of a Lay Judg in such a cause of debt challenged on a Clerk should be tearmd heer damnable presumption and temerity Yet reason tels us that Boniface supposed a former law or priviledg exempting Clerks in such a cause the breaking of which law or priviledg most have been it which he calls heer damnable presumption and temerity But who made this law or gave this priviledg whether Emperours and other Kings or whether the Pope alone or even with other Bishops or also whether God himself immediately this canon of Boniface determines not at all And though Boniface therein commands the Ordinarie to proceed with Ecclesiastical censures against such Lay judges as would presume to give sentence in a cause of debt against a Clergieman yet so might Boniface have done nay and justly too have done if such a law of exemption had been formerly made by the supream civil power and onely by this power Because even in this case Clergiemen had acquired a civil right not to be proceeded against by such inferiour Lay judges And consequently the Bishops might use the censures of the Church for defence of it as they might for defence of any other civil right in either Clergie or Layety until the same supream civil power did repeal such law or transferre again such right For so long and no longer should this law of Boniface for excommunicating such Lay Judges by the ordinaries continue So that out of so many heads either joyntly or severally taken it appears this cap. seculares de foro competenti in 6. is no sufficient proof at all that ever any Pope hath as much as de facto exempted Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power though I confess it must have supposed them formerly exempted by some power in some civil causes from inferiour Lay Judges But what 's this to purpose 7. That for the later of these two canons or cap. Clericis de Immuniâ— Eceles in 6. though it cannot be denyed that Boniface flew so high therein excommunicating all Rectors Captains Powers Barons Counts Dukes Princes Kings Emperours c. who imposed on or exacted or even received from Churchmen or Churchlands or goods any kind of burdens tallies or collections and halfs tenths twentieths hundreths or any other portion or share whatsoever of their profits or revenues as likewise all Prelats and Ecclesiasticks whosoever both secular and Regular who should pay any such under what pretext soever without express permission from himself or other Bishop of Rome succeeding him though I say all this cannot be denyed to have been so notoriously done by Boniface that it was necessary to correct so great an extravagancy of his and correct it even in a general Council which soon after his death followed under Clement the V. at Vienna in France and to revoke it wholly as may be seen by Clementina Quoniani de Immunitate Ecclesiarum yet I say withal that Boniface decreed nothing in this very chapter Clericis that may be alleadged with any reason for Bellarmine's voluit that is nothing for a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of very meer temporal Princes nay nor for a power in either to exempt Clerks from such payments Not for the former power because he speaks onely here of such payment and such payments are very different from other causes criminal or civil also Nor for the later because albeit he proceed so vigorously against all such as would either exact or receive such payments how freely soever made otherwise or would submit or consent to such payments without his own express consent yet all this he did as supposing the lands and other goods of the Church and the Churchmen themselves before exempted from all such payments and yet determines not here nor else where it was by the power of either Pope or Church they were so before exempted And Boniface perswaded himself that by what power soever they had been so exempt or by what law soever divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical those of Emperours or Kings or those of Popes or other Bishops it was his own part to see an exact observance of such exemption and that he might to this end make use of his Ecclesiastical or spiritual censures And questionless had his supposition been true in the whole latitude of it concerning an exemption so general from all kind of tributs taxe c. in all contingencies whatsoever and by what power soever even the highest supream civil on earth laid on or received from Churchlands Goods or Persons he might observing due moderation command under meer and pure spiritual censures the due observance of such exemption though granted only by the meer temporal power and civil laws But this supposition was not right and he exceeded therefore and therefore too this Decree of his was totally annulled in the above Clementina Quoniam as I have said already 8. That for the Bull which is commonly called Bulla caenae as being yearly and with so great solemnity published and renewed at Rome on Maundy Thursday when the last Supper of our Lord is specially remembred whence it is that name of the Bull of the Supper is derived nothing at all can be concluded from it for any such voluit of Bellarmine For albeit amongst twenty special excommunications contained therein against several sorts of persons or delinquents there are at least four large ones with a huge variety of clauses particularly against so many sorts of infringers or presumed infringers of Ecclesiastical Exemption Immunity or as that Bull calls it Ecclesiastical Liberty videlicet XIV XV. XVI XVII XVIII Excommunication yet as the Pope assumes not pretends not in this Bull that himself thereby gives that liberty so he determines not therein who gave that liberty immunity or exemption to Churchmen whether God or Man And if man whether the Popes themselves or Church or whether not the Emperours and Kings As neither doth he there determine that in truth they had formerly from either God or Man or Pope or Prince or State or Church all those liberties or even any in particular of those liberties against the infringers of which he proceeds in that Bull with so great severity The Pope therefore only supposes that Churchmen had by some law or some fact of God or Man of Church or State or of the lay Princes and people these liberties But from which he sayes nothing in the Bull. Now we know that suppositions are no arguments of a determination in the case For so our own School-Divines and Bellarmine himself elsewhere de Concilior authoritat and truth it self do teach us whereof I have before given the reason Whence it appears evidently this Bulla caenae is to as little purpose alledged as any of those former papal canons for the Popes having been he that gave de facto Ecclesiastical Exemption from either supream or subordinate secular Judicatories in temporal matters whatsoever
only such causes as are meerly Ecclesiastical That Peter Martyr in cap. 13. ad Roman not only teaches the very same but further adds that Princes could not give Clerks the priviledge to be exempt from or not to be subject to the politick Magistrats because sayes Martyr this would be against the law of God and therefore that notwithstanding any concessions of Princes Clerks ought alwayes to be subject to the secular Magistrats And that Ioannes Brentius in Prologamâ—nis and Melanchthon in locis cap. de Magistrat subject Ecclesiasticks to the secular Tribunals even in matters and causes Ecclesiastical But who is so weak as to be frighted from any truth because maintained also or asserted by some lyars Or who knows not that all both Hereticks and Arch-hereticks too joyn with the most orthodox in many both Philosophical and Theological Natural and Moral Divine and Humane positions and even in very many of the most precise uncontroverted revelations of Christian Faith Must it be suspected to be a Christian Truth that Jesus Christ is the Messias promised that he is the Son of God that there are three persons in the Godhead that there are some Sacraments of the new Testament that Christ was born of a Virgin that he suffered for Mankind that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead c. must I say any of these be suspected not to say rejected because Melanchthon or Brentius or Martyr or even Calvin himself or Luther beleeve and maintain them against other Hereticks If therefore they or any other such as they taught also this truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from but subject to the supream civil coercive power of Princes which only is it I undertake here to maintain must Bellarmine therefore think to fright us from saying the same thing although we say it not at all because they did And yet I must further tell the Readers and Admirers of Bellarmine although my task here require it not 1. That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of a yet more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the di-drachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condemned nor censured at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters 2. That if Calvin pretend no more but that Clerks ought to be subject in politick matters to the supream temporal Magistrate and where the same temporal doth not exempt them insomuch he speaks not his own sense but the sense he was formerly taught in the Catholick Church which yet in so many other points he unhappily deserted Thirdly That although if Martyr be understood also of inferiour Magistrats as I doubt not much he ought to be his addition be absolutely and simply false yet if understood of the supream onely as perhaps others may understand him and of Clerks living still as Subjects under any such temporal power supream and acknowledging and owning it for such and themselves for Subjects Martyr was not out by saying in this Hypothesis that Princes could not in secular matters exempt Clerks from the secular Magistrat vz. from the supream secular Fourthly That although also if Brentius and Melanchthon understood by causes Ecclesiastical those which are purely and originally such and not those which by custome onely or concession of Princes or because onely permitted or delegated by Princes or their laws to the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Judges are now and have been a long time called Ecclesiastical vz. per denominationem extrinsecam by an extrinsick denomination from such Ecclesiastical Judges not by any intrinsick assumed from the nature of the causes which in themselves otherwise are meerly civil or temporal as for example usury adultery theft committed in Sacred places or of Sacred things c I say that although if not this latter kind of Ecclesiastical causes but the former be understood by Melanchthon and Brentius and if they further mean'd that Clerks are to acquiesce finally in the judgment or determination of the temporal Magistrat in all such pure Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes it must be confessed their doctrine or this meaning of it is very false and heretical yet if they understood onely the second sort of Ecclesiastical causes and by secular Magistrats intended onely the supream secular it must be also confess'd that in so much they spoke orthodoxly Besides that none may upon rational grounds deny to Kings and other supream temporal Governours a certain kind of external and temporal or politick and civil superintendency even of the very truest and purest Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes of the Church such as are those of believing this or that to have been revealed by God of Ministring the Sacraments in this or that manner and with convenient or decent rites c. Provided they do not use nor attempt to use immediately by themselves or even mediately by others and by vertue of their own proper authority other means or execution of such superintendency but such means and execution as are meerly temporal and corporal or such as are answerable to the civil power and sword Which kind of superintendency and supream civil coercive judicatory power annexed and I mean also annexed in order to such spiritual causes no man will deny to Kings that will consider it is onely from their supream coercive power the Ministers of justice derive authority to put any man to death for Apostacy Infidelity or Heresy in Faith or doctrine or Sacriledg in the administration of Sacraments For it is not the Bishop or Church that by any power Episcopal or Church power adjudgeth any Clerk to death for denying or renouncing Christianity or any Priest for poysoning his communicant at the Sacred Altar or with a Sacred or unsacred hoast but the King and State and their laws and power So that these onely are still the supream Judges for temporal and corporal and civil punishment or coercion whether by death or otherwise and let the cause be never so spiritual or let the crime be committed in matters or things never so purely strictly or solely Ecclesiastical And therefore if Brentius and Melanchthon intend no more but this by saying that Ecclesiasticks were not exempt but subject even in causes Ecclesiastical to the supream civil power they both meand and sayed in so much but what the Catholick Church had taught them As if they meand any more that is if they meand to say that Ecclesiasticks
maximes of other concessions of Bellarmine himself and partly of pure and clear dictats of natural reason and such as reduce all Adversaries to plain contradiction not onely of their own concessions but of the very notions of Superiority and Inferiority Prefection and Subjection Obedience and Government nay and of the very ends and essence of a commonwealth nay and also of the very nature of Relatives and Correlatives which require that both be at least together understood or neither be as a Father cannot be understood without a Son be also understood LXXIII My fourth grand argument shall take up this whole Section because it is my grand argument indeed as that on which as a Christian I relye more then upon any other however seeming otherwise the clearest demonstration may be in natural reason or the most convincing proof from either Theological maximes of Schools or other concessions of Adversaries For this fourth is wholly and purely grounded on the revealed word of God himself in holy Scripture taken in that sense the holy Fathers delivered it unanimously from hand to hand all along down at least eleven ages of Christianity until the days of Gregory the Seventh Then which it is very sure there can be no surer argument in Christianity for theory or practise of any tenet Therefore upon this ground also I confidently affirm that Clergiemen are by the very positive law of God so farre from being exempt from supream secular Princes in whose Dominions they live that they are universally and absolutely subject to them that is even to their coercive power in all temporal matters To prove which assertion I shall not make any use of either of the Barclayes the Father or Son as I have sometimes made some use of them hetherto nay often too in some or perhaps in most of the former Sections which treat of Ecclesiastical exemption although not in all nor even in any for all parts But I will take an other method and from my own reading elswhere treat this argument at leingth as likewise what shall be given in the following two or three Sections more which end this whole dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity pretended to be quitted and renounced by the Remonstrance of 61. or at least by the Clergiemen subscribers of it And yet I will neither to prove my assertion make use of that no less true then common doctrine of France and of all other the very best Divines and Catholick Churches vz. That earthly Principalities are immediately instituted by God himself and the supream civil power of Kings as immediately from him as from the sole efficient cause and from the people onely even when they elect their Kings tamquam a conditione sine qua non and no less immediately from him then the spiritual power of Popes can or is by any said to be Nor will I for the same end insist upon that command of our Saviour in St. Matthew 22.21 Reddite quae sum Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo or on that precept of St. Paul to Titus 3.1 Admone illos Principibus potestatibus subditos esse or on that other of Peter 1. Pet. 2.13 Subjecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum sive Regi quasi praecellenti sive Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis or finally on the 8. verse of Judas in his general Epistle where he recounts it amongst the most enormous crimes of some wicked persons that they despise Dominion And I will as little insist on what is repeated concerning this in the Apostolical Constitutions l. 4. cap. 12. lib. 7. cap. 17. whoever was Author of the said Constitutions As also I will pass by for this time without insisting on That supream earthly Princes are within their own Principalities and in all earthly or temporal things the very onely true and proper Vicars of God even by as true at least and well grounded title as the very Popes themselves are said to be the Vicars of God or Christ in all heavenly or purely spiritual matters throughout all Principalities and States of the Earth Albebeit there is no man of reason but sees that this very true title of supream temporal Princes would be enough to evict my purpose However because I would take the shortest way Therefore what I insist upon solely now is that of St. Paul in his epistle to the very Romans themselves Rom. 13.1 Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let every soul be subject to the more sublime powers And besides what I insist upon is the whole discourse following of the same Apostle in the same chapter along consequently to the eight verse if not further For sayes he giving the reason of his former precept in the former words let every soul be subject c. there is no power but of God The powers that be are ordained by or of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation For Rulers are not a terror of good works but to the evil Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise for the same For he is the Minister of God to thee for good for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil Wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake For for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Render therefore to all their dues tribute to whom tribute custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour Owe no man any thing but c. And finally what I insist upon is the necessary sense of these very passages of St. Paul and of the like or to the same purpose and is that very sense I mean as delivered to us in the doctrine and practice of the most holy and most eminent Fathers of Christianity all along as I have said before until the enemy of man oversowed tares among the wheat in the dayes and Popedom of Gregory the VII And yet without any peradventure those very Scripture-passages alone that is the very and only letter of them would be sufficient to perswade the general power of Princes over all men both Laicks and Clerks without further help or addition of the sense and practice of holy Fathers if some late Divines or Schoolmen were not far more pervicacious then became either Christians or even any sort of rational men not to speak at all of Christian Divines Which is the cause that being this sort of men that is some late Scholasticks among whom Cardinal Bellarmine is at least one of the chief have strangely endeavoured to distort the said Scripture passages as rudely to the end they might deprive all even the most Christian and Catholick Princes of this power or that the
all the power of the Emperour Frederick accompanied with such numerous and formidable legions and with all the Princes of Empire and Kings also of Denmark and Bohemia at Avignon whether this Emperour of purpose to entrap Lewis in a conference and force him to quit Alexander and 2. when immediatly after this he also personally visited this Pope Alexander apud Bobiense Monasterium where he was then retired presented him richly and did him so much honour and reverence that after kissing his toe he excused himself from sitting in the chayre prepared for him and with all his Barons sate on the bare ground at his feet and 3. That together with the said King Lewis of France at their meeting upon the River Loyre where this Pope mediated and concluded a peace betwixt them he out of exceeding reverence towards him and to countenance him the more against the Antipope Victor and Frederick the Emperour and for example to his own Subjects and those of France too and all others performed the office of a yeoman of the stirrop upon one side as the King of France did on the other leading his horse by the reyns both of them a foot on the right and left hand till they left him at his lodging as he after continued constant in his observance of this same Pope Alexander all along during the whole Schysme of three Antipopes created against him at such time and such a conjuncture as this Thomas Becket having been so elected by this Henry the Second as we have seen and so confirmed by this Pope Alexander the Third nay and immediatly upon his election and before any word sent to or received from Alexander though so neer him then as Mons Pessulanus in France having received investiture as the custom then yet was in England from a lay hand from that King 's own hand by receiveing from him a staff and a ring the first occasion spring or motive of all their following great long and fatal differences was very soon after unluckily happen'd even the very second year of his Archbishoprick that is immediatly after his return from that great Council of 17 Cardinals a hundred and four and twenty Bishops four hundred and fourteen Abbots and of an infinit number of other Priests and Clerks held in the month of May 1163. by Alexander at Tours in France concerning the Schysme where Alexander did such extraordinary honour to this our Canterbury Archbishop Thomas Becket as to send all his Cardinals two onely excepted who assisted himself out of town to receive him as he came to the Council But that which you are specially to observe here and first of all in order to our main purpose is what the particulars were of this first occasion spring or motives And indeed I confess that as Gulielmus Neuhrigensis tells us in the 16. Chapter of his History that at this Council of Tours though not publickly in the Council but privatly this our St. Thomas of Canterbury resigned his Archbishoprick to Alexander as not being able otherwise to bear the stinging pricks of his own conscience for having received the investiture of it from a lay hand and that Alexander again with his own hand invested him so he also tells us that the sole original cause of all the following fatal differences 'twixt St. Thomas and his King Henry the Second was that he would not suffer the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests that is would not suffer him to have them tryed sentenced and punish'd in the civil Courts or by the civil Judges according to that law which the King said was the law of the land the law and custom of his Predecessours But Cesars Baronius ad an Christi 11â—3 corrects Neubrigensis in both particulars And yet he or his Epitomizer Henricus Spondanus ad an Christi 1163 sayes that Neubrigensis was an Author of that time and both a faithful and accurat Writer Willelmus Neubrigensis sayes he hujus temporis scriptur fidelis aâ—â—enatus However Baronius corrects him in both the said particulars and sayes that as the first of Thomas of Canterburie's resignation happen'd in the year 1164. when being fled out of England he the second time accoasted the same Pope Alexander and presented the heads of those laws about which the consequent main contest was 'twixt the King and him so it appears out of the Acts of our Saints Life written by the before named four Authors of the said Acts that besides that of not suffering the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests which he confesses interceded yet several other causes preceded and most just causes too which imposed a necessity on the Saint to reprehend the King For sayes he these Acts relate how the King came to be incensed against him viz. because he endeavoured to recover from the hands or possession of Lay-men some lands which formerly belong'd to the Church of Canterbury and were unduly alienated by his Predecessors and because he endeavoured likewise to abolish the bad custom which had long prevailed in England that the revenues of vacant Churches should be payed in to and challenged by the Kings Exchequer whereby it came to pass that the Churches were too long of purpose kept vacant and yet because that being Archbishop he quitted his former office of Chancellorship against the Kings will who desired he should keep it still together with his Episcopacy which yet he would not reflecting on that of St. Paul Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus and because moreover he prohibited the exaction of an unjust assessement laid on the subjects and further also because he delivered not to the secular court a certain Priest condemn'd of murther but only degraded him and shut him up in a Monastery for his pennance nor delivered to secular punishment as the King desired another certain criminal Chanon but only laid him under Ecclesiastical Censures And these were the causes or springs of the great contest which followed as Baronius sayes out of the said Acts. And yet I must say that as he doth not as yet out of the same Acts or any thing here said by him out of them disprove what Neubrigensis said to be the only that is the first or sole first cause motive or spring for all these four or five did not happen altogether and that of not delivering the criminal Priest and Chanon to the secular court might have been the first of all for any thing related by him out of those Acts being they distinguish not or declare not particularly as he relates them which was first or last in time so it is clear by Baronius's own prosecution of the history of this Saints troubles and the Kings quarrel to him that this of not delivering those criminal Ecclesiasticks was that onely which occasion'd all the ensueing differences or that onely at least which the King took as the immediat pretence of his first publick quarrel with him and rest of the Bishops
own King sent Embassadors both to Lewis of France and to the Pope to accuse him and pray them especially the King of France not to harbour him at all and partly also to be recommended by them or either of them to some pious refuge where he might serve God in a retired life and in safety from the power of his own incensed King and might not want necessary sustenance being he had nothing left him of his own to live upon Was there or could there be any treason in this He represented the quarrel so and those 16 Heads or customes controverted 'twixt his King and himself so that the Pope and Cardinals with one voyce condemnd them and consequently his King for contriving and forcing them on him and on the rest of England for municipal Laws and Customes But so did Henry also by his own Letters and Embassadours to the same Pope and Cardinals endeavour to get those Customes approved and Thomas in the same manner indirectly condemned for opposing them And as such application to the Pope and Cardinals by the Kings of England at that time was not unlawful not even I mean by the very Laws of England so neither was it as much as by the same Laws unlawful much less treasonable for the Archbishop of Canterbury to declare his Conscience before the Pope and in matter of such or other whatsoever pretended or intruded or forced Laws or Customes whatsoever or either treasonable or unlawful for him to be with the Pope and his Cardinals the cause or primary Instrument of such a condemnation as is proper to the Pope and Cardinals by a meer spiritual sentence or judgment or reprobation or not allowance for as much as belong'd to them or as their such opinion or sentence was desired of such Laws Besides we know that Histories make no mention at all of any Brief or Bull or other authentick Declaration set out by that Pope of his Cardinals or by any other Pope either procured by Thomas or not procured by him against those pretended Customes or against that King for them only and meerly Moreover we know it is no treason for any Bishop Subject to any Prince whatsoever to declare his own Conscience against whatsoever Laws which are desired by the Prince to be establisht for Laws and received especially when the Bishop sees there were no former Laws of the Land obliging him under pain of treason not to oppose such other Laws or Customes or pretended Customes as the Prince would establish for Laws Nay it is plain there could be nor can be in any Common-wealth or Kingdome such former Laws so obliging Bishops or indeed any other Subjects because such would be against the Law of God and Nature and would oblige men to consent to the making even of the most wicked and impious Laws imaginable or at least would oblige those who are in Parliament concern'd to oppose wicked Laws not to oppose them 5. He took a Legatine power from the Pope over England and the Kings person too even in the time of his exile or proscription We find no proscription of him but a voluntary yet for himself necessary exile though we find Edicts and Sanctions against those in England who would receive any Mandats from him or even from the Pope in his cause during that time of his exile And we know it was neither treasonable nor otherwise unlawful by any even Law of England at that time for an English Bishop especially the Archbishop of Canterbury to receive a Legatine power from the Pope over England The Archbishops of Canterbury were both before St. Thomas and after him some of them Legati nati and others Legati dati and other Bishops too in England were sometimes Legati dati and both those and these sometimes at the Kings desire made or with his knowledge and consent and sometimes also without the Kings previous knowledge or desire at all The Laws indeed of Provisors or Premunire obstructed the Custome of procuring or receiving such Legatine Commissions without the Kings permission and approbation But these Laws were made long after i. e. in the Reigns of Edward the Third and Richard the Second We know also the Legatine power was not of its own nature but in meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or in such as the Law and Customes of the Land then did allow it to be and to be without any derogation to the Kings Majesty or Peoples safety And that if at any time otherwise exercised it was the fault of the Legat and neglect of the Prince to suffer such exercise For so the very ordinary Episcopal power of even inferiour English Bishops might be abused by the Bishops Yet the Law did allow their power though not the abuse of it Nor was it treasonable nor otherwise unlawful not even by the laws of England then that a Commission of meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power and cognizance extending to the Kings own very Person should be received without his consent nay or against his consent from Rome however perhaps it might be imprudential in a subject to receive it so For the very ordinary power of a Bishop where-ever the King resides in his Diocess extends so also to the Kings own Person that laying aside some particular priviledge or exemption given by a superiour Church-power to the King from the spiritual cognizance or jurisdiction of such a Bishop he may if just cause be proceed spiritually against the King himself by name and so proceed that in case of necessity and expediency he may either interdict him from the Church or even also excommunicate him Evangelically that is declare him separated from the spiritual Communion of all the Faithful and may do all this without any treason at all For a pure Evangelical excommunication or such I mean as is grounded in the Gospel whatever be said of Papal excommunication or of excommunication taken with all its rigour extention or effects according to some Papal Canons or Constitutions entrenches not upon the temporal rights of any nor separates any from such civil Communion of the faithful as the same faithful or any or some of them are otherwise bound by the law of God or man or nature to pay to another And consequently pronounced by a Bishop against his Kings own Person by name cannot be any way a diminution of Royal Majesty being this requires not to be exempt from the power or even effect of such an excommunication which hath no temporal effect nor bereaves of any temporal power at all nor consequently can by any just law amongst Christians be made treasonable not even in an Ordinary Bishop who is the Ordinary of the Diocess and hath not his Episcopal power restrained by any Cannon or any command of a superiour Bishop But whether it can or no I am sure there was no Law then in England making it treason in a Bishop as I have stated the case much less in a Canterbury Archbishop Legat. 6. He
threatned and prepared also to interdict the Kings Dominions Let it be so as indeed Historians confess it was so And let it be so too that he prepared to publish both a local and personal interdict and which is more yet to excommunicate the Kings own Person for I confess also this very last of preparing to excommunicate the King though nothing out of History of what quality the interdict was to be or whether not only local but also personal And though reason tells us and we are not without reason or History to presume otherwise then that if personal also it was only to be against such persons as gave cause for such interdict however it was not reason either by the law of the Land at least then or by the nature of even such interdict the most general could be Not by the Law because none such is alledged nor indeed can be being it is very certain that Ecclesiastical Discipline Jurisdiction and censures were allowed then by the Law or Custome of England to be exercised in all the formality of the Canons Nor by its own nature because it is a pure spiritual penalty depriving only of Divine Offices and Ecclesiastical Burial and of some Sacraments viz. Eucharist Order Matrimony and in some cases of that of Pennance too As for the Saints preparing to excommunicate the King I have said enough of that already or of the nature and effects of the excommunication which he was resolved to pronounce had the peace not been made And I am sure we have example enough in St. Ambrose interdicting the great Roman and Christian Emperor of the World Theodosius from entring his Church at Millan that Ecclesiastical censures as such pronounced against a King by his Bishop however otherwise in temporals his own subject render not the Bishop a traytor against his King or Countrey And if you say that such general interdicts of a Kingdom are sometime causes or occasions of the peoples rising in armes against the Prince what then they are not so by their own nature nor commonly so as much as by accident or by the mallice or folly or impatience of such as abuse them The pure preaching of the Gospel hath been sometimes through the malice of men an occasion of armes and wars and slaughter of subjects and of Princes too And the holiest things and best means and wholsomest Physick may be abused Must this hinder the right use of them or must it render Christian remedies treasonable among Christians that even some Popes or some Prelates or some other Clerks or some people have either actually made evil use of them or intended to do so But for such intention it cannot be fix'd on St. Thomas of Canterbury and I shall give presently sufficient arguments that it could not be so fixed on him nay that really he had not any such And yet in the mean time I confess I am not my self in my own judgement nor ever was since I understood any thing in Theology for the practice nay or Theory of such general interdicts of a Kingdome either local or personal much less of any mixt of both nor even of a Province Diocess City or University But this is not my work now whether my own private opinion or judgement herein be right or not as I do not absolutely averr that it is right nor is it requisite I should here give my self or others the trouble of discussing the grounds Pro or Con. 7. But Pope Alexander threatned by his last Embassadours or Legats and bitter express Letters to King Henry the Second that if he did not receive Thomas to peace and without prosecution of the 16 Customes he would proceed against him as he had lately against the Emperour Frederick that is to a sentential deposition of him from his Crown and Kingdome or to the actual raising in War of both his own Subjects and of those were not his own Subjects against him Thomas of Canterbury had no hand in contriving such an Embassy or in procuring such Letters as to these particulars He solicited indeed by his own Letters from France to Alexander at Rome and so did the King of France and some of the Bishops of France most earnestly that the Pope would be pleased to recall his own late Papal suspension of the Legatine Commission and his own late Papal exemption given to King Henry the Second at the same Henry's earnest suit by his Embassadour from Thomas's both extraordinary power of a Legat and Ordinary of the Archbishop of Canterbury over King Henry and licence him to proceed Ecclesiastically against this King And no more appears out of History that Thomas solicited the Pope in if not peradventure that the Pope himself would immediately by himself proceed against Henry in the same manner was uncontroulably allowed by all the Christian Church then and all the Christian Common-wealth that is to a pure spiritual excommunication and pure spiritual interdict If the Pope exceeded both the desires of Thomas and power of Alexander what was that to Thomas For I confess that if Henry the Second did not acknowledge himself Alexanders vassal in temporals or his Kingdome tributary or to hold it in fee from Rome or that it was so then indeed by some kind of true humane right then certainly it must follow that Alexanders threats were not well grounded nor just but very injurious and very erroneous too though not treasonable in him because he was no Subject of Henry's I say if because I do not certainly know what the conscience of Henry or well or ill grounded opinion of English men generally was at that time I see that this very same Henry a little before took such a Bull for the invasion of Ireland from Adrian the fourth Pope of that name an English man who sate immediately before this Alexander that gives much ground to think that either he was perswaded the Pope had a supream even I mean temporal right to all the Christian Islands at least in the West or that he would make use of any the most improbable and ridiculous title what soever to invade and possess other mens rights And I see that he trembled at the very mention of the Popes interposition But however this matter be nothing appears out of History or ancient Records of the Saints Letters and whence should we know or should Henry the 8th after 300 years know but from History or such Records that our Saint had any kind of hand directly or indirectly in procuring or intending such a message from Alexander the III. to Henry the II. And we know Alexander was his own Master and that being setled at Rome and having humbled Frederick whether by lawful or unlawful means he little cared for Henry whereever the controversies touched or concerned his own whether true or only pretended supream Pontificial power in the exemption of Clergy-men from secular powers or in any other such whatsoever Though in other matters wherein his own interest
people and that obedience also in Temporals which is in all other Subjects to their own respective Princes and States or an obedience which tyes them not to raise Tumults bear Arms c. against the Princes Person Royal Authority c Lastly Who sees not there was very much both expediency and necessity in these Kingdoms of England Ireland and Scotland but more especially in Ireland for Catholick Priests amongst such a world of Sectaries and under a Protestant King and State to make such a Remonstrance or one in such even formal words of disclaiming and renouncing in so much any Forreign power being the generality of Romish Priests in these Kingdoms or at least in Ireland have been these many Years and are as yet upon so many sufficient grounds suspected to own such a Forreign power both Papal and Princely Spiritual and Temporal as in their opinion at least may seem nay is able and may even justly pretend to free discharge and absolve them from all obligation of Loyalty even in the most Civil and Temporal Affairs whatsoever and give them leave and licence to raise Tumults bear Arms and offer violence to His Majesties Person Royal Authority and to the State and Government of both Ireland Scotland and England So that from first to last you see by this Discourse even the very grand Block of stumbling and chief Rock of scandal quite removed or rather see there hath never been any such at all in the Remonstrance being this fourth Clause or Period of it is free of any such and hath neither Block nor Rock in it self at all the Block and Rock being onely in false and even wilfully and maliciously false Representations of it by perverse Interpreters Fifth Period or Clause follows Being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to Your Majesty and to Your Ministers all the Treasons made against Your Majesty or them which shall come to our hearing but also to lose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person and Royal Authority and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what Forreign Power or Authority whatsoever But certainly here is nothing else Remonstrated but their being ready to perform their Duty in meer Civil or Temporal Affairs or which is the same thing I mean to perform a meer Civil and Temporal Duty and to perform it in a meer Civil way as all Subjects ought to their meer Civil or Temporal Prince To reveal Treason and defend the Kings Person Royal Authority and State even with the hazard of their Lives Are not both meer Civil and Temporal Duties As for that which some either too grosly stupid or too ridiculously malicious object 1. That Confessors who subscribe this Period or Clause of the Remonstrance declare they are ready and oblige themselves thereby to reveal in some case Sacramental Confessions and break the Sacred Seal of such Confessions made to them forasmuch as they say here They are ready to reveal all Treasons which shall come to their hearing And 2. That all sorts of Catholicks both Laymen and Clergymen subscribing this Clause bind themselves thereby to reveal that also which they cannot in Conscience reveal forasmuch as this Clause binds them to reveal all Treasons and we know 't is Treason by the Law at least in England 't is so to Reconcile any man to the Pope or to be Reconciled so to be made a Priest beyond the Seas by the Popes Authority and afterwards to return to the Kingdom of England as it is also Treason to deny that the King's Majesty of England is Supreme Governor in His Kingdom even in Ecclesiastical Causes and yet 't is plain they cannot nor ought not by any Law of Conscience as it stands not with the Laws of their Communion or Religion to reveal such matters To the first or that of Confessors I have already of purpose and at large answered in my LV Section where I Treated this Subject against the Third ground of the Louain Censure And to the Second or that of all Catholicks generally I say in brief here That Widdrington hath in his Theological Disputation Cap. 4. Sect. 3. upon the Oath of Allegiance most learnedly clearly and even diffusely answered this very Objection made in his time by some especially by Antonius Capellus Controvers 1. Cap. 2. pag. 30 seq against which or in answer to which the learned Widdrington or whoever was Author of those Works which go under his name in effect sayes That neither King James himself nor His Oath of Allegiance nor the Statute thereupon by the Clause of that Oath which tyes to the discovery of Treason did intend to bind or does indeed any way bind to the discovery of other Treason or Trayterous Conspiracy than that which is truly such by the Laws of God Nature and Nations even that which is truly such in all Catholick Nations against Catholick Princes but by no means to the discovery of such matters as are only of late by the peculiar Law of England called or made Treasons Treasonable or Trayterous Conspiracies and are not otherwise in their own nature against the natural Allegiance Truth Fidelity and Obedience of Subjects to their Prince And I say besides that neither any indifferent Catholick or even Protestant ever yet understood by the word Treason in such a Clause whereby Catholicks in an Oath or Declaration especially made by themselves oblige themselves to discover all Treasons any other kind of Treason but that which is such of it 's own nature or by all the Laws of God Nature and Nations or that which is such in all Catholick States and Kingdoms not that which is such by the positive Law of only this or that Kingdom or is only such by Laws made against even the very profession of the Roman Catholick Religion for such might be made Treasonable by an unjust Law of men were it left to the greater vote at least in some Contingencies and in some Countries And I say in the last place That words bind not against or besides the intention of such as speak or subscribe them not are by any Rule of Reason or Law to be construed so to bind whensoever the obvious and common sense of such words in all Nations or in the generality of Nations and Religions require no other intention but may subsist very well without any other intention and the Speakers and Subscribers of such words be thought to deal honestly and conscientiously and to be without fraud equivocation or mental reservation in such their speaking and subscribing Out of all which jointly taken with what I have said before on the other Clauses it is apparent enough That notwithstanding such capricious and foolish Objections the fifth Period contains no other than a promise or purpose of the Subscribers of being faithful in performing their natural Duty in Temporal matters without any kind
persuaded or dissuaded by any of these men It is not really your salvation they promote by dissuading or diverting you from such a profession of your Allegiance to the King as would in part formally and for the rest virtually and consequentially renounce abjure condemn abhor detest and even in formal terms protest against all those uncatholick Positions and unchristian Practises before related It is indeed their own worldly gain and greatness that the leading men aim at They drive at all and if they thrive they will have all If they fail in their great and bold attempt an attempt forsooth pro bono Ecclesiae Dei yet they know where to live as well for the conveniencies of this World as they do at present with you and many of them much better But when that happens you may starve many of you in a Jayle and your Posterity after you be for ever miserable not knowing where to find relief And by losing on such an account all the lawful comforts of this life to say no worse you cannot with any certainty or even the least intrinsick probability expect to be therefore crown'd as Martyrs or Confessors in the next However they may glorifie you to incite others to do as you have done you cannot amidst your Sufferings have the comfort of believing them or account your selves Martyrs of Christ or of the Christian or Catholick Religion unless you are silly enough to be persuaded That such Positions and Practises as the whole Christian Church from the beginning and even for Ten whole Ages after condemned in effect as erroneous and wicked be that Righteousness or part of that Righteousness whereof our Saviour speaks in St. Matthew declaring there unto us That (b) Mat. 5. Blessed are they who suffer persecution for Righteousness sake because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven XVII That no less a man yea no less a Saint a Holy Doctor and Pope too than Gregory the Great Himself writing above a Thousand years ago to all the Bishops of Ireland (c) Whether of Hibernia as in the common Editions or of Iberia as in Rom. Correctan Gratian. de Consecrat dist 4. c 144. Ab Antiqua it matters not for either way it serves to my purpose on the subject of their being then under a grievous persecution for a less improbable less reprovable and I am sure less interested cause viz That of the Tria Capitula relating to the great Council of Chalcedon hath spoken as plainly to them as I do here to you For in his Epistle (d) L. 2. Regist Indict x. Ep. 36. Which Indiction fell into the year of Christ 592. superscribed Ad universos Episcopos per Hiberniam constitutos in causa Trium Capitulorum He told those Irish Bishops in plain terms That they were not to expect in the other life any rewards for their suffering in this for the cause of the Tria Capitula or for any other unreasonable cause whatsoever i. e. for any at all which was not of divine Cathloick Religion but of humane uncatholick Opinion or Faction not even for suffering so grievous a Persecution as they complain'd of nay seem'd also by their Letter to glory in Prima itaque sayes he Epistolae vestrae frons gravem vos pati persecutionem innotuit Quae quidem persecutio dum non rationabiliter sutinetur nequaquam proficit ad salutem Nam nulli fas est retributionem praemiorum expectare pro culpa Debetis enim scire sicut Beatus Cyprianus dixit quia Martyrem non facit poena sed causa Dum igitur ita sit incongruum nimis est de ea vos quam dicitis persecutione gloriari per quam vos constat ad aeterna pramia minime provehi And yet we know that cause of the Tria Capitula for which those ancient Bishops of Ireland did then suffer was in it self far more specious than yours can be in the Case proposed Nay we know it was indeed so specious and probable that they of Ireland then had not only the Bishops of many other Provinces even of the Roman Empire concurring with them in opinion but the chief of all Bishops in his time that was a little before St. Gregory the Great 's Pontificat even Pope Vigilius of Rome and Him also extreamly persecuted for the same cause yea buffeted drag'd imprisoned at Constantinople c. by command of the Catholick Emperor Justinian * Baron ad ann Christ 552. Nay we know it was so specious a Cause as not only to have in the bottom of it nothing of worldly Interest Dominion Power Riches nothing of Supremacy or Primacy even Spiritual much less any thing at all of Rebellion or Blood or Wickedness under any pretence whatsoever For these Sufferers both pretended and intended the sole honor of Christ against Nestorianism And yet we see how severely and positively they i. e. those ancient Bishops of Ireland or Iberia were by Gregory the Great dealt with on the point of their suffering persecution for that cause how specious or probable soever which a greater body of Christians did condemn and which all Christians might be sure was no part of those undoubted verities of Religion for which if occasion were they were bound to suffer and suffering and dying so were also to expect certainly and confidently the reward of the blessed a Crown of Glory in Heaven Whence you may judge what he would say to you at this present for being led by men who would persuade you still to suffer persecution for a Cause which hath nothing of that speciousness in it a Cause which hath nothing to make the sufferance for it appear in any wise rational to sober men a Cause that hath not the ancient nor even the modern Bishops of any one other Kingdom or Province in the World to make it seem the less improbable no nor any one of those ancient Bishops of Old Rome alone and yet a Cause that in the very outward Superficies hath nothing clearer than worldly Pomp Power Vanity Pride Usurpation Rebellion Treason Blood and all kind of Injustice and Vice to brand it and finally by very evident consequence a Cause that in its own nature conduces to nothing not according to reason can promote any thing less than the honour of either the Divinity or Humanity of our Saviour Christ against any Sect whatsoever XVIII That in the last place having your eyes thus prepared all these things being consider'd you may clearly see thorough that other sly artifice of those self same interested men whereby they would perswade you at least to so much filial Reverence to the great Father of Christendom as to acquaint Him first with your present condition send him a Copy of the publick Instrument you intend to fix upon with the Reasons also inducing you thereunto pray His approbation thereof in order to your signing it and then expect a while his Paternal Advice and Benediction before you make any further progress
one tittle or any one action hitherto alledg'd against me as such other than what is in effect and substance my Assertion or Vindication of the Supreme Temporal Sovereignty of the Crowns of these Kingdoms i. e. of their being in all Temporals and all Contingencies whatsoever independent from any but God alone and therefore in Temporals no way dependent from the Pope either by divine or humane right Whether any person may on such ground call in question the sincerity of my believing or professing as I ought all the undoubted Articles of the Roman-Catholick Faith 3. And seeing there was never yet any other matter not even by my greatest Persecutors at any time objected articled oâ— pretended against me beside that i. e. besides my former opposing the Nuncio's Censures and my later promoting the Remonstrance and my endeavours in both against the pretences of the Roman Bishops to the Crowns of England Ireland Scotland c Whether it may in any wise be said or thought by unbyassed learned men That I have given any real ground for the vile detraction of those who treat me every way as if I had been a desertor of the Church 4. Nay Whether considering first The nature of those two grand Controversies wherein I have so freely engaged against all the power of the Roman Court abroad and all the endeavours of the Nuncio's Party and Antiremonstrant Clergy at home secondly The most grievous manifold and continual persecutions I suffered in both Causes one while by Suspensions and Deprivations another while by Excommunications then by Imprisonment in a Forreign Countrey even as far off as Spain and then again by new Thunders of Ecclesiastical Censures and by scandalous Declarations and posting of my Name besides other frequent enterprizes on several occasions against both my Liberty and Life thirdly My continuing constant in both Causes even all along to this very day even also then and that not only once happening when I had no support in this World but my own Conscience of suffering i. e. my own certain knowledge of my suffering onely for Righteousness sake nay then also when some of my chiefest Adversaries laboured with all their powerful malice even here at London to compel me and spared not to speak openly that either they would compel me to renounce the Roman-Catholick Church and declare my self an Heretick or they would make me submit to the Roman Court in the latter of these two Causes viz. that of the Loyal Remonstrance it being the onely matter then prosecuted against me fourthly Their failing nevertheless to this present in obtaining their will of me in either the one or other Whether I say considering all this whereof besides many men I am sure the All-seeing God is witness it be not more likely That no kind of prejudice against the Roman-Catholick Faith or Church but a true and powerful zeal according to knowledge for the primitive Christian purity of both is it that hath set me against those opinions and practices flowing in the corruption of latter Ages from the Roman Court which have shaken Religion divided Christendom and brought a scandal upon Faith as if it were to be supported or advanced by the wrath and rage of men by Rebellion and Slaughter by Subversion of Government and Confusion of the World so making it a ground of jealousie to Magistrates and diverting peaceable and charitable Souls from that union which ought to be amongst the Disciples of Christ 5. Also whether it may not by rational men be at least charitably believed That I would not so often at several times and upon several occasions since first I engag'd in either Controversie especially in the last have refused many Preferments in my own Order have rejected many tempting proffers too even of Episcopal dignity in my own Countrey have also particularly and lately in the National Synod or Congregation held at Dublin anno 1666 and that in publick before all the Fathers refused to yield by any means to their pressing offer not only of all the best Commendatory Letters that could be drawn on Paper in my behalf both to His Holiness Himself who then was and the Cardinal Patron and the Congregation de Propaganda and all other Ministers of the Roman Court as many as were concern'd in the Affairs of Ireland but also of a yearly and very considerable Salary too by general Applotment amounting as they esteemed or computed it in Three years to Two thousand pound English money and in lieu of all these offers have deliberately chosen to run the manifest hazard of undergoing and accordingly since to have in very deed undergone all the vexatious infamy of Ecclesiastical Censures in my own Church Order and Countrey and all the further Evils not only of some at least consequential hardships but of many black Calumnies many bitter Reproaches yea and some yet more inhumane Machinations of cruel men even here in England these four last years since 1669 Whether I say it may not by rational men be and be at least charitably believed That I would not have rejected freely all those tempting offers and in lieu of them voluntarily chosen to lie under all these Sufferings for any thing less than the keeping a good Conscience and the preserving the honour of Christian Catholicism untainted at least in some Priests and Religious men of the Roman-Catholick Religion in these Nations and the justifying my self and those of my way the few Irish constant Remonstrants with such others who communicate with them Loyal Subjects to our Prince the King of England and the winning also for the good of Catholicks in general upon His Majesties Councils Parliaments and all good Protestant people by our peaceable Conversation and Faithfulness amidst all our Sufferings from every side notwithstanding any difference from the Protestant Church in some few Articles of Religion Whereas such other Church-men of the Roman Communion as by their practises or principles have formerly shewn themselves and still appear to continue Enemies to the Supreme Temporal Government of these Kingdoms may in all reason expect the severest Laws to be edg'd against them by Authority under which it will be sad to suffer as evil doers 6. Lastly Whether it had not been very much for the advantage of Roman-Catholicks in general and their Religion in this Monarchy That these last hundred years they had been indoctrinated onely and wholly guided as to their Consciences by such Roman-Catholick Priests and Church-men as are of my principles in relation to the Temporal Powers independence from Rome and the indispensable obedience of Subjects in Civil matters and both the injustice and invalidity or nullity of Ecclesiastical Censures pronounced against either Prince or People or Priests for maintaining these not onely Rational but Christian Principles or asserting any of all their necessary Antecedents Consequents or Concomitants And now my Lords Fathers and Gentlemen to your impartial judgment on all and each of these Queries I do with due
in the Title of it before the Introduction and in the Argument of the whole immediately following that Introduction yet when I came to the Censure of Louain and to their four chief grounds c I found it expedient to give there at length what in substance was for the greatest part on several occasions and for the rest might on other the like occasions be unanswerably said against all and every of the said four grounds of that nevertheless ungrounded Louain Censure the rather that Father Caian neither in his Remonstrantia Hibernorum not in any other Book had lifted any of the said grounds in specie VI. Pursuing this incidental matter I dispute against those Louain Divines nay expresly also and purposely too against their Leaders the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine Baronius c from Sect. LII pag. 117. to Sect. LXXVIII pag. 487. First Part of the First Treatise that is throughout Fourstore and odd sheets consequently Which having done I return again to pure matter of Fact according to the principal design of the said First Treatise VII The searching throughly into the bottom of their Fourth Ground takes up Threescore and ten sheets of that long but necessary Insertion Which no man will admire it should who shall consider That by ruining that Fourth Ground onely which is the pretended Exemption of Clergymen from the Supreme Temporal or Secular and Civil both directive and coercive Power and consequently by proving the subjection even of all Clerks i. e. of all Ecclesiasticks Priests Monks Bishops Archbishops Primats Patriarchs and Popes nay of all Apostles Evangelists and Prophets c to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate to have been from the beginning de jure divino and never to have been after at any time altered or otherwise determined by any Laws of God or man I must without further trouble have both consequently and evidently ruin'd all and every the pretences of the Pope or Church to any Dominion Jurisdiction or Prefection whether direct or indirect over the Temporals of the Supreme Lay-Magistrate For natural reason shews every man That Subjection and Exemption how much more That Subjection and Prefection Jurisdiction Dominion in order to the same Temporal Magistrate and Temporal matters are incompatible in the same person or persons whatsoever Because they are such contrary Attributes as being affirm'd of any thing infer a manifest Contradiction v. g. To be subject and not to be subject at the same time and in the same respect to the self-same Temporal Powers And therefore by proving clearly no Exemption at all of any Ecclesiasticks whatsoever from the Supreme Civil either directive or coercive Power nay by proving consequentially and by no less clearly and positively evincing a total subjection of them to the said Power I must likewise of necessity evince that they can pretend no kind of Authority either direct or indirect in any case whatsoever to dethrone depose deprive suspend or lessen that same Power unless peradventure they can make Contradictories true VIII My purpose to pull up thus by the very root and overturn the sandy foundation of that so vain pretended Authority over the Temporals of Lay-Princes and States is it that made me unravel the whole matter of Ecclesiastical Immunity and dispute it so largely with all the exactness I could For I have therein proceeded first in a negative way answering all and every material Argument of Bellarmine yea and of others also to a tittle as well those in his Book de Clericis as those other in his latter Work against William Barclay and consequently as well those so unconsequentially derived by him either from the Laws of Nature or Laws of Nations or from the authority of Ethnick Historians or other Authors as those which he no less ungroundedly grounds partly on the divine and positive Laws of God in Holy Scriptures partly on the humane Laws of Christian Emperours in the Code of Theodosius or Institutions of Justinian partly on the Canons of either old or new Ecclesiastical Synods partly on the bare sayings of some ancient Fathers or even Popes in their own Cause and partly too on the bare Testimony or Authority of some of our Church-Annalists or Historians Next I have proceeded also on that Subject in a positive or affirmative way by proving manifestly and I think unanswerably too from all the same Topicks of the Laws of God and man of those of Nature and those of Nations of those of Holy Scriptures in the Old and New Testament and those not onely of Imperial Constitutions but Ecclesiastical Canons yea and meer Papal Canons too and from the judgment also of ancient Fathers in their Commentaries and the Testimony of other even Ecclesiastical Writers in their Histories and in the last place from and by the intrinsick Topick of pure natural and obvious Reason That never yet hath any such Exemption of Clerks i. e. Churchmen from the Supreme either directive or coercive Power of the Civil Magistrate had any being at all in rerum natura or any right to such being Nay I have shewed also by manifest Reason I think that neither at any time hereafter can Princes give such Exemption to Clerks their Subjects without either manifest contradiction in adjecto as Logicians speak or devesting themselves wholly and really of the name and authority of Kings or Princes over them IX If any except against my deriving of Arguments or alledging of Precedents from the Facts of Justinian the Emperour as you find I do Sect. LXXIII pag. 359. or shall out of ignorance or spleen follow the examples either of Baronius Spondanus and Alemannus or of Evagrius long before them so inconsiderately and falsely blasting the glorious memory of that most Christian most Catholick most pious and virtuous Prince as if he had been not only a violator of Ecclesiastical Immunity and an Usurper of the Sacerdotal Office in many respects but a Defender and Believer of manifest Heresie (a) Haeresis Apthartodocitarum sive Incorruptibilium vel Phantasiastarum viz. of that which believed or taught our Saviours flesh to have been alwayes incorruptible and as if he had therefore been eternally damn'd to Hell if any I say except or object thus against my alledging the Facts of Justinian it will be satisfaction enough at present to let him know 1. That Evagrius who is the first Author of this Relation and Invective against Justinian writ onely by hear-say of that matter as who both writ and ended his History long after Justinian's death viz. in the Twelfth year of Mauritius the Emperor * Justinian dyed an Chr. 565. The twelfth year of Mauritius was an Chr. 595. which was thirty years after Justinian's death 2. That the Christian World both East and West in those very dayes of Evagrius held a far other opinion of Justinian's Faith as may appear even out of Pope Agatho's Letter to the Emperours Constantinus Heraclius and Tiberius who Reigned both successively after Justinian and
thereof in Ireland was too well known and how he had been one of the Delegats made by or in pursuance of that subreptitious Bull procured from Alexander the VII for absolving from the Nuntio's censures as if Innocent the X. had determined the controversy and appeal against the Appellants adherers to the Cessation made with the Baron of Inchiquin which yet never appeared to have been so determined by Innocent and therefore consequently and for many other notorious false informations it is very certain that according to the Canons this Bull of Alexander the VII must be void in it self yet even this very Bishop sent to the said Sir Nicholas Plunket that he for his part approved of the Protestation And for Cluanfert albeit the most earnest of all when at home in Ireland for the Nuncio he was as farr off as Hungary if then alive and nothing could be heard from him No more did any thing in a pretty while after from Nicholas French the Bishop of Ferns officiating at St. Diego in Gallicia for the Arch-bishop of that See but what he writ to the Procuratour himself with whom ever since the Kings Restauration he kept frequent correspondence and gave him evident arguments of his falling off from the Nuncio's party ever since he had a sight some two years before His Majesty was restored of that wicked feditious book delivered in hand-writing by Richard Ferral the Cappucin to the Congregation of Cardinals De Propaganda Fide at Rome The contents of which booke and particularly because the Authors of it fell fouly and generally therein upon all the Catholicks of Brittish extraction in Ireland and would have none such ever preferred by the Pope to any ecclesiastical dignity in Ireland and yet very particularly taxed the said Bishop of Ferns himself notwithstanding all his former zeal and Sir Nicholas Plunket also with him though joynt Embassadours to Rome of having betrayed the cause of the Nuncio and holy See to their Adversaries these contents I say and the Proceedings consequent thereunto of that Congregation de propaganda did so estrange Ferns that he sent to London several papers and books of his own study written against that Book though not yet come to publick view from the print As Father Iohn Lynch a priest of Galway at St. Malâ—s hath already published in print his Alithinologia dedicated to the same Congregation de propaganda against it From Ferns therefore they had nothing at all to countenance them at that time if his many and frequent letters under his own hand to the Procurator can be testimonies of his judgment as I am sure they are for he is candid man In which letters he signified at first his own approbation of it so far that he maintained in Spain privately against such Irish as he heard speak against it to himself the lawfulness of it though withal confessing he was not provided of such books as could enable him sufficiently having not before then studied that question but gone along heretofore in practice and theory with that common opinion which was taught in the Schools where he had been conversant formerly Only that after this Remonstrance came forth he lighted by chance on a little book called Strena Catholica written by an English Catholick Divine some fifty years since for the catholickness and lawfulnes of the English Oath of Allegiance in the Statute of King Iames enacted by occasion of the Powder-plot Treason And that out of this little book he reason'd for the Remonstrance against those Irish that opposed it in Spain Where yet he added it was not fit for him to declare himself more at that time and this was when the Queen was come from Portugal when for many reasons it was feared there would not be twixt that Country where he was exiled and England such fair correspondence kept And on the other side he was not sure of protection at home in Ireland Yet withal he advised the Procurator to write an Apology for himself and the cause in hand to his Holiness being he had so many opposers of his country-men at Rome And this was all that Ferns declared of his own judgment or inclinations in that matter until the Congregation of 66. was passed For the Archbishop of Ardmagh Primate Reilly he was indeed recalled to Rome and was there soon after the said Remonstrance was published and for three whole years after but wary enough not to appear in any thing against it but by such Letters to the Procurator as told him that his Holiness however displeased yet would not meddle in any censures against it that his little book entituled The more ample Account published in English on that Remonstrance being translated at Rome into Italian and Latine in order to be censured if they could pick out of it any colourable pretence lay dormant at last in the Colledge de propaganda without any censure at all and was like to continue so for ever notwithstanding all the endeavours used to get it burned or censured at least The good old sickly Archbishop of Tuam remains of all those Irish Bishops were abroad then Nor did he as yet then contribute to any more opposition although wholy in the hands and power of some Fathers of the Society but what you have to this letter which he gave in answer to the Bishop of Dromores to him from London To the most Reverend my Lord Bishop of Dromore c. London My Lord YOur Letter of the 9th of January and received on Monday last could have no speedier answer by reason of my distance from the Post This only to let your Lordship know it is come to hand and that I am making ready copies of the paragraph thereof that concerns your inclosed paper and of the paper it self to send to the respective places where any of our brethren reside in France that being in my opinion a better course to comply with your Lordships desire of the speedy return thereof then to send one about which would require more time I do not think but the subscription of the said paper may have some difficulty not through any dis-affection to our Soveraigns service but through the mis-constructions its stile resembling somewhat the Oath of Allegiance is subject unto and the occasion some unsettled spirits will take to gloss upon it and wrest out of our good intentions venome to spue in our faces as your Lordship knows they do with less grounds The proof that was made of loyalty to our Soveraign by what we have suffered at home and even yet suffer abroad rather then we should flinch from our duty to his Majesty when we had some power might be very sufficient satisfaction to any indifferent man that we forget not nor can forget our obligations to our natural Prince We rather daily pray for his Majesties prosperity and cause those that depend upon us so to do then think of any other forrein power or Prince for to deprive our own
nay and meritoriously too abide the sentence of death even in prima instantia from a Judge of Assize according to the laws of England or Ireland or both and the Execution of it and even at the same time acknowledge himself bound under pain of sin to abide this sentence and this execution patiently and christianly without resistance and yet at the same time also challenge the priviledge of the Canons or at least not renounce the priviledge of the Canons and even of such as he really conceives to be obliging Canons whether groundedly or ungroundedly he conceives or alledges such Canons it matters not to our purpose or that he may at the same time also alledge and the case may be such that he may truly too alleadge that he is proceeded against unjustly both by the Inferiour supream Judge both against the legally established received unrepealed obliging Canons of the Church and the uncontroverted clear just and wholsome laws of the State And therefore it is no less evident that there can be no inconsistency no contradiction at all betwixt a Priests acknowledging the duty of such an obedience and his challenging alwaye nevertheless a right not to be proceeded against by such a sentence That our further declaring in the said Remonstrance That notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication deposition c. we will alwayes be true obedient faithful Subjects to the King that we renounce all forreign power spiritual or temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to absolve us from us Allegiance or dispense with us therein or give us leave to raise tumults bear arms c. against his Majesty or Laws That we bold the doctrine impious and renounce â—t as such which teacheth that any Subject may murder the anointed of God his Prince though of a different Religion from his That we acknowledge all supream temporal Princes to be Gods Lieutenants on earth or in their Dominions and obedience due to them respectively in all civil and temporal affairs by their own Subjects That finally we protest against all contrary doctrines and practices That I say our further declaring any or all these particulars together doth not either formally or virtually or expresly or tacitly draw with it our declaring against or our disacknowledging renouncing declining or quitting the Exemption or Ecclesiastical immunity of Clerks either as to their Persons or as much as to their Goods if by this Exemption or Immunity that be understood as it ought certainly which all Catholick States Kingdoms Nations Councils Parliaments People Divines Universities Bishops Clerks and consequently Churches do understand in France Spain Germany Italy Venice Poland c. For the truth of all and every such declaration and obligation consequent may and doth very well stand in their opinion and according to their practice with such Exemption being they all hold this Exemption to be not independently from the soveraign power of the Princes or States or of their Laws but with dependance alway in relation to that soveraignty or supream Majesty from the inferiour Judicatures and in such cases only whether civil or criminal as are priviledged and only too in prima instantia or at most in so many other instances as will not require manifestly or by manifest necessity an appeal or recourse to the Prince or State civil or pollitick â gravamine or the interposition of the Prince's or States supream power in the case without any such appeal or recourse of either Plantiff or Defendant but ex officio where the Prince or State see a manifest necessity of such interposition as the case may be very well as it hath often been that the Ecclesiastical Judges are themselves involved in the same crime for example in treason or sedition and therefore will not punish the criminals accused before them but rather encourage them as much as they dare That moreover as it appears manifestly out of all the foresaid passages either separatly or collectively taken there is not from the first word to the last of the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance not I say any passage at all any word or syllable in that whole Declaration being these I have given are all it contains of any matter soever that may be formally or virtually expresly or tacitly directly or indirectly understood by any rational impartial man to dis-acknowledge or declare against Immunity Ecclesiastical or the Exemption of Clergy-mens either Persons or Goods as this Exemption is allowed or approved by the Catholick World or Church or as by either understood so it appears no less manifestly that in the petitionary address which immediatly follows the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance and of principles belonging to such Allegiance there is neither as much as one word which may import to an impartial understanding Reader or to any that is not clouded by ignorance or byassed by malice any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such immunity or exemption And that if in this petitionary address there be nothing to this purpose or any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption it must be and is confess'd by the very most scrupulous or most invidious Adversaries there can be none at all in all or any part of that Remonstrance or in that whole Instrument entituled The humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland To prove this last conditional assertion I need not add any thing more to what I have said already or observed in considering all the several distinct parts of the Act of Recognition in it self and other declarations following therein and to what moreover I have presently hinted of the confession of our most carping Adversaries but only this one advertisement more to the Reader whereof himself by reading only over that whole Instrument can be Judge that nothing else is contained in the paper but a bare Remonstrance of grievances persecution odium c. which no man ever yet quarrel'd against as pretending therein a ground for this fourth Exception or any other whatsoever What remains therefore to be cleared is the petitionary address of that paper as that indeed against which for ought I heard from the Dissentors themselves or any of them all their quarrel is on this pretence of quitting Ecclesiastical Immunity and subjecting Clergy-men to Lay Judicatories or to Secular Courts in criminal causes But how justly or unjustly be you Judge good Reader when you have considered the words sense and scope of that Petition so often returned for answer to this invidious Exception The words and whole tenor of that perclosing Address are these and no other These being the tenets of our Religion in point of Loyalty and submission to your Majesties commands and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrenching on that perfect obedience which by our birth by all laws divine and humane we are bound to pay to
whatsoever civil and criminal and not from the inferiour laye Magistrats onely but from the very supream which of persons and in relation to the supream coercive power is that onely which is my present purpose to examine and oppose let us now see how well he maintains by his arguments what he so undertakes or asserts here and see whether any of the four proofs he frames or all together can perswade any man of reason that his said Exemption of Clergiemen is in any sense at all de jure positivo naturali of law divine natural or even as much as de jure Gentium of the law of nations Onely you are first to take notice that Bellarmine himself hath transiently discovered his own principal design or end in strugling so much for this title or name either of a law divine natural or law of nations nay of both and attributing both to that which might establish the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks in the height and latitude he asserts it for their lands goods Churches Houses Persons c. from all kind of laye power subordinate or supream That end I give in his own words and corrollaries which you may read in himself a little before his proofs c. 29. l. 1. de Cleric Rursus sequitur ut ea quae sunt de jure gentium quia sunt aliquo modo naturalia non possint a Principibus vel Magistratibus abrogari vel immutari contra autem quae sunt de jure civili quia sunt pâ—rro positiva sicut a Principe vel Magistratu constituuntur ita posse a Principe vel Magistratu abrogari And a little beneath where he though all in vain endeavours to reconcile Driedo and some Canonists to the Divines especially to Victoria and Sâ—to and to St. Thomas himself those asserting the Exemption to be of the law of nature or law divine natural and these that it is onely of positive human law Et ideo addunt sayes he meaning Victoria and Sâ—tus in hanc Exemptionem câ—nsensisse omnes gentes ac pretterea non posse mutari vel abrogari a Regibus et Principibus etiamsi omnes simul coniuncti eam abrogare conentur Where you see plainly his end is no other in pleading either a law divine natural or a law of nations for his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks but that his Reader might go away with this perswasion That in case either can have any colour out of his arguments then it must be further concluded that no power on earth can at any time hereafter pretend to change or lessen this Exemption And so the Pope alone must be for ever the onely absolute supream Monarch even in all temporals of all Clergiemen wherever in the world and even his temporal kingdom for goods lands houses persons must be at least on this account if all other pretences be overthrown diffused throughout all Kingdoms and States of the earth And France alone for example must acknowledge at least three hundred thousand French men and women though born within and never out of France to be with all their goods lands houses revenues persons properly and onely accountable to him even I mean still in all temporals as to their onely supream Lord and not accountable at all in any thing to him we call or who is truly the French King Lewis the XIIII All which must be concluded according to his design if his Reader can be once perswaded by his arguments that his Ecclesiastical Immunity is as much as de jure Gentium of the law of nations For he would have us believe him that a law of nations cannot be so purely positive but that it must be partly also natural or at least cannot be at all so positive or so from the consent or custom of men that any less number then that of all nations wherever and of all even the Subjects of all nations that is of all men both Princes and Subjects can in any particular Kingdom or State revoke or change it because forsooth his unevident unnecessary conclusions of the third degree are those whereof the laws of nations are framed and consequently those laws of nations are in so much or aliquo modo natural and that even such or aliquo modo natural institutions cannot be otherwise altered and his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks must be ranked amongst those institutions or laws of nations or amongst those dictats which are aliquo modo naturalia LXVI Having so considered his design let us now to his arguments whereby he pretends to prove his Assertion or that of his Ecclesiastical Exemption or Immunity even as to the persons of Clergiemen from the very supream civil power and even in all temporal matters and causes whatsoever civil or criminal to be aliquo modo de jure divino naturali and without any modus at all to be de jure Gentium or of the law of nations Four several arguments are formed by him to prove this Assertion Whereof the first argument thus It is the custom of all nations that Clerks be so exempted Therefore c. For sayes he what is every where descends from nature it self which is common to all And to prove this Antecedent he alleages That amongst the Hebrews the Levits were exempt from tributs out of the 30 of Exodus and 1. of Numbers That amongst the Egyptians under Pharao the Priests were exempt Gen. chap. 47. That the same exemption was enjoyed by the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes 1. Esdras 7. chap. That the same too as enjoyed by the Gentil Priests may be known out of Aristotle l. 2. Oceonom out of Caesar l. 6. de bello Gallico out of Plutarch in Gamillo and out of others And amongst Christians That the Emperour Constantine the Great no sooner was openly professed Christian then he incontinently as if nature her self had taught him declared the Priests exempt from the common duties of other Christians as appears out of his Epistle to Anulinus recorded by Eusebius l. X. Histor Eccles. c. 7. Wherein other Christian Emperours did imitate him But to this purpose Iustinians words are to be noted particularly l. Sancinius 2. Cod. de Sacrasanctis Ecclesiis For when he had in this law priviledg'd the Churches that is the publick places of prayer he added presently Cur enim non facimus discrimen inter res divinas humanas cur non competens praerogativa caelesti favori conservetur by which words sayes our learned Cardinal this Emperour signified that exemption not to be the pleasure of men or arbitrary but due and necessary Second argument thus or from some kind of similitude which we may conceive betwixt the Soul and Body of one side and the spiritual and temporal power on the other The soul or spirit is ordered so by nature in relation to the body or flesh that although she hinder not the actions of the body while or when they are regular yet if otherwise she curbs them and absolutely in all cases governs the flesh
Valentinian and with his Arrian Mother about the giving up a Church in Milan to thense of the Arrians did not I say this so great and so holy and so knowing Ambrose tell the Emperour that indeed the lands of the Church were under his power and therefore payed him tribute but that the Church it self was not for such an impious use Therefore our learned Cardinal is much out in his collection here from this Canon of the Apostles when he sayes that by natural reason because the goods or lands of the Church are called Dominicae therefore the cannot in any wise or for any use or in any case be subject to the supream lay Jurisdiction To his fifth and last argument I need not say much because it so little requires other answer than That it is the very worst sort of argument he could use for his Ecclesiastical Immunity and for the being of it as such from the very law of Nations and Nature For to pretend or alledge even true miraculous extraordinary judgments or punishments from God on the Profaners of holy places or even too on the tyrannical Oppressors of holy or Ecclesiastical Persons as also on a Prince or People for having made first or observed after out of covetousness hatred envy pride ambition or any other sinful end such laws as naturally must lessen the holiness or esteem or reverence which must be due to either such places or such persons what hath this to do with the religious worshippers of such places and with the careful protectors of such persons or with either Prince or People that for a just and holy end make a wholsome law which being observed by Church-men will make them more holy and more reverend Besides how often have we read of extraordinary judgments of God pursuing presently the injustice committed by either Prince or People against meer lay men and against such as could pretend no such exemption and against such too as had no right of their side but from the positive civil Institutions or Laws made by other meer lay-men If our most eminent Cardinal had alledged and proved but one only miracle wrought in the case that is wrought by the invocation of God and either expresly or even tacitly for the confirmation of his Thesis or the being of Clergymen so exempt as he would have them in all cases and all respects from the supream civil jurisdiction of lay Princes then indeed he might have had some colour to amuse the Reader with that his fifth Argument Albeit yet such miracle would not be home enough unless withal it appeared wrought to confirm their being so exempt by the law of Nations and Nature But neither for Churchmen or Church doth he as much as pretend to any such material miracle or any such extraordinary punishments from God And good God! what is it to prove such exemption as he pretends That the sacrilegious robbers or any other wicked prophaners of a Church dyed presently That a passionat wicked Prince who did without any form of justice without any just cause at all and who did even against his own laws and his own conscience persecute to death a Religious Prelate or Priest onely for having been a good Prelate or good Priest in reprehending wickedness that I say such a Prince had an evil or strange and suddain end Certainly were it acknowledged of all sides did God himself now expresly and intelligibly and evidently reveal it to all the world that notwithstanding any pretence or even any positive laws of men hitherto all kind of Churchmen and Churches and their persons goods lands houses c. were as other men in all kind of temporal matters subject to the disposition and coercion of not only the supream but also of the inferiour civil Magistrate yet from the providence and goodness and justice also of God we might rationally expect sometime and pray sometime also for such extraordinary and exemplary miraculous punishment of such as would abuse that right or that power given them by God to govern well questionless to govern holily and justly the Church of God and Ministers and lands and revenues of it Besides how often have such extraordinary miraculous punishments seized on the very Ecclesiastical Governours themselves and even on the very supream Ecclesiastical Governours who have oppressed the inferiour Clergie And yet there was no exemption of this inferiour Clergie from them concluded thence Lastly how knows for what injustice in particular did those extraordinary punishments from God and let us suppose them still truly miraculous and from God in a special way which yet will be hardly proved of most of them seize upon such as were said to have violated Churches or Churchmen against that which this learned Cardinal pretends to be Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty Did God reveal it was particularly for infringing that or infringing any part of all that which Bellarmine understands or pretends to be of true and due Ecclesiastical exemption and was moreover to shew by a testimony from Heaven That this Ecclesiastical Immunity of his must be admitted to be such by the law of Nations and Nature Or did God reveal it was not perhaps for some other indeed more unquestionably exorbitant wickedness of those very men so punished miroculously Or must the single conjecture of Basilius Porphyrogenitus be to us a certainty that indeed those evils happened at that time to the Constantinopolitan Empire by reason or because of that law whatever it was made by Nicephorus Phocas and further yet a concluding argument for the being of Bellarmine's such pretended Ecclesiastical Immunity from the law of Nations and Nature which onely is our present business or dispute Nay must we not rather according to reason attribute those very plagues or judgments from God at that time to other causes that is to the undoubted uncontroverted injustices and wrongs done by Nicephorus Phocas in using ill and abusing very much the supream power he had over the Clergie if I say there was any thing extraordinary in those plagues or if they were such as the like or farre worse did not fall on that people or Emperour of Constantinople very often before that law was made and after that law was again abolished and when Ecclesiastical Immunity was as strictly and religiously observed as ever or when the supream civil power as rightly used as ever for the veneration of holy places and holy persons Do not the Greek Historians of those times Curopolates and Cedrenus Zonaras and Glycas do not Baronius and his Abbreviator Spendanus ad Annum Christi 962. 964. confess with those Greeks That Nicephorus Phocas though otherwise an excellent and victorious Prince had been charged with several other exorbitances as with having suffered himself after the death of Romanus to be chosen Emperour by the Army notwithstanding that Basilius and Constantinus both lawful Sons to the deceased Emperour Romanus were yet alive and lawful Heirs of the Empire and
with marrying Theophanes Augusta or the widdow Empress notwithstanding his own former legitimate wife was still alive and no other cause to divorce from her and that besides he had received her or the said Theophanes's Son as a Godfather out of the Sacred Font and with too much liberty given to his army to oppress against all right and reason as well the Layety as the Clergie indulging them whatever they fancied and without any punishment and with robbing the very Churches of their donaries and with laying grievous excessive tributs on both Churchmen and Layemen against the law and with assuming to himself entirely the elections of Bishops and taking to himself also all the spoils of the dead Bishops and finally with endeavouring to have all the Souldiers killed under him in his warr against the Sarracens to be accounted and invoked as martyrs Do not the Greek Historians charge this Nicephorus with all these particulars and not with that law onely And if so as questionless it is so how could Basilius Porphyrogenitus or Bellarmine or we out of either perswade our selves with any certitude it was for a bare law revoking some former priviledges of the Clergie in case I say that law was such that Empire suffered in after days and not rather for some of those other undoubted exorbitancies against undoubted either divine or humane laws or suffered not for that law in it self but for the evil end or evil execution or use of it For a law may be good in it self and yet the intention of the law maker and his use of it very wicked And after all whether it was so or no what proof I beseech you is that bare saving conjecture opinion or judgement of Porphyrogenitus That Bellarmines pretended Exemption of Clerks in all both civil and criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil power hath been established either by the law divine natural or by the law of Nations That saying of Basilius Porphyrogenitus doth not touch this matter at all So that from first to last I dare conclude That for such Exemption and by such law of Nature and Nations Bellarmine hath not brought as much as any one argument which may seem to have the least colour of even probability itself nay nor even of that very worst sort of probability or that which our late Schoolmen call extrinsick onely Which himself did know so well that after having laboured so much to impose on us such exemption by such laws in a whole chapter yet in the chapter immediately following which is his 30. chap. l. 1. de Cleric he dares not give this doctrine of his own any better title or any better assurance not even for the being of it as much as by the divine positive law but onely the title or assurance of a bare probability of consequence And which further yet he knew so well that as he never once thought of the least Exemption of Clerks either as to their goods or as to their persons in politick or temporal affairs criminal or civil causes from any civil power whatsoever supream or not supream not even from the most inferiour civil Courts or Judges or of any kind of Exemption at all established for them in temporal matters by any law divine either natural or positive that I say as he never thought of any such Exemption by such laws in all or any the former editions of his Controversies or not until the very last edition of them by his own commands so it must be confessed he was in this point a very great changling to wit after he had seen all his other arguments out of human law or out of the civil and Canon law for his exorbitant exemption answered home by Doctor William Barclay in his accurate though little book de Potestate Papae particularly in the 15. and 32. chapters of the said book For in those former editions himself taught in express tearms against the Canonists Exemptionem Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona jure humano introductam esse non divino That the exemption of Clerks in politick matters as well concerning their persons as their goods was introduced by humane law not by divine Nay also as Barclay well notes de Potestate Papae c. 15. made it his business to wit in those former editions besides which the foresaid Barclay the Father knew of none to prove the truth hereof by three several sorts of arguments 1. by that of Paul Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit according to St. Chrysostome's exposition and understanding of it to be a command as well for Clerks as for Laycks 2. by other testimonies of holy Fathers in the point 3. because sayes he nullum prâ—ferri potest Dei verbum quo ista exemptio confirmetur there cannot be any word of God alleadg'd for this exemption From which doctrine he was so farre in his last edition that seeing he was left no other argument undissolved no other way unblocked for maintayning or carrying on his Exemption or that of Clerks in his exorbitant latitude of it and yet would not yield to victorious Truth he would needs in his old age trouble himself and others with a new invention or pretension rather nay rather too a meer aequivocation in effect of not onely a positive law divine per quandam similitudinem but even of a natural law divine and further confound the law of nature with that of nations and yet in the end of all pretend no more cap. 30. in solutione primae objectionis but a meer probability of consequence for his positive law of God nor for his natural but such a third degree c 29. as by his own explication of the third degree is no kind of degree at all of any true law of nature Whether this be not to abuse both Clerks and Layicks Princes and Subjects the State and Church being the controversy is of so high concern to all for the peace of the world I leave the indifferent Reader to judge For I have done my part and proceed now to shew by the solution of his other arguments LXVIII That for what concerns human laws too either civil or Ecclesiastical the case is also clear enough of my side both against him and our late Doctors of Lovaine That by neither law Clerks have ever yet been exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power nay nor in any kind of meer temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil from that supream civil power were it necessary for my present purpose to add this as it is not Though I confess they have been exempted and very justly too by several both imperial and other municipal and Royal laws from inferiour civil Judicatories in many civil causes and in some Countries by the peculiar municipal laws of such Countries exempted also in some criminal causes in prima instantia from the inferiour subordinate civil Judges and other Judges that
is Ecclesiastical Judges given them in such exempted causes both criminal and civil but given them so by the supream authority civil and proceeding in so much against them to a meer civil determination execution and coaction by vertue onely of the power derived from the civil laws and supream civil Magistrate and not by vertue of any spiritual power or other whatsoever derived from the Church as purely a Church Because the Church as such hath neither territory nor sword consequently no external criminal or civil Judicatory with any external or temporal power of coaction or coercion properly such but onely a spiritual power of meer spiritual censures which is but secundum quid or diminutively and improperly called coercion or coaction for what belongs to our purpose here But however this be or be not it is clear enough First that by no civil law of the Roman Emperours Clerks have been ever yet at any time exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat or from the supream civil coercive power of his laws Which I take to be so absolutely certain That Bellarmine himself for proof of his third Proposition which he hath cap. 28. l. 1. de Cler. in these general words Non possunt Clericiâ—a Judicâ— seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent had not the confidence to alleadg any other imperial or civil constitution but onely those of the Emperour Justinian's Novells 79. 83. and 123. where yet Bellarmine confesses this Emperour decreed no more but the exemption of Clerks and Monks from secular that is laye judicatories in civil causes onely and not in criminal Nay confesses that for criminal causes the same Justinian particularly and expresly decrees in these very Novels that Clergiemen be subject still to the lay or civil Pretors Jurisdiction with this caution only that judgment of death be not pronounced in the Pretors Court against a Clerk before he be degraded by the Bishop So that by the very concession and confession of Bellarmine himself it is not only clear enough that no civil constitution can be produced for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream lay power but also clear enough that no such can be pleaded for their exemption in such causes from all subordinate inferiour lay Courts being the Pretors Court was a subordinate one at least unto the Princes own supream Tribunal and being that Bellarmine having confessed this much of this law of Iustinians finds no other civil Institution for his purpose in criminal causes to alledge but flyes presently to his Ecclesiastical Institutions in that point saying that albeit the civil law did not so exempt Clerks in criminal causes from the civil Judicatories yet the Canons of the Church did as sayes he appears clearly out of the Epistle of Cains the Pope to Felix and out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and also out of the XI book of Gregory the Greats Register epist 54. ad Joannem Defensorem and saying further that the civil law must yield to the Canon Law cum possit summus Pontifex Imperatori praecipere in iis praesertim quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent whereas sayes he the supream Pontiff or Pope may command the Emperour especially in such things as concern the Church Where it is evident that Bellarmine confesses plainly there is no civil Institution or Law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the civil or lay Courts For the Reader is to take notice here that by the civil law in this matter no other civil law is understood but that only of Emperours From which indeed originally and only all the exemption of Clerks proceeded even in those Christian Countreys which have shaken off the yoke and even in those too which never yet were under that of the Imperial Power or Laws but have made themselves peculiar municipal laws Which yet albeit they be meerly and properly civil laws yet are they not the civil laws whereof Bellarmine treats and his other Associats contend as we are sure they give more exemption to Clerks either in criminal or civil causes then those of the Roman Emperour did But forasmuch as many of our Clerks are ignorant of that spring of their exemption whatever this exemption truly groundedly be as others are no less ungrateful for not acknowledging it I will oblige those and check these by laying here before their eyes the very first laws the several degrees of them whereby they came by the meer favour of the Roman Emperours to that exemption from Secular Courts which they have truly ever since enjoyed more or less in Christendome according as these laws were continued practised or even by other Princes not subject any more or at all to the Roman Emperours and Laws enacted a new or allowed of Therefore and that we may not erre hereafter in this point the Reader is to know that all these several priviledges liberties or exemptions either of persons lands or other goods which the Clergy hath now in Christian Kingdoms and States have not been granted at first by any one Emperour or at any one time The very first exemption ever yet granted to Clerks was that of Constantine the Great whereby after this good Emperour had formerly published his edicts of liberty for Christian Religon in general he particularly gave this priviledge by law to those of that religion were called Clerks that they should not be obnoxious to nominations or susceptions that is that if they were named or elected for any civil office of Magistracy or Wardship or of gathering of Taxes Tributes c. yet they should not be bound to undergo any such whereas before that law or priviledge Christian Clerks being named or elected were bound to undergo all such offices without any such excuse at all But eight years after this law so made the same Câ—nstantine made another whereby he gave a general exemption to such Clerks from all kind of civil offices l. 1. 2. Cod. Theod. de Episcop Cleric l. 16. wherein he gives the reason of this priviledge least sayes he Clerks sacrilego livâ—re quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur may out of the sacrilegious envy of some be called away or diverted from their divine imployments And indeed it is very observable against the ungrateful temerity of some Clerks who are loath to acknowledge the spring of their Immunity to be from the secular power that the same most Christian Prince calls those exemptions priviledges For so he calls them in express tearms Haereticorum factiâ—ne comperimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Clericos ita vexari ut nominationibus seu suceptionibus aliquibus quas publicus mos exposcit centra indulta sibi privilegia pregraventur we have found sayes he that by the faction of Hereticks the Clerks of the Catholick Church are so vexed that they are forced to submit to nominations and susceptions which publick use requires against the priviledges granted them In reference to and
in pursuance of those priviledges so generally granted by this pious Emperour Constantine to all Clerks of the Catholick Communion it was that he writ to Anulinus the Prefect of Affrick that letter whereof I treated before but whereof I have shewed also that Beliarmine made other use then he should or could which Eusebius hath at length in his Ecclesiastical History l. X. c. VII and I give here now wholy out of him to this end also that the Reader may himself be Judge with how little reason our learned Cardinal did quote it for a proof of a law of Nature or Nations for his exemption or in his whole latitude of the exemtion of Clerks from the supream civil coercive power even in all kind of criminal causes whatsoever albeit this consideration belong properly to the former Section Ave Anuline carissime nobis Cum ex multis rebus constet religionem illam in qua summa divinae majestatis reverentia custodituâ— spretam quidem maxima reipublicae impâ—rtasse discrimina eandem verorite susceptam ac cust litam nomini Romano maximam prosperitatem cunctis mortalium rèbus divina id tribuente beneficientia proecipuam felicitatem contulisse placuit ut homines illi â—ui cum debita sanctimonia assidua hujus legis obseruantia ministerium suum divinae religionis cultui exhibent laborum suorum mercedem repâ—rtent Anuline carissimâ— nobis Quocirca eos homines qui intra Provinciam tibi creditam in Ecclesia Cathâ—lica cui Caeciliarus praeest huic sanctissimae religioni ministrant quos Clericos vâ—care consiteverunt ab omnibus omnino publicis functionibus immunes volumus câ—nservari wâ—errâ—re aliquo aut casu sacrilego a cultu summae divinitati debit â—abstral â—ntur sed ut pâ—tius absque ulla inquietudine propriâ— legi deserviant Quispe his summam venerati nem divinâ— numini exhibentibus maximum inde em sumentum republicae videtur accidere Vale Anuline carissunt ac desideratissime nâ—â—is Thirty six years after this letter and the former priviledge of Constantine the Sons of this great Emperour Constantius and Constâ—ns the one an Arrian the other a Consustantialist governing the Roman Empire their father being dead Arbitiâ— Lâ—llâ—â—nus being Consuls gave yet a further priviledge to Bishops and only to Bishops not to other Clerks that it should not be lawful to accuse them of crimes before Secular Judges And so decreed by an express law L. Mansuetudinis 12. eâ—d tit For as for other Ecclesiastical Persons Priests inferiour Clerks or Monks they remained still as they were in all both civil and criminal causes under the jurisdiction of the civil I mean subordinat lay Magistrates until Iustinians time And therefor it was that Leo and Anthemius both and together Emperours about some threescore years before Iustinian to favour somewhat more yet the Clergy and that they might not be drawn too farr by the lay Judges enacted Ne orthodoxae fidei sacerdotes Clerici cujuseumque graâ—us aut Monachi in causis civilibus extra Provinciam aut lâ—cum aut regionem quam habitant ex ullius penitus majoris minorisue sententia Judicis pertraâ—antur sed apud suos Iudices ordinarios id est Provinciarum Rectores omnium contra se agentium excipiant actiones That no Priests oâ— Clerks of what degree soever nor Monks of the orthodox Faith be in civil causes drawn at all out of the Province place or Countrey where they dwel by any higher or lower Judge whatsoever but be left to answer before their own ordinary Judges that is the Rectors of Provinces the actions of all Plaintiffs against them Behold how these most pious and Catholick Princes declared the Presidents of Provinces to be the ordinary Judges of the Clergy Whom yet none of all the holy Fathers or great Pontiffs of those times did rebuke herein or taxed with any errour or with having declared or spoken in such matters and in their publick Institutions or Laws any thing at all less truly less piously or less orthodoxly Whence it appears how injuriously they speak of Iustinian that charge him with usurping any jurisdiction over Ecclesiasticks whereas on the other side they should acknowledge themselves infinitly bound to him for as much as he was the very first of Emperours that in civil causes exempted Clerks from secular that is lay Judicatories to which till his time they had been subject in all such causes Which exemption or priviledge given so by him is to be seen in the before-mentioned law of his Novel 83. but still with the also fore-mentioned caution that in criminal causes of Clerks the Pretor have cognizance however with this other caution also to see them degraded by the Church before he give definitive sentence or at least before he proceed to execution when their crime is found by him to be such as deserves the Gallies or Mines or Exile or Death or any other infamous punishment All which being so or this which I have now related being the true origen and progress of Ecclesiastical Immunity given so by several Emperours and at seueral times from the conversion of Constantine until Iustinian made this law in his 83. Novel First it is clear enough by these very laws without relating to or depending at all of Bellarmines concession that Clerks have been originally subject in all politick matters not only to the supream power of secular Princes and consequently subject in criminal causes to their said supream civil coercive power but also in both civil and criminal causes to the subordinat lay or civil power of inferiour Judges Otherwise certainly neither could those Emperours grant those priviledges at least as priviledges nor would so many learned virtuous and holy Fathers Bishops and Popes as were then in the Roman Empire advise so ill in their own concern and in that of truth also and Christian Religion that they would own such exemption as from the benefit concession or priviledge of such lay Princes if they had believed to have had it formerly and originally from the very essence of Religion For by owning such priviledges from those Princes they confessed themselves to have been subject to such as could give them this exemption being it is manifest that nothing can be freed or exempted which was not bound and subjected before in such matters wherein after the exemption is Besides the very Emperours themselves are sufficiently known in History to have been so pious that if they had been taught by the Bishops or at any time had been of themselves otherwise perswaded that Clergy-men were exempt from their power by the law divine they would have declared so much presently and generally in their own laws edicts without mincing without reserving stil a power even to their inferiour Judges to proceed against Clerks in most or many or some matters For if those good Emperours and other Christian Kings in their dayes bestowed on the Church so profusedly and only out of
godliness piety zeal what they believed to be their own proper goods how much more would they have abstained from usurping on those of the Church and to which they had known themselves to have no kind of right Secondly forasmuch as depends of the testimony or authority of the civil Law it self it is clear enough that Clergiemen have not only been originally or sometime but have continued alwayes or at all times since the very first of christianity are at present stil subject to the supream civil Power therefore not exempt from it For being it appears by these laws that Clergiemen were so first indistinctly in all kind of politick matters subject or not exempt in any either from the supream civil or subordinate civil and being further that none of these laws nor altogether exempt them but in some politick things or some such causes from the subordinat only and in none at all from the supream in any such cause and being moreover that it was from and by virtue of or by a power derived from those very civil laws and consequently from the supream civil Magistrate Prince Emperour that Ecclesiastical Judges were so appointed for other Clerks in any civil or criminal cause whatsoever or in those we call meer lay crimes it must follow that forasmuch as concerns the testimony of those civil laws which Bellarmine quotes here Clerks are still subject to the supream civil power though not in some cases or not even in very many cases to the subordinat civil but in such have other Judges that is Ecclesiastical ones appointed them by the same laws For by the testimony of these laws they are not exempt wherein they were not exempted by those very laws And those laws do not exempt them in any case at all from the Legislator Himself or from the supream civil power nor even from the subordinate indistinctly and universally in all cases but in some only Thirdly it is clear enough also by the testimony authority and warranty of these civil Laws and forasmuch I say as depends of such warranty if joyn'd together with the allowed doctrine of all christian both Lawyers and Divines generally that in such Christian Kingdoms as never have been govern'd by those laws of Roman Emperours or which in after-times did legally shake off the yoke both of the Empire and imperial laws generally and are govern'd only by municipal laws of their own Clerks are not exempt at all in politick matters from either supream or subordinate lay Courts or Judges no further then such municipal peculiar civil laws do exempt them And being that in no such Countrey at all for any thing we know yet or is alledged yet by Bellarmine or by our Divines of Lovaine Clerks are not exempt by such laws from the supream civil power and being at least that whatever may be imagined of some one or other Countrey with or without ground we know certainly there is no such law in England or Ireland nor hath yet ever been it is no less clear that Clerks are not at all exempt in England or Ireland in politick matters from the supream civil power of the Prince or of his Laws forasmuch I say still as depends of the testimony of the civil laws or even of the doctrine of either Christian Lawyers or Catholick Divines Which doctrine is that laws of men when meer laws of men and in politick matters depend not only of public tiâ—â—â— but also of legal reception and hereof also that they be not abrogated again by a contrary establishment or by a general opposition abrogation or disuse in any particular Kingdom or State especially if such as have the supream civil Legislative Power approve of or concurr to such abrogation or disuse Fourthly and Lastly and as a corrollary out of all it is perspicuous that as the very civil laws of Roman Emperours and such other municipal laws of other Christian Princes giving such or some certain and special exemptions and other priviledges to Clergiemen and giving them freely and out of devotion only for the greater decency and reverence of the Church do convince any rational person that secular Princes are still continually as they have been originally Superiours in temporal power to the Clergy even to all Priests and Bishops whatsoever living within their Dominions so they also convince that not even the great Priest and Bishop the very chief and spiritual Prince both of all Priests and of all Bishops too the Pope himself not even this so Oecumenical Vicar of Christ in all spiritual matters throughout the whole earth can be truly said to be at present upon any other account exempted from secular Powers in temporal matters but on this only that he also himself is now as he hath been for some ages though not from the beginning a temporal or secular Prince too and that now he represents a double Person that of the Successor of St. Peter at Rome which undoubtedly he hath from Christ and from the Church purely taken as a Church and that also of a secular Prince with independent secular civil or temporal power which latter he hath no less undoubtedly and even only and solely from the meer devotion benevolence bounty and gift of other Princes and people even I mean of meer lay Princes People But to the end learned men shall not say I take advantage of Bellarmine's not having so throughly examined this matter in his great work of Controversies nor even in his very last edition of that work which yet is the edition I have hitherto answered and shall not object at any time that Bellarmine sifted yet more narrowly the question of the civil laws in a latter book of his when he was in his old age forced to it by Doctor William Barelay's answers and solutions of all the Church-canons whereon chiefly or rather indeed only Bellarmine relyed till then as we have seen and we shall further see yet in the next Section for his so general exemption of Clergiemen from even the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes whatsoever least I say any should object this I will give at large and in Bellarmines own words but Englished all that he replies in that his very last piece on this subject we have now in hand of the civil laws against the same William Barclay and my own rejoynder also though in effect and for the most part made before I confess by another that is by Iohn Barclay the Son in his Pietas and to justifie the quarrel of his then dead Father LXIX Bellarmine therefore seeing by the said William Barclay's work De Potestate Papae in Temporalibus against him that all his former pretences of what law soever civil or ecclesiastical for the exemption of Clergiemen from the supream civil Power could not perswade any judicious Reader of that book of William Barclay regards no more what he had granted before in his great Works of Controversies and even in the very
an ordinance in such general or rather indefinit terms for the exemption of Clerks in a criminal question from the civil-Judicatory or being it is but a command or law That none should presume to call or draw an Ecclesiastical person in a criminal question or even civil to a secular judgment against the Imperial Constitutions and Canonical Functions and whereas there was never yet any Imperial Constitution or Canonical Sanction either made before his time or in his time or after his time that exempted Clergymen in either of both sorts of questions civil or criminal from the supream civil and absolute power of the Emperour themselves or of other Kings that acknowledge neither Emperour nor Pope nor any other above themselves in their temporal government who sees not that out of this Constitution of Frederick nothing can be concluded for such exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power but only from that of subordinat inferiour and ordinary civil or secular Judicatories Besides we know Fredericks laws were only for those few Cities or Provinces that remain'd in his time which was about the year of Christ one thousand two hundred and twenty and therefore could not pretend nor did pretend to prescribe laws to other Kingdoms or Kings for the exemption of Clerks either in civil or criminal causes or even to the inferiour Iudicatories of other Kings And that we know also that that law of Frederick was not imitated by the like in other Principalities not subject to him not imitated I say generally as to the exemption of Clerks in all either civil or criminal causes whatsoever from the very subordinat inferiour civil Iudicatories nor even in prima instantia So that I must conclude that Bellarmine was put to a very narrow strait for an imperial or civil law wh◠〈◊〉 pitch't on this of Frederick which was not known nor as much as 〈◊〉 of in other parts of even Europe it self as owning no subjection to Frederick And yet a law not to the purpose were it of the same authority those Imperial Constitutions were when the Orient and the Occident South and North as far as the Roman Empire was ever spread at any time or even in great Constantins days were under one Lord. An imperial or civil law in those days or of such others for some ages after which wâ—e received in the wide christian world consequently generally retained might have been to purpose if it had clearly expresly on particularly enacted any thing to our present purpose But conceived in such terms as this of Frederick coâ—lâ— not be to such purpose For it is one thing to be exempted from the subjection due to Emperours or Kings and another to be exempted a forâ— secuilâ—i from a secâ—â—â—â— Iudicatory The Emperours had under themselves and established by themselves and by their own civil laws two sorts of Iudicatories The one termâ—â—â—g meer civil or meer secular Iudicatory where peculars onely or meer â—ay men were Judges And the other termed 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Iudicatory where Ecclesiastical Persons only or persons depâ—â—â—â— by them were Iudgeâ— whatever the cause or question was civil or criâ—â—nal temporal or spiritual or mixt of both And both had their power which as coercive or a 〈…〉 with any coerciâ—â—â— from the Emperours and from their civil law 〈◊〉 So that the Emperours exempting any from the secular Iudicatory 〈…〉 leave or put such under the subordinat pâ—â—er of the Ecclesiastical Judges deputed by the same Emperours or by their laws Which they might have done in favour of meer lay men 〈◊〉 some lay-men and in some or many or all case whatsoever made had it been their Imperial pleasure as often they did by instances grant Epise 〈◊〉 And entiam to meer lay men and in meer lay crimes or lay causes 〈◊〉 civil and criminal at leaâ— in civil Would Bellarmine conclude therefore that those were exempted or should be in such a case and by the Emperours themselves or their laws exempted from their own supream civil coercive power in criminal causes or indeed in any whatsoever Or must it follow that because by the law of England a Lord for example 〈◊〉 be condemned or tryed in a criminal cause but by his Peers that therefore in England a Lord is exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the King himself Or that it is not by a power derived from the King thâ—â— Peer 〈…〉 condemn or free another Peer Or even that by the supream power of the King which formerly established such a law of priviledge for Peers the same law may not be justly again or upon just grounds repealed and a contrary law made in Parliament if at any time it were found by manifest experience that the Peers did manifestly and manifoldly and even to the ruine of the King and Kingdom and against the very primary intention of all priviledges and laws make use of or rather abuse such a former law or former priviledge Or finally and consequently that whatever priviledge of exemption though only from Inferiour lay Judges was so granted as before to Clerks by the supream civil power of Emperours Kings and other States was such that in case of manifest and manifold abuse even to the ruine of the publick and without any hope of amendment it could not be revoked again or moderated by another law and equal power to that which gave it before Therefore from first to last I think it is now clear enough that by the civil law no Clerks are exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of such temporal Princes or States under whom they live LXIX That neither by the Canons of the Church I am now to prove Wherein I find so little difficulty that notwithstanding the general errour so wide spread or supposed amongst as well Divines as Canonists to the contrary but introduced at first and continued after out of some passages of Councils very ill understood considered or examined I dare say boldly that not onely none of all those Councils or Canons of Councils alledged for such exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power but not even any of them alledged for their exemption from as much as the subordinat civil power of inferiour Judicatories hath any such matter at all Though my purpose here be not other then to prove this truth for what concerns the supream power only To which purpose I affirm that no where in any Council is it found that the Fathers attributed such authority to themselves as by their own sole power to exempt Clerks from lay Tribunals â— or which is the same thing to deprive secular Judges or Magistrates of power empire command judgment coercion or Iurisdiction over Clerks or which also imports the very same to prohibit the secular Judges not to take cognizance of or give sentence in the causes either civil or criminal of Clerks brought unto their tribunals or finally and it is still in effect the same
not to summon Clerks to their tribunals and judge their causes whensoever such causes were meerly temporal and not properly or strictly spiritual or of a purely spiritual nature And I affirm also that before Iustinians Empire which was from the year of Christ 527. wherein it was begun to the year 565. wherein he dyed no Council nor canon of Council did ever as much as declare or even as much as only suppose that Clerks were by any other authority or by that I mean'd of the very Emperours themselves exempted generally from lay tribunals not even I mean still from those of inferiour Judges And O God of Truth how can any knowing Divine any conscientious Historian Canonist or Civilian be so preoccupated as not to acknowledge or so blind as not to see it cannot be any way probable that the Fathers of those primitive and purer ages should attribute any such power to themselves as by their own proper authority to exempt others or even themselves from that subjection to which as well themselves as all other Clerks were antecedently bound by the positive law of God himself as not only St. Augustine teaches in his exposition of the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul to the Romans but all other Fathers generally who treat of this subject or expound that chapter But to clear this matter throughly we must observe Those ancient Fathers with whom Ecclesiastical Discipline whereof now there is so great neglect did sincerely and severely nourish used their utmost endeavours that Ecclesiasticks should not onely by their doctrine instruct the people but also by their probity of manners and innocency of carriage in all things And therefore admonish'd all Clerks nay enjoyned them in their own conciliary Canons and sometimes also under heavy Ecclesiastical Sanctions or Censures That none of them should presume to convene or charge an other Clerk in any cause either criminal or civil before a secular judge but either by the intervention of friends should compose all their own differences or certainly if they would not or could not do so that they should at least suffer all to be determined by Episcopal Iudgment acquiescing therein And both advised and ordained so in imitation of St. Paul himself and for the very self-same reason or certainly not unlike to it this great Apostle had when writing to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 6. and forbidding them to sue one an other before heathen Iudges he gave therein a rule to all Christians generally for that time as well Laicks as Clerks Which reason appropriated to our present purpose of Clerks onely is That if or when it should happen that Clerks should fall out of human frailty into such imperfections or sins as other men are subject to and yet are scandalized at mightily when committed by Clergie-men they might be with farre more secrecy and much less scandal corrected by their own proper Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Superiours and consequently that such deviations of Clergiemen should not come to the knowledge of the vulgar which commonly judges of the doctrine by the life or conversation of the Doctors and is apt enough upon such occasions to laugh and scorn the persons themselves and not seldome too their very sacred function it self Besides that Clergiemen who by their calling should be in a very special manner above others careful to cherish peace and concord and be themselves by word and deed paterns of charity and patience to others should not by their own example or by their own sueing of others or of one an other in the secular and publick Courts rather shew the way to contention and strife then lead to christian peace and patience Whereby as it may be easily understood the Fathers did not by such admonitions or by such decrees lessen or intend to lessen as indeed they could not if any of them would and certainly none of them have willed so to lessen the proper civil power of the secular Iudges to heare and determine the temporal either civil or criminal causes of Clerks when brought to their tribunals and brought so either by the free access of the Clerks themselves or by their constrained or commanded appearance when called or summoned by the same Iudges For to have done so or intended so would have been to take from Princes and Magistrats that right and authority which the law of Christ doth not permit any admonitions or any decrees of the Fathers not even in or by their most solemn Councils whatsoever to take from the said Princes or Magistrats The Fathers therefore by such decrees did partly forbid that Clerks should not sue one an other and partly too that neither should they sue a meer layman before a secular Iudg. For this also of not sueing laymen some Canons have And the Fathers by those decrees ordained Episcopal punishments against all Clerks that would not observe those decrees And this is all that may be gathered out of any or all the Canons of Councils alleadged by our adversaries Now who sees not that all this might be justly and lawfully ordained by the spiritual Fathers of the Church by their Ecclesiastical Councils and Canons without any the least diminution of the former civil power of the lay Iudges over Clerks For so a good natural Father in the civil commonwealth that hath many children may command them all and also forbid them under a private domestick punishment nay even under that of disinheriting them that they contend not or sue one an other before a publick Judg about any quarrel amongst themselves but leave all such differences to himself their Father or to the private domestick judgment of their other Bretheren And may command this without any prejudice at all to the publick authority of the publick or legal Judges And therefore so too may the spiritual Fathers of the Church command those who are in a special manner and by a special tye and calling their spiritual children such as all Clerks are and may command them too under such punishments or penalties as are proper to their said spiritual Fatherhood not to the one an other or even any at all before a secular Judg. And yet by no means thereby lessen or intend to lessen the power of such Judges over Clerks or their causes whensoever convened or brought either by election or coaction before them but onely to abridgâ— the Clerks themselves of their former liberty of going so freely unto them as they used to do Which any rational person may easily judg not to be an Exemption of Clerks from secular Judges but a provident course to keep them in better order and as well as may be to avoid scandal And that my bare assertion may not be given for this my interpretation I thought it worth my labour to set down here and at length distinctly those very Decrees of Councils which Bellarmine l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. Prop. 3. pleads against us though he gives there some few words onely of some of them and
of the rest none at all The first Council then which decreed any thing concerning this point was the third Council of Carthage held Anno Domini 307. St. Augustine being one of the Fathers and subscribers of it Whereof the 9. Canon is of this tenour and very words Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum Praesbyterorum Diaconorum seu Clericorum cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commota si relicto Ecclesiastico judioiâ— publicis judiciis purgari â—â—luerit etiamsi pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia locum suum amittat hoc in criminali judicio In civili vero perdat quod evicit si locum suum obtinere voluerit Cui enim ad eligendos judices undique patet authoritas ipse se indignum fraterno câ—nsortiâ— judicat qui de universa Ecclesia male sentiendo de judicio seculari poscit auxilium cum privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri atque ibi determinari praecipiat Also we have ordained that if any Bishop Priest Deacon or other Clerk being charged in or before the Church with a crime or having but even a civil suit commenced against him shall decline Ecclesiastical Judgment and choose rather to have his cause tryed in publick Courts or Judicatories though he have sentence given for him yet he shall loose his place and this in a criminal judgment But in a civil that he forgo what he hath wonn if he desire to hold his place For he that is at full liberty to choose his Judges where he will shews himself unworthy of the fellowship of his bretheren when judging ill of the whole Church he sueth to secular judicatories for help whereas the Apostle commandeth that the causes of private Christians be brought to the Church and there determined Is there I beseech you any word here out of which may be gathered by any probable consequence That this Council intended to exempt Clergie-men from the jurisdiction of secular Magistrats or to declare that no Laicks are lawful Judges in any causes of the Clergie So little of any such matter that on the contrary the whole tenour shews plainly enough those Affrican Fathers beleeved that Laicks were always very legal and competent Judges in the politick or temporal causes of Clerks And shews plainly enough those Fathers endeavoured onely by this Canon to bridle the stubborness and restrain the giddiness of such Clerks as when their causes were already begun to be debated in the Church before Ecclesiastical Arbiters did nevertheless without any cause and before sentence renounce them and run to the secular Judges for a determination In which case yet this Council disallows not the sentence given by the secular Judge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Judge but onely for punishment of the levity and improbity of such a Clerk prescribes him to quit the benefit of such a sentence or els to loose his place But that those Fathers at the same time acknowledg'd the civil Magistrats to be lawful Judges of Clerks may hence be sufficiently evicted that they restrained this decree to that case onely wherein a crime is in the Church that is before an Ecclesiastical Judge charg'd on a Clergieman or a civil suit commenced against him in the Church quo crimen Clerico in Ecclesia fuerit intentatum aut civilis causa commota Out of these two cases therefore it was lawful for a Clerk notwithstanding this Canon to have recourse to lay Judicatories and secular publick Judges How clear soever this matter be yet Bellarmine would needs argue against it in his book against William Barclay cap. 34. where he tels us that himself sees in this canon many things for the exemption of Clerks Primum enim sayes he aperâ—è damnant Patres recursum ad judicia secularium Magistratuum quod certe non facerent si seculares Magistratus omni ex parte legittimi judices Ecclesiasticorum fuissent c. For first sayes he the Fathers openly condemn a recourse to secular Magistrats which truly they would not have done if the secular Magistrates were in all respects lawful judges of Ecclesiasticks For what sin or fault had it been to appeal from the judgment of the Bishop to the judgment of the President of the Province or of the Prince himself if the President or Prince were a lawful Judge not onely of the Clerk but also of the Bishop Next this Council rescinds the sentence of the secular Judg pronounced against a Clerk forasmuch as the canon decrees that a Clerk absolved in a criminal cause by a secular Judg shall loose his place and in a civil cause shall loose that which was adjudged to him and so shall in neither of both causes reap any benefit by a sentence pronounced in his behalf by a secular Judg. For albeit the Fathers decree so by way of punishment yet the punishment had been unjust if it had not been a crime for and in a Clerk to acknowledg any secular judgment Lastly because Barclay sayes this Council doth reprehend onely those Clerks that after a cause begun to be discussed before an Ecclesiastical judg transferre it to a secular which may seem to be injurious to Ecclesiastical judges let him see what the Council of Milevi of the same age and celebrated in the same Affrick sayes For thus it speaks in the Nineteenth canon Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitinem judiciorum publicorum petierit Honore proprio privetur si autem Episcâ—pale judicium ab Imperatâ—re postulaverit nihil ei obsit It hath been our will that whoever shall of the Emperour demand the cognizance of publick judgments shall be deprived of his proper Honour but if from the Emperour any demand Episcopal Audience that such demand shall not disadvantage him Where we see the Fathers do not treat of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical but absolutely prohibit Clerks under a most grievous penalty that they shall not have recourse to the Emperour to demand any secular discussion and yet do licence the recourse of Clerks to demand Episcopal Audience to wit for avoiding secular judgments Hetherto Bellarmine Notwithstanding all which it is always clear enough that not onely nothing at all is decreed in this canon of Carthage for the exemption of Clergiemen from secular Iudicatories but even very much against it if the canon be considered without prejudice For if it had not been lawful even I mean in point of conscience for the secular Magistrate or judg to here the causes of Clerks wherefore did not the Fathers in this Council of Carthage forbid under censures the secular Iudges themselves not to admit Clerks to their Courts or not to give judgment in their causes But here is not a word against the judges that do so Besides when the Fathers give the reason of their said decree forbidding Clerks to go spontaneously of themselves to try their causes in secular Iudicatories they
bounty how much more in reason must we not deny the Church a power to deprive such of her own favours as will not perform the conditions enjoyn'd by her for the continuance of such favours Thirdly against that which is said by Barclay and which I too have said above that this canon was made by the Fathers to restrain the giddiness and rashness of such Clergiemen as would appeal from the Church to a secular Judge after the cause had been begun to be discussed in the Church against this I say of a provision made here for such a case only of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical and nevertheless before any judgement given transferr'd by a caprichious Clerk Bellarmine argues by objecting the Council of Milevi Concilium Melevitanum and it must be the second of Milevi under Arcadius and Honorius where it is prohibited in the ninth canon not that Clerks transfer to secular Courts a cause begun already in the Church but absolutely prohibited that by no means they go to the Emperour to demand of him secular Judges But the answer is obvious 1. That divers canons may be made by divers Councils And that it is most evident that whatever the Fathers of Milevi ordained in the case those of Carthage ordained no other then what William Barclay said and what I too have after him said without any kind of interpretation or paraprase of the Council but in the very words of the Council or Canon it self For these are the words precisely of that Canon Cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commâ—ta Let any one say now for Bellarmine that ought else is decreed by the Canon then what is against such Clerks as transfer a cause already begun in the Church 2. That for that Council of Milevi albeit the Fathers prohibit in the Canon cited out of it that Clerks desire no secular judgment of the Emperour yet they prohibit not the Emperour himself to assign lay Judges to a Clerk if his Imperial Wisdom think it fit to assign such Nor even prohibit Clerks to answer if called upon by such lay Judges and obey their sentence as binding them So that both Councils that of Carthage and this of Milevi say the very same thing in this matter without any other difference but only that this of Milevi extends the prohibition further that is not only to the transferring of causes already begun before or in the presence of an Ecclesiastical Judge but even to causes not so begun For it simply or absolutely prohibits Clerks to transferr as much as in them lyes any civil or criminal cause whatsoever whether so begun or not so begun to secular Judges Where yet it is apparent there is nothing at all for the Immunity of Clerks from secular Judges being the command is only to Clerks not to demand such lay judges and no command to no restriction at all of the lay Judges to proceed ex offiâ—iâ— when the causes of Clerks are brought before them The second Council that prescribed any thing in this matter was that truly Oecumenical or General of Chalcedon for the former of Carthage though of very great authority was but a National Council of Affrick however canonized after by approbation of truly General Councils held in the year 451 under Martianus the Emperour and Pulcheria the Empress who were both present and often sate in it Wherein the ninth canon made for discipline and regulation of Church affairs or those of Clergymen was this Si quis Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non derelinquat preprium Episcopum ad secularia judicia non concurrat sed prius negotium agitetur apud proprium Episcâ—pum vel certe si fuerit negotium ipsius Episcopi apud arbitros ex utraque parte electos audiatur negotium Si quis vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diaecesis Primatem aut certeâ—ad Constantinopolitanae Regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur If any Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk let him not leave his proper Bishop nor run to secular Iudicatories But first let the matter be agitated before his proper Bishop or certainly if the controversie be with this Bishop himself let it be heard by arbiters chosen by both sides But if any Bishop or Clerk have a controversie with or against the Metrapolitan of the Province let them go to the Primate of the Diocess or certainly to the See of the Constantinopolitan Royal City that the business may be ended there And this is all this canon sayes Where it is plain enough 1. That the Fathers direct their speech to Clergiemen only prescribe a rule to them only but none at all to lay Magistrats or Iudges not even to the subordinat inferiour Iudges so little do they meddle with or ever as much as thought to meddle with the supream That although they bid Clerks not to go first to secular Iudgments yet they do not bid them not to go at last or in the next or second instance to such if they cannot agree That even to the Clerks themselves they prescribe only in such cases as a Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk but not in case a Clerk have a quarrel with a Laick or a Laick to him 2. That they declare not here enjoyn or prescribe that it was not is not of shall not be in the power of a lay Judge to determine of the causes of Clerks one against another or of that of a Clerk against a Lay-man or of a Lay-man against a Clerk when either voluntarily and by the parties themselves brought before him or when by his own authority or by due course of law or by summons from him to either or both parties they appear in his Court. So that this Canon meddles not at all with the power authority or jurisdiction of the lay Magistrates or Judges but only prescribes a rule to the Clerks themselves that themselves should not freely or voluntarily sue one another at least in prima instantia in secular Judicatories and as we may justly presume upon the same grounds and for the same ends we have before noted the Fathers of Affrick did in imitation of St. Paul or of his advice or command as you please to all Christians in general to abstain from suing one another in heathen Judicatories least otherwise they would questionless betray their religion and belye it before the haters and persecutors of it 3. That in case there were as there is not any word or matter in this canon of Chalcedon restraining any way the Jurisdiction of even inferiour lay Magistrates or Judges yet it would be to no more purpose alledged against me or against any thing I have said before in this Section concerning even the very same inferiour lay Magistrates and their Jurisdiction over Clerks in politick or temporal
ancient and where according to our own very common doctrine in Schools they give no sufficient ground at all to derive such unreasonable conclusions from their decrees nor ever I am confident as much as once imagined any would be so extravagant as to derive such Fourthly That although we admitted as we neither do nor can that the Fathers of Agde in the second part of this canon and by these words sed si pulsatus fuerit non respondeat nec proponat nec audeat criminale negotium in judicio seculari proponere were intended absolutely and generally to forbid their own Clerks in any case to answer in the publick lay Courts and in criminal causes notwithstanding the Judges themselves should expresly and particularly summon and command them to appear and answer yet nothing could be concluded hence against either of my above affirmations First nothing to prove as I will presently shew that which indeed is the only thing to be proved against my main or rather only purpose that is nothing to prove that the Fathers therefore intended that Clerks should not appear and answer if by the supream secular Judge himself or by a warrant come immediatly from the King himself or from his special Delegate in such a matter they were commanded to appear and answer before him Secondly nor any thing to prove that by the pure and sole authority of the Church or of any Councils or Bishops Cergiemen were warranted as much as in point of conscience not to appear and answer even before the subordinat inferiour lay Judges Nor thirdly yet any thing at all to prove that these Fathers of Agde or other Council declared by that other canon that Clerks were generally in all Countreys and in all causes or all matters even the most criminal and horrid soever at that time which was indeed before Iustinians time exempt as much as by the civil authority of Emperours or even of other Kings from all inferiour lay Judicatories and so exempt that if in any case these inferiour Judges themselves did ex officio proceed against them yet they were not bound to answer or obey or observe their judgement or that if those same inferiour Judges gave sentence for or against them in any temporal cause whatsoever or in any cause not purely spiritual such sentence would not hold when pronounc'd according to the civil or municipal either Imperial or Royal Laws inforce in the respective Countreys Such forbidding of their own Clerks might have been grounded on a particular custom introduced by the people in that Province of Guien and by the consent or permission or connivence or tacit approbation of the former civil Magistrats themselves or of King Alaricus himself or his Predecessors And in such case the Bishops there might have justly forbid their own Clerks to appear even at the summons of inferiour lay Iudges because the peculiar civil custom of that place not any spiritual power or canons of their own did so priviledg them albeit in all the rest of the world where the imperial written laws were still in force and strict observance no law or custom did so priviledge them or other Clerks at that time which was before Iustinians time and his law Novel 83. not to appear before the subordinat Magistrats or civil Iudges when summoned by them in a criminal cause nor priviledge the Bishops at all for holding coercive Courts either in civil or criminal causes but only by consent of both parties in difference And that it was introduced so or that such custom had been so in Guien and that only pursuant to the humane civil right or priviledge or exemption derived only from such custom and to maintain it until it had been legally revoked again by the supream civil power the Fathers of Agde made that canon or second part of it we have all the reasons to perswade us which perswade us also and clearly convince us that Ecclesiasticks are by the law of God as well as Laicks under the coercion of the lawful supream lay Magistrate and of his inferiour lay Iudges too if not or where not particularly exempted by him and those reasons besides which tell us we must have that reverence to all such Catholick ancient Fathers and especially in Council together as those of Agde are confessed to have been St. Cesarius the Archbishop of Arles and Primate of all France having been their President and so venerable an opinion of them as not to fix or give such a sense or interpretation to any of their canons however only canons of Discipline as would argue the canon-makers of ignorance or rashness or of any perversness at all or even such their canons of containing any thing either formally virtually or consequentially against the only infallible divine canons of the law of God and I mean still not to give or fix such interpretation to such canons where we can choose that is where the words are not so specifical and particular as to require it Now it is plain enough the words above-rehearsed are not so specifical or so particular as to require a contrary interpretation to that of them I have given here And yet that it was so or that in pursuance and by virtue of such a peculiar custom only of that Province or that little Kingdom there of Guien and of the supream civil Magistrats pleasure permission approbation and consent the Fathers of Agde made this canon or second part of it forbidding Clerks to answer in a criminal cause before lay Judges to wit before inferiour lay Judges we have secondly a sufficient other argument out of the first part of the same canon or out of the sense and natural consequences of it if compared with the practice of the Christian world in all other parts both at that time and at this For the first part being that no Clerk shall presume to sue a lay man before a lay Iudge without the Bishops licence and this importing as much as that an Ecclesiastical Plaintiff shall not without his Bishops leave conveâ—e a lay Defendent before his own proper lay Judge even I say in a meer lay cause or crime and this consequently being against the general rule Quâ—d Actor sequitur Forum Dei it is plain enough that if any will maintain those Fathers intended else here then only to prescribe to Clerks the first peaceable way they should take for righting themselves by letting the Bishop know the wrong done them to the end he might call the lay pretended injurer and try whether he could induce him fairly or by fatherly admonitions if first he had found a real injury done by him to the Clerk which also was christianly ordained as a rule by the Council of Tribur can 20. a German Council of two and twenty Bishops held in the year 895 under Arnulphus the Emperour and indistinctly ordained by this Council for lay men also to observe in case they pretended injuries done themselves by any Clerks I say it
Pontifice suo ad judicia publica pertrahant Proinde statuimus ut hoc de caetero non praesumatur Si quis hoc praesumpserit facere causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus Out of both these Councils that is out of that eight canon of that first Matisconensian Council and this 13. canon of the third Toletan our learned Cardinal endeavours again to impose on his unlearned Readers But not so much in his great work of controversies l. 1. de Cler. c. 28. where he onely or at least commonly cited the bare chapters and not as much as the material words of Councils so farre he was from composing arguments but in that other book he writ long after against D. W. Barclay and in defence of his foresaid Controversies and particularly of what he taught therein or in his often quoted first book de Cleric c. 28. It is therefore in this reply of his which he also entitles as Barclay did his own book against him De potestate Papae in Temporalibus and it is in the 24. chapter of it and after so many other arguments weak enough as I have already shewn them to be framed and replyes made against William Barclay on pretence of those other councils and in behalf of his own allegation of them it is I say in this little and last beloved piece of his old age he argues thus interrogatively or Socratically out of both these last Councils Si Laici Magistratus c. If sayes he Lay Magistrats were legal Judges of Clergiemen by what right law or title could the above Matisconensian Council decree that all causes of clerks should be determined in the presence of the Bishop or Presbiter or Archdeacon And how could this Toletan Council also with so great asperity of words tearm it praesumption and unlawful attempts in Clergiemen to have recourse to secular Iudicatories And how lastly would this same Council dare to rescind or annull the sentence of the secular Judg and besides to excommunicate the Clerk that procured such sentence or sued any other Clerk in a secular Court or Iudicatory For so much do these words import Causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus let him loose his cause and be made a stranger to communion But the answer is facile enough and clear 1. That neither of both Councils or canons determins any thing against the secular Judge himself or against his having still a power of Iurisdiction to judg the causes of Clerks when called or come before him but onely prohibits Clerks themselves to have recourse of themselves or freely of themselves to sue one an other in secular Courts as hath been said before to the canon of Carthage And for prohibiting such voluntary recourse of Clerks that these Fathers of Matiscon and Toledo had respectively the same rights or authority which those of Carthage or even those of Chalcedon had even that very same which St. Paul had when he either commanded or advised his Corinthians not to sue one an other before Heathen judges c. And therefore that these Councils do rather confirm then any way infirm the jurisdiction at that time yet of lay Judges 2. That Bellarmine is much out of the way in thinking if ever he thought so indeed that by these words causam perdat the Fathers of Toledo rescind or annul the sentence of the secular judg by their own proper Episcopal or spiritual authority For and for what belong'd and was necessary to such rescission or annullation strictly taken the Fathers in making this canon as likewise in making any other such or that would or should require a politick civil power properly such in the canon-makers derived their authority from King Recaredus himself at whose command this third Council of Toledo was called and therefore sate in it himself and made the first speech to open it and several speeches after and finally confirmed it with his own subscription in these words Flavius Recaredus Rex hanc deliberationem quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo confirmans subscripsi Having also before his said subscription premised this declaration or admonition to all concern'd Praecedente autem diligenti cauta deliberatione sive quae ad fidem conveniunt sue quae ad morum correctionem respiciunt sensus maruritate intelligentiae gravitate constant esse digesta Nostra proinde authoritas hoc omnibus hominibus ad regnum nostrum pertinentibus jubet ut si qua definita sunt in hoc Concilio acto in urbe Toletana anno Regni nostri faeliciter quarto nulli contemnere liceat nullus praeterire praesumat For so it hath been usual that where the civil and Ecclesiastical power agree well together in making laws each or both do make such use of one an others authority that as to the words the Church sometimes doth seem to speak as having civil jurisdiction and the Politick or secular civil power also to make such laws as are of Ecclesiastical Notion Neither indeed doing so or seeming so by vertue of its own proper innate authority but by that borrowed from the other or as being certain of the others approbation and ratihabition Which was the cause that Recaredus the foresaid King of Spain though a meer layman ordained in his confirmation of this Toletan Council in his own name too that if any person Concilii observator esse noluerit superba fronte majorum statutis repugnans si Episcopus Praesbiter Diaconus aut Clericus fuerit ab omni Concilio excommunicationi subjaceat What is the power of excommunication in a lay Kings hands Or did Recaredus the very first Catholick King after those Arian Gothish Kings of Spain a King so truly Catholick and pious as he is confessed to have been did he usurp the rights and proper powers of the Church and even in that very Edict unto which the Fathers of this Toletan Council did themselves subscribe themselves Nothing less What he did in this respect or by such words was by consent of the Fathers nor in so much did he assume peradventure as much the person of a law maker as of a publisher of that law which in this particular of excommunication was onely made by the Fathers Though withal I confess that a secular Prince may by his own proper supream and even still meer civil power make a law commanding or enjoyning the Bishops to excommunicate in certain cases and a law besides ordaining some temporal punishment for such as without any just cause or against the known canons of the Church should excommunicate For to say so we are not onely warranted by natural reason or consideration of the proper office of the supream civil Magistrate which consists in taking care that all degrees either civil or Ecclesiastical under his charge do justly and religiously discharge themselves but also by the canon De illicita 24. q. 3. taken out of a Paris Council where the Fathers speak thus De illicita excommunicatione Lex
Iustiniani Imperatoris Catholici quam probat servat Catholica Ecclesia constitutione c. XXIV cap. eccl 1. decrevit ut nemo Episcopus nemo praesbiter excommunicet aliquem antequam causa probetur c. In which law of Iustinian it is also very observable that he prescribes meer ecclesiastical punishments to be undergone by the transgressors of it Is autem qui non legittime excommunicaverit in tantum abstineat a sacra communione tempus quantum majori sacerdoti visum fuerit c. On the other side it hath been often seen that the Fathers themselves assembled in Councils made ordinances or canons in matters belonging properly to the politick administration as to wit being certain the Prince would by his own proper authority approve of such canons and consequently give them that force which the onely spiritual power could not or as knowing that by the civil laws or customs of countries such matters ought to be observed but wanted nevertheless for their more conscientious and careful observance the admonition of the Fathers and the severity also of Ecclesiastical censures threatned against the infringers Which to have been so indeed may truly and clearly appear even out of this very Council of Toledo where annuente consentiente Rege some politick canons were made by the Fathers and may appear also out of that former of Matiscon wherein the 14 canon is Vt Iudaeis a caena Domini usque ad primum diem pâ—st Pascha secundum edictum bonae Recordationis Domini Childeberti Regis per plateas aut fâ—rum quasi insultationis causa deambulandi licentia denegetur 3. That if we did absolutely grant without reserve that by the royal authority of King Guntramnus in this first Council of Matisconum and of King Recaredus in that of Toledo the jurisdiction of subordinate inferiour lay Judges over Clerks had been totally extinct in the respective Kingdoms of those two Kings yet nothing hence for the exemption of Clerks from the very supream royal power in it self and in all cases or causes Nor any thing to prove such exemption from inferiour tribunals whatever it was to have proceeded from any power of the Church or even from any temporal power of Kings before Iustinians time and Novels in favour of Clergiemen for both these Councils were held after Iustinians Raign 4. And lastly that Bellarmine was not wary enough in alleadging that first Council of Matisconum For besides that what he alleadgeth out of it hath not as much as any seeming argument for his purpose but that simple Quere which every novice could answer he hath moreover given his Readers occasion to tell him that of all Councils he should ever beware to touch on this of Matisconum being the seventh canon of it is so clear and express against his pretence of divine right or divine law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Magistrate or indeed rather of any law at all even meerly humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for their exemption in all crimes or in all those which are in the canons stiled lay crimes crimina laica that murther theft and witchcraft are by name excepted by this very Council and in the seventh canon from any such priviledge of Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption from the lay Judges however the criminal be a Clerk as may appear to any that is not wilfully blind out of this VII canon it self being as to the tenor of it word by word at leingth what I give here Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque judex absque causa criminali id est homicidis furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum fuerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur So at that time the Fathers of this Matisconensâ—â—â— Council thought it not against any law divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical to acknowledg the jurisdiction of even inferiour Judges over Clerks accused of or as much as accused of murder theft or witchcraft and consequently nor to leave them in such causes to the punishment prescribed by the law And what think you then would these Fathers have any more priviledged such Clerks as should perchance be found guilty of or charg'd with sedition rebellion hostility or any other undenyable treason against the King State or People Or did these Fathers think you harbour at any time the least thought of a priviledge from God or Church or Prince or people to Clergiemen guilty of moveing subjects to take arms against the King himself and his laws And these being all the Councils alleadged by the learned Cardinal in his controversies de Cleric l. 1. c. 28. and those other Councils after added by him in his foresaid other last peculiar little book de potestate Papae in temporalibus against William Barclay undoubtedly because upon after thoughts he found the former in his controversies not convincing at all as no more will you those his additional ones being also already and at large both in my general Answers to them all together and in my particular answers to each a part cleared by me abundantly in my LXIV and LXIX Section where the Reader may turn to them back again if he please for those additional Councils are no other then Lateranense magnum sub Innoc. III. cap. 43. Constantiense Sess 31. Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X. finally the Council of Trent Sess 25. c. 20. de Reformat All which I have though upon another occasion considered in my said former LXIV LXIX Section therefore to perclose this present Section I find my self obliged onely further to take notice of what the Cardinal sayes nay indeed gives for the second main proof of his third Proposition l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. which third Proposition is as I have before noted in general tearms this Non possunt Cerici a judice seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent For after the Cardinal had briefly quoted the Councils of Chalcedon Agatha Carthage Toledo and Matisconum and of these five Councils had framed his first argument for that his so general third Proposition and then for a second argument pretended first the constitutions of Emperours Novel 79. 83. and 123. but immediatly after acknowledging these Imperial constitutions did not reach the exemption of Clerks at least in criminal causes from some even Inferiour or subordinate lay judges but expresly subjects them still in such causes to the Praetors and Presidents he at last for a second proof of his said Proposition to wit as it relates to criminal causes relyes wholly and onely on the authority of the canon law and for canon law in the point brings no other proof then a general and bare allegation of three Popes Caius Marcellinus and S. Gregory the Great without as much as giving us their words but telling us
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
first are to prove it necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen as the last is to prove it necessary in reference also to their goods Soto's first medium or assumption to prove Ecclesiastical Exemption necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen Whereas Churchmen are divino jure by the law divine ordained Ministers of the Church eidem juri proximum esse videtur vt nequeant a Judicibus secularibus evocari it seems in the very next degree to that law that secular Judges have no power to summon or proceed against them And this he further proves out of that saying of St. Paul Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus No man warring to God intrigues himself to secular businesses 2. ad Timoth. 2. But Soto will give me leave here first to distinguish necessaries that we may understand one another then I will answer directly to his proposition For of necessaries as to our present purpose some are per se et ex rei natura of themselves and of their own nature and at all times such to attain the end of such Ecclesiastical Power and all that are necessary in this sense are likewise de jure divino warranted by the law of God For all such necessaries or all power means rules necessary of themselves or of their own nature for that end the Church hath received from God himself not from any sanctions of Popes or Councils And others are now and then for a time or only by accident occasion or supposition necessary that is are to be necessarily observed because they happen to be commanded by the Church and freely submitted unto by the people as for example Fasting-dayes Holydayes c. Now if Soto mean the exemption of Clerks and I mean too here any kind of exemption of them in temporal matters or of their persons goods lands or houses nay or of even the very sacred Churches to be necessary in the former sense he contradicts himself for he holds Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not of divine but of humane institution If in the latter he touches not the question For at present we dispute not whether now that Clergymen have by either the Sanctions of Princes or Canons of the Fathers or both many Exemptions and if from the Princes only whether now when the Church also layes heavy injunctions on us to observe the laws of Princes in this matter it be necessary for salvation and only during such laws not to violate the true priviledges or exemptions whatever they be of Clerks given them by such laws But the question we dispute here is whether it be necessary or whether it hath been alwayes necessary for salvation that Clerks should have been so exempted at any time or by any law at all either of God or man of Prince or Church for that exemption which is pretended to be now from even the supream civil power or even for that exemption which is from inferiour lay Judges Which distinction and animadversion premised I answer directly to his proposition and absolutely deny that it seems so as he sayes or that the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the civil power seems to be eidem juri divino proximum in the next degree of proximity to that divine law whereby Clergimen are appointed by God to be Ministers of the Church For I demand how that proximity appears by this argument which yet must be the only argument to prove it Clerks are de jure divino by the law of God Ministers of the Church Ergo by the same or other law of God they cannot in civil causes be accused before or judged by the civil Judges For even so will I argue for a proximity of divine law in behalf of the civil Magistrats exemption from the Church in spiritual matters The civil Magistrats are divino jure by the law of God appointed Ministers of temporal things Ergo in Ecclesiastical or Spiritual things they cannot be judged by Ecclesiasticks Besides we have sufficiently shewed before that neither can the Pope himself or Church lay binding commands in all matters which have such or as much proximity or affinity as this of Ecclesiastical exemption hath to the law divine For his allegation of St. Paul's saying That none warring to God intrigues himself in worldly affairs who sees not the impertinency of it Did Paul speak or mean this of Clerks meerly It 's plain he mean'd it of all Christians generally If then to any purpose of Exemption alledg'd it must be necessary that all Christian Laicks be exempted as well as Clerks from the civil power Much different God knows was this divine Apostles sense exhorting that in as much as lyes in us we estrange our selves from worldly cares to the end we may the more simply and perfectly attend the will of God Besides it s also clear enough that by these words he no more interdicted the Clergy from civil Judicatories then from honours possessions moneys all which do no less highly and extreamly involve the lovers or earnest pursuers of them in secular businesses And yet amongst all Clerks in the world who will be found that will believe St. Paul did ever mean it as necessary to salvation that Clerks should not in any circumstances and observing all other commandments modestly and moderatly endeavour to attain honours possessions riches intending still to make good use of them To Soto's second argument in reference to the persons which is that it may happen that amongst some ecclesiastical causes whereof lay-men cannot be Judges some civil causes be mixed and therefore if Clerks be not exempt from the secular power it must follow that in such cases they must remain perplexed as called upon by both tribunals the civil and ecclesiastical not knowing which to obey the answer is facile enough and clear That hence no necessity of their being so exempted follows but only some greater vexation or trouble in such cases of Clerks whose fortune it is to be involved in them For we see Laicks also and not seldom contending about such matters as are partly of spiritual cognizance and partly of civil so that they are forced to appear before both the Judges Ecclesiastical and the temporal Magistrats And yet no man will therefore say it to be necessary that Laicks be exempt either from the one Court or other To Soto's third medium in reference to the persons Quod non esset decorum ut Ministri Ecclesiae qui pastores sunt etiam Iudicum Regum tanduam rei coram ipsis sisterentur That it would not be honourable that the Ministers of the Church who are Pastors even of those lay Judges even of the very Kings should be obliged to appear before them as criminals or guilty persons I answer first that to be honourable or decent is one thing and to be necessary is another Secondly that neither is it undecent As on the contrary it is neither dishonourable nor undecent that the King who in
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
purpose Nothing but against oppressive taxes contrary to law and former customs and taxes too imposed by the Consuls only and Rectors of particular Cities Nothing in specie against even any such oppressive taxe tallies exactions collections laid or made by an absolute order law or constitution of the supream civil power or of Kings Emperours States who certainly are not understood by the names of Consuls and Rectors of Cities And however this of taxes of Clerks be nothing at all for the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the supream civil power in all other civil and criminal causes whatsoever which only is it we dispute of here Nothing besides but what was convenient for the Government of the people within the Popes own temporal Patrimony for which only the additions of Gregory were unless it pleased other Countreys and of themselves to receive his said additions Finally nothing but what the Pope Innocent might as justly have decreed in case he believed certainly that Clerks had their exemption whatever it be from the sole civil power as if he had believed they had it only from the Church or from himself or some other of his Predecessors in the See of Rome 3. For although cap. Ecclesia sanctae Mariae de constitutionibus be a meer papal constitution of Innocent the Third only and hath indeed an expression which imports some such thing as the exemption of Churches and of the persons too of Churchmen from the power of Laicks yet forasmuch as this expression is not specifical or not in specie relating to or comprising the very supream lay power it self but so generical only as these words which are the words there concerning this matter Nos attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super Ecclesiis personis Ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa potestas and consequently forasmuch as these words may have a very true and rational sense notwithstanding the subjection still of the persons of Clerkes to the supream lay power because the civil laws or customs which prevailed at that time under Innocent the Third or which is the same thing because the Emperours themselves had given or permitted under themselves to the Church and Churchmen proper Ecclesiastical Judges for all their own both civil and criminal causes how ever still subordinat Judges in such causes to the Emperours and the same must be said of other Kings who had granted the like Ecclesiastical Judges and moreover forasmuch as this canon or chapter of Innocent is only a decision of a particular controversie in matter of a possession controverted betwixt a certain Church called here the Church of S. Mary and a certain Convent termed likewise in this canon the Convent of St. Sylvester which possession was adjudged by a certain lay judge called Senator against the said Convent without previous confession conviction or examination of the same Convent and those words above or meaning of them no part of that which was intended or decided by the Pope in this canon but assumed only and that also transiently as in part importing his reason or motive to remand that possession back to the said Convent and that we know the reasons motives or suppositions expressed in a sentence or canon are not therefore defined by the Pronouncer of the sentence or maker of the canon and further yet because those words neither distinguish nor determine by what authority or law that is whether by divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical authority or law it was so enacted that lay-men could have no power in the causes of Church-lands or Church-men and because too they say nothing at all of any Pope's having made such a law whether by a true or only pretended power as did incapacitat all kind of Laicks even the very supream civil Magistrate himself or indeed as much as the very subordinate inferiour lay Judges from having any judicial authority over Churchmen finally because those words of themselves take away no such authority from Laicks but only at most signifie the not being of such authority attributed to Laicks whatever those Laicks were and by what means soever it came to pass not to be attributed to them therefore it is plain enough this canon Ecclesia sanctae Mariae is to no purpose alledged for Bellarmin's voluit that is for the matter of Fact of any Pope's having done so or having exempted so by his own Power all Clerks from the jurisdiction of even supream lay Princes or even of having declared them so exempted by the law of God himself 4. That albeit also cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto and cap. Clericis de Immunitate Ecclesiar be two meer Papal canons as made by the sole authority of Boniface the VIII and although it be confessed this Pope did challenge all the both spiritual temporal power on earth in Church and State to himself alone as likewise consequently to his Predecessours and Successours in the See of Rome which his extravagant Vnam sanctam De Majoritate obedientia and his other proceedings against a King of France besides the later of these two canons here quoted the said cap. Clericis can prove abundantly yet I dare confidently averre that neither of these canons of his however otherwise too too exorbitant at least the later of them comes home enough to prove that any Pope hath de facto by his own meer Papal authority exempted Clerks in all civil and criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of Lay Princes or hath de facto as much as declared or defined that Clerks have been so or are so exempted by the law of God in such causes from the said supream power of temporal Princes That for the former canon seculares de foro competenti the case is clear enough out of the very words and whole tenour of it Which being but short I give here altogether not omitting one word Seenlares judices qui licet ipsis nulla competat jurisdicto in hac parte personas Ecclesiasticas ad soluendum debita super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur litterae vel probationes aliae indueuntur damnabili praesumptione compellunt a temeritate hujusmodi per locorum Ordinarios censura Ecclesiastica decerninus compescendos where you see first there is not one word directly or indirectly of criminal causes but only of a civil in matter of debt Nor secondly any specifical comprehension no nor any comprehension at all of Kings States or Princes but onely of those inferiour persons whose peculiar office it is to be judge twixt party and party Nor thirdly is there any word here declaring by whose law or authority that is whether by that of the Pope or that of the Church c. it came to pass that these very inferiour Lay Judges have no jurisdiction in hac parte in a civil cause of debt challenged on a Clerk or declaring how it came to pass that the proceeding judgment or determination
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
would be not to exempt them but in effect to make them to be no members at all As for that reason of diversity which Bellarmine hath given As it is unnecessary that all the Citizens pay tribute or that all bear arms to defend the Republick who sees not also that it argues no diversity no difference at all in the simile For in the natural body it is not necessary that all the members walke that all see that all hear c. But it is sufficient both in the natural body and in the civil that every member so attend perform that duty unto which it is ordained or applyed that all in common do still in the same body and under the same head what they are enjoyned or destined to Let Bellarmine therefore let his disciples abstain hereafter from such absurd Paradoxes What man of found reason hath ever yet in his own soul inwardly perswaded himself that a King may not de jure King it over that is govern by direction and coercion those of whom he is King nor a head the members of its own body But our Cardinal denye here that from the contrary position and practice any perturbations of the common-wealth should arise because that albeit the King may not coerce transgressing Clerks yet the Bishops may and will To this because I have said enough already I onely saâ— now that to assent this power of coercion of Clerks to Bishops for lay crimes or those committed in meer temporal or civil matters and deny it to King were nothing els in effect but to rayse Bishops from their Office Ministry Episcopal to the power and Dignity Royal of Kings and then consequently to make but meer Ciphers of the Kings themselves For I demand of Bellarmine or of his Schollars why were Kings instituted or to what end their power if it was not to govern the Republick to provide for the peace and safety of all the people of what condition or profession soever Lay or Ecclesiastick and to provide for the security and tranquility of all by punishing and rewarding indifferently according to the respective merits or demerits of every individual But our Cardinal snatches away from Kings this proper function of Kings and gives it to Bishops whereas it is notwithstanding certain that neither can the common-wealth be quiet if Clerks do violate the laws resign themselves over to sedition and yet may not be de jure therefore punished curbed or any way restrained by Kings For who sees not consequently that neither de jure can the King contain his Provinces in peace nor compel his people to live together within the bounds of honesty equity or justice And who sees not consequently also but that the very politick peace nay the very politick being of the common-wealth must depend of the will of the Bishops to whom onely the light of governing of licencing or restraining Clerks our good Cardinal will have to belong that by the severity of their Episcopal censures or other judgments they may as they will coerce the nocent and thereby and in so much pacifie the troubles of the Republick or as they please too permit all wickedness and all the most enormours horrid crimes of Sedition and Rebellion to extinguish quite the face and being of a Republick How farre more piously Christianly and rationally too had Bellarmine taught and writt that by the favour and priviledg given by Kings the Clergie are not subject to any other Judicatory but to one composed of Ecclesiastical judges yet so that as well those very Judges as the criminal Clerks be subject still to and not exempt from the supream Royal power of the King who gave subordinate power to those very Ecclesiastical Judicatories in temporal things nay and in spiritual too for what belongs to corporal or civil coercion and who as the supream temporal Prince may command prohibit and provide that no person of what condition or profession soever breake the peace of his Kingdom and who also may when there is just cause take cognizance of and judg as well what ever delinquent Clerks as the very Ecclesiastical judges of those Clerks To that of Hermannus the Colen Archbishop I will say that Bellarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that jeer wherewith a certain Boor pleasantly checked a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a country clown having first admired and said this pomp was very unlike that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and some of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreover he was a Duke and a Prince too the clown replied but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will become of the Bishop Even so doth Bellarmine write as that servant spoke that this Hermannus whom Charles the V. summon'd to appear was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And even so do I say and replye with the country swain when the Emperour judged this Prince of the Empire did he not I pray judge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he judged the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so For neither do I nor other Catholick Opposers of Bellarmine in this matter intend or mean or at least urge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subject to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Citizens and politick parts of the body Politick which kind of authority as Bellarmine confesses Charles the V. both acknowledg'd in and vindicated to the Emperour Of whose piety what Bellarmine adds is to no purpose For it is not denyed that it becomes good Princes to leave that is to commit the causes of Clerks how great and weighty or criminal soever to Ecclesiastical Judges if it stand with the safety or good hic nunc of the Commonwealth that such causes be discussed before such Judges And yet I must tell the Defenders of Bellarmine that if they please to consult the Continuator of Baronius the most reverend and most Catholick Bishop Henricus Spondenus ad an Christi 1545. they will find that upon complaint of the Catholick Clergy and University also of Colen to as well the Emperour Charles the V. as the Pope Pavl the III. against the said Archbishop as by the advice of Bueer introducing Heresie and licenceing the Preachers of it in that City and Diocess and that at their instance petitioning for help redress in that matter against the said Hermannus it was that the said Emperour Charles the V. did in the Diet of Wormes the said year and about the end of Iune by his Letters or Warrant signed and sealed summon the said Archbishop to appear before him within thirty dayes either by himself in his own proper person or by
of the communication of the Church and even of that of his own subiects in spiritual things or which is the same thing might have declared him to be thenceforth or until he did hear the Church no better then a Heathen or a Publican and that all the rest of the faithfull should hold him for such until he submitted But it is plain enough that neither Publican or Heathen as such or for being such were by any law deposed from their principalities or deprived of any other temporal rights especially when our Saviour gave that rule being the Roman Emperours their under Governours and Garrisons in Ierusalem and Iury and the Collectors of their publick taxes there were heathens and publicans and held as such by the Jews and by the Apostles and consequently excommunicated evangelically or excluded from their religious rites and yet were not held by either Jews or Christians at least not by the Christians to have forfeited any temporal dominion over them or other right amongst them And it is plain enough for any thing may be known out of this chapter Novit ille de Major obed that Innocent prescribes no more therein for his said Legats or himself but to proceed to an Evangelical censure against that King of France in which censure that as we have now seen of deposition from or deprivation of his Crown or of that see of Poitiers is not involv'd Wherefore then do the said Irish Divines relye on this canon to their said purpose And yet withall I confess that because I know Innocent was elsewhere of their opinion or seem'd at least so cap. per Venerabilem Qui filij sint legittimi and that moreover he certainly practised according to such opinion and practised also as highly almost according to it as any Pope and more frequently then any sate in St. Peters chayre and that he scarce left one King of his time in all Europe but he vexed and shaked by his sentences either of formal deposition or of that which in his doctrine was virtual for the matter although not such according to sound doctrine by excommunication I mean which was praeliminary to the other and which he as many other Popes would have to have other effects then the Gospel annexed to it and that Henricus Spondanus that Catholick Bishop Continuator of the Annals of Baronius is in the long life of the said Innocent a witness beyond exception in this matter of the too too many menaces and actual thunders too of this good Pope against all and singular the said very supream Princes of Europe though in effect he held none supream not even in temporals at least in some cases but himself alone and because it is manifest that however this matter be of his opinion or practise of a power in himself direct or indirect or casual as he phrases it cap. per Venerabilem Qui filij sint legittimi for deposing Princes what he held concerning the exemption of all Ecclesiastick persons at least all Priests appears without contradiction or controule in that epistle of his to the Constantinopolitan Emperour in the foresaid cap. Sollicitae benignitatis de Major obed and because that exemption might be without the other pretension and finally because our present maine purpose requires onely to instance the change in the doctrine or practise of Exemption therefore it is I have thought fit to instance here and annex Innocent immediately after Pope Nicholas though in the mean time I omit Gregory the VII and some others with him whose Histories are so famous especially because this Innocent gives the very same corrupt interpretation of St. Peter's epistle which Nicholas gave before him And yet also I confess there may be very much observed on and very much said against that fine artifice that misterious hook of Innocent which you may discover plainly under that subtle distinction of his in the above cap. Novit ille de Major Obed. Non enim intendimus judicare de feudo c sed decernere de delicto cujus ad nos â—pertinet sine dubitatione censura quam in quemlibet exercere possumus debemus A misterious hook indeed whereby if once swallowed all the meerest temporal causes in all Christian Kingdoms and States in the world nay and I mean too in all kind of trades handecrafts or other callings whatsoever must of necessity be decided in the external consistories of the Pope and of his Legats whensoever it shall please his Holiness to erect such Courts either at home in his own country or abroad in all other Countries for his Legats For it is clear enough there are sins whereof for example the Marchant and the Taylor the Lawyer and the Clerk the Councellour and the Client the Statesman and the Souldier the Baker Brewer Shoomaker c may be accused or sins of them or of each of them and at least pretended injustices of the particular laws rules customes of every kind of secular Corporation which may be denounced evangelically to the Pope or to his Legats And therefore it is also clear that by this subtle interpretation made by Innocent of Evangelical correction or of the power of the Church and of the Pope by vertue of it he may were it true hook into his own proper Ecclesiastical consistories all the temporal causes in the world and consequently render all the lay judicatories in the world unsignificant evacuat them all every one among Christians especially if his other text in cap. Per Venerubilem Qui filij sint legittimi were admitted as a rule where he sayes Verum â—â—man in alâ—s Regionibus non solum in Ecclesiae Patriâ—â—nio super quo plenam temporalium gerimus potestatem certis causis inspectio temporalem jâ—â—isdictionem casualiter exercemus and further also consequently might without much difficulty make himself de jure and de facto the sole supream Prince indeed both spiritual and temporal among Christians But forasmuch as it is not my business here to examine this matter any further then to shew the change or difference of opinions and practises betwixt some of the later Popes and the former as to that of acknowledging and yielding obedience or not to the supream lay Princes I proceed and anâ—â—â— to Nicholas and Innocent the â—â—ird Boniface the VIII And I am sure if I had annexed also Innocent the Fourth in particular many others with him whom I do not mention at all I should not do it impertinently But to avoyd too much prolixity I content my self at this present with Boniface the Eight With him above others I end this comparison that it may be rendred the more conspicuous Paul the Apostle said Rom. 13.7 Cui tributum tributum cui vectigal vectigal The succeeding Fathers taught by word and confirmed by deed what Christ himself had taught also by word Matth. 22.21 viz. that what was Cesar's should be paid to Cesar and what he moreover confirmed by deed that is by actual payment
spiritual sentence of deposition pronounced by the Nicene Council and a civil Imperial sentence of exile and corporal extermination issued from Constantine For you shall never find that any Council especially this of Nice forced or gave sentence of forceing corporally a Bishop from his See and City and haling him into banishment but onely a bare spiritual sentence or declaration of his being now deposed from such authority as the Church gave him formerly And on the other side you shall never see it was the Prince alone that by his own Royal power onely sent Bishops to exile nay and this too not seldome without any previous sentence of deposition by other Bishops as also that not seldome also the sole exile of a Bishop from his See by the onely sentence of the Secular Prince was by the Church held for a sufficient deposition of such Bishop and that the Clergie proceeded to election and consecration of an other when the Prince desired it as holding the See absolutely vacant And we know moreover that the very same Constantine expelled Athanasius himself from Alexandria and turned him to banishment Theod. Histor l. 1. c. 31. And yet we know that although as well Athanasius himself as others with him acknowledge this banishment to have been unjust because the exiled person was innocent of the crime charg'd upon him yet no man ever opened his mouth herein against Constantine upon account of having usurped jurisdiction over Athanasius nay in the whole procedure or as to the cause it self he is excused by very many Baronius himself saâ—es tom 3. an 336. that deceived by the Arrians he proceeded bona fide to this banishment And certainly Theodoretus alleadges a meer lay crime or temporal cause Accusatus enim fuerat Athanasius minatus esse sayes Theodoret se prohibiturum quo minns frumentum ut solet Alexandria Constantinopolim adveheretur For sayes he Athanasius was accused to have threatned that he would hinder corne to be transported to Constantinople as was accustomed And yet that the Emperour himself assumed to himself the judgement and sate as judge of this accusation offered by other Bishops against Athanasius as also of the accusation which on the other side the same Athanasius offered to the Emperour against them as having unjustly condemned him Theodoret is witness For thus he writes Postquam verò Athanasius ad eum venit de iniquo judicio conquesturus Episcopos quos ea de re accusabat ad se adveniare jubet Imperator And of the same Athanasius the Bishops of Egypt writt thus apud Athanas. apol 2. Cum nihil culpae in comministro nostro Athanasio reperirent Comesque summa vi imminens plura contra Athanasium moliretur Episcopus Comitis violentiam fugiens ad religiosissimum Imperatorem ascendit deprecans iniquitatem hominis adversariorum calumnias postulansque ut legittima Episcaporum Synodus indiceretur aut ipse audiret suam defensionem Imperator rei indignitate motus scriptis suis accusatores citat suamque ipsius audientiam promittens simulque Synodum indici jubet Here we see this very great and holy Athanasius submitting himself entirely to the judgement not of a Synod onely but also of an Emperour Besides we know that when this very same Emperour Constantine heard ubi supra apud Athanas. apol 2. Athanasius accused of Murder he sent letters to Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch warranting and commanding him to take cognizance of this cause of Murder charg'd on Athanasius And we know further that the Egyptian Catholick Bishops of the Synod of Tyrus writt and gave this protestation to Flavius the Count. Libellum hunc tibi porrigimus cum multis obsecrationibus ut Dei metu in animo servato qui Imperium Augustissimi pientissimi Imperatoris Constantini tuetur cognitionem causarum nostrarum ipsi Augustissimo Imperatori reserves Aequum enim est te ab Imperatore missum negotium hoc integrum Imperatori retinere Whereupon I cannot but observe that whereas I see not Constantine reprehended by any writer as if he had boldly usurped Ecclesiastical judgements who in the Council of Nice professed that the Ecclesiastical or spiritual causes of Bishops were to be left wholly to the judgement of God alone it plainly appears that these causes of the Catholick Egyptian Bishops and such others of other Bishops wherein Constantine did carry himself as judge were either of humane crimes I mean those we tearm lay crimes or if they were of heresy that the Emperour admitted of them to be judged by himself not that he thought or carried himself as the proper judge of heresy but that he saw heresies to be such as bred much dissention schysme and trouble amongst the people and might at last if not prevented disturb the peace and whole frame even of the civil Commonwealth and knew that himself was the best and most proper judge to sentence punish and coerce any Doctors or doctrine whatsoever happened to ayme at such disturbance as ayming at such according to that canon which after Constantine's dayes was made in the general Council of Chalcedon Act. 4. Si autem permanserit turbas faciens seditiones Ecclesiae per extraneam potestatem tanquam seditiosum debere corripi In judgeing the causes of Caecilian Bishop of Carthage and Primate of all Affrick and in those too of the Donatist Bishops the same Constantine the Great did not not onely once or twice but three several times interpose his own authority Augustinus epist 28. For it is plain that the Donatist Bishops accused Caecilian to Anulinus the Proconsul and by Anulinus to Constantine of having to witt in time of persecution betrayed and burâ—ied the Sacred books and that the said Donatist accusers did not at first so much desire Constantine himself to judge that cause as that he would be pleased to depute or delegate Ecclesiastical Judges to sift and determine it Who 's saying as this truly was Petitis a me in saeculo judicium cum ego ipse Christi judicium expectem Optat. l. 1. contra Carmenian so it is also true as Augustine and Optatus tell that Maternus Bishop of Agrippina Rhetitius Bishop of Augustodunum and Marinus Bishop of Orleans were commission'd by Constantine to judge that very cause Euseb l. X. c. 5. Whom he sent out of Gaule to Rome that together with Melchiades Bishop of that chief City they might discusse the whole matter and put a final end to it Whence it appears that although Constantine did not himself immediately or personally judge or determine it yet by his own proper authority he committed it to others delegated Judges and appointed the Pope himself Melchiades to be one of the Delegats Aug. epist 116. and that the same Melchiades should by his Imperial Commission together with the said three French Bishops proceed and judge finally this cause August de Captis cont Câ—til c. 16. As for the excuse of Baronius tom 3. an 313. â— â—â— that Constantine did so
in it self purely or as abstracting from matter of fact we say two things here to clear all the fog which many of our late School Divines do raise without any cause at all to loose themselves and others in it The one is that in this cause of Caecilian and such others of Church-men wherein Constantine or other Christian Emperours interposed their imperial authority and carried themselves properly as Judges that wherein they did so was pure matter of fact whereof questionless the lay Emperours when judicious and just were secundum allegata probata as competent Judges as any Ecclesiastick And the other is that whereas the Emperour and the same we must say of every other supream or Soveraign Prince within his own dominions is of supream absolute independent power within his Empire he must consequently have sufficient authority from God himself to promote all that may be for the publick good peace or safety of his people in this life and of their happiness too in the other according as he is directed by the law of God and therefore also must have sufficient power from God himself to see and take effectual care and such effectual course as is necessary that the very Ecclesiastical affairs within his Empire be duely carried on Therefore albeit he be not the competent Judge in a doubtfull case what was or was not the Faith delivered once in such or such a point controverted yet he is a competent Judge to see and determine as to matter of Fact whether the Ecclesiasticks of his Kingdom duely observe the uncontroverted Faith or that part of Faith which all men which even themselves confess acknowledge to be that which was once so delivered or whether they duely observe the known and holy canons of the Church made for preservation of that Faith And he is a competent Judge also or hath a competent sufficient absolute independent power to force the very Ecclesiasticks themselves to keep that Faith entire and sound even also I mean as to the very Theory of it and to all questions of divine right especially where and when he sees that by reason of controversies arising about such very questions or Theory the publick external peace of either Church or State may be endangered or that the publick tranquillity depends of the unity of his people in such matters according to what was from the beginning taught By which very consideration that Constantine himself was very much induâ—ced â—o interess himself in these matters of Faith even himself also writes apud â—arrâ—nium tom 3. an 313. n. 37. least otherwise he should have seen dangeâ—ous troubles and commotions in his Empire and thence have suffered also very much in his reputation as not governing well or prudently or also as haveing imprudently embraced that religion whose professours he could not keep in peace or unity amongst themselves Of which consideration and judgement of Constantine or rather of which power and authority of Constantine or indeed of both the one and the other St. Augustine speaks ep 162. where he writes thus Quasi verò ipse sibi he means Felix Aptungitanus â—â—c comparavit ac non Imperator ita quasi jusserit ad cujus curam de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset res illa maximè pertinebat But of this authority and superintendency in general of Emperours Kings Princes and other supream temporal or politick States in and over the Church or the spiritual or Ecclesiastical both Superiours and Inferiours of the same Christian Catholick Church this is not the proper place to treat at large It sufficeth at present to say that forasmuch as Constantine did so and so often too interess himself in this cause of Caecilian and deputed Judges to hear and determine it he did all this by the true proper genuine authority of an Emperour and even of a Christian Emperour whose duty it is when the Ecclesiasticks themselves alone cannot end or compose their own dissentions that he by his own supream authority assist and promote their agreement and even force them to a just and equitable agreement Which the Milevitan Council approves in effect canone 19 and ponitur xi q. 1. c. 11. and in these tearms Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum petierit honore proprio privetur Si autem Episcopale judicium ab Imperatore postulaverit nihil ei obsit But that Constantine did in aftertimes adorn and magnifie the Church or Churchmen with most singular and most ample priviledges concerning civil judgments or judgments in civil affairs this he did not as Baronius tom 3. an 314. n. 37. would make us believe he did to correct or by way of correction of those former judgments of his own in the said or like affairs of Ecclesiastical persons which judgments our great Annalist sayes were unduly and unjustly usurped by the Emperour but did so or gave such priviledges out of his meer liberality and piety alway nevertheless reserving his own proper supream and general and imperial authority to provide upon emergencies by himself or by such others as he should think fit to depute for the necessities of the Church and Churchmen as often as he saw need However let us proceed in the matter of fact which is our proper subject here For notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment also of the Council of Orleance the Donatists yet appeal even from it and the second time to the Emperour himself against and in that cause of Cecilian and the Emperour admits again their appeal judges the matter himself absolves Cecilian and condemns the Donatists St. Augustine is my author and witness ep 48. and epist 162. where yet he neither accuses nor reprehends the Emperour Nor doth Cecilian except but obeyes and freely presents himself to be judged by the Emperour For it was a criminal judgment that is the matter debated was a crime charged upon him Nay St. Augustine openly sayes and avers that neither the accusing or appealing Bishops themselves were to be reprehended on this account that they drew or brought the affairs or causes of or accusations against other Bishops to a lay secular Judicatory For thus he writes ep 48. Si autem sicut falso arbitramini vere criminosum Caecilianum judicandum terrenis potestatibus tradiderant quid objicitis quod vâ—strorum praesumptio primitus fecit he speaks to the later Donatists quod eos non arguerimus sayes he quia fecerunt si non animo inuido noxio sed emendandi corrigendi voluntate fecissent Therefore St. Augustine sayes that where and when the dispute concerns the correction and amendment of Ecclesiasticks to demand the judgment or sentence and to appeal to the power of earthly Princes is not reprehensible if the accusers proceed not in such or indeed any other application out of envie or malice Concerning this second admission of Constantine or indeed rather concerning his whole procedure in this affair by admitting any appeal at all or
sayes Theodorecus l. 2. c. 9. 10. maximè omnium caepit clamare orare Imperatorem ut de iniquo indignoque ejus facinore non Episcoporum Concilio sed pro tribunali judicium quaeratur seque pollicetus primum Episcoporum Clericos qui facinoris conscij erant supplicioÌ„ coercendos traditurum Stephani quoque ministros ait eodem medo puniendos esse At cum Stephanus petulanti ore illis contradiceret affirmaretque plagas non infligendas esse Clericis placuit Imperatori Magistratibus ut quaestio de facto in Regia haberetur Ad hunc modum ergo intellecta Stephani improbitate primum Episcopis qui tum aderant mandatum dant Judices ut hominem abdicent Episcopatu deinde illi ipsi eum Ecclesia penitus expellant Where you are to observe that not onely not the judgment of the fact of Murder but not even the judgment of this question of right whether the said Patriarch or Bishop Stephen of Antioch should be deposed or no is remitted to the Ecclesiastical court or to the Church or Council of Bishops but peremptory command sent by the lay Judges to the Bishops to depose him actually and by their spiritual judgment whom they the same lay Judges had already and by a civil judgment sentenced to be so deposed albeit these lay judges reserved to themselves still or to the civil power the real execution of both sentences that is the actual and corporal expulsion of Stephen from Antioch Nor is it material to object here that Constantius was an Arrian for the Arrian Bishops stood as much for the immunities of the Church and Churchmen and so did the Arrian Princes advised by them as any Catholick Bishops or Princes did when the crime objected was not diversity in religion And this crime of Stephanus was a meer lay crime and consequently a crime that by the very laws of even Constantine the great himself nay and of all other Catholick Princes after him and after Constantius his Arrian Son for many hundreds of years and even too by the very express laws of Justinian himself so long after Constantine and Constantins was even when committed by any Ecclesiastick whosoever to be tryed and judged by the civil Judg that is by the Praetor of the Province But however this matter be of Constantius whether he was then a down right Arrian or not albeit this be not material as I have now proved I am sure his brother Emperour Constans who ruled in the west was ever a zealous Consubstantialist and orthodox in all preciseness And yet our often mentioned Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed from their Sees by other Bishops and having their refuge to him that is to this Emperour Constance in the West he at their instance and earnest petition and even in a cause meerly Ecclesiastical but for the relief of innocency oppress'd wrongfully sends letters to his said brother Constantius wherein as Socrates writes l. 2. c. 12. and Sozom. l. 3. c. 9. he signifies his pleasure that three Bishops be sent from the East to give him an account of the causes why Athanasius and Paulus had been deposed nay and threatens otherwise or if the said Athanasius and Paulus upon account given were found to have been unjustly deposed and should not be restored again to make warr on Constantius Which to avoid Constantius sent him Narcissus the Cilician Theodorus the Thracian Maris the Chalcedonian and Marcus the Syrian four Bishops as after also when Constans was not satisfied with the causes which these four Bishops alleadged he actually restored Paulus and Athanasius though for a time onely for he again banished them In which procedure of Constance I believe our very Antagonists will not have the confidence to say there was any vsurpation being that such religious orthodox Bishops as this Paul and Athanasius and so rigidly observant as they of Ecclesiastical Discipline were his Authors and Petitioners to reassume the judgment of themselves albeit in a cause purely Ecclesiastical or which onely or at least chiefly concern'd a spiritual sentence of deposition of two Bishops from their Episcopal Sees pronounced against them by a Council of other Bishops But whether our said Antagonists will or no pretend therein any vsurpation I am sure the matter of fact is true as I am sure also that even natural reason it self will force them to confess there was a supream right in Constans to relieve by all due means oppressed innocy and that there was no other way so ready just and equitable as this which he took Valentinianus a Catholick Emperour also shall make up the fourth of those Instances of Princes to our purpose For he condemned by his own Imperial sentence Bishop Chronopius to the silver mines for having appealed from an Ecclesiastical sentence of 70 other Bishops L. 2. Quorum Appel C. Theodâ—s and forced him accordingly to suffer it by going to and labouring in the said mines The very same Valentinian punished by diverse banishments the Bishops Vrsicinus Gaudentius Vrsus Ruffus and several other Bishops too because their Schysmes troubled the publick peace and tranquillity Iure mansuetudinis nostrae sensibus sayes he vel divinitus damnarum est vel tranquillitate naturae ne cum delinquentium facinore legum severitate certemus ac speâ—emendationis futurae mitiorem esse vellemus correctionis injuriam quam provocat meritum nostrum Ampeli Pater charissime Augustorum Dudum Vrsicini inquietudine provocati faventes concordiae populi Christiani quâ—eti etiam Vrbis sacratissimae providentes uno interim loco intra Gallias dumtaxat perturbatorem tranquillitatis publicae statueramus jure cohiberi scilicet ne applicatione morum latae dissensionis incommodum spargeretur Verum naturae nostrae mansuâ—tudine levigati ita memorato abscedendi copiam dedimus ne ad Vrbem Romam vel certè suburbicarias regiones pedem inferat neque nequitiae suae cogitationem canetur infundere Idetiam de caeteris ervoris consortibus Gaudentio videlicet Vrso Ruffo Auxanone Auxanio Adiedo Ruffino sancimus c. Apud Baronium tom 4. an 371. n. 1. Therefore also by this instance and by this law too of Valentinian as it ought to be the chief care of Princes as incumbent on them by their publick office and duty and by the very nature of Principality or Government that the publick peace and tranquillity be preserved entire in and amongst their Citties Cittizens and other people subject to them so it must be consequently their charge to coerce the very Ecclesiasticks themselves if they disturb that peace or tranquillity Gratianus the Emperour likewise in all points Orthodox as the dareling of S. Ambrose however onely a Catechumen banish'd on the same account the Bishops Instantius Salvianus and Priscillianus and banish'd them not onely out of their episcopal Sees or Citties wherein and whereof they were Bishops but out of all countries subject to him Though after being ill advised he
115. init Iustine the younger of that name likewise a Catholick Emperour deposed Anastasius Synaita Patriarch of Antioch from his said See and cast him to exile whether upon forged crimes or not who knows Evagrius l. 5. c. 6. and substituted in his place and see one Gregory a most excellent and wonderfull man and most conspicuous for sanctity of life Baronius Tom. 7. an 572. n. 19. Where I cannot but admire that what Iustinus did by his own proper Imperial authority in expelling the said Athanasius our great Annalist ibid. n. 17. should attribute to the Decree or authority of I know not what Synod Verum sayes he cum a Iustino depositus dicatur Anastasius non tamen sine coacto ad hoc Episcoporum Conventu id esse factum scias These things were done before a thousand years and of this Congregation or Assembly of Bishops there is not a word in auncient Histories How therefore doth Baronius tel us of such a one Docet id sayes he tâ—m 7. an 564. n. 13. Eutychii Constantinopolitani Episcopi superius enarratum exemplum Excellent Therefore in Baronius's Divinity History and Logick the consecution holds from one singular fact to an other singular fact and accordingly it must be said of necessity that two singular or particular facts could not have two different causes or causes of a different nature Nor did Baronius consider or at least would not seem to consider that the prosecution of or persecution against Entychius was onely for his dissent from some others in dogmats of divine beleef of which dogmats the authoritative judgment belongs not to Laicks but to Ecclesiasticks and that on the other side to this Athanasius were objected the dilapidation of the treasures of his Church and reproachfull words spoke against the Emperour Evagrius l. 5. c. 6. which are not Ecclesiastical crimes but lay crimes and such as are to be examined on may be or might have been lawfully examined by a lay Tribunal An other or a second and younger Iustinian Sur-named Rhinotmitus likewise a Catholick Emperour seized on Callinicus the Patriarch of Constantinople bound him in fetters put out his eyes and banish'd him so fetter'd and so blinded for ever to Rome Theophanes Cedremus apud Baren tom 8. an 703. n. 2. But wherefore I beseech you doth not Baronius moved at so great indignity cruelty and usurpation of Ecclesiastical authority if there had been any such usurpation in the case inveigh here against this Emperour Nay he well nigh praises and approves the fact discoursing thus Vt qui adeo superbe in Romanum Pontificem caput extulerat ab eodem vitae stipem humiliatus acciperet haec digne perpessus qui primus ausus est absque consensu Romani Pontificis universale congregare Concilium centurias edere canonum c. But certainly this younger Iustinian who banish'd his Patriarch and used him with so much rigour did neither use nor banish him so for that Council he held to wit the Quini Sexta Synodus as some both Greek and Latin writers call it or that century of canons made therein c for himself was still for both but onely for having submitted to and joyned consequently with two several Vsurpers of his Imperial crown one after an other Leontius and Tiberius Absimarus while himself lived in banishment And therefore having again recovered his Empire whereof he was indeed the lawfull Prince he blinded and banish'd for ever Callinicus Nor was this Emperour in any wise reprehended for this fact or at all in point of usurpation of or on Ecclesiastical judgments in criminal causes of Churchmen not even I say reprehended either by Iohn the VI. who was then Pope or by Iohn the VII who immediately succeeded him in the Papacy or even by Constantinus who likewise immediately followed this VII Iohn in St. Peters chayre at Rome and who was he that went in person to Constantinople and Nicomedia to and at the command of this Emperour and within the third year after he had so us'd and punish'd Callinicus Much less you may think was he reprehended by this very Constantine for having banish'd to Pontus the Archbishop of Ravennas Felix nor even for having pulled out his eyes being the chief cause that moved this Justinian Rhinotmitus to proceed thus against this Felix was that Felix living in Italy and being of the Roman Patriarchat and having received consecration thereof Constantine Bishop of Rome made his profession of faith and promised canonical obedience to him yet he no sooner return'd to Ravennas then he withdrew himself his Clergy and People schismatically from the same Constantine and Roman See However as it is not my purpose by any means to justifie the too too revengeful spirit of this Justinian or too too cruel use of his imperial power in putting to death unmercifully and indistinctly upon several occasions and out of pure revenge so many thousand poor Laicks of all sorts sexes so is it not my meaning that he might not have perhaps exceeded also in the punishment of some Churchmen or particularly of this Felix or that Callinicus by putting out their eyes Therefore my only purpose in producing this Justinian and these proceedings of his against the greatest Patriarch of the East and greatest Archbishop next to Rome of the West is that which hath been hitherto all along in other Instances of matter of fact to shew forasmuch as can depend of such matter of fact the legallity of the power in Princes to punish and rightful use of that power in punishing Clergiemen if or when commonly delinquent and if the punishment be according to the rules of justice but not to justifie at all the abuse of that power or any cruelty or excess in the use of it And so I have given thee good Reader a sufficient number of the more select and notable instances of Christian Princes continuing in themselves viâ— facti or in and by fact the possession of that supream civil coercive power of Clerks for at least full 500 years of the Christian Empire of Rome after Constantine the Great 's dayes that is almost for a thousand years since Christ our Saviour when being on earth gave us all both Clerks and Laicks Princes and Priests the law we ought to walk by Instances clear enough and particular enough to shew that without any check for so long a tract of time and so many centuries of years the very most Catholick Emperours themselves of both new and old Rome sentenced in their own meer lay Civil and imperial tribunals and punished at their pleasure and by their own supream and proper power all Clergiemen of what degree soever when guilty of lay-crimes especially of such as were against the publick peace or tranquillity and instances likewise clear and particular enough to shew that when for such crimes as were properly Ecclesiastical crimes any corporal or civil punishment was to be inflicted they were the sole civil Princes who by
their own civil power both executed and decreed such corporal or civil punishment and consequently who were the sole authoritative Judges of both Priests Bishops and Popes I mean as to inflict or not inflict such corporal or civil punishments on them be the crime whatsoever you please Lay or Ecclesiastical But if you would see yet some instance or some example in particular fact of the continued possession of that authority in Princes even after I mean the tenth century of Christian Religion was compleat You may reflect on Conradus the Emperour who in presence of Benedict the ninth Roman Pontiff of that name sharply arose against and roughly laid hands that is with his own hands seized on Heribertus Archbishop of Millan as guilty of treasonable practices against the Empire albeit this Heribeâ—t saved himself after by flight and in the presence too of the same Pope Benedict in his hearing and seeing all was done decreed banishment from their Sees against three other Bishops and effectually cast them to exile the Bishop of Cremona Vercellis and Placentia Hermannus in Chron. an 1037. and Baronius eod an tom 11. Where this great Annalist Baronius divines after his own manner that surely Conradus did not this or that without consulting first and obtaining the good leave of the Roman Pontiff dreaming so what the Historians of that age were ignorant of did wholy pass over in silence without question because there was no such consultation held with the Pope no such leave asked from him for it is not likely that if any such had been they had given us no kind of hint of it And so too this prophetical or conjectural Annalist gives us his own very vain imagination for a record where he sayes that a suddain pestilence followed to revenge this fact or this usurpation of Conradus But if Conradus with licence of the Pope proceeded so against these criminal Bishops wherefore doth Baronius invent this revenge of an usurpation that was not in the case if his dream be true So little is our great interpreter of God's judgments and scourges consistent or constant to himself And if any should say for him that he meaned not that God reveng'd by such a plague any usurpation of Conrade being the Pope gave his consent also but only mean'd that God thereby reveng'd some other injustice in the proceedings albeit authorized by the Imperial and Papal powers joyntly or both together then I say that such meaning or interpretation of Baronius were it infallibly true in such meaning is nothing to his purpose here or against mine at all as the judicious Reader may himself easily see without any further illustration or observation by me And you may also reflect on Henry King of the Romans afterwards Emperour and the second of this name who continuing and persevering in the possession of the right or authority of coercing and punishing Clergiemen in imitation of his Predecessors wel-nigh a thousand years deprived of his dignity Widgerus Archbishop of Ravenna nay and the Pope himself of his Papacy Gregory the Fifth of that name Hermannus in Chron. Of other Henry's Emperours of Rome I say nothing Because in their time and by the occasion of the too great abuse by Clergiemen of the reverence to and patience of Princes with the Roman See in particular and Ecclesiastical Order in general nay and peradventure also by the occasion of the neglect and sluggishness of the Princes themselves that I may not here enlarge on or give other most certainly true causes as likewise by occasion of the many great priviledges formerly granted by Emperours and other Kings to all Priests and Bishops albeit amongst all such priviledges there was never any such to them in general as an exemption in temporal matters from the supream civil power and moreover by occasion of some special priviledges granted to the Roman See alone and to the Bishops thereof and finally by occasion of the vast both spiritual and temporal Revenues which these Roman Pontiffs were in the dayes of the other Henries possessors of they I mean the Roman Pontiffs were then arrived to such a height of worldly greatness and strength that seeing the former and indeed formidable power of the Roman Empire divided and subdivided in to so many different unsubordinate Kingdoms and seeing themselves could hardly ever want some one or other Prince amongst all to embrace their Papal quarrel against any other either Prince King or Emperour and considering also the great ignorance or blind zeal of many then who as their affections lead them or as their Preachers told them in some or many Provinces of Europe took all the Dictates of Roman Pontiffs for so many infallible or divine oracles pursuant to the doctrine hereof also first invented soon after vented by Gregory the VII I say that by these occasions and by their own improvements of them the Popes were in the times of the other succeeding Henries come to such a height of glory and greatness that they dared resist as they did Kings and Emperours in what quarrels soever and particularly in this of the pretended exemption not of themselves only but of all Bishops of the world nay and of all Priests too nay and also of all other Clerks of whatsoever lower degree from all earthly power add in all criminal causes of what nature soever pretending that such persons as being dedicated to God had no other truly proper and supream Governour or Prince on earth but themselves alone the Popes of Rome And therefore being it was then or much about that time this controversie begun which I have disputed on hitherto I have resolved to bring no instances of other Princes or Bishops since that time or of that time but content my self with these of more antiquity as best sorting with my purpose which only is and was along in this Section to shew the former doctrine of the holy Fathers and their Exposition of St. Paul 13. Rom. confirmed by the practice and in so many particular instances of both Ecclesiastical Prelats and Christian Princes in the more ancient Ages of the Church and for so many ages together all along quite contrary to both the doctrine and practice of some few or many if you please Ecclesiasticks in the later and worser and in this by little and little degenerated ages of Christianity And yet I would have my Readers take notice that I could furnish them were it necessary with a cloud of witnesses and a cloud of such particular instances both in the very said time and after the very said time of even the self same other Henries also and even also all along in every age of these very latter and worser until this present wherein we live and in this present year of it 1667. and could furnish them with these witnesses and produce to them these other such particular instances in matter of fact of Bishops and of Princes and of Roman Catholick Princes too for such only
solum ad mundi regimen sed maxime ad Ecclesiae praesidiuâ— esse collatum At most therefore what is in this matter granted to the Church is that Ecclesiasticks be not by Princes proceeded against coercively to punishment if their transgression be onely or meerly Ecclesiastical and the punishment be corporal I say be not so and in such case punished corporally unless or until the Church do her own duty first by depositions or censures or both Except you always still such extraordinary cases wherein the Superiours of the Church should or would themselves also peradventure be too refractory or too contumacious against reason as guilty of the same crimes or for any causes whatsoever countenancing or favouring the criminal Clerks and therefore refusing to proceed at all or at least onely against them For when a degraded Clerk is given over to the secular Court he is not delivered so by the Church to the secular Magistrats as if the Church did mean or intend these Magistrats should proceed by vertue of a power derived from her or be the Ministers or executioners of her own sentence which if capital she hath no power no authority at all from God or man to pronounce or decree as if any other way it be purely civil or forcible at all corporally for example to corporal restraint or imprisonment she hath for so much all her power from man and from the civil laws onely but he is given over so by the Church as meaning and intending onely that such a criminal Clerk be thenceforward under the ordinary power of even the inferiour lay Magistrats and Judges and by such delivery or giving over signifying unto them that they may now proceed if they please and think fit either to absolve or condemn him For even Caelestinus III. himself a Pope of the later times confesses c. Non ab homine de judic that Ecclesiastical punishment is of a quite other nature then that which is lay and that the Church hath no kind of power or authority to inflict such punishments as are in their own nature lay punishments or which is the same thing that she hath no power no authority at all of her self as a Church to inflict any punishment but purely Ecclesiastical but suspension deposition excommunication the lesser and greater and finally degradation when the criminal Clerk is delivered over or left under the secular power let the crimes of such a Clerk be ever so great and ever too such pure lay crimes even perjury theft and murder c and even heightned also by incorrigibleness A nobis fuit ex parte tua quaesitum sayes the above Caelestine utrum liceat Regi vel alicut seculari personae judicare Clericos cujuscumque ordinis sive in furto sive homicidio vel periurio seu quibus cumque fuerint criminibus deprehensi Consultationi tuae taliter respondentus quod si Clericus in quocumque ordine constitutus in furto vel homicidio vel periurio seu alio crimine fuerit deprehensus legittime atque convictus ab Ecclesiastico Iudice deponendus est Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit excommunicari debet deinde contumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri postmedum verò si in profundum malorum veniens contempserit cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat ne possit esse ultra perditio plurimorâ—m per secularem comprimendus est potestatem ita quod ei deputetur exilium vel alia legittima paena Where you are to observe singularly as to our present purpose of distinction betwixt Ecclesiastical and secular punishment and of no power at all in the Church to inflict corporal secular civil or lay punishments what Caelestinus sayes in these words Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat As you are also to note that he answers not directly or rather indeed not at all to the main question whether the King or other secular powers could punish Clerks guilty of or manifestly deprehended in perjury theft or murder but declines that of the authority of Kings or of other secular powers acting of themselveâ— in such cases without relation to the desires of the Church that they should act so and onely prescribes to the Ecclesiastical superiours how they themselves are to proceed by degrees aâ— becomes them against such criminal Clerks For otherwise it hath been seen before and in the very laws of Iustinian submitted unto by the Church that in such criminal causes the civil Praetors proceeded immediately against Churchmen though execution of the sentence was suspended until degradation was by the Bishop And it hath been seen that in a very auncient Council of Bishops long before this Calestine the first of Matisconum I mean the cases of theft murder and malefice were still expresly and particularly supposed or rather declared to have no Ecclesiastical exemption but to be still under the cognizance of even the inferiour lay judges And reason it self and the necessary preservation of both State and Church tell us that Caelestine's answer here cannot be otherwise understood in all the formalities of it and as relateing to the power supream of Kings who acknowledg none but God above them in temporals and who recieve not or incorporat not by their own proper power and into their own civil law this canon of Caelestine in any other sense or any other Church canon at all either like or unlike to it exempting Clerks in such crimes and in the first Instance from their supream legal cognizance or even from that of their subordinat ordinary secular and lay judges For I confess that in such Kingdoms or temporal States if any such be wherein the Princes or people or civil Governours and civil laws or customs have recieved such Ecclesiastical canons for the exemption of Clerks in such crimes until such Ecclesiastical formalities had preceeded it is fitting they be obserued and ought to be observed while the civil laws which onely gave them force or a binding virtue remain unrepealed and if the litteral observation of them strike not at the very being or at least peaceable and well being of the Commonwealth But observed so that is by virtue of the civil reception and incorporation of them into the civil laws and by the civil power they make nothing at all against my main purpose or against that of those other canons I alledg for the power of Kings from God to punish delinquent Clergiemen with civil and corporal punishments where and when they shall upon rational grounds judg it necessary and expedient for the publick good of either Church or State and where and when it is not against the laws of the land that they punish them so either by themselves immediately or by their subordinat lay judges either extraordinary or ordinary The Bishops of Affrick acknowledging this power in temporal Princes write in this manner and stile to the Emperour Vt novellae praesumptionis scandalum quod adversus fidem nostram attentatum
Ex his omnibus datur intelligi his own conclusion is in general tearms only importing that a Clerk is not either in a civil or criminal cause to be convented in publick that is in lay or secular Judicatories Quod Clericus sayes he ad publica judicia nec in civili nec in criminali causa est producendus not descending to the particular or specifical case of the regal power and regal cognizance intervening by special commission or special warrant or in a special emergency nor descending also to or considering the special case of times or Countryes when or where no such canon of the Church or Pope no such priviledge imperial at least in that latitude is in use or perhaps hath ever yet been received or if once received hath been again repealed Therefore Gratian may be rationally expounded to mean by his judicia publica in this Paragraph those ordinary Judicatories only which are of inferiour lay Judges and those too but only where such Canons are received or such priviledges allowed by the supream civil powers and laws But if any must needs press further yet or in any other sense the conclusion of Gratianus then I must say three things The first is that as I have proved already elsewhere in this work if a Clerk sue a Layman for any temporal matter or in a meer civil cause that is not criminal he must sue him in a lay Court and before a lay Judge and this lay Judge albeit only a subordinate inferiour and ordinary Judge shall give a binding sentence against this Clerk if the law be in the case for the Layman So that neither is it generally true not even by the very Canons I mean that Clerks in all civil causes are totally exempt from the jurisdiction of as much as the very inferiour lay Judges For the very Canons not to speak of the civil laws now in force throughout the world have ordered so Quod Actor sequatur forum Rei let the Actor be ever so much a Clerk or Ecclesiastick The second is that generally for criminal causes of Clerks Gratianus hath not produced as much as any one either imperial constitution or even any one Church Canon sufficiently either in particular or in general revoking or anulling or sufficiently declaring that revocation of the 74. Constitution of Iustinianus whereby this Emperour appoints and impowers the lay Judges for those within Constantinople and for those abroad in the Provinces the lay Pretors in the same Provinces to iudge the criminal causes of Clerks nay nor hath at all as much as attempted to answer or gain-say it albeit this very 74. Constitution was the very last chapter saving one which himself produced immediatly as a canon before the foresaid last paragraph Ex â—is omnibus Thirdly that for those Church Canons or those more likely authorities or passages true or false of some Popes or some Councils alledged by Gratianus in that his eleventh cause and first question or those in him which may seem most of any he hath to ground another sense then that I have said to be his sense I have before sufficiently nay and abundantly too cleared and answered them at large in my LXIX Section of in my answer to Bellarmine's aâ—legations of the Canons for himself and for the exemption of criminal Clerks from the supream royal coercive power of Kings where I have also noted some of Gratian's either voluntary or unvoluntary corruptions of the Canons Fourthly and consequently that whether Gratian was or was not of a contrary opinion it matters not a pin It is not his opinion and let us suppose he had truly and sincerely declared his own inward opinion for I am sure many as good and as great and far greater then he dared not declare their own when he writ his Decretum or declare any at all but in the language of the Papal Court It it is not I say his opinion but his reason we must value for sin he did not himself nor any for him does pretend to infallibility And I am sure he neither brings nor as much as pretends to bring any Scripture at all or any Tradition of the Fathers or even as much as any argument of natural reason for the warranty of any other sense And I am certain also that my judicious and impartial Readers will themselves clearly see and confess that he brings not for himself or for such a sense as much as any one Canon true or false to confront these I have alledg'd for my self and for that sense I intend all along or any one Canon true or false that denyes that which I have given for the coercive power of secular Princes to have been and to be the sense of Paul the Apostle Rom 13. or to have been and be the general and unanimous sense of the holy Fathers in their commentaries and expositions of it or finally any one Canon true or false that particularly and either formally or virtually descends to the specifical debate 'twixt the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius or their followers the present Divines of Lovaine and me concerning the supream royal and external Jurisdiction of Kings to punish criminal Clerks by their own immediate authority royal and by virtue of their own royal commissions and delegations extraordinary in all cases and contingencies wherein the preservation of the publick peace and safety of either Church or State require it and by their mediat authority also in their inferiour Judges and by vertue of their ordinary commissions or delegations to such Judges or of the ordinary power which the civil laws of the land give to these Judges in all cases I mean wherein the same civil laws or the makers of such laws have not received or admitted of the more or less ancient constitutions of Roman Emperours or of the more or less ancient Canons of the great Pontiffs or of other Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Councils for what concerns the exemption of Clergie-men in criminal causes from the meer civil and ordinary Courts and lay inferiour or subordinate Judges and their subjection to Ecclesiastical Judges only and the Prince himself who must be without any peradventure and even in such causes too of Clerks above all Iudges in his own Kingdom whether lay or Ecclesiastical Judges For I have before sufficiently demonstrated that all Ecclesiastical Exemption in temporal matters or in all both civil and criminal causes is only from the supream civil Power as from the only proper and total efficient cause and I have also before demonstrated that no exemption to any persons or person whatsoever could be given by that Power from it self or at least for the matter of coercion and when the publick good required it unless at the same time it freed such persons or person from all kind of subjection to it self and I have likewise demonstrated before that such exemption from it self in any case at all whatsoever cannot be rationally supposed as given by
municipal or civil laws of the land wherein they live or the approved customs thereof do give them until the same exemptions be legally repealed by an equal authority to that which gave them nor said nor do say nor intend to say but it is as lawfull for them to maintayn in all just and legal ways their own such immunities as it is for lay subjects in such ways to maintayn their own against the encroachments or usurpations of the Princes themselves or of their Ministers and consequently did not say nor do nor intend to say that they are bound to obey the pleasure of the Prince by subjecting themselves to his lay Judges in such criminal causes or any other wherein the law of the land doth free and exempt them from such judges But say and averre still the quite contrary of all these three sayings because the sublimer civil power which is in the law of the land for them in such case doth warrant them from transgressing in so much that Praecept of Paul 13. to the Romans Those eight observations being so premised and considered it will now be easy enough for me to answer fully and satisfactorily the before given fourth and last of all the remaining objections viz that so specious grand objection built as t is pretended on the contrary judgment or opinion c. of S. Thomas of Canterbury and it will be as easy for my Reader to understand that my answers which I now give are full and satisfactory Therefore My first answer is in general by denying positively plainly and flatly that there is any as much as the least truth in the pretence or supposition or in that I mean which pretends or supposeth that St. Thomas of Canterbury was of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine or to any part or proposion of my doctrine hitherto of the subjection of Clergiemen to the supream coercive power of secular Princes in criminal causes or which pretends or supposeth that because he was so of a contrary opinion in theory or practice or both to any part of my said doctrine he opposed his King fell into his disfavour was exiled by him at first suffered death at last was accounted a Martyr canonized as such and invoked too ever since by the universal Church All which and every particular of which I deny both positively and plainly and flatly Neither do I doubt at all but that in my several observations hitherto taken altogether or if the seven first out of History be compared exactly to or taken together with what is given in my eight and last out of this very book of the particular heads of my doctrine in it concerning ecclesiastical exemption I have given sufficient proofs that I do upon very good very justifyable and unanswerable grounds deny so positively plainly and flatly this whole pretence or supposition and every part thereof For I have shewed what the immediat cause of his death or why he was so cruelly murthered was and that this was no other but for having answered that he would not absolve the excommunicated Bishops unless they had first promised to make satsfaction for the injury done by them to his Church or at least abide or submit to the judgment of the Pope in that case and that his Clerks who came with him from beyond the Seas should not take any oath but such an oath as were just And I have shewed also what the intermediat cause the grand long contest indeed 'twixt him and his King was and that this was no other but of the 16. Heads of customes of Henry the First or of his Grandfather as Henry the Second called them avitas which heads also I have given at length And the judicious Reader may himself clearly see that amongst all those causes or occasions either immediate or intermediat final or original proximate or remote there is nothing at all concerns or which may well or ill be said to concern our dispute or my doctrince but only the second head of those 16. customes as they were called and that of the Saints not delivering up to the secular justice the two criminal Clerks or the Priest and Chanon And the Reader also may clearly see that my doctrine no where teacheth formally or virtually or consequentially any thing contrary to what St. Thomas did either practice or must have held in theory as to either his not assenting to that second Head as neither indeed to any other of all the 16. or as to his not delivering up to secular justice those criminal Clerks For any rational man may very well understand that St. Thomas of Canterbury might without any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety to himself or to these two actions of his nay indeed or to any other opposition made by him to Henry the Second might I say have held or have been at the same time of the very self same judgment or opinion with me hitherto concerning the exemption or subjection of Clergiemen or which is the same thing that he might at the same time have held even positively formally and expresly that by no law of God or Nature or Nations or of the Catholick Church or of Roman Emperours or Pontiffs Clergiemen were or are exempted from the supream civil even coercive power in criminal causes but on the contrary that by Reason Scripture Tradition of the Fathers practice of both Fathers and Princes and even also by the very Canons of as well Popes as Councils they were and are subject to the supream civil coercive power nay and to the subordinate civil or lay inferiour Judges also in all criminal causes whatsoever as far as the civil or municipal laws of the land do subject them or wherein the said temporal or municipal laws of the land exempt them not from the coercion of lay Courts I say that any rational man may very well understand how St. Thomas might have held all this and yet at the same time and without any change in his judgment or opinion or any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety have practised justly conscientiously and holily all that he did in opposition to Henry the Second and particularly that of not delivering up to secular justice the two criminal Clerks and that also of not assenting to the second head of those 16. which were pretended by by the said Henry to be his Grandfathers customes St. Thomas of Canterbury had the very municipal and politick laws of the land or of England for himself in both these Instances as indeed he had them for himself in all other particulars wherein he opposed that King albeit his own proper undoubted Soveraign And that he had them so for himself in all his differences and particularly in these two I have clearly shewed and proved at length in my former seventh observation wherein the Reader may see that by the municipal laws of England still in being or in force as not legally repealed by a contrary law not even till after
the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury and by the Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along till Henry the Second himself 's own raigne and until after this controversie happen'd criminal Clerks even guilty of murder were to be judg'd and punish'd only by the Court Ecclesiastical â—ay that not only by the same laws all Clergiemen 〈…〉 all crimes whatsoever to be judg'd only by the Bishops but that all the very 〈◊〉 of the Church were â—â—all causes whatsoever to be adjudg'd only in the Church of Ecclesiastical Tribunals nor should have recourse to those were by way of distinction commonly called the Kings Courts but only in default of justice done according to law in the Courts of the Church Which being in or as to both differences the law of England contrary to which iâ— both differences oâ— cases Henry the Second would have forced St. Thomas and no other law of God or Man commanding St. Thomas to submit to the King in either as the case stood not even that of St. Paul 13. to the Romans because St. Thomas had in both as in all his other differences the sublimer â—oâ—â—ers in the law of the land for himself who sees not that St. Thomas needed not for his own justification in either differences pretend either the positive law of God or the natural law of God or the law of Nations or the Imperial law or even any Church law or Papal law or Canon for the exemption of criminal Clergiemen from the secular Courts when he denyed to deliver up the two criminal Clerks or when he refused to sign or seal that second Head of Henry the Second's customes which second head was such as subjected all Clergie-men in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt spiritual and temporal to the cognizance of the Kings even ordinary lay Judges and Courts as you may see by turning to and reading over again in my fourth Observation that second Head of those 16 And who seeâ— not but he might at the same time without any contradiction inconsequence oâ— contrariety maintain that still it was true that abstracting from the laws of England then as yet 〈◊〉 because not legally repealed all Clerks in England were by the laws of â—eason and laws of God and doctrine of the Fathers and many Canons too of Popes and Councils subject in all temporal causes both civil and criminal to the lay civil Courts and Judges of Henry the Second Nay who sees not but for any thing alledg'd or known out of the Histories of either his life or death or martyrdome or canonization or miracles or invocation of him after as a glorious martyrized Saint and even martyrized only too if you please in meer defence of the Church liberties and immunities who sees not I say but that notwithstanding any thing hitherto so alledg'd out of all or any of those Histories he not only might be but was rigidly and constantly of this judgement and opinion especially being these Histories tell us in one instance that when he was so much pressed to sign to those 16. Heads as the royal customes of Henry the First he doubted they were no such customes of Henry the First or were no customes at all and therefore chiefly and only fell off after swearing them and would not sign or seal them at all as was desired and expected from him albeit his Cross-bearer's check did forward his repentance for having sworn Sed cum descriptas consuetudines sayes Parker himself in the life of our Saint perlegisset Thomas for when he swore to observe them he did not see them in writing nor were they digested at all into heads and therefore he only swore in general to observe those customes which Henry the Second called â—nitas consâ—â— tudines his Grandfathers customes and royal customes â—ulâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 an ill â—um quaedam inter consuetudines essent habendae itâ—â— diem deliâ—â—◠〈…〉 sigillum chirographum adhiberet petiit and whereas also he could not be ignorant of the laws both Imperial which he had studied and of the laws of England where he lived and judged so long as Chancellor Or who sees not briefly that that there is no contradiction that a most rigid 〈◊〉 Bishop should dye for the rights of the Clergie and be therefore a Marâ—â—◠〈◊〉 yet acknowledge all those rights or at least many or some of them 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ch he dyed as for example that of exemption came to the Clergie from the meer civil or municipal and politick just laws of the land and only from such laws of the land and not by any means immediatly from any other law divine or humane of nature or Nations or of the Church Pope or Emperour if not in so much only as the laws of God and nature approve all just laws of every land 〈◊〉 they be repealed by an equal authority no that which made them Finally who sees not also that notwithstanding all this or notwithstanding the municipal laws of England were for St. Thomas in every particular of his said manifold opposition to his King or that by the same laws the English Clergie had such exemptions from secular Courts yet St. Thomas might have been of this opinion also and perswasion at the same time and was so too most rigidly and constantly for ought appears to the contrary out of the Acts of his life or other Historians that as by no other laws of God or man or reason so neither by those very laws of England either himself or any other Clergieman was exempt from the supream civil coercive power or even could be exempt during their being subjects or their acknowledging to be so or their living in the quality of subjects 1. Because the very name and nature of subjection draws along with it and either essentially or at least necessary implyes this which is to be subject to the supream coercive power at least in some cases and some contingencies 2. Because that if both himself and all other Ecclesiastical Judges and Bishops taking the Pope himself too in the number did fail in their duty of punishing Clerks notoriously scandalously and dangerously criminal or that if the criminal Clerks themselves would not according to the law of the land submit to the sentence and punishment prescribed into them by the Bishops or if even also the Bishops themselves were altogether guilty of the same crimes or patronizers of the criminals and would not amend or satisfie of themselves without any peradventure t is evident that the supream civil coercive power might and ought in such cases to proceed against them by plain force and corporal coâ—rcion cuia salus populi suâ—rema lex esto 3. Because the power whereby S. Thomas himself and all other Bishops and Ecclesiastical Judges proceeded in a compulsory way to any civil or corporal coercion of criminal Clerks against the will of the same Clerks as to seizing their persons imprisoning them whiping them taking away their temporal goods confining them
absolutely or actually yet establish'd Or doth not the very nature of a Parliament and the necessary and plenary freedom of the members thereof evince this 3. T is likewise true that in the great Council or Parliament held at Norththampton and when he saw some of the very Bishops violently bent against him to ingratiat and endear themselves more and more to the King and the rest through fear yielding and saw them all generally conspiring with the lay Peers and joyntly with such Peers condemning and deposing him by their sentence from his Bishoprick he appealed to the Pope from such a sentence and such Judges and such a Judicatory and in such a cause But what then Or was it treason by the nature of the thing in it self or of such an Appeale of such a man and in such a case and from such Judges or was there any law then in England making such appeal to be treason certainly it was not by either Not by the nature of such an appeal as abstractedly considered in it self because neither appeals in a spiritual cause to the Pope nor decisions in a spiritual way of such Appeals by the Pope do of their own nature draw along with them any lessening of the Majesty or supream power of the Prince or of any part of it which is proper to him nor of the safety of the people though by accident that is by abuse only sometimes of the Appellants themselves or of such Appeals or of the decision of them by some Popes and by the neglect of either Prince or Parliament giving way to frivolous appeals or admitting of notoriously corrupt decisions they may prove hurtful Nor was there any law of England as yet then establish'd when the when the Saint appealed so which made it treason or which indeed at all prohibited him or any other Clerk to appeal to Rome in any pure ecclesiastical cause whatsoever or from the judgment of either spiritual or secular Judges or even of both together in any pure spiritual or Ecclesiastical cause such as that judgement was which was pronounced in that Council or Parliament of Northamton against this holy Archbishop even a sentence of his deposition from the See Nay the continual practice of England till then for so many hundred years before and for some time after too warranted by the very municipal laws or municipal Customs or both to appeal to the Pope in such causes which practice in many Instances of even great Bishops and Archbishops both of Canterbury and York and of the Kings also of England sending sometimes their own Embassadours to plead against such Bishops and Archbishops and sometimes to help or plead for them you may see at large everâ— in Matthew Parkers own Antiquitates Britannicae evicts manifestly it was neither treason by law or by reason or by the nature of such Appeals And the practice of other Kingdoms of Christendome till this day continued shews no less that it might have been and may be duly circumstantiated without any lessening of the Majesty of the Crown danger to the safety of the people or without prejudice to any Besides who sees not that it is against the very law of God as delivered to us from the beginnings of Christianity that Lay-men as such may fit in judgment on or give sentence for the taking away the Spirituals of a Bishop As such they can neither give nor take away any spiritual Power Jurisdiction or Authority purely such from the very meanest Clerk whatsoever Indeed if a King be made the Popes Legat in his own Kingdomes as Henry the first of England was you may read it in Houeden in whom also you may see that Henry the Second wrought all he could to get the same power from Rome for himself then such a lay person but not as a meer lay person may give sentence in such causes according to the extent of his commission And who sees not moreover that the Bishops of England who sate in the Council and as sitting there proceeded most uncanonically against their own Primat If they would proceed canonically against him with any colour as much as of the ancient canons of the Church it should have been in a canonical Convocation or Council of Bishops alone and of such other Clergymen as by the canons ought to vote and the Primat should have a fair tryal and be tryed by the canons only Those Bishops failed in all this And therefore Thomas had reason to appeal to the Pope from their sentence For ever since the general Council of Sardica there was at least in the Occidental Church an appeal allowed Bishops even from their equals and even too from their superiours to the supream Bishop or him of Rome as the Fathers of Sardica at the desire of Hâ—sius their President to honour the memory of St. Peter ordained by an an express Canon Though I confess that for what concern'd the temporals of his Archbishoprick which he held only from the King and municipal laws of the land he could not appeal to the Pope understand you otherwise then as to an honourable Arbiter by consent by vertue of any canon only or at all against the said municipal Laws or Customs of the Land if they had been against him in the case of his said Temporals as I have shewed they were not or at least I am sure were not so against him not even I mean in such an appeal concerning his meer Temporals as to render him guilty of treason for appealing so oâ— in such the meer temporal concerns of his Bishoprick And yet I add that Histories make no mention of any such kind of Appeal as this last made by him then when he appealed from the Council of Noâ—thampton though he had reason after to labour in all just meer and pure Ecclesiastical ways to recover the very temporals also of his Church to the same Church T is true moreover that immediatly after his appeal he departed the Council or Parliament the Court and Kingdom and departed the Kingdom incognito in a secular weed But neither was this any treason nor even disobedience or mis-demeanour in him There was no writ of ne exeat Regno against him There was no law of God or man prohibiting him to depart so nor any reason indeed as the case stood with him The King had stabled his own horses in his lodgings to affront him He challeng'd him for thirty thousand pounds which he had administred formerly during his Chancellorship and challeng'd him of so great a sum of purpose to pick a quarrel to him for the Saint had given him an account of all when he was Chancellor and was by the Barons of the Exchequer and Richardus de Luci Lord chief Justice and by the young King himself acquit of all these and whatsoever other accounts before he was consecrated He was notwithstanding his Appeal sentenc'd by the Barons at the Kings desire to be seized on and put in prison The Archbishops of
under spiritual temporal or mixt of both is not so much disputed amongst learned men as that other far different question drawn especially from the 27th Canon of the great Council of Chalcedon as also from some others of his purely spiritual or at least Ecclesiastical power which has no respect at all to Temporals either directly or indirectly whether this power be truly by Divine right immediately over all the faithful through the whole world or onely by Humane and Ecclesiastical right or else from both at least in that latitude to which they commonly extend it that is over all the faithful everywhere none exempted either in any district of any of the other Patriarchs or in any cause With which most difficult question though I have no intention ever to meddle as however I am fully resolved to follow in this point the common doctrine and to stand unmoveably fixt to the decision of General Councils nevertheless because all men are not of the same mind that is do not judge or understand every way alike many things which may be alledged on both sides nor have the same inclinations or that forward strong and constant affection to his Holiness and the See of Rome which I have notwithstanding the injuries which I cannot deny many and as many as since the beginning of the last War in Ireland took part with the King have suffered with me I thought fit to intreat your Lordship and do with all earnestness beseech you that you will let the Subscribers live in peace not move them to impatience or anger nor reject them from Ecclesiastical charges without other demerit than this pretended one of Subscription and that you will not put a bar to the publick good of undoubted Religion for the maintenance of an assertion so far at least doubtful that in the judgment of many and those Catholick Writers and even entire Universities it deserves the name not so much as of an Opinion but of Error and Heresie and also yet so doubtful that the reason is plain why 't is call'd Heresie Understand my Lord material Heresie as they call it For I conceive no Orthodox Censurers and least of all I ever thought of charging formal Heresie upon the Pope or Church of old Rome or its particular Diocese so much as in this matter controverted betwixt us formal Heresie not being found without obstinacy against the Faith of the Universal Church undoubtedly known But as for material Heresie many orthodox learned and pious men have not doubted to fix it openly upon the Patrons of your opinion mov'd by this amongst other reasons namely that Heresie is no less in excess of than recess from the due mean in points to be believed or that 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith that is assert preach teach impose upon the Faithful to be believed as necessary to salvation or as revealed by God taught by the Apostles preserved by perpetual succession in the Church and as a part of the depositum delivered by Fathers in every age of Christian Religion to their Children That of whose necessity revelation and tradition there is no undoubted and certain evidence but opinion at most or likelihood and this only to somefew of the Faithful the rest which make a greater or as great or at least a considerable part of the Catholick Church denying disclaiming condemning abjuring it I say that according to those Doctors 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith in such manner as it is to substract from it i. e. as it is to deny any thing to be of Catholick Faith of which nevertheless t is truly undoubtedly certainly universally evident that it was revealed by Christ and deposited by the Apostles as much as any other Article of Faith Now who does not see that these who teach that Assertion of the Popes right over the Temporals of Princes as a point of Catholick Faith without the belief of which or with the witting denial of which none can be saved or entirely profess the Christian Catholick Faith relie upon Arguments at best but probable and grounding only opinion against the greater or equal or indeed the far greater remaining part of the Catholick Church which in all ages of Christianity have denied and still persevere to deny disclaim abjure that Position as impious and contrary to the doctrine received by Tradition and without difficulty solve such Arguments which they look upon as Spiders webs as ridiculous Sophisms as Trifles and pure Toyes And indeed some orthodox Doctors moved by this discourse not to mention other Reasons fear not to brand your Position with the note of Heresie But if your Lordship desire my own opinion in the case I must confess ingenuously I see not why it is not as much truly an intollerable error to assert in Popes Bishops Priests or any of the Clergy or even Laity a power to be believed as of divine Catholick Faith which does not certainly and evidently appear from the Rule of Faith that is either from Scripture or Tradition or both as it is to deny a power which does so appear * * See Bellarmine himself de Conc. l. 4. c. 4. where he teaches Errorem esse intollerabilem proponere aliquid credendum tamquam articulum fidei de quo non constet an sit verum vel falsum At last my Lord I conclude this long Letter and yet I neither repent my labour nor ask pardon for my prolixity since it no way more concerns Walsh to write Truth than it does an Internuncio to read it And if your Lordship be of the same judgment it will be well if otherwise I must bear it with patience Let it suffice me to have done what became an honest man videlicet to have refuted slanders reproaches revilings to have proved Caron and Walsh were causelesly term'd by your Lordship either Schismaticks or Apostates or which is less yet any way disobedient causelesly by contempt men of dirt causelesly also raisers of I know not what troubles to the Church of God lastly that without cause it was said to Gearnon's face he had better have been in his grave than subscribed Let it suffice to have defended the freedom of expostulating in a cause most just to have shewn it reasonable and answered those things which with most apparence are alledged to the contrary Lastly let it suffice that for a conclusion I have made you a hearty Prayer and a Petition no less earnest adding at the end and for a complement of the whole discourse that reason of so urgent a Petition which swayes with those Divines who censure with freedom your doctrine Neither have I more to add but onely my wishes that for the future the Internuncio's of Bruxels may be more men of heavenly spirit at least when they have to do with men of earthly dirt Which humbly saluting your Lordship and kissing your hands with all due respect and affection truly and from his soul wishes My LORD
under His Majesty so unspeakably and irrecoverably destructive to those of their Communion but with much confidence and alacrity resolve to pursue evermore and try their Fortune hereafter in that at least more safe and holy way of undoubted Christianity of the Cross of Christ of peace and patience and suffering and love commended by the Son of God to his Disciples 4. That in the end of the year 1662 they had lost a very great and fair opportunity indeed not only of redeeming the ill opinion was held of them as to the points of Loyal inclinations by all their Protestant fellow Subjects but also of helping and mightily furthering even their whole Nation even their Lay people Nobility Gentry and very Commons too in their Temporal concerns and lost that first and best opportunity meerly out of the Caprice of some Ecclesiastical Ringleaders by refusing then to sign the Remonstrance when for signing such offere were made as they had cause enough since to repent they had not accepted and that if they did likewise neglect this second opportunity so unexpectedly offered them now in 1666 whether they should not rationally fear to be answerable to God for all the groans and sighs of a poor Nation like to be for ever after in our days rendred utterly and helplesly Calamitous by such a second neglect or rather wilful contempt of theirs or by them of the Providence and Mercy of God knocking at their doors favourable Fortune if twice rejected seldom or never returning the third time to negligent and ungrateful men 5. The terms of the Message now sent them and not so much by whom as from whom The termes or Tenour of it to be concerning their Subscription to that very individual Formulary of Recognition which above five years before had been to redeem and help them sign'd first at London by a considerable number of their own Country and Communion both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks and amongst both or each Order of them several yea many persons of the best quality and ability to discern of such matters which had been humbly presented to and graciously accepted by His Majesty which had been the true occasion and sole Instrument of ceasing immediately so great and fierce a Persecution under which they groan'd till then which after deservedly had the concurrence or Subscription of many others both of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry at home in Dublin but which nevertheless through the malice of Satan and suggestions of Men that regarded rather their own private either animosities or ambitious desires of Mitres or other Titles and Commissions from the Court of Rome than any Publicke good of their Country or Religion or than Truth or Justice or Honesty or Christian Peace hath been so contradicted by some malign'd by others persecuted by many and rejected or put off and delayed for point of Subscription to it by all the rest as no man could be ignorant of The Person from whom the said Message came to be as they all believed nor could but know the Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of the Kingdom the Duke of Ormond even that very person that very Lord Lieutenant whom the great body of the Irish Clergy represented by them now had formerly in the years 1646 and 1650 even contrary also to publick Faith and the very Laws of Nations twice forc'd away out of the whole Kingdom yea and notwithstanding his being then at both times under His Majesty their chief Governour and Lord Lieutenant And therefore how much in all reason it concern'd them to give now a satisfactory answer to Him who was pleased out of his own Christian and Heroick Nature to pass by and forgive all such farmer indignities and misdeeds against himself and expect only from them a dutiful profession of their future Allegiance to His Majesty in Temporal things and a consequential Renunciation of dependency in such matters from any Forreign Power or Authority whatsoever This being the whole substance of that Formulary the Subscription of which His Grace expected from them 6. And Lastly That upon such answer depended wholly their own future welfare quiet peace safety being they could not otherwise than understand That as the said Lord Lieutenants Grace represented them on this occasion to His Majesty without any peradventure they were like to find themselves accordingly treated always after XII ON all and every of these Heads to such purpose in a very profound attentive silence of the whole Assembly did the Procurator speak with all becoming respect and dilate for at least an hour or more that day in one continued Oration Only he remembers to have been a little interrupted twice First by the Primat standing up and denying the six Sorbon Declarations of May 8. 1663. Secondly By Father Nicholas Nettervil one of the Fathers and two Divines of the Society of Jesus in that Congregation who soon after stood up likewise albeit scarce for one moment of time and excepting only in a few words against so great a Multitude of Catholick Writers alledg'd by the Procurator for the Doctrin of the Remonstrance but withal confidently saying those Authors were no more but two and one of them but a Schysmatical Historian the other but a Poet. I must confess it was no little cause of Admiration to me to meet with such objections from such men Objections that argued either extream ignorance even of the most publick matters or a desperat Resolution like that of those in Job described to be Rebelles lumini and to say to God Recede a nobis scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus However to the Primat I answered That if the Publick Gazets of all Countries in Europe and the great Alarum of Rome upon that very occasion in the year 1663 or if the consequent perswasion of all men together with his own experimental knowledge of such matters during his abode at Rome and Paris for so many years since did not convince him at least those very six Latin Declarations of Sorbon in Print together with His most Christian Majesties other annexed French Declarations and Commands likewise in Print as they were transmitted from Paris and brought out of France by the Reverend Father Thomas Harold who lived then in France when they were past and Published as he did for sixteen years before a Publick Professor and Teacher of Divinity in the Schools there ought to convince others especially it being evident to all men conversant in the Schools or Scholastical Authors That such was the Ancient Doctrin of the Parisian School and of their great famous Writers Masters Doctors Gerson Major Almain Joannes Parisiensis c from which their Successors never varied if not some few of them once in the time of the Guisian Ligue seduced by Bellarmine there personally amongst them incognito awed by the Power of a prevailing Faction and corrupted by promises from Rome and it being also no less known that His most Christian Majesty Lewis XIV and Pope Alexander VII were
of so many former abroad in other parts of Europe since Gregory the 7th so manifest in History force not a confession of all this from F. N. N or if the very nature of the positions in themselves and the judgment of all judicious and ingenuous men of the world prevail not with him to confess that a general decision and resolve of the Roman Catholick Clergy in Ireland as well against the Popes pretence of infallibility as against his other of a power for deposing the King and raising at pleasure his Subjects in rebellion and against both absolutely and positively be not one of the most rational wayes to hinder the disturbance of King and Countrey as from such Clergie-men and others of their Communion and Nation and if the denyal of such decision and resolve against either pretence especially against this of infallibility since it is plain that if the Pope be admitted infallible his deposing power must necessarily and instantly follow because already and manifoldly declared by several Popes if I say this denyal convince not the denyers and such denyers as the said Congregation in this Country and Conjuncture of a design or desire or pleasure or contentedness to leave still the roots or seeds of new disturbances of both King and Countrey in the hearts of their beleevers and if I say also F. N. N. himself will not upon more serious reflection acknowledge all this to be true and â—â—ident I am sure all other judicious and knowing men even such as are â—iâ—interested wholy in the quarrel and not his partisans will That finally what I have to say is That whosoever is designed by him to be per stringed in or by this last pretence of furthering this dispute to the disturbance of both King and country may answer F. N. N. what the Prophet Elias did Achab on the like occasion Non ego turbavi Israel sic 〈◊〉 demâ—â— Patris tui 3 Reg. 18.18 qui â—ereliquistis mandata Domini secuti estis Bealim And 〈◊〉 that nâ—â— such person alone who ever chiefly perhaps intended nor his few other associates only perstringed likewise by F. N. N. and congregation in this perclose of their Paper but the poor afflicted Church of Ireland generally as it compriseth all beleevers of both sorts and sexes Ecclesiastical and Lay-persons of the Roman Communion nay but the Catholick Church of Christ universally throughout the world hath cause enough already and will I fear have much more yet to say as well to him and the Congregation as to all such other preposterous defenders of her interests what Iacob said to Simeon and Levi Gen. 34.30 upon the sack of Sichem Turbastis me â—diosum fecistis me Chananaeis Pherezaeis habitatoribus terrae hujus And more I have not to say here on this subject of infallibility But leave the Reader that expects more on that question or this dispute in it self directly and as it abstracts from the present indirect consideration to turn over to the last Treatise of this Book Where he shall find more at large and directly to that purpose what I held not so proper for this place Though I confess it was the paper of those unreasonable reasons the answers to which I now conclude here that gave me the first occasion to add that sixth and last piece as upon the same occasion I have the fifth also immediately following this fourth Only I must add by way of good advice to F. N. N That if he or the Congregation or both or any for them will reply to these answers or to what I have before said in my second or third Treatise on their Remonstrance and three first Propositions or even in my first though a bare Narrative only and matter of notorious fact related and if they will have such reply to be home indeed it cannot be better so than by their signing the 15. following Propositions Which to that purpose I have my self drawn and had publickly debated for about a moneth together in another but more special Congregation of the most learned men of this Kingdom and their own Religion held even in that very house where the former sate and immediatly after they were dissolved The Fourteen PROPOSITIONS of F. P. W. Or the doctrine of Allegiance which the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland may with a safe Conscience and at this time ought in prudence to subscribe unanimously and freely as that onely which can secure His Majestie of them as much as hand or subscription can and that onely too which may answer the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion and by consequence of the toleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State 1. Prop. HIS Majestie CHARLES the Second King of England is true and lawful King Supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other His Majesties Dominions and all the Subjects or people as well Ecclesiastick as Lay of His Majesties said Kingdoms or Dominions are obliged under pain of sin to obey His Majestie in all Civil and Temporal affairs 2. His said Majestie hath none but God alone for Superiour or who hath any power over him Divine or Human Spiritual or Temporal Direct or indirect ordinary or extraordinary de facto or de jure in his temporal rights throughout all or any of his Kingdoms of England Ireland Scotland and other Dominions annexed to the Crown of England 3. Neither the Pope hath nor other Bishops of the Church joyntly or severally have any right or power or authority that is warrantable by the Catholick Faith or Church not even in case of Schisme Heresie or other Apostacy nor even in that of any private or publick oppression whatsoever to deprive depose or dethrone His said Majestie or to raise his Subjects whatsoever of His Majesties foresaid Kingdoms or Dominions in Warr Rebellion or Sedition against him or to dispense with them in or absolve them from the tye of their sworn Allegiance or from that of their otherwise natural or legal duty of obedient faithful Subjects to His Majestie whether they be sworn or not 4. Nor can any sentence of deprivation excommunication or other censure already given or hereafter to be given nor any kind of Declaration dispensation or even command whatsoever proceeding even from the Pope or other spiritual authority of the Church warrant His Subjects or any of them in conscience to rebel or to lessen any way His said Majesties said Supream Temporal and Royal rights in any of his said Kingdoms or Dominions or over any of his people 5. It is against the doctrine of the Apostles and practice of the primitive Church to pretend that there is a natural or inhere at right in the people themselves as Subjects or members of the civil common-wealth or of a civil Society to take arms against their Prince in their own vindication or by such means to redress their own either pretended or true grievances
the Judge cannot proceed to the execution of his sentence and by the Canons and Glosses he is no Judge he hath no jurisdiction he cannot examine or call in question the causes of the Appeal neither is the Appellant bound to answer his summons Certainly if he could proceed to the execution of the sentence he might summon him and examine the causes of the Appeal both because that the examination of these causes might make him alter his sentence which was in it self perhaps wholly unjust and because it is therefore said he might proceed to this execution inasmuch as it is supposed he lost no part of his jurisdiction by the interposition of the Appeal since he gave only refutatories If therefore he have in this case a plenary jurisdiction over the Appellant why cannot he summon him concerning the causes of the Appeal or why is not the Appellant in this case bound to obey him It cannot be said That the Laws exempt the Appellant in this particular from him for the very prime Text which can be alledged for this to wit cap. Si a Judice de Appellat in 6. exempts him likewise in all other cases and declares the Judge to be no more Judge over the Appellant And if they say being reduced to extremities that the Judge a quo may call in question even the causes of the Appeal and judge them then they engage themselves against all the Canons Glosses and Doctors and against all their reasons whereof that is insoluble which we have before produced in the Glosse of cap. Sollicitudinem extr de Appellat verb. Episcopus posset where we have seen the question propounded why the Judge a quo might not be a competent Judge of the Appeal and answered it is therefore because that the Appellant is exempt from his jurisdiction by expression of a probable cause in his Appeal as from a Party suspected in regard the Law presumes that he would still give sentence in favour of his jurisdiction and of his former acts or sentences which all reason persuades us he would do For who is that upon unjust grounds would give sentence against any and upon his just Appeal give him only refutatory apostles would not also give sentence against him in the causes of the Appeal for maintenance of his own jurisdiction and righteousness or perhaps in prosecution of his former ignorance corruption malice or spleen if the Law did enable him with power to be Judge in this case Whence further would follow That the Subject would be often remedilesly exposed to the tyranny of every unjust and partial Judge This very same is a reason most sufficient and discovered unto us by the light of nature why we must hold that it lies not in the Judges breast to disannul just Appeals by giving refutatories whether it be granted or denied that he is Judge of the causes For otherwise an ignorant corrupt or malicious Judge notwithstanding his most illegal proceedings might overthrow at his pleasure the most reasonable and necessary Appeals in the World innocency might be oppressed without remedy and all injustice and tyranny maintained if we say the Judge for having given refutatories might proceed to execution during the said just Appeal for the execution may be an evil irrecoverable by any address might be made after as indeed it would be in our case were it allowed Which how repugnant it is to the very Law of Nature and to the intention and aim of Holy Canons who doth not see It was this convincing reason we may justly think made Glossa in cap. Licet de sentent Excom in 6. maintain our assertion in the like case where the Judge gave only apostles refutatories Which is the second argument we make use of to remove this Block whereat some seem to stumble For though the words of Glossa be not the very Text of the Law yet no man can deny but in such a business they are a sufficient president for us and no man can deny who is versed in Canons or Canonists but this very Glosse is next after the Text of esteem and of more authority than Forty Doctors who should maintain the contrary if they produced not the express Letter of the Law to the contrary or some Glosse as clearly for the opposite assertion as this for ours or at least some reason convincing a natural equity for the adverse opinion None of which as we are sure they could not as yet produce so we are confident they shall never be able hereafter to produce The words of the foresaid Glosse are Put the case I was convented before an Ecclesiastical Judge against whom I alledged some declinatory exception perhaps that he was the Kinsman of my adversary or I alledged some dilatory exception The Judge would not admit my exception but declared that notwithstanding any such he would proceed in the principal Whereupon I appealed in writing expressing a reasonable cause in my Appeal and desired with due instance that he would give me apostles He gave me refutatories prefixing withal a time to proceed before him in the principal But I appeared not the day appointed Wherefore he excommunicated me as contumacious 'T is certain that if the cause inserted in my Appeal be true I am not excommunicated (r) Glossa in cap. Licet de sent excom in 6. Pone casum quod fui conventus coram Judice Ecclesiastico coram quo proposui aliquam exceptionem declinatoriam forte quod erat consanguincus adversarii mei vel aliquam exceptionem dilatoriam posui Judex noluit admittere istam exceptionem sed pronunciavit quod ea non obstante procederet in principali unde appellavi in scriptis legitime expressa causa rationabili in mea appellatione petii cum debita instantia ut daret mihi apostolos qui dedit resutatorios assignando mihi terminum ad procedendum coram ipso in principali qua die non comparui Ideo tanquam contumaciem me excommunicavit Certum est quod si causa inserta in mea appellatione sit vera non sum excommunicatus Behold here our very case of an Appeal interposed and only apostles refutatorie granted which refutatories notwithstanding the Gloss affirms it is certain That the Appellant was not bound by the sentence of Excommunication issued against him if the causes expressed in his Appeal were true that is lawful and reasonable for appealing How may it therefore be denied but a just Appeal exempts the Appellant from the power and jurisdiction of the Judge from whom though this Judge do not admit his Appeal but only give refutatories and even the worst King of refutatories for such were the apostles mention'd in this Glosse otherwise this Excommunication of our Glosse would oblige the Appellant And how may it be that any will hereafter stumble at this block of the Lord Nuncio's apostles refutatories given as an Answer to the Councils Appeal or think That these apostles could hinder their just
causa Barthol Lancello Specul Menoch march Scâ—c plures alii cum communi Doctorum apud August Barbos in coll ad decretal in dictâ— cap. Pastoral n. 2. and as the Canonists commonly maintain Furthermore we say That if His Holiness ex plenitudine potestatis would give or hath given his Lordship a power above the Canon Law and such extraordinary faculties as that he should not be bound to admit even just Appeals yet hereby His Holiness never intended nor could lawfully or conscionably intend to hinder the Appellants from opposing the execution of an unjust sentence given against them much less from opposing a sentence or censures of their own nature invalid when their own Consciences tells them that his Lordship grounds himself upon ill information or that the obeying of the sentence may prove disadvantagious either to the Publick or Particulars against Equity and Right For in this and such like cases the Law of Nature takes place and allows the Appellant or Party aggrieved to preserve his own Right even by force if no other means be at hand against the unjust proceedings of a corrupt ignorant malicious or ill informed Judge specially if this Party aggrieved be a Prince State Council or Commonwealth which hath a Supreme Civil power as our case is Nay if His Holiness who is the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judge on earth and from whom there is no Appeal in matters belonging to his judicature otherwise than from himself to himself did upon ill information or for any other cause whatsoever give judgment or pronounce Censures contrary to justice and conscience or which would be disadvantagious to our Publick cause or destructive of our Commonwealth or of the lives liberties or fortunes of the Confederates or of the Council and that part of the Confederates who adhere to them and to the Cessation being incomparably the greater part of the Kingdom there is no Catholick Divine in the World but must confess it would be lawful to resist and oppose His Holiness in this case and to hinder the execution of such a sentence yea that such as are in Publick Authority would be bound in Conscience and under pain of a most grievous mortal sin to use their uttermost endeavours for opposing the said execution even vi armis if it were necessary and no other means left of reconciliation or for preservation of the Publick Yet certainly we do not fear that any such evil shall ever come immediately from the Sacred Throne of our most Blessed Father Innocentius Lastly What is objected by some out of cap. Ad nostram and cap. Reprehensibilis de Appellat That no Appeal is allowed from a sentence given in a controversie of Faith and consequently that your Honours Appeal is against the Law since the adhering to the Cessation to be unlawful is an Article of Faith and the sentence of Excommunication and other Censures were pronounced by the Nuncio to make the Confederates religiously observe the said Article that is not to adhere to or observe the said Cessation We say all and every branch of what 's here objected is so false and so absurd as it cannot be sufficiently admired with what face can any broach such ignorant Positions What is more clearly and without controversie decreed in Sacred Canons than that all weighty causes and questions happening about Articles of Faith which are the most weighty of all causes are to be referred unto the See Apostolick and even frivolous Appeals in such Controversies be admitted that is though the causes of appealing in these matters appear not to be so just or reasonable as are required by the Canons to be in Appeals interposed from grievances in other matters See this expresly defined in the Canons placed in the Margent (s) Alexander III. in cap. majores de Baptismo majores Ecclesiae causas praesertim articulâ—s fidei contingentes ad Petri sedem referendas intelliget qui eum quaerenti domino quem discipuli dicerent ipsum esse respondisse nâ—tabit Tu es Christus filius dei vivi pro eo dominum exorasse ne deficiat fides ejus c. See cap. Ut debitus § ultim juncta Gloss in verb. causis de appellat cap. Translationem de officio Legatâ— Bellarm. l. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. â— See Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. l. â— de Concil authorit where he teacheth and with him the Catholick Doctors commonly that only His Holiness is infallible in definâ—ng or declaring matters of Faith and that even General Councils much more National are of no such infallibility but may err until or before His Holiness confirm them Nay some Catholick Doctors as Bellarm l. 2. de Concil cap. 5. hath affirm that National Synods though so confirmed are not infallible and so constantly taught by Canonists as our opposites cannot produce one Author for themselves And what is more out of all doubt with both Heretick and Catholick Divines than that even His Holiness as Pope and Vicar of Christ yea and together with his Consistory of Cardinals and which is more sitting in a General Synod of the Universal Church on earth might err in Controversies of Fact which principally depend on informations and testimonies of men Read Bellarmine 4. de Romano Pontifice cap. 2. And consequently what is more certain and evident than that it is impossible the adhering to the Cessation concluded with Inchiquyn to be unlawful can be a matter or article of Faith or as such declared by any power on earth not to speak of the Lord Nuncio who hath no power no not together with his National Synod to define or declare such Articles even in capable matters or in questionibus juris otherwise then as a particular Doctor since it is plain that the question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it is a meer question of Fact and principally depending on the informations and testimonies of men Finally What is more plain to any knowing Reader of the two Chapters alledged against us out of the Canons by some of our opposites than that neither of them hath a word to that purpose or which by a Scholar may be understood in the sense they are produced against us For cap. ad nostram speaks only of just corrections of persons who are by profession Regulars as if a Religious man transgresseth manifestly his Rule or Institutions of his Order in this case and very justly no Appeal is admitted nisi tamen modus excedatur sayes Gloss ibid. verb. minus if a certain punishment be prescribed by the Canons for such a transgression and no other inflicted for if the punishment be arbitrary then according to Panormitan even a Regular might appeal in case of correction yea though his crime were notorious And as for cap. Reprehensibilis it makes the same sense though it be not restrained solely to the correction of Regulars but is more generally understood de disciplina Ecclesiastica of the correction of all Ecclesiasticks
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
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
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
I mean here partly out of the general Cronicles of Italy Germany Hungary Venice Spain France England before the suppresion or change by Henry the Eight c. and partly also out of the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Church and of these very later ages of it but in particular out of these very Annals compiled by the often quoted Henricus Spondanus a Catholick Bishop of France and the Continuer of the Annals of Baronius from the year 1198. wherein Baronius ended until the year 1640. which puts an end also to these Annals of Spondanus But for that reason I now gave I forbear insisting upon or enlarging my self upon or indeed producing at all here any of all these latter Instances LXXIV Therefore to proceed from those other particular instances which I have produced of Bishops Popes and Princes in and after the dayes of Constantinus Magnus conformable to the general practise of all Christians universally before his dayes all along up even to those inclusively of the Apostles and Christ our Lord now in order and pursuing the method I have in my LXXI Section prescribed to my self I come to the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Canons of the Church for me against my Adversaries in this point of a supream civil coercive power in lay and earthly Princes over all criminal Clerks whosoever within their Dominions and of all crimes too whatsoever of Clerks whether they be lay crimes or such only as are called Ecclesiastical crimes The first of these canons which I alledge for my self or to my purpose is that of Pope Pelagius ep 5. and as it is in Gratianus dist 17. cap. Hac licuit Wherein after command given that whoever have any doubt in matters of Faith shall be taught or resolved by the Sees Apostolick it is further said thus Quod si ita obstinati contumaces extiterint sayes Pelagius ut doceri non velint eos ab iisdem Apostolicis sedibus aut attrahi ad salutem quoquo modo necesse est aut ne aliorum perditio esse possint secundum canones Conc Antioch c. 3. Chalced. Act. 4. per seculares comprimi potestates Out of which it is most clear and evident that if Clerks are to be coerced properly or strictly speaking of coercion that is if they are to be corporally or forcibly restrain'd or punished they must according to the very Canons be coerced or restrain'd or punish'd so by the secular Powers for Pelagius writ his letter of which or out of which Gratian form'd the above canon and writ it I say to Narsetes Patricius and of the Bishops of Aquileia and Millan both Clerks without any peradventure And consequently it is also most clear or evident that by the very canons the supream civil coercive power and authority of coercing criminal Clerks or punishing them so and even too for Ecclesiastical crimes for the crime here was such must be confessed to be in the secular Princes The second Canon is in Gratian. 23. q. 5. c. Relegentes and is extracted out of another epistle of the same Pope Pelagius epist 4. ad Nâ—rsetem Patricium where he doth yet more clearly express this power and authority of secular Princes calling it also in express tearms their due authority and exhorting them to make use of it against these delinquent Clerks he complains of Quamvis igitur sayes he vestra per illorum scelus utilitas facta sit nolite tamen impunitam praesumptionem iniquorum hominum grassari permittere Si enim hoc quod in vestram gloriam praesumpserunt non fuerit vindicta compressum quod in minoribus non valeant puniri ambigi ultra non debet Exercete igitur in talibus debitam authoritatem ne cis amplius talia committendi spiritus crescat vestris coercitionibus reprimantur Ad hoc sequidem Dei nutu etiam contra vos talia praesumpserunt ut alia vobis corrigentibus ab eodem seclere alios possitis Deo propitiante munire And then or about or near the end of this 4. epistle Auferte tales ab ista Provincia utimini oblata vobis à Deo opprimendi perfidos oceasione Quod tunc plenius fieri poterit si authores scelerum ad Clementissimum Principem dirigantur maxime Ecclesiae Aquilegiensis invasor qui in schysmate in eo maledictus nec honorem Episcopi poterit retinere nec meritum Consonant to which is that which he also writ before Epist 3. thus Nolite ergo dubitare hujusmodi homines principali vel judiciali anthoritate comprimere quia Regulae Patrum hoc specialiter constituerunt ut si qua Ecclesiastici Officii persona cui subjectus est restiterit vel seorsim collegerit aut aliud altare erexerit seu schisma fecerit iste excommunicetur atque damnetur Behold all the punishment inflicted by the Church to wit excommunication and deposition and ejection from the number of faithful Quod si forte hoc contempserit permanserit divisicnes schisma faciendo per potestates publicas opprimatur And this he sayes to be a law Ecclesiastical and sayes truly so For in the Fifth Canon of the Council of Antioch it is ordained so and almost in the very self same words And in the rule approved in the Council of Chalcedon in epistola Archimandritarum ad ipsum Concilium actione 4. in Collectione Martini Cracarensis c. 37. it is ordained even so too Third Canon is of Leo the IV. Pope of that name and is that which you read in Gratianus dist 10. c. De Capitulis where this Pope speaks to Lotharius Augustus the Emperour in these words De capitulis vel praeceptis Imperialibus vestris vestrorumque Pontificum praedecessorum irrefragabiliter custodiendis conservandis quantum valuimus valemus Christo propitio nunc in aeuum nos conservaturos modis omnibus profitemur Fourth is also of the same Leo or that which you find in Gratian. 2. q. 7. c. nos sâ— where again this very Leo speaks in the like manner to Ludouick the Emperour and in these other words Si incompetenter aliquid egimus in subditis justae legis tramitem non conservavimus vestro ac Missorum vestrorum curata volumus emendare judicio c. For sayes Gratian himself 2. q. 7. Paragrap Item Regum est corporalem irrogare paenam sacerdotum spiritualem inferre vindictam Fift canon is very particular express and home enough even also as to the very inferiour lay judges but onely as to the lay crimes of Clerks without leaving any place for vain distinctions even it which you find also in Gratian XI q. 1. cap. Si quis cum yet not extracted out of the third Council of Carthage as a certain great writer would have it but out of the 74. Imperial constitution of Iustinianus c. 1. where in effect sufficiently and clearly distinguishing betwixt the lay crimes of a Clerk and his Ecclesiastical crimes though calling that onely and imply causam criminalem
and this barely too crimen Ecclesiasticum it is declared that if any charge a Clerk with the former sort of crime the secular judges shall determine the cause but if with the later that the Bishop onely shall have power to judg it Quod si de criminali causa litigium emerserit tunc competentes judices in hac civitate scilicet Constantinopolitana vel in Provinciis interpellati consentaneum legibus terminum imponant c Sin autem crimen Ecclesiasticum est tunc secundum canones ab Episcopo suo causae examinatio paena procedat nullam communionem aliis judicibus in hujusmodi causis habentibus Which although it was first or originally a meer civil constitution or Novel of Iustinian yet was after made a canon of the Church by being inserted in and received by the Church amongst her canons in corpore Iuris canonici or in Gratian. Sixt canon as to pure Ecclesiastical crimes and to their punishment in case of disobedience to the Bishops was long before and not a Papal canon onely but a canon of the third Council of Carthage which was that is called the Vniversal Council understand you of Affrick and is that also in Gratian XI q. 1. c. Petimus where it is declared that intruded Bishops contemning the admonitions of the Church belong in such case to the lay judicatory Seaventh canon distinguishing likewise in effect sufficiently and clearly enough as the above fift hath done betwixt lay crimes or at least some lay crimes that is crimes which are common as well to lay-men as to Clergie-men and both Ecclesiastical crimes or such as are proper onely to Ecclesiastical persons and other crimes too which are strictly civil but not criminal is that of the first Council of Matiscon held in the year 582. under King Gunteramnus and Pope Pelagius II. wherein and in the 7. chap. the Fathers decree Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque Iudex cujuscumque Clericum absque causa criminali id est homicidio furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum suerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur Whence appears evidently these Fathers held it no breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity that Clerks accused of murder theft or maleficium what ever they understood by this word or whether witchcraft onely according the special acception and restriction of this word or sense of it by some authors or generally all kind of lay evils or wickedness according to the general or etymological sense thereof should be subject to the meer lay coercive power of even inferiour lay judges whereof I have said more at large before And therefore by this canon Princes were to the end of the fift age of Christianity in possession of their own proper supream civil power of punishing Clerks in their own lay and princely Iudicatories tribunals or courts and even by their own inferiour proper and meer lay delegated or commission'd judges when I say the cause or accusation was purely criminal and of such crimes in specie as are murder theft or witchcraft Eight canon is that still in Gratian 23. q. 5. cap. Principes For though Isidorus de sum bon c. 35. be the original Author of it yet as in Gratian it is now allowed and accounted amongst the canons of the Church And that indeed not unworthily For thus it speaks Principes seculi non numquam intra Ecclesiam potestatis adeptae culmina tenent ut per eamdem potestatem disciplinam Ecclesâ—asticam muniant Caeterum intra Ecclisiam petesta es necessariae non essent nisi ut quod non fraevalet sacerdos efficere per doctrinae sermonem potestat hoc impleat per disciplinae terrâ—rem Saepe per regnum terrenum caeleste regnum proficit ut qui intra Ecclesiam positi contra fidem disciplinam Ecclesiae agunt rigore Principum conterantur ipsamque disciplinam quam Ecclesiae humilitas exercere non praevalet corvicibus superborum potestas principalis imponat ut venerationem mereatur virtutem potestatis impertiat Cognoscant Principes saeculi Deo debere se rationem reddere propter Ecclesiam quam a Christo tuendam accipiunt Nam sive augeatur pax displina Ecclesiae per fideles Principes sive soluatur ille ab eis rationem exiget qui corum potestati suam Ecclesiam credidit Here you see that not out of or by vertue of any commission or delegation from Bishops or Popes Princes do exercise the distriction of their power even within the Church that is against Churchmen and even too in Church affairs but out and by vertue of their own proper authority which they received from God And you see also that the Church as such by reason of its humble and essential constitution may not exercise or make use of any penal discipline as belonging to her self but for such coercion must have recourse to the power of Princes Nor let any think to evade by saying that Princes are in so much or as punishing such persons or as determining correcting or amending such affairs but Ministers of the Church and executors of the sentence or power of the Church pursuant to that which Innocent III. and the Glosse upon him say or determine cap. ut famae de sent Excom extracted out of the said Innocent's answer to the Bishop of London For I have before already in several Sections proved by reason Scripture tradition of the Fathers and practise too both general and particular and of both Fathers and Princes and Pontiffs and people that Princes have hethertoo proceeded and de jure proceeded against such persons and even too in such matters by their own proper authority without any commission had from the Church As likewise that they received from God himself such their own proper universal authority and right to proceed so against all persons whatsoever laymen or Clergiemen guilty of any crimes and in all causes too whatsoever temporal or spiritual forasmuch or wherein they relate to the external peace of the Commonwealth and to the meer external government of the Church by the power of the material sword And we have seen too already that the power of inflicting corporal punishment by way of coaction and force is absolutely denyed to the Church as a Church Which being so who will be so unreasonable as to attribute a power to Her of deputing commissioning or delegating Ministers or executors to inflict them so But what this canon or Gratian or rather Isidore who was the original Author sayes here is very observable I mean where it sayes that Princes have the height of their power within the Church and that God himself hath committed his Church to their power even as Leo Magnus the Pope writing to Leo the Emperour ep 81. sayes Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non