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
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
of God be wanting in any reverence duty or obedience which by Vow or Rule or Canon or Reason I do or may according to the Faith or Doctrine of the Universal Church owe either to the most Holy Father the Bishop of Old Rome or to any other Bishops or to any other Prelates or Superiours in their respective places whether Secular or Regular because doing otherwise I could not but condemn my self of using evil means to attain or drive at lawful ends and consequently of being as bad an Interpreter of that saying of our Lord in St. Matthew (a) Matth. 6.22 Si oculus tuus fuerit simplex totum corpus tuum lucidum erit as any of the late extrinsick Probablists are Whereunto also is consequent That I never at any time hitherto intended nor shall I hope through the same grace of God for the future willingly or wittingly intend either in my Writings Actions or Designs any thing against the Divine Authority of the Catholick Church or even against the venerable either Majesty or Primacy or even Power Authority and Jurisdiction of the First of Bishops or First of Apostolical Sees the Roman I mean not altogether so far as a number of Popes speaking in their own cause or a company of Schoolmen prepossessed by them or frighted or hired or misled through corruption and ignorance of the later times have asserted the former in their Canons and the other in their speculative Writings but as far as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath believed or taught how great soever or whatsoever that Patriarchical or Jurisdictional power be which she believes or acknowledges to be in the Roman Archbishop either from divine Title or humane onely nay which but the National Churches hard by us though composing her but in part the Spanish and the Sicilian the French and German the Venetian and the Polish notwithstanding they be of strict communion with the Pope do universally or unanimously believe For I think it too hard a task for any private man much more for me to know better what hath been delivered in all former Ages or is believed in this present as an Article or Doctrine of undoubted Faith divine by the Universal Church of Christ on earth than may be learned from the unanimous consent of those very National Churches of Europe alone agreeing together upon any Article as undoubtedly such Other humane Laws indeed or Canons or Customs they may agree in that oblige not other Catholicks of their communion in other Kingdoms or Nations but where and as much as they are received and not abolished again or antiquated either by a Municipal Law or National Canon or even by general Custom prescribing against the former The Sixth and last Appendix relating likewise generally to the former Questions That as notwithstanding my Appeal to your judgment of discretion I never intended to exempt or withdraw my self i. e. my person from the Authoritative or binding sentence of Canonical Delegates if my Adversaries continue their prosecution and His Holiness may be induced to grant me such Delegates as He is certainly bound to do or at least to acquit me and rescind all the illegal proceedings hitherto of his subordinate Ministers and Officials against me so neither do I decline their judgment of my Writings Nay on the contrary my resolution hath alwayes been and I hope shall evermore be which I do now the second or third time declare in Print under my own hand or name to submit with full and perfect resignation every word in my several Books even to the Authoritative judgment not only of the Catholick Church the House (b) 2 Tim. 3. of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth or which is the same thing of its lawful Representative an Oecumenical Synod truly such that highest Tribunal on earth in matters of Divine Faith and Holy Discipline nor only of a free Occidental Council of the Latin Church alone but even of any other Judges whatsoever many or few or even so few as two or three that shall in the interim of such a Council be delegated by His Holiness or any other that hath a lawful Church-power to require obedience from me in such cases provided those other Judges Delegate be competent i. e. indifferent or above all those exceptions which the Canons of the Catholick Church allow To the Authoritative sentence even of any such Delegates I will and do submit both my Person and my Writings in this sense that if I cannot conform my own inward opinions reason or belief to theirs yet I will abide whatever punishment they shall therefore inflict upon me and patiently undergo it until absolv'd from it or dispens'd with by a higher or at least equal power But to that of such an Oecumenical Synod or even such an Occidental onely as before I shall moreover God willing as I do at this very present for all future times most heartily conform all the most inward dictates of my Soul for what concerns any matter of pure Christian Faith and shall throughly acquiesce in their determination whatever may be in the mean time disputed by others or even my self of the absolute Fallibility as to us of the very most General Representatives or most Oecumenical Councils themselve before their Decrees be at least virtually or tacitely received by the Represented or Diffusive Church without publick opposition to them from any considerable part of the said Church Besides for what concerns not the binding power of publick Tribunals but the discerning of every private Conscience I shall and do most readily submit even every word also in my Writings not only to your â—ensure but to that of all such learned men of whatsoever Nation or Religion as diligently and sincerely seek aâ—ter Truth And God forbid I should be otherwise disposed or that I who believe and maintain the Pope himself not to be Infallible not even in His definitions of Faith if made by Him without the concurrence either of the Catholick Church diffusive or of its lawful Representative a General Council truly such wherein He is but the First or Chief Bishop onely should think my self not Fallible or not subject to Errour Yet I hope and am sufficiently assured that in any material point either of Doctrine or Practice relating to the publick Controversie in hand I have not hitherto fallen into Errour After all this submission it must not seem strange if I except as I do plainly in this Cause both against the Authoritative and Discretive Judgment of all the Roman Ministers Cardinals Consistories Congregations Courtiers and all their Clients whatsoever And yet it is not their Fallibility but their Partiality their extreme blindness or wilfulness or both in their own Cause and for maintaining their own worldly Interest and consequently it is their actual Errour yea and actual prejudgment too of the Cause without so much as giving any reason nay without so much as hearing once the Parties concern'd
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
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
way as by saying they understood not by divine that which is properly and strictly divine but that only which is in a large though somewhat improper acception such and by lay-persons understand only such inferior Lay-persons Judges or Governours as in certain cases haue not from the supream power and civil laws any cognizance of Church-men Which indeed is the only rational and natural exposition of these authorities without any erroneous absurdity falsity inconvenience or prejudice as the very Canon alledged above by me at large out of the Tridentine Synod seems expresly to intimate for as much as it expresly and signally desires or confides for so it speaks that Emperours Kings and Princes will not suffer that their Officials or inferior Magistrats or Judges violat the Immunities of the Church or Church-men out of any covetousness or inconsiderancy confidens c. nec permissuros ut officiales aut inferiores Magistratus Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiasticarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione canâ—nicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu inconsideratione aliqua violent Besides the Reader is to observe two things for that of the fourth Lateran 1. That where 't is said there that Laicks usurp too much of divine right c. by divine right here we ought not nor indeed can if we will not make the Fathers to speak improperly understand the law of God but only the right belonging to God whether that right be derived immediatly from the law of God or law of man 2. That it cannot be truly said that any Clerks receive no temporal thing or benefit from the supream civil Magistrate whereas all Clerks receive from them temporal protection at least And therefore in reason owe Allegiance to such their protectors For Boniface the VIII although his authority or judgment alone without a Council be amongst very Catholick Nations or Universities of no great value or esteem in this or any other which concerns the difference or controversie For we know well enough how his extravagant unam sanctam de Majorit obed is reputed in the Gallican Church and what his Letter Brief or Bull was to a King of France where he declared them all Hereticks that would not acknowledge himself to be supream in that Kingdom and as well in all temporals as in spirituals and that the same esteem indeed and as to our main purpose may be and also truly and groundedly may be entertain'd of Innocent the Third no judicious Divine that will read in Spondaâ—uâ—s Contin his proceedings against most of all the Christian Kings not in Europe only but in Asia will deny I say neverthess that for what concerns only our present purpose of the exemption of Clergymens persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coactive power under which they live and are protected our learned Cardinal alledges this very Boniface to no purpose albeit he alledge him in cap. Quamquam de Censibus in 6. Where indeed there is no such thing For in that place as it is manifest enough out of the whole chapter and purpose or matter treated therein which was only of and against Guidagia that is a kind of toll custome or exaction to be paid for the safeguard of High-wayes and out of the very words which Bellarmine would not quote because not to his general purpose or to that of proving generally all the parts of his Fifth Proposition Cum igitur Ecclesiae Ecclesiasticaeque persâ—nae ac res ipsarum non solum jure humano quin etiam divino à saecularium personarum exactionibus sint immunes it is I say very manifest hence that Boniface in that place and no other is alledged out of him doth not as much as touch upon our controversie or say as Bellarmine imposes on him that Clerks and their goods are exempt from the secular power For be it well or ill said of Boniface here that as well by divine right or law as by humane Churches and Churchmen are free or exempt from all publick exactions of secular persons whereas by such exactions all Divines and Canonists understand only tributes tolls customes or taxes whatsoever of money or other things imposed as payable to the publick and whereas the very matter treated of and determined by Boniface in that Chapter is only that of guidagia or pedagia which was a duty as it seems payable then in Italy by all travellers and for their safe convoy or safe travelling whereas he commands only there that in prosecution of a certain decree made by Alexander the IV. his Predecessor Church-men pay no such guidagia or pedagia for their own Persons or Goods which they carry along or cause to be carried or sent non causa negotiandi who sees not it is a very great inconsequence and meer abuse of the Reader to conclude that therefore Boniface the VIII supposed generally nay says it to be de jure divino positivo taking this jus divinum strictly and properly that Clerks are wholy exempt in all criminal causes and all matters whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of Lay-Princes Certainly neither doth Boniface teach any such matter there nor must any such follow out of what he either supposes or dedetermines there Because it is clear enough that certain persons even meer lay-persons may have a priviledge from all kind of taxes and yet be subject in other causes and other matters both criminal and civil to such as impose taxes For Iohn the VIII That who ever please to consider that whole chapter Si Imperator quoted by Bellarmine will be convinced this Pope intends no more but that as it is fitting the Emperour himself should for what concerns Religion learn from and not teach the Church so in Ecclesiastical matters it was Gods pleasure that Clerks should be ordered and examined and if they chanced to fall into an errour should be also reconciled on their return not by the Lay-powers but by the Pontiffs and Priests Which these words omitted by the Cardinal recipique de errore remeantes do sufficiently insinuat Besides that any man knows it is a very weak and sensless argument of a positive law of God for any thing or any duty or any priviledge that either Iohn the VIII or any other even a whole General Council should speak in this manner Omnipotens Deus voluit it was the will of God unless they had withal and on the debate or controversie it self made of purpose an express Canon declaring that thereby or by such manner or by these words it is or it was the will of the omnipotent God they mean'd to signifie not the general or special providence of God or his good will or pleasure known only to us for example in the present matter of Exemption because we see the Clerks as to many things are exempted so by the laws of Princes and that we know this could never have been done by Princes if God had not moved their hearts to do so For
or body at pleasure according to the end this rational commandress hath prefixed to her self and on the other side we see that the flesh hath no empire no command over the spirit nor can direct or judge or restrain it in any thing Ergo sayes Bellarmine a paritate it must follow or be That in the same wise the Ecclesiastical power which is spiritual and therefore naturally superiour to the secular may when it is necessary direct judge and restrain or use coercion towards the civil power but never be it self directed judged or restrained by the secular Third argument thus As well in holy Scripture and other writings of holy Fathers as by the common custom of Christians Priests are adorned with the names or titles of Fathers and Pastors But nature teacheth that children are bound to obey their parents and willingly abide correction from them but never to think that they on the other side may themselves command correct or judge their parents And much more doth the same nature teach that sheep are directed and govern'd by their Pastours and when they straye are by the whistle or stick of their Pastors reduced again into their right way and pasture Which is so true that it would be plainly against nature that a sheep should direct or govern her Pastour Fourth argument thus Ecclesiastical persons are the Ministers of God consecrated for his onely service and for this very purpose offered by all the people to God Whence it is that they are called Clerici or Clerks from the greek word Cleros that signifies a lot as if by that name of theirs it were given us to understand that they belong specially to the lot of our Lord Which St. Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus But certainly in such things as are offered and consecrated to God and so in some wise made as if they were the property or peculiar of God no secular Princes can have any right Which both the light of reason doth shew and God himself delivers not obscurely in holy Scripture where he sayes in the last of Leviticus Quicquid semel Deo fuerit consecratum sanctum sanctorum erit Domino Fift and last argument thus God hath not seldom punished miraculously the prophaners of Churches and such as presumed to violate the immunities or privileges granted to sacred places Whereof much may be read with Tilmannus Bredenbachius l. 5. sacrarum collationum But that is a very notable testimony which is read of Basilius Porphyrogenitus Emperour of the Greek apud Balsamonem in Nomōca-none Photij in commentario canonis primi Synodi Constantinopolitanae primae secundae quam nos Latini Octavam appellamus For the said Basilius attributs the cause of the calamities of those days to a certain law made by his predecessour Nicephoras Phocas against the liberty of the Church Ex quo inquit lex ista robur habuit nihil boni penitus in hodiernum usque diem vitae nostrae contigit sed potius ê contrario nullum omninò genus calamitatis defuit From the time sayes Basilius that law of Nicepherus was observed no kind of good fortune happened in our life but rather on the contrary no sort of calamity was wanting And therefore this Emperour Basilius did with much reason abrogat wholly that law And these are the five arguments of Bellarmine The first grounded on his pretended custom of all Nations second on his similitude betwixt the Ecclesiastical power and lay and that of the soul and body third on the titles or names of Father and children and sheepheards and sheep fourth on the title or name of Clerks derived from the greek word Cleros and on the signification thereof and the fift on signs and prodigies as he speaks or calamities which pursued the infringers of Ecclesiastical Immunity liberty or Exemption And these arguments I have given all of them as neer as I could in his own words and form that the Reader may the more clearly judge of my answers and of the controversy in it self for what concerns my present purpose in this Section which is onely as I have often advertised the Exemption or not exemption rather by the law divine natural or law of nations of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream lay civil and coercive power in criminal causes And consequently also judge whether I wrong this most eminent Cardinal if I say as I do say That he hath by his doctrine here or in and as to this particular of such exemption and of such laws extreamly abused his Readers and not his Readers onely but his Religion and reason and Layety and Clergie and Church and State and even all mankind And that for this he pretends a custom of all Nations which never hath been yet of as much as any one Nation in the world both holy and prophane Scriptures neither of which have one word to the purpose a similitude that is lame titles or names latin and greek that to conclude his purpose are no less vain and finally the justice of God and saying of an Emperour that never executed nor this at all pronounced in our present case or dispute LXVII For and for what concerns his first argument and I mean still as he intends it to conclude not some kind of exemption Immunity or priviledge either local or personal given to Churches or Churchmen but even that plenary Exemption of his own or which he pretends of all their lands goods houses and persons too and in all kind of causes spiritual and temporal civil criminal mixt and this also not from the inferiour lay or civil Judges onely but also from all the very supreamest civil both directive and coercive powers on earth it is plain enough That his Assumption or Antecedent is false because he hath not yet nor any other can for him hereafter instance as much as any one single Nation in the world wherein they ever yet had or have at present such Exemption That for all those nations known to us we see dayly the quite contrary both taught and practised amongst them in relation to the supream civil power and as well to the persons of Clergiemen in some cases for what concerns judgement and punishment as to their goods and lands for that of taxes when the Commonwealth is necessitated to laye taxes on them That not one of those places he quotes either out of holy Scripture or other books or Histories prove that Antecedent of his or his Allegation of the custom of all nations in the point or even which is less of any one nation Though if he did or could prove it for some one nation yet he could not therefore be thought to have said any thing for the proof of that antecedent or of his grand position unless he did withal instance it generally That therefore likely it was that he onely quoted the books and chapters without giving the words or contents of those books or chapters whereby the Reader might be
judge of all without further trouble to turn those monuments either sacred or prophane That in the former Section I have already shewen at large the impertinency or unsufficiency as to his general Assertion of his quoting the 47. of Gen. and 1. of Esdras 7. for what concerns the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes and therefore need not say any more of these two Scripture places here That for his other two Scripture places the first out of the thirtieth of Exodus and second out of the first chapter of the book of Numbers neither of both has a word importing as much as a bare exemption of the Levits from all kind of tributs or from any at all but onely from the half ficle which was to be payed for the use of the Tabernacles by all the children of other tribes who came to 20. years So that I cannot but be somewhat troubled when I see this great man alleadge Scriptures after this rate 1. Because this very exemption of the Levits from paying that half ficle is by consequence onely concluded out of the second of these places or both together forasmuch as in the late or in that 1. chap. of Numbers verse 48. God commanded Moyses not to muster the Tribe of Levi and that in the former place or 30. of Exodus 12. v. we find that each one mustered was to pay to the Lord or for the use of the Tabernacle half a sicle ten of our pence 2. Because these very places tell that all the children boys and youths of what ever tribe who were under twenty were as well exempt from that payment because from the muster as the Levit were not to speak besides of the female Sex 3. Because it were certainly most ridiculous to conclude hence that all those young men besides all the women young and old were in all things whatsoever exempt from the supream civil Magistrate from the supream lay Judges and Kings that succeeded those Judges Nay and extreamly ridiculous to conclude from even a general exemption of the Levits from all kind of tribute did such appear as it doth not to conclude I say their personal exemption and in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt from those supream lay Captains Judges Kings whom yet God himself appointed to rule all the Tribes aswell of Levi as others That for his other citations out of Aristotle Caesar and Plutarch for what concerns other nations and Priests of Gentils either Greeks Romans or other soever I took the pains to find these Authors and turn the places quoted and read those whole books quoted by him that is that whole second book of Aristotles Oeconomicks and that whole 6. book of Caesars Gallick warr and that whole life too of Plutarchs Camillus but found all against our learned Cardinals exemption or his latitude of it That Aristotle hath not a word of Priests either in that second book or in his first which are all the books he hath of Oeconomicks or de Cura Rei familiaris as the Latins entitle them but onely in one place of the second where he tells that when on a time Taos King of Egypt was to march his Army and wanted money Chabrias the Athenian gave him Council to tell the Priests of both Sexes that for the charges of the warr he found it necessary to lessen their number That hereupon the Priests every one for himself to be continued gave the King money And that again after this money so received the same Chabrias the second time advised the King to command the same Priests to spend thenceforth but the tenth part on themselves and sacrifices of that they had till then and give him the other nine until he had ended the Persian warr If this import any thing out of Aristotle for Bellarmine's purpose or not rather directly against his purpose of a law of nature or nations for the exemption of either as much as Priestly Clerks or Gentil Priests from the supream Civil power it imports all things els he please That Caesar indeed hath somewhat more likely of the Druides of Gaul Druides à bello abesse consueverant neque tributa unà cum reliquis pendunt militiae vacationem omniumque rerum habent immunitatem And yet here is no more but vacation from warr exemption from tributs and immunity for all their goods Not a word of their being exempt from the supream Civil Magistrat generally in all kind of things or causes or indeed in any thing at all from his supream power And still whatever is said here is said onely of the Druides of Gaul Not a word in all that book of Caesars of the Priests or customs of all other nations or of any in exempting so generally their Priests if peradventure Caesars telling That the Druides of Gaul had their discipline from the Druides of Brittain be not a testimony of such Custom of other nations which cannot be said That for Plutarch in Camillus he tells there I confess how after the Gauls had possessed Rome for seaven months the Capitol onely excepted which the holy Geese of Iuno's Temple by their gagling preserved and after the violence of a great plague and the power of Camillus had beat them away and forced them back to their own territories the Romans nevertheless were in such fear of their return that they made a law for the exemption of Priests from warr so it were not against the Gauls For these are the very words of Plutarch there and all the words he hath in that whole life of Camillus of any such matter or of Priests at all 'T is improbable therefore that Bellarmine ever troubled himself to read Plutarch when he quoted him for his purpose here of a law or custom amongst the Romans for the general exemption of as much as their own Priests in all things or even too in any thing from the supream civil power of their State Here they are not exempted in some cases as much as from the duties of warr That for what concerns that priviledg of Constantine and for what appears out of that his Epistle to Anulinus recorded in Euseb l. 10. cap. 7. I elswhere shew as I bring that Epistle at length in the next Section that Constantine was farre enough from granting thereby any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends either of the persons of Clergiemen from asmuch as the most subordinate inferiour lay-Judges or of their goods from taxes but onely an immunity or freedom from publick offices as those of Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs Constables Collectors c. That finally for those words of Iustinians law who sees not they are to no kind of purpose alleadged certainly how subject soever any Divine or other person on earth will say Clerks are to either supream or subordinate civil Magistrats in all kind of temporal causes yet will the same Divines and all other persons and at the same time freely acknowledg with Iustinian the equity of making a difference twixt divine and human things
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
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
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
withal that if they had stated or supposed it otherwise as they do not or if we did suppose even all the civil or temporal power in the world conferr'd by the world it self on the great Pontiff or on the Church or Churchmen to make what laws he or they pleased in all civil things and for all mortal men and by themselves to govern the world as the onely supream civil Governours yet my judgment would be still that even in such a case according to natural reason there could be no power at all in the Pope or Church as indeed none is at present nor can be at any time in the Princes or people themselves or both or even together with the Church to exempt Churchmen from the supream civil Magistrat in whose Dominions they live And yet in the case which is now in being of the Popes being at present the supream civil Magistrat in Rome and in the whole temporal Patrimony of St. Peter in some tracts of Italy for so at least he is in effect or by actual possession of the rights of such a supream civil Magistrat he cannot by any argument of natural reason exempt the Clergie of those tracts from his own said supream civil power of them unless he at the same time devest himself wholly of that very same supream civil power and quit it absolutely to some other Whereof more hereafter in the following Sections where it will appear that the exemption of Clerks from the supream power of Kings under whom they live and whom they acknowledg to be also their own Kings implyes a most plain and manifest contradiction In the mean time let us now to the onely arguments remaining those natural or Theological reasons of the other side for such a power in the Pope or Church These reasons such as they be I find to be in all seven or eight six whereof are fram'd by Dominicus Soto and the other two by Franciscus Victoria Albeit five of those fix are onely to prove the said exemption as to the persons of Clergiemen but the rest to prove it not onely as to their persons but as to their goods also And besides these eight reasons I see no other in these or other Authors of their way nor indeed any thing els not even in Covarâ—â—vias himself but some few authorities of other Canonists which are not worth the while nor at all proper to repeat heer being such as they neither belong to reason nor have on other account any power of perswasion The first general reason of Dominicus Soto proveing this exemption as well necessary as congruous and both as to the goods and as to the persons of Clergiemen Ecclesiastical power sayes he is per se that is of it self or by its own nature sufficient and independent from the civil power Therefore it may of it self make all such laws as are either necessary or convenient for its own administration quae suae administrationi sunt necessariae vel congruentes But the law of exemption of Clerks both as to their goods and persons from all kind of Secular Magistrats even the very most supream is either necessary or at least very congruent that is to say is at least convenient or agreeable or meet or fitting or expedient for Church administration Now to prove this assumption first as to the persons or to prove it to be even necessary That the persons of Churchmen should be so exempt Soto gives four specifical reasons as immediately after he gives also a fifth to prove it necessary as to their very goods The first specifical reason or medium of Soto to prove it necessary as to their persons For sayes he whereas the Ministers of the Church are constituted according to divine law it must seem in the next degree of proximity to the said law divine that they may not be called upon or commanded by the secular Judges Second specifical reason as to the persons It may happen that amongst Ecclesiastical causes whereof lay â—en cannot be Judges some civil matters do intervene And therefore if Clergiemens persons were not exempt from all kind of secular Iudicatories they must be in such cases perplexed not knowing which tribunal to obey when called upon by both Ecclesiastical and secular Third specifical reason of Soto as to the persons It would not be decent nor have any decorum that the Ministers of Churches who are Pastours of even those very Judges themselves nay and of Kings too should be as criminals or guilty persons called upon by those Iudges or bound to appear as such before them Fourth specifical reason of Soto as to the persons Whereas the civil power and Ecclesiastical are in their own natures wholly distinct or different it is necessary that as each hath its own proper Ministers so the Ministers of each have their own proper Superiours Hitherto this learned Schoolman as to the persons But as to the goods of Clergiemen his onely reason is which is in order the sixth of those reasons That whereas tributes and customs are paid to Kings in lieu of or as a recompence for the labours they undergoe in ruleing the Commonwealth and whereas Clerks undergoe no less in discharge of their own duty or towards the maintenance of the Church it seems but a due recompensation that their goods be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Seventh reason but given by Franciscus Victoria to prove the necessity of a power in the Church to exempt both goods and persons The Ecclesiastical Republick is perfect in it self and sufficient in it self Therefore it hath power to make such laws as are convenient for the administration of the Church And therefore also if the exemption of Clerks from the civil power even supream be convenient for such administration it hath power to enact such exemption by law Eight and last reason and it is of the same Franciscus Victoria but as to the persons onely The Pope may by his own proper authority choose fix on or design and actually appoint and iustice to Ecclesiastical Ministers notwithstanding any contradiction of the civil power Therefore he may also â—â—on the same ground or for the some reason exempt those Ecclesiastical Ministers from the secular power And these are all the arguments grounded on reason or which as grounded purely or chiefly on reason the common principles of Faith or of the existence of a Christian Church being once admitted ouâ— adversaries bring But whether any of all be sufficiently convincing or whether any of all be as much as probable I mean intrinsecally probable the indifferent judicious Reader is to give his judgment when I have done my devoire in answering For I remember what I have undertaken Section LXII to shew not onely that no convincing argument of natural reason can be produced but not even as much as any probable argument of such reason meaning still by probable that which is intrinsecally such Though I do withall advertise here That no even intrinsick
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
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 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
opinion or rather certain and true judgment of such a power in the Emperour as properly and essentially belonging to his Imperial office it was that the orthodox Bishops of Syria writ also to the same Emperour Leo for punishing by his own Imperial power according to the laws of the civil Commonwealth Timotheus Elucus Bishop or Patriarch of Alexandria as by the same laws and against both the same laws and Princes too being guilty of various crimes but in particular of adultery and murder De delictis autem say they post Câ—ncil Chalced. praesumptionibus quas nefandê commisit Reipublicae legibus corum praesulibus judicio competenti subdetur Where you see a meer secular judgment called or said to be a competent judgment of criminal Bishops And indeed that the banishment of the said Timotheus which soon after followed by the decree of this Emperour Liberat. Brevi c. 13. proceeded onely from his own proper Imperial power not from any Church power or from any commission or delegation from the Church we may gather sufficiently out of the 100. epist of the above S. Leo the Pope wherein he writes thus to Gennadius Dilectio tua eniti elaborare debit ne redeundi integram capiat libertatem de quo jam Edictis suis Princeps Christianissimus judicavit Finally pursuant to the same knowledg of the Imperial power and authority from God for judging and sentencing the criminal causes and inflicting corporal punishments in such criminal causes and on such Clergymen as were found guilty Pope Simplicius epist 9. 11. beseecheth the Emperour Zeno Vt quod per nos sayes he Ecclesia seriò postulat imô quod ipsi specialiùs supplicamus Petrum Alexandrinae Ecclesiae pervasorem ad exteriora transferri piissima praeceptione jubeatis But to leave this judgment of Popes or other Bishops of the power and authority Royal in the case which Judgment as such of the power is not the proper and primary subject of this section or at least of this part of it and to return to matter of fact onely and this of the Princes themselves acting by particular Instances The next Prince I offer to the Readers consideration is Theodoricus King of Italy For this Prince albeit an Arrian as to his beleef of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ yet in all other points of Christian religion and in his veneration and observance of the Church and Churchmen and of their priviledges and exemptions in general and this without any distinction of Arrians or not Arrians he was precise wary and strict enough nor is there any reprehension or complaint of him in History as not being so And yet he is recorded to have admitted of and discussed the accusations drawn and presented to him by the very Catholicks themselves both Layety and Clergye against Pope Symmachus Of which matter Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes thus in Symmacho Post annos vero quattuor aliqui ex clero zelo ducti aliqui ex Senatu maximè Festus Prâ—binus insimulaverunt Symmachum subornarunt falsos testes quos miserunt Ravennam ad Regem Theodoricum accusantes beatum Symmachum occultè revocarunt Laurentium post libellum Romae factum fecerunt Schysma divisus est iterum Clerus nam alij communicaverunt Symmacho alij Laurentio Tunc Festus Probinus Senatores miserunt relationem Regi caeperunt agere ut visitatorem daret Rex Sedi Apostolieae quod canones prohibent And albeit upon debate this King at last remitted this cause of Symmachus to a Council of Bishops and that by the same King's licence several Councils of Bishops convened at Rome to sift it throughly which Councils I have amongst others and upon an other occasion quoted in the marginal note of my introduction to this first Treatise pag. 1. yet no man can deny that he admitted the accusations and thereupon and as judg of them and of the whole cause exercised several judiciary acts as having a legal power or Christian authority to do so Nor did Symmachus except or resist nor did any for him or in his behalf or in behalf of the Church or of Ecclesiastical Immunity reprehend Theodorick for doing so Nay we have seen before in this Treatise Sec ... this very Symmachus himself openly professing that he himself would yield to God in the Emperour's person to wit by obeying him in humane things as we saw him desiring on the other side that the Emperour should likewise revere God in the person of the Pontiff doubtless for what concern'd spiritual or divine matters The Catholick Emperour Justinus proceeded yet more imperially in the criminal cause of Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica For this Bishop being accused of sedition and of several murders too and particularly of the murder of Iohn who was one of the Legats of the See Apostolick and the rest of the Apostolick Legats being his accusers before the Emperour and being so also by express command from Hormisda the Pope whose Legats they were and he too that was murdered and this Pope himself pressing hard that the said Bishop Dorotheus the supposed murderer of his Legat should either be deposed by the Emperour from his Bishoprick and sent to banishment farr from his place or See and Church or certainly be sent to Rome with all fit prosecution of his cause Iustin indeed proceeded to a judicial tryal and sentence of the criminal Bishop but with so much regard of his own imperial power in the case that he neither did the one nor the other which Hormisda so earnestly pressed for Of all which the Suggestions amongst and after the epistles of Hormisda and these epistles themselves particularly the Suggestion which is after the 56. epist and the second Suggestion after the 64. epist and the 57. epistle in it self may be read Promittit say the Legats writing to the Pope Sancta Clementia for so they stile the Emperour vindicare citare Dorotheum quia nos contestati sumus pietatem ejus c. And Hormisda himself the Pope epist 57. writing to the said Legats Nam eumdem Dorotheum sayes he Constantinopolim jussu Principis didicimus evocatum adversus quem Domino filio nostro Clementissimo Principi debetis insistere ne ad eamdem civitatem denuo revertâ—tur sed Episcopatus quem numquam bene gessit honore deposito ab eodem loco ac Ecclesia longius relegetur vel certè huc ad urbem sub prosecutione congrua dirigatur But wherefore doth not this Pope command his Legats to insist upon the delivering of such a criminal a criminal Bishop into their own proper custody hands and power to proceed against him to judg and punish him as they shall find cause being they alone and not the Emperour were his competent Judges in the case if we believe our Bellarminians and Baronius wherefore do not these Legats wherefore doth not this Pope himself being denied what he desired fulminat excommunications against Iustine
and therefore say also by consequence that he lay under some constraint and some necessity and some bond tye or obligation to pay that didrachma yet is it not consequent that I say he wanted that freedom or any such freedom which is simply such or lay under any constrrint or necessity which are simply such or even under any bond tye or obligation at least of justice simply such or which might oblige him under sin or the penalty of sin or by vertue of the tribute law it self to pay any tribute for the rest of my discourse most evidently shews I mean thereby no other constraint necessity or obligation but such as are secundum quid or diminutively such even such as Iohn the XXII himself allows even such as our Saviour himself means by saying ut non scandalizemus eos da c. and even such finally as arise only from the law of love and of that divine love which told him it was not fitting for him to give cause of scandal to the weak ones by his own refusal or denial or failer and which made him at last to give his life for them that took it from him And therefore also 't is not consequent that by any thing or word said in that passage of mine page 239 I joyn or concur with Marsilius or Jandunus in this first article of theirs not even as much as in the words much less in the sense of that article condemn'd by Pope Iohn the XXII Besides it is clear enough that for the defence of my thesis against Bellarmine's argument grounded by him on the texts of Matthew Mat. 17. Ergo liberi sunt filii and ut nâ—â— scandalizemus eos c. I needed not give as I did not give in my LXIII Section page 150 151 153. where I handled these words of our Saviour at large and of purpose any such answer but solved the argument fairly and clearly there without any such or as much as reflecting on any such answer that is on any such necessity or any such obligation of justice or obedience due arising from the tribute law or other command of presumed superiour Powers And it is no less clear that I was not in my 239. page nor am here now at present nor will be elsewhere any further concern'd for Marsilius or Jandunus then they held close to the general thesis only that is to the general doctrine only of the Catholick Church and that whereever they swerve from that I do from them and where that Church condemns them I also condemn them nay and that I am content likewise to condemn them where ever Iohn the XXII himself alone or in this Bull of his condemns them and yet hold still constantly to my thesis For and forasmuch as concerns their second complex article viz. Quod B. Petrus Apostolus non plus authoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerint nec aliorum Apostolorum fuit caput Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae nec aliquem Vicarium suum fecit 't is plain it concerns not our present controversie of the exemption of Clergiemen or that even of the very Apostles themselves or that even sayl also of S. Peter himselâ— from the temporal powers and in temporal matters For that Peter should have had that is actually and immediatly from Christ himself had more authority then the other Apostles had and that he should have been made or was actually made the head of them all and that Christ should have or had left some one Head to the Church and made left some one his own Vicar which is the contradictory of this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus argues nothing at all for the exemption from temporal Princes in temporal matters of as much as Peter himself or of him that had that greater authority or of that head or of that Vicar Because the doctrine of the Catholick Church teacheth us that that greater authority of Peter whatever it was and that Headship of his over the rest of the Apostles and that one Headship and one Vicarship under Christ in the Church and over the Church was meerly and purely spiritual and because not only that very doctrine but reason also and experience tells us that such greater authority spiritual and even such one Headship and one Vicarship spiritual consist well very with a lesser authority temporal in the same Head or Vicar and even with none such at all in Him and yet with another Headship and another Vicarship temporal in another person and with a full entire subjection in temporal matters to this other person or other head and other Vicar whose authority and power is only and purely temporal as on the other side the temporal Headship or temporal Vicarship consists very well with its own subjection in spiritual matters to that Headship and Vicarship which is only spiritual And more or other then what is here said Iohn the XXII arguments in his discourse against this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus do not conclude or indeed as much as pretend to being all his reasons here are only and wholly bent against a parity of power in the Apostles amongst themselves without any exception of Peter or preheminence given to him over them How strong or how weak his reasons are I need not care at least for the present being that for the present I allow all in general both his definitions and reasons in this Bull and in particular what he reasons and defines against this second Article as not as much as in the least touching me or my thesis of the subjection of all Clergiem whether Apostles or not Apostles and even of the very spiritual Prince of the Apostles Peter himself in temporal matters to the supream temporal respective Princes within whose dominions they live For likewise as for the third of those Articles or this Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam instituere destituere ac punire as the said Iohn the XXII relates it in the beginning of his Bull or this other form of it Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam corrigere punire ac instituere destituere 't is clear enough it may be allowed as I also do allow it to be false erroneous and heretical for one part and in one sense or even for both parts in a certain sense whatever is in the mean while thought of the other part or even of either in another different sense and yet my grand Thesis and all my doctrine hitherto even where it descends or rather ascends to the Pope himself be untouch'd by any such censure That one part I allow to be so is that which sayes it belongs to the Emperour to institute and destitute the Pope and the sense wherein I allow this part to be so or to be false erroneous and heretical is that whereby any should conceive that the Emperor could at any time and by his own proper imperial authority as such
either give the spiritual power of the Papacy or take it away from any or should conceive that after the Church had legally revoked that power she once or twice gave Emperours to chose or elect for ever all Popes nay and all other Bishops too of the Western Church yet the Emperour could institute the Pope And the sense also wherein I condemn that Article for both parts is that which any should conceive or express by saying in other significant words that both the spiritual institution and spiritual destitution and the spiritual correction and spiritual punition of the Pope or the punition of him by spiritual wayes or in a spiritual manner or at all by the spiritual sword belongs to the Emperour as such or as only Emperour without any delegation or commission from the Church And the sense moreover wherein I condemn that Article as at least false is that whereby any might conceive that not only before the Popes were legally invested in those temporal principalities which they now enjoy and did enjoy or at least pretended to enjoy as supream temporal Princes in the time or a little before and after the time of Ioannes XXII but also after they were and are legally invested and possessed of a supream temporal independent Soveraignty if I mean they be so re vera at all which is not my business here to determine did I know well how to determine it it belong'd or belongs to the Emperour to give as much as the sole Temporals of the Papacy or take them away from the Pope or as much as to correct or punish him in any other though meer temporal civil or corporal way of coercion by the civil or material sword Now 't is clear enough that neither my Thesis in general concerning the subjection of all Clergiemen whatsoever to their own respective civil Princes nor my particular deduction from it concerning the very Popes themselves and their subjection likewise to the Roman Emperors before these Roman Emperours were legally devested of the real Soveraingty of Rome are touch't by the condemnation of either part or both parts together in any such sense of them or of either of them as I have given hitherto And it is no less clear to me that the reasons of Iohn the XXII against this third Article drives at no condemnation of it in any other sense For amongst these reasons one is the forged donation of Constantine the Great cap. Constantinus dist 96. And another is composed of a plain denyal or plainly false exposition of cap. Adrianus xxii Dist xliii and cap. In Synod ead Distinc and of a posterior revocation by the Popes themselves of the priviledge granted to Emperours in those Canons nay and of a renunciation made of that priviledge by later Emperours also So that if we gather the sense wherein Iohn the XXII censured this third Article even for either of both parts joyntly or severally as we may and ought to gather it from the reasons which he alledges against it we must evidently conclude his censure to have related only to those times wherein the Pope pretended the very temporal and legal supream independent authority or Soveraignty of the City of Rome and of some other Principalities and to those times also which preceded such priviledge given to the Emperours or followed the revocation and renunciation of such priviledge not to the time during which it held But it is apparent enough that my doctrine concerning the Popes subjection to the supream civil coercive power of the Roman Emperours had relation to those other times only wherein the Popes without any peradventure most expresly confessed themselves and to those moreover wherein they should so according to the truth of things confess themselves to be de facto and de jure subject in all temporals to the Roman Emperours And therefore is is likewise apparent enough that I am no way concern'd in this Article of Marsilius and Iandunus or in the condemnation of it Much less am I concern'd how false or how true the Popes allegations or how weak and unconcluding his reasons are which he makes against it and which are the only motives as he pretends of his definitions against it for the very chief Assertors and Defenders of the infallibility of pure Papal Definitions in matters of Faith confess that the reasons alledged by Popes in their definitive Busts are no part of the definition it self nor as such have any kind of infallibility not tye any oâ—her to approve of them further then their own proper native evidence works the understanding to an assent And yet withal as I said before so I now say again that Iohn the XXII's reasons against this third Article of Marsilius and Iandunus prove sufficiently that the doctrine of a supream civil coercive power as warranted by the law divine both natural and positive to be in Emperours or lawful Kings of Rome to coerce judge and punish the very Pope himself in criminal causes when the Pope was no supream temporal Prince or when or if at any time hereafter he shall cease to be such or if even at present he be not such and that he live within such Emperour 's or Kings dominions for this is it and all it I say in the exposition of my general Thesis in relation to the Pope is no way concern'd in the condemnation pronounced by the same Iohn the XXII against the same third Article because not in the sense wherein his said reasons prove he condemn'd this Article But forasmuch as it may be of some good use to the Reader not onely for a more full understanding of what I treat here but in other parts of this work to see at leingth both that no less famous then forged canon or chapter Constantinus dist 96 noted with a Palea in Gratian himself and those other true canons or true Chapters Hadrianus and In Synodo dist LXIII for as true and undoubted these two are by all men quoted and accounted I will not loose this occasion to give so here all three consequently If you think your labour lost in perusing them and you will not if you be not extreamly uncurious you may skip over them to my observations on the 4. and 5. article of Morfilius Ex Gratiano distinct XCVI cap. Constantinus Constantinus Imperator quarta die sui baptismi privilegium Romanae Ecclesiae Pontifici contulit ut in toto orbe Romano Sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant sicut judices Regem In eo privilegio ita inter caetera legitur Utile judicavimus unà cum omnibus Satrapis nostris universo Senatu optimatibusque meis etiam cuncto populo Romanae gloriae imperio subiacenti ut sicut beatus Petrus in terris vicarius filii dei esse videtur constitutus ita Pontifices qui ipsius Principis Apostolorum gerunt vices principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae Serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur concessam
this definition of Iohn the XXII against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever For these two positions have no contradiction 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal and civil too if you please in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church 2. This coactive power humane corporal and civil too or not civil as you please is not altogether independent in it self but is subordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes That they are not contradictory or inconsistent we see by the example of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals For the inferiour tribunals notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively are subordinat to the superiour And so I have done at last with this long discourse occasion'd by the fourth objection or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church I have proved to be very false as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church Which Catholick doctrine or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently nay abundantly demonstrated by reason Scripture and Tradition Therefore now to The fift and last of all these objections which I call'd remaining for the reason before given that objection I mean built upon the contrary judgment or opinion as t is pretended of St. Thomas of Canterbury and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore and of his canonization also therefore and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious martyrized Saint therefore This objection I confess is very specious at first as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Divine or Canonists or both it appears to and works so T is onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death but what they read in their Breviary which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me though peradventure enough to solve any T is onely amongst those who do not consider duely nor indeed have the knowledg or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely what it amounts to in point of Christian Faith as to others or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto that any one Bishop how otherwise holy soever in his own life should have especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in general or of this or that Immunity in particular or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust I care not which made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities or those were onely pretended I care not also which T is onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion or of moe perhaps and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obedient humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently represented to them because they had other sufficient manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving though I do not averr any such prepossession here nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material T is onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposition to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen and on his exile death miracles canonization invocation appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes who are supream themselves to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoever living within their dominions Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance as you have that Censure of theirs page 120. of this first Part be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines I leave to the Reader 's own better consideration when reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it he observes moreover particularly the day of the date of it so signally express'd by them in these tearms Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die â—9 Decembris gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis Angliae quondam Primatis mortyrio consecratae Anno Dominae Incarnationis 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canterbury as most proper for such a censure I know not certainly but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy glory martyrdom and how that 29. day of December of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal signal date of theirs made me ever since now and then reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground Though to confess all the truth I never met any that fram'd it methodically or put it into any due or undue form of argument for them or of objection against me but onely in general objected that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second Which is the reason and that I may leave nothing which may seem to any to be material unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self I put all which my adversaries would be at in this concern of St. Thomas of
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
stretch'd along on the ground at his feet weeping and beseeching him and at their representing to him how the King had threatned him and all his with exile with destruction and death unde Rex sayes Hoveden ad an 1164. plurimum in ira adversus eum commutus minatus est ei suis exilium alias exilium mortem and I say when by such means he had sworn in retracting at last on better advise so rash an oath and refusing to confirm those pretended customes by his seal or subscription 8. And lastly in refusing either to absolve the excommunicated Bishops but in forma Ecclesiae consueta or consent that his own Clerks which came with him out of France should take any unjust or unlawfull oath contrary to the two material demands or commands to him in behalf of Henry the second by his four murtherers Willelmus de Traci Hugo de Mortvilla Richardus Brito and Reginaldus filius Vrsi For to their third which was that he should go reverently to the young King and do him homage and fealty by oath for his Archiepiscopal Barony as Parker relates it its plain enough he never refused that not onely because he did so at the time of his investiture to Henry the second himself the Father King but also because that upon his return from exile which was but a month before his death he was on his journey as farr as London to the young King's Count to do and pay this young King also all the respects and duties becoming but was by the Queens Brother Gocelinus as Hoveden writes commanded in that very young King 's own name not go to Court nor proceed further whereupon he return'd back to Canterbury In all which eight several Instances as also in all their necessary Antecedents Concomitants and Subsequents I confess again ingenuously it is my own judgment that St. Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side because in some he had all the laws of both God and man for him and in the rest he had for him the very just and politick municipal laws of England as yet then not legally repealed these very laws I mean rehearsed by me in my seventh observation and because there was not any law of God or man against him in the case or in any of those Instances being the laws of the land were for him in all and because the design of Henry the second to oppress the people of England both Clergie and Layety but especially the Clergie and to render the Sacerdotal Order base and contemptible as we have seen before observed out of Polydore Virgil required that the Archbishop of Canterbury should stand in the gap as farr as it became a Subject by denying his own consent as a Peer and as the first Peer too of the Realm and by proceeding yet as a Bishop and as the Primate also of all Bishops in England and by proceeding so I say in a true Episcopal manner against such as would by threats of death force oppressive customs for new laws on both Peers and people Clergie and Layety against their own known will and their own old laws And therefore also consequently do acknowledg my own judgment to be that the Major of the Syllogistical objection against me or this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c against Henry the Second is fals may be by me admitted simply and absolutely without any distinction Though I add withall it be not necessary to admit it for any such inconvenience as the proof which I have given before of that Major would inferi or deduce out of the denyal of it In which proof I am sure there are several propositions or suppositions involved which no Catholick Divine not even a rigid Bellarminian is bound to allow As 1. that neither Church nor Pope can possibly err in matter of fact or in their judgment of matter of fact though relating to the life or death or precise cause of the death of any Saint or Martyr which matter of fact is neither formally nor virtually expressed nor by a consequential necessity deduced out of holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For Bellarmine himself confesses that even a general Council truly such may err in such matters of fact And the reason is clear because the judgment of the Church in such matters is onely secundum allegata probata depending wholly on the testimony of this or that man or some few or at most of many mortal and sinfull witnesses or of such of whose veracity in that the Church hath no authentick or absolutely certain revelation from God but humane probability or at most humane moral certainty which is ultimately resolved into the humane credit or faith we give an other man or men or to their veracity who possibly may themselves either of purpose too deceive us or be deceived themselves however innocently And the case is clear in the famous and great controversy about those heads were called the Tria Capitula all which concern'd matter of fact of three great Bishops in the fourth and fift general Councils under Pope Leo Magnus and Pope Vigilius And is yet no less clear in the controversy about Pope Honorius which was of matter of fact whom two general Councils condemn'd for a Heretick for a Monothelit so long after his death and out of his own writings and yet Bellarmine defends him from being such and on this ground defends him that those Councils were deceived in their judgment of matter of fact by attributing to him that doctrine which he held not 2. That the infallibility which Catholicks believe and maintain to be in the Church necessarily implyes her infallibility of judgment concerning this or that fact of any even the greatest Saint whereof we have nothing in holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For the Infallibility of the Church is onely in preserving and declaring or at least in not declaring against that whatsoever it be matter of fact or Theory which was delivered so from the beginning as revealed by God either in holy Scripture or Apostolical Tradition 3. That St. Thomas of Canterbury could not be a holy maâ—tyr or great miraculous Saint in his life or death or after his death at his tomb were his quarrel against Henry the second not just in all the essential integral and circumstantial parts of it from first to last were it not I say just according to the very objective truth of things and of the laws of God and man though it had been so or at least the substantial part of it whereon he did ultimately and onely all along insist had been so according his own inward judgment and though also his Soul had been otherwise both in that and all other matters ever so pure holy religious resigned to follow the pleasure of God and embrace truth did he know or did he think it were of the other side in any part of the
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
Catholicks of those two Nations containing only such matter and to alledge as the cause or as a cause of such condemnation and censure and alledge it also in plain terms That it the said Instrument contain'd some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion What can I say be more rash false injurious and scandalous than to say so of such a matter if it be not so at all if there be no kind of true ground for saying that it is so And that it is not so at all or that the Remonstrance contains not either formally or virtually and consequentially as much as any one thing or part of a thing if such part may be repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion appears hence evidently That neither in its Acknowledgments Confessions Promises Disclaimings Renouncings Declarations Professions Protestations Abhorrencies Detestations nor in its final resignation in the Petitionary Address nor in any other clause or word if there be any other as indeed there is not but what belongs to these heads now repeated there is not as much as a syllable which by any kind of true either Grammatical or Theological or as much as seeming or likely construction imports any more in effect than first a bare Acknowledgment of the Supreme Temporal power of these Dominions of England Ireland Scotland c. and of all persons whatsoever Laymen or Clergymen living within them to be in our gracious Sovereign Charles the Second to have been in His lawful Predecessors and hereafter to be a so in His lawful Successors as likewise a bare acknowledgment of the like Supreme power under God to be in other Princes and Supreme Magistrates within their own respective Dominions And next an express or tacite promise to observe and obey and continue Loyal or Faithful in all Civil and Temporal matters to that self-same Supreme Temporal power of our gracious King yea notwithstanding any Doctrine to the contrary or even any Attempt by any other power whatsoever Temporal or Spiritual to force them or draw them from their Allegiance or Obedience to King Charles in meer Civil and Temporal Affairs For I have already and abundantly too demonstrated where I before Treated against the four grounds of the Louain Divines and more especially where I Treated against their fourth That it is so far from being against the sincere profession of Catholick Religion to assert or promise any such thing that it is on the contrary even revealed and declared positively and expresly and clearly by God himself in several places of Holy Scripture and yet more particularly in St. Paul's Epistle and by the mouth and pen of this great Apostle That all Supreme Temporal power is in the Supreme Temporal Princes and States over all their own respective Subjects as well Ecclesiasticks as Laicks And consequently that in all Temporal matters Allegiance and Faith and Obedience is due to such their power and ought to be paid and performed to them not only for fear of their Anger and Sword but for Conscience and fear of Damnation as St. Paul most expresly declares in formal words 13 ad Rom. And moreover that all this Doctrine hath been so as here delivered by universal Tradition for almost eleven entire Ages of Christian Religion all along till Gregory the Seventh usurped unto himself the Temporal power of the Empire as belonging to him by Divine Right All which being so as certainly it is so I frame thus my Argument Syllogistically against both the said Causes or Reasons supposed and expresly inserted in this second or short Censure of the Louain Faculty Theological as the only Reasons given therein wherefore they censure our Remonstrance and censure it so heavily and grievously or with such odious epithets as these unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. Whatsoever Vniversity or other Censure taxes judges or condemns any Remonstrance that contains only in effect or both in word and sense a bare Acknowledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal Natural Civil and Political power of the Sword as is hitherto said in the Supreme Lay Magistrate Prince or State and withall a promise only of such obedience as before is said in meer Civil and Temporal Affairs to that Power or that Magistrate according to the Laws of the Land I say that whatever Censure taxes judges or condemns such a Remonstrance to be utterly unlawful detestable and sacrilegious viz. upon account supposition or pretence That it contains a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make to them and that moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion Every such University or other Censure whatsoever I say must be rash against Prudence false against Truth injurious against Justice and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity But the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 61. 62. is such or is a University Censure of a Remonstrance that contains only in effect or both in word and sense a bare Acknowledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal Natural Civil and Political power c. and withall a promise only of such obedience c. and yet taxes judges and condemns such a Remonstrance to be unlawful c. viz. upon account supposition c. Ergo the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 1661. and 1662. must be rash against Prudence false against Truth injurious against Justice and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity And indeed the Major of this Syllogism ought at least among such Christian Divines as are men of Reason to be reputed of the nature of those Propositions which are called Propositiones per se notae if or as far as any such may be in Christian Philosophy or Divine Science of Christians For this tells us manifestly and evidently according to that evidence which Christian Religion is capable of That all such Censures as are against other at least Christian men and so great also and numerous a Body of other Christian men and are against them upon such an account only that is for maintaining such a power in the Supreme Civil Magistrate and such obedience due from the Subjects as are both revealed in the very written Word of God himself in holy Scripture and so constantly and universally delivered by Tradition and no less approved and confirmed even by pure natural Reason and so I mean revealed delivered approved and confirmed as I have already in my Disputes against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines proved that power and that obedience to have been I say that Christian Philosophy tells us manifestly and evidently that all such Censures must be so as I have said and even notoriously too rash false injurious and scandalous Rash against Prudence because heady foolishly bold and wholly inconsiderate against the Rules of that even humane Providence or of that right
in general against the said Censure or on the account only or by occasion only of those two Suppositions or two Causes or Reasons expressed therein wherefore the Louain Doctors did so Censure our Remonstrance as you have seen or in formal words did declare it to be unlawful detestable sacrilegious and wherefore they did also virtually or consequentially as you have likewise seen before Censure and Declare it further to be Heretical or Schismatical or both and forasmuch as I find it at least no less behoveful to speak yet more directly and particularly against those very Essentials both formal and virtual or consequential of that Censure I form these following Arguments against all I. No Remonstrance Declaration Paper or Form of Allegiance to the Prince is unlawful or can be Censur'd to be unlawful which contains not some Clause or some Proposition against some Law divine or humane For therefore only any thing can be said to be unlawful forasmuch as it can be justly said to be against some such true and undoubted Law But that Remonstrance c. of ours contains no Clause or Proposition against any Law divine or humane Ergo 't is not unlawful nor can be Censur'd to be unlawful The Conclusion evidently follows out of the premises And the Minor which is the only Proposition wants proof you have already seen proved partly in this very Section and partly throughout those many other long and large Sections before wherein I have first proceeded in a negative way answering all the Laws alledg'd by either Bellarmine or any other for the Exemption of Clergymen from the Supreme Civil Coercive power of Lay Princes and next have also proceeded in a positive or affirmative way alledging on the contrary all those Laws divine and humane which you may see there for the subjection of even all kind of Clergymen to the said Supreme Civil power II. No Remonstrance can be justly Censur'd to be detestable but that which can be justly said to contain some Clause or some Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd for only that which is justly reputed such can be justly said to be detestable Ours contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd because it contains nothing against any Law divine or humane and the Remonstrance which contains no such thing contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd Ergo our Remonstrance cannot be justly Censur'd to be detestable III. No Remonstrance can be according to any true Theology Censur'd to be sacrilegious or the Subscribers of it declared to be tyed under the guilt of Sacriledge to refix or revoke their Subscriptions which contains not some Clause or some Proposition warranting Sacriledge either taken in the true proper and strict sense of this word Sacriledge or in that at least which is the improper and larger sense of it But ours is a Remonstrance which contains no such Clause or Proposition c. Ergo c. The conclusion follows evidently according to the rules of Logick and the Major is evident ex terminis to any that is not a Beetle-head The Minor which only of all the Propositions of this Syllogism requires proof I prove thus no less evidently Sacriledge properly and strictly taken and according to the Etymology of the word sayes Azorius Instit Moral l. 9. cap. 27. is the stealing of a Sacred thing Vnde Sacrilegi dicuntur sayes he speaking in this proper and strict sense qui res Sacras surripiunt aut qui rem non Sacram in loco tamen Sacro depositam aut commendatam furantur And Sacriledge in the improper and larger sense sayes the same Author and with him other Divines and Canonists as it is often also now or even more commonly taken is a sin whereby a Sacred thing is polluted or unworthily and impiously handled used or treated that is not with that honour veneration and respect which the Laws of God or man commands us under sin to use or treat Sacred things Appellatione autem rei sacrae sayes the same Azor accipitur ea quae sanctitatem aliquam habet aut Christi institutione aut Ecclesia consecratione unctione benedictione ut vocatur quae est precatio qua Ecclesiae Minister certis ritibus ceremoniis Ecclesiasticis adhibitis bona precatur rei quam sacrat Ea item quam Ecclesia ad sacros usus ministeria destinavit But who sees not that there is not in our said Remonstrance any proposition or clause or passage warranting either the stealth of any Sacred thing according to the first sense or in the latter the pollution violation injurious force done to irreverence or dishonour or any unworthy or impious usage handling or treating of any Sacred thing whatsoever Religion or Faith Sacrament or Sacramental Place Goods Lands Rite Ceremony c For what I have already said at large in this very present Section and what I have before Treated yet far more largely in so many other preceding Sections against the four grounds of the Louain Theological Faculty do without any possible contradiction which may as much as seem rational most evidently demonstrate That there is not in our said Remonstrance any such proposition clause or passage warranting c. First Because what is so said in both does most evidently demonstrate That in the Remonstrance there is no power attributed to the King nor obedience acknowledg'd or promised as due from the Subjects but meerly Temporal and Civil or rather in meer Temporal and Civil things and according to the Laws of God and Nature and Canons also of the Church nor any denied to the Pope or Church not even any I mean out of the Popes or Churches own peculiar temporal Territories but only such power and such obedience as are not spiritual or in spiritual things nay this very present Section besides other matters demonstrates also That there is nothing else in the Remonstrance Secondly and particularly because the attributing such Temporal power to the Prince and requiring or warranting such obedience in Temporal or Civil things from or in the Subjects cannot be Sacriledge in either sense nor the denying of the same Supreme Royal politick power in Temporal matters to the Church or Pope in other Territories than such as are acknowledged or indeed are their own peculiarly and independently as to the Supreme politick power can be any more Sacriledge in either sense For who sees not that here is no violation of any kind of Right due by any Law to either Sacred persons or other Sacred things whatsoever And who knows not it is confessedly true That Sacriledge in either sense must be a violation of some such Right Lastly Because I have most particularly and professedly demonstrated before these four things 1. In so many different long Sections That the Pope hath not either de facto or de jure any either divine or humane Right to the temporal or politick Supremacy of
and by his blessed Disciples preach't and declared to the Gentiles of the whole Earth But why this Discourse of the way of the Cross of the way of Religion and Christian Faith to an Abbot of Mount Royal 'T is paint not substance with which you colour things You pretend Religion but intend it not and so with notorious Sophistry alledge a not cause for a cause In St. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations of Peace where he treats of the great differences which then were amongst the Clergy especially the Bishops I find the true cause of that vehement spirit of yours and your and his Eminence Cardinal Barberin's opposition Besides ignorance in many of your Informers and Whisperers there is impetuous anger my Lord and hatred and spite and envy and there is avarice my Lord and pride and ambition and a blind passion to domineer and the glory pomp and vanity of the World But this too is it not o' th freest I confess it but 't is a freedom which the thing requires and which becomes a Christian Priest and old Divine and faithful Subject of His King in a Controversie no less great than unhappy between some of the Clergy with the whole Laity with supreme Princes themselves and Kings and Emperours of the World concerning Right in Temporals Nevertheless to say and write as I have done to the Internuncio of his Holiness and of a Cardinal Is it not misbecoming This I deny For as for your Lordship if in dignity as a Commendatory Abbot and Internuncio of the Pope you go before me yet in Order and spiritual power and in the Hierarchy you come behind me Nor is there in that respect so much difference betwixt a Bishop and the meanest Priest as betwixt you and me Nevertheless I respect and reverence an Abbot and much more an Internuncio nay honour your person without those titles if you respect me as is fitting For what concerns his Eminence as I have a great veneration for the height of the Sacred Episcopal Office as instituted by Christ our Saviour and the Dignity of Cardinal as constituted by the Supreme Bishops so I have a far greater for both in the person of his Eminence Cardinal Fr. Barberin and so much the greater as by the rule of our seraphick Father I know my self obliged by a stricter tye to reverence not only the Governor Protector and Corrector but as I am informed a Friend and Patron and singular Benefactor too of our Order and a man besides if this unhappy Controversie had not lessned his esteem pious and good Notwithstanding I maintain I have used no greater freedom against either than becomes the Cause than becomes Walsh or any other Priest who is a Divine and pious in the same Cause The Cause I must confess is in one respect proper to Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers but in more and more important respects 't is the Cause of a Kingdom of the British Empire of England Scotland and more particularly Ireland nay of all Common-wealths Kingdoms and Kings of Christian Faith over and above and by consequence of the universal Church People and Clergy and all Priests 'T is a Cause besides which for the side you take is wonderful bad and most false which has long since been exploded condemned adjudged and adjudged as seditious scandalous erroneous contrary to the Word of God Heretical and moreover dangerous to Kings and People destructive of the peace of the World apt even to make the Pope and Church of Christ be abominated hated and abhorred And yet so I say or as such adjudged exploded and condemned in all ages all times from the dayes of Gregory the VII to this present and at present also and that most of all by renowned Prelates famous Doctors Universities Churches most Kingdoms and Commonwealths through all Europe preserving notwithstanding the Faith and Communion of Rome Besides 't is a Cause for which and for that part I mean which you have undertaken to maintain albeit that were but only for the Popes indirect power and that also only in some cases over the Temporals of Christian Princes its most learned and eminent Patron Cardinal Perron demanded no more but that as problematical or as uncertain and doubtful it might pass uncensured and demanded this in an Assembly general of the Three Estates in France Lastly 't is a Cause which for that very unwarrantable part the Internuncio and Cardinal do so persuade urge press and to their power constrain also to be embraced and this with all manner of art and craft with all manner of industry and fraud but yet onely in a corner of the World amongst a company of ignorant Islanders the miserable Irish I mean far from the great Continent and but there indeed where such arts are not so well known that not content with the late and entire destruction of a miserable Nation procured by such frauds and fictions for Faith forsooth they would again ensnare them and would rather have them lose for ever the present small such as it is and all future hope of being restored to their Countrey or Religion or as I gladly would to the publick and free exercise of their Religion under a most clement Prince or even to any either temporal or spiritual advantages then not to embrace not believe this most impious Assertion and believe it as an Article of Faith without which they cannot be saved And would have them serve over again their wretched slavery undergo Prisons Banishments and Death And as heretofore in the persecution of the Vandals would have the whole Clergy Bishops Priests Religious as Traytors Rebels and Outlaws either be hanged at home or banishâ—t again to Beggery abroad leaving none in that Island of Saints to baptize the new born or confirm the baptised or absolve those of years or anoint the dying or consecrate or administer the holy Host to any Now if Walsh have expostulated defended and reproved as above and this after two nay almost three years of patience and silence in such a Cause against such an assertion such enormous errours and impostures such more then abominable plots and attempts who that considers the thing as it deserves can object against him that he has spoken more freely than became him But the Cardinal is Protector Corrector and Governour of the Order of the Minors and by consequence has the power of a Prelate and lawful Superiour over Walsh and yet against him much here is said I have granted this before But is it therefore not lawful for Walsh in this or the like case to use the freedom which he here uses or what do you think of St. Peter what of St. Paul what of that reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul St. Paul was the last of the Apostles was called not the ordinary way was the Thirteenth was one who said He was not worthy the name of an Apostle St. Peter was the first chief greatest Prince of the Apostolical Order and Prince
Subjects though it be evident that neither of these positions can be deduced from the words of that Oath or their true genuine plain natural and proper sense or any sense but strain'd by a malicious or at least erroneous interpretation nor even from the intent and end of the Oath even extrinsecal end I mean or that given it by the Legislators as far I say as is possible for any other man to know and after all since 't is manifest that there has not been so much as any rumour spread that any one or more determinate and individual Proposition or Propositions is couch'd in ours which can agree with that one or more in the Oath of King James which Paul the V I do not say censured but which He but intended desired or willed so to censure which intention nevertheless desire or will He did not express in any manner sufficient to condemn any determinate Proposition and consequently either to inform the faithful what was just what unjust what holy what wicked of the matters contain'd in that Oath or to oblige any of the faithful although other conditions had not been wanting to reject any particular or individual Proposition nay peradventure not so much as in general and indefinitely or undeterminately and confusedly and farther because 't is equally and most evidently manifest that the power of the Pope is not touch't so much as afar off either directly or indirectly or by any consequence nor any truly spiritual power of any other one or more Bishops or Ecclesiasticks that is that no such power is either wholly or in part deny'd by our Form much less either the Primacy of the Pope or his power of making any properly Ecclesiastical censure against any whosoever even Kings lastly because t is manifest that that Brief of Paul the V. is in truth purely declarative and no way constitutive of new right and that declaratory Letters Bulls or whatever Papal Laws do not oblige in conscience if they relie upon a false doubtful or only probable ground and that the aforesaid Brief relies upon a doubtful at best or only probable if not plainly a manifestly false reason to wit that which is given above since I say the truth of all these things is abundantly manifest I do not see how your Lordship can without injury to our Holy Father Alexander the VII write every whither as for these three whole years you have done that such is His judgment and that He answered as above That t was needless for Him to censure our Protestation of new the censure given by Paul the V. c. being sufficient However this be i. e. whether your Lordship have in this particular done well or ill whether his Holiness said so or no in or out of Consistory whether He writ in his own hand or in another hand with his name to it or only caus'd his mind opinion and judgment to be intimated to your Lordship or neither writ nor caus'd such intimation to be given the matter is not great because as I said before your Lordship produces no Original or Copy of such Letters by which the oral judgment of the Pope Vivae vocis craculo as they call it may appear And because besides it may be reasonably presumed from the allegation it self especially if the circumstances be weigh'd with it that our Holy Father Alexander was deceiv'd by the like bad interpretation as well of the sense of the words as of the intention scope and end of our Form made by the Divines of his Court to whom he committed the business as Paul the V. was by his eight Divines who blasted the Oath of King James Lastly because that judgment of the Pope supposing it true as is alledged did not proceed ex Cathedra From the nature of which last exception I confess it follows that although in this or the like Controversie you should produce some private Letter of his Holiness himself even under his own hand we should yet think it free for us to put in our exceptions For however we should respect and kiss the Seal of his Holiness yet in such a private Letter we should acknowledge the judgment of Alexander as a private man not as Pope and should take it for the opinion of a particular Divine or Canonist not for a determination of the Judge of the Universal Church giving sentence in his sacred Tribunal and consequently should deny any manner of prejudice could thence arise to our cause Neither can your Lordship wonder at this For if the Briefs themselves of Popes though directed to a People Kingdom or entire Nation so they be not directed to all the faithful of Christ over all the world pass for private Letters of the Pope as Eudaemon-Joannes himself in the Preface to the Parallel of Tortus confesses otherwise a keen maintainer not of the Rights only but of all Pretensions of Popes or if as is in some manner touch't before such kind of Apostolical Letters that is Briefs and likewise Bulls directed to some one Province or Kingdom whether they be called private or publick are not esteemed of themselves alone to oblige any body to assent to the matters declared upon which ground amongst many others the Catholicks of England now for these Fifty years and more are not moved by that above-mentioned declaratory Brief of Paul the V. though dated at Rome and under the Seal of the Fisher why should your Lordship think that in the present Controversie any one should be moved by Letters without comparison more private and less inducing certainty as being written by the Pope to a single person and that his own Internuncio And I confess besides that to this t is consequent that although it were wholly certain that He had so judged and judged with truth that is that certain Propositions of King James's Oath had been condemn'd by Paul the V. and that the same were contained in our Protestation and it were no less certain that such censure of His were directed by an Apostolical Brief either to the English alone or Irish or both but not to all Christians over the world lastly that it were likewise certain that these Apostolical Letters in form of Brief or Bull had not been procured by concealing any thing true or alledging any thing false or by any other fraud nor granted out of anger hatred ambition fear c. nor any way extorted but proceeded from certain knowledge and the proper motion of his Holiness and that all usual formality and all solemnity of publication and promulgation according to custom had been observ'd we should yet think is free likewise for Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers and any other Divines vers't in the present Controversie so they preserve the reverence due to his Holiness and the first See to dissent except expostulate unless his Holiness or some body else should happen in those or other Letters or some other way to convince by irrefragable Reasons the
on ill terms that very year 1663 as it was likewise most certainly known That the University of Paris headed by the Archbishop of the same City went in body and May 8. 1663 presented to his said Majesty the foresaid Six Declarations against the pretended Authority of Popes Which was in Substance what I then answered the Primat who had not a word more to reply but sate down and was silent To Father Nettervil whose confidence or rather want of ingenuity and candor in making in such a Consistory in Publick an objection so notoriously false and even to all Divines who had been any way conversant in the question or in Histories or in other Authors that treated of it at any time in the succession of so many Ages since Gregory the VII commonly known to be notoriously false I much more admired than the Primats because this Father I knew to be not only a Noblemans Son but also as he was for Elocution truly one of the best Speakers in that whole Congregation so he had amongst his own Society the repute of a great Divine as having been both by Title a Doctor and by Office too for some years an actual Professor i. e. Teacher of Divinity in one of their Colledges in France I answered 1. That I could not sufficiently admire his little regard not only of truth but of himself or his own credit when in such an Assembly where there could not be wanting some at least indifferently Knowing Learned and Ingenuous men he durst venture to take an exception so notoriously false against my discourse 2. That he needed not go far to see himself manifestly convinced but open the Books there in that very Room prepared for the conjunction of all such and whatever other false exceptions obiections allegations or arguments of any Dissenters 3. That he might see there in Father Carons both English Loyalty Asserted and Latin Remonstrantia Hibernorum above 250 Roman Catholick Authors who had never been either Schysmaticks or Poets and might see them declaring constantly for that Doctrin which he said was Patronized only by one Schysmatick Historian and one Italian Poet and might see amongst them many even Classical Schoolmen Doctors and Divines of the very first rank and greatest Fame 4. That although he mentioned not the names of those Authors he spoke of so unjustly with contempt yet for as much as I doubted not he mean'd only Sigebertus Gemblacencis and Dante 's Aligherius I must tell the Fathers that not even Bellarmin himself dared once to charge Sigebert with having been a Schysmatick Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles in Sigeberto although he the said Bellarmin charged this Sigebert to have been for the Emperous sake iniquior Gregorio Septimo and that Dante 's Aligherius notwithstanding his being a great Poet had shewed himself withal to be a great Philosopher Divine Historian Civilian c. in that work he writ against the vain pretences of the Pope in Temporal matters above the Emperour where he gives such arguments as are unanswerable by any would undervalue him for being a Poet. Nay That St. Gregory Nazianzen might be undervalued upon the same account being he was so great and excellent a Poet yea so much addicted to Poetry as his Divine Works do shew 5. That if any doubted of the truth of Father Caron's quotations of Authors or would besides enter into and dispute of the Merits of the main Cause viz. of the Doctrin of the Remonstrance I was ready to justifie all there in publick before the whole Assembly and to that end to bring out of my own partly and partly out of the Dublin Colledg Library all those other Books whatsoever they demanded besides Holy Scriptures viz. Councils Fathers Ecclesiastical Historians the Bodies of the Canon and Civil Laws Scholastick Divines and even the late Expositors of Scripture c. 6. And Lastly That there was nothing I desired more than such a serious and Publick debate if any pretended yet unsatisfaction being it was chiefly for that end I drew the Letters of Indiction or invitation of them to this National Assembly in such form as obliged the Superiours to bring along with them a competent number of professed Divines who should and might be able as well to find out all errors of the Formulary if any were as to declare there was none in case they should be convinced of no Error at all therein And such indeed as to the substance was my answer to Father Nettervil Against which neither he nor any other replyed a word Wherefore I returned back to the prosecution of my former discourse beginning where I was interrupted and continuing to the end as I have shewn before Having done I took leave of the Fathers that day giving them so the more freedom to debate in my absence For I will not trouble the Reader now with the Chairmans complements acknowledgments thanks given me after I had ended and before I went forth Nor will I mention how I had that morning taken care to lay on the publick Table before the Fathers as many Printed Copies both of the Remonstrance it self and of not only my own little book entituled The More Ample Account which gives a full account thereof and answers all the first Objections or Exceptions made at London by the First Dissentors but also of Father Carons Loyalty Asserted as there were Members of the Congregation besides some few Copies more of Carons Latin Folio Book against the Louain Censure dispersed amongst them and one to remain still in a publick place for them to consult and besides also a Copy for every one of them of all other Printed Papers and little Books of my own which came forth for their good since the Kings most happy Restitution But that which is more material to give at length here is a true exact Copy of those Six Sorbon Declarations in the year 1663. and of the most Christian Kings Royal Publick and Printed Declaration in pursuance of the said Academical ones Of both I have by me still the Printed Copy brought to Ireland in the year 1664. out of France by the R. Father Thomas Harold of the Franciscan Order Reader Jubilat of Divinity Out of which genuin Printed French Copy take this other following as agreeing word by word with that very individual Copy of Father Harolds DECLARATION DU ROY Pour faire enregistrer au Parlement de Bretagne celle contre les Maximes des Vltramontains Verifiee audit Parlement le 21. d' Aoust 1663. LOUIS par la grace de Dieu Roy de France de Navarre A tous ceux qui ces presentes Lettres verront Salut La Faculte de Theologie de notre bonne Ville de Paris qui depuis son establissement a este le plus ferme apuy de la Religion de la saine doctrine dans nostre Royaume qui a toujours fait profession des opposer fortement a ceux qui ont voulu en alterer la purete
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
that exemption be indeed or truly amounts to I pass over the little value many Countries of the Pope's even very strict communion and both many great and Catholick and Classick Authors too even very great sticklers for the Papacy it self as de jure divino have for this Bull or obligation of it yea notwithstanding all the solemnity used at Rome every year in renewing it How yet they will not receive nor publish it nor suffer it to be published amongst themselves nor hold themselves obliged at all by the publication of it either at Rome or in other places Whereof as enough may be seen in Suarez and Salas de Legibus where they treat of this subject so that was a notable instance which happen'd at Brussels in Albert and Isabels Principality over the Low Countreys resigned to them for ever by the King of Spain Philip the Second when the Nuncio Apostolick there at that time an Italian Archbishop thought he had met with such a conjuncture as therein he might introduce that Bull and therefore caused it to be affixed to the gates of the great Church of St. Gudula yet by commands from the Council of Brabant and Archbishop of Mechlin it was presently torn and pulled down quia non accessit placitum Principis and therefore too any further publication or observation of it prohibited ever since Which relation I had my self from the reverend Fathers de Young and Derkennis two famous professors of Divinity in the Colledge of the Jesuits at Lovaine when I studied in that University But whether this be so or no or whether the great number of those very famous Catholick Divines quoted by Suarez and Salas and by others too who maintain stiffely that Bulla caenae obliges no man in any Diocess out of the temporal Patrimony of the Roman Bishop as neither any other Bull of the Pope at least in matters of Discipline where not legally both published and received by the particular Churches Bishops Princes Clergy and People whether I say that great number of Divines be well grounded or no in maintaining so the invalidity of this Bull of the Supper without a special publication and reception in every particular Diocess neither the one viz. of that relation of the Fathers nor the other to wit of these Divines matters one pinn For I have shewed already that whether so or no whether without such particular publication and reception obliging or not obliging according to its tenour it hath not one word or clause to prove Bellarmin's voluit if by voluit he understand what he ought to our present purpose that is if the Pope's having actually or de facto as much as in him exempted Clerks by a Decretal Epistle Bull or Brief or other Declaration whatsoever sufficient for such purpose as much as according to the doctrine of the very Roman Divines and exempted them too even from the very supream civil power it self of temporal Princes or States For I confess that if any will understand by Bellarmine's voluit a meer inclination affection or good will of Popes to do so if they had found it feasible or according to the rules of prudence to do so that is if they feared not to loose all by doing so it may be granted and ought to be granted that within this last five hundred years many Popes have been spirited so whereof that conroversie in particular of Paul the V. with the Venetians in the year 1606. is for that one Pope a very notable instance But withal it must be granted on the other side that either this is not it which Bellarmine intended by his voluit or at least that he intended nothing to even his own purpose For such a will signifies nothing because not executed The contests therefore of several Popes with several Princes or States about jurisdiction as relating to Clerks argues no more but that such Popes did suppose or at least would have others believe they did suppose Clerks already or by some former law of God or Man or by humane custom in some places left in all causes whatsoever to the Court Ecclesiastical But argues not that any of themselves or other former or latter Popes whosoever did so exempt or attempted to exempt them so And for their suppositions or euen admonitions and comminations of censures nay or actual and manifold censures fulminated in such controversies against their opposers it is apparent in Ecclesiastical History they were little regarded by Princes or States or by other particular Churches of the papal communion or by their Divines Whereof also besides the State of Venice and several other Kingdoms and Principalities we have a most singular argument in the proceedings of Philip the Second that most religious and Catholick King of Spain when after the Usurpation of the Crown of Portugal by Anthony the Bastard Prior of Crati who by the faction and countenance chiefly of the Churchmen of Portugal got himself crown'd he reduced and subdued Portugal to himself as the more lawful Heir of that Kingdom For Spondanus ad Annum Christi 1581. tells how this great Catholick King expresly refused to extend to the religious of Portugal his Act of general Indemnity which in the general Assembly of Estates held by himself at Lisbone the said year he granted all those other Portugueses had opposed his title or the Duke of Alva his General or who had submitted to the said Anthony Nay excluded positively in the same Act and from the benefit of it all the Regulars or Monks of Portugal and besides them none at all but the said Prior Anthony himself the Bastard Usurper illegitimate Sou to Prince Lodovicus Franciscus Portugallus Count Vimiosi Iohn his brother Bishop of Guardia fifty other principal ring-leaders of Anthonie's faction And tells moreover that notwithstanding the general discontent arising from such exclusion or exception and notwithstanding all the frequent expostulations and supplications to his Catholick Majesty to mitigate this rigour he could never be wrought upon until at least two thousand Priests and Monks had by several kinds of violent deaths in several places partly within Portugal it self and partly abroad in the Islands of Azoras been destroyed in the prosecution of the warr against the relicks of Anthoni's Faction whereof also many were said to have been privatly dispatch'd It is true indeed that Thuanus L. 74. quoted by Spondanus ad annum Christi 1583. relates how it was rumour'd that Philip by his Embassadours at Rome obtained a Bull wherein the Pope pardoned him the killing of two thousand persons consecrated to God by a sacred and religious life But it is also true that neither Spondanus himself though a very precise religious Catholick Bishop and a great defender of all just laws of Popes and priviledges of the Clergy nor any other Historian or Writer I have yet seen reprehends nor tells that any other Divine or Clerk or even the Pope himself did reprehend King Philip as having violated
Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption by such his proceedings What therefore might be the cause of his desiring or accepting such a Bull if the story of it be true we may easily conteive to be of one side King Philips inexorable rigour I will not say cruelty first in excluding so many thousand religious and sacred men from all pardon and grace and next in pursuing and destroying them as irreconciliable enemies when he might have made them very tractable Subjects and on the other the Popes pretence of even the temporal Soveraignty or supream Lordship of the Country and Kingdom of Portugal as having been made tributary to the Church of Rome by Alphonsus the first Duke and King thereof according to Baronius ad annum Christi 1144. and the proceedings after of several Popes against some Kings of Portugal upon that ground by excommunicating and deposing some instituting others in their place and by exacting of them yearly at first agreed upon under Lucius the II. four ounces of Gold and after that four Marks of Gold under Alexander the IV. as an acknowledgement of his being the supream Lord of it or of its being held in Fee from the Bishops of Rome King Philip therefore to establish himself against the titles of so many other pretendents to that Crown thought it the safest way when he had done his work to make all sure with the Pope for after-times and get himself acknowledged King of Portugal even by him who pretended to be supream Lord of the Fee Though otherwise it be apparent also in Baronius that the Kings of Portugal did acknowledge so much dependence from the Kings of Castile as being bound to appear at their Court when called upon and give them three hundred Souldiers to serve against the Moors amounts unto But this could be no prejudice to a former independent and supream right of Popes to Portugal if there was any such especially whereas the same Barnius makes Castile it self feudatary to nay all Spain (a) Baron ad an Christiâ—â—â— â—01 〈◊〉 1703 the property of the of See Rome as likewise he doth in several places of his Annals all the Kingdoms of Christendome not even France (b) ad an 702. it self excepted And therefore nothing can be concluded from King Philips admission of this Bull but either his remorse of having abused that power God gave him over those religious men or used it in so much more like a Tyrant then a King unless peradventure he perswaded himself upon evident grounds they would never be true to him or his wariness in seeming so the more observant of the Pope in all things according to the maximes of Campanella while he drove at the universal Monarchy But however this be or not its plain enough out of his so publick refusal in the face of the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile and in that publick Assembly of all the Estates amongst which the Ecclesiastical was the chief and out of his so long and severe prosecution and persecution of those Monks for three whole years till he destroyed them all and out also of the silence even by the Ecclesiasticks themselves of that argument of exemption when the occasion to alledge it was the greatest might be offered at any time and finally out of his receiving continually the most holy Sacraments of the Church all that time without any reprehension or objection made to him by the Church of so publick and so scandalous and so bloody and sacrilegious violation of her pretended nearest and dearest laws I say it is plain enough out of all that whatever the story be of that Bull or whatever the true or pretended motives of King Philip to accept of it neither his own Subjects of Spain or Portugal Clerks or Laicks nor those of other Churches or Kingdoms either Princes or people nor even the Prelats or Pope himself that was then did any way so regard the suppositions or even admonitions comminations nay or even actual censures of other Popes in their Bulla caenae or otherwise as to think perswade themselves that a true obliging canon or law either of God or Man of the State or Church or even as much as of the Pope himself could be concluded thence for any real or true exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power in criminal causes And so I have done with Bellarmines voluit As for his other saying above That hitherto only Hereticks have contradicted this kind of Exemption even this so extraordinary and extravagant exemption of all Clerks in all temporal causes whatsoever civil or criminal from the supream civil and coercive power I remit the Reader to the next following Section saving one where he shall see a farr other sort of Doctors then Hereticks to contradict it even Austins and Hieroms and Chrysostoms and Gregories nay the whole Catholick Church in all ages until these later and worser times wherein the contest was raised first and again renewed by some few Popes and their Partizans against the supream temporal power of Emperours Kings and States Only you are to take notice here Good Reader That 't is but too too familiar with our great Cardinal to make Hereticks only the opposers of such private or particular but false opinions or doctrines of his own as he would impose as the doctrines of the Catholick Church on his undiscerning Readers as on the other side to make the most notorious Arch-hereticks to be the patrons of such other doctrines as himself opposes and would fright his Readers from how well and clearly soever grounded in Scriptures Fathers Councils Reason Which is the very true genuine cause wherefore he gives us where he treats of such questions so exact a list of those chief and most notorious Hereticks who held against him on the point and gives them also in the very beginning of his chapter or controversie whatever it be As in this of Ecclesiastical Exemption besides what I have quoted now out of his book against Barclay cap. 35. he tells us l. de Cleric c. 28. First in general that very many Hereticks contend that all Clerks of what soever degree are de jure â—â—vin by the law of God or by the same law ought to be subject to the secular power both in paying tributes and in judicial proceedings or causes Secondly that Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno though Catholick Lawyers to Lodâ—uick of Bauer the Emperour but esteemed Hereticks by Bellarmine because some tenets of theirs were condemned by Iohn the XXII Pope of that name taught that not even our Sauiour himself was free from tribute and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the didrachme or tribute money he did not freely without any obligation to do so but necessarily that is to satisfie the obligation he had on him to do so Thirdly that Iâ—hn Calvin l. 4. Institut c. 11. Parag. 15. teaches that all Clerks ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of secular Magistrats excepting