging tyrant and trampler underâ—oot of all the liberties of the Church that they dared not gainsay him And whereas neither can be said that we allow Constantine to be a competent Judge of those affairs which are properly and strictly Ecclesiastical that is spiritual at least in such as are meer questions of right or of the spiritual doctrine
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
He desires and prays that Iustine would banish Dorotheus and he cannot prevaile with Iustine forasmuch as to send Dorotheus to Rome But let us here Iustine himself answering this last demand of the Legats Inter haec say the same Legats suggestio 2. post epist Hormisd 64. giving an account to the Pope secundum ea quae praecepistis authoritatem Apostolatus vestri Principi insinuare curavimus ut ad percipiendam doctrinam Catholicae puritatis Romam praefatus Dorotheus una cum Aristide mitteraetar Qui respondit causam non esse pro qua Romam delegarentur audiendi ubi sine accusatorum controversia sese possent liberiùs excusare Where that is to be observed which in the prosecution of this account as it is Suggest 2. post epist Hormis 64. the same Legats further signifie how Dorotheus was carried to the Citty of Heraclea to stay there until his cause were adjudged but that he was presently dismiss'd thence And in the little Index which follows there they seem to signifie moreover that the judgment or Court Imperial was in this cause of Dorotheus corrupted with gold But however this of corruption be certain it is that neither did those Legats themselves nor Hormiâ—da himself at any time complain of any usurpation in or of this judgment by Iustine to which themselves did so often consent although peradventure they might have had some cause to complain of the injustice or corruption of it Iustinianus also the Emperour albeit so great a Catholick and so well deserving of the Catholick Church universally and of Catholick Church-men singularly as he was and as appears too for this of Catholick Church-men particularly out of the special priviledges he gave by his laws to the same Catholick Curchmen over and above what his Praedecessours did this very Iustinianus I say reserved still notwithstanding all his zeal for religion and all his said priviledges given his own Imperial judiciary power and would and did exercise it by proceeding and punishing in very many Instances delinquent or criminal Clerks Priests Bishops Patriarchs nay and so reserved that power still or a power of proceeding against criminal Clerks that by an express law he reserved it also to his lay Praetors of Provinces and to the lay Judges at Constantinople as I have shewed already and at large in my LXIX Section But to give here some of the particular Instances of his punishing Clerks by that his own Imperial coercive power 〈◊〉 know first it was this very Iustinianus who by his own proper and role power and authority Imperial decreed the banishment and who actually forc'd into banishment Anthimus the Patriarch of Constantinople Severus the Patriarch of Antioch Peter Bishop of Apamea and Zoaras the Praesbiter albeit they had been first deposed by an Ecclesiastical sentence Novell 42. ponitur in Concil general 5. Act. 1. where Iustinian speaks thus Interdicimus ei videlicet Anthimo commorari in hac faelici Civitate ejus districtu ac in quacumque alia insigni civitate For this Anthimus was first condemned and deposed by the spiritual or Ecclesiastical sentence of Agapetus the Roman Pontiff and after also by that of the general Synod as an intruder or as intruded into the See of Constantinople and as thinking amiss of some dogmats of Faith Ibid. Act. 1. Severus having been convicted of the same or like crimes had the like sentence of banishment pronounced against him by Iustinian similiter autem sayes this Emperour huic interdicimus omnio Regiam civitatem ingredi aut districtum ejus aut aliquam aliam de insignibus c. And enacted the same punishment against the other two Peter and Zoaras But least any should think or pretend him a meer executor of the sacerdotal sentence against these criminal Clergiemen it is to be considered first that this cannot be alleadged with any kind of colour or upon any kind of ground being that neither Pope nor Council pronounced any thing of banishment against the said criminals as indeed it was never at least in those ancient times the stile of Popes or Councils nor was after of the very Popes themselves until they became temporal Princes For since I confess the Popes do banish and may banish but out onely of their own temporal Principality The sentence therefore which Pope Agapetus and that Council which condemned those Ecclesiasticks gave or pronounced was purely and solely of Ecclesiastical Deposition and excommunication But that of Iustinian was of an other kind and much more grievous even a corporal extermination or banishment not onely from the whole citties wherein before they exercised jurisdiction but also out of all great citties of the Roman Empire And therefore Iustinian was not a meer executor of the Decree of either Pope or Council or of both but an inflicter of a new and much greater punishment and such as was proper to his own power and to which the power of the Church as a Church did neither in truth extend nor at all then as much as pretend Secondly it is to be considered that the words expression and stile which Iustinian uses in the said Novel are such are so absolute and Imperial as they cannot by any means become a meer executor Ad praesentem sayes he venimus legem nostrum Imperium contra istum praesentem scribit legem nec vtique extra Imperialem confirmationem relinquimus sententiam justè contra Severum ab Episcopis latam falsa dogmata ut publicentur nullo modo fieri in Christiano ovili Dei orthodoxo populo justum est neque ab Imperio nostro permissum est Sacram sententiam quam propriam ipsam in seipsa existentem ad huc magis firmiorem Imperium facit interdicimus omnibus â—â—tos suscipere abijci ergo ipsos sancimus de civitatibus Haec pro communi pace sanctissimarum Ecclesiarum statuimus Haec sententiavimus sequentes sanctorum Patrum dogmata ut omne sacerdotium imperturbatum de â—aetero nobis permaneat quo in pace servato reliqua nobis exuherabit politia desuper pacem habens What could be more efficaciously said to signifie that what he decrees here he decrees by his own proper Imperial authority And yet he further and expresly and particularly declares in this very Novel 42. that the judgment Ecclesiastical which proceeded was concerned onely in the bare deposition of these Churchmen from their Sees and cures and in the excommunication of them but that himself and by his own proper Imperial authority does add this decree of banishment For thus he speaks decreeing against Zoaras Et hunc de hac regia vrbe ejus districtu abijoit Imperium habitationem in alijs civitatibus ipsi omnino interdicit Itaque cum illis solis habitet consulat qui a nobis ante memorati sunt qui similia quidem blasphemant similia patiuntur similiter in exilio ponuntur si quid verò aliud in sententia sanctissimorum Episcorum quae
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
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
contemporary English man though Latin Writer and who might therefore have known the truth and was most likely to have writ but what he thought was the truth especially in a matter of such consequence being he is reputed to be a sincere Historian and as such quoted often by Baronius himself tels us in his Annals that S. Thomas and the other Bishops had Pope Alexander's consent to swear in that form however Baronius deny it for this reason forsooth that Alexander being some time after this accoasted by S. Thomas when he fled out of England and presented with the heads of those were called the Royal customs did soundly check him for ever having upon any tearms sworn to observe them That after this Parliament or great Council of Clarendon was broke up and upon S. Thomas his departure from the Court there it happening sayes Baronius out of a certain Supplement annexed to the Acts of S. Thomas that he was grievously rebuked by his Cross-bearer as having by such his carriage and oath betrayed the libertyes of the Church the Saint immediatly and most deeply sigh'd repenting what he did therein and presently also dispatch'd an express to Alexander craving an absolution and purposing in the mean while to abstain from all both Pontifical and sacerdotal office and ministery and that to his letter the Pope return'd him an other full of comfort whereby also after commanding him to confess his sins to a discreet Priest he absolved him from the said oath That when the King had heard how the Archbishop fell off the second time and refused to sign and seal the agreement of Clarendon according as it was there also agreed that he should sign and seal it nay and that he refused to stand at all to his oath whether seal'd or not seal'd being much more bitterly exasperated then ever he sent Embassadours to Alexander and to desire particularly two things of him viz. 1. that the Legantine Power Apostolick used to be entrusted to the Archbishop of Canterbury should be given for the time to the Archbishop of York and that his own Holyness would be pleased to confirm the foresaid Royal customs That Alexander upon this embassy finding himself in streights on each side that is on the point either of alienating for ever from himself that Kings good affections to whom nevertheless he owed so much for benefits receaved formerly on of granting his desire to the prejudice of the Church or Church liberty thought fit to use this mean for saving all viz. to bestow that Legantine power on the Archbishop of York whereby to satisfie the King in some degree and yet to deny him the confirmation of those Royal customs that the Church might not suffer writing withall at the same time to the Archbishop of Canterbury our S. Thomas and exhorting him earnestly that by all means he should endeavour to observe and please the King always and in all things Salva honestate Ecclesiastici â—rdinâ— That in a conjuncture wherein by other letters of a later date this Pope Alexander had restrained so that Legantine power of the Archbishop of York that he should have no power at all over Thomas of Canterbury's person or Diocess or to exempt the Suffragans of Canterbury from obeying him still as their own proper Metropolitan in all Metropolitical rights thereby frustrated the Kings great design in desiring that Legation for York being this design was no other but to get Thomas canonically deposed wherein the King being therefore in earnest angry even with the Pope himself had rendered the said Legaâ—tine Commission useless to all other lesser purposes now that the Pope had so rendred it to the said great purpose that I say in this conjuncture Thomas of Canterbury with the rest of the Bishops being called by the King to Northampton to give aâ— account of the revenues of the vacant Churches which he had while he was Chancellour administred and being accordingly brought to a strict account of these revenews and after demanding the advice of the rest of the Bishops when he had heard most of them advising that either he should renounce and give up his Archbishoprick or obey the King in all things having desired time to consider till next day and having also early on that next day celebrated the Mass of St. Stephen the Protomartyr as preparing himself for martyrdom which on that very day he hoped to suffer having carryed secretly about himself the most Sacred Hoast according to ancient custom but publickly carrying in his own hands his own Archiepiscopal cross and going in this manner to the Palace he was both scorn'd and derided by his own Suffragan Bishops and was by them and by others also of the Kings Council and as they saâ—e in Council condemned by a sentence of deposition as a perjured man and one disloyal to the King because he refused to stand to his former promise and oath to observe the Royal customs That S. Thomas having there in presence pleaded his own cause and shewed that when he was against his own will drawn by the King to the Church or Archbishoprick of Canterbury he was at that very time of his election and promotion declared by the King to be freed of and absolved from all tyes of the Court and further declining the judgment as well of the King as of his Council and appealing to the Pope and declaring also that he did by no means quit or give up his own Archiepiscopal See he reserved the further and universal cognizance of his whole cause to the See Apostolick of Rome to which he there also and then summon'd his fellow Bishops for having chosen rather to obey men then God that presently departing Court but loaden with contumelies and reproaches of Courtiers he soon after fled or parted the Kingdom for Flanders and to an Abbey of Monks called S. Bertin's in the Citty of S. Omers whence writing to the Pope of all things done and of his Appeal and flight he obtained from his Holyness an abrogation of all such proceedings against him That on the other side while all his other lesser Adversaries in England decryed him as a fugitive the King above all being wonderfully enraged sent the Archbishop of York and other Bishops of England to Alexander to accuse Thomas and to desire his Holyness to send a Legat a Latere to England to judg of the cause depending twixt him and Thomas provided also he sent Thomas in person back to be judg'd in England That albeit these Episcopal Embassadours press'd this matter vehemently in the name of their King and even to threats of Schysme on his behalf yet the Pope thought not fit to deliver so innocent a man to such cruel Adversaries but rather that he should be expected as he was called to be judg'd by himself that is by his own Holyness in their presence and that they refusing this offer of the Pope or not content with this answer departed with much indignation
and and without any Apostolical benediction That soon after Thomas being come to the Pope and pleading his own cause offered a copy of those Royal customs so much controverted Which being read seem'd so execrable and so contrary to the ancient laws every where received for the Liberty's and Immunities of the Church Church-persons and Church-lands or goods that they all to wit the Pope himself and his Consistory of Cardinals agreed unanimously that the universal Church was to be supported in the person of Thomas of Canterbury for that not he alone but she also would by the consequence of such customs be absolutely and most vilely enlived to the servitude of Lay Princes and their Ministers Whereupon also the Pope most sharpely rebuked Thomas for not having rather run any hazard whatsoever then given any consent or approbation to such manifest subversions of the law of God However because albeit amongst all there was none good yet some of them seem'd to be tollerable this Pope Alexander did after mature advice taken to discriminat them Of the sixteen heads wherein they were all comprised he absolutely damned ten and ordered these ten to be for ever damned by the Church the other six he tollerated So Baronius and out of him Henricus Spâ—ndanus ad An. Christi 1163. an 1164. Thirdly you are to observe the particulars of the said 16. Heads as the same Authors Baronius and his Epitomizer Spendanus give them ad An. 1164. and tel us they are extracted out of the Vaticane book before quoted of our S. Thomas's life and out of the Epistles annexed to the said Book and also tel us that these ten here in order next following are those of the said Sixteen which Alexander did so condemn as above 1. De advocatione praesentatione Ecclesiarum si controversia emerser it inter laicos laicos vel inter clericos laicos vel inter clericos clericos in curia Domini Regis stetur terminetur 2. Clerici citati accusati de quacumque re moniti à iustitia Regis veniant in curiam ipsius responsuri ibidem de hoc unde videbitur curiae Regis quod sit ibi respondendum Ita quod justitia Regis mittet in curiam Sanctae Ecclesiae ad videndum qua ratione res ibi tractabitun si clericus convictus vel confessus fuerit non debet de cetero cum Ecclesia tueri 3. Archiepiscopis Episcopis personis Regni non licet exire de regno absque licentia Domini Regis Et si exire voluerint si domino Regi placuerit assecurabunt quod nec in eundo nec in moram faciendo nec in redeundo perquirent malum vel damnum domino Regi vel regno 4. Excommunicati non debent dare vadium ad remanens nec praestare juramentum sed tantum vadium plegium standi judicio Ecclesiae ut absoluantur 5. Nullus qui de Rege tenent in Capite nec aliquis dominicorum ministrorum ejus excommunicetur nec terrae alicujus eorum sub interdicto ponantur nisi prius Dominus Rex fi in terra fuerit conveniatur vel justitia ejus si fuerit extra regnum ut rectum de ipso faciat ita ut quod pertineat ad curiam regiam ibidem terminetur de eo quod spectabit ad Ecclesiasticam curiam ad eamdem mittatur ut terminetur 6. De appellationibus si emerserint ab Archidiacono debent procedere ad Episcopum ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum si Archiepiscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda ad dominum Regem perveniendum est postremò ut praecepto ipsius in curia Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur ita quod non debet ulteriùs procedere absque assensu Regis 7. Si calumnia emerserit inter clericum laicum vel è converso de ullo tenemento quod clericus velit ad cleemosynam attrahere laicus verò ad laicum sendum recognitione duodecim legalium hominum per capitalis justitiae Regis considerationem terminabitur utrum tenementum sit pertinens ad cleemosynam five ad feudum laicum coram ipsa justitia Regis Et si recognitum fuerit ad cleemosynam pertinere placitum erit in curia Ecclesiastica si verò ad laicum feudum nisi ambo tenementum de eodem Episcopo vel Barone advocarint erit placitum in curia regia Si uterque advoca verit de feudo illo eumdem Episcopum vel Baronem erit placitum in curia ipsius ita quod propter factam recognitionem Saifinam non amittat qui prius saisitus fuerit 8. Qui de civitate vel castello vel burgo vel dominico manerio Regis fuerit fi ab Archidiacano vel Episcopo de aliquo delicto citatus fuerit unde debeat eidem respondere ad citationes eorum satisfacere noluerit benè licet cum sub interdicto ponere sed non debet excommunicari priusquam Capitalis Minister Regis villae illius conveniatur ut justitiet cum ad satisfactionem venire Et si Minister Regis inde defecerit ipse erit in misericordia Regis exinde poterit Episcopus ipsum accusatum ecclesiastica justitia coercere 9. Cum vacaverit Archiepiscopatus vel Episcopatus vel Abbatia vel Prioratus in dominio Regis debet esse in manu ejus inde percipiet omnes redditus exitus sicut dominicos Et cùm ventum fuerit ad consulendum Ecclesiae debet dominus Rex mandare potiores personas Ecclesiae in capella ipsius debet electio fieri assensu Regis consilio personarum Regis quas ad hoc faciendum vocaverit ibidem faciet electus homagium fidelitatem domino Regi sicut ligio domino de vita membris de honore suo terreno salvo ordine suo priusquam fit consecratus 10. Placita debitis quae fide interposita debeatur vel absque interpositione fidei sicut in curia Regis Behold hither too the ten heads of the laws in difference twixt Thomas Becket and Henry the Second which were condemn'd by Pope Alexander the Third These other 6. now following are those of the sixteen which were allowed as tollerable by the same Alexander and his Consistory as Spondanus further tels us out of the said Vaticane Code 1. Ecclesiae de feudo domini Regis non possunt in perpetuum dari absque assensu concessione ipsius 2. Laici non debent accusari nisi per certos legales accusatores testes in praesentia Episcopi ita quod Archidiaconus non perdat jus suum nec quidquam quod inde habere debeat Et si tales fuerint qui culpantur quod non velit nec audeat aliquis accusare eos Vicecomes requifitus ab Episcopo faciet jurare duodecem legales homines de visueto seu de villa coram Episcopo quod iude veritatem secundum conscientiam suam manifestabunt 3. Archiepiscopi Episcopi
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
debetur compensationem intra terdenos aggrediatur dies ab omni legis commoditate destitutus habetor So one of his laws But another thus concerning criminal Priests guilty or accused of murther or other hainous crimes Si quis sacris inauguratus rei capitalis obnoxius extiterit comprehenditor atque ut tandem Episcopo criminis admissi paenas dependat asseruator And a third yet thus concerning homicides whether Laymen or Clergiemen failing in their purgation either that which was canonical by fire or water c. or by any other way whatsoever Si quis alium trucidarit palam perempti cognatorum in potestatem detor Sin caâ—dis insimuletur tantummodo atque in excusatione afferenda ceciderit Episcopum penes esto ejus rei judicium Now for St. Edward the Confessor's laws which indeed were chiefly or above all other the laws for which the people of England were so often at variance with some of the Norman Kings or William the Conquerors Successors and which too Ingulphus and the Chronicle of Lichfield tell us were first enacted by King Edgar and but only revived with some amendments or additions by his said grand child Edwardus bonus its likewise plain the first of them is in these words Omnis Clericus aliter Clerus etiam Scholares omnis eorum res possessiones ubicumque fuerint pacem Dei sanctae Ecclesiae habeant And the Fift in these Quicumque de Ecclesia aliquid tenuerit vel in fundo Ecclesiae mansionem habuerit extra curiam Ecclesiasticam coactus non placitabit quamvis foris fecerit nisi quod absit in curia Ecclesiastica de recto defecerit And the seventh also in these Si quis vero sanctae pacem Ecclesiae violenter infregerit alias violaverit Episcoporum est justitia Quod si nocens sententiam eorum diffugiendo vel arroganter contemnendo despexerit clamor de eo ad Regem deserator post XL. dies Regis justitia mittet eum per vadimonium plegios fi habere poterit usque dum Deo primitus Ecclesiae postea satisfaciat Quod si infra XXXI dies sive per amicos notos sive per justitiam Regis inveniri non poterit utlegabit id est omni legum protectione excludet eum Rex verbo oris fui Si vero postea repertus fuerit retineri possit vivus Regi reddatur vel caput ejus si se defenderit Vulpinum enim gerit caput quod anglicè vulfesherfod dicitur Et haec est lex communis generalis de omnibus utlegatis As for William the Conqueror it s no less plain that amongst his other laws he in the last year of his raign gave this for one and for a general rule Hoc quoque praecipio ut omnes habeant teneant Legem Edwardi Regis in omnibus rebus adauctis his quae constituimus ad â—utilitatem Anglorum And it s as plain too that in all those he calls his additions or amendments of St. Edwards laws there is not one derogating to the jurisdiction which Bishops formerly had by those laws of King Edward or any other former laws or customes of England for punishing criminal Clerks or for the exemption of such criminals from the Secular Judicatory or their subjection in the punishment of their crimes to the Court Ecclesiastical only Nay it is further plain also that in the begining of Henry the firsts raign the same Henry understanding the general dissatisfaction murmurs and grievances of both Clergie and People of England in that under William Rufus his immediate Predecessor their rights ancient laws and wholsome customes were intrench't upon and infring'd so generally by the Judges and other Officers of the Crown obliged himself by publick Charter and by laws of his own to maintain the said former rights laws and customes especially to the Church and to reform as well in the point of jurisdiction of Bishops in the criminal causes of Clergiemen as provision for vacant Churches and other matters whatsoever relating either to Clergie or Layety all the abuses so lately crept in as accordingly he declared by the same Instrument all such actually taken away and abolished All which may appear sufficiently out of these following Records and laws of his own which may be seen in my Authors Abraham Whelocus and Roger Twisden For thus begins the first head or chapter of his laws extracted out of his said Charter or epistle ad omnes suos fideles at his coronation testibus sayes himself Archiepiscopis Episcopis Baronibus Comitibus Vice comitibus Optimatibus totius regni Angliae apud Westmonasterium quando coronatus fui Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum Omnibus Baronibus fidelibus suis Francis Anglis salutem Sciatis me Dei misericordia communi consilio assensu Baronum regni Angliae ejusdem Regni Regem coronatum esse quia regnum oppressum erat injustis exactionibus ego respectu Dei amore quem erga vos omnes habeo sanctam Dei Ecclesiam imprimis liberam facio Ita quod nec vendam nec ad firmam ponam nec mortuâ— Archiepiscopo sive Episcopo vel Abbate aliquid accipiam de dominio Ecclesiae vel hominibus ejus donec successor in eam ingrediatur omnes malas consuetudines quibus regnum Angliae opprimebatur inde aufero quas consuetudines hic pono c. And thus after he proceeds in his LXVI law or chapter expresly and particularly home to our present purpose Si quis Minister altaris hominem occidat vel malis actibus supra modum differatur ordine simul dignitate privetur peregrinetur sicut ei Papa injunget opus emendet Et si se purgare velit tripliciter hoc faciat nisi infra triginta noctes hoc incipiat erga Deum homines utlaga sit And in his LXXIII law or chapter thus also Si Episcopus homicidium faciat deponatur paeniteat duodecim annis in pane aqua quinque ieiunet tribus diebus in hebdomada aliis communi eibo utatur Si Presbyter hominem occidat vel Monachus ordinem perdat peniteat decem annis sex in pane aqua quartuor in hebdomada ieiunet tres dies caeteris utatur cibâ— suo c. And those were the laws to our purpose of Henry the first third Son to the Norman Conqueror Though I confess that neither he himself I mean this Henry the first who made them nor his Successors did at all keep to them exactly how specious soever and great his promises were and his charters too at his coronation Whereof Polydore Virgil speaks thus in his life and XI book of Histories Deinde summa ope intendit hominum studia in se vertere partim dando partim grandia pollicendo sed quia leges quas tulerat Pater ejus Gulielmus neutiquam aequas populus judicabat illas imprimis tollere promittit And a little after
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
quarrel and though his body likewise had been subservient and obedient in all things to the most holy dictats of his Soul For we know that invincible or inculpable prejudice ignorance or inadvertisement against the truth of things in the course of a mans life in his actions or in his contests or even some time in his doctrine which strikes not at the fundamentals of Christian doctrine so his Soul be ever piously and charitably and Christianly and resignedly disposed to embrace truth when known either by evidence of reason or from such an authority as it is bound to submit unto doth not hinder either Sanctity or martyrdom or miracles or due canonization or a fit veneration or answerable invocation of him as even a martyrized and miraculous Saint The example of S. Cyprian that great holy martyrized Saint and Patriarch of Affrick who both lived and dyed in a wrongfull contest with even the Popes of Rome themselves and even also in a very material point of Christian doctrine is evidence enough for this And S Paul's contest with S. Peter at Antioch about the observation of the Jewish laws is evidence enough And very many other examples of great holy Fathers and Doctors of the Catholick Church who lived and dyed in material errours and material heresies too especially if the doctrine of Bellarmine in many places nay or that of even of many or rather most other School Divines be true may be produced ex superabundanti to make good this evidence 4. That the infallibility of Pope Alexander the third in canonizing S. Thomas of Canterbury and I speak now to them who suppose the Pope so infallible in all his Definitions or Bulls concerning any doctrine or fact or matter of Piety that he is so too in his canonization of Saints implyed or inferr'd of necessity that all his quarrels or at least the substantial part of that quarrel which occasion'd his death principally immediatly ultimatly not onely was just but must have been just according to the very objective truth of things in themselves and that otherwise there could be no infallibility in the said Alexander's canonization of him for a Saint and a martyr and that likewise the pursuant veneration and invocation of him for such by the Church and the miracles wrought at his hearse before he was interr'd as for example the candles lighting of themselves about his hearse after they had been quenched and his lifting up his hand after the office of the dead was ended and blessing the people c and so many other miracles wrought at several times at his Tomb after he had been long enterred that I say neither that veneration or invocation could be in truth practised without impiety or at least very much temerity not those miracles alleadg'd without forgery and fallacy nor he called a martyr in any true sense if his quarrels or quarrel as now is said with Henry the Second had not been just according to the objective truth of things in themselves For as I denyed the former three suppositions so I do this fourth also or at least I say that I am not bound to admit it First because that even allowing or if I did allow Bellarmine's or any other's doctrine of the infallibility of Popes in their Bulls of canonization and other Bulls whatsoever yet is it plain enough and even admitted by such Divines that possibly there may be an errour in some particular allegations or suppositions entertained by the Popes in the process formed for such canonization and even expressed also or insinuated in the very letters of the canonization and that no such allegations or suppositions reasons or motives are defined in any Bull of canonization or even in any other whatsoever but the principal design onely and that this in Bulls of canonization is onely that such or such a holy man is in the joyes of the blessed seeing God in the face and therefore he may be invocated as such and consequently that the infallibility which they do attribute to the Popes in their Bulls of canonization may subsist notwithstanding that some of those motives or inducements were in themselves false according at least to the objective truth of things For all which these Divines pretend to in this matter is the infallible assistance of Gods holy spirit or of his external Providence promised infallibly as they suppose to the Pope in not proposing any by such a solemn declaration to be invoked as a Saint who is not so indeed but not in supposing this or that which is said of some passage of his life nor by consequence in supposing what was the true cause of his violent death when he dyed so or that the cause was such as would make him a martyr in the stricktest sense of this word Martyr as used in the Church by way of distinction not onely from a Confessour but from such holy men who suffered violent deaths unjustly that is not by the prescript of the laws but by the power onely of wicked men or women and that too sometimes not for any cause they maintayn'd but out of hatred to their persons or to arrive at some worldly end which their life observed whereof St. Edward the Second a Saxon King of England Son to the good King Edgar is a very sufficient example who was and is invoked as a martyr and a very miraculous martyr too notwithstanding he was murthred onely by a servant and at the command of his Stepmother Alfreda as he was drinking on horseback and this too for no other cause but that her own Son Ethelredus should come to be King as presently he was made Polydore Virgil Anglicae Historiae l. VII as sometimes also for a cause which though not so clear on either side in the judgment I mean of some other indifferent men nay perhaps unrighteous on the side of the holy sufferers according to the objective truth of things in themselves yet invincibly appearing just or the more just and the more holy and pious unto them and to others also who had their life otherwise and justly too or according also even to the certain objective truth of other things in due veneration For Martyr in Greek is a witness in English and martyrdom in the Ecclesiastical use of the word is variously applyed sometime strictly to import a violent death suffered without any reluctance and suffered meerly and onely for professing or for not denying a known certain evident or notorious Catholick Evangelical truth or which is the same thing to import a witnessing or a bearing testimony to such a truth by such a death sometime largely or not so strictly however properly still to import by such a death a witnessing or a bearing testimony to a good zeal and great piety and excellent conscience in being constant to a cause which one esteems the more just and generally seems the more pious for all he knows though it be not an evangelical truth and though perhaps
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
threatned and prepared also to interdict the Kings Dominions Let it be so as indeed Historians confess it was so And let it be so too that he prepared to publish both a local and personal interdict and which is more yet to excommunicate the Kings own Person for I confess also this very last of preparing to excommunicate the King though nothing out of History of what quality the interdict was to be or whether not only local but also personal And though reason tells us and we are not without reason or History to presume otherwise then that if personal also it was only to be against such persons as gave cause for such interdict however it was not reason either by the law of the Land at least then or by the nature of even such interdict the most general could be Not by the Law because none such is alledged nor indeed can be being it is very certain that Ecclesiastical Discipline Jurisdiction and censures were allowed then by the Law or Custome of England to be exercised in all the formality of the Canons Nor by its own nature because it is a pure spiritual penalty depriving only of Divine Offices and Ecclesiastical Burial and of some Sacraments viz. Eucharist Order Matrimony and in some cases of that of Pennance too As for the Saints preparing to excommunicate the King I have said enough of that already or of the nature and effects of the excommunication which he was resolved to pronounce had the peace not been made And I am sure we have example enough in St. Ambrose interdicting the great Roman and Christian Emperor of the World Theodosius from entring his Church at Millan that Ecclesiastical censures as such pronounced against a King by his Bishop however otherwise in temporals his own subject render not the Bishop a traytor against his King or Countrey And if you say that such general interdicts of a Kingdom are sometime causes or occasions of the peoples rising in armes against the Prince what then they are not so by their own nature nor commonly so as much as by accident or by the mallice or folly or impatience of such as abuse them The pure preaching of the Gospel hath been sometimes through the malice of men an occasion of armes and wars and slaughter of subjects and of Princes too And the holiest things and best means and wholsomest Physick may be abused Must this hinder the right use of them or must it render Christian remedies treasonable among Christians that even some Popes or some Prelates or some other Clerks or some people have either actually made evil use of them or intended to do so But for such intention it cannot be fix'd on St. Thomas of Canterbury and I shall give presently sufficient arguments that it could not be so fixed on him nay that really he had not any such And yet in the mean time I confess I am not my self in my own judgement nor ever was since I understood any thing in Theology for the practice nay or Theory of such general interdicts of a Kingdome either local or personal much less of any mixt of both nor even of a Province Diocess City or University But this is not my work now whether my own private opinion or judgement herein be right or not as I do not absolutely averr that it is right nor is it requisite I should here give my self or others the trouble of discussing the grounds Pro or Con. 7. But Pope Alexander threatned by his last Embassadours or Legats and bitter express Letters to King Henry the Second that if he did not receive Thomas to peace and without prosecution of the 16 Customes he would proceed against him as he had lately against the Emperour Frederick that is to a sentential deposition of him from his Crown and Kingdome or to the actual raising in War of both his own Subjects and of those were not his own Subjects against him Thomas of Canterbury had no hand in contriving such an Embassy or in procuring such Letters as to these particulars He solicited indeed by his own Letters from France to Alexander at Rome and so did the King of France and some of the Bishops of France most earnestly that the Pope would be pleased to recall his own late Papal suspension of the Legatine Commission and his own late Papal exemption given to King Henry the Second at the same Henry's earnest suit by his Embassadour from Thomas's both extraordinary power of a Legat and Ordinary of the Archbishop of Canterbury over King Henry and licence him to proceed Ecclesiastically against this King And no more appears out of History that Thomas solicited the Pope in if not peradventure that the Pope himself would immediately by himself proceed against Henry in the same manner was uncontroulably allowed by all the Christian Church then and all the Christian Common-wealth that is to a pure spiritual excommunication and pure spiritual interdict If the Pope exceeded both the desires of Thomas and power of Alexander what was that to Thomas For I confess that if Henry the Second did not acknowledge himself Alexanders vassal in temporals or his Kingdome tributary or to hold it in fee from Rome or that it was so then indeed by some kind of true humane right then certainly it must follow that Alexanders threats were not well grounded nor just but very injurious and very erroneous too though not treasonable in him because he was no Subject of Henry's I say if because I do not certainly know what the conscience of Henry or well or ill grounded opinion of English men generally was at that time I see that this very same Henry a little before took such a Bull for the invasion of Ireland from Adrian the fourth Pope of that name an English man who sate immediately before this Alexander that gives much ground to think that either he was perswaded the Pope had a supream even I mean temporal right to all the Christian Islands at least in the West or that he would make use of any the most improbable and ridiculous title what soever to invade and possess other mens rights And I see that he trembled at the very mention of the Popes interposition But however this matter be nothing appears out of History or ancient Records of the Saints Letters and whence should we know or should Henry the 8th after 300 years know but from History or such Records that our Saint had any kind of hand directly or indirectly in procuring or intending such a message from Alexander the III. to Henry the II. And we know Alexander was his own Master and that being setled at Rome and having humbled Frederick whether by lawful or unlawful means he little cared for Henry whereever the controversies touched or concerned his own whether true or only pretended supream Pontificial power in the exemption of Clergy-men from secular powers or in any other such whatsoever Though in other matters wherein his own interest
give and they to receive it from Her But sayes not That the Church may by her own power or at her pleasure or in any case Revoke that Authority again or hurt lessen or endanger it but wholly abstracts from this whether it be so or not according to the truth of things in themselves 4. Because the Querie made after the Objection or that which ask't thus 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 is soon and rationally answer'd in the affirmative For so do very famous Catholick Doctors both Divines Civilians and Canonists and they all of strict communion with the Roman Church and Pope maintain and maintain also I mean too concerning such authority and power as without any question they had at first originally from the Church and could not have but from her but hath been time out of mind annexed to their Crowns or hath been originally or at some time granted them per modum contractus vel concordati vel transitionis And that you may not have my saying so for proof you may be pleased to run over this Latin insertion extracted out of that very learned School Divine and English Father and Doctor of St. Francis's Order who was lately and three several times Minister Provincial of his said Order in England and for ought I know lives yet Father Francis Davenport alias a Sancta Clara. And I give it wholly in his own words as it lies in his Paraphrase on the XXXVII Article of those XXXIX of the Protestant Church of England And give it so at length not only that you may see in it Catholick Doctors and Writers enough confirming what I have so answerâ—d in the Affirmative to this Query but for to clear your judgment in some other matters also relating to the Subject in hand here or at least to that of my whole Discourse of Ecclesiastical Exemption if not to some other questions in this my present Book And yet give it not as meaning to tye my self in all things to his judgment or at least to his too fearful or scrupulous expressing and tying of himself in meer words to some other late Schoolmen especially where he rather follows their opinion or their expression who deny Jurisdiction to Kings ex jure Regio de jure Divino naturali over the persons and in the causes of Ecclesiasticks and only attribute to them nudam potestatem civilem temporalem c. over such persons and in such causes than theirs who on the contrary attribute to Kings the thing and word Jurisdiction over the same persons and things and this too per se and by the Law of God and Nature Hic articulus sayes he meaning the foresaid XXXVII Article of the Protestant Church of England subministrat materiam examinandi Quaestionem longe gravissimam An scil laici sint capaces jurisdictionis spiritualis Primo advertendum ex omnium sententia illos non esse capaces clavium quia tunc etiam remissionis seu absolutionis a peccatis Secundo advertendum jurisdictionem spiritualem seu potestatem jurisdictionis non esse immediate ipsam potestatem clavium immo separabiles nec actu semper conjungi vel jure divino vel positivo Tertio supponendum summum Pontificem in omni sententia secundum absolutam potentiam suam posse jurisdictionem talem laicis concedere quia non expresse contra jus divinum ut recte Soto 4. dist 20. quaest 1. art 4. Scot. 4. d. 20 q 1. a. 4. Mirand in Manual q. 3. a. 2. D. Alvin c. 3. c. sic etiam Miranda in Manuali quaest 3. art 2. hoc non solum respectu virorum sed foeminarum Addit tamen Miranda hoc respectu foeminarum nusquam adhuc concessum Quod tamen negat D. Alvin c. 3. de Episcopis Abbatibus Abbatissis c. 22. citat multa jura ex quibus actu conceditur Abbatissis potestas jurisdictionis non quidem excommunicandi per se sed praecipiendi suis subditis Sacerdotibus ut excommunicent rebelles contumaces moniales hoc valere vel ex jure communi vel consuetudine vel saltem ex privilegio vel strictius loquendo dicendum cum Laimanno lib. 1. Laiman l. 1. tract 5. p. 1. c. 3. n. 3. 4. tract 5. p. 1. cap. 3. num 3. 4. quod non habent jurisdictionem spiritualem proprie sed usuram quandam jurisdictionis Et hinc conferre possunt beneficia instituere clericos in Ecclesiis ad Monasterium suum pertinentibus c. Vt sensum meum in re tam gravi aperiam Dicendum putem nullo quidem jure ut praetactum est eis competere potestatem seu jus spirituale ut loquitur Joannes de Parisiis de potestate Papae c. 21. quo gratia spiritualis causatur id est Joan. de Paris c. 21. de potest Papae potestas administrandi Sacramenta Et idem est judicium de potestate quae consequitur ex priori ut est inflictio poenae spiritualis scripturarum expositio Ministrorum Ecclesiae institutio confirmatio vel examen alia id genus multa Quodvis enim horum de jure divino restringitur praecise ad homines spirituales sen Deo sacros ut olim definitum est a Joan. 22. contra Marsilium de Padua ut videre est apud Turrecrem l. 4. Summae sub finem Joan. 22. contra Mars de Padua Turrecr l. 4. summae Caeterum quoad potestatem seu jus antecedens non de per se necessario annexum spiritualibus officiis bene potest in laicis subinde residere sicut praesentatio collatio beneficiorum punitio temporalis clericorum alia id genus multa ut dixi de Abbatissis praecipue ex concessione Ecclesia vel longa consuetudine praescripta convenientibus Praelatis Ecclesiae Dixi merito etiam ex consuetudine quia non solum concessio Innoc. in c. novit c. Salgado p. 1. c. Prael 3. nu 120. sed consuetudo ipsa tribuit jurisdictionem etiam in spiritualibus ut docet Innocent in cap. Novit de judic multi praesertion quando consuetudinis exercitium a tempore immemoriali probatur ut declarant Juristae de quare vide Salgado p. 1. c. 1. Praelud 3. n. 122 deinceps Dices hic non solum concedi Principibus nostris potestatem ex consuetudine seu concessione sed supremam ut ibi asseritur quod noâ— potest eis competere in spiritualibus ut omnes Doctores tenent Respondeo quod Doctores praedicti asserant Papaâ— non posse auferre jurisdictionem Principum ex consuâ—tudine vel concessione firma valide licite introductam Nav. c. 27. in Enchir. n 70. Salz sch Ber. Diaz cap. 55. Sect. Apud Gall. Duvall de disc Eccl. p. 3 fol. 405. sicut satis insinuat Navar. c. 27. in
Kings Absolution by the Cardinals having this Title Charta Absolutionis Domini Regis and beginning thus Henrico Dei gratia illustri Regi Anglorum Albertus tituli sancti Laurentii in Lucinia Theodinus tituli sancti Vitalis Presbyteri Cardinales Apostolicae Sedis Legati salutem in eo qui dat salutem Regibus Ne in dubium veniant quae geruntur c. And so proceeds to signifie his said Purgation and their own Absolution given to him upon the fame conditions Now I demand Whether there be any kind of likelihood that so knowing and so great a King as Henry the Second was then for he had Conquered Ireland that very year and thence it was that he Sail'd immediately to Normandy of purpose to purge himself and be absolved so as soon as he heard those Legates were come thither from Rome And he had the whole Sea-side of France and far in to the Land all along to Navarre in Spain under his dominion and in actual possession and had Scotland also Tributary though it was Two years after before he took the King of Scots should have made so wonderful a submission and in such words and received Absolution on such terms if he could have alledg'd any thing or matter of Treason against Thomas of Canterbury And that he also performâ—d all and more than all this for appeasing God's wrath against himself for having only given without further design the unfortunate occasion of the Saint's death we have seen already and in part before in his extraordinary Pilgrimage to and Humiliation at the Saint's Monument And we may in part also gather hence That by actual instance he quitted the requiring of that Oath of the Clergy for the observation of the sixteen customs For so doth Matthew Parker himself confess in express terms and in his life of Richard a Monk of St. Benedicts Order Prior of the Monastery of Dover who was the next succeeded Thomas Becket in the Archbishoprick and Primacy of Canterbury and in a Legatine power Apostolick also being fix'd upon by this very King Henry the Second to succeed so and confirm'd and consecrated so by the same often mentioned Pope Alexander the Third at Anagnia in Italy Et paulo post sayes Parker Archiepiscopus Primas Romanae Sedis Legatus cum Pallio in Angliam rediit Hic electus Regi fidelitatem juravit salvo ordine suo nulla prorsus facta mentione de prioribus regni consuetudinibus observandis Behold eight several Arguments which if at least taken all together and especially if they be also taken together with all I have said before in this second Appendix to answer such Objections as my self framed against my self I must confess I cannot for my own part but judge them to be so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter as Treason possible to have been truly charged at any time on St. Thomas of Canterbury that I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of him And so I conclude this second Appendix against the unweigh'd Relation and very inconsiderate Censure of Parker and much more yet against the barbarous and impious judgment of those Judges who under Henry the VIII above Three hundred years after the death of the Martyr condemn'd him for a Traytor repeating here again what I said before against the grand Atheistical Counsellor of the said King Henry the VIII in this matter who ever he was That it was neither Treason nor even any other less or real and certain misdemeanor he saw or he read in the life or death of Thomas of Canterbury put him on so execrable an Enterprize Sed avaritia illa quae caâ—tivavit discipulum comitem Christi captivavit militem custodem Sepulchri as St. Austin said of Judas who betrayed Christ and of the Souldiery that kept the Sepulchre of Christ And so also I conclude whatever I intended to say principally or incidentally against the tacite Objection of the Divines of Louain of this glorious Martyrs Contests with Henry the Second and of his opinion or judgment in such Contests in relation to the Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Exemption from the supreme civil coercive power of temporal Princes or to my own Doctrine which I am sure is the Catholick Doctrine and whatever else I intended to say principally or occasionally of the sanctity of his life and glory of his martyrdom and of the consistency of both with some humane invincible errors of his side speaking according to the objective verity or being of things in themselves as we see that other great and undoubted Saints and even the very Princes of the Apostles have fallen into such humane errors without prejudice to the sanctity of their lives or glory of their martyrdoms that Peter erred so out of zeal to gain both Jewes and Gentiles in Judaizing among the Jews c. and who reprehended him in that did no less himself err so in another occasion in making himself a Nazarâ—te and in circumcising Timothy so much against his own Doctrine there Si circumcidamini Christus vobis nihil proderit and elsewhere And finally whatever I intended to say directly and of purpose to shew that indeed St. Thomas of Canterbury did not in any part of all his Contests with Henry the Second as much as err so that is not err at all as much as inculpably or invincibly or at all against the very objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves And yet I must tell my Reader that if Augustinus the first Archbishop of Canterbury had contested so or Reginaldus Polus the last Catholick in that See or many others after Austin for some Ages and before Cardinal Pool in other Ages intervening 'twixt his and that wherein Thomas Becket was Archbishop of that same See I could not justifie any of them for contesting so but plainly condemn them Because in their Times the municipal Laws of the Land were quite contrary in many points as they are at this day and have been so as to the punishment of criminal Clergymen in cases of Treason Murther Felony c. a long time and perhaps several Ages in England as well in those immediately after Henry the Second's dayes and notwithstanding the conditions of his Purgation Absolution and Satisfaction and then almost uninterruptedly till the change and after the change by Henry the VIII until this present as in those before the dayes of that Christian King of the Saxons who ever he was that first gave Clergymen those priviledges of Exemption in Criminal Causes from Lay Judicatories which I quoted before and proved to have not been repealed at any time after until Henry the Second's Reign And because they were the municipal Laws of the Land which only could warrant the grand Contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury at least in relation to the exemption of Criminal Clerks
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
the guilt of Sacriledge to refix their signatures which can be no less even formally than to say That the Remonstrance in it self is sacrilegious But that virtually and consequentially they judge it also to be either Heretical or Schismatical no other proof is requisite besides that where they say That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Religion For whoever sayes so of any form must virtually and consequentially say the same form is either Heretical or Schismatical or both because all judicious learned persons know very well That no things are repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion but such things as imply Heresie or Schism or both Secondly You are to consider That in their first and long original unpublish'd Censure the Louain Divines gave these four chief grounds which I have hitherto impugned in well nigh a Hundred sheets and gave them I say for their own grounds of alledging those two pretended Causes or Reasons and of their consequent Censure so as above of our Remonstrance as unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. And consequently you are to consider That being those four chief grounds of theirs are so clearly and utterly and universally ruined by me hitherto their said two pretended Causes or Reasons which had no subsistence but in those grounds must also be no less universally clearly and utterly ruined and by further consequence so likewise no less universally clearly and utterly must their said Censure be being this depends wholly on those two Reasons or Causes and these on the four grounds Thirdly You are to consider yet more particularly the grand Temerity against Prudence Falsity against Truth Injury against Justice and Scandal against Charity of this Censure by reflecting first on those Reasons or Causes given in and for it and secondly on the sense of each of those words adjectives or epithets of it and by comparing both these epithets and those causes to the several parts clauses or propositions of the Remonstrance it self analyzed into propositions or even to the whole Remonstrance as comprising all together without any such Analysts understanding now by the Remonstrance that part of it which only is in dispute the Act of Recognition with the Declarations Renunciations c. therein contained and the Petitionary address thereunto annexed To which purpose I desire the judicious learned Reader to look back to the 7 8 and 9th page of this First Part and read there once more attentively that our Remonstrance from first to last and then analyse or resolve it I mean resolve those Recognitions Declarations Renunciations Promises c. and Petitionary addresses all therein contained and analyse or resolve all into so many particular distinct propositions as they are fit or may be resolved into and after this to apply those two Reasons or Causes and each and all those adjectives or epithets of the above Louain Censure to each proposition severally nay and to all at last jointly taken And to the same purpose I desire him to consider that in no part of the Remonstrance nor in the whole taken together any obedience is promised or acknowledged or confessed to be due to our Sovereign Charles the Second or any other Temporal Prince but that which is in Civil and Temporal Affairs only and none at all in spiritual things nor in any kind of spiritual thing For so is the obedience it promises acknowledges or confesseth as due to our gracious King in His own Dominions by all his own Subjects whether Protestants or Catholicks and as due to all other absolute Princes and Supreme Governors within their own respective Dominions also and by their own respective Subjects so I say is that obedience most signally expressed and determined in formal words and in two several passages of this Remonstrance to all Civil and Temporal Affairs adding further yet and in signal formal words too that it be in such meer Civil and Temporal Affairs not universally or absolutely in all cases according to the arbitrary will or pleasure of the Prince Charles the Second but as the Laws and Rules of Government in such things in this Kingdom do require at our hands and to other such Supreme independent Princes or Magistrates according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively Whence any judicious Reader may conclude at least if he have read what I have hitherto so diffusely writ of the subjection of all even Clergy-men to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate in Temporal things That the Divines of Louain did most rashly falsly injuriously and scandalously suppose their first Cause or Reason of their Censure viz. That our Remonstrance contains a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make unto them For I have demonstrated at large before that by the Law of God and Nature and by the Laws of man as well these are Ecclesiastical as Civil all men are bound to pay such obedience to their respective Kings or Supreme Magistrates And if they are so bound to pay it sure the Prince may especially when he sees Reason for it require a promise or an acknowledgment or confession or declaration of it from them and they make such promise acknowledgment c. And I am sure too that our Prince had much Reason then when that Remonstrance was made and hath yet still to expect such even a most formal promise and declaration from the Romish Clergy of Ireland and they no less to make it to Him To the same purpose yet of seeing further into the Temerity Falsity Injury and Scandal of the said Louain Censure the Reader may be pleased to reflect again once more and no less particularly on their abovesaid second Supposition Cause or Reason of it as you have seen that Louain Faculty in this their short Censure which we now handle express that second Cause viz. That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion and I desire the good Reader to apply this and compare it either to all the propositions jointly taken or to every one severally of our Remonstrance and then judge whether I have not just Reason to complain of them and tax them as I do that this which they suppose in the second place is most rashly falsly injuriously and scandalously supposed or alledged by them as a Cause or Reason of their Censure For what can be more rash false injurious and scandalous than to condemn or censure a pure and meer Acknowledgment Confession Declaration or promise of Loyalty or of Allegiance Fidelity and Obedience to our Rightful and Supreme Lord and Sovereign and a promise of such in meer Temporal things made to Him by His own natural Catholick Subjects and made in a publick Remonstrance wherein those of England as well nay antecedently to as those of Ireland joyn'd than I say to condemn or censure such a publick Instrument of such a great Body containing of the
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
such other excellent Casuists for the lawfulness of murthering or assassinating not only your declared known enemy or inveterate or even any way profess'd or not profess'd Adversary but also any other even your own Consort or Companion that either affronts you never so little or but reveals nay or but threatens to reveal hereafter nay also or but whom you only suspect or fear may reveal although only out of lightness or vanity and not out of any malice to you some or any one even true imperfection or fault or fact of yours which being known may either defame or lessen or hinder you or your Society Order or Colledge from that power authority dignity esteem or advantages and emoluments you or they aspire unto provided only that you conceive the death of such a person to be necessary or behoveful either for the recovery or preservation of your name fame or of that which is or is called your worldly honour credit or esteem or even but your utility or profit temporary and earthly Finally you shall see the said most Reverend Prelate proving effectually by his carriage towards those Remonstrants for three or four years past That notwithstanding his formal Ejection or Dismiss out of the Society and he knows for what and knows moreover that I am not ignorant nor have been since 1659. either of that very true cause or of the very great person that procured his said Ejection yet he hath continued still a pragmatical constant close Disciple in the worst of Maxims to those very worst of Moralists Equivocatists Probablists Academists Scepticks nay and Assassins too retaining so whatsoever evil could be learn'd of them but relinquishing all that was good or just the more Christian precepts and practices he might have seen in some others even Writers of that very Society which threw him out Whether it was therefore that when he was created Archbishop by the Pope some Three years since his then Father General Oliva did complement him so high in a Letter which I my self have read from Rome promising himself and his Society in Ireland c. I know not what even certainly all that was great and wonderful now that he the foresaid Prelate was made Archbishop of the Head City or Metropolis of that Kingdom I am sure it argued what otherwise I my self did and could not but observe 1. That notwithstanding his ejection by the Fathers of purpose that they might please or rather not too much and too openly displease him whose affairs and hopes he the very same Prelate or person though not then a Prelate endeavoured to betray and utterly ruine Anno 1659. and by whose application therefore to the General of the Order his ejection was urged home yet the same General and ruling Cabal of that Society understood him and he them very well all along both before and after his ejection or dismiss given to him And how therefore and notwithstanding it and continually after it he observed a no less intimate correspondence with them and promoted their interests no less wheresoever he might than he had before 2. That in a very special and particular manner he did so by undermining covertly in all occasions and opposing also publickly in some all he could the Subscription of the Remonstrance As if indeed by that Formulary or advance of it his whole Ignatian Order's Reputation in these Kingdoms lay at stake His Letter out of England ann 1666. to Father Barton the English Jesuit then in Ireland persuading him to hinder all he could the National Congregation from Subscribing the Remonstrance may testifie this abundantly Which Letter the said Barton shewed and read then to my self Or if he had seriously considered what was most certainly true how well nigh a whole Century of years albeit more especially since the Powder-plot Treason and Oath of Allegiance made by King James the Professors of that Society of the Ignatian Order have labour'd so mightily both by word deed and writing to impose on the World and above all other parts or people of it upon His MAJESTIES of Great Britains Roman-Catholick Subjects That the power or authority and the doctrine or positions renounc'd disclaimed and abjured by the Oath of Allegiance made by King James and consequently as Internuncio de Vecchiis sayes those also protested against by that our late Remonstrance are positive and affirmative points of the Christian Religion And that all sincere Catholicks ought rather to suffer not only loss of goods and liberty but of life also even death it self than take any Oath declaring against such matters And moreover That such a death questionless should would and ought to be reputed Christian Martyrdom in a proper and strict sense of these words and consequently also reputed that very Baptism of blood which of its own nature without any Sacrament not only washes away clean all kind of sins both as to guilt and even temporary punishment but further purchaseth that extraordinary even accidental glorious Garland in Heaven which the Divines call Aureola Martyrii 3. That his foresaid promotion whether Legal or Illegal or whether as much as Canonical or Uncanonical nay whether absolutely void invalid or null by the Canons of the Universal Church I question not here was upon such and the like consequential accounts further'd in an high measure by the above General Oliva and other Jesuits of the Cabal as a matter conducing mightily to their interest the principles and genius of the man and consequently that he was the fittest instrument they could pitch upon being considered And certainly whoever knows that Societies power in the Court of Rome and how ignominious a punishment note and blot Ejection out of any Religious Order is or is esteem'd to be when it is after so many years profession and continuance in such Order and is moreover pretended to be for criminal causes and withall how when there is no intrigue in the matter there must also by consequence be or certainly and commonly is rather some extraordinary hatred or at least a very great strangeness and distance 'twixt the Ejectors and Ejected than any kindness and besides without peradventure how easie it is for the General or even Procurator of any Order at Rome to obstruct the like promotion of any that hath ever at any time before professed their Institute and after deserted it whereas if the Canons of the Church or even those of the Tridentin Council nay or the very Papal constitutions and ordinary practice of scrutiny at Rome it self de vita moribus and other qualities of such Episcopal candidates be observed or not rather wilfully and extraordinarily omitted a very small Objection made by men of Authority will serve to that end but much more questionless the infamous note of having been ejected for criminal matters who ever I say considers all this will certainly out of the above Letter of Oliva infer That the foresaid late promotion was on those very same or like consequential
in the late Rebellion or civil War which you please to call it or even to speak one word for so much as a general Petition to be exhibited to his Majesty imploring His Majesties gracious Pardon No there was no crime at all committed by all or any of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland not even at any time nor in any occasion or matter happened since Octob. 23. 1641 if we must believe the Bishop of Ardagh Patrick Plunker pleading for them so in express terms and the tacit approbation of his words by the Universal silence of that Assembly nam qui tacet consentire videtur according to the rule of the Canon Law But who can believe either and not rather be hence convinced that God in his just indignation had suffered those Fathers to be for their punishment so strangely infatuated against all reason common sense the knowledge of all People and their own interest too For certainly and too too notoriously so they were all along in all their affairs during the fifteen days they sate but in this particular above any other even to astonishment However the Congregation being that evening adjourned to the next morning as soon as it was late and dusky having first prepared his way I went along with the Primat to the Kings Castle where my Lord Lieutenant received him privately in his Closet none being present besides me After salutes his Grace having first placed this greatest Roman Catholick Preâ—â—â—t of Ireland by him on a seat using him also with all other civil respect which the difference of Religion and reason of State could allow entertain'd him with a short but pithy material excellent Speech or rather lesson indeed It continued about a quarter of an hour And I must confess that in my life to my remembrance I never heard so much to the purpose said either so short or so well with so much weight and gravity not only not from any Lay-person to a Church-man but not even from an Ecclesiastick to any even Laick Nor was my judgement herein single The Primat himself confessed so much even openly too next morning before the whole Congregation as soon as they were sate and some occasion was offered him to speak before them of what the Lord Lieutenants Grace had recommended to them Nay he confessâ—d it also in these very Latin words Tanquam Angelus Del loquutus est mihi rendred in English Like an Angel of God he spake unto me What the heads were may be easily guessed out of what is said before both of the Primat himself and other matters hitherto in this Second part And the words I have lost because the Paper which contain'd them Yet I remember 1. They began exactly thus You know very well it was not for your good deeds the Pope created you titular Primat of Ardmagh 2. That all the while the Lord Lieutenants Grace continued speaking the Primat never as much as once lifted up his eyes but bare headed as the Lord Lieutenant also was held them still immoveably cast down and in truth behav'd himself because so conscious to himself as like a guilty penitent Transgressor admitted to the presence of his Lord as any could 3. That when His Grace the Lord Lieutenant either asked or minded him of what conditions I had proposed for his safe return and writ to himself to France he denied again that he had received that Letter 4. That I repeated thereupon in that presence of both the same Arguments I had the day before to the Primat alone to shew the unlikelihood of this excuse or at least my extream wonder at such a chance having nevertheless let fall some other words of purpose to lessen all I could before his Grace the Lord Lieutenant this weakness of the Primats answer 5. That his said Grace notwithstanding he saw clearly enough it was a meer story yet seemed not once in the least moved not as much as to reply one word on that or other subject to contristate or afflict him more but with much civility and obliging kindness recommended to him to improve the present opportunity in the Congregation for his own and Clergies and Countries best advantage and endeavour not only to rectifie but in some measure to satisfie for whatever had been not well done at any time before and so dismissed this Prelat very much satisfied with his gracious reception These are the heads of what I remember occurred or passed betwixt His Grace and this Primat then being the only time they conferred or saw one another And yet I must here take notice to the Reader That soon after the Congregation had been dissolved the Primats own Vicar General Doctor Patrick O Daly together with an other Priest of his Diocess lately then come from Paris told my self each of them at the same time with me at Dublin they had themselves severally heard from the said Primats own mouth That indeed he had in Paris before he came away thence received that Letter of mine which he so lately denyed both to me and to the Lord Lieutenant to have received but that he dared not acknowledge it either to the Duke or me or any other should tell because he then might be justly called in question for other matters if he signed not the controverted Remonstrance which yet partly through fear of the Court of Rome and partly too for other causes he neither dared nor would sign XV. THE next day being the fifteenth of June and fifth of the Congregations sitting the Lord Lieutenant having sufficiently understood their little sense of the only end for which he permitted them to meet and further how some of them had endeavoured to highten a false report of his intentions to depart suddenly out of Town of purpose to pretend they wanted time to consult or deliberate and so excuse themselves if they gave not full satisfaction it being consequently alledged they could not with safety continue their sitting when his Grace were so departed and for this reason they were better immediately sign the Instrument prepared to their hands viz. the insignificant one of which before and which you shall see in the next Section and then without further hazard of themselves Dissolve his Grace therefore thought fit to send them by Richard Bellings Esq a second Message to be read as it was this day read to them out of a written paper publickly and exactly word by word as here followeth after the Title The LORD LIEUTENANT's Second Message to the Congregation THat I understand it is reported I intend in a few days to leave this City and that it is thence apprehended by those of the Romish Clergy now met here that they may not have time to consider of and conclude upon the business for which their meeting is permitted namely for Subscribing to the Remonstrance and Protestation subscribed and presented to His Majesty in January and February 1661 by divers of the Nobility Gentry and Romish Clergy Whereupon I think
and falsely and maliciously too ascribed to Justinian by Procopius in that Book but the consequential ruining of Belisarius even amidst the glory of all his victories he may also thereby easily guess at the foresaid latent cause or end especially when I do likewise assure him this was a concernment in some such other unhappy thing Nor may any one justly blame me for this obscurity whether of relation or reflection who considers of one side the Laws of History and on the other the rules of Equity prescribed by Cap. In Scripturis dist 69. taken from and composed of that saying of Constantine the Great which is recorded in Theodoret l. 1. c. xi Concerning the third Point or Appendage viz. How immediately after the National Congregation had been dissolved the doctrine of Allegiance in Fifteen several Propositions was debated for a whole Month by a select number of Divines you are to observe 1. That when I had withdrawn for a day or two from the Congregation with some thoughts of not entring to their House any more if I saw them not coming to more sober counsels yet retaining still my former affection to them and withall considering they still pretended to come home to the substance of the controverted Remonstrance though out of respect to the several Censures of the Roman Dictators and Louain Doctors they would not to the form or words thereof I resolved to try them in this also And therefore I drew up another Form of the substance of that i. e. of the Doctrine Protestation and Promises of Allegiance contain'd in the said Remonstrance and fram'd all into Fifteen several Heads Paragraphs or complex'd either Propositions or Declarations or both 2. That when I had done this I sent for the Reverend Father Bernardinus Barry a Franciscan Reader Jubilate of Divinity one of the Members of the House and of their ablest and most judicious Divines and one also that although he had never sign'd the controverted Remonstrance yet had often the two years past declared himself fully and clearly before many for the lawfulness of signing it but abstain'd nevertheless of his own part to sign because he pretended to the Provincialship of the Franciscan Order in the next Chapter which was to be held in July then at hand and feared the greater number of Votes would be against him if he had sign'd that Formulary Besides that having been formerly bred at Rome and been after Commissary General over the Irish Franciscan Colledges at Prague and Louain and being now ancient and consequently as on the one side he knew himself in a fair capacity of a Bishoprick especially when once chosen Provincial so on the other he foresaw by his own experimental knowledge abroad that certainly he could expect nothing from the Roman Court if he had once sign'd However he it was I sent for to come to me where I was when I had that Paper of the Fifteen Heads fairly engross'd and having told him my ends therein desired him to move the reading of it in the House and both apptobation of and concurrence thereunto by signature as a medium to reconcile all differences if the Fathers continued still their resolution of not offending the Court of Rome by signing the Form so mightily and so lately too in the last Letters decryed by that Court. 3. That Father Barry having approved of both Paper and design and promised his utmost devoir and parted and then in the Congregation offered several times to read those Heads and yet either out of want of courage or willingness failed in his attempt and other matters viz. those of the Sorbon Declarations intervening and the Fathers proving resty in all matters and therefore at last dissolved as you have seen but their ablest Divines staying in Town for some time and other Divines too of the ablest in the whole Nation being likewise then in Town some out of curiosity and some others of them staying for the Provincial Chapter of the Franciscan Order which was to be held in that same City of Dublin and sit upon the 25 of July i. e. within a Month I was desired to call together all the said Divines both these and those and have in that interval i. e. until the day appointed for the Franciscan Provincial Chapter the doctrine of the controverted Formulary in all parts thereof throughly debated by them since the National Congregation would not do themselves or others that right And that accordingly and to such purpose I did invite not only the said Divines but all other Fathers in Town whether so great Clerks or not and whether against or for the said Doctrine and Formulary to meet at the same House and in the same Rooms wherein the National Congregation and their Committees used to sit having to this purpose hired again at my own charges the said Rooms for another Month. 4. That hereupon the said Divines meeting and having chosen a Secretary to write their final resolutions upon each question after a full debate thereof I produced both the controverted Remonstrance and that Paper analysing it into those complex Propositions or Declarations which I had formerly given to Father Barry but altered somewhat with new additions to make out more fully the true intent and scope of the said Remonstrance even also in particular against the late wicked Positions of Extrinsick Probability and to comprehend moreover clearly the six Sorbon Propositions with an express Declaration too both against the Censures of the Louain Theological Faculty and Letters of Cardinal Barberin and the two Bruxel Internuncio's Hieronymus de Vecchiis and Jacobus Rospigliosi And that they all having seen that Paper and heard it read publickly agreed to debate it after throughly from first to last taking apart each Paragraph and each single Proposition too of those many contained in so few complex ones 5. That the Rule observed by them was not to depart from the first Proposition and so for the second third fourth c. until every one that pleased or saw cause to object any thing had objected all he could say and been throughly satisfied either by me that was commonly the Defendant all along or by some other of my opinion on the point in question and when all were agreed the Secretary to write their such agreement even as to the least tittle of the very words of it or if any word were in the Proposition against which word any of them continued still unsatisfied then to change that word or leave it wholly out according as they had all at last unanimously agreed it should be done 6. That during the time they continued that Meeting which was about a Month and excepting Sundayes and Holydayes they ordinarily met as far as I can remember every day or at least other day according as they adjourned their Meeting they passed through and concluded unanimously upon the first eleven whole entire Paragraphs or complex Propositions even to a tittle as you have them Printed in
think the adhering to such Agreements were a sin Landorpius 1598. And though at the commencement of the Peace 'twixt Matthias Caesar and the Protestants there was some opposition at first made by Melinus the Nuncio Apostolick and by the Bishop of Vienna yet publish'd they no Excommunication nor other Censures which notwithstanding they should if none could in Conscience adhere to a Peace giving so much power and liberty to Protestants Whereas therefore the Supreme Council and Confederate Catholicks have in a miserable condition articled more honourably and securely for the Faith even in a Cessation than Caesars and Monarchs who commanded Mines of Gold and had vast Armies at their beck have done concluding either Cessations or Peace and whereas great utility arising thence to the Catholick cause besides the extream necessity of the affairs of the Kingdom pressed your Honours to it either of which to wit profit or necessity is sufficient to make conscionable a Cessation Peace or League with Hereticks as the Lord Nuncio himself admitteth in some of his Letters to your Lordships and no man of Learning hath ever yet denied nor can deny with reason and whereas likewise the Articles contain nothing evil of its own nature or present circumstances but rather much to the advancement of Religion and Virtue how can the said Cessation for the whole or any part be against Religion unless peradventure we admit a truth of contradictories in point of Cessation and Religion How in it any just ground for Excommunication since this ground is not but where sin is and these Articles are so far from being sinful as no Confederate Catholick can reject the Cessation without mortal sin both that of disobedience against the Supreme Civil power in a civil business of so great weight and of perjury against his Oath which binds him to obey their orders nay nor these who embraced it can without a third mortal sin which is that of breach of fidelity even with Sectaries in a matter of moment and where the object implies no evil Shall they then be excommunicated for not committing so many mortal sins for practising the acts of virtues opposite It is an untollerable Errour to think it Neither do they weaken these our grounds who object the Declaration made by the Lord Nuncio and Congregation against the Cessation and before it was concluded as though it were unlawful after that Declaration which before was conscionable for who sees not but the said Declaration as is manifest in the words of it did presuppose unlawfulness in the nature of that agreement which was then to be made and that therefore it was issued to admonish the people and divert them from it which was in it self thought evil not evil by reason of any protestation or manifestation made thereof by the Clergy who certainly by no means would confess it was their own Declaration that made it unlawful Whence further is consequent That since we have proved it implieth no evil in it self or before the Declaration issued so it cannot by vertue of the Declaration Besides this Declaration was no command and therefore in case the Prelates had a just ground for it could not make that unlawful which before was lawful Moreover it shall appear in our answer to the next Querie That the Cessation concluded was not the same against which the Declaration issued and consequently could not be made unlawful by it Neither likewise is it worth the regarding what is unreasonably objected of two Counties given by the Council and by vertue of this Cessation to Inchiquin namely Waterford and Kierry It is manifest to all Ireland there was nothing left him but far less by two whole Counties than he commanded or had under contribution before this agreement was made For the Confederates have gotten from him the Counties of Limerick and Tipperary both which were wholly over-run at his pleasure and contributed lower Ormond only excepted The Second Querie answered THat by what we hitherto said is proved That your Honours for disannulling the said monitory Excommunication and Interdict needed not at least in foro poli to have made any appeal since they were altogether groundless and hence not only unjust but also invalid even of their own nature and in themselves before any appeal Which briefly may be declared out of the two plain Errors contained in the sentence of these Censures and in the proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and Delegates as we humbly conceive and with reverence to their Lordships One is that in the sentence of Excommunication and Interdict there is relation to the former Articles against which the Declaration was made at first but were after mended with better in their place as we have already touched and yet as if the Cessation had been concluded on such rejected Articles the Censures proceed against it Which is an Error in the substance of the matter prohibited or commanded And consequently disannulling it if there had been no other cause forasmuch as it might be said to concern the Cessation actually now in being The second is an Error properly called intollerable though not juris but facti not patenter expressus according to the phrase of the Law in words but too too evident in effect and in that which the sentence both commands and prohibits which by the consent of Canons (z) c. Venerabilibus §. potest quoque de sentent excom in 6. cap. Per tuas §. Nos igitur ext cod tit Tol. l. 1. c. x. Candidus disq 22. a. 24. de Cens dub 3. ubi citat Sotum in 4. d. 12. q. 1. a. 2. Sua. in tom 5. de Cen disp 4. sect 7. n. 32. Ubi etiam habet quod quando Censura est sic nulla in utroque foro now est necessarjuin petere absolutionem ad cautciam hic etium Heniq l. 13. de excom c. 15. Sayrus l. 1. de Cens cap. 16 c. and Doctors renders the sentence of no force yea in case it were only an intollerable Error of fact specially when it enjoins the commission of sin 'T is That the said Sentence and Censures prohibit in effect and against the Laws of God Fidelity in lawful Promises Religion in Sacred Oaths and Obedience to the Supreme Civil power in matters concerning the Temporal government and of their own nature and by all right depending of Civil Jurisdiction and in which as we have sufficiently manifested in the first Querie no sin is implied That likewise they commanded breach of Faith Perjury and Disobedience yea we may boldly say it as we wofully feel it Sedition and Rebellion against the Kingdom and Confederacy Whence it is manifestly consequent that the Censures were invalid even before the Appeal But in case we admitted these Censures to have been valid until the Appeal or that they would be valid and binding after the ninth day which was the last of the dayes given for admonishment and deliberation if within the term prefixed by the
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
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
Appeal from suspending the sentence of the Lord Nuncio its consequences and his jurisdiction in this matter The Objections made by the Adversaries are all of straw and are partly dissolved already and the rest do here follow One is That the Judge doth not give way to the suspensive effect of an Appeal when he gives refutatory apostles as appears out of the Glosse in cap. Cordi nobis de Appellat in 6. § exhiberi All which we confess and is too manifest for to make any matter of dispute by reason that the very act of giving refutatories is a denial of giving way to the suspensive effect of the Appeal And therefore the Glosse very well and truly sayes That the Judge denieth inasmuch as in him lies to give way to this suspensive effect when he gives refutatories But neither doth that Glosse nor any other nor likewise any Text of Law or Doctor say That the Judge by his illegal denying to give way to this suspensive effect of a just Appeal can hinder or take away in rei veritate before God or man from the Appeal justly interposed this effect annexed to it ex natura rei by the Canons though indeed he do but unconscionably sinfully invalidly and at his own peril as much as in him lieth to hinder it Wherefore though he give not this way yet the Law giveth it when the Appeal is from a just or probable grievance as appears evidently out of all the forementioned Glosses Doctors and Canons and even reason too Another objection is formed out of c. cum speciali de Appellationibus 2. § Porro c. Romana Ecclesia eod tit in 6. § si vero § sententia quoque Glossa in cap. ut super Appellatione eod § nota insuper c. non solum eod cum clara Glossa c. cum Appellationibus eod cum Glossa § nota insuper § nota primo c. licet de senten excom in 6. Glossa ibid. § nota ex hoc whence they deduce That what the Judge a quo doth in prosecution of the cause after apostles refutatory given by him as answer to an Appeal made from him is of such force and effect in Law That the Judge ad quem or to whom the Appeal is made cannot recall the sentence given by the Judge from whom until the validity of the Appeal be proved or disproved before him and if disproved that he cannot proceed in the principal matter but must remit the whole to the first Judge but if proved that then he may absolve the Appellant from all Censures renewed after such an Appeal and so proceed to examine the principal matter And hence is further deduced That when such refutatory apostles are given the Appellant is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Judge from whom otherwise the Judge to whom likely would presently recall the proceedings and all acts done by the Judge a quo after the Appeal made from him But this difficulty is easily cleared for all the said Canons and Glosse speak only and are to be understood of proceedings attempted by the Judge from whom after an Appeal made a gravamine concerning some emergent or incident Article not of his proceedings against the Appellant after the Appeal made from a grievance in the principal cause Moreover we say That even in case of an Appeal from a grievance in only an emergent Article though the Judge ad quem will not presently recall such proceedings until it appear unto him that the Appeal was justly made yet the Law doth suspend them as appeareth plainly by the often mentioned c. Si a Judice de Appellat by the Glosse of cap. Licet de senten excom in 6. and so many other places before rehearsed However this be though nothing be said in either branch of this Answer but what 's very true the matter is more plain in our case for your Honours Appeal is not a gravamine interloquntorio super articulo incidemi vel emergenti but from an extrajudicial sentence in the very principal cause Nay your Appeal in effect is ante sententiam because it was interposed before the fulfilling of the condition or dayes prefixed for deliberation were expired and consequently though no other cause might be produced all the following proceedings are void cap. Ad prasentiam juncta Glossa de Appellat extra with many other Canons Zerula in â—rax Episc verb. Appel reâ—p 1â— qâ—â—s 19. As for that which Zerula in his Praxis Episcopalis seems to say for maintaining the Judges jurisdiction when he gives only Apostolos refutatorios We answer That his bare assertion of a practice contrary to so many Reasons Laws and Doctors cannot be of weight specially when he doth not alledge one Reason Text or Author for himself Secondly That the practice of one place though it were just as this if there had been any such could never be binds not another And indeed the best Practitioners with us say the contrary practice is used in Ireland Thirdly That Zerula must be understood where and when the Appeal is in it self frivolous not where it is manifestly or probably just otherwise that practice would be most unconscionable most corrupt yea and against the express Letter of the Law specially if you join the Glosses and consequently not to be in any wise used Fourthly That he speaks in case of an Appeal made from a judicial interloquntorie or from decrees upon emergent or incident Articles for in this case we confess That the Judge from whom may proceed to the principal as not yet suspended from his jurisdiction Glossa in c. licet de seuten excom in 6. but not when the Appeal is from an extrajudicial sentence or grievance in the very principal cause as ours was in which last case the Law ordains that the Judge a quo can proceed no further as being suspended from his jurisdiction cap. si a Judice de Appellat in 6. cap. super eo x. eod tit extra Glossa in cap. Licet verb. convalescat de senten excom in 6. To that doubt which some others move That the Lord Nuncio hath a power to proceed Omni appellatione remota and consequently that though the Appeal be just and the Arguments hitherto produced would conclude against apostles refutatorie given by ordinary Judges yet when the power is so extraordinary they do not convince We answer That in case the Lord Nuncio had in his Commission such a clause which is very ordinary in the Popes Letters and Bulls yet no power thereby is conferred on his Lordship to hinder just or probable Appeals but only such as are in themselves not by his Lordships word or sentence meerly frivolous groundless and against the Law as expresly may be seen in the Canons here placed in the margent especially being joined with their Glosses Cap. Pastoralis de Appel junc Gloss verb. emendari cap. ut debitus eod junc Gloss verb. ante sententiam in verb. absque rationabili
give their own way any other than extrinsecal probability even this extrinsecal probability now ceasing where the reasons to the contrary are so manifestly insoluble and an Errour with reverence still to their dignities proved in their proceedings and sentence for what concerns Conscience since they have no power to make it an Article of our Belief that the Cessation is against Conscience Nay this Controversie being wholly or principally depending on a question of Fact cannot by any power on earth be so defined Vid. Bellarm. supra but that it may be lawful to follow the contrary opinion which defends it to be conscionable The Third Querie answered TO the Third That your Lordships printed Answers to the Propositions of the Lord Nuncio are not so short or unsatisfactory in any point as they might afford just ground for an Excommunication The reasons of which resolution are apparent in our Answers to the two former Questions and likewise hence That the Lord Nuncio in his Propositions inserted nothing but what did meerly belong to the Civil Government wherein notwithstanding if any Errour could be declared to have been committed your Lordships were content upon manifestation thereof to amend it or else what was provided for sufficiently before those Propositions were offered The Fourth Querie answered THat whereas the Oath of Association tyes all the Confederates to be dutifully obedient and observant of your Lordships just Orders and Decrees and whereas in our Answer to the first Querie it is sufficiently proved That the present Cessation is most just and lawful and by consequence your Orders and Decrees commanding the Confederates to accept and obey the Cessation must be just it follows That disobedience to such your Lordships Commands in not adhering to the Cessation is Perjury The Fifth Querie answered THat if it shall be found that the Excommunication and Interdict of the Lord Nuncio is against the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and which the Prelates have sworn by the Oath of Association to maintain it is not lawful for them to publish or countenance the said Censures contrary to your Lordships positive Orders Neither do we see how can any of the Prelates otherwise answer if they condemn not the Oath of Association of injustice and themselves of having done ill in taking or approving it The Sixth Querie answered Bonac tom â— d. 4. q. 1. pun ultim n. 8. citans Suar. c. 41. Sanch. l. 1. de Matr. dis 32. Filluc tra 23. c. 9. q. 10. nu 279. IT being the common sense of Divines that in an Oath lawfully taken for the good and profit of another none can dispense without his privity and consent unto whom it was sworn but in certain cases exprest by the Authors cited in the margent and the Oath of Association being in it self lawful and sworn to the Kingdom for the publick good of the Nation and of each Confederate in particular certainly a dispensation cannot be given to any person or parties of the Confederates to break the said Oath or to take away the obligation of it without the consent of the Assembly unto which by a special clause of the said Oath and this is to be well noted the alteration or dissolution of the Oath is reserved none of the cases excepted by Authors having place in this matter Wherefore if any other of what power soever though it were His Holiness did otherwise attempt to dispense with any of the sworn Confederates both the Dispenser and dispensed would hereby transgress the Law of God and incur the guilt of a mortal and most heinous crime Besides that such a dispensation would be of its own nature invalid void and no way securing for the future the Conscience of the dispensed and consequently this party dispensed withall must of necessity as often as he makes use of such a dispensation so many times commit a mortal sin the Dispenser likewise and without question participating by his first action of the same evils All and every branch and particular of which resolution followeth by necessary inference out of the common and certain doctrine of Classick Authors who without controversie teach That the obligation of a lawful Oath is in a weighty matter under mortal sin and de jure divino by the Law divine natural and positive and that even His Holiness cannot without a manifestly just cause Vid. Bonaci tract de legi disp 1. q. 2. pu 3. prop. 2. nu 14. 15. uâ—i citâ—t Reginal Sanch. Sal. Valeâ— Toâ—e Vasq Cajet Sylv. Nava Sotum c. dispense in any obligation of the Law divine and that if he should otherwise his dispensation would be in it self void sinful and no way securing the Conscience of the party dispensed withal Which doctrine they make evident with many strong and perspicuous reasons unnecessary to be now rehearsed and specially declare it out of Holy Scripture 2 Cor. 13.10 where St. Paul tells That Christ consigned his power unto the Prelates of the Church non in destructionem sed in aedificationem not for destruction but for edification But who sees not that this power would be abused for destruction and not for edification if on pretence of it and without a manifestly just cause dispensations should be granted in the Law divine positive and natural And who is it that looks on the Confederates and their present condition with an impartial eye but will conceive that there cannot be a just cause for dispensing with them or particulars of them in their Oath of Association or with them in their obedience due by the said Oath to the Government established First In regard the sole cause pretended is the Cessation made and observed with Inchiquyn which we have notwithstanding proved to have been lawful necessary profitable and much to the advancement of the Catholick cause were it obeyed by refractories and per consequence of the glory of God How then could it be a just cause for dispensing with any in the Oath of Association or in the obedience due by the said Oath to all Orders of the Supreme Council or all such Orders as do not manifestly appear to be sinful Secondly Because such a dispensation breeds Sedition stirs Rebellion commenceth a Civil War and divides the Confederates into Parties throws fire and blood into their very entrals and by their own hands finally weakens them so by these wayes of mutual enmities and hostilities as hereby in reason they should be thought to be exposed as a prey to the common enemy of our Religion specially their disability when they were entire being considered and the prime scope of their Confederacy which is the propagation and glory of Catholick Religion very unlikely to be attained but rather despaired of Is there any one knows Ireland but should in reason have persuaded himself That all these evils should have followed such a dispensation if God did not prevent them by a miracle and on miracles we are not S. Tho. Val. Sanch. Lessi
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
their Votes in Parliament until such time as they shall afterwards acquire such Estates respectively and that none be admitted into the House of Commons but such as shall be estated and resident within this Kingdom XII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That as for and concerning the independency of the Parliament of Ireland of the Parliament of England His Majesty will leave both Houses of Parliament in this Kingdom to make such Declaration therein as shall be agreeable to the Law of the Kingdom of Ireland XIII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That the Council Table shall contain it self within its proper bounds in handled matters of State and weight fit for that place amongst which the Patents of Plantation and the Offices whereupon those Grants are founded are to be handled as matters of State and to be heard and determined by His Majesties Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours for the time being and the Council publickly at the Council-Boord and not otherwise Titles between Party and Party grown after these Patents granted are to be left to the ordinary course of Law And that the Council Table do not hereafter intermeddle with common business that is within the cognizance of the ordinary Courts nor with the altering of possessions of Lands nor make nor use private Orders Hearings or References concerning any such matter nor grant any Injunctions or order for stay of any Suits in any Civil cause and that Parties grieved for or by reason of any proceedings formerly had there may commence their Suits and prosecute the same in any of His Majesties Courts of Justice or Equity for remedy of their pretended Rights without any restraint or interruption from His Majesty or otherwise by the chief Governour or Governours and Council of this Kingdom And that the proceedings in the respective Presidents Courts shall be pursuant and according to His Majesties printed Book of Instructions and that they shall contain themselves within the limits prescribed by that Book when the Kingdom shall be restored to such a degree of quietness as they be not necessarily inforced to exceed the same XIV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further pleased That as for and concerning one Statute made in this Kingdom in the Eleventh year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth intituled An Act for staying of Wool Flocks Tallow and other necessaries within this Realm And one other Statute made in the said Kingdom in the Twelfth year of the Reign of the said Queen intituled An Act _____ And one other Statute made in the said Kingdom in the Thirteenth year of the Reign of the said late Queen intituled An Explanation of the Act made in a Session of this Parliament for the staying of Wool Flocks Tallow and other Wares and Commodities mentioned in the said Act and certain Articles added to the same Act all concerning Staple or Native Commodities of this Kingdom shall be repealed if it shall be so thought fit in the Parliament excepting for Wool and Wool-fells and that such indifferent persons as shall be agreed on by the said Lord Lieutenant and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillen Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall be authorized by Commission under the great Seal to moderate and ascertain the rates of Merchandize to be exported or imported out of or into this Kingdom as they shall think fit XV. Item It is concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That all and every person and persons within this Kingdom pretending to have suffered by offices found of several Countries Territories Lands and Hereditaments in the Province of Vlster and other Provinces of this Kingdom in or since the first year of King James's Reign or by attainders and forfeitures or by pretence or colour thereof since the said first year of King James or by other Acts depending on the said offices attainders and forfeitures may petition His Majesty in Parliament for relief and redress and if after examination it shall appear to His Majesty the said persons or any of them have been injured then His Majesty will prescribe a course to repair the person or persons so suffering according to justice and honour XVI Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That as to the particular cases of Maurice Lord Viscount de Rupe Fermoy Arthur Lord Viscount Jueagh Sir Edmond Fitz-Gerald of Cloungliffe Baronet Charles Mac Charthy Reagh Roger Moore Anthony Moore William Fitz-Gerard Anthony Lynch John Lacy Collo Mac Bryen Mac Mahon Donnel Costingen Edmond Fitz-Gerald of Ballimartyr Lucas Keatinge Theobald Roch Fitz-Myles Thomas Fitz-Gerald of the Vally John Bourke of Loghmaske Edmond Fitz-Gerald of Ballimullo James Fitz-William Gerald of Glysnan and Edward Sutton they may Petition His Majesty in the next Parliament whereupon His Majesty will take such consideration of them as shall be just and fit XVII Item It is likewise concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That the Citizens Freemen Burgesses and former Inhabitants of the City of Cork and Towns of Youghal and Dongarvan shall be forthwith upon perfection of these Articles restored to their respective Possessions and Estates in the said City and Towns respectively where the same extends not to the indangering of the Garrisons in the said City and Towns in which case so many of the said Citizens and Inhabitants as shall not be admitted to the present possession of their houses within the said City and Towns shall be afforded a valuable annual Rent for the same until settlement in Parliament at which time they shall be restored to those their possessions And it is further agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That the said Citizens Freemen Burgesses and Inhabitants of the said City of Cork and Towns of Youghal and Dongarvan respectively shall be enabled in convenient time before the next Parliament to be held in this Kingdom to choose and return Burgesses into the same Parliament XVIII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That an Act of Oblivion be passed in the next Parliament to extend to all His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom and their Adherents of all Treasons and offences Capital Criminal and Personal and other
said Articles and before the said Publication shall not be accompted taken or construed or be Treason Felony or other offence to be excepted out of the said Act of Oblivion Provided likewise That the said Act of Oblivion shall not extend unto any person or persons that will not obey and submit unto the Peace concluded and agreed on by these Articles Provided further That the said Act of Oblivion or any in this Article contained shall not hinder or interrupt the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them to call to an account and proceed against the Council and Congregation and the respective Supreme Councils Commissioners General appointed hitherto from time to time by the Confederate Catholicks to manage their affairs or any other person or persons accomptable to an account for their respective Receipts and disbursments since the beginning of their respective employments under the said Confederate Catholicks or to acquit or release any arrears of Excises Customs or Publick Taxes to be accompted for since the Three and Twentieth of October 1641. and not disposed of hitherto to the Publick use but that the Parties therein concerned may be called to an account for the same as aforesaid by the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them the said Act or any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding XIX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That an Act be passed in the next Parliament prohibiting That neither the Lord Deputy or other chief Governour or Governours Lord Chancellor Lord High Treasurer Vice-Treasurer Chancellor or any of the Barons of the Exchequer Privy Council or Judges of the Four Courts be Farmers of His Majesties Customs within this Kingdom XX. Item It is likewise concluded accorded and agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That an Act of Parliament pass in this Kingdom against Monopolies such as was Enacted in England 21 Jacobi Regis with a further Clause of Repealing of all Grants of Monopolies in this Kingdom and that Commissioners be agreed upon by the said Lord Lieutenant and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them to set down the Rates for the custom and imposition to be laid on Aquavitae Wine Oyl Yearn and Tobacco XXI Item It is concluded accorded and agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That such persons as shall be agreed on by the said Lord Lieutenant and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall be as soon as may be authorized by Commission under the Great Seal to regulate the Court of Castle-Chamber and such causes as shall be brought into and censured in the said Court XXII Item It is concluded accorded and agreed upon and His Majesty is graciously pleased That Two Acts lately passed in this Kingdom the one prohibiting the plowing with Horses by the Tail and the other prohibiting the burning of Oats in the straw be Repealed XXIII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased For as much as upon application of Agents from this Kingdom unto His Majesty in the Fourth year of His Reign and lately upon humble suit made unto His Majesty by a Committee of both Houses of the Parliament of this Kingdom some order was given by His Majesty for redress of several Grievances and for so many of those as are not expressed in the Articles whereof both Houses in the next ensuing Parliament shall desire the benefit of His Majesties said former directions for redresses therein that the same be afforded them yet so as for prevention of inconveniencies to His Majesties service that the warning mentioned in the Four and twentieth Article of the Graces in the Fourth year of His Majesties Reign be so understood that the warning being left at the persons Dwelling-houses be held sufficient warning and that as to the Two and twentieth Article of the said Graces the Process hitherto used in the Court of Wards do still continue as hitherto it hath done in that and hath been used in our English Courts But the Court of Wards being compounded for so much of the aforesaid Answer as concern warning and process shall be omitted XXIV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That Maritime Causes may be determined in this Kingdom without driving of Merchants or others to appeal and seek Justice elsewhere and if it shall fall out that there be cause of an Appeal the Party grieved is to appeal to His Majesty in the Chancery of Ireland and the Sentence thereupon to be given by the Delegates to be definitive and not to be questioned upon any further Appeal except it be in the Parliament of this Kingdom if the Parliament then shall be sitting otherwise not This to be by Act of Parliament And until the said Parliament the Admiralty and Maritime Causes shall be ordered and setled by the said Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being by and with the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them XXV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom be eased of all Rents and increase of Rents lately
Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall for the present agree upon such persons who are to be authorized bay Commission under the Great Seal to be Commissioners of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in and throughout the Kingdom to continue during pleasure with such power as Justices of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in former times of Peace have usually had which is not to extend unto any crime or offence committed before the first of May last past and to be qualified with power to hear and determine all Civil Causes coming before them not exceeding Ten pounds Provided that they shall not meddle with Titles of Lands Provided likewise the authority of such Commissioners shall not extend to question any person or persons for any Shipping Cattel or Goods heretofore taken by either Party from the other or other injuries done contrary to the Articles of Cessation concluded by and with the said Roman-Catholick Party in or since May last but that the same shall be determined by such indifferent persons as the Lord Lieutenant with the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall think fit to the end that speedy and equal justice may be done to all Parties grieved And the said Commissioners are to make their Estreats as accustomed in time of Peace and shall take the ensuing Oath viz. YOV shall Swear That as Justice of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in the Counties of A. B. C. in all Articles of the Commission to you directed you shall do equal Right to the Poor and to the Rich after your cunning and wit and power and after the Laws and Customs of the Realm and in pursuance of these Articles And you shall not be of Council of any quarrel hanging before you And the Issues Fines and Anerciaments which shall happen to be made and all Forfeitures which shall happen before you you shall cause to be entred without any concealment or imbezling and truly send to the Court of Exchequer or to such other place as His Majesties Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom shall appoint until there may be access unto the said Court of Exchequer You shall not let for gift or other cause but well and truly you shall do your office of Justice of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in that behalf And that you take nothing for your office of Justice of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery to be done but of the King and Fees accustomed And you shall not direct or cause to be directed any Warrant by you to be made to the Parties but you shall direct them to the Sheriffs and Bayliffs of the said Counties respectively or other the Kings Officers or Ministers or other indifferent persons to do execution thereof So help you God c. And that as well in the said Commission as in all other Commissions and Authorities to be issued in pursuance of these present Articles this Clause shall be inserted viz. That all Officers Civil and Martial shall be required to be aiding and assisting and obedient unto the said Commissioners and other persons to be authorized as abovesaid in the execution of their respective powers XXIX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That His Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects do continue the possession of such of His Majesties Cities Garrisons Towns Forts and Castles which are within their now Quarters until settlement by Parliament and to be commanded ruled and governed in chief upon occasion of necessity as to the Martial and Military affairs by such as His Majesty or His chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being shall appoint and the said appointment to be by and with the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them And His Majesties chief Governour or Governours is to issue Commissions accordingly to such persons as shall be so named and appointed as aforesaid for the executing of such Command Rule or Government to continue until all the particulars in these present Articles agreed on to pass in Parliament shall be accordingly passed only in case of death or misbehaviour such other person or persons to be appointed for the said Command Rule and Government to be named and appointed in the place or places of him or them who shall so dye or misbehave themselves as the chief Governour or Governours for the time being by the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall think fit and to be continued until settlement in Parliament as aforesaid XXX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That all Customs and Tenths of Prizes belonging to His Majesty which from the perfection of these Articles shall fall due within this Kingdom shall be paid in to His Majesties Receipt or until recourse may be had thereunto in the ordinary legal way unto such person or persons and in such place and places and under such Comptrollers as the Lord Lieutenant shall appoint to be disposed of in order to the defence and safety of the Kingdom and the defraying of other the necessary publick Charges thereof for the ease of the Subjects in other their Levies Charges and Applotments And that all and every person and persons who are at present entrusted and employed by the said Roman-Catholicks in the Entries Receipts Collections or otherwise concerning the said Customs and Tenths of Prizes do continue their respective employments in the same until full settlement in Parliament accomptable to His Majesties Receipts or
pay We neither know when or where it was or who had more The manner of Mr. Daniel O Neal â—s coming into Command was thus he had taken great pains in bringing his Uncle General Owen O Neil to submit to the Peace and His Majesties Government so did he effectually labour after that work was effected to bring the Vlster Army to Our assistance when Cromwel was in his march from Dublin towards Wexford Owen O Neil being sick the Army was conducted by Lieutenant-General Farrel and Major-General Hugh O Neil but when it joined with the Leinster Munster and Connaught Forces and some English and Scottish Horse and Foot We found great difficulty how to distribute Orders with satisfaction to all these Parties the Vlster Party being unwilling to receive them by Major-General Purcell and the rest were as unwilling to receive them by Major-General Hugh O Neil But all Parties were content to receive them from Daniel O Neil and by him they were distributed and Major-General Purcell was sent into Munster where he had and exercised a Command in chief in the absence of superiour Officers nor was his Commission annulled or a new one of his place given to any other to this day So that if the displacing him or any other Officer without the consent of the Commissioners had been a breach of the Articles of Peace as it is not there is no Truth in the Affirmation that he was displaced Fourth Article of the Declaration A Judicature and legal way of administring Justice promised by the Articles of Peace was not performed but all process and proceedings done by Paper-petitions and thereby private Clerks and other corrupt Ministers enriched the Subjects ruined and no Justice done ANSWER For Answer to this We refer you to Our Answer to the Third Article of the said pretended Grievances Which Article and Answer are as followeth Article viz. The Third of those called the Grievances That whereas it was by the said Articles concluded there should be Judicatures raised and established in this Kingdom for doing of Justice and legal determining of differences and controversies arising betwixt His Majesties Subjects Articles of Peace art 13. see pag. 49. of the Append. of Instrum and that the Council-Table should onely meddle with matters of State and should not intermeddle with common business within the cognizance of the ordinary Courts nor with altering possession of Land nor make nor use private Orders Hearings or References concerning any such matters c. and the proceeding in the respective presidency Courts should be pursuant and according to His Majesties printed Book of Instructions and that they should contain themselves within the limits prescribed by that Book when the Kingdom should be restored to such a degree of quietness as they be not necessarily enforced to exceed the same Yet the People generally complain the said Judicatures have not been raised nor any other way prescribed for the determining of such controversies but the Council Table or rather the Lord Lieutenant alone and the Presidency or President alone took to them cognizance of all Causes and arbitrarily on Paper Petitions determined all Causes extrajudicially even to the altering of possessions and in consequence thereof to the determination of Titles and right of inheritance And though the present disuse of the Law as aforesaid is in the peoples mouth a heavy grievance at the present yet will Posterity have just cause to tell abroad That in the not erecting Inns of Court in pursuance of the said Articles of Peace through which to convey to them the knowledge of the Law See the Articles of Peace art 8. before in the Appen of Instrum pag. 49. they are given up to ignorance of government obedience or property And though the Province of Munster was not since January last in such absolute tranquility as before the War yet did not the state of it require a transgression of his Majesties said Book of Instructions which yet was violated in the practice of that Court by the Commissioners there intrusted being generally uninterested in the Kingdom in blood or fortune and all Protestants by reason whereof the less indifferency in matters relative to Religion was afforded to the Catholicks ANSWER Art the 8. ibid. By the Articles of Peace Judicatures were to be raised and Judges named by the advice and with the consent of the Commissioners For which purpose VVe sent to His Majesty for leave to make and use a great Seal which as soon as VVe had received VVe caused a great Seal to be made and were at all times ready to have agreed with the Commissioners what kind of Judicatures to raise and with what persons to have supplied them as will not be denied by the said Commissioners Which may suffice for Us to answer to that particular We acknowledge That according to the necessary power at all times invested in the chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom VVe have received many Petitions and to the best of Our understanding have made just and equal Orders and References upon them and have also upon Certificate of the ablest men VVe could find finally determined some of them but never to the alteration of possession unless perhaps upon clear proof of forcible intrusions by violence contrary to all the Rules of Law and Reason Which if VVe had not done during the want of Judicatures every mans power would have been his Judge in his own cause What the Presidency or President have done irregularly or contrary to the Articles of Peace they shall be brought to answer when they or he shall be particularly charged That Inns of Court have not been erected according to the Articles of Peace Posterity may tell as loud as they please but if they have Schools to learn English enough to read the Articles of Peace they will find that His Majesty was only to enable the Natives of this Kingdom to erect one or more Inns of Court in or near the City of Dublin or elsewhere as should be thought fit by His Majesties Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours for the time being Whereby by the scope of the Article which is for removing of incapacities it is plain the said Inns of Court were not to be erected at His Majesties charge And sure no man will have the impudence to say That VVe who had the honour to govern under His Majesty did give the least interruption to the erecting of them or that ever it was proposed to Us to give way to the erection of the said Inns. Whereof VVe confess there was never more need if their property be to instruct the People in their duty of obedience to Government with this addition That to charge Us with want of doing Justice without instancing the particular cases wherein VVe failed thereby taking from Us the means to vindicate Our Self from so high a Crime is sutable to the justice and practises of these Declarers Fifth Article of the Declaration The
S. Augustin Lector of Moral Divinity Definitor and Prior of Dublin John Talbot of the Society of Jesus Fr John Warren Discalceat Carmelit Fr Matthew Nangle Carmelit Discalceat F. Henry Burgate Divine of the Order of Preachers F. Christopher Bath Divine of the Order of Preachers Fr John Welden Cappuccin Divine Fr James Dowdal Divine Cappuccin Nicolaus Netterville Sâ—c Jesu Doctor Theologus Fr Christopher Dillon of the Order of S. August Lector Jubilate and Prior of the Convent of Dunnemore By Command Nicolas Redmond Secretary The Second Instrument or that of the Three first Sorbon Propositions or Declarations applied c. and delivered also at the same time with their Remonstrance to His Grace by the aforesaid two Bishops as from the Congregation though subscribed but by three hands only at this time and without other Preaâ—ble or Title prefâ—â—ed to it than as here followeth viz. Certain Propositions of the Roman Catholick Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland conformable to the Doctrine of Sorbon and several Parliaments of France in the year 1663. I. WE do hereby declare That it is not our Doctrine that the Pope hath any Authority in Temporal affairs over our Sovereign Lord King Charles the Second yea we promise that we shall still oppose them that will assert any Power either direct or indirect over him in Civil and Temporal affairs II. That it is our Doctrine That our Gracious King Charles the Second is so absolute and independent that he acknowledgeth not not hath in Civil and Temporal affairs any Power above him under God and that to be our constant Doctrine from which we shall never decline III. That it is our Doctrine That we Subjects owe such Natural and just Obedience unto our King that no Power under any pretext soever can either dispence with us or free us thereof Edmund Archbishop of Ardmagh and Primat of all Ireland Andrew Bishop of Kilfinuragh Chairman Nicholas Redmond Secretary XVII The next day being Sunday the Fathers rested But on Monday being the Eighth of their Meeting and Eighteenth of the Month they sate again and received the LORD LIEUTENANT's third and last Message by the same Catholick Gentleman Mr. Belings who brought the second and as the two former had been read it to them out of a Paper word by word as here the Title only excepted The LORD LIEUTENANTS Third Message to the Congregation June 16. 1666. THat on the 16. instant I received from two of the Romish Clergy now met in this City one Parchment directed to His Majesty and signed by divers of the said Clergy one Paper signed by three of them Intituled Certain Propositions c. and a Petition directed unto me in the name of them all not signed by any of them I think fit to let them understand That I observe that together with the Propositions of Sorbon sent and signed by them as aforesaid there are three material Propositions omitted which might as well be appropriated to His Majesty and this Kingdom as the other three are as also that the same number or Persons have not Subseribed to the said Proposition as to the Parchment Instrument Mr. Belings being departed the Procurator stood up and spake to the main purpose of this last Message from His Grace shewing at large by manifold and evident arguments That the other three of the Sorbon Declarations which they had omitted to Sign were both as material to the purpose and not only might but ought as well be appropriated to His Majesty and Kingdom of Ireland as the first Three were These three last or three controverted Propositions being the Fourth Fifth and Sixth of Sorbon you have already had pag. 660 c. and again pag. 663. where you may also peruse all the Six As for those reasons or arguments urged then by me to demonstrate how both material expedient and even necessary the Subscription of the same Fourth Fifth and Sixth Propositions must have been mutatis mutandis because the Fourth following Treatise of this Book hath diffusely them i. e. the same arguments pag. 43. 44. pag. 46 47. c. pag. 57 58 c. and must of necessity have them as the chief Subject handled there of purpose viz. in answer to the Reasons given to the contrary in a paper presented from the Congregation to the Lord Lieutenant therefore I refer the Reader for so much to that Fourth Treatise which indeed was Printed before the First And consequently what I am to give here now in relation to such matter is only to let the Reader know in short That on this Subject of those three last of the Six Sorbon Declarations the Chair-man viz. the Bishop of Kilfinuragh though having so lately come from France after living there so long and throughly acquainted with the positions and Maxims of the Gallican Church discovered himself but too too manifestly to be not a little if not extreamly disaffected to the then English Government of Ireland by his earnest opposition to my own face there of all or any of these three last Sorbon Declarations to be applyed to the Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland Charles the Second and to that Congregation or Romish Clergy of Ireland and so to be signed by them That and which I much more wonder at even Father Nicholas Nettervil who first of all the Committee the day before and on his very knees to me offered all the Six Declarations should be signed even he himself both as confidently and vehemently now and even also to my own face opposed the signing of any one of those three last That neither he nor the Chairman were contented with their bare dissent but made Speeches and gave reasons too all they could to disswade the rest of the Fathers from signing c. That when the approbation or Declaration of Sorbon as well for those Three last as for the former Three was objected They not only answered the disparity of the cases or applications to be very great viz. Forasmuch as 1. The French King was Rex Christianissimus 2. And he maintained the Roman-Catholick Clergy of France both in their respective Spiritual jurisdictions and temporal Possessions too 3. And all was otherwise in order to the application of the said Propositions they were pressed unto but even with as much either boldness or rashness as if the said French Kings Forces had been actually then ready and even at that very nick of time resolved to Transport for and Invade Ireland were not shye to magnifie and cry him up so before all the Fathers that every one understood plainly what they meand i. e. whom they intended of the other side to lessen and cry down That therefore the Procurator both strongly and clearly shewed the unsignificancy of these answers and whatever other reasons they alledged for excusing themselves from signing even those three last of the Sorbon Declarations applyed as they ought to be nay shewed most evidently that for those very causes they alledged
Of their own Kings being of an other Communion and of their own not being maintained by His Majesty and by his Laws in either jurisdiction or Possession of any benefices c They ought the rather give his Majesty and all his Protestant People that satisfaction was justly demanded of them for clearing their Religion from the scandal of such unwarrantable Positions by signing the contrary of those which not disowned by them must consequently and even justly too keep them perpetually under those Laws and penalties whereof they complained and that it mattered not a Pin for the truth of those Three Sorbon Declarations applyed c or the justice and lawfulness of signing them so applyed whether our Gracious Kingâ—s Religion were Orthodox or not because they concern'd not all either his Religion or Communion as every one might see by reading them but abstracted wholly from both and certainly as much at least every one of them as any of the three first which they had already subscribed or were preparing to subscribe nay that the two last of all viz. the Fifth and sixth had no kind of relation to the King of England or Clergy of Ireland more then to the French or Spanish Kings and their National Churches That what other reasons or arguments I made use of then to confute those evasions or other allegations whatsoever of the aforesaid both Chairman and Father Nettervil and to perswade the rest of the Congregation you may see at large in the French Treatise which of purpose answers their Paper of Reasons whereof presently That to do all the right I can to the other two of the last Committee sent me during my short recess from the Congregation those I mean who together with the aforesaid Father Nicholas Nettervil in behalf of the Congregation offered me That they i. e. the same whole Congregation would sign all the Six Sorbon Propositions I must declare that Father John Talbot though a Jesuit being one of those two and Doctor Angel Golding the other of them seconded me on the Point and in my own hearing and presence both earnestly and vehemently pressed the Fathers to make good what they had promised i. e. to sign unanimously the Six Sorbon Declarations applyed though what the said two Members did or how they carried themselves in my absence I do not know certainly but suppose the best of them That notwithstanding all the reasons which were given by me or them or any other if indeed any other spoke to that purpose of signing those Three last Declarations for I remember not that any other did at least concernedly or to purpose while I stay'd in the House that day I was no sooner withdrawn as my custome was every day to withdraw for a time of purpose to leave the Fathers at the more liberty to conclude after I had spoken all I thought fit then the Factious Multitude without any further reasoning but with their own blind passions and privat interests i. e. expectations of preferment from the Court of Rome hurried on by the above either notable French Agents or at least not very Loyal Subjects the Chairman and Nettervil to whom you may well adde the Bishop of Ardagh bear down immediately the other side and vote no Subscription at all of those three last Sorbon Declarations That nevertheless at the same time they order a Committee to draw up their Reasons or Motives i. e. the most specious pretences they thought might be fixed upon for excusing their not Subscribing those Three last to be together with a new Petition from them presented to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant That the remainder of this 18th day of the Monteh yea and the whole nineteenth following was chiefly imployed in drawing and agreeiog on the said Reasons or Motives and a new Petition to be annexed That all being at last agreed upon and assented to by the Congregation Father John Burk Vicar General Apostolick of Cashel and Father Cornelius Fogorty Doctor Vtriusque Juris as he Subscribes himself were deputed to present the said paper of Reasons and Petition to the Lord Lieutenant but without so much as any one hand at all Subscribed to either that Paper or this Petition That these two Fathers hoping as it would seem to have the better success in their Negotiation i. e. to impose on the Lord Lieutenant His Grace the Duke of Ormond if they could have access to His Grace without the Procurators introduction of them or knowledge of their going For the Procurator understanding what the Congregation voted in his absence on the 18th day in the evening came not at them any more that or next day or even until the 21. or if he did thought not fit to stay long or concern himself to know what besides they had resolved upon and Cornelius Fogorty building also his hopes partly upon the honour he had himself formerly at Paris had of some little acquaintance there with the then Marquess of Ormond as also upon his fellow Deputy Messenger John Burks being Chaplain as he pretended to the Right Honourable and truly vertuous Lady Thurles so nearly related to His Grace that I say these two Fathers who upon such hopes thrust themselves rather then they were out of any choice put on this employment as it appeared after not at all speaking nor acquainting the Procurator with their Message or intention got some other person to go along with them to His Grace not in the Kings Castle but then diverting himself with some Noblemen in the Bouling-green near the place where the Congregation sate and on the 20th of June but tenth day of that Assembly present His Grace with the said Petition and other annexed Paper of their Reasons why c. Both which exactly copied follow here The Congregations Second Petition or that on June 20. 1666 presented by John Burk and Cornelius Fogerty To His Grace the Lord Duke of ORMOD LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland The humble Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland SHeweth That your Petitioners have of late Subscribed and presented to your Grace a Remonstrance manifesting the obligations of duty and Loyalty which your Petitioners do and ever shall owe unto their Soveraign Lord the King and withal subscribed Three Propositions which they humbly conceived did conduce unto a further setting forth of the Principles of their Loyaltie thereby endeavouring to give your Grace all possible satisfaction and as touching the Three Propositions sent unto them for to be Subscribed they now return the annexed of the Motives why they did not sign them from your Graces further satisfaction hoping it may meet the success they wish for It is therefore the most humble Request of your Petitioners That your Grace will be favourably pleased to dismiss them and the rather because most of them have not wherewithal to defray so long and chargeable Attendance in this City And your Petitioners shall Pray The Paper of Reasons why c. presented at the same time by