and Religious did subscribe which was purposely made to secure the Lay-Gentlemen that supposing they might enjoy the freedom of their Religion they might lawfully renounce the practice of these Articles which makes the case far different both to the one and the other they conceived you intended to deny and destroy the probability of that Opinion which they think it necessary for their ends to maintain And therefore to keep their hold and conserve their pretended right they framed this Decree in hugger mugger and kept it private Their chief motive is acknowledged in the Decree it self Least it should be said hereafter that his Holiness did approve or connive at the Subscription to such Articles as were prejudicial to his Pontificial greatness The same was also expresly intimated to the Popes Nuncio here it being signified unto him there should be no legal publication of it no more then there had been at Rome nor consequently sure did they intend it should oblige Nay even they themselves would esteem him a very Fool that would lose his Estate or venture his Life for the maintenance of this Opinion or Decree Your Negative Answers to these Articles are to be understood according to your and the Proposers intentions that is to renounce the practice of them and profess them to be no part of your Faith and Religion which I believe the very Court of Rome doth not pretend witness Cardinal Peron who after he had often averred in his Oration to the Nobles of France in the year 1615. that the Doctrine of the Pope's power to depose Heretical Kings and absolve their Subjects from their obedience was only Problematical And in particular That the Catholicks of England were obliged to obey King James then reigning In his other Oration to the third Sâ—â—te who urged and pressed to have the contrary Doctrine received as a fundamental Law of the Kingdom and as holy true and conformable to the Word of God having used all possible Arguments to dissuade them from this design and learnedly labouring to shew a greater probability for the affirmative part He concludes towards the end of his Speech That the Pope doth tolerate and suffer the contrary Opinion to be held so it be only maintained as Problematical in matter of Faith that is saith he so it be not proposed as necessary to Faith nor the Opposite declared as contrary to the Word of God impious and detestable Besides this Decree is given against the Negative Subscribers to unpublished Articles without any information or knowledge of the original Instrument whereunto you Priests did subscribe nay without calling any of you to Account but only in the Air against the Negative Subscription supposed to be done they know not where nor how contrary to the ordinary forms of our Law avd Justice But every man who hath negotiated in the Court of Rome can tell you That these Congregational Decrees are generally made by a few Cardinals and Prelates who to speak modestly little know upon what grounds and principles the abstruse Sequels of Faith are to be resolved They say in this They have consulted Divines that is perhaps some few Forreign Regulars whose Interests lie wholly in that Court depending immediately of it and exempted by his Holiness from the ordinary and divine Hierarchical Government of the Church who knowing nothing of the Affairs nor of the Circumstance of the Question were not like to deliver any other Opinion than what their great Patrons would have them I wish with all my heart That with the loss of my blood I could blot out the belief of all experienced men that nothing but Interest and Faction are prevalent in the Court of Rome It is now in every mans mouth that understands the Affairs of the World that they seek their own ends not the publick good Finally I remark that they chiefly direct their Decree to the Superiours of their exempted Emissaries no mention made of the Bishop or Clergy who are the only lawful and Canonical publishers with the permission and consent of the State or Civil Magistrates of any true authentical spiritual Command Truly if such a Decree had been sent hither and so illegally proclaimed it would have been presently condemned to be burnt by the hands of the Hangman In a word I see nothing capable to beget a Scruple nor that ought to hinder any Catholick from Subscribing to the Articles as you have done Nor shall I easily persuade my self that any wise and experienced man will shrink from so just an Act. If your State King or Parliament will suffer and tolerate you to live quietly under them which I wonder such able men should boggle at I shall quickly provide and help you with such advice from the most learned and most vertuous Divines of Europe as will make your Ecclesiastical Government an example to all other States and Kingdoms your Neighbours And still conserving all due Respect and spiritual Obedience to the See of Rome you shall free your selves from all unnecessary and unfit dependance of the Roman Court wherein I shall furnish you with the resolutions of such Questions as will open the eyes of all your unexperienced and tender conscienced Countrey-men who have not had perhaps the means to discern and distinguish their due and unnecessary obedience from a superfluous and unjust obsequiousness And which shall withall make appear to all the Christian World the now well near Fourscore years hard and unfatherly dealing of the Court of Rome over the poor persecuted and distressed Catholicks of England Let it therefore be your constant endeavour to give the King State or Parliament full satisfaction and assurance of your fidelity to the Civil and Political government of your Kingdom whatsoever it shall be which may most certainly stand with the integrity of your Religion and Consciences For the rest fear nothing trust to the justice of your Cause which you may assuredly believe will not want support For my particular according to my poor Ability you shall ever find me Your most loving Brother in Christ And obedient Servant T.H. From Paris this 2d of April 1648. By which two several Papers the written and the printed the Reader may understand fully what he shall find hereafter answered by me in the year 1664. to the foresaid Internuncio de Vecchiis concerning his Allegation or pretence of Innocent the X's having condemned these Negatives and consequently our Remonstrance as for one part thereof coincident with or virtually contain'd in them Fourth and last Observation is concerning that signal crafty admonition which the same de Vecchiis gave as you have before seen to Father Bruodin in these words Signanter ut sic refutetuâ— illud Jura nentum ne tamen Regii Ministri ansam accipiant in Catholicos saeviendi eosque tamquam Regia Dominationi quia ab Ecclesia defecerit infestos puniendi If I be not much mistaken de Vecchiis would have the Anti-Remonstrants use all kind of other false Arguments to
the Tridentine Fathers but also quite contrary to those Doctrines and Practises which are manifestly recommended in the letter sense and whole design of the Gospel of Christ in the writings of his blessed Apostles in the Commentaries of their holy Successors in the belief and life of the Christian Church universally for the first Ten Ages thereof and moreover in the very clearest dictates of Nature it self whether Christianity be supposed or not IV. That of those quite other and quite contrary Doctrines in the most general terms without descending to particular applications of them to any one Kingdom or People c the grand Positions are as followeth viz. That by divine right and immediate institution of Christ the Bishop of Rome is Vniversal Monarch and Governour of the World even with sovereign independent both spiritual and temporal authority over all Churches Nations Empires Kingdoms States Principalities and over all persons Emperours Kings Princes Prelates Governours Priests and People both Orthodox and Heterodox Christian and Infidel and in all things and causes whatsoever as well Temporal and Civil as Ecclesiastical or Spiritual That He hath the absolute power of both Swords given Him That He is the Fountain of all Jurisdiction of either kind on Earth and that whoever derives not from Him hath none at all not even any the least Civil or Temporal Jurisdiction That He is the onely Supreme Judge of all Persons and Powers even collectively taken and in all manner of things divine and humane That all humane Creatures are bound under forfeiture of Eternal Salvation to be subject to Him i. e. to both His Swords That He is empowred with lawful Authority not only to Excommunicate but to deprive depose and dethrone both sententially and effectually all Princes Kings and Emperours to translate their Royal Rights and dispose of their Kingdoms to others when and how He shall think fit especially in case either of Apostasie or Heresie or Schism or breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or any publick oppression of the Church or People in their respective civil or religious Rights or even in case of any other enormous publick Sins nay in case of only unfitness to govern That to this purpose He hath full Authority and Plenitude of Apostolical Power to dispense with Subjects in and absolve them from all Oaths of Allegiance and from the antecedent tyes also of the Laws of God or man and to set them at full liberty nay to command them under Excommunication and what other Penalties He please to raise Arms against their so deposed or so excommunicated or otherwise ill-meriting Princes and to pursue them with Fire and Sword to death if they resist or continue their administration or their claim thereunto against His will That He hath likewise power to dispense not only in all Vows whatsoever made either immediately or mediately to God himself nor only as hath been now said in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to the King but in all other Oaths or Promises under Oath made even to any other man whatsoever the subject or thing sworn be That besides Oaths and Vows He can dispense in other matters also even against the Apostles against the Old Testament against the Four Evangelists and consequently against the Law of God That whoever kills any Prince deposed or excommunicated by Him or by others deriving power from Him kills not a lawful Prince but an usurping Tyrant a Tyrant at least by Title if not by Administration too and therefore cannot be said to murther the Anointed of God or even to kill his own Prince That whosoever out of pure zeal to the Roman-Church ventures himself and dyes in a War against such a Tyrant i.e. against such a deposed or excommunicated Prince dyes a true Martyr of Christ and his Soul flies to Heaven immediately That His Holiness may give and doth well to give plenary Indulgence of all their sins a culpa poena to all Subjects rebelling and fighting against their Princes when He approves of the War That antecedently to any special Judgment Declaration or declaratory Sentence pronounced by the Pope or any other subordinate Judge against any particular person Heresie does ipso jure both incapacitate to and deprive of the Crown and all other not only royal but real and personal Rights whatsoever That an Heretick possessor is a manifest Vsurper and a Tyrant also if the possession be a Kingdom State or Principality and therefore is ipso jure out-law'd and that all his People i. e. all his otherwise reputed Vassals Tenants or Subjects are likewise ipso jure absolved from all Oaths and all other tyes whatsoever of fidelity or obedience to him That he is truly and certainly and properly an Heretick who misbelieves calls in question or even doubts of any one definition of the Tridentine Council or of any one that is of meer Papal Constitution or of any one of those Articles profess'd in Pius Quartus 's Creed That not only the Pope but any Patriarch nay any inferiour Bishop acknowledging His Holiness may if need be both excommunicate and depose their own respective Princes Kings or Emperours and may also without their leave or knowledge reverse the Decrees of their Vice-Roys or Lieutenants and even censure depose from and restore again such Lieutenants to their former dignity and charge That all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever both Men and Women Secular and Regular Patriarchs Primaâ—s Archbishops Bishops Abbots Abbesses Priests Fryars Monks Nuâ—s to the very Porter or Portress of a Cloyster inclusively nay to the very Scullion of the Kitchin and all their Churches Houses Lands Revenues Goods and much more all their persons are exempt by the Law of Nature and Laws of Nations and those of God in Holy Scripture both Old and New Testament and those of men i. e. of Christian Emperours Councils and Popes in their respective Institutions and Canons and are indeed universally perpetually and irrevocably so exempt from all secular civil and temporal Authority on Earth whether of States or of Princes of Kings or of Emperours and from all their Laws and all their Commands that is from both the directive and coercive virtue of either or which is the same thing in effect from sin against God and from punishment by God or man for only transgressing them That consequently if any Church-man should murder his lawful and rightful King blow up the Parliament fire burn and lay waste all the Kingdom yet he could not be therefore guilty of Treason or truly called a Traytor against the King or against the Kingdom or People or Laws thereof no nor could justly be punish'd at all by the secular Magistrate or Laws of the Land without special permission from the Pope or those deriving Authority from Him That nevertheless all Clergy-men regular and secular in the World from the meanest either Accolits or Converts to the highest Generals of Orders and greatest Patriarchs of Nations inclusively may be out of all Kingdoms and even contrary to
otherwise at all noxious to humane Society and then also and there to Enact those penal Laws where at the same time the Lawmakers could not but have continually before their eyes all those beforemention'd Positions and Practises which they could not but judge to be indeed of the greatest Danger Insolence Pride Injustice Usurpation Tyranny and Cruelty imaginable even those very Positions and Practises which they knew to threaten themselves above others most particularly and which they saw themselves Ten thousand times more concern'd to persecute than any pure Religious Rites or Articles nay which they also knew to be such as even according to the judgment of the greater and sounder part of the Roman-Catholicks themselves abroad in other parts of the World did of their own nature require all the severity of Laws and all the anger of Men to prosecute them I am sure the Third Estate of the Roman Catholicks of France anno 1514 1â— did think so when they desired it should be made a fundamental Law of FRANCE to be kept and known by all men That the King being acknowledged Head in his Dominions holding his Crown and his Authority only from God there is no power on earth whatever Spiritual or Temporal that hath any right over his Kingdom either to depose our Kings or dispense with or absolve their Subjects from the fidelity and obedience which they owe to their Soveraign for any cause or pretence whatsoever That all his Subjects of what quality or condition soever shall keep this Law as holy true and agreeable to God's Word without any distinction equivocation or limitation whatsoever which shall be sworn and signed by all the Deputies of Estates and henceforward by all who have any Benefice or Office in the Kingdom before they enter upon such Benefice or Office and that all Tutors Masters Regents Doctors and Preachers shall teach and publish that the contrary Opinion viz. That it is lawful to kill and depose our Kings to rebel and rise up against them and shake off our Obedience to them upon any occasion whatever is impious detestable quite contrary to Truth and the establishment of the State of France which immediately depends upon God only That all Books teaching these false and wicked Opinions shall be held as seditious and damnable All Strangers who write and publish them shall be look'd upon as sworn enemies to the Crown and that all Subjects of His Majesty of what quality and condition soever who favour them shall be accounted as Rebels Violators of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and Traytors against the King c. And I am sure also That all the Parliaments and Universities of the same Kingdom did likewise think and believe so when at several times they proceeded with so much severity in their censures against so many inconsiderate Writers that maintain'd the Papal vain pretences of Authority to depose Kings and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them But to say nothing at present of the many several Arrests of the French Parliaments on this subject and speak only of their University Censures how smart these were in general the Universities of Paris (z) 1626 4. April and Caen (a) 7. May. and Rheims (b) 18. May. and Tholouze (c) 23. May. and Poitiers (d) 26. June and Valence (e) 14. July and Burdeaux (f) 16. July and Bourges (g) 25. November sufficiently tell us in their special Censures anno 1626. against the Jesuit Sanctarellus in particular i. e. against the Doctrine of such a power in the Pope asserted by him the said Sanctarellus in his Treatise of Heresie Schism Apostasie c. The first of them viz. the University of Paris finding in the said Book this Assertion That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresie c. condemn'd it in formal words as new false erroneous contrary to the Law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative to the Soveraign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes disturbing the publick peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the obedience due to their Soveraigns and precipitating them into faction rebellion sedition and even to commit Particides on the sacred Persons of their Princes And the other seven Universities were not much behind for they also every one condemn'd it as false erroneous contrary to the Word of God pernicious seditious and detestable XI That if any shall object those penal Statutes which may perhaps be thought by some to have all their quarrel and bend all their force and level all the rigor of their Sanctions against some harmless Doctrines and practises whether in themselves otherwise true or false good or bad I say against the meer spiritual meer sacramental rites of our Religious worship of God and our Belief of meer supernatural operations following as for example against our Doctrines of the Consecration and Transubstantiation and our practice withall of the adoration of the Host which this present Parliament at Westminster in their late Act against Popish Recusants may be thought by some to make the principal mark whereat all the arrows of disfavour must now be shot the answer is both consequential and clear viz. That the Law-makers perswading themselves 1. that the Roman Catholicks in general of these Kingdoms both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks had alwayes hitherto since the schism either out of ignorance and blind zeal or a mistaken interest or irrational fear refused or at least declined to disown by any sufficient publick instrument the foresaid Anti-catholick Positions and Practises which maintain the Popes pretences of all Supreme both Spiritual and Temporal Dominion Jurisdiction Authority Power Monarchy and Tyranny c 2. That their Missionaries i e. their Priests not only day and night labour to make new Proselytes but also to infuse into as many of them and of their other Penitents as they think fit all their own Principles of Equivocation and mental Reservation in swearing any Oath even of Allegiance or Supremacy to the King and forswearing any thing or doctrine whatsoever except only those Articles which by the indispensable condition of their communion they may not dissemble upon Oath 3. That the Tenet of Transubstantiation is one of those Articles therefore to discover by this however otherwise in it self a very harmless Criterium the mischief which they conceive to go along with it thorough the folly of Roman Catholicks in these Dominions they make it the test of discriminating the Loyally principled Protestant from the disloyal and dissembling Papist Which otherwise they would not have done if the Romanists themselves in general who are Subjects to our Gracious King had by any sufficient Test distinguished amongst themselves and thereby convinced the Parliament and all other Protestant people
Dignities and Offices whereby they constituted the said Father Walsh their Agent and Procurator to His Majesty and great Ministers to kiss His Majesties hands in their behalf and name c. Giving him moreover all the power authority and jurisdiction they could to act for them and the rest of the Clergy and Catholicks of Ireland and to do all things he should find expedient in order to obtain what favours His Majesty should think fit by connivence or otherwise for the exercise of their Religion and to save them from persecution on that account To which Instrument of Procuration many others afterwards did subscribe and put their Seals as soon as they saw it in particular the Bishop of Dromore and the Bishop of Ardagh with their own hands and the Bishop of Ferns by his proxy and special Commission from Spain to that end That the rest of the chief Superiours of the Clergy in other parts of Ireland did not the reason was given that the times then when it was done and sent to London were such as no Messenger would undertake to go about with the Instrument and to meet together it was impossible and all thought it sufficient for all that the Primate and those other Bishops and Vicars General had already done it especially whereas it was known that the Primate himself drew that Instrument Which I thought fit to insert here word by word as it is in the original writing To the end some persons who are yet unsatisfied in this matter may see what warrant the said Procurator had from the Clergy themselves to act for them and urge them far more yet then he hath to do themselves right In Dei nomine Amen Sciant vniversi per praesentes quod nos qui huic instrumento Procuratorio subscripfimus eligendum duximus sicut per praesentes eligimus nominamus facimus et constituimus Reverendum admodum et venerabilem virum Fratrem Patrem Petrum Valesium Ordinis Sti Francisci Recollectum S. Theologiae Lectorem c. nostrum Procuratorem Agentem et negotiorum Actorem et Gestorem ut nostro omnium nomine et vice osculetur Sacras manus Serenissimi Domini Regis nostri Caroli II. congratuleturque ejus felici et faustae inaugurationi et ingressui in sua Regna Monarchiam et Imperium Eidemque Serenissimo Domino Regi vota et preces nostras humiliter offerat et praesentet et coram sua Sacra Majestate Judicibus Commissionariis Delegatis et Ministris quibuscumque ab eodem Serenissimo nostro Rege ad id deputatis aut deputandis proponat agat sollicitet et promoveat causam Catholicorum et libertatis sive tollerantiae exercitii Religionis Catholicae in hoc regno Hiberniae Vt saltem procuret nobis eas conditiones favores et gratias quae in Articulis Pacis et Reconciliationis an 1648. compositae ratae et confirmatae inter Excellentissimum Dominum Marchionem Ormoniae et Confederatos Catholicos pactae et promissae nobis fuerunt omniaque alia proponat agat et concludat nostro omnium nomine quae in ordine ad dictam sollicitationem et Agentiam necessaria aut conducibilia fuerint Proinde damus eidem venerabili et Rdo. admodum Patri omnem potestatem Authoritatem et Iurisdictionem in quantum possumus aut debemus ut ad debitum effectum perducat pacem tranquillitatem et quietem Religionis Catholicae in hoc Regno Rogantes ut eidem credentia et fides abundé in omnibus habeâtur In quorum fidem has signaturis et sigillis nostris muniri fecimus Primo Jan. 1660. In the name of God Amen Be it known to all men by these presents that we who have subscribed this Procuratory Instrument have thought fit to elect as we do by these presents elect name make and constitute the very Reverend man Father Peter Walsh Recollect of the Order of St. Francis and Reader of holy Theology c. our Procurator Agent Actor and Doer of our affairs that in all our names and place he may kiss the Sacred hands of our most Serene Lord and King Charles the Second and congratulate his happy and fortunate inauguration and ingress into his Kingdoms Monarchy and Empire and that he may humbly offer and present unto the same most Serene Lord and King our vows and prayers and that before his Sacred Majesty Judges Commissioners and Delegats and other Ministers soever deputed already or hereafter to be deputed by the same our most Serene King he may propound act sollicit and promote the cause of Catholicks and of the liberty or tolerancy of exercise of Catholick Religion in this Kingdom of Ireland That at least he may procure to us those conditions favours and graces which in the Articles of Peace and Reconciliation in the year 1648. compounded ratified and confirmed betwixt the most excellent Lord Marquess of Ormond and the Catholick Confederats were conditioned for and promised to us And that he may propound act and conclude in all our names all other things which in order to the said sollicitation and Agency shall be necessary or conducing Therefore we give the same venerable and very Reverend Father all power authority and jurisdiction as much as we can or ought that he may bring to a good issue the peace tranquillity and quiet of Catholick Religion in this Kingdom praying that credence and beleef may be given him abundantly in all things In witness whereof we have strengthned these with our subscriptions and Seals 1. of Ian. 1660. Edmundus Archiepiscopus Ardmachanus totius Hiberniae Primas Fra. Antonius Episcopus Medensis Fra. Oliverus Episcopus Dromorensis Patricius Episcopus Ardaghadensis 1665. Cornelius Gaffneus Vic. Gen. Ardachaden Oliverus Dese Vic. Gen. Medensis Ego Jacobus Cusacus S. Theologiae D. fretus authoritate et commissione speciali Rmi D. Nicholai Episcopi Fernensis huic instrumento Procuratorio ejusdem Illmi ac Rmi D. Episcopi nomine subscribo die 8. Sep. 1662. Iacobus Dempsy Vic. Apostolicus Dublinensis c. Fra Ioannes Scurlog Ord. Praedicatorum Fra. Barnabas Barnewallus Ord. Capucinerum Fra Paulus Brownus Carmelita Discalocatus When the said Peter Walsh had in the same month of Ian. 1660. according to the English stile for it was 61. according to the Roman received this Instrument at London by the hands of the Reverend Father Antony Gearnon of St. Francis's Order and shewed it immediately to my Lord Lieutenant although as he expected he was soundly checked by His Grace for daring to receive such an Instrument from such men that is men as to the generality and chief of them formerly and lately too so charactered as they were for being in their inclinations and carriage very much disaffected to His Majesties interests and very obnoxious to the laws yet he ceased not ever after upon all good opportunities to act for them and all the rest of the Irish Clergie of their communion indifferently and without any distinction and endeavour to worke their peace
an ordinance in such general or rather indefinit terms for the exemption of Clerks in a criminal question from the civil-Judicatory or being it is but a command or law That none should presume to call or draw an Ecclesiastical person in a criminal question or even civil to a secular judgment against the Imperial Constitutions and Canonical Functions and whereas there was never yet any Imperial Constitution or Canonical Sanction either made before his time or in his time or after his time that exempted Clergymen in either of both sorts of questions civil or criminal from the supream civil and absolute power of the Emperour themselves or of other Kings that acknowledge neither Emperour nor Pope nor any other above themselves in their temporal government who sees not that out of this Constitution of Frederick nothing can be concluded for such exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power but only from that of subordinat inferiour and ordinary civil or secular Judicatories Besides we know Fredericks laws were only for those few Cities or Provinces that remain'd in his time which was about the year of Christ one thousand two hundred and twenty and therefore could not pretend nor did pretend to prescribe laws to other Kingdoms or Kings for the exemption of Clerks either in civil or criminal causes or even to the inferiour Iudicatories of other Kings And that we know also that that law of Frederick was not imitated by the like in other Principalities not subject to him not imitated I say generally as to the exemption of Clerks in all either civil or criminal causes whatsoever from the very subordinat inferiour civil Iudicatories nor even in prima instantia So that I must conclude that Bellarmine was put to a very narrow strait for an imperial or civil law wh◠〈◊〉 pitch't on this of Frederick which was not known nor as much as 〈◊〉 of in other parts of even Europe it self as owning no subjection to Frederick And yet a law not to the purpose were it of the same authority those Imperial Constitutions were when the Orient and the Occident South and North as far as the Roman Empire was ever spread at any time or even in great Constantins days were under one Lord. An imperial or civil law in those days or of such others for some ages after which wâ—e received in the wide christian world consequently generally retained might have been to purpose if it had clearly expresly on particularly enacted any thing to our present purpose But conceived in such terms as this of Frederick coâ—lâ— not be to such purpose For it is one thing to be exempted from the subjection due to Emperours or Kings and another to be exempted a forâ— secuilâ—i from a secâ—â—â—â— Iudicatory The Emperours had under themselves and established by themselves and by their own civil laws two sorts of Iudicatories The one termâ—â—â—g meer civil or meer secular Iudicatory where peculars onely or meer â—ay men were Judges And the other termed 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Iudicatory where Ecclesiastical Persons only or persons depâ—â—â—â— by them were Iudgeâ— whatever the cause or question was civil or criâ—â—nal temporal or spiritual or mixt of both And both had their power which as coercive or a 〈…〉 with any coerciâ—â—â— from the Emperours and from their civil law 〈◊〉 So that the Emperours exempting any from the secular Iudicatory 〈…〉 leave or put such under the subordinat pâ—â—er of the Ecclesiastical Judges deputed by the same Emperours or by their laws Which they might have done in favour of meer lay men 〈◊〉 some lay-men and in some or many or all case whatsoever made had it been their Imperial pleasure as often they did by instances grant Epise 〈◊〉 And entiam to meer lay men and in meer lay crimes or lay causes 〈◊〉 civil and criminal at leaâ— in civil Would Bellarmine conclude therefore that those were exempted or should be in such a case and by the Emperours themselves or their laws exempted from their own supream civil coercive power in criminal causes or indeed in any whatsoever Or must it follow that because by the law of England a Lord for example 〈◊〉 be condemned or tryed in a criminal cause but by his Peers that therefore in England a Lord is exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the King himself Or that it is not by a power derived from the King thâ—â— Peer 〈…〉 condemn or free another Peer Or even that by the supream power of the King which formerly established such a law of priviledge for Peers the same law may not be justly again or upon just grounds repealed and a contrary law made in Parliament if at any time it were found by manifest experience that the Peers did manifestly and manifoldly and even to the ruine of the King and Kingdom and against the very primary intention of all priviledges and laws make use of or rather abuse such a former law or former priviledge Or finally and consequently that whatever priviledge of exemption though only from Inferiour lay Judges was so granted as before to Clerks by the supream civil power of Emperours Kings and other States was such that in case of manifest and manifold abuse even to the ruine of the publick and without any hope of amendment it could not be revoked again or moderated by another law and equal power to that which gave it before Therefore from first to last I think it is now clear enough that by the civil law no Clerks are exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of such temporal Princes or States under whom they live LXIX That neither by the Canons of the Church I am now to prove Wherein I find so little difficulty that notwithstanding the general errour so wide spread or supposed amongst as well Divines as Canonists to the contrary but introduced at first and continued after out of some passages of Councils very ill understood considered or examined I dare say boldly that not onely none of all those Councils or Canons of Councils alledged for such exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power but not even any of them alledged for their exemption from as much as the subordinat civil power of inferiour Judicatories hath any such matter at all Though my purpose here be not other then to prove this truth for what concerns the supream power only To which purpose I affirm that no where in any Council is it found that the Fathers attributed such authority to themselves as by their own sole power to exempt Clerks from lay Tribunals â— or which is the same thing to deprive secular Judges or Magistrates of power empire command judgment coercion or Iurisdiction over Clerks or which also imports the very same to prohibit the secular Judges not to take cognizance of or give sentence in the causes either civil or criminal of Clerks brought unto their tribunals or finally and it is still in effect the same
Iustiniani Imperatoris Catholici quam probat servat Catholica Ecclesia constitutione c. XXIV cap. eccl 1. decrevit ut nemo Episcopus nemo praesbiter excommunicet aliquem antequam causa probetur c. In which law of Iustinian it is also very observable that he prescribes meer ecclesiastical punishments to be undergone by the transgressors of it Is autem qui non legittime excommunicaverit in tantum abstineat a sacra communione tempus quantum majori sacerdoti visum fuerit c. On the other side it hath been often seen that the Fathers themselves assembled in Councils made ordinances or canons in matters belonging properly to the politick administration as to wit being certain the Prince would by his own proper authority approve of such canons and consequently give them that force which the onely spiritual power could not or as knowing that by the civil laws or customs of countries such matters ought to be observed but wanted nevertheless for their more conscientious and careful observance the admonition of the Fathers and the severity also of Ecclesiastical censures threatned against the infringers Which to have been so indeed may truly and clearly appear even out of this very Council of Toledo where annuente consentiente Rege some politick canons were made by the Fathers and may appear also out of that former of Matiscon wherein the 14 canon is Vt Iudaeis a caena Domini usque ad primum diem pâ—st Pascha secundum edictum bonae Recordationis Domini Childeberti Regis per plateas aut fâ—rum quasi insultationis causa deambulandi licentia denegetur 3. That if we did absolutely grant without reserve that by the royal authority of King Guntramnus in this first Council of Matisconum and of King Recaredus in that of Toledo the jurisdiction of subordinate inferiour lay Judges over Clerks had been totally extinct in the respective Kingdoms of those two Kings yet nothing hence for the exemption of Clerks from the very supream royal power in it self and in all cases or causes Nor any thing to prove such exemption from inferiour tribunals whatever it was to have proceeded from any power of the Church or even from any temporal power of Kings before Iustinians time and Novels in favour of Clergiemen for both these Councils were held after Iustinians Raign 4. And lastly that Bellarmine was not wary enough in alleadging that first Council of Matisconum For besides that what he alleadgeth out of it hath not as much as any seeming argument for his purpose but that simple Quere which every novice could answer he hath moreover given his Readers occasion to tell him that of all Councils he should ever beware to touch on this of Matisconum being the seventh canon of it is so clear and express against his pretence of divine right or divine law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Magistrate or indeed rather of any law at all even meerly humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for their exemption in all crimes or in all those which are in the canons stiled lay crimes crimina laica that murther theft and witchcraft are by name excepted by this very Council and in the seventh canon from any such priviledge of Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption from the lay Judges however the criminal be a Clerk as may appear to any that is not wilfully blind out of this VII canon it self being as to the tenor of it word by word at leingth what I give here Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque judex absque causa criminali id est homicidis furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum fuerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur So at that time the Fathers of this Matisconensâ—â—â— Council thought it not against any law divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical to acknowledg the jurisdiction of even inferiour Judges over Clerks accused of or as much as accused of murder theft or witchcraft and consequently nor to leave them in such causes to the punishment prescribed by the law And what think you then would these Fathers have any more priviledged such Clerks as should perchance be found guilty of or charg'd with sedition rebellion hostility or any other undenyable treason against the King State or People Or did these Fathers think you harbour at any time the least thought of a priviledge from God or Church or Prince or people to Clergiemen guilty of moveing subjects to take arms against the King himself and his laws And these being all the Councils alleadged by the learned Cardinal in his controversies de Cleric l. 1. c. 28. and those other Councils after added by him in his foresaid other last peculiar little book de potestate Papae in temporalibus against William Barclay undoubtedly because upon after thoughts he found the former in his controversies not convincing at all as no more will you those his additional ones being also already and at large both in my general Answers to them all together and in my particular answers to each a part cleared by me abundantly in my LXIV and LXIX Section where the Reader may turn to them back again if he please for those additional Councils are no other then Lateranense magnum sub Innoc. III. cap. 43. Constantiense Sess 31. Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X. finally the Council of Trent Sess 25. c. 20. de Reformat All which I have though upon another occasion considered in my said former LXIV LXIX Section therefore to perclose this present Section I find my self obliged onely further to take notice of what the Cardinal sayes nay indeed gives for the second main proof of his third Proposition l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. which third Proposition is as I have before noted in general tearms this Non possunt Cerici a judice seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent For after the Cardinal had briefly quoted the Councils of Chalcedon Agatha Carthage Toledo and Matisconum and of these five Councils had framed his first argument for that his so general third Proposition and then for a second argument pretended first the constitutions of Emperours Novel 79. 83. and 123. but immediatly after acknowledging these Imperial constitutions did not reach the exemption of Clerks at least in criminal causes from some even Inferiour or subordinate lay judges but expresly subjects them still in such causes to the Praetors and Presidents he at last for a second proof of his said Proposition to wit as it relates to criminal causes relyes wholly and onely on the authority of the canon law and for canon law in the point brings no other proof then a general and bare allegation of three Popes Caius Marcellinus and S. Gregory the Great without as much as giving us their words but telling us
this following now as a distinct one and as in order my third And I frame it thus Whatever natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all and every person or persons whatsoever of the politick Commonwealth as such may be necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth as such and consequently in the supream politick Head of it as such whether this Head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy But the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole Ergo the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth and consequently in the supream politick Head of it whether this head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy The Major besides that it is proved already by and in the prosecution of my former argument where I alledged that maxime or principle allowed by all men and which in reason must be so allowed by all men viz. That every well or rightly establish'd civil Commonwealth must by the law of nature have in it self as such and consequently in its politick Head as such too that natural or civil authority over all the parts and members which may sufficiently enable the whole to attain the proper natural and civil ends of the whole and of all such parts as parts both joyntly and severally these ends being the civil peace quiet justice and comfortable secure living of all together I say the Major besides its being already proved so is further proved by this other maxime which even Suarez himself l. 3. de Primatu sum Pontif. c. 1. n. 4. allows and alledgeth for certain and for evident in natural reason Quod humana natura non possit esse destituta remediis ad suam conservationem necessariis That humane nature cannot be destitute of sufficient right and authority to do those things which are necessary for its own preservation in a peaceable and just way of living Now it is clear enough that the civil direction and civil coercion of all persons whatsoever living within the Dominions of the Commonwealth while they live there is necessary for its preservation And the Major is further also proved by a third maxime or principle which Morl. hath in Empor jur 1. p. tit 2. de legibus num 20. vers .. Quia cum regnum To wit this Cui regnum conceditur necessario omnia censentur concessa sine quibus regnum gubernari non potest To whom a Kingdom is given all things that is to say all right and authority which are necessary for the well governing of it are supposed to be given And yet who sees not this principle could not be true if that Major also were not true For whatever is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the Commonwealth is also necessary for the wel-governing of it As for the Minor I have abundantly proved it also before in the prosecution of my second argument And of the conclusion to follow the premisses necessarily there is no man will doubt It remains therefore that for an appendix of these arguments grounded on pure natural reason for the subjection of Clergiemen to or which is the same thing against their exemption from the supream civil coercive power in temporal causes to conclude this Section I shew by natural reason also that the very temporal Princes themselves how otherwise supream soever could not cannot by any law right authority or power given them by God or Man exempt from themselves that is from their own supream civil and even coercive power the Clergiemen of their own Dominions whiles I mean such Clergiemen remain of or in their Dominions and acknowledge themselves or indeed be inferiours and subjects to the same Princes or otherwise that these Princes be either acknowledged by them or otherwise truly and legally be their natural or proper legal Princes But for as much as Bellarmine hath in the often quoted 35. chap. l. contra Barclaium as being mightily startled by this position roused himself again and laid about him no less mightily to ruine it then he had to ruine that other which denied the Pope himself any such power of exempting Clerks from the same temporal Princes I will to avoid here some labour of repetition first give our learned Cardinals arguments against it and then consequently my own proofs for it in the solution of those arguments Ad quintam propofitionem sayes he quae erat non potuisse Principes supremos eximere Clericos a sua Regia potestate respondemus id manifestè falsum esse Nam etiamsi non possit summus Princeps c. To the fift proposition sayes Bellarmine which was that supream Princes could not exempt Clerks from their own Royal power I answer that it is manifestly false For albeit the supream Prince may not exempt all that live in his Kingdom from his own power unless he resign his Principality yet he may exempt some part of his people from some part of his power or even from all parts of his power and at the same time be both truly said and remain still a Prince For it is proper to a supream Prince to exact tribute from the people subject to him as the Apostle teaches Rom. 13. For it is therefore sayes he you pay tributes for they are the Ministers of God serving unto this purpose And yet the King may free such as he please from tributs For it is said 1. of Kings or of Samuel cap. 17. whoever shall kill the Philisthine the King shall enrich him with great riches and shall make his Father's house free from tributes in Israel Even so if some great King do free some one Citty amidst his Kingdom or bestow it absolutely on some body it will not be therefore consequent that he may not be said to be King of his whole Kingdom especially if he still protect and defend that Citty and that the Cittizens thereof do freely observe the laws of his Kingdom So therefore too might Kings exempt from their own Royal power the Clerks living in their Kingdom and yet be said to be and truly be kings not onely of Laicks but also of Clerks who freely observe their politick laws and who being Actors referre or deferre the causes they have with Laicks to their Royal tribunals and acquiesce to their judgment or sentence in such causes And because
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
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
was not so neerly concerned he could not but retain still kindness enough for Henry albeit the King of France as nearer him and of greater use could not but sometime cross that very kindness 8. But the former Cardinal-Legats come the first time from Rome to compose the difference 'twixt Henry and Thomas where they had a conference with him betwixt Gisortium and Trie amongst other things objected to him in the behalf of Henry and after they had been with Henry that he had perswaded the King of France to war upon him Adjecerunt etiam querelas sayes Hoveden ad an 1169. injurias quibus Rex Angliae se ab ipso lasum esse conquestus est imponens ei etiam inter caetera quod ei excitaverat guerram Regis Francorum But in these words you see Hoveden sayes that this was an imposture or that Henry imposed on Thomas in this particular And immediately after the same Author tells that Thomas refuted this and all other objections by true and probable reasons Cantuariensis autem sayes he in omni humilitate mansuetudine spiritus post gratiarum actionem Domino Papae illis debitam respondit ad singula rationibus veris probabilibus querelas Regis evacuans injurias Ecclesiae damna intollerabilia patenter exponens You will say that however this be of such actual treason or treason in fact against his Prince by setting on the King of France it cannot be denyed that he held treasonable Principles that is such Principles as were suitable to such practise or such treason in fact because such as lessen the Majesty of the King and Kingdome if not wholly subject it to others forasmuch as his opinion and judgment was that Kings receive their power from the Church as himself declared in his own words to the King at Chinun Is there any man would think so but would also think at the same time that the Church might take away again or transfer the power of Kings But I say that as he cannot in act or fact be accused of treason so neither in habitude or aptitude or inclination or true meaning or natural sequele of that word saying opinion or judgement of his at Chinun may he be charged with any as much as speculative treasonable Principles however otherwise abstracting wholly not only from fact but even from intention or even also from being rendred any kind of way or framed into practical dictates 1. Because it is one thing to say that Christian Kings receive their power from the Church and another to say that after they have once received their power so the Church may either revoke it again wholly or any way lessen it As it is one thing to say that from the people as a civil society of men and not from them as a Church Kings especially in elective Kingdomes receive their power and an other that the people having once conferr'd it and so transferr'd the Majesty from themselves may revoke it againe either at their pleasure or in any case whatsoever without the King 's own consent And because the first or the assertion of receiving such power either from Church or people is no way treasonable either by the nature of such reception or such assertion in it self considered or by any positive law in any Country for ought we have heard not even in England nor certainly was treasonable in the days of Thomas of Canterbury However perhaps it be an errour against the truth of things in themselves to say that Kings in hereditary Kingdomes receive their politick royal power either from the Church or from the people or even in elective Kingdomes otherwise from either then as from bare instrumental or conditional causes or such as Philosophers call conditiones sine quibus non c. not at all from either as from the true proper efficient cause of the power For this efficient is according to the sounder doctrine in Christian Religion and in reason too God alone As even according to the Doctrine of Bellarmine God alone is the onely true proper immediate efficient of the Papal power albeit he had not been Pope if he had not first been elected by the Church or by their Representative now the Colledg of Cardinals or formerly by the Emperours or before that by the Roman Clergy or before that also by the Clergy and people of Rome both joynd together 2. Because that although we find this entire passage Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere non ipsam ab illis sed a Christo salva pace vestra loquor non haberetis Episcopis praecipere absolvere aliquem vel excommunicare trahere Clericos ad secularia examina judicare de decimis de Ecclesiis interdicere Episcepis ne tractent de transgressione fidei vel juramenti multa alia quae in hunc modum scripta sunt inter consuetudines vestras quas dicitis avitas I say that although we find this entire passage amongst those which are called in Hoveden Verba Beati Thoma Cant. Archiep. ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun nay although we did admit it as truly such and admit all the rest of that Speech in Hoveden as words spoke by St. Thomas himself whereof yet I have this ground to doubt that I find not in the whole series of the History of matter of Fact either in Hoveden himself or any other when or how or that at all St. Thomas ever met that King during his banishment but twice once in Paris and in presence of the King of France and another time in the fields abroad when they were at last reconciled by the mediation of the last Legates Where then was Chinun here or any such words However admitting those Words and that entire passage of or amongst those Words as really spoke by St. Thomas and at such a place and Councel I see nevertheless partly in some former passages of that very speech at Chinun and partly also and more fully perhaps in his long and second Letter which no man doubts to be his own true letter to Gilbert Bishop of London and see in both ground enough to answer and say that in this passage I have already given the Saint mean't not at all that from the Church Kings receive so their true civil or politick Royal power or their power of the material sword at least as to the essentials or even as to the necessary appendages of it in pure civil or temporal matters that without such reception as he mean't of it from the Church they had had none at all or that without such reception as he mean't neither their birth-right in hereditary Kingdomes nor election of the people in elective Kingdomes nor any other Title whatsoever in either could be sufficient to give them as man can give true civil and politick Royal Power or to give this I mean antecedently to their receiving what they use to
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
and by his blessed Disciples preach't and declared to the Gentiles of the whole Earth But why this Discourse of the way of the Cross of the way of Religion and Christian Faith to an Abbot of Mount Royal 'T is paint not substance with which you colour things You pretend Religion but intend it not and so with notorious Sophistry alledge a not cause for a cause In St. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations of Peace where he treats of the great differences which then were amongst the Clergy especially the Bishops I find the true cause of that vehement spirit of yours and your and his Eminence Cardinal Barberin's opposition Besides ignorance in many of your Informers and Whisperers there is impetuous anger my Lord and hatred and spite and envy and there is avarice my Lord and pride and ambition and a blind passion to domineer and the glory pomp and vanity of the World But this too is it not o' th freest I confess it but 't is a freedom which the thing requires and which becomes a Christian Priest and old Divine and faithful Subject of His King in a Controversie no less great than unhappy between some of the Clergy with the whole Laity with supreme Princes themselves and Kings and Emperours of the World concerning Right in Temporals Nevertheless to say and write as I have done to the Internuncio of his Holiness and of a Cardinal Is it not misbecoming This I deny For as for your Lordship if in dignity as a Commendatory Abbot and Internuncio of the Pope you go before me yet in Order and spiritual power and in the Hierarchy you come behind me Nor is there in that respect so much difference betwixt a Bishop and the meanest Priest as betwixt you and me Nevertheless I respect and reverence an Abbot and much more an Internuncio nay honour your person without those titles if you respect me as is fitting For what concerns his Eminence as I have a great veneration for the height of the Sacred Episcopal Office as instituted by Christ our Saviour and the Dignity of Cardinal as constituted by the Supreme Bishops so I have a far greater for both in the person of his Eminence Cardinal Fr. Barberin and so much the greater as by the rule of our seraphick Father I know my self obliged by a stricter tye to reverence not only the Governor Protector and Corrector but as I am informed a Friend and Patron and singular Benefactor too of our Order and a man besides if this unhappy Controversie had not lessned his esteem pious and good Notwithstanding I maintain I have used no greater freedom against either than becomes the Cause than becomes Walsh or any other Priest who is a Divine and pious in the same Cause The Cause I must confess is in one respect proper to Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers but in more and more important respects 't is the Cause of a Kingdom of the British Empire of England Scotland and more particularly Ireland nay of all Common-wealths Kingdoms and Kings of Christian Faith over and above and by consequence of the universal Church People and Clergy and all Priests 'T is a Cause besides which for the side you take is wonderful bad and most false which has long since been exploded condemned adjudged and adjudged as seditious scandalous erroneous contrary to the Word of God Heretical and moreover dangerous to Kings and People destructive of the peace of the World apt even to make the Pope and Church of Christ be abominated hated and abhorred And yet so I say or as such adjudged exploded and condemned in all ages all times from the dayes of Gregory the VII to this present and at present also and that most of all by renowned Prelates famous Doctors Universities Churches most Kingdoms and Commonwealths through all Europe preserving notwithstanding the Faith and Communion of Rome Besides 't is a Cause for which and for that part I mean which you have undertaken to maintain albeit that were but only for the Popes indirect power and that also only in some cases over the Temporals of Christian Princes its most learned and eminent Patron Cardinal Perron demanded no more but that as problematical or as uncertain and doubtful it might pass uncensured and demanded this in an Assembly general of the Three Estates in France Lastly 't is a Cause which for that very unwarrantable part the Internuncio and Cardinal do so persuade urge press and to their power constrain also to be embraced and this with all manner of art and craft with all manner of industry and fraud but yet onely in a corner of the World amongst a company of ignorant Islanders the miserable Irish I mean far from the great Continent and but there indeed where such arts are not so well known that not content with the late and entire destruction of a miserable Nation procured by such frauds and fictions for Faith forsooth they would again ensnare them and would rather have them lose for ever the present small such as it is and all future hope of being restored to their Countrey or Religion or as I gladly would to the publick and free exercise of their Religion under a most clement Prince or even to any either temporal or spiritual advantages then not to embrace not believe this most impious Assertion and believe it as an Article of Faith without which they cannot be saved And would have them serve over again their wretched slavery undergo Prisons Banishments and Death And as heretofore in the persecution of the Vandals would have the whole Clergy Bishops Priests Religious as Traytors Rebels and Outlaws either be hanged at home or banishâ—t again to Beggery abroad leaving none in that Island of Saints to baptize the new born or confirm the baptised or absolve those of years or anoint the dying or consecrate or administer the holy Host to any Now if Walsh have expostulated defended and reproved as above and this after two nay almost three years of patience and silence in such a Cause against such an assertion such enormous errours and impostures such more then abominable plots and attempts who that considers the thing as it deserves can object against him that he has spoken more freely than became him But the Cardinal is Protector Corrector and Governour of the Order of the Minors and by consequence has the power of a Prelate and lawful Superiour over Walsh and yet against him much here is said I have granted this before But is it therefore not lawful for Walsh in this or the like case to use the freedom which he here uses or what do you think of St. Peter what of St. Paul what of that reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul St. Paul was the last of the Apostles was called not the ordinary way was the Thirteenth was one who said He was not worthy the name of an Apostle St. Peter was the first chief greatest Prince of the Apostolical Order and Prince
my self and the general Cause even before the most partial and prepossessed of my Forraign Judges Fray Pedro Manero a Spaniard and Minister General of the whole Franciscan Order throughout the World ventur'd in September 1654. from London to Madrid though neither summon'd nor otherwise sent for And I could alledge not only the injustice and inhumanity of my Imprisonment for Nine weeks and four days in the Convent of St. Francis there with all other even the most uncanonical circumstantials of it and whole procedure concerning it but also the malicious and cruel endeavours used by those Irish Fathers that acted then and there in behalf of their whole Party either at home in Ireland or abroad in Forraign parts against me to force me even out of that Conventural Prison to an other incomparably worse i.e. to that of the Inquisition having to this end drawn a Petition to the Supream Inquisitor of Spain and gone about Madrid to get hands to their said Petition as they did in particular goe to the Lord of Louth and to Lieutenant General Richard Ferral both Irishmen and to Don Diego de La Torres and his Lady both Spaniards who had been because Don Diego had been Agent for His Catholick Majesty at Kilkenny in Ireland and known me very well when I appeared there publickly against the Popes Nuncio Many other circumstances of Injustice besides the substance of the grand Charge against me I could alledge And yet my having overcome all without yielding in any one tittle to my Enemies or made any kind of submission or admitted of or received directly or indirectly as much as a conditional absolution ad cautelam from the Church-censures which they but falsly alledg'd I had incurred And yet also my Commitment the second time to Prison there viz. after I had been for some weeks set free and wholly cleared from the personal Charges against my self nay my Commitment this time to a formal and horrible Prison indeed onely for expostulating with the above General Manero in the case or behalf of Father Caron and the other six or seven Fathers against whom so far absent unsummon'd unexamin'd unacquainted with and wholly ignorant of the matter and lying information the very same Manero procured His Catholick Majesties Letters to proscribe or banish them as is before said and for telling him to his face That in the said case he had neither behaved himself as a Father nor as a Judge And how my own constancy and truth and justice of what I said so opened this Prison also for me even the very next day yea without any application made by my self for being so delivered or set at liberty from it And how after this also immediately and notwithstanding all opposers I address'd my self personally with a large Petition to His Catholick Majesty not only in behalf of the said proscribed Fathers but even of all others of their way both Ecclesiasticks and the Lay-Nobility and Gentry of Ireland then exiled in any parts of His Catholick Maâ—esties Dominions and prevail'd therein so far as to obtain even the abovementioned Letter to Leopoldo to be revoked by His Catholick Maâ—esty And how notwithstanding I was set free from restraint not only my Adversaries but Manero himself endeavoured to stay me in Spain though Manero had a quite different end therein from that which they had he intending because of Cromwell's warring on Spain at that time to employ me to our Gracious King then forced out of France but they intending onely new afflictions to me by a new intervention of the Court of Rome in my case And how fearing this latter and having on some other accounts I mean other reasons which he could not answer or contradict with any colour procured my Licence from the said General Manero to retire to Biscay and Bilbao I procured a second Licence by Letters Patent from the Spanish Provincial of that Countrey to depart for Ireland taking Flanders and England in my way And moreover how being come to Flanders the second time although I had Friends enough of the Dutch of my own Order there I was notwithstanding within a few weeks warn'd to depart because they were not able to protect me from new Thunders and Prosecutions from Rome then again newly contriving against me And finally how therefore and because the Commissioners of Parliament with whose Pass I twice before departed who govern'd Ireland to whom I then writ for their third permission to return home being I was not suffer'd to live abroad any where safely refused me in plain terms and this because I also had so obstinately refused them to serve the Parliament I was necessitated for so many years after almost till the Kings most happy Restauration to shift and lurk in England the best way I could having but once in that interim gone to Paris for a month not daring then to stay not even there any longer All these things I say and many more which are omitted I could alledge as proofs of my own sufferings in that general Cause onely against the Nuncio as well abroad from 1652. to 1660 after that Ireland had been totally and utterly subdued by the Parliament as before at home from the year 1646. to the year 1652. For that also I can truly say that as it fared in those latter years viz. from August 1659. to the 1652. at home with any either chief Governour of the Kingdom or General of an Army or Colonel Captain or private Gentleman or other person with whomsoever I livâ—d or sojourned or who protected favoured or harboured me in that time of Tryal i. e. as it fared much the worse the zealous Nuntiotists looking even therefore the much more malignly upon every such which indeed was one of the chief causes moved me at last in the said year 1652. to write to the Commissioners of Parliament to Dublin and desire their Pass for departing the Kingdom out of some of their Havens even so it did after abroad and even also with Strangers or Forreigners and would much more if I had been so indiscreet as by making any great experiment either of their justice love or compassion to expose them for my sake to the uttermost of malice Nor truly was it my indiscretion of that kind or any way so much my own desire or inclination as matters stood in the winter of year 1650. after the Marquess of Ormond went away to France and Clanrickard took the Government as it was the extraordinary kindness of the Earl of Castlehaven then General under Clanrickard of the Munster Army that made me at that time stay with his Lordship as his Chaplain and Confessor For I well foresaw what happen'd thereupon viz. Terlagh O Brien the great Nuntiotist Bishop of Imly's coming to his Lordship at Limmerick and in behalf also of other Prelates of his way in that Province telling him plainly They would rend the Army from him if his Lordship dismissed not me immediately The same was the
's name to the Clergy he viz. Father Peter Walsh no way lowr'd his Sail but remained obstinate and insolent I likewise saw a great Man's Letter I mean a Roman termed him and Caron Apostates But I hope as it hath appear'd manifestly before in the former Sections that I have not used in any manner not even in the least degree whatsoever any kind of either fraud or force in that Congregation so by what I have said hitherto in this present Section and third Appendage therein it doth no less now appear that I kept no Anti-Congregation at all much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Congregation For to pass over now as not material that the foresaid Colledge of Divines was not held at the same time with but first assembled after the Congregation had dissolved and four parts at least of five departed to their own respective dwellings in other parts of Ireland neither can it be said 1. That that Colledge was of my faction being it had from the beginning even the first day thereof almost one moyety of Anti-Remonstrants and was free and open for ten times so many of that sort to enter it after at any time they pleased Nor 2. That it was called either to determine any thing contrary to what the Congregation had professed or as much as to debate on that which they had concluded Nor 3. That it did in truth determine or debate any such matter No nor 4. can it be said that any such was the design or scope of calling that Colledge whereas interessed Members of the Congregation were to compose it and that after all nothing was to be therein carried by the greater vote but by the stronger reason and clearer conviction and full concurrence at last of every individual person And therefore as that Colledge ought not to be nay could not in any reason or with any truth be called an Anti-Congregation so ought it be said 1 To have been composed not only not of those of my faction or not of them more than of those of the contrary but not of any persons whatsoever that might in any wise according to their own rule proceed factiously if otherwise they would And 2 To have been kept for a much better end than to vex them or than that could be of vexing the Congregation Unless peradventure any can shew That to secure His Majesty of the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland as much as hand or subscription can and thereby to answer home and fully refute 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 be not a much better end than that of vexing the Congregation Or at least can prove That to secure so His Majesty and to answer so that grand objection was not the end which Peter Walsh proposed to himself in calling or keeping that Colledge Which yet can never be proved being so directly even against the very so long since printed Title of those Fourteen Propositions which he prepared and presented to be as they were indeed the only matters to be agreed on by the Divines of that same Colledge Now if out of all it doth not appear that I kept no kind of Anti-congregation much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Congregation I know not how any thing can appear For the often mention'd Colledge of Divines held upon the Fifteen Propositions being cleared of that scandalous name of an Anti-congregation there was no other held by me or by any other besides me to be charg'd with it because neither I nor any other hold any kind of other Colledge Congregation or Meeting while that National Congregation sate besides it self nor after it dissolved but only the foresaid Colledge of Divines upon the Fifteen Propositions A Letter indeed and but that one Letter you have before pag. 696. address'd to the National Congregation it self yea address'd by way of humble desire and Petition was during the Session subscribed by Eighteen of my Friends or of those who had formerly subscribed the Remonstrance of 1661. and delivered to the Speaker and read in the House But I assure the Reader That the Fathers who sign'd that Letter kept neither Anti-congregation nor Congregation because neither Colledge nor any Meeting at all in any house or place or time or upon any other business or even upon that very Letter whereas only some of them first and others after met some by chance and some perhaps of purpose walking in a Garden hard by the House where the National Assembly sate as they were desired and they themselves thought also good did singly sign that Letter And yet after and notwithstanding all such known manifest Truths I believe my Lord of Ferns did see as he sayes he did that false relation sent over to Flanders out of Ireland and those severe lines also of a great Cardinal to that purpose But who can hinder either the lying of Lyars or even the severe lines of an interested Cardinal on such a Subject As for the other friendly advertisement given me in the same paper and next place therein by my Lord of Ferns viz. How it was taken ill by all that after Cardinal Franciscus Barberinus c because it doth not properly or indeed at all concern my present third Appendage and that I have elsewhere at large in a more proper place answer'd it I will only say here 1. That as you may see before in this Treatise viz. pag. 632. that Letter of Cardinal Francis Barberin which the Bishop means here so you may see also there pag. 636 637 638 and 639. my brief animadversions both on that same and other Letters too as well of the said Barberin as of the three Bruxels Internuncio's immediately succeeding one after another these ten years past Hieronymus de Vecchiis Jacobus Rospigliosi and the last of all ........ Airoldi 2. That if I had lowr'd my Sail in any kind of way or sense the said Cardinal desired I had by doing so renounced the Catholick Faith as to one essential or at least material and necessary point thereof and even betrayed my Countrey to boot and consequently by doing so or complying with the Cardinal in any way must have at the same time profess'd my self an impious Rebel against the Church and a perfidious Traytor against the King Crown and Kingdom 3. That refusing to do so is so far from remaining either obstinate or insolent that without any doubt it is on the contrary remaining constant and resolute in the very best cause I could and was in Conscience obliged to undertake and maintain against the corrupters both of Loyalty and Christianity 4. That being it appears now more than manifestly more than abundantly as well out of the Louain Vniversities Censure which I have given pag. 102. and the Franciscan Belgick Declaration pag. 116. as out of
said Articles and before the said Publication shall not be accompted taken or construed or be Treason Felony or other offence to be excepted out of the said Act of Oblivion Provided likewise That the said Act of Oblivion shall not extend unto any person or persons that will not obey and submit unto the Peace concluded and agreed on by these Articles Provided further That the said Act of Oblivion or any in this Article contained shall not hinder or interrupt the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them to call to an account and proceed against the Council and Congregation and the respective Supreme Councils Commissioners General appointed hitherto from time to time by the Confederate Catholicks to manage their affairs or any other person or persons accomptable to an account for their respective Receipts and disbursments since the beginning of their respective employments under the said Confederate Catholicks or to acquit or release any arrears of Excises Customs or Publick Taxes to be accompted for since the Three and Twentieth of October 1641. and not disposed of hitherto to the Publick use but that the Parties therein concerned may be called to an account for the same as aforesaid by the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them the said Act or any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding XIX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That an Act be passed in the next Parliament prohibiting That neither the Lord Deputy or other chief Governour or Governours Lord Chancellor Lord High Treasurer Vice-Treasurer Chancellor or any of the Barons of the Exchequer Privy Council or Judges of the Four Courts be Farmers of His Majesties Customs within this Kingdom XX. Item It is likewise concluded accorded and agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That an Act of Parliament pass in this Kingdom against Monopolies such as was Enacted in England 21 Jacobi Regis with a further Clause of Repealing of all Grants of Monopolies in this Kingdom and that Commissioners be agreed upon by the said Lord Lieutenant and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them to set down the Rates for the custom and imposition to be laid on Aquavitae Wine Oyl Yearn and Tobacco XXI Item It is concluded accorded and agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That such persons as shall be agreed on by the said Lord Lieutenant and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall be as soon as may be authorized by Commission under the Great Seal to regulate the Court of Castle-Chamber and such causes as shall be brought into and censured in the said Court XXII Item It is concluded accorded and agreed upon and His Majesty is graciously pleased That Two Acts lately passed in this Kingdom the one prohibiting the plowing with Horses by the Tail and the other prohibiting the burning of Oats in the straw be Repealed XXIII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased For as much as upon application of Agents from this Kingdom unto His Majesty in the Fourth year of His Reign and lately upon humble suit made unto His Majesty by a Committee of both Houses of the Parliament of this Kingdom some order was given by His Majesty for redress of several Grievances and for so many of those as are not expressed in the Articles whereof both Houses in the next ensuing Parliament shall desire the benefit of His Majesties said former directions for redresses therein that the same be afforded them yet so as for prevention of inconveniencies to His Majesties service that the warning mentioned in the Four and twentieth Article of the Graces in the Fourth year of His Majesties Reign be so understood that the warning being left at the persons Dwelling-houses be held sufficient warning and that as to the Two and twentieth Article of the said Graces the Process hitherto used in the Court of Wards do still continue as hitherto it hath done in that and hath been used in our English Courts But the Court of Wards being compounded for so much of the aforesaid Answer as concern warning and process shall be omitted XXIV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That Maritime Causes may be determined in this Kingdom without driving of Merchants or others to appeal and seek Justice elsewhere and if it shall fall out that there be cause of an Appeal the Party grieved is to appeal to His Majesty in the Chancery of Ireland and the Sentence thereupon to be given by the Delegates to be definitive and not to be questioned upon any further Appeal except it be in the Parliament of this Kingdom if the Parliament then shall be sitting otherwise not This to be by Act of Parliament And until the said Parliament the Admiralty and Maritime Causes shall be ordered and setled by the said Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being by and with the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them XXV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom be eased of all Rents and increase of Rents lately
their just indignation with a pious compassion of their seduced People commanded Us over to treat and conclude a Peace with the Roman-Catholicks of this Kingdom In obedience whereunto and in humble imitation of Their great example forgetting the ungrateful usage We had met with We undertook the hazard of that Voyage and at length concluded the Peace in this Preamble mentioned We are unwilling to say any thing that might seem to lessen the Loyalty and affection of the Assembly that concluded the Peace nor is it to that end that We shall answer to these men That though His then Majesty was in restraint and His now Majesty and His Royal Mother not in condition to send Supplies and Relief into this Kingdom yet there wanted not apparent motives of advantage to induce the Roman-Catholicks to consent to the Peace which was thankfully acknowledged by a more authentick Representative of the Nation than these Archbishops Bishops c. and even by as many of them as really or from the teeth outward for such we find now there were that consented to it Upon what conditions the Confederate Roman-Catholicks could have agreed with those in this Declaration called the Parliament of England We know not nor do believe they are able to prove their Assertions if they be put to it Though if it should appear it were not to be wondred at That Usurpers and such as make almost as little Conscience of breaking Publick Faith as these Declarers are more liberal in the dispensation of their unlawful acquirings by way of brokeage than a just Monarch whose purpose it is to keep as well as it is in His power only to grant conditions to a People in the state the said Confederates were in Next in their Preamble they say That after the concluding of the Peace the Catholick Confederates came sincerely and chearfully under His Majesties authority in Vs plentifully providing vast Sums of money well nigh half a Million of English pounds By which they seem to insinuate first That all the Roman-Catholicks of Ireland came thus chearfully under His Majesties authority whereas Owen O Neill with his whole Army and divers of the County of Wickloe with others were and continued in Rebellion long after the conclusion of the Peace as is well known to many of the Declarers who were of their Party as also that our first work was to reduce places held by them lying in our way to Dublin as Mariborough Athy c. They mention next after Their providing plentifully vast Sums of money adding also these words viz. near half a Million of English pounds to have it believed We were set forth with such a Sum and all the following provisions of Corn and Ammunition though it is notoriously knovvn That for all the half Million of English pounds the Army We had brought together could not march from about Cloghgrenan till upon Our private credit We had borrovved Eight hundred English pounds of Sir James Preston which is yet owing him and for which We have lately written to you to see him satisfied by means whereof and of a little meal not yet paid for neither as We believe We took in Talbotstown Castle-Talbot and Kildare But there our money and meal failing us and having borrowed about One hundred pounds from Twenty several Officers to give the Souldiers sustenance We were forced to stay on the West-side of the Liffy and thereby lost an opportunity of engaging Jones who with a much less Force than Ours was drawn forth of Dublin as far as Johnstown And in what continual want the Army was from Our setting forth even to the defeat at Rathmines being about Three months is so notoriously known having during all that time been very meanly supplied in money and that in small and inconsiderable Sums as by the Receiver Generals accompts may appear that if We be to be blamed it is for undertaking an Expedition so meanly provided and which We can only answer with the necessity of attempting Dublin and those parts before they should receive Supplies out of England and upon discovery destroy such as were faithful to His Majesty and importuned Us daily to advance For Magazines of Corn Ammunition and materials for War the stores We found so inconsiderably furnished or rather so absolutely unfurnished that till We with the assistance of the Commissioners procured some supply thereof in Waterford Lymerick and Kilkenny it was not possible for Us either to reduce the Fort of Maribourough and Athy held by Owen O Neill's party nor to march as We did towards Dublin And for Ammunition We were forced to bargain with Patrick Archer and other Merchants for a supply thereof engaging the King's Customs and Tenths of Prizes else that want of Ammunition had absolutely hindred Our march nor is the said Archer yet satisfied for his Ammunition The Truth of this is referr'd to the knowledge of many there met who can witness with Us herein and in many other distresses and difficulties We met with for want of money which We cannot call to mind How much of this half Million of Pounds hath come in in money or been disposed of by Warrant from Us We leave to be cleared by the Receiver Generals accompts But We are confident it will not amount to the Tenth part of half a Million of Pounds In the next place they say We have frustrated the Opinion the Nation held of Our Fidelity Gallantry and Abilities and become the Author of losing the whole Kingdom to God King and Nation If the Nation held a greater opinion of Our Gallantry and Ability than there was cause for it We are sorry We came short of their expectation But whatever it pleased God to bestow on Us in those gifts We faithfully employed it in the Cause We undertook and have not at all failed their expectation in point of Fidelity nor are We therein the Author of losing the Kingdom to God King and Nation as these Declarers have Rhetorically expressed themselves How they make good to the World the last assertion of their Preamble viz. That We began the loss of the Kingdom by violating the Articles of Peace is next to be considered First Article of the Declaration First The foresaid Catholicks having furnished his Excellency with the aforesaid Sum of money which was sufficient to make up the Army of Fifteen thousand Foot and Twenty five hundred Horse agreed upon by the Peace for the preservation of the Catholick Religion our Sovereigns interest and the Nation his Excellency gave Patents of Colonels and other Commanders over and above the Party under the Lord Baron of Inchiquyn to Protestants and upon them consumed the substance of the Kingdom who most of them afterwards betrayed or desâ—rted us ANSWER How We have been furnished with the foresaid Sum of about half a Million of Pounds We have told you in Our Answer to the Preamble If they urge Our giving Commissions which they call Patents to Protestant Officers as a breach
of his Majesties Kingdoms that the belief of Transubstantiation amongst English Irish and Scottish Catholicks is no more a Sign or an Argument of a Puritan Papist than it is at present amongst the French XII That we have no cause to wonder at the Protestants Jealousie of us when they see all the three several Tests hitherto made use of for trying the judgment or affection of Roman Catholicks in these Kingdoms in Relation to the Papal pretences of one side and the Royal rights of the other I mean the Oath of Supremacy first the Oath of Allegiance next and last of all that which I call the Loyal Formulary or the Irish Remonstrance of the year 1661 even all three one after another to have been with so much rashness and wilfulness and so much vehemency and obstinacy declined opposed traduced and rejected amongst them albeit no other Authority or power not even by the Oath of Supremacy (z) Art 37. of the Church of England And Admonition after the Injunctions of Queen ELIZABETH it self be attributed to the King save only Civil or that of the Sword nor any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power be denied therein to the Pope save only that which the general Council of Ephesus (a) In the year 431. under Theodosius the Younger in the Case of the Cyprian Bishops and the next Oecumenical Synod of Chalcedon (b) In the year 451 Can. 28. under the good Emperour Martianus in the case of Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the two hundred and seventeen Bishops of Africk (c) In the year 419. whereof Saint Augustine was one both in their Canons and Letters too in the Case of Apiarius denyed unto the Roman Bishops of their time and albeit the Oath of Allegiance was of meer purpose framed only to distinguish 'twixt the Loyal and disloyal Catholicks or the honest and Loyal party of them from those of the Powder-Treason Principles and albeit the Remonstrance of 1661 was framed only at first by some well meaning discreet and learned Roman Catholicks of the English Nation and was now lately signed by so many and such persons of the Irish Nation as we have seen before and was so far from entrenching on the Catholick Faith or Canons or Truth or Justice in any point that saving all these it might have been much more home than it is though indeed as from well meaning honest men it be home enough nay and albeit neither of these two later Tests the Oath of Allegiance or the Irish Remonstrance promiseth to the King any other than meer Civil obedience and this obedience too in meer civil or temporal Affairs only according to the Laws of the Land nor denyes any canonical obedience to the Pope in either Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters purely such nor indeed in any matter at all wherein the Canons of the Catholick Church impower his Holiness and wherein his Key does not manifestly err How much more may it provoke them to see the few Ecclesiastical approvers of the said Tests especially of either of these two last to have been therefore persecuted amongst and by the foresaid generality of British and Irish Catholicks yea to have been look'd upon as Outcasts Excommunicants Schismaticks Hereticks and what not And that excellent man that most loyal and learned English Monk Father Thomas Preston for having formerly both under his own name and that of Roger Widrington so incomparably defended the foresaid Oath of Allegiance to have been forced nay content and glad at last to shelter himself in a (d) In the Clink at London prison from the furious persecution of the Opposers And after him so lately again Father Peter Walsh of Saint Francis's Order only for having promoted the said Loyal Irish Formulary of 1661 and for having Subscribed it himself and refused to retract his Subscription to have been reduced to a far worse condition than Preston even that of a Bannito or an Out-lawed man by publick denunciation and affâ—xion of him as an excommunicate person to be shun'd by all former Acquaintance except a very few and to be left alone at last for the matter one single person to maintain the justice of that Formulary and of his own defence and cause and carriage all along and consequently to grapple with a numberless number of subtle and powerful and implacable Adversaries How much more to see so many Books of Roman Catholick Doctors Italian Spanish German Dutch Candian English of Bellarmine and Becan and Suarez and Singleton and Sculkenius and Tortus and Eudamon Johannes and Gretser and Parsons and Fitzherbert c to have been written printed and published against the foresaid Oath of Allegiance enacted by King James And amongst the generality of the Roman Catholick Readers so many practical Students to have been indoctrinated by those very Books or some of them Although Books in truth wholly composed of lying Sophistry i.e. of very false Doctrines in point of Religion and very treasonable and pernicious in point of subjection as it hath been sufficiently proved concerning all the above mentioned Doctors by the foresaid indefatigable Writer Thomas Preston who has not left his Antagonists either place or possibility of saying a word to his last Pieces wherewith he so incomparably baffled all their Answers Replies Rejoinders c. How much more after all this and even since his present Majesties Restauration to see so much wrath and rage against so innocent a Formulary of their own and of professing Allegiance in meer temporal things only So many forreign Censures of Divines and forreign Letters of Inter-Nuncio's and Cardinals to have been procured And so many forreign both Citations and Excommunications to have been issued forth against the Subscribers of it with professed design both to suppress it utterly and either to silence them eternally or to destroy them for subscribing it yea so many Missionaries to have been employed and Commissaries authorized and for a dead lift and when opportunity served at last in the year 1669 besides Provincials instituted and Vicars Apostolical made even so many Bishops and Archbishops on a sudden to have been created in Ireland by his Holiness for that end chiefly And all this strange and late procedure against so harmless a profession of Allegiance to have been hitherto look'd upon by the generality of British and Irish Catholicks I mean by such of them as knew thereof not only with indifferent eyes and thoughts but by the far greater part of them received with complacency and by all for ought appears submitted unto with a perfect resignation of their Souls to the good pleasure of his Holiness and his Ministers I say it is not to be imagined that all these matters concerning those three several Tests one after another should have been and happened thus even publickly before the Sun and to the full Knowledge not of Catholicks onely but of Protestants but it must of necessity give very much ground to the more considering persons
immediately before the foresaid Mauritius Aemulator sayes that Roman Pontiff (b) Agatio was chosen Pope or rather Bishop of Rome an 678. Agatho verae Apostolicae fidei piae memoriae Augustus Justinianus cujus fidei rectitudo quantum pro sincera confessione Deo placuit tantum Rempublicam Christianam exaltavit Et ubique ab omnibus gentibus ejus religiosa memoria veneratione digna censetur cujus fidei rectitudo per augustissima ejus Edicta in toto orbe diffusa laudatur Would Agatho have said so of an Heretick * To Agatho I might add Gregory II. in several Epistles nay and a far greater Authority too viz. the Fathers of the Sixth Oecumanical Sâ—nod besides many others after them See Baâ—â—â—s himself and his Epitomizer Spâ—â—danus confessing so much ad an 565. 3. That if the Truth were known it would be found that Baronius and the rest following him were willing to make use of any malicious ungrounded Fictions whatsoever against Justinian not that they believed him to have either lived at any time or dyed at last in any wilful or imputable Errour or in any at all otherwise than St. Cyprian of Carthage did but that his Laws in Ecclesiastical matters even those of Faith are a perpetual eye-sore to them because these Laws are a Precedent to all other good Princes to govern their own respective Churches in the like manner without any regard of Bulla Coenae or of so many other vain Allegations of those men that would make the World believe it unlawful for Secular Princes to make Ecclesiastical Laws by their own sole Authority for the government of the Church and all orders and degrees of Church men under them even to the very Patriarchs inclusively as Justinian did and you may see in his very many Constitutions to that purpose he did X. Although I do ingenuously confess I had on the Subject of Ecclesiastical either Exemption or Subjection very much light and help from those excellent Authors that writ before me so well on that Subject I mean both the Barclayes the Father and Son yet the learned Reader may see I have been very far from borrowing all from them or any other who treated before or after on Ecclesiastical Immunity Wherever I make use of them I have commonly added everywhere i. e. in every Section to their Answers Animadversions and Proofs my own both reasoning and reading elsewhere I have also raised against my self the strongest Objections I could imagine which they had not nor consequently the Solutions Nay Canons also viz. those Paâ—al ones which the Barclayes do not mention I have both objected and answered at large because I observed our later Casuists or Moralists Azorius and Bonacina c or chiefly or onely or at least partly to quote them though they do no more but barely quote the Chapters not the words or Text for their false Positions about Ecclesiastical Immunity as you may see in my whole LXXI Section from pag. 230. to pag. 241. Besides the whole Affirmative or Positive way against Bellarmine and his Disciples the Louain Divines in five intire long Sections from pag. 243 to pag. 374 where I assume the person of the Opponent to prove the Subjection of all Clergy-men to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate and prove it by Scripture Tradition Fathers Councils and as well by Ecclesiastical yea very Papal Canons as Imperial Constitutions and by Practice also and Reason is wholly from other Collections of my own neither of both the Barclayes nor Withrington nor any other seen by me having so much proceeded in this Affirmative or Positive way but mostly in that which I call Negative as it which hath for principal scope to deny and solve the Arguments of Bellarmine c. XI As for the two grand Objections framed by me against my self the one from the condemnation of Marsilius de Padua and Joan. de Janduno the other from the Martyrdom of St. Thomas of Canterbury or rather for my Answers and long material Discourses Sect. LXXVI from pag. 374 to pag. 436. nay to 462. upon and by occasion of each or either of the said two Objections I must no less ingenuously acknowledge that I was necessitated to be my self alone my own guide all along without either light or help from any Authour that handled either Subject For I never saw nor heard of any such Authour Which was the reason that I took more than ordinary pains to clear whatsoever might be alledged or pretended from either that Condemnation or this Martyrdom against the soundness of that Doctrine which maintains the Subjection of all Clergy-men whatsoever to the Supreme Temporal both directive and coercive authority even of meer Lay-Princes and States but more especially to clear the whole Intrigue of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel with Henry II and the Cause for which he suffered and to shew it was no Divine right nor even other Humane save only that of the Civil Secular and Municipal Saxon Danish and Norman Laws of England which he grounded himself on when he refused to deliver at the Kings pleasure the Criminal Clerks to be punish'd or judg'd by the Secular Judges and Officers XII The veneration I have as I am bound to the Roman-Catholick Church or that Communion in general wheresoever diffused throughout the World and my knowledge of their having in all their Calendars on the 29th of December the Festival of St. Thomas of Canterbury made me the First also that for any thing I know ventures in a singular and long Discourse by way of Appendix after my four several Answers given to the grand Objection against c. from the Martyrdom of that holy Bishop of set purpose to vindicate him from having been a Traytor to the King whether or no he was a Martyr in the Church through the merits of his Cause and according to the more proper and stricter Ecclesiastical sense of the word Martyr Three hundred years indeed after his death he was under Henry VIII in a very unusual manner both judicially summon'd to appear and formally condemn'd for a Traytor Then which judgment if woâ—â— grounded nothing can be more prejudicial to the practice of all Roman-Catholicks in the World in keeping his Festivity and honouring his Memory and begging his intercession for them to our Lord and Saviour Christ That it hath been in-grounded I do my devoir to shew and prove from pag. 439 to pag. 462. where I answer first all that hath been or could be alledged against him and then produce eight several Arguments even very strong Presumptions both in Law and Reason for him I mean as to this controverted Point Whether he could be justly said to have either dyed or even at any time lived or been a Traytor against the King People or Laws of England XIII Where I seem pag. 438. somewhat too severe on Matthew Parker the First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth you must not persuade your self I do at all
liberty or that ease from the penal laws which they so vehemently desired might be so sollicited and obtained by him That my Lord Aubigny himself though expecting the Cardinal Dignity was so farre from disapproveing that Remonstrance or their concurrence to it when first it came forth in Print That he sayed plainly and often to the Procuratour when complaining to him of his said Confessour Father Peter Aylmer at that time with his Lordship at London If the King would be advised by him there should not be a Priest in any of the three Kingdoms but such as would freely sign it That although a while after when he hearkned to the Jesuits he relented somewhat on consideration of their furtherance of his pretensions at Rome or of removeing the obstacles they might perhaps otherwise put in his waye yet on better consideration again return'd to his former and fix'd principles and therefore advised the said Father Aylmer either to sign or withdraw himself out of England Which was the immediate cause of Mr. Aylmers comming then for Ireland though with design also to do all the mischief he could to cross that business as truly he did by manifest untruths although he protested so lately before and so publickly in the presence of 30. Catholicks Priests and Catholick Bishops too at London when the rest signed it that he singled not himself for point of conscience and that he would with his blood sign the lawfulness and Catholickness of it yet pretending after that he had not sufficiently studied nor understood the point as indeed he never seemed to have before or after That for the rest of the Queens Chaplains ordinary or extraordinary I mean the English Irish who were concern'd and to whom it was proper I must confess the grand mistake was in not offering it them by authority at first when it came forth as to my knowledge it was intended to be offered at Hampton-Court and at Council upon a certain Sunday but none of the copies being at hand that day and other things intervening after they were neglected Which gave so much encouragement to all other dissentors ever since albeit the case of those Chaplains and that of the rest of the Irish Clergie be very different and that none of the rest who have been so expresly particularly and positively desired their own concurrence should on that pretence denye or excuse it That finally for what concerns my Lord Abbot Montague what ever his own peculiar interest was or is in relation to that Remonstrance or to an approbation of it if demanded I am sure that being as well as my Lord Aubigny acquainted with the Divinity of France having his title and so great a benefice there and being so conversant in that Court and Church his judgement must have been for the Catholickness and lawfulness of it And a person of so great both reason and experiance in the affairs of these Nations could not but conceive it was both expedient and necessary for such of the Romish Clergie natives as would live at home in any of them to sign it and for such as were abroad or would be not to hinder those at home by disswasion from the good they might expect thereby And could not but conceive it was both expedient and necessary even for His Majesties greater assurance of them that they should do so That besides nothing more in particular being known of my Lord Abbot Mountague's affection or disaffection to that matter nay were even his positive perswasion to the contrary known of certain as it was never for any thing I could here and I have listened after it sufficiently carefully enough yet his Lordships even such demeanour could be no rational pretence for them his forraign dependency his special priviledge by serving the Queen Mother in so great a capacity as he is known to serve Her exempting him from a rule concerning others that had no such arguments to excuse them To say nothing here of his being an English man and Priest of that Clergie who were not so neerly concern'd not to be backward as the Irish Clergie were and who nevertheless did then for the generality of them most heartily desire as they do at this present His Majestie were pleased to favour them so much albeit not lying under those great suspicions the Irish Clergie do at least not having in our dayes given such cause as to demand their subscriptions to such an Instrument and be content therewith in lieu of those other demonstrations the laws they lye under expect from them IX However such as made it their interest to oppose any further subscription made use of these and many other such pittiful and too too weak pretences to excuse their nonconcurrence when they saw no further probability in those no less weak pretences of Theological arguments borrowed from Suarez Bellarmine and others of their way that writ on the Subject of the Popes ill-grounded pretences to and over the Scepters and Royal Diadems or temporal authority of Kings and in particular of the Kings of England But indeed the true causes of their backwardness and reluctancy and which even themselves almost all generally upon occasion acknowledg'd were 1. That most of their leading men and such as not onely were in office over others but very many also that bore no such offices at all as then were pretendents and candidats either abroad at Rome for titulary Archbishopricks Bishopricks Vicar-generalships Deanries Parishes Provincialships Commissaryships c. or at home amongst their own Brethren for votes to be chosen presented or preferred to such offices either amongst the secular or regu-Clergie as they aspired unto albeit as poor and inconsiderable amongst the Clergie as little Cures in Parishes without other advantage than the bare benevolence of the laye people and even as poor and inconsiderable as a Guardianship Priorship or some such other now very vain title in Ireland amongst the Regulars For because at Rome and for what depended of that Court immediately they perswaded themselves that to subscribe would be a perpetual obstruction to all their hopes as the case stands in Ireland the King being of a different communion and even at home also they could expect no more favour from their own Brethren or their own actual superiours Bishops Vicars-general Provincials c. that were adverse to the Remonstrance as most of them certainly were even such as both in their judgements for point of conscience and in their natural inclinations also to the English Crown and interests of it in Ireland were truly in their Soules for the Remonstrance would not by any means be induced to declare themselves publickly such either in word or writing 2. That such as in the late Warrs had engaged themselves against both Peaces or either of them and against the foregoing Cessation and consequently for the Censures of the Nuncio apprehended it for want of Christian humility or a true sense of piety as the worst of evils
excuse their great dependence from the Ordinaries and Secular Clergy as to their future admission to the respective Districts or Diocesses and their establishment for houses in the Countrey Besides that they were but a very few and inconsiderable in respect of others That however their judgment affection or extraction lead them yet this cause alone might be sufficient for their excuse not to subscribe without encouragment by example from the Ordinaries And yet it is very well known that several of them as likewise of the other more ancient Orders laboured earnestly and mightily that there should be no such encouragment or example at all from Ordinaries or any other Whereof the reason is very obvious Because the later any religious Institution is and the newer in any Catholick Countrey the greater dependence it must have and the more support it wants from Rome Which those three last Orders amongst us were so far from putting to any hazard to be lost by subscription that they would assure themselves of it more and more by the greatest opposition they could make in favour of all pretences for the holy See and thereby also be sure to continue their yearly pensions of Missionaries such of them I mean as are pensionaries upon the account of mission as several are 9. That above all the Jesuits yet more particularly found themselves concern'd on this particular account that so many great and famous Writers of their Society and by consequence the whole Society it self had been all along these fourscore years at least throughly engaged to maintain the contrary doctrine and practises 10. That on the other side the Secular Clergy pretended there was no signing for themselves before the Regulars concurr'd who as being commonly the best Divines and Preachers and many in number and changeable from County to County and from one Diocess and Province to another at their Superiours will and in most parts in greater esteem with the lay people then the Secular Clergy would if not concurring with them cast such an aspersion on them as would be able to render them infamous and contemptible amongst their own Parishioners upon account of so specious a pretence amongst ignorant people as the renouncing the Papal power and acknowledging the King to be Supream Head of the Church would amount unto For so many and very many too of both Secular and Regular Clergy gave out to the common sort against their own knowledge and conscience the Subscribers mean'd and did by that Remonstrance of 61. representing it as the same thing with the Oath of Supremacy which Roman Catholicks generally have refused this hundred years and therefore lay under so many incapacities and other penalties Nay some of those Clergy-men did not stick to say and swear too they would sooner take the Oath of Supremacy than subscribe that Remonstrance And yet it is very clear those Gentlemen understand neither or if they do either that certainly they are out as to both in their explications of them as far as from East to West For in the sense wherein the sons of the Protestant Churches of England and Ireland take the Oath of Supremacy they acknowledge no spiritual Supremacy purely such or any such spiritual Headship or supream Government-ship in the King in any causes or things what soever even temporal so far are they from acknowledging such in causes or things Ecclesiastical or Spiritual not even in those which are by extrinsecal denomination only called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual but only a Supream Politick Civil or Temporal Head-ship or Government-ship in all things whatsoever by the power of the material Sword and this of this Sword over all persons generally as well Church-men as others Which sense is very Catholick and owned in relation to their Kings and 〈…〉 temporal Governours by all Catholicks in France Spain Germany Poland Italy 〈◊〉 wheresoever in the world Nor do they intend to deny by the 〈◊〉 Oath in the negative â—â—me any power purely spiritual to the Pope or other even 〈◊〉 Prelate 〈◊〉 that power only which 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—ugnant to that supâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 temporal or politick Government-ship be not said to be such as indeed it cannot justly And on the other side it is plain the Remonstrance o◠〈…〉 not a word or clause either defectâ—â—◠〈◊〉 directly or by any kind of consequence importing the 〈◊〉 wherein the Roman Catholicke have refused â—â—therto the â—â—nd Oath of Supremacy 〈◊〉 this sense is no other than 〈…〉 by the universality of the words or signs 〈◊〉 the affirmative and negative 〈◊〉 the Roman Catholick Vulgar understands ever also a spiritual Privacy or Supremacy purely such to be attributed to the King and denied to the Pope and other Bishops in those Dominions albeit this sense be plainly repugnant to the very Confession of Faith in the 〈◊〉 articles of the Prâ—â—estâ—â—â— Church England and Ireland and to those others of Queen Elizabeth in her Injuctions authorized and owned even by Parliament Now it is no less manifest and out of all controversie amongst such as do but even lead singly over the Protestation of 61. that there us not a word in it 〈◊〉 â—biâ—â—ting any such to the King or denying it to the Pope or intending at all any such thing nor indeed any thing else but what is allowed and approved by the doctrine and practice of all the Catholick world abroad iâ— peradventure the present Roman Court not the Roman Church be not excepted and the few sticklers for it although against the sense and inclination of all the wise and moderate Popes even I mean too such as governed that See in these latter times But however this be or be not such was the pretence of many for not concurring by their subscriptions albeit they confess'd withal the Remonstrance very catholick in it self And for this pretence or the scandal raised against the Remonstrance of renouncing the Pope or importing the same with the Oath of Supremacy besides the malicious or wilful stumbling of some at one word in it not construed or taken with the words immediatly following restraining that word as all men of never so little reason or sense must allow it ought to be I know not but the reprinting of the single sheet of that Remonstrance at London by some of purpose to gain by selling it when all the first Edition was immediately bought and the reprinting of it with a false Title cryed and sold so up and down the Streets which false Title imported the renouncing of the Pope by the Popish Clergy of Ireland whether I say this occasioned not at first that aspersion amongst some ignorant people I know not though I am sure it could not amongst the Clergy on Layety either that read the paper it self or what was therein contained 11. That some also of the leading men had a special pick to it only because advanced by the Procurator by whose means they would not even desire the freest exercise of their Religion because he had been all
which were it his draught it had not been albeit in the main dispute it be fully sufficient the answer waâ— That it became not Priests nor Christians nor even moral or rational honest men although neither Priests nor Christians to obstruct the common good out of private animosities much less to obstruct it to the prejudice of the Religion and Worship of God and obstruct all too by sinister wayes by calumnies and forgeries and a false pretence of Religion where there was nothing less then Religion intended but rather the quite contrary That in relation to his former actings in the controversies with the Nuntio if they had considered things rightly they would rather acknowledge admire with thankfulness adore the Providence of God which had inspired him then to do as he did and as became a good Patriot Subject religious Man Christian Priest and Catholick Divine to the end he might be after so many revolutions some way instrumental to save them again That they have found his endeavours even in forwarding that Remonstrance and in many other Instances very useful and very advantagious and profitable too for all both Catholick People and Clergy of Ireland And therefore he might in some measure and sense though with infinit disproportion answer such of them as traduce or maligne him as Christ did the Jews when at the instigation of some both of the envious Priests and wicked Scribes and Pharisees too that religious but hypocritical Sect of those ancient people of God the multitude taking stones to throw at their Saviour of purpose to kill him he told and demanded of them as the Gospel relates multa opera bona ostendi vobis Ioh. â— 32. c. propter quod eorum opus lapidatis me That for his exposition of the said Remonstrance in his More Ample Account if it did not convince them as he believed it did or whether it did or no yet were not they desired to subscribe it nor was it ever intended by him or any other they or any else should either subscribe or approve otherwise of it but as they pleased to read or lay it by That he alone was to answer for that Book if there was any thing amiss in it And from them no more was expected but to sign the Remonstrance in it self barely considered according to the true obvious and sincere meaning of all the several passages And if they taking it so could otherwise rationally expound it than the Procurator did in his said little book themselves were to satisfie their own consciences in that behalf and leave his book to stand or fall to the Authors cost or profit That however he found it a tye of duty on himself for many respects and particularly for that of acting by special Commission for the Catholicks both Clergy and Lay-people of Ireland and to obtain for them some liberty ease or connivence in the exercise of Catholick Religion To let them know they could not by other expositions answer or arrive at the ends of that exposition nor shew themselves to be truly sincerely loyal or faithful to the King in those contingencies wherein their allegiance might be for their former actions prudently suspected 12. And for the general objection of all their allegation of the laws still in force c. they were desired to consider 1. How happy they would have thought themselves immediatly before the Kings Restauration and for so many other foregoing sad years under usurping Tyrants if they had found a suspension only of those laws and that connivence at the exercise of their Religion they now enjoyed under His most Sacred Majesty and ever since or immediatly after the Remonstrance presented in their names or behalf to Him That they had far more assurance than they yet deserved being they demurr'd so long on professing under their hands a dutiful subjection and no other certainly than without any such profession they were bound to by all the laws of God under pain of Hell or Damnation and by all the laws of the Land under the severest punishments of Treason That they were not to expect capitulations from the King for their being Subjects but neverthess had cause enough to see if they were not wilfully blind He was and would be to them all a good merciful gracious compassionat and indulgent King blotting all their former iniquities or those of so many of them as had been unjust to Him and his Father and Lieutenant and other protestant People quite out of His remembrance evermore if they did shew themselves true penitents and converts and sincere performers of their duty hereafter That they were no indifferent no competent Judges of those Articles they pleaded whether they were broken or no by the King or his Ministers or if broke in any part or to any person whether such breach was lawful and necessary or no in the present conjuncture of affairs after so great a change or alteration of the case That reason might tell them considering the condition of their Country and Inhabitants thereof which requires other laws and other proceedings and another kind of use of laws at least in matter of Religion than England does at present they could have no ground to fear any forcing of them to other Countreys for want of protection at home if and whiles they demeaned themselves peaceably provided they gave generally and cheerfully that assurance expected from them of such peaceable demeanour hereafter That in case of the very worst imaginable of evils the comfort of a good conscience were to be preferred by them to any earthly emolument and the conscience of having done their duty by washing the scandal of unholy tenets from their Religion would be a portable theatre to them whethersoever they should be forced and the assurance of suffering only in such case for a pure holy and undefiled Religion and Communion for justice and the Catholick faith only not for suspicion or conviction of treasonable maximes and practices condemn'd in all other Kingdoms and States in their own cases as impious uncatholick unchristian and even I say condemn'd by the professors of their own Church every where out of the small temporal Principality of the Pope And therefore they needed not apprehend any such attempt scorn prejudice or persecution abroad for having performed such a christian duty at home but on the contrary to be praised and cherished if not perhaps such as through vanity and folly would esteem no other refuge but where they might withal expect titles and miters which they very little deserved if not by such deserts as would untitle and unmitre them wholy if they were sifted narrowly according to the Gospel of Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church though perhaps they would hold them fast enough according to those other late ones made by Papal authority alone But that if the very saddest they could by Chymeraes frame to themselves did happen in such case as well abroad as at home it became
for the quarrel of God and for the defence of their Religion Nunc ergo O Filii aemulatores estate legis date animas vestras pro testamento Patrum vestrorum And cap. 13. we find vos scitis quanta ego fratres mei Domus patris mei fecimus pro legibus pro sanctis praelia I know the Author of the Book of the defence of the Remonstrance or Protestation saith that the Machabees made war through ignorance because they understood not their own law nor had the light of the law of Jesus Christ but he must give us leave not to believe him until he produceth some more warrantable authority then his bare word God having justified their war with miracles I have heard some say being pressed by this and other arguments that the wars of the Machabees were just not for that they fought for Gods cause or in defence of their Religion but because the true Prince retaineth his right alwayes and can recover his Kingdom again by force of arms if occasion serveth and he be able though his people be conquered and in a long and continued subjection to another King And therefore the Machabees had right to recover Iudea from the Gentile King and for this reason the war was just of their side But this evasion is a very slight one first because the Machabees are not praised for fighting for that cause but for their Religion Secondly because they had no right to the Crown of Iudea but the Progenitors of our Saviour Jesus Christ but they kept the command to themselves and never gave it to the right line of succession to the Crown among the Jews Besides none will presume to say that the wars of the late Earl of Tyrone against the Crown of England were just though his Ancestors were Kings of Ulster or Monarchs of Ireland What a probable opinion is and when a man may lawfully follow it Potest quis sequi tanquam probabilem opinionem unius doctoris probi docti maximé si adducat aliquam rationem intrinsicê probabilem et non sit contra opinionem communem Ita Sanches et undecimiali Non tamen si ab aliis Recentioribus valde famigeratis recitatur Ita Bresserus et alii Neque eo ipso quo invenitur impressa in aliquo Authore censeri potest probabilis .. Neque approbatio libri approbat omnes ejus opinniones Ita Marchantius et omnes alii communiter Let the Affirmative and the Negative of the above proposed question be be considered with the Reasons and Authors of both sides If they find reasons and authors according to what is laid down here concerning what is a probable opinion he may follow which part he pleaseth otherwise he cannot not follow it as a probable opinion XXVIII That forasmuch as in the Procuratour's Answers to their two or three former Queries they had had particularly cleerly his answer to this also that he found no new matter in this second paper but pitiful though replyes in effect which they can reasons for the affirmative yet such replyes as are grounded solely on the bare saying or opinion either of Pontius one of their own Society or of a confused rabble of such other Neoterick Schoolmen thronging together and treading in the stepps one of another like a flock of sheep without further serious ponderation of the nature of things in themselves or of those reasons would render such their saying intrinsecally probable or even extrinsecally from any decision or at least from any manifest determination obliging to submit unto nor found any thing more then either a full conviction of their not being conversant in those great Classick Authors Gerson Maior Almaine Johannes Parisiensis c. or the precedent or example of the Macchabees rebelling against Antiochus and the answer of the Procuratour to it in his little book entitled The More Ample Account this imperfectly related as ill considered and that worst of all applyed to maintain their affirmative resolve or a power in the Christian Church as purely such to inflict by force of Arms and by virtue of a Divine supernatural power corporal punishments upon any therefore and because too that none came ever after to own this second paper or demaund his rejoynder and moreover because themselves that sent it whoever they were did no longer insist upon it or any thing contain'd therein as shall be seen hereafter he lay'd it by as unsignificant for other purpose then to relate the folly of men that maugre all Christianity abuse themselves and others with such like silly and weak or false or only negative arguments For besides that if they had been pleased to consult Barclay the Father Son against Bellarmine and Widdrington's so many learned works against both the same Eminent Cardinal 's several books writt on this subject bearing either his own proper name or those of Tortus Sculkenius c as also against all the choycest arguments even of Cardinal Peron and so many others of the Society as Parsons and Gâ—etzer and fitz Herbert and Lessius personated under the name of Singleton or if they pleased to read what those other excellent Professors of Divinity of S. Benedicts Order Father Preston and Green apologized for themselves most learnedly to the Pope Gregory the XIIII they would have not only seen the vanity of their maxime of Statists or philosophers as here made use of or of Aristotle in particular so ill understood by them but that meaning of it or that the coercive power must be of the same kind with the directive to be that which was of a great number of most famous Classick Authors of the School besides that it was in all ages the doctrine of the Church and of even all the holy Fathers till Gregory the VII and that meaning also for what concerns our purpose deduced out of clear and evident Scriptures as those most famous Classick Authors perswaded themselves I say that besides all this if the authors of this Quaerie and second paper had considered a little their own allegations here and the arguments to the contrary they would find them partly false and partly unconcluding XXIX First they would find them false where they say that such as hold the negative can scarce produce one Classick Author c. and such as hold the affirmative may produce as many as ever wrote ex professo of this matter and if they mean only that Basilius Pontius sayes so they will find him too notoriously false if they please to consult Alensis Maior Gerson Almain Johannes Parisiensis c. not to speak a word of all or any of the holy Fathers nor of so many whole entire Vniversities nor of the common sense and practise of so many millions of the whole Catholick Church in all ages till Gregory the VII and after that believed and acknowledg'd themselves as a Church of Christ purely such to have no other coercion but
controversie is in whose time Ptolomey likewise surnamed Epiphanes King of Egypt dyed and his young Son called Ptolomey Philometor was crowned after him King of Egypt and by consequence had the dominion of Ierusalem and Iewry That Antiochus Epiphanes that wicked ambitious and most cruell King of Asia and Syria taking advantage of the minority of this young Ptolomey Philometor without any just cause or provocation or any other but his own ambitious desires entred Egypt with a huge army and with intention to seize the young King and possess himself of all his Kingdom of Egypt and of his other dominions and wel-nigh effected his designs having after his taking of Memphis besieged Alexandria it self and the young King therein but was on a suddain forced to break up his siege and relinquish all again and retire immediatly out of all Egypt upon summons sent him by the Romans to do so or abide a sharp war from them That in his forced return to his own Kingdom some few wicked Jews having out of desire to be revenged of others even by the loss of their Countrey animated him to camp before Ierusalem and the riches of that City and treasures of the Temple there having set him all on fire with covetousness he marched directly towards it and the Gates being treacherously set open to him by those within of that wicked faction he surprized it in the hundred fourty and third year of the raign of Seleucus the year of the world 3796. and before Christ 168. years That as this was done without any consent of the people generally or of their Governours so he behaving himself immediatly after as the most cruel tyrant that even surprized any place and having broke all kind of conditions either concerning Religion Estate or life even with those very traytors of their own City and Countrey and having spoiled both the City and Temple and carried all the spoils with him to Antioch but two years after he surprized them so and having left most cruel Edicts after him for the future and those put in execution with unparelled cruelty it is evident enough that as he had no just title for that was nor any permission from the lawful hereditary King Ptolomey Philometor to seize Ierusalem or Iewry so he had none from the people of Ierusalem or Iewry either first or last to entitle him to the rights of a lawful King not even I say from them in case they could justly give any such their own hereditary King being still alive and still too in possession of the greatest part of his dominions nor could two years such forcible and cruel possession entitle him to any right at all That in fine as all this is manifest in History in that of Iosephus I mean and in his twelfth Book of the Antiquities of the Jews and in his eleventh for what concerns Alexander the Great himself and being further it is no less manifest in the same History of Iosephus and in the seventh and eight chapters of the said twelfth Book and in the marginal Chronology That Mattathias took arms against the said Antiochus Epiphanes immediatly after the said second year of his unlawful possession kept of Iewry 〈…〉 is immediatly â—ften the 〈◊〉 and general and cruel 〈…〉 it is no less evident 〈◊〉 foâ— that he did so that is 〈…〉 his 〈…〉 King but against 〈…〉 unjust Usurper and Tyâ—â—â— also no less 〈◊〉 And consequently that no warlike actions nor exhortations of Mattathias nor any other of that Machabâ—â—â— ar◠〈◊〉 of his Sons or of that whole Nation of the Jews against Antiochus that faithless impious inhumane King of Asia â—â—e to any purpose alledged to maintain the pretended inherent power of any Subjects whatsoever to rebell against their own true â—egal undoubted rightful hereditary King however oppressing them either in their religious or civil rights or both And this is the second answer I intended in my More Ample Account And which I give here not that it is any way necessary or directly at all to that which our present Adversaries the Authors of this second paper dispute of principally at this present or in this paper I now answer but because they have given me by their indirect reflections and by their impertinencius therein a just occasion for which I thank them to give it here for a further illustration of what I said formerly on this subject XXXV As for their Latin Postscript because I guess it was only added as an answer to an argument I press'd them with ad hominem as we speak as also with the conclusion of it in English two of their own general principles or doctrine of Probability to convince them of the lawfulness in point of conscience of subscribing the Remonstrance notwithstanding the pretence of some not only extrinsick authority 〈◊〉 even intrinsick probability appearing still in their very souls though I never did nor do believe there was any such against some position or supposition wherein that Remonstrance is grounded or which is therein contained I allow them till the advantage they can derive from these Câ—suists even as themselves quote them here For I am sure they will accordingly find the doctrine of the Remonstrance to be at least both extrinsecally and intrinsecally most probable and consequently the signing of it lawful in point of conscience But abstracting 〈◊〉 these rules and authority of Casuists which at least in 〈◊〉 matter of probability and as I have most clearly shown in my More Ample Account pag. 16. c. ought to be not only abstracted from but quite rejected as most unsafe and false and erroneous as likewise and by consequence the final English perclose as a corollary thence derived of this paper I now consider I am no less certain they will find themselves obliged in point of conscience to approve of all the doctrine positions and suppositions too of the said Remonstrance and reject and condemn the contrary as very false eroneous and scandalous too and consequently very sinful if not manifestly heretical in Christian Faith If I say they have studied or shall as they ought to do the arguments on both sides or but consulted with the Catholick Authors that have so lately handled them at large against the sophismes of Bellarmine and others of 〈◊〉 way For I fear they will not take the paâ—ts to sougth 〈…〉 â—â—â—ancie famous great and Classick Authors and 〈◊〉 in them their own ignorance and errour so long since reproach'd in the very Schools For as concerning the Scriptures and Fathers and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church and practice of Primitive Christians and that also of all ensuing ages till the Eleventh of Christianity under Gregory the Seventh they themselves cannot â—â—ny all to be against them Whereof and â—s with other both arguments and objections 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 I could heartily wish they would to satisfie yet more fully themselves take but so much pains as to read over the Barclays and Wriddringâ—â—n Father
Church for these are the very words of Gerson that such a Prelate in such proceedings be resisted to his face provided it be done with that moderation which an unblameable defence requires as Paul resisted Peter For as Origen sayes on Joshua Hom. 22. where no sin is we cannot eject any out of the Church least peradventure endeavouring to root out the cockle we root up also the very wheat Which eradication of the wheat St. Augustine in his 3d. book 2 chap. against Parmenian post Collator c. 20. so desired the Prelates of the Church to beware that he teaches there expresly the very cockle must be often let lye still as often to wit as he that otherwise deserves to be so eradicated hath a great multitude that go along with him in his delinquency And teaches consequently that to attempt the separation of such a person or in this case when the Prelates cannot without the loss or destruction of the wheat also would be most grievous sacriledge Whence it is that many Catholick Writers and those too most religious and learned have thought according to this rule of St. Augustine that upon such account Gregory the VIII Boniface the VII Innocent the IV. Iulius the II. and many other great Pontiffs who govern'd the See of Rome after and betwixt their several Popedomes have been guilty of most horrid sacriledge as such that by their excommunications of Kings and Princes their Interdicts of Kingdoms and Republicks have done nothing else but rend the Church into fatal Schismes The blame and sin whereof those writers also think ought to be charged upon those very Popes abusing so their power by unjust excommunications and other censures not on the Princes defending justly themselves and their people But as for my self and for all other true Catholick and knowing Patriots of Ireland and not of Ireland only but England too it must seem to us without doubt very certain that the greatest evils of both Nations and greatest miseries under which the professors of the Catholick Faith amongst them have so long groaned to this present had first their very fatal origin from the sentences censures and depositions pronounced by Clement the VII Pius the V. Sixtus the V. and some other great Pontiffs of the Roman See now again at last their very prodigious encrease from the more then temerarious Interdict and Excommunication of Iohannes Baptista Rinuccini late Nuncius Apostolick extraordinary from Innocent the X. in our our own dayes to the Catholicks of Ireland And these passages I give here so many and so at large on this subject of caution thaâ— your most Reverend Paternity may the better perswade your self throughly that Father Carons either advice to you or desire from you hath been very prudent For when your Paternity shall consider that to condemn a Protestation Declaration or promise of Allegiance in temporal affairs to the King must be an intollerable errour because expresly repugnant to the Gospel of Christ Matt. 22. and to the clear precepts also of the most blessed Apostles Peter and Paul Rom. 13. and 1. of Peter 2.3 and 4. chap. when you must consequently judge there can be no sin at all to be proceeded against in such a necessary subscription or if there should according to the sentence of some few seem to be any kind of transgression therein yet in the judgment of others even the greatest Doctors of the Catholick Church there can be none but rather a degree of merit as the necessary concomitant of a laudable vertuous action so farre is that Protestation from implying in the judgment of moderate Divines any kind or even smack of heresy or schysme when however your Paternity think of this I said last you must undoubtedly acknowledg the cause of those subscribers of your Order to be such as has a multitude involved therein nor of those onely of the Seraphical Order nor of others too of the secular and regular Clergie alone but of the lay people also of the Gentry and Nobility the most honourable and most remarkable of the Kingdom and those likewise in very great numbers who questionless will assert that Doctrine or the Sanctity equity and justice of that Protestation or of that our Form to which they also by a particular Instrument of their own have subscribed and will assert it with their blood and life as their predecessors have before them done these 500. years under the Kings of England when lastly whatever be the crime or cause which is either objected to or presumed of those the Subscribers of your Order if indeed your Paternities quarrel be to them at all or to that their subscription or to that Form of theirs when I say your Paternity shall understand or consider that they are not as yet contumacious and I hope they will never be against the Church or against their Prelats being they have not been ever yet called unto or summond to appear for ought appears to them not once twice thrice nor peremptorily or by any one peremptory citation sufficing for three nay not as much as once barely admonish'd in any wise and when you therefore consider that a sentence pronounced against them the case so standing with them must be extreamly unjust even for want of due procedure according to the substantial or essential form of law and reason albeit no intollerable errour as to matter of right or fact could be alleaged when I say your most Reverend Paternity shall consider seriously all these particulars I doubt not you will entertain a very serious thought also of the prudence and reasonableness of that of Father Carons either advice or desire That you take good heed to carry your self with deliberation matureness and charity in this debate which our emulous Antagonists have raised against us least otherwise more scandals and evils and such as will draw long repentance after them do follow then may be hindered taken away or ended at any time by your Paternity or by the Minister General and his perswaders or indeed by any other And so most Reverend Father I conclude this Epistle which the shortness objected by your most Reverend Paternity to Father Carons former letters which I have not yet seen hath made thus prolix For I am not without some apprehension that you will take the like exceptions to his later also which I have seen As for other passages which concern a yet more perfect account to be given by the Subscribers specially by Father Caron me and the rest of our Institution to the great Pontiff to whom next to God according to the Canons of the Catholick Church and the rule moreover of our Seraphical Father St. Francis which God willing we shall endeavour alwayes to observe we profess all reverence and even absolute obedience in spiritual affairs due from us or as to passages yet wanting if there be any such that relate to the satisfaction expected from us by as your Paternity sayes and to be given to
as I have done here but only quotes the books and chapters especially for the two former Which yet is not his custom when he finds the places home to his purpose As for that no less unconcluding and that too but onely one out of the new Testament you have it in the 17th of Matthew verse 23.24.25 and 26. where it is related that our Saviour being at Capernâ—â—m and the tribute gatherers demanding of Peter whether his Master would pay the tribute money or didrachma and Peter having answered yes our Saviour presently knowing of the matter and preventing Peter and questioning him in this manner what thinkest thou Simon of whom do the Kings of the earth take custom or tribute of their own children or of strangers and Peter answering of strangers our Saviour inferr'd instantly Ergo liberi sunt filij Then are the children free Adding further thus notwithstanding least we should offend them or give them cause to be scandalized at us go thou to the Sea and cast a hook and take that fish which shall first come up and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a stater that take and give it them for me and thee Of all these examples and places of Scripture Bellarmine frames his first proof to inferre his foresaid Thesis or fift proposition which is That the exemption of Clerks in all politick or civil affairs and as well of their persons as of their goods from all even the most supream temporal Magistrate for that too he means all along was introduced amongst Christians for this also was and must have been his purpose both by divine and humane law And for humane law he supposed that proved before as himself notes and alleadges these Scripture examples and passages to prove onely that his fift proposition for what concerns divine right or divine law Notwithstanding all which I say the case is clear enough still if we but consider these very testimonies passages either out of the old or out of the new or out of both Testaments For whatever may be alleadged pretended or inferr'd though nothing can be but with very little colour out of any or even all these places taken together for the exemption of the lands goods or persons of Clergiemen from paying tribute customs polemony or other taxes whatsoever yet I am perswaded that no rational man much less any consciencious able Divine can be so blind as not to see the unsignificancy of these Scripture testimonies or examples to prove the persons of Clergiemen exempt in criminal causes by divine right and by the positive law of God from the supream civil coercive power Which onely is that I dispute here with Cardinal Bellarmine or rather with his disciples or defenders in this particular controversy the Divines of Lovain And I am perswaded so 1. Because that of the Egyptian Priests signifies no kind of exemption of their persons from laye Indicatories not even from such as are inferiour and subordinate onely nor in any causes whatsoever either criminal or civil or mixt of both Nor signifies as much as the exemption of their lands or goods from all kind of taxâ—â— or from any at all but onely from the forfeiture or sale of their lands or from paying a fift part of the increase And this exemption too from such forfeiture sale or fift part not to have been made by any positive law of God but by the laws of man that is of Ioseph or Pharao 2. Because That of Artaxerxes concerning the Mosaycal Clergie at Ierusalem signifies no more but that Kings command to his own inferiour officers not to laye any imposition of toll taxes c. on them but not a word that himself had no power to taxe them much less any syllable which might import that those Ministers of that holy Temple were exempt either in other civil or criminal causes from his own cognizance or punishment or even from that of his inferiour subordinate civil Judges or from the Lieutenant that govern'd Palestine under him Besides we know the positive law of Artaxerxes cannot be said to be the positive law of God 3. Because that of Leviticus though confessedly sometime the positive law of God signifies no more also but that the whole tribe of Levi were put under the subordinate care and jurisdiction of Aaron and of his Sons the Priests and of their successors and onely as to the Ministery of the Tabernacle whereof he had charge according to what was expresly decreed in all such particulars by God himself in the law given by him to Moyses and rest of Israels descendants Not a word at all exempting either Levits or Priests or as much as the High Priest himself in other affairs or in either criminal or civil matters from the supream civil Temporal or politick Iurisdiction of Moyses or other succeeding Generals Judges or Kings nor as much as exempting them from tribute or taxe or other imposition if at any time the necessities of their countrey or people or weal publick or kingdom were such as the supream civil Governours should judge it necessary to taxe them proportionably for the publick good or safety as well of themselves as of all the other tribes It is true that although not here yet elswhere God left the tribe of Levi exempted from being bound to be listed for War Nay expresly ordained Numb 1.49 that they should not be listed so but should be exempted from that charge or duty as being there appointed for and applyed wholly to an other special duty that is to carry still and serve and keep and watch the tabernacle which could not well consist nor at all with that of warfaring But what hath this particular exemption from one onely duty to do with a general exemption from all other civil duties whatsoever and from the very supream power it self which was to take care that this duty also as well as others should be discharged Those amongst the Romans who by the laws were priviledged not to serve in the warrs were they exempted therefore in all other matters from the supream power of the state or Empire or exempted generally from the supream Coercive power in criminal causes or must Bellarmine abuse his Reader with such quotations and such implyed but unconcluding arguments Nor certainly does that iterated expression of God in that place of Leviticus or elswhere mei sunt they are mine import any more then a special designation of that tribe for that most special Service of His about the tabernacle For he hath often elswhere in holy Scripture said of all the twelve tribes together that they were his own chosen peculiar people And yet never mean'd to exempt them thereby nor by any other expression from the power of their earthly either supream or subordinate Governours or exempt them at all from such power in either civil or criminal matters or in any whatsoever but in such religious matters onely as himself expresly had reserved for the
them from tribute and of the Domestick family of such Princes or their children free also from paying tribute and lastly on our Saviours bidding Peter to pay for them both least people should be scandalized as if sayes Bellarmine our Saviour himself had thereby declared or said that both himself and his family whose Prefect Peter was should be free from all tribute quasi diceret et se et familiam suam cujus Prefectus erat Petrus liberos esse debere where I say now is the strength of this argument to prove that by the positive law of God as much as per quandam similitudinem all Clergiemen of the world are exempt more then others both as to their goods and persons from the supream civil power or even to prove they are by such law exempt more then others as much as from tribute All Christians are of the family and as such Peter is Prefect of them all And certainly Bellarmine himself hath strugled much in his books de Rom. Pont. and more singularly yet in his others against Barelay and Widdrington to prove that Peter was so in his own days and after his days that other succeeding Bishops of Rome are so likewise even over all the goods and lands and bodies too of Christians and not onely over those of Christians but over all those of the Heathen also For so at last Bellarmine found himself constrain'd to say by the arguments of Widdrington and Barclay to which he could find no other answer But however this be or whether by any kind of similitude it may be concluded out of this passage of Matthew that Clergiemen as being in one certaine sense more especially of the Household or Domestick family of Christ either as he was the natural Son of God or as he was a man should be more exempt from paying tribute or taxes then others of his even holy believers and sanctified family who are not in that certain sense or in that special manner that is by such a special function of his family whether I say this follow or no pâ—â— quamdam similitudinem out of that passage of Matthew yet no man of never so little reason can alleadge for Bellarmine That our Saviour's instance there in his Querie to Peter about the Kings of the Earth and his pronouncing and concluding out of Peters answer Ergo liberi sunt fily must inferre that Clerks should therefore be exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of the civil Magistrate or of any supream earthly King For it is well known that earthly Kings do not exempt not even the most special domesticks of their children from their own Royal supream coercive power or from that of their laws in criminal causes albeit they give them exemption from tributs or taxes and many other priviledges And no less known too That they exempt not from that power and in such causes not even their very children themselves Nay nor in civil causes either so but that they may be sued even before the subordinate inferiour Judges in the Kings Courts of Justice And for criminal causes the Cronicles of England and Histories of Spain can shew us Instances These of a Prince of Spain put to death by his Father King Phillip the Second for some intelligence as some do say with the Turk And those of a Prince of England proceeded against even by an Inferiour Judge for some misdemeanour committed or authorized by him and even proceeded so against without any special warrant from the King but that which the Judge had in the laws of the Kingdom All which being so how can it follow out of that our Saviour's illation from the answer of Peter concerning the practice of Earthly Kings in the case of not exacting tribute or taxes from their own children That by the positive law of God in this place of Matthew Clerks are absolutely exempt from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes Or how indeed I say doth that consequence follow as much as per quandam similitudinem And follow yet upon this account that Clerks are in such a special manner of the family of the Prince or even of the Kings Heir apparant If he shall answer by quitting our Saviours illation implied in the word Erge and that of the similitude from the practice of earthly Kings as to the matter of coercion and by insisting only on these words liberi sunt filii as upon a positive declaration made by our Saviour of the exemption of Clergy-men from all Kings of the Earth and in all matters whatsoever and consequently also by appropriating so the word filii here to Clergy-men alone that not only all other Christians because Lay-persons but even our Saviour himself be not thereby understood in the quality of the natural Son of God I say that if any shall answer by such a systeme of suppositions the Reply is clear and convincing enough 1. That they are all either very false or at least very vain because without any proof or colour of proof 2. That such a positive Declaration by these words Ergo liberi sunt filii is contradicted by Bellarmine himself who expresly acknowledges no divine precept properly such of the positive law of God either in this place or any other of holy Scripture for the exemption of Clergymen either from taxes or judicial proceedings of the civil Magistrate And I am sure both he and all other Divines will confess that a positive Declaration made by Christ in holy Scripture is to all Christians a divine precept and properly such of the positive law of God 3. That if these words were such a positive Declaration neither Bellarmine nor others needed their per quandam similitudinem nor any further going about the bush 4. And lastly that if they were such then certainly St. Paul had been much out of the way when he declared the contrary Rom. 13. and all the holy Fathers expounding him there even for a whole thousand years and all the Christian Church consequently until our new Interpreters and Sophisters came in these latter ages to tell us what Christ declared as will appear evidently in one of the following Sections where I treat of that command of St. Paul or of God rather by St. Paul 13 Rom. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit c. Let the judicious Reader himself be now judge whether the case for what concerns any positive law of God in holy Scripture be not clear enough on my side what ever Bellarmine say or whether he confess that there is no precept properly such of God or of such law in holy Scripture being our Adversaries alledge no other places either out of the old or new Testament but these I have now considered as the only of all which together Bellarmine frames but to no purpose his first argument to prove that Clergymen are even by the positive law of God free or exempt from even the supream civil coercive power of all
way as by saying they understood not by divine that which is properly and strictly divine but that only which is in a large though somewhat improper acception such and by lay-persons understand only such inferior Lay-persons Judges or Governours as in certain cases haue not from the supream power and civil laws any cognizance of Church-men Which indeed is the only rational and natural exposition of these authorities without any erroneous absurdity falsity inconvenience or prejudice as the very Canon alledged above by me at large out of the Tridentine Synod seems expresly to intimate for as much as it expresly and signally desires or confides for so it speaks that Emperours Kings and Princes will not suffer that their Officials or inferior Magistrats or Judges violat the Immunities of the Church or Church-men out of any covetousness or inconsiderancy confidens c. nec permissuros ut officiales aut inferiores Magistratus Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiasticarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione canâ—nicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu inconsideratione aliqua violent Besides the Reader is to observe two things for that of the fourth Lateran 1. That where 't is said there that Laicks usurp too much of divine right c. by divine right here we ought not nor indeed can if we will not make the Fathers to speak improperly understand the law of God but only the right belonging to God whether that right be derived immediatly from the law of God or law of man 2. That it cannot be truly said that any Clerks receive no temporal thing or benefit from the supream civil Magistrate whereas all Clerks receive from them temporal protection at least And therefore in reason owe Allegiance to such their protectors For Boniface the VIII although his authority or judgment alone without a Council be amongst very Catholick Nations or Universities of no great value or esteem in this or any other which concerns the difference or controversie For we know well enough how his extravagant unam sanctam de Majorit obed is reputed in the Gallican Church and what his Letter Brief or Bull was to a King of France where he declared them all Hereticks that would not acknowledge himself to be supream in that Kingdom and as well in all temporals as in spirituals and that the same esteem indeed and as to our main purpose may be and also truly and groundedly may be entertain'd of Innocent the Third no judicious Divine that will read in Spondaâ—uâ—s Contin his proceedings against most of all the Christian Kings not in Europe only but in Asia will deny I say neverthess that for what concerns only our present purpose of the exemption of Clergymens persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coactive power under which they live and are protected our learned Cardinal alledges this very Boniface to no purpose albeit he alledge him in cap. Quamquam de Censibus in 6. Where indeed there is no such thing For in that place as it is manifest enough out of the whole chapter and purpose or matter treated therein which was only of and against Guidagia that is a kind of toll custome or exaction to be paid for the safeguard of High-wayes and out of the very words which Bellarmine would not quote because not to his general purpose or to that of proving generally all the parts of his Fifth Proposition Cum igitur Ecclesiae Ecclesiasticaeque persâ—nae ac res ipsarum non solum jure humano quin etiam divino à saecularium personarum exactionibus sint immunes it is I say very manifest hence that Boniface in that place and no other is alledged out of him doth not as much as touch upon our controversie or say as Bellarmine imposes on him that Clerks and their goods are exempt from the secular power For be it well or ill said of Boniface here that as well by divine right or law as by humane Churches and Churchmen are free or exempt from all publick exactions of secular persons whereas by such exactions all Divines and Canonists understand only tributes tolls customes or taxes whatsoever of money or other things imposed as payable to the publick and whereas the very matter treated of and determined by Boniface in that Chapter is only that of guidagia or pedagia which was a duty as it seems payable then in Italy by all travellers and for their safe convoy or safe travelling whereas he commands only there that in prosecution of a certain decree made by Alexander the IV. his Predecessor Church-men pay no such guidagia or pedagia for their own Persons or Goods which they carry along or cause to be carried or sent non causa negotiandi who sees not it is a very great inconsequence and meer abuse of the Reader to conclude that therefore Boniface the VIII supposed generally nay says it to be de jure divino positivo taking this jus divinum strictly and properly that Clerks are wholy exempt in all criminal causes and all matters whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of Lay-Princes Certainly neither doth Boniface teach any such matter there nor must any such follow out of what he either supposes or dedetermines there Because it is clear enough that certain persons even meer lay-persons may have a priviledge from all kind of taxes and yet be subject in other causes and other matters both criminal and civil to such as impose taxes For Iohn the VIII That who ever please to consider that whole chapter Si Imperator quoted by Bellarmine will be convinced this Pope intends no more but that as it is fitting the Emperour himself should for what concerns Religion learn from and not teach the Church so in Ecclesiastical matters it was Gods pleasure that Clerks should be ordered and examined and if they chanced to fall into an errour should be also reconciled on their return not by the Lay-powers but by the Pontiffs and Priests Which these words omitted by the Cardinal recipique de errore remeantes do sufficiently insinuat Besides that any man knows it is a very weak and sensless argument of a positive law of God for any thing or any duty or any priviledge that either Iohn the VIII or any other even a whole General Council should speak in this manner Omnipotens Deus voluit it was the will of God unless they had withal and on the debate or controversie it self made of purpose an express Canon declaring that thereby or by such manner or by these words it is or it was the will of the omnipotent God they mean'd to signifie not the general or special providence of God or his good will or pleasure known only to us for example in the present matter of Exemption because we see the Clerks as to many things are exempted so by the laws of Princes and that we know this could never have been done by Princes if God had not moved their hearts to do so For
judge of all without further trouble to turn those monuments either sacred or prophane That in the former Section I have already shewen at large the impertinency or unsufficiency as to his general Assertion of his quoting the 47. of Gen. and 1. of Esdras 7. for what concerns the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes and therefore need not say any more of these two Scripture places here That for his other two Scripture places the first out of the thirtieth of Exodus and second out of the first chapter of the book of Numbers neither of both has a word importing as much as a bare exemption of the Levits from all kind of tributs or from any at all but onely from the half ficle which was to be payed for the use of the Tabernacles by all the children of other tribes who came to 20. years So that I cannot but be somewhat troubled when I see this great man alleadge Scriptures after this rate 1. Because this very exemption of the Levits from paying that half ficle is by consequence onely concluded out of the second of these places or both together forasmuch as in the late or in that 1. chap. of Numbers verse 48. God commanded Moyses not to muster the Tribe of Levi and that in the former place or 30. of Exodus 12. v. we find that each one mustered was to pay to the Lord or for the use of the Tabernacle half a sicle ten of our pence 2. Because these very places tell that all the children boys and youths of what ever tribe who were under twenty were as well exempt from that payment because from the muster as the Levit were not to speak besides of the female Sex 3. Because it were certainly most ridiculous to conclude hence that all those young men besides all the women young and old were in all things whatsoever exempt from the supream civil Magistrate from the supream lay Judges and Kings that succeeded those Judges Nay and extreamly ridiculous to conclude from even a general exemption of the Levits from all kind of tribute did such appear as it doth not to conclude I say their personal exemption and in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt from those supream lay Captains Judges Kings whom yet God himself appointed to rule all the Tribes aswell of Levi as others That for his other citations out of Aristotle Caesar and Plutarch for what concerns other nations and Priests of Gentils either Greeks Romans or other soever I took the pains to find these Authors and turn the places quoted and read those whole books quoted by him that is that whole second book of Aristotles Oeconomicks and that whole 6. book of Caesars Gallick warr and that whole life too of Plutarchs Camillus but found all against our learned Cardinals exemption or his latitude of it That Aristotle hath not a word of Priests either in that second book or in his first which are all the books he hath of Oeconomicks or de Cura Rei familiaris as the Latins entitle them but onely in one place of the second where he tells that when on a time Taos King of Egypt was to march his Army and wanted money Chabrias the Athenian gave him Council to tell the Priests of both Sexes that for the charges of the warr he found it necessary to lessen their number That hereupon the Priests every one for himself to be continued gave the King money And that again after this money so received the same Chabrias the second time advised the King to command the same Priests to spend thenceforth but the tenth part on themselves and sacrifices of that they had till then and give him the other nine until he had ended the Persian warr If this import any thing out of Aristotle for Bellarmine's purpose or not rather directly against his purpose of a law of nature or nations for the exemption of either as much as Priestly Clerks or Gentil Priests from the supream Civil power it imports all things els he please That Caesar indeed hath somewhat more likely of the Druides of Gaul Druides à bello abesse consueverant neque tributa unà cum reliquis pendunt militiae vacationem omniumque rerum habent immunitatem And yet here is no more but vacation from warr exemption from tributs and immunity for all their goods Not a word of their being exempt from the supream Civil Magistrat generally in all kind of things or causes or indeed in any thing at all from his supream power And still whatever is said here is said onely of the Druides of Gaul Not a word in all that book of Caesars of the Priests or customs of all other nations or of any in exempting so generally their Priests if peradventure Caesars telling That the Druides of Gaul had their discipline from the Druides of Brittain be not a testimony of such Custom of other nations which cannot be said That for Plutarch in Camillus he tells there I confess how after the Gauls had possessed Rome for seaven months the Capitol onely excepted which the holy Geese of Iuno's Temple by their gagling preserved and after the violence of a great plague and the power of Camillus had beat them away and forced them back to their own territories the Romans nevertheless were in such fear of their return that they made a law for the exemption of Priests from warr so it were not against the Gauls For these are the very words of Plutarch there and all the words he hath in that whole life of Camillus of any such matter or of Priests at all 'T is improbable therefore that Bellarmine ever troubled himself to read Plutarch when he quoted him for his purpose here of a law or custom amongst the Romans for the general exemption of as much as their own Priests in all things or even too in any thing from the supream civil power of their State Here they are not exempted in some cases as much as from the duties of warr That for what concerns that priviledg of Constantine and for what appears out of that his Epistle to Anulinus recorded in Euseb l. 10. cap. 7. I elswhere shew as I bring that Epistle at length in the next Section that Constantine was farre enough from granting thereby any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends either of the persons of Clergiemen from asmuch as the most subordinate inferiour lay-Judges or of their goods from taxes but onely an immunity or freedom from publick offices as those of Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs Constables Collectors c. That finally for those words of Iustinians law who sees not they are to no kind of purpose alleadged certainly how subject soever any Divine or other person on earth will say Clerks are to either supream or subordinate civil Magistrats in all kind of temporal causes yet will the same Divines and all other persons and at the same time freely acknowledg with Iustinian the equity of making a difference twixt divine and human things
extended them to other Kingdoms and that besides they were after approved of and received by the Bishops of such other Kingdoms That neither Gratian's insertion of them into the body of his Decretum nor the publication of his Decretum as such by the approbation authority or command of Popes makes them hoc ipso to be extended or of more binding authority in the nature of laws then they were before such insertion publication or approbation command or authority or makes them hoc ipso to be laws for the Catholick Church but onely to be more authentick whereas we know there are a thousand authorities alleadged by Gratian which are not therefore binding laws to the Church Thirdly that whatever may be said of Inferiour lay Judicatories judgments or Judges nothing at all can be with any kind of colour inferr'd hence against the supream of the Emperour himself in any matters whatsoever laws or canons whereby his power may be conceived whether right or wrong to be any way limited Because the supream extraordinary and absolute judgment of the Prince is never understood never signified by or comprised under the general notion or common use of these words secularia judicia as the Prince himself is not understood by the general or common name of a Judge or of a secular Iudge being these words or the like according to the common use or meaning signifie onely such as are such by special office and not him at all who by a supereminent power creats both these and all other even much higher Officials For it is a rule among both Civilians and Canonists That the words of any Canons Institutions or other laws whatsoever though Canons or laws of priviledg must be stâ—â—cti juris and strictae interpretati nis where otherwise a very great inconvenience must follow or where they derogate to a former uncontroverted right of any third person and much more when by any other interpretation they derogate to the supream authority either spiritual in the Pope or temporal in the Emperour and most of all when they ruine and quite destroy either in relation to their subjects being that in so much they are purely odious though in other points where no such prejudice is they are purely favourable And Odia restringi favores autem convenit ampliari is a rule of the very Canon law in Sexto Now who sees not there can be nothing more inconvenient in it self and more odious to Princes then that so vast a number of both men and women living within their Kingdoms and going under the name and title of their Subjects should yet be exempted wholly from their even supream royal power and in all cases whatsoever civil or criminal Pursuant to the former rule is that other which Felinus hath cap. uit de sanâ—nia Quoties species a â—â—â—it aliquid generi numquam appellatione generis venit species Now Iu â—ex secularis and judicium seculare is a genus Rex Imperator c. and judicium supremum Regium or judicium supremum imperiale is a species And pursuant also to both rules is the doctrine of that celebrious late Doctor of Paris Andreas Duuallius de suprema Rom. Pontif. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q. 4. p. 264. where notwithstanding his being so great and known a stickler against the ancient School of Paris for the Pope in too many things yet he writeth thus Notum est nomine Cleric rum c. It is manifest that in any odious matter Bishops are not comprehended under the name of Clerks nor sometimes in the same matter â—ther Religious men under the name of Mâ—nks neque similiter nomine Dominorum Reges nor likewise Kings under the name of Landlords Govern us or Lords in regard of the height and Majesty of the Royal dignity c. And finally pursuant to the said rules and their meaning or scope it is that we read the same or the like other exceptions and of several other particulars from a comprehension under general notions in Armilla verb. Abbas n. XI verb. Clericus n. 2. verb. sacerdos n. 1. Sayrus tom 1. l. 3. c. 33. Navarr tom 2. commentar in cap. Finali de simâ—nia n. 5. Silvester verb. excommunicatio 19. n. 82. Parag. Quadragesima tertia Innâ—centius in can sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis Moreover as it is a general maxime That in a general concession or priviledge how general soever the words be such things are not to be understood as granted which evident reason tell us that in all probability the Prince or Pope or other Legislator or graunter of such concession or priviledge would not grant by any means if he had reflected or thought on it in particular so it must be as general a rule That in a general prohibition of any law or Canon and how general soever the words be such things are not prohibited which if reflected on in particular right reason tells us that in all probability it could not have been the intention of the makers of such a law or Canon to prohibit them Out of all which it is evident enough that no Divine or Canonist may conclude from the prohibition of this Council of Agde or of this Canon of it or of this second part of the said Canon that the Fathers comprehended or intended to comprehend the supream absolute and extraordinary judgment of Kings or Emperours under the general notions of secularia judicia but onely such as were commonly understood by such those I mean of subordinate inferiour Iudicatories and from which there might be upon rational grounds and by the concession or permission of their Prince or custom of the Country even at that very time wherein these Fathers lived an exemption of Clerks For who is so bereaved of common sense as to say that the Councils of Christian Bishops in those days would be so high or unreasonable or rather so mad as to prohibit Clerks not to appear at all before the King Emperour or other supream Magistrate though called upon and expresly commanded to appear before them which yet these Fathers must be said to have decreed in this Canon or second part of it if Bellarmines allegation of it be to his main purpose here of Exemption of the Clerks by this Canon from even the supream civil coercive power or if it be against mine here also which is that no Canon hath ever yet so exempted them not even this of Agde or which is the same the same thing if secularia judicia in this Canon reach even to the very supream of the Emperour or other King and in all cases and causes temporal civil or criminal whatsoever But if Bellarmine or any other for him see no absurdity in granting this to have been the meaning of this ancient though onely Provincial Synod of a few Bishops of Guien onely he must pardon me for not joyning with him in so hard a censure or opinion of such scandalous consequence of any Catholick Coucil especially so
ut cumque summus sit non poterit huic immunitati aut exemptioni propriis legibus propriaque authoritate derogare So farr the learned Cardinal hath helped us on in this matter by giving us to our hand the authors and places quoted albeit only to shew against William Barclay that himself was not single in asserting such a power to the Pope But for these natural reasons or theological if you please to call them so which to solve is my business at present he hath left his Reader to seek Which makes me say that he hath not at all removed the cause of Barclay's admiration as he ought to have done Barclay admired that so learned and so judicious a man as Cardinal Bellarmine should maintain that the Pope could exempt the Subjects of Kings from all subjection to Kings and this without any consent from the Kings themselves adding as a further cause of his admiration how it was confess'd that before such exemption by the Pope those very persons so exempted by him or attempted to be so exempted to wit the whole Ecclesiastical Order of Clerks and even as well Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs and the very Pope himself as other the most inferiour Clerks were all of them primitively originally and even by the very law of God subject to the secular Princes in all politick or civil and temporal matters and yet as a further cause adding also that the law of Christ submitted unto in Baptisme deprives no man of the temporal rights he had before baptisme and consequently deprived not for example Constantine the Great when baptized of the lawful power he had before he was baptized over the Christian Clergy Now that Bellarmine should go about to disswade Barclay from his admiration because forsooth he quotes five School-men that is four Divines and one Canonist who taught the same thing and produces only the bare words of the Assertion of two of them on the point but no reason at all of theirs or of any others or of his own for such assertion may seem to men of reason a strange way of perswading another man and master too of much reason As if Barclay should cease therefore any whit the less to admire so gross an errour in Bellarmine that some others also had fallen into the same errour before or after or together with him Nay if Bellarmine had not preposterously fixed on those very men for his companions or patrons who contradict themselves so necessarily that is at least virtually and consequentially in this matter or if he had only fixed on such Divines and Canonists who speak consequently however ungroundedly of the exemption of Clergymen as of divine right which I confess the generality of Canonists do then peradventure he might have seemed to have alledged somewhat though indeed very little to allay Barclays wonderment For truly those he alledges betray themselves and his cause manifestly whereas they hold also manifestly and at the same time that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino Which being once granted who sees not the main difficulties which lye so in their way as not possible to be removed for asserting a power in the Pope to make laws for that exemption independently of Princes Who sees not that the Pope cannot make or impose what laws he please to bereave either Prince or People of their temporal rights or of what part soever of such rights he thinks expedient or convenient And who sees not otherwise that he alone must de jure be ot least may de jure make himself to be the sole supream Prince on earth in all temporal things at least amongst Christians And therefore consequently who sees not that being the Pope is not so nor can be so nor can lessen the Princes temporal authority over his own Subjects where-ever the law of God doth not lessen it and what I say of the Pope I say too of the whole Church who sees not consequently therefore I say that neither Pope nor Council nor other authority of the Church if any other be imaginable can or could so exempt Clerks from the power of Princes being that before such exemption all Clerks were subject to Princes and by the laws of God and nature subject to them But for as much as it appears undoubtedly that Bellarmine was one that did not or at least would not see these either Antecedents or Consequents being he sayes in plain terms and in his own name also de Potestate Papae in temporalibus supra cap. 38. That whether the supream temporal Princes themselves have or have not or could or could not exempt ecclesiastical while in their Dominion from their own supream temporal power potuit tamen voluit summus Pontifex istos eximere aut jure divino exemptos declarare yet the supream Pontiff could exempt them so and hath exempted them so or at least could declare and hath declared them antecedently exempted so by divine right that is by God himself in holy Scripture or at least in his revealed word either written or unwritten Neque possunt Principes etiam supremi hanc exemptionem impedire That neither can the Princes even supream hinder this exemption and That all this is the common doctrine of the Divines and Canonists cui hactenus non nisi Heretiei restiterunt which none hetherto but heretick's have resisted and forasmuch also as not onely Franciscus Victoria Dominicus Soto Martinus Ledesma Dominicus Bannes and Didacus Covarruvias above particularly quoted but even the generality of Canonists and late School Divine Writers seem to be of the number of those that with Bellarmine did not or would see the same Antecedents and consequents and lastly forasmuch as we have already solved all they could say for their contrary assertions either out of Scripture or out of the laws and canons nay and out of not onely some other extrinsick authorities of other authors Philosophers and Historians I mean for what concerns matter of fact or the point of Clergiemens having been already exempted so by any whomsoever but also all the arguments grounded on or pretended from natural reason or which Bellarmine framed above for his law of Nature or Nations for the Clergie's being already so exempted now therefore to fall to that which onely is the proper subject of this present Section let us consider those other arguments pretended to be of natural reason or even of Theological reason if you please to call it so as it may perhaps be justly called because suppoâ—eing some principle of Faith which we find in other Authors as in Dominicus Soto and in Franciscus Victoria for the being of such a power in the Pope or Church or in either or in both together as purely such or as purely acting by a true proper certain or undoubted power of the Church as the Church or as a Church onely For thus it is they must state the question and that they do questionless suppose it stated Though I confess
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
purpose Nothing but against oppressive taxes contrary to law and former customs and taxes too imposed by the Consuls only and Rectors of particular Cities Nothing in specie against even any such oppressive taxe tallies exactions collections laid or made by an absolute order law or constitution of the supream civil power or of Kings Emperours States who certainly are not understood by the names of Consuls and Rectors of Cities And however this of taxes of Clerks be nothing at all for the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the supream civil power in all other civil and criminal causes whatsoever which only is it we dispute of here Nothing besides but what was convenient for the Government of the people within the Popes own temporal Patrimony for which only the additions of Gregory were unless it pleased other Countreys and of themselves to receive his said additions Finally nothing but what the Pope Innocent might as justly have decreed in case he believed certainly that Clerks had their exemption whatever it be from the sole civil power as if he had believed they had it only from the Church or from himself or some other of his Predecessors in the See of Rome 3. For although cap. Ecclesia sanctae Mariae de constitutionibus be a meer papal constitution of Innocent the Third only and hath indeed an expression which imports some such thing as the exemption of Churches and of the persons too of Churchmen from the power of Laicks yet forasmuch as this expression is not specifical or not in specie relating to or comprising the very supream lay power it self but so generical only as these words which are the words there concerning this matter Nos attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super Ecclesiis personis Ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa potestas and consequently forasmuch as these words may have a very true and rational sense notwithstanding the subjection still of the persons of Clerkes to the supream lay power because the civil laws or customs which prevailed at that time under Innocent the Third or which is the same thing because the Emperours themselves had given or permitted under themselves to the Church and Churchmen proper Ecclesiastical Judges for all their own both civil and criminal causes how ever still subordinat Judges in such causes to the Emperours and the same must be said of other Kings who had granted the like Ecclesiastical Judges and moreover forasmuch as this canon or chapter of Innocent is only a decision of a particular controversie in matter of a possession controverted betwixt a certain Church called here the Church of S. Mary and a certain Convent termed likewise in this canon the Convent of St. Sylvester which possession was adjudged by a certain lay judge called Senator against the said Convent without previous confession conviction or examination of the same Convent and those words above or meaning of them no part of that which was intended or decided by the Pope in this canon but assumed only and that also transiently as in part importing his reason or motive to remand that possession back to the said Convent and that we know the reasons motives or suppositions expressed in a sentence or canon are not therefore defined by the Pronouncer of the sentence or maker of the canon and further yet because those words neither distinguish nor determine by what authority or law that is whether by divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical authority or law it was so enacted that lay-men could have no power in the causes of Church-lands or Church-men and because too they say nothing at all of any Pope's having made such a law whether by a true or only pretended power as did incapacitat all kind of Laicks even the very supream civil Magistrate himself or indeed as much as the very subordinate inferiour lay Judges from having any judicial authority over Churchmen finally because those words of themselves take away no such authority from Laicks but only at most signifie the not being of such authority attributed to Laicks whatever those Laicks were and by what means soever it came to pass not to be attributed to them therefore it is plain enough this canon Ecclesia sanctae Mariae is to no purpose alledged for Bellarmin's voluit that is for the matter of Fact of any Pope's having done so or having exempted so by his own Power all Clerks from the jurisdiction of even supream lay Princes or even of having declared them so exempted by the law of God himself 4. That albeit also cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto and cap. Clericis de Immunitate Ecclesiar be two meer Papal canons as made by the sole authority of Boniface the VIII and although it be confessed this Pope did challenge all the both spiritual temporal power on earth in Church and State to himself alone as likewise consequently to his Predecessours and Successours in the See of Rome which his extravagant Vnam sanctam De Majoritate obedientia and his other proceedings against a King of France besides the later of these two canons here quoted the said cap. Clericis can prove abundantly yet I dare confidently averre that neither of these canons of his however otherwise too too exorbitant at least the later of them comes home enough to prove that any Pope hath de facto by his own meer Papal authority exempted Clerks in all civil and criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of Lay Princes or hath de facto as much as declared or defined that Clerks have been so or are so exempted by the law of God in such causes from the said supream power of temporal Princes That for the former canon seculares de foro competenti the case is clear enough out of the very words and whole tenour of it Which being but short I give here altogether not omitting one word Seenlares judices qui licet ipsis nulla competat jurisdicto in hac parte personas Ecclesiasticas ad soluendum debita super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur litterae vel probationes aliae indueuntur damnabili praesumptione compellunt a temeritate hujusmodi per locorum Ordinarios censura Ecclesiastica decerninus compescendos where you see first there is not one word directly or indirectly of criminal causes but only of a civil in matter of debt Nor secondly any specifical comprehension no nor any comprehension at all of Kings States or Princes but onely of those inferiour persons whose peculiar office it is to be judge twixt party and party Nor thirdly is there any word here declaring by whose law or authority that is whether by that of the Pope or that of the Church c. it came to pass that these very inferiour Lay Judges have no jurisdiction in hac parte in a civil cause of debt challenged on a Clerk or declaring how it came to pass that the proceeding judgment or determination
of a Lay Judg in such a cause of debt challenged on a Clerk should be tearmd heer damnable presumption and temerity Yet reason tels us that Boniface supposed a former law or priviledg exempting Clerks in such a cause the breaking of which law or priviledg most have been it which he calls heer damnable presumption and temerity But who made this law or gave this priviledg whether Emperours and other Kings or whether the Pope alone or even with other Bishops or also whether God himself immediately this canon of Boniface determines not at all And though Boniface therein commands the Ordinarie to proceed with Ecclesiastical censures against such Lay judges as would presume to give sentence in a cause of debt against a Clergieman yet so might Boniface have done nay and justly too have done if such a law of exemption had been formerly made by the supream civil power and onely by this power Because even in this case Clergiemen had acquired a civil right not to be proceeded against by such inferiour Lay judges And consequently the Bishops might use the censures of the Church for defence of it as they might for defence of any other civil right in either Clergie or Layety until the same supream civil power did repeal such law or transferre again such right For so long and no longer should this law of Boniface for excommunicating such Lay Judges by the ordinaries continue So that out of so many heads either joyntly or severally taken it appears this cap. seculares de foro competenti in 6. is no sufficient proof at all that ever any Pope hath as much as de facto exempted Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power though I confess it must have supposed them formerly exempted by some power in some civil causes from inferiour Lay Judges But what 's this to purpose 7. That for the later of these two canons or cap. Clericis de Immuniâ— Eceles in 6. though it cannot be denyed that Boniface flew so high therein excommunicating all Rectors Captains Powers Barons Counts Dukes Princes Kings Emperours c. who imposed on or exacted or even received from Churchmen or Churchlands or goods any kind of burdens tallies or collections and halfs tenths twentieths hundreths or any other portion or share whatsoever of their profits or revenues as likewise all Prelats and Ecclesiasticks whosoever both secular and Regular who should pay any such under what pretext soever without express permission from himself or other Bishop of Rome succeeding him though I say all this cannot be denyed to have been so notoriously done by Boniface that it was necessary to correct so great an extravagancy of his and correct it even in a general Council which soon after his death followed under Clement the V. at Vienna in France and to revoke it wholly as may be seen by Clementina Quoniani de Immunitate Ecclesiarum yet I say withal that Boniface decreed nothing in this very chapter Clericis that may be alleadged with any reason for Bellarmine's voluit that is nothing for a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of very meer temporal Princes nay nor for a power in either to exempt Clerks from such payments Not for the former power because he speaks onely here of such payment and such payments are very different from other causes criminal or civil also Nor for the later because albeit he proceed so vigorously against all such as would either exact or receive such payments how freely soever made otherwise or would submit or consent to such payments without his own express consent yet all this he did as supposing the lands and other goods of the Church and the Churchmen themselves before exempted from all such payments and yet determines not here nor else where it was by the power of either Pope or Church they were so before exempted And Boniface perswaded himself that by what power soever they had been so exempt or by what law soever divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical those of Emperours or Kings or those of Popes or other Bishops it was his own part to see an exact observance of such exemption and that he might to this end make use of his Ecclesiastical or spiritual censures And questionless had his supposition been true in the whole latitude of it concerning an exemption so general from all kind of tributs taxe c. in all contingencies whatsoever and by what power soever even the highest supream civil on earth laid on or received from Churchlands Goods or Persons he might observing due moderation command under meer and pure spiritual censures the due observance of such exemption though granted only by the meer temporal power and civil laws But this supposition was not right and he exceeded therefore and therefore too this Decree of his was totally annulled in the above Clementina Quoniam as I have said already 8. That for the Bull which is commonly called Bulla caenae as being yearly and with so great solemnity published and renewed at Rome on Maundy Thursday when the last Supper of our Lord is specially remembred whence it is that name of the Bull of the Supper is derived nothing at all can be concluded from it for any such voluit of Bellarmine For albeit amongst twenty special excommunications contained therein against several sorts of persons or delinquents there are at least four large ones with a huge variety of clauses particularly against so many sorts of infringers or presumed infringers of Ecclesiastical Exemption Immunity or as that Bull calls it Ecclesiastical Liberty videlicet XIV XV. XVI XVII XVIII Excommunication yet as the Pope assumes not pretends not in this Bull that himself thereby gives that liberty so he determines not therein who gave that liberty immunity or exemption to Churchmen whether God or Man And if man whether the Popes themselves or Church or whether not the Emperours and Kings As neither doth he there determine that in truth they had formerly from either God or Man or Pope or Prince or State or Church all those liberties or even any in particular of those liberties against the infringers of which he proceeds in that Bull with so great severity The Pope therefore only supposes that Churchmen had by some law or some fact of God or Man of Church or State or of the lay Princes and people these liberties But from which he sayes nothing in the Bull. Now we know that suppositions are no arguments of a determination in the case For so our own School-Divines and Bellarmine himself elsewhere de Concilior authoritat and truth it self do teach us whereof I have before given the reason Whence it appears evidently this Bulla caenae is to as little purpose alledged as any of those former papal canons for the Popes having been he that gave de facto Ecclesiastical Exemption from either supream or subordinate secular Judicatories in temporal matters whatsoever
only such causes as are meerly Ecclesiastical That Peter Martyr in cap. 13. ad Roman not only teaches the very same but further adds that Princes could not give Clerks the priviledge to be exempt from or not to be subject to the politick Magistrats because sayes Martyr this would be against the law of God and therefore that notwithstanding any concessions of Princes Clerks ought alwayes to be subject to the secular Magistrats And that Ioannes Brentius in Prologamâ—nis and Melanchthon in locis cap. de Magistrat subject Ecclesiasticks to the secular Tribunals even in matters and causes Ecclesiastical But who is so weak as to be frighted from any truth because maintained also or asserted by some lyars Or who knows not that all both Hereticks and Arch-hereticks too joyn with the most orthodox in many both Philosophical and Theological Natural and Moral Divine and Humane positions and even in very many of the most precise uncontroverted revelations of Christian Faith Must it be suspected to be a Christian Truth that Jesus Christ is the Messias promised that he is the Son of God that there are three persons in the Godhead that there are some Sacraments of the new Testament that Christ was born of a Virgin that he suffered for Mankind that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead c. must I say any of these be suspected not to say rejected because Melanchthon or Brentius or Martyr or even Calvin himself or Luther beleeve and maintain them against other Hereticks If therefore they or any other such as they taught also this truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from but subject to the supream civil coercive power of Princes which only is it I undertake here to maintain must Bellarmine therefore think to fright us from saying the same thing although we say it not at all because they did And yet I must further tell the Readers and Admirers of Bellarmine although my task here require it not 1. That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of a yet more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the di-drachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condemned nor censured at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters 2. That if Calvin pretend no more but that Clerks ought to be subject in politick matters to the supream temporal Magistrate and where the same temporal doth not exempt them insomuch he speaks not his own sense but the sense he was formerly taught in the Catholick Church which yet in so many other points he unhappily deserted Thirdly That although if Martyr be understood also of inferiour Magistrats as I doubt not much he ought to be his addition be absolutely and simply false yet if understood of the supream onely as perhaps others may understand him and of Clerks living still as Subjects under any such temporal power supream and acknowledging and owning it for such and themselves for Subjects Martyr was not out by saying in this Hypothesis that Princes could not in secular matters exempt Clerks from the secular Magistrat vz. from the supream secular Fourthly That although also if Brentius and Melanchthon understood by causes Ecclesiastical those which are purely and originally such and not those which by custome onely or concession of Princes or because onely permitted or delegated by Princes or their laws to the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Judges are now and have been a long time called Ecclesiastical vz. per denominationem extrinsecam by an extrinsick denomination from such Ecclesiastical Judges not by any intrinsick assumed from the nature of the causes which in themselves otherwise are meerly civil or temporal as for example usury adultery theft committed in Sacred places or of Sacred things c I say that although if not this latter kind of Ecclesiastical causes but the former be understood by Melanchthon and Brentius and if they further mean'd that Clerks are to acquiesce finally in the judgment or determination of the temporal Magistrat in all such pure Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes it must be confessed their doctrine or this meaning of it is very false and heretical yet if they understood onely the second sort of Ecclesiastical causes and by secular Magistrats intended onely the supream secular it must be also confess'd that in so much they spoke orthodoxly Besides that none may upon rational grounds deny to Kings and other supream temporal Governours a certain kind of external and temporal or politick and civil superintendency even of the very truest and purest Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes of the Church such as are those of believing this or that to have been revealed by God of Ministring the Sacraments in this or that manner and with convenient or decent rites c. Provided they do not use nor attempt to use immediately by themselves or even mediately by others and by vertue of their own proper authority other means or execution of such superintendency but such means and execution as are meerly temporal and corporal or such as are answerable to the civil power and sword Which kind of superintendency and supream civil coercive judicatory power annexed and I mean also annexed in order to such spiritual causes no man will deny to Kings that will consider it is onely from their supream coercive power the Ministers of justice derive authority to put any man to death for Apostacy Infidelity or Heresy in Faith or doctrine or Sacriledg in the administration of Sacraments For it is not the Bishop or Church that by any power Episcopal or Church power adjudgeth any Clerk to death for denying or renouncing Christianity or any Priest for poysoning his communicant at the Sacred Altar or with a Sacred or unsacred hoast but the King and State and their laws and power So that these onely are still the supream Judges for temporal and corporal and civil punishment or coercion whether by death or otherwise and let the cause be never so spiritual or let the crime be committed in matters or things never so purely strictly or solely Ecclesiastical And therefore if Brentius and Melanchthon intend no more but this by saying that Ecclesiasticks were not exempt but subject even in causes Ecclesiastical to the supream civil power they both meand and sayed in so much but what the Catholick Church had taught them As if they meand any more that is if they meand to say that Ecclesiasticks
all Catholick Writers as well Divines as Canonists But surely either he was not in earnest or he did not esteem any of the holy Fathers or holy Expositors of Scripture for a thousand years nor any other of those most celebrious and Catholick Authors even Scholasticks even eminent men and even within all along down the very last five centuries of Christianity since the Schools begun to have been Divines Then which to esteem or say nothing could be esteemed nothing could be said more untruly or injuriously as will appear out of my allegations in my next Section of at least those indeed the most eminent nay the only indeed eminent Divines for matter of authority and belief to be given their sayings without further examination or expectation of their reasons And the reasons which he gives and which you have presently seen above being only these two viz. that the Pope absolutely exempted Clerks from Christian Princes but not absolutely from Heathen Princes and that the Princes themselves exempted the Clerks from themselves are both of them demonstrated already by me to be without any sufficient ground even in the very papal canons or Imperial Constitutions whatsoever the first in my LXXI Section and the second in my LXVIII LXIX Section and by consequence proved to be manifestly false though I speak it with all reverence to the dignity and person also of Cardinal Bellarmine Besides I must tell our learned Cardinal that I have also ruined already all those arguments framed by his grauest Writers to prove as much as a power in the Pope to exempt Clerks So that suppose he did flatter himself or impose on others that some one Pope or other or even many or all of them together or one after another had set forth Bulls of such Exemption without the consent of Princes all would signifie a meer nothing to prove that consecution of Barclaye to be no right consecution unless Bellarmine did first prove by better Arguments that the fact of Popes or their decisions must be concluding arguments of their power from Christ to do so or to determine so or so Which I am sure Bellarmine himself hath never yet proved and therefore and for many other reasons yet farr more pregnant am very certain that none else will or can at any time hereafter prove And what I say and have said and proved before of Popes to have no such power the very self same I shall in this very Section and other following arguments therein sufficiently prove of Princes that is that Princes have no power invested in them to exempt the Clerks of their own dominions and such Clerks I mean as acknowledge themselves Subjects or indeed remain so and acknowledge too those Princes to remain still their Princes Kings or Soveraigns that I say such Princes and all Soveraign and Christian Princes are such as all Clerks of their own Dominions are such too have no power invested in them to exempt such Clerks from their own supream earthly lay or secular power in temporal causes Whence also must be consequent that Bellarmine to no purpose alledged against Barclaye's consecution suppose he did truly alledge it that Christian Princes exempted Clerks c. And yet it is certain still he did not truly but for the matter it self falsely pretend this exemption to be given by any Princes Fiftly and lastly how vain that reason is which besides that of Infidel Princes not acknowledging the papal Power and Christian Princes acknowledging it he gives for a further cause why the Pope exempted Clergiemen from the power of Christian Princes but not from the power of the Heathen But to consider the more clearly and throughly how vain not only that reason but his whole answer is in this particular of Heathen Princes and the difference he puts in the case let us repeat his own whole Latin Text of this matter Quoniam sayes he summus Pontifex Clericos absolute exemit a potestate Principum fidelium qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt a potestate autem Principum Infidelium qui ejus potestatem non agnoscunt non ita absolute exemit cum eos censuris Ecclesiasticis coercere non possit A most vain discourse truly in the whole For if all other Clerks were subject to Christian Princes before the Pope exempted them as this second answer must suppose certainly so must even the Popes themselves have been For who I beseech you exempted the Pope himself that he might after exempt others And have not I shewed a little above the vanity of Bellarmine's reasons which he brings to prove that He who is Prince of the Kings of the earth Apocap 1. exempted so the Pope Nor is that diversity which our learned Cardinal puts 'twixt Heathen Princes and Christian any one whit to the purpose or such as you may thence conclude that on the Clerks living in their Dominions or under the one more then on those Clerks living under the other the Pope may bestow the priviledge of such exemption that is any exemption de jure or by right and law not in fact only For and for what belongs to the Popes right or power from Christ if he could de jure by that right or power exempt from Christian Princes Clerks otherwise subject to such Christian Princes he should also the Christian Clerks living in the Dominions of Heathen Princes But sayes Bellarmine there is a diversity a difference in the cases And what is that Quod Papa censuris Ecclesiasticis Principes infideles coercere non potuerit fideles potuerit that the Pope sayes he might not use towards infidel Princes the coercion of censures he means Interdict and Excommunication towards Christian Princes he might An immaterial diversity in earnest a difference to no purpose at all For if Bellarmine's intention be to give this difference for what concerns the fact of exempting effectually it might very well be that Christian Princes though loaden with censures from the Pope though devoted by him to eternal maledictions would no more de facto set Clergiemen free from their own cognizance punishment c. then meer Infidel Princes against whom the Pope could not make use of his Ecclesiastical Censures But if Bellarmine gives this diversity or difference in relation to the pretended right or power from Christ in the Pope for to attempt or endeavour to exempt Clerks then must the reason be yet farr more absurd as if the Pope could not de jure exempt Clerks if he could not by his censures effectually break the rebellious contumacy of Princes For I demand to what purpose would the Pope have fulminated censures in the case Is it that he would command Princes under the penalties expressed that the Princes themselves should de jure exempt Clerks from themselves that is from their own regal Jurisdiction both subordinate and supream If this only be what is intended Ergo 't is not intended that the Pope himself could by himself de jure exempt Clerks but only that
his lawful Procurator to answer such crimes as were objected to him by the said Clergy and Academy and in the mean time to innovate nothing but to restore all things were innovated into their former state And therefore that they will find in Spondanus that this Emperour summon'd this Archbishop even as an Archbishop and consequently did not only summon and proceed against him as a Prince of the Empire but as a very Archiepiscopal Clerk and even too in a meer cause of Religion For this last particular also of the being of the cause for which the Emperour summon'd him a cause of Religion and Faith the same Spondanus hath expresly in the same place where he tells us that it was therefore the Pope Paul the III. who then sate in the See Apostolick thought fit by his own Letters of the 18. of Iuly immediatly following in the same year to summon to Rome the same Hermannus giving him sixty dayes for appearance before himself to wit least otherwise his Holiness might be thought to let go his own challenge of peculiar right in the See Apostolick only to proceed against so great a Clerk especially being the cause was properly Clerical and properly too a cause of Faith and reformation of the Church in religious tenets and rites and least consequently he might seem wholly to quit the quarrel of external coercion of either Clerks or Laicks where the crime was Heresie and by his own want or neglect of proceeding by his own proper Apostolical Authority against Herman whereas the Emperour had begun and proceeded already upon account or by virtue also of his own pure or sole imperial civil and lay power might be esteemed to acknowledge in lay Princes that supream external coercive right of even all sorts of very Clerks and even too of such in the very meerest and purest causes of Faith and Religion The testimony of Spondanus to this purpose is in these words Quod ut Pontifex audivit he means the summons sent by Charles from the Dyet of Worms for the Archbishop parum prohare visus quod Cesar in causa Fidei reformationis Ecclesiarum Iudicis authoritatem sibi sumeret die decima octava Iulii eundem Coloniensem ad sexagesimum diem citavit ut per seipsum vel per legittimum procuratorem coram ipso Romae se sisteret To that also which Bellarmine hath of crimina privilegiata and for as much as he sayes that in France those are call'd priviledg'd crimes whereof that Clerks may be accused before a lay Judge in the secular Court the Pope hath indulged I say it is farr otherwise And that Bellarmine could not shew nor any other can for him any Sanction or Law nay or any other authentick writing wherein it is recorded to posterity that such a priviledge was given by the Pope to Kings or Republicks Though I confess many Popes have been free enough of granting priviledges where they had no right to grant any and where only the ignorance or injustice of pretenders gave them some kind of bad excuse for attempting to give any and would willingly have all both Princes and people to desire of them priviledges for all they could themselves do before of themselves nay and were often bound to do without any priviledge Whence also it may be sufficiently evicted that it is no way probable this ordinary jurisdiction supream of Kings over Clerks was granted to them by the Pope but on the contrary certain that whereas anciently the very most Christian Kings and Emperours made use of all their both directive and coercive power to govern Clerks in all civil matters whatsoever nay and in spiritual matters too for what I mean concerns the external regiment of the Church by external direction of laws and by external coercion too of the material sword and to govern them also either immediatly by themselves or mediatly by their subordinat lay Judges and whereas the civil laws wherein and whereby afterwards the same Emperors and Kings exempted Clerks in many causes or most or if you please to say or think so in all whatsoever from the ordinary subordinate lay Judges have not a word of any exemption from the Prince himself the supream civil Judge of all both lay and Ecclesiastical Judge of his own Kingdom in the external coactive regiment therefore it must be concludent it was only from and by the free will of the Princes themselves that ordinary jurisdiction supream temporal or civil over Clerks was reserved still to themselves who remitted or bestowed away of their own right all whatever they pleased as they did that in the present case of deputing lay men for the ordinary subordinat Judges of those causes of Clerks which are not common but priviledged and retained also what they would Of all which the late and most learned Milletus may be read who in that choice and elegant Tract of his which he inscribed de delicto communi casis privilegiato shews very learnedly and clearly 1. That all such priviledges of Clergiemen had their whole and sole origen from Kings 2. And therefore that such crimes as Clerks are accused of and judged in foro civili in the ordinary civil or lay Courts are properly to be called delicta communia because to be tryed by the common law and before the common or lay Magistrate and those only which are remitted to the Bishop are by a contrary reason to be tearmed privilegiata to wit because it is by a priviledge granted by Kings or indulged by them to Bishops that bishops may take cognizance of and judge them As for Clarus and Ausrerius whom Bellarmine alledges for that his own sense of what is a priviledged crime of Clerks or for any other Canonists soever I regard not much what they say or not say in this matter Because they all commonly and without any ground not only bereave Princes of this supream right of either coeâ—cing or directing Clerks but also teach that all kind of meer temporal Principality flows and depends from the Papacy As that Legat did who in a Diet of the German Princes had the confidence to ask or querie thus A quo habet Imperator Imperium nisi habet a Domine Papa For so Radevicus hath related this Legats folly And so having throughly destroyed all the replies of Bellarmine to the grounds or any part of the grounds of my second grand argument and of the proof of it which second argument and proof of its Minor I derived partly from and built upon his own principles of Clergiemens being Cittizens and parts of the politick commonwealth I am now come to My third argument of pure natural reason which shall end this present Section Though I withal confess the grounds of this third argument are already given in my illustration of the former second But however for the clearer methods sake because too the medium is somewhat different from that in the form of my foregoing second I would give
be confessed that the French and English Kings were their Protectors and Defenders against the Kings of Spain Or who would say that Henry the Second of France was King of the Confederate Princes of Germany although it be confessed also that the said Confederate Princes chose him for their Protector And as little doth that other reason or pretence and allegation of Bellarmine cives illi leges regni sponte servent that the Cittizens of that so exempted Citty do freely observe the laws of the Kingdom make any material difference in the case unless peradventure that if the Spaniards would receive the laws of France and by an express Statute enact these laws for themselves or otherwise out of custom observe them it must be granted that consequently the Spaniards renounce their own Principality and yield themselves to that of France But if Bellarmine understand or mean that Citty so exempted to be no more of the Kingdom then is the similitude to no purpose being himself grants and averrs that after and notwithstanding the exemption of Clerks Kings are not onely Kings of the Laymen but also of the Clergiemen Reges esse nonsolum Laicorum sed etiam Clericorum Reges Yet as for the reasons which he gives for this concession and asseveration I must say they are childish and unworthy of Bellarmine The first is that Clerks do freely observe the politick laws But I have rejected this presently or a little before Nor indeed can it be said with any colour that it some Nation as for example now the Armenians did receive observe the laws of a forraign King as for example too those of the King of France or Poland or Spain c. therefore such Nation must be said to acknowledg this forraign King for their own King The second is quia Clerici causas quas cum Laicis habens cum actores sunt aâ— tribunal iâ—sius Regis deferunt in judicio sententiae ejus in ejusmodi causis acquiescum that Clerks when being Actors against Laicks bring their causes to the King's tribunal and in such causes acquiesce to the judgment and sentence of his temporal Court or politick Judges But who sees not that this is not to acknowledg him to be their King And who sees not that there is no other subjection of Clerks herein but such as is acknowledged by meer strangers forraigners aliens and such as is necessary in all kinds of judicial proceedings If a Frenchman have a suit with a Spaniard if any man of this King 's natural and legal Subjects commence a suit against the Subject of an other King and living still in the Dominions of this other King must not such a Plaintiff or such an Actor apply himself to the Courts or Judicatories of the Defendant that is to those of this other King Will the Plaintiff therefore acknowledg this other King to be simply or absolutely his own King will a Spaniard if he sue in France and before French Judges acknowledg therefore the French King to be his own King or will a Hollander sueing an Englishman in England therefore acknowledg the King of England to be his own meer trifles Actor sequitur forum Rei And therefore as you rightly conclude that he is the Defenders King simply and absolutely before whom in the case he is convented so is it unreasonably inferred that he is the Actor's King before whom such Actor convents an other But sayes Bellarmine Clerks do pray in specie for the King and pray thus Pro Rege nostro N. For our King N. c. And what is more against Bellarmine For hence nothing follows more directly then that the King is King of Clerks also and that Clerks are his Subjects For who can conceive the King to be King of Clerks and yet that Clerks should not be his Subjects Being that as Almainus de sup potest c. q. 2. cap. 5. teaches Aliquem esse Regem nihil aliud est quam habere superioritatem erga subditos in subditis esse obligationem parendi Regi c. One to be a King is nothing els but to have a politick both directive and coercive power of superiority over all the people of his Dominions and that consequently there be obligations answerable on the same people as Subjects to obey him However Bellarmine would needs by so many absurd arguments uphold his very absurd sentences which say in plain tearms the King to be King of Clerks and yet Clerks not to be Subjects to the King a Citty or people to be absolutely free and yet have the King for their King and themselves for part of his Kingdom and which in word consequently confound the very notions of King and Subject and of ruling and being ruled But certainly nothing could be said to confirm and illustrate more my purpose here or that of no power in Kings to exempt Clerks from their own supream power then that Bellarmines answers and reasons for the contrary are such wretched ones indeed Out of the refutations of which and of all said before in this Section especially in prosecution of my second and third Argument it will be obvious enough to frame this other in behalf of that Corollary or Incidental Position which I gave only as an appendix of my third argument Whoever have and continue any office which essentially involves a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions may not devest themselves of the power of directing and coercing the same Clerks unless they do withal devest themselves of that office as towards the self same Clerks Because they cannot devest themselves of the essence of that which they hold still or while they hold it or for the time wherein they are to hold it this arguing a plain contradiction But the office of Kings involves a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions For this I have proved already and at large by very natural reason Ergo whoever have the office of Kings may not devest themselves of a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions unless with all they devest themselves of the office Kings as towards the self same persons Now we have seen hitherto that not only by reason and experience but even by our learned Cardinals own concessions and allegations Kings have not devested do not devest themselves of the office of Kings towards the Clerks of their Dominions but on the contrary that Kings are truly properly and essentially Kings also of such Clerks And consequently too we have seen that while the case is so and for the time it shall be so with them they cannot by any priviledges at all they have given hitherto or shall give hereafter so exempt Clerks as to exempt them from their own supream directive and coercive power And so I end this LXXII Section of my three grand Arguments of all their appendages composed partly of undoubted Theological
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
and which only questionless those framers intended to give their Kings either in spiritual or temporal things or causes But hereof elsewhere It sufficeth at present that these good Abbots of Constantinople by this title of Headship by consequence or implicitly and virtually concurr in acknowledging the supream civil coercive power of the Emperour over all Clergiemen even the very Pope himself being that Headship could be no other but a Headship of civil direction by his civil laws and coercion by the material Sword And it sufficeth moreover to conclude that not those holy Fathers only who purposely expound or expresly apply the text of Paul ad Rom. 13. by Pauls more sublime powers understand the civil Princes but all other holy Fathers also who acknowledge as they all do the subjection of Churchmen to Princes do by consequence or implicitly and virtually understand the very same And therefore out of all said hitherto out of the holy Fathers I conclude my main purpose in this third way that is I conclude that as I have formerly or in my two former wayes both out of the â—etter of the text and end of it ruind all the several three answers of our Adversaries to my fourth grand argument in this Section out of St. Paul so I have now in this third way out of the clear sense or doctrine of the Fathers concerning the sense of that text of Paul as delivered to us by Tradition or especially in their writings or at least by such of them as purposely expound St. Paul To all these evidences nay to the very clearest most express and particular of them to the point for the sense of the holy Fathers generally or of any one or moe of them our Adversaries find no other answer but first to say as Bellarmine doth against Barclay cap. 3. that etiamsi non eximebat Apostolos ab â—â—la subjectiâ—â—e professio Christianae Religionis eximebat tamen principatus Apostolicus qui sublimior est omni principatu naturali albeit the profession of Christian Religion did not exempt the very Apostles themselves from that subjection to say Princes yet the Apostolical Principality which is more sublime then any natural Principality did exempt them Secondly to say as others do cont Fâ—â—g there is a great difference twixt the Sacrament of Baptisme and that other which is of Holy Orders For say they Baptismus relinquit hominem in comwani hominum caetu Ordo verò elevat ad Paternitatem etiam supra Principem Baptisme leaves a man in the common ranke of men but Order rayseth to a paternity or fatherhood above even the Prince himself Albeit not onely the reasons given by several of the holy Fathers in some of those very passages quoted by me already in this present Section evidently destroy these last answers also as they do the three former and shew them to be against the letter of the law and end of the law and against that very sense too which those Fathers themselves conceived and believed to have been of Paul in that general precept omnis anima but also my own discourses and reasons given partly in my two last Sections LXXI and LXXII in answer to some objections or evasions of Bellarmine and of others yet I think not amiss for the Readers more ample satisfaction fuller confutation of our Adversarie's in this also to handle briefly the same matter again with some necessary additions as a further illustration of what I said before And therefore I observe First that for what concern's Bellarmine's said evasion or pretence of Apostolical Principality which he sayes did exempt the Clergie albeit their profession of Christianity did not and must say also if he will answer to the argument grounded on the now given doctrine of the Fathers that the Fathers intended not to teach that that of Apostleship did not I say we must observe first that whereas that of Apostolick principality or Apostleship is as they grant found or continued onely in Bishops nay perhaps according to their doctrine found or continued in the chief Bishop onely that is in the Pope alone it must follow that either onely the Pope or at most the Bishops onely must be exempted by this evasion of Bellarmine Why then doth he exempt and notwithstanding S. Paul by the very law of God pretend to exempt the rest of the infinit multitude of inferiour Clerks from lay Princes whether the same Princes will or no nay why doth he and others of his way pretend to exempt so or even by the sole canons the very cooks and scullions of Clerks or Monks cap. Parrochianos de sent Excom in 6. O Vemerandos lixas for I may here against my Adversaries exclaime and admire so with a certain late Writer extra omnes saeculi potestates positos qui scilicetâ—e monachali culina vncti adeo pulchri emergunt vt sacram ordinis Ecclesiastici vnctionem aequiparent ipsos vnctos Domini Reges dominos suos non agnoscant I know my self sayes the same writer a little pittifull dorp or village in Insula Vegliensi of scarse a hundred straw or thatch'd houâ—es wherein there are above three-score Priests and other Clerks who use to confess ingenuously that so many of them take orders of Clerkship to the end they may be freed from the burdens wherewith other Plebeians or the Peasants are loaden by their Prince especially from rowing in the gallies So that under pretext of Sacred orders Princes are deluded by their own proper Subjects the commonwealth suffers ac interim Ecclesia repletur quisquilijs otiosorum imo sordidorum sacerdotum sayes he But however this complaint be well or ill grounded and however that abuse be of the priviledg of Clerks by the Clerks themselves or by the intention or design of such as receive orders it is not my intention here or elswhere to complain of the observance of all or any priviledges of theirs which the Princes themselves have bestowed or custome hath allowed them In this Authors admiration onely I concurre where instancing the very cook of a Convent he exclaims at the pretended exemption of Bellarmine or of even such a cook from the very supream civil power of all earthly Princes in all causes whatsoever Secondly I observe and answer directly or rather directly refute both the above last answers of Bellarmine and his fellow-stickler that if Baptisme ought not to be injurious to Princes by exempting their subjects from subjection to them so neither should Apostleship nor any sacred Order Because otherwise it is plain enough that Princes would have just cause to apprehend the growth admission or tolleration of the Faith of Christians or of themselves To prevent which apprehension or fear of Princes and of their people too it was the Fathers tel us that even Christ himself would have that subjection which himself did owe presumptively but his Apostles naturally observed not onely in and by his Apostles but even by himself too as
of the didrachma and for his own very person Matth. 17.27 But this Boniface exalting himself in so much that is in temporal power above earthly Princes and States farre more then nay quite contrary to that which our Lord and Saviour Christ is read to have done himself in mortal flesh at any time or by any Instance had the confidence to attempt the bereaving even the very highest supream temporal Princes of those rights and of those duties which by the very law of God himself were theirs and were to be paid unto them unless peradventure themselves had voluntarily devested themselves of such rights or freely remitted such duties in this or that contingency I have before Section LXI though upon an others occasion and to other purpose quoted the Canon which is in cap. Clericiâ— de Immun Ecclesiaâ— in 6. wherein and whereby Boniface made this bold attempt as particularly or specifically excommunicating and by an excommunication too reserved for absolution to the Pope himself nisi in articulo mortis all Officials Rectors Captains Magistrats Barons Counts Dukes Princes and even all Kings and Emperours and generally all others of whatever praeeminency condition or estate who should upon any kind of occasion title or pretext whatsoever impose any tallies taxes collections or any tenths twentieths or hundreths upon any Church persons Churchlands or Church-revenues or who should exact or even receave any such without special licence of the Apostolick See and moreover excommunicating all orders and degrees of the very Churchmen themselves who should as much as promise to pay or consent to the payment of any such impositions or even promise or consent to pay or give any kind of money or quantity or portion of money to such Princes States Lords Officials c under any other title as that of a charitable subsidy or help-money or that of loane-money or that also of gift-money without the authority or licence of the said Apostolick See But this too excessive boldness of Boniface was both acknowledg'd and corrected by Clement the V. and by the General Council of Vienna In which Council the said Clement presiding that canon of Boniface with all the several branches or declarations of it was totally expung'd and abolished as appears by Clementina Quoniam de Immun Ecclesiaâ— But whether that Decree of Boniface was principally made by him in hatred of Phillip King of France as whom Boniface could not or would suffer to bestow the Ecclesiastical benefices of France at his own pleasure on such as he would and impose also or receave from the Churchmen or Church-revenues of France such moneyes as he wanted for the carrying on of his warr in Flanders whether so or no I say it matters not For he made it and made it generally even for all Kings Emperours c. Indeed the Gloss in Extravag Quod olim de Immunit Ecclesiarum sayes it was for the former cause he made that constitution as also that out of it orta fuerunt multa scandala Vnde Clemens Papa in Clement Quoniam de Immunit Ecclesiar voluit quod antiqna Iura servarentur non alla Constitutio But we know out of Ecclesiastical History the first original and whole procedure and by what degrees Boniface came at last to that extravagancy as to write also to that very Phillip that he held them all for Hereticks who did not acknowledg the Papal supremacy in the Kingdome of France and in all temporals as well as in spirituals Which great exorbitancy as well of the said canon as of all the precedent concountant and subsequent proceedings of Boniface occasion'd so much trouble to the vniversal Church as we know the translation of the Papacy it self to France and the frequent long scandalous and pernicious schysmes betwixt Anti popes which enâ—â—ed thereupon amounted unto For so it naturally and commonly happens that while the spiritual Prelats of the Church do according to the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church with all Christian humility obey the temporal Princes in temporal matters the Church it self and these Prelats in her enjoy Halcyon dayes peace and rest and tranquillity as that when and as often as the same Prelats replenish'd with the spirit of this world lift up their horns against Princes pushing at their temporals there is nothing to be seen but scandal and trouble and woe and calamity both in Church and State And so I have ended my comparison 'twixt the more ancient holy Popes and some of their later successors in the matter of subjection and obedience as due or not due from all Clergiemen and consequently from the very Popes themselves in temporal things to supream lay Princes I mean forasmuch as can appear out of the law of God and I mean too where Church-men themselves are not by humane right the supream temporal Princes And consequently do not mean at all by this or any other dispute or passage in this whole book to assert the subjection of Popes as they are at present though not at best but by humane right onely supposed by some or perhaps most writers to be absolute in their own temporal Patrimony and Principality that I mean of some Citties and territories of Italy and to be wholly exempt even in all kind of temporals from the Imperial power As neither do I on the other side mean to assert their such exemption or any in all kind of cases and temporals from the Emperour but abstract wholly from both the one and the other as not concerning my purpose Which purpose as I have often declared is onely and solely to oppose the exemption of all or any Churchmen in the world even of the very Pope himself from lay temporal Princes in temporal matters upon any such account as that of Sacerdotal Episcopal Papal or even Apostolical Order and my particular purpose in this present Section being to prove their subjection to lay Princes by the examples or practise of as well Popes as other Bishops nay and of most Christian Princes too in the more ancient and more holy Ages of the Church Now who sees not it is very wide from this purpose to dispute whether any Churchman any Bishop Arch-bishop Patriarch or Pope hath upon some other account been at any time or be at present exempt from all earthly powers of other Princes that is whether upon account of meer humane right given them by the Emperours or people as that acquired by donation prescription submission a just or lawfull conquest or by sale and emption c Or to dispute whether the investiture or election of the German Emperours to the title and rights of the Empire of Rome and King of the Romans or whether also the entry of their Embassadours to Rome with a naked sword in their hands or carried before them which the Embassadours of other Princes have not nor do challenge whether I say these very ceremonies be sufficient or no to hinder the Pope to be absolutely or independently
then stood either of such crimes peradventure till then private as they charg'd with one the other or of the indeed publick and truly general concern of all for which the Council was called not to bring at that time or before that Council any such scandalous accusations and animosities of orthodox Bishops to debate and therefore advised both the accusers and accused to choose rather to leave also the amendment expected or wrong done to the judgment of God himself on the final day when he shall judge us all so also it must be said that he mean'd not thereby to disown or deny his own proper civil imperial and external coercive power of such crimes or such criminals but only the expediencie of acting at that time and in such an occasion and for such crimes against them as a judge and therefore advised them not to press him therein but leave all to God and in the mean time agree amongst themselves Which and no other to have been the meaning of Constantine in that famous saying of his if it was his at all I have evicted before I mean by his after carriage towards criminal Bishops in so many publick famous instances throughout all his life and by the general silence of all Bishops and Popes too who yet were all most highly concern'd not to be silent if he had miscarried as much as in any of those Instances By all which questionless and by the natural equity of such meaning and conformity of it to the express law of God in many places of holy Scripture and particularly in St. Paul's 13. chap. to the Romans I say it is clear enough that if you attribute not that saying of Constantine in the strictness of the words to some then present excess of piety and reverence towards those Bishops he treated with or of tenderness or care of their esteem or to at least a civil complement and politick art of his to carry on the more easily all the Bishops united together in peace against the heresie of Arrius this I have now given and no other must of necessity have been his meaning in all the several branches of that very saying And so I have done with great Constantine the very first Christian Emperour who established the Church by law and consequently who deserved more and better of the Church then all Emperours Kings or Princes that preceeded or succeeded him to this day Only this I will add in relation to that so famous a saying of Constantine if it was his and particularly to that part of it wherein he desired the Bishops to refer all these accusations to the great judge of all Christ our Saviour himself on the final day and to use no other means of punishing constraining or forcing one the other by their own authority and at least in such things as properly concern'd the execution of their Episcopal office towards their respective flocks in relation I say to this part of that saying or the meaning of Constantine I will add that Constantine might have heard of others or perhaps of himself learned and read in St. Cyprian's works for Cyprian was before his dayes what even this great and holy Martyr Bishop himself said to this purpose openly in a great Council of his Affrican Bishops of all whom as being himself the Archbishop of Caâ—thage he was Primate Neque enim sayes he in Concil Affric de Herret Baptis quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adegit quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tanquam judicari ab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterum judicare sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui unus solus habet potestatem praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro judicandi So this blessed Cyprian intending and signifying if I be not very much deceived the parity of Bishops amongst themselves or inpendence from the judicial authority or authoritative judgment of one another if we regard only the immediate law of God and therefore exhorting them all not to judge one another by any such pretended authority but to leave all their differences or dissentions whatsoever about their several or distinct wayes of discipline or of the government or spiritual direction of their respective flocks to the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who sayes he is the only and sole he that hath power both to prepone us in the government of the Church and to judge of our act For sayes he before none amongst us takes upon himself to be the Bishop or a Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannical terrour to force his collegues to a necessity of submitting whereas every Bishop hath his own proper arbitrement pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae according to the pleasure of his own liberty and his own power so as he may not be judg'd by another as neither can he judge another Wherefore sayes he immediatly after concluding let us all expect the judgment of our lord Iesus Christ c. Which final and peaceable advice of St. Cyprian to the Bishops of that above mentioned Affrican Synod Constantine the great may be thought to have alluded unto in his advice also being it is so like given to those other Bishops of the Nicen Council But whether certainly it be so or not it matters not much here or any more at all then to shew upon what ground Constantine might have advised the Bishops to peace amongst themselves and for pure ecclesiastical differences in point of meer discipline or reformation of manners or of the lives or conversation of the Bishops themselves in peace and unity to expect if they were not otherwise of one sentiment or equal edification the judgment of God alone and not proceed to the censure of one another especially in the occasion then present of the grand controversie with Arrius of the chiefest fundamental of the Christian Faith it self and in it self abstracting so much from all personal sailings in life and conversation of either Bishop Priest or Laick Nor doth it matter at present how or in what sense we must understand this saying of Cyprian or every or any particular branch of it further then that of Constantine and in his right meaning which I have before given is parallel to it To proceed therefore from Constantine to more Instances of matter of Fact in other Emperours and Kings who succeeded him Constantins one of the sayd Constantin's three Sonns who were Emperours together offers himself first For this Constantins would have and accordingly had the criminal cause of Stephanus the Patriarch or Bishop of Antioch as being accused de Vi publica Lege Cornelia de Sicarijs of murther to be tryed in a secular Iudicatory and before himself in the Palace and not by any means in the Church Praetor
opinion or rather certain and true judgment of such a power in the Emperour as properly and essentially belonging to his Imperial office it was that the orthodox Bishops of Syria writ also to the same Emperour Leo for punishing by his own Imperial power according to the laws of the civil Commonwealth Timotheus Elucus Bishop or Patriarch of Alexandria as by the same laws and against both the same laws and Princes too being guilty of various crimes but in particular of adultery and murder De delictis autem say they post Câ—ncil Chalced. praesumptionibus quas nefandê commisit Reipublicae legibus corum praesulibus judicio competenti subdetur Where you see a meer secular judgment called or said to be a competent judgment of criminal Bishops And indeed that the banishment of the said Timotheus which soon after followed by the decree of this Emperour Liberat. Brevi c. 13. proceeded onely from his own proper Imperial power not from any Church power or from any commission or delegation from the Church we may gather sufficiently out of the 100. epist of the above S. Leo the Pope wherein he writes thus to Gennadius Dilectio tua eniti elaborare debit ne redeundi integram capiat libertatem de quo jam Edictis suis Princeps Christianissimus judicavit Finally pursuant to the same knowledg of the Imperial power and authority from God for judging and sentencing the criminal causes and inflicting corporal punishments in such criminal causes and on such Clergymen as were found guilty Pope Simplicius epist 9. 11. beseecheth the Emperour Zeno Vt quod per nos sayes he Ecclesia seriò postulat imô quod ipsi specialiùs supplicamus Petrum Alexandrinae Ecclesiae pervasorem ad exteriora transferri piissima praeceptione jubeatis But to leave this judgment of Popes or other Bishops of the power and authority Royal in the case which Judgment as such of the power is not the proper and primary subject of this section or at least of this part of it and to return to matter of fact onely and this of the Princes themselves acting by particular Instances The next Prince I offer to the Readers consideration is Theodoricus King of Italy For this Prince albeit an Arrian as to his beleef of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ yet in all other points of Christian religion and in his veneration and observance of the Church and Churchmen and of their priviledges and exemptions in general and this without any distinction of Arrians or not Arrians he was precise wary and strict enough nor is there any reprehension or complaint of him in History as not being so And yet he is recorded to have admitted of and discussed the accusations drawn and presented to him by the very Catholicks themselves both Layety and Clergye against Pope Symmachus Of which matter Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes thus in Symmacho Post annos vero quattuor aliqui ex clero zelo ducti aliqui ex Senatu maximè Festus Prâ—binus insimulaverunt Symmachum subornarunt falsos testes quos miserunt Ravennam ad Regem Theodoricum accusantes beatum Symmachum occultè revocarunt Laurentium post libellum Romae factum fecerunt Schysma divisus est iterum Clerus nam alij communicaverunt Symmacho alij Laurentio Tunc Festus Probinus Senatores miserunt relationem Regi caeperunt agere ut visitatorem daret Rex Sedi Apostolieae quod canones prohibent And albeit upon debate this King at last remitted this cause of Symmachus to a Council of Bishops and that by the same King's licence several Councils of Bishops convened at Rome to sift it throughly which Councils I have amongst others and upon an other occasion quoted in the marginal note of my introduction to this first Treatise pag. 1. yet no man can deny that he admitted the accusations and thereupon and as judg of them and of the whole cause exercised several judiciary acts as having a legal power or Christian authority to do so Nor did Symmachus except or resist nor did any for him or in his behalf or in behalf of the Church or of Ecclesiastical Immunity reprehend Theodorick for doing so Nay we have seen before in this Treatise Sec ... this very Symmachus himself openly professing that he himself would yield to God in the Emperour's person to wit by obeying him in humane things as we saw him desiring on the other side that the Emperour should likewise revere God in the person of the Pontiff doubtless for what concern'd spiritual or divine matters The Catholick Emperour Justinus proceeded yet more imperially in the criminal cause of Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica For this Bishop being accused of sedition and of several murders too and particularly of the murder of Iohn who was one of the Legats of the See Apostolick and the rest of the Apostolick Legats being his accusers before the Emperour and being so also by express command from Hormisda the Pope whose Legats they were and he too that was murdered and this Pope himself pressing hard that the said Bishop Dorotheus the supposed murderer of his Legat should either be deposed by the Emperour from his Bishoprick and sent to banishment farr from his place or See and Church or certainly be sent to Rome with all fit prosecution of his cause Iustin indeed proceeded to a judicial tryal and sentence of the criminal Bishop but with so much regard of his own imperial power in the case that he neither did the one nor the other which Hormisda so earnestly pressed for Of all which the Suggestions amongst and after the epistles of Hormisda and these epistles themselves particularly the Suggestion which is after the 56. epist and the second Suggestion after the 64. epist and the 57. epistle in it self may be read Promittit say the Legats writing to the Pope Sancta Clementia for so they stile the Emperour vindicare citare Dorotheum quia nos contestati sumus pietatem ejus c. And Hormisda himself the Pope epist 57. writing to the said Legats Nam eumdem Dorotheum sayes he Constantinopolim jussu Principis didicimus evocatum adversus quem Domino filio nostro Clementissimo Principi debetis insistere ne ad eamdem civitatem denuo revertâ—tur sed Episcopatus quem numquam bene gessit honore deposito ab eodem loco ac Ecclesia longius relegetur vel certè huc ad urbem sub prosecutione congrua dirigatur But wherefore doth not this Pope command his Legats to insist upon the delivering of such a criminal a criminal Bishop into their own proper custody hands and power to proceed against him to judg and punish him as they shall find cause being they alone and not the Emperour were his competent Judges in the case if we believe our Bellarminians and Baronius wherefore do not these Legats wherefore doth not this Pope himself being denied what he desired fulminat excommunications against Iustine
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
either give the spiritual power of the Papacy or take it away from any or should conceive that after the Church had legally revoked that power she once or twice gave Emperours to chose or elect for ever all Popes nay and all other Bishops too of the Western Church yet the Emperour could institute the Pope And the sense also wherein I condemn that Article for both parts is that which any should conceive or express by saying in other significant words that both the spiritual institution and spiritual destitution and the spiritual correction and spiritual punition of the Pope or the punition of him by spiritual wayes or in a spiritual manner or at all by the spiritual sword belongs to the Emperour as such or as only Emperour without any delegation or commission from the Church And the sense moreover wherein I condemn that Article as at least false is that whereby any might conceive that not only before the Popes were legally invested in those temporal principalities which they now enjoy and did enjoy or at least pretended to enjoy as supream temporal Princes in the time or a little before and after the time of Ioannes XXII but also after they were and are legally invested and possessed of a supream temporal independent Soveraignty if I mean they be so re vera at all which is not my business here to determine did I know well how to determine it it belong'd or belongs to the Emperour to give as much as the sole Temporals of the Papacy or take them away from the Pope or as much as to correct or punish him in any other though meer temporal civil or corporal way of coercion by the civil or material sword Now 't is clear enough that neither my Thesis in general concerning the subjection of all Clergiemen whatsoever to their own respective civil Princes nor my particular deduction from it concerning the very Popes themselves and their subjection likewise to the Roman Emperors before these Roman Emperours were legally devested of the real Soveraingty of Rome are touch't by the condemnation of either part or both parts together in any such sense of them or of either of them as I have given hitherto And it is no less clear to me that the reasons of Iohn the XXII against this third Article drives at no condemnation of it in any other sense For amongst these reasons one is the forged donation of Constantine the Great cap. Constantinus dist 96. And another is composed of a plain denyal or plainly false exposition of cap. Adrianus xxii Dist xliii and cap. In Synod ead Distinc and of a posterior revocation by the Popes themselves of the priviledge granted to Emperours in those Canons nay and of a renunciation made of that priviledge by later Emperours also So that if we gather the sense wherein Iohn the XXII censured this third Article even for either of both parts joyntly or severally as we may and ought to gather it from the reasons which he alledges against it we must evidently conclude his censure to have related only to those times wherein the Pope pretended the very temporal and legal supream independent authority or Soveraignty of the City of Rome and of some other Principalities and to those times also which preceded such priviledge given to the Emperours or followed the revocation and renunciation of such priviledge not to the time during which it held But it is apparent enough that my doctrine concerning the Popes subjection to the supream civil coercive power of the Roman Emperours had relation to those other times only wherein the Popes without any peradventure most expresly confessed themselves and to those moreover wherein they should so according to the truth of things confess themselves to be de facto and de jure subject in all temporals to the Roman Emperours And therefore is is likewise apparent enough that I am no way concern'd in this Article of Marsilius and Iandunus or in the condemnation of it Much less am I concern'd how false or how true the Popes allegations or how weak and unconcluding his reasons are which he makes against it and which are the only motives as he pretends of his definitions against it for the very chief Assertors and Defenders of the infallibility of pure Papal Definitions in matters of Faith confess that the reasons alledged by Popes in their definitive Busts are no part of the definition it self nor as such have any kind of infallibility not tye any oâ—her to approve of them further then their own proper native evidence works the understanding to an assent And yet withal as I said before so I now say again that Iohn the XXII's reasons against this third Article of Marsilius and Iandunus prove sufficiently that the doctrine of a supream civil coercive power as warranted by the law divine both natural and positive to be in Emperours or lawful Kings of Rome to coerce judge and punish the very Pope himself in criminal causes when the Pope was no supream temporal Prince or when or if at any time hereafter he shall cease to be such or if even at present he be not such and that he live within such Emperour 's or Kings dominions for this is it and all it I say in the exposition of my general Thesis in relation to the Pope is no way concern'd in the condemnation pronounced by the same Iohn the XXII against the same third Article because not in the sense wherein his said reasons prove he condemn'd this Article But forasmuch as it may be of some good use to the Reader not onely for a more full understanding of what I treat here but in other parts of this work to see at leingth both that no less famous then forged canon or chapter Constantinus dist 96 noted with a Palea in Gratian himself and those other true canons or true Chapters Hadrianus and In Synodo dist LXIII for as true and undoubted these two are by all men quoted and accounted I will not loose this occasion to give so here all three consequently If you think your labour lost in perusing them and you will not if you be not extreamly uncurious you may skip over them to my observations on the 4. and 5. article of Morfilius Ex Gratiano distinct XCVI cap. Constantinus Constantinus Imperator quarta die sui baptismi privilegium Romanae Ecclesiae Pontifici contulit ut in toto orbe Romano Sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant sicut judices Regem In eo privilegio ita inter caetera legitur Utile judicavimus unà cum omnibus Satrapis nostris universo Senatu optimatibusque meis etiam cuncto populo Romanae gloriae imperio subiacenti ut sicut beatus Petrus in terris vicarius filii dei esse videtur constitutus ita Pontifices qui ipsius Principis Apostolorum gerunt vices principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae Serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur concessam
this definition of Iohn the XXII against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever For these two positions have no contradiction 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal and civil too if you please in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church 2. This coactive power humane corporal and civil too or not civil as you please is not altogether independent in it self but is subordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes That they are not contradictory or inconsistent we see by the example of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals For the inferiour tribunals notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively are subordinat to the superiour And so I have done at last with this long discourse occasion'd by the fourth objection or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church I have proved to be very false as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church Which Catholick doctrine or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently nay abundantly demonstrated by reason Scripture and Tradition Therefore now to The fift and last of all these objections which I call'd remaining for the reason before given that objection I mean built upon the contrary judgment or opinion as t is pretended of St. Thomas of Canterbury and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore and of his canonization also therefore and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious martyrized Saint therefore This objection I confess is very specious at first as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Divine or Canonists or both it appears to and works so T is onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death but what they read in their Breviary which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me though peradventure enough to solve any T is onely amongst those who do not consider duely nor indeed have the knowledg or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely what it amounts to in point of Christian Faith as to others or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto that any one Bishop how otherwise holy soever in his own life should have especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in general or of this or that Immunity in particular or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust I care not which made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities or those were onely pretended I care not also which T is onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion or of moe perhaps and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obedient humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently represented to them because they had other sufficient manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving though I do not averr any such prepossession here nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material T is onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposition to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen and on his exile death miracles canonization invocation appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes who are supream themselves to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoever living within their dominions Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance as you have that Censure of theirs page 120. of this first Part be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines I leave to the Reader 's own better consideration when reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it he observes moreover particularly the day of the date of it so signally express'd by them in these tearms Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die â—9 Decembris gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis Angliae quondam Primatis mortyrio consecratae Anno Dominae Incarnationis 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canterbury as most proper for such a censure I know not certainly but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy glory martyrdom and how that 29. day of December of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal signal date of theirs made me ever since now and then reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground Though to confess all the truth I never met any that fram'd it methodically or put it into any due or undue form of argument for them or of objection against me but onely in general objected that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second Which is the reason and that I may leave nothing which may seem to any to be material unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self I put all which my adversaries would be at in this concern of St. Thomas of
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
at the meeting at London which was before that of Clarendon or Northampton So that as Baronius or Spondanus out of him or both say it was to excuse his own King that Neubrigensis fixes on this of our holy Archbishops denyal to deliver to legal punishment those criminal Clerks as on the onely cause of the following tragedy being it was so specious a cause on the Kings side to quarrel with the Archbishop even so I cannot but say that I think these two great Annalists have of purpose albeit without sufficient ground contradicted Neubrigensis to excuse the Saint even also in this very particular instance as well as in all other of the difference being such a demand must appear to most men on first sight to be but very just on the Kings side and consequently that the denyal of it must on the Archbishops side appear to the same men at least too too rigid if not unjust as to the matter in it self though I for my own part verely believe the Saint apprehended it farr otherwise nay am certain he did as I am also at least very probably perswaded that he apprehended it so upon very just grounds and very true even in themselves objectively But however this matter be of the sole cause and because it is not much material to my main purpose whether of the two Neubrigensis or Baronius out of those other Authors speaks most exactly of that or if it be any way or in any degree material that surely Baronius's observation of others causes to have proceeded must be for me and though to help Neubrigensis as likewise to illustrate the matter in it self a little more I can add Hoveden ad an 1163. where he writes thus Eodem anno gravis discordia orta est inter Regem Angliae Thomam Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum de Ecclesiasticis dignitatibus quas idem Rex Anglorum tuebare minuere conâ—batur Archiepiscopus ille leges dignitates Ecclesiasticas modis omnibus illibatas conservare nitebatur Rex enim volebat praesbyteros diaconos subdiaconos alios Ecclesiae Rectores si comprehensi fuissent in latrocinio vel muâ—dra vel felonia vel iniqua combustione vel in his similibus ducere ad secuâ—ariâ— examina punire sicut laicum Contra quod Archiepiscopus dicebat quod si clericus insacris ordinibus constitutus vel quilibet alius Rector Ecclesiae calumniatus fuerit de aliqua re per viros Ecclesiasticos in curia Ecclesiastica debet judicari si convictus fuerit ordines suos amittere sic alienatus ab efficio Beneficio Ecclesiastico si postea fâ—ris fecerit secundum voluntatem Regis Bailivorum suorum judicetur therefore now Secondly you are to observe the progress of this great jealousy of the Kings whatever the sole first cause of it was and you are to observe it also out of Baronius who takes it from Robertus or Heribertus one of the said four Authors of the Acts viz that in the same year of Christ 1163. the same King Henry the Second being mightily incensed against our holy Archbishop of Canterbury and convening at London both him and rest of the Bishops of England and urging vehemently that such criminal Clerks as those before mentioned should after canonical punishment inflicted on them in the Ecclesiastical Court be delivered nevertheless to the secular Court our said holy Archbishop and not he alone but all the other Bishops unanimously and flatly refused to do so That hereupon the King being wholly enraged as seeing them all to a man so unanimous against him in that point demanding of them whether they would observe his royal customs consuetudines suas Regias they all having first consulted together and every one apart being demanded so apart answered they would with this caution Salvo ordine suo That when the King urged them to promise absolutely that they would without any such caution onely Thomas answered that when they had formerly sworn allegiance and fidelity to him Vitam scilicet membrum honorem terrenum salvo ordine suo in this earthly Honour the Royal customs were comprehended and that they would not oblige themselves in any other form to their observance then in that wherein they had formerly sworn That although Hilary Bishop of Chester seeing the King more and more incensed vehemently by reason of such their unanimous answer did without advising with the rest change that contentious caution into these other two words bona fide promising that himself would observe the Royal customs bona fide yet the King was nothing at all appeased but rejected him also with contumely and after many altercations departed full of anger and indignation from London without saluting any one of all the Bishops That matters continueing thus for some time next year after which was 1164. Thomas of Canterbury being much importuned by the reasons and desires of many Bishops and Abbots to conform himself in the controverted point to the Kings pleasure one of the Abbots having also told him that Pope Alexander himself when he had heard of these altercations had given way to and licenced such their conformity Thomas I say being perswaded at last by such arguments accoasted the King and promised him that he would alter the word or the caution which gave so much offence to His Majesty in that which related to his Royal customs or to the form of their oath for observing those customs That the King being hereby somewhat appeased and withal desirous that such alteration should be made publickly in Parliament or in a general Assembly of all the three Estates summon'd the same three Estates Lords spiritual Temporal and Commons or Magistrates as Baronius calls them to meet at Clarendon this very year 1164. and upon the thirtyth of Jan. That this great Assembly being sate and the King urging the performance of what was so promised Thomas apprehending again mightily that such performance might prejudice Ecclesiastical Immunity fell back from his promise nor could ever be brought on to it again or to acquiesce to the King either by any threatnings or by any blandishments of his untill at last moved by the continual intreaties prayers geniculations tears of as well the Bishops as of others of the Clergie and Nobility and by the present danger of prison banishment death represented by them to him he chose rather sayes Baronius to obey them then him that is he chose rather to be perswaded by them then by him and however this be acquiesced at last and first of all and in the presence of all the Bishops and whole Parliament swore to observe the Royal customs bona fide omitting and suppressing the contentious caution or words Salvo ordine and that immediatly after him all and singular the other Bishops every one a part for himself took the same oath and in the very self same tearms or form And you are to observe here how Roger Hoveden a
contemporary English man though Latin Writer and who might therefore have known the truth and was most likely to have writ but what he thought was the truth especially in a matter of such consequence being he is reputed to be a sincere Historian and as such quoted often by Baronius himself tels us in his Annals that S. Thomas and the other Bishops had Pope Alexander's consent to swear in that form however Baronius deny it for this reason forsooth that Alexander being some time after this accoasted by S. Thomas when he fled out of England and presented with the heads of those were called the Royal customs did soundly check him for ever having upon any tearms sworn to observe them That after this Parliament or great Council of Clarendon was broke up and upon S. Thomas his departure from the Court there it happening sayes Baronius out of a certain Supplement annexed to the Acts of S. Thomas that he was grievously rebuked by his Cross-bearer as having by such his carriage and oath betrayed the libertyes of the Church the Saint immediatly and most deeply sigh'd repenting what he did therein and presently also dispatch'd an express to Alexander craving an absolution and purposing in the mean while to abstain from all both Pontifical and sacerdotal office and ministery and that to his letter the Pope return'd him an other full of comfort whereby also after commanding him to confess his sins to a discreet Priest he absolved him from the said oath That when the King had heard how the Archbishop fell off the second time and refused to sign and seal the agreement of Clarendon according as it was there also agreed that he should sign and seal it nay and that he refused to stand at all to his oath whether seal'd or not seal'd being much more bitterly exasperated then ever he sent Embassadours to Alexander and to desire particularly two things of him viz. 1. that the Legantine Power Apostolick used to be entrusted to the Archbishop of Canterbury should be given for the time to the Archbishop of York and that his own Holyness would be pleased to confirm the foresaid Royal customs That Alexander upon this embassy finding himself in streights on each side that is on the point either of alienating for ever from himself that Kings good affections to whom nevertheless he owed so much for benefits receaved formerly on of granting his desire to the prejudice of the Church or Church liberty thought fit to use this mean for saving all viz. to bestow that Legantine power on the Archbishop of York whereby to satisfie the King in some degree and yet to deny him the confirmation of those Royal customs that the Church might not suffer writing withall at the same time to the Archbishop of Canterbury our S. Thomas and exhorting him earnestly that by all means he should endeavour to observe and please the King always and in all things Salva honestate Ecclesiastici â—rdinâ— That in a conjuncture wherein by other letters of a later date this Pope Alexander had restrained so that Legantine power of the Archbishop of York that he should have no power at all over Thomas of Canterbury's person or Diocess or to exempt the Suffragans of Canterbury from obeying him still as their own proper Metropolitan in all Metropolitical rights thereby frustrated the Kings great design in desiring that Legation for York being this design was no other but to get Thomas canonically deposed wherein the King being therefore in earnest angry even with the Pope himself had rendered the said Legaâ—tine Commission useless to all other lesser purposes now that the Pope had so rendred it to the said great purpose that I say in this conjuncture Thomas of Canterbury with the rest of the Bishops being called by the King to Northampton to give aâ— account of the revenues of the vacant Churches which he had while he was Chancellour administred and being accordingly brought to a strict account of these revenews and after demanding the advice of the rest of the Bishops when he had heard most of them advising that either he should renounce and give up his Archbishoprick or obey the King in all things having desired time to consider till next day and having also early on that next day celebrated the Mass of St. Stephen the Protomartyr as preparing himself for martyrdom which on that very day he hoped to suffer having carryed secretly about himself the most Sacred Hoast according to ancient custom but publickly carrying in his own hands his own Archiepiscopal cross and going in this manner to the Palace he was both scorn'd and derided by his own Suffragan Bishops and was by them and by others also of the Kings Council and as they saâ—e in Council condemned by a sentence of deposition as a perjured man and one disloyal to the King because he refused to stand to his former promise and oath to observe the Royal customs That S. Thomas having there in presence pleaded his own cause and shewed that when he was against his own will drawn by the King to the Church or Archbishoprick of Canterbury he was at that very time of his election and promotion declared by the King to be freed of and absolved from all tyes of the Court and further declining the judgment as well of the King as of his Council and appealing to the Pope and declaring also that he did by no means quit or give up his own Archiepiscopal See he reserved the further and universal cognizance of his whole cause to the See Apostolick of Rome to which he there also and then summon'd his fellow Bishops for having chosen rather to obey men then God that presently departing Court but loaden with contumelies and reproaches of Courtiers he soon after fled or parted the Kingdom for Flanders and to an Abbey of Monks called S. Bertin's in the Citty of S. Omers whence writing to the Pope of all things done and of his Appeal and flight he obtained from his Holyness an abrogation of all such proceedings against him That on the other side while all his other lesser Adversaries in England decryed him as a fugitive the King above all being wonderfully enraged sent the Archbishop of York and other Bishops of England to Alexander to accuse Thomas and to desire his Holyness to send a Legat a Latere to England to judg of the cause depending twixt him and Thomas provided also he sent Thomas in person back to be judg'd in England That albeit these Episcopal Embassadours press'd this matter vehemently in the name of their King and even to threats of Schysme on his behalf yet the Pope thought not fit to deliver so innocent a man to such cruel Adversaries but rather that he should be expected as he was called to be judg'd by himself that is by his own Holyness in their presence and that they refusing this offer of the Pope or not content with this answer departed with much indignation
upon his landing all the Ports being by the Archbishop of York Bishop of Lendon and Bishop of Salisbury's directions beset with Souldiers his baggage was narrowly search'd of purpose to seize on all his Bulls and letters from the Pope it is manifest I say that presently after this affront when or assoon as he was come to Canterbury the Kings Ministers sollicited by the said Bishops of York London and Salisbury who were then also come to Canterbury of purpose to vex Thomas declared unto him in the Kings name that he should absolve the Bishops who were suspended and excommunicated by the Pope because what was so done against them redounded to the Kings injury and to the subversion of the customs of the Kingdom That to this declaration or demand Thomas answered first Non esse judicis inferioris soluere sententiam superioris that it was not the part of an inferiour judg to solve the sentence of a superiour And secondly answer'd when others more urgently press'd him and threatned him in the Kings behalf that for the peace of the Church and reverence he boare to the King he would run the hazard of giving absolution to those Bishops so they would swear in forma Ecclesia in the then usual form of the Church to obey the commands of the great Pontiff That hereupon when the rest of the Bishops began to yield as not thinking it safe to oppose themselves to the Church and impugne the Apostolical sanctions for the preservation of the customs of the Kingdom the man enemy of peace sayes Spondanus out of Baronius and author and propagator of all dissention from the very beginning of the troubles the Archbishop of York disswaded them advising that they should rather go to the King without whose consent sayes he such an oath could not be taken That following this advice they all immediatly crossed the Sea to the King then as yet in France and adding sin to sin sayes Baronius or his Epitomizer Spâ—ndanus sent messengers back to the young King in England â—â—o should perswade him That Thomas had sought to depose his Majesty That finally with the Father King Henry the Second himself having been otherwise before ill enough affected to Thomas though lately so as we have seen reconciled those ill advisers wrought so much by their accusations that wholy transported with rage he was heard often to let fall those fatal complaints and curses of all who had been bred with him whom he had so favoured and advanced that none of all would riâ— him of one Priest who so troubled the Kingdom and sought to despoyle him of his Royal Dignity And therefore also what is the scope of this fourth observation is manifest viz that notwithstanding the grand quarrel which continueâ— so long was about those 16. Heads of laws or customs yet the more immediat motive of the Saints death was onely that his refusal of giving absolution to those censur'd Bishops after the King was reconciled to him without any condition of tying him to the observation of the said Heads nay rather with express promise made by the King to the Pope and his said last Legats that he would no more urge their observance For as the said Baronius and Spondanus tel the particulars of this last motive out of the often mention'd Acts of his life and out of the 73. epistle of S. Thomas himself which was his last to Pope Alexander as they relate also out of the same Acts and other Historians and epistles of the Saint all other particulars given by me in this fift observation so they tell us out of the same Acts wherein as to this now all other Histories agree how the Courtiers being much moved to indignation against Thomas by these words of the King four of them conspiring the death of Thomas and immediatly therefore sayling into England and being come to Canterbury and with their swords drawn on the 29. of Dec. 1170. scarce a month after the Saint was return'd from his long exile then there broke violently into the Church when and where the good Archbishop was at evening prayers with his Monks and other Clerks and furiously calling for him by his name and the Saint hereupon being come towards them mildly and after reproving the Sextons for endeavouring to shut the Church doors and to keep out these murtherers saying that the Church was not to be kept or defended after the manner of camps non esse Ecclesiam castrorum more custodiendam telling the murtherers he was ready to suffer death for God and for asserting justice and the liberty of the Church and commanding them under excommunication not to hurt any other of his either Monk Clerk or Laick and lastly bowing down his head as in prayer and recommending himself and the cause of the Church to God to the blessed Virgin to the holy Patrons of that his own particular Church of Canterbury and to S. Denis by name and in this Christian posture expecting the fatal strokes he received them withall constancy whereby in an instant his bloud and brain mixed together with his dead trunk covered the sacred pavement Whence appears undoubtedly that whatever the former differences were twixt the King and our Saint the sole immediat later difference and onely cause of those fatal exclamations of the Kings which made or occasioned those four unfortunate gentlemen to commit so prodigious a Sacriledg was his above recited refusal of absolution to York and the other censur'd Bishops unless they would promise in forma Ecclesiae consueta to stand to the judgment of the Pope Fiftly you are to observe how it is so farr from appearing out even of Baronius or Spondanus that S. Thomas of Canterbury did break or would breake with the King or have any difference at all with him upon every of the above 16. Heads individually separatly taken as it is certain on the contrary 1. That even Pope Alexander himself even in a publick consistory where also Thomas himself was present allowed of the six last as tollerable 2. That the same Pope writing in the year 1169. epist 11. and epist 30. to the said King Henry the Second and his Bishops of England even then when the contest was in the very height took notice onely of two points in as much as he onely therein admonish'd the King most earnestly to suffer that the vacant Churches might be provided for by canonical election of Bishop and commanded the Bishops to excommunicate all both receivers and givers of lay investitures and to see that all such persons should be effectually shâ—nned by all the faâ—â—â—â— 3. That Polydore Virgiâ— in Henric. 2. â— XIII Histor Angl. tels us expresly and pâ—ainly that the grands or chief caâ—â—e of S. Thomas of Canterburys so great and long contest with his King Henry the second was that he observed this King daily advancing such Priests to Ecclesiastical dignities and even Bishopricks as were leâ—â— deserving and doing so as the King pleaded
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
are so many strong confirmations of that which is and which I gave already as in effect my first Answer in general to the fourth the grand and last of all the remaining objections as it is made in general For if I be not very much deceived they strongly confirm not onely the rational probability but the moral certainty of what I have answered so that is that Thomas of Canterbury was not of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine concerning the exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour lay tribunals and their subjection to the supream civil coercive power notwithstanding any true or pretended exemption but that he held as I do that all true Ecclesiastical exemption of either Churchmen or Churches and of the lands or goods of the Church is meerly and onely proceeding from the civil power of the municipal laws of the land not from any other law divine or human and held that by no such even municipal law Churchmen either have been or might be universally in criminal causes exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the supream Magistrat while otherwise they acknowledg themselves or indeed remained subjects And yet for exemplifying this I do not insist on that out of Parker concerning the Asyla because though he sayes 't was made a law yet I do not find it clear in him it was so by authority of Parliament but of a Synod in pursuance of the Popes Bull though for any thing I know it might have been so also by Parliament or otherwise by custom without any relation either to that Synod or that Bull. My Second answer to this grand fourth last objection is more particular cause it is to it as it is framed into a Syllogisme against me and is to each of the particular premisses a part Therefore to the Major which in effect is in these tearms whatever doctrine condemns of opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel with Henry the Second c is false I answer that for my own part and for any thing may be deduced thence I admit it or this Major and admit it simply and absolutely without any distinction and even admit it so not onely as to the immediat cause for which he suffered but as to the intermediat or grand and long quarrel concerning the 16. customs and also as to the very original or that other complex of those antecedent five differences and as to a sixt original too if you please to add a fixt whereof hereafter and which might have been the very first spring or occasion of all that followed if we believe Parker For I confess it is my own judgment whatever judgment some contemporary Catholick Authors though otherwise both true Historians and good Ecclesiastical regular Monastical persons were of to the contrary on the whole matter and for what I can judg of matter of fact in relation to those dayes of St. Thomas and to the laws were as yet then legally unrepealed in England and to that King Henry the Second I confess I say that takeing all these relations together it is my own judgment plainly that Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side in all these several following instances 1. In changing the pomp and vanity and pleasures and delicacies of his former life while he was high Chancellour of England and how splendidly pleasantly and delicatly he lived before in that office and in his other high employments of warr and peace and embassies abroad may be seen in Parker though Parker tax him not even for that time with any injustice sinfulness or viciousness but with a courtly and wordly pleasant and pompous life to the height and to humour the King and Court and in changing all I say into a life devoted wholly to God above all humane esteem and yet also unto the austerities of a most rigid Monk and Hermit as to his own body Which if Parker guess aright was the first cause or rise of the Kings alienation ever after from him before any other difference happen'd Quod he means the Archiepiscopal Pallium simul atque Thomas accepisset sayes Parker in the life of Thomas of Canterbury tam dissimili atque immutato genere vitae a priori illa curiali fuit ut Monachalem superstitionem so Parker cals it sub vestitu Clericalitexerit Nam ut scribit Trivetus and he quotes also in his Margin Roff. Hystor Arch. Nich. Trivetus Will Canter all of them ancient Catholick Historians post susceptum Pastoris officium supra humanam aestimationem factus est Deo devotus Consecratus enim cilicium clam induit femoralibus usus est usque ad poplites alicinis sub vestis Clericalis honestate habitum colens monachalem Et Wil. Cant. Paucis consciis sub lorica fidei militabat gaudens quia in triplici veste triplicem personam gereret exteriori clericum exhiberet interiori monachum occultaret intima Eremitae molestias sustineret Ex quo quidem existimare facile est quamvis Monachorum sibi studia hac dissimulatione this of dissimulation is Parkers own addition and not what he read in his Authors adjunxerit quantum tamen Regis Praesulum atque Procerum animos abalienaverit si quis ea quae de communi omnium voto de Monachis ab Episcopali dignitate deinceps repellendis in Rodolphi vita antea scripsimus animadverterit Atque haec prima esse poterat offensionis dissensionis Regiae causa quod cum antea politius urbaniusque vixisset jam odiosam illam Monachalem institutionem susceperit sive sponte sua sive quod illam obsoletam Papalis excommunicationis sententiam in Elphegi vita antea descriptum timuerit 2. In discharging himself of the Chancellours place especially being that he had no command from the King to the contrary 3. In recovering to his Church of Canterbury and by due course of law those lands which some of his Predecessors had against law alienated to lay persons and secular uses 4. In using his best endeavours that the fruits or temporal revenews of vacant Churches should not be swallowed by the Kings Exchequer 5. In declaring his judgment frankly and compassionatly for the ease of the people according to law in that case wherein the Kings Officers against law extorted from them Hyde money or accridg money and extorted it as a duty whereas it was or should be but a free benevolence at the pleasure of the people and this too but in certain cases whereof none was then 6. In not delivering the two criminal Clerks to secular justice 7. In not swearing first at the Kings demand to receive and observe the 16. customes and when he had through too much importunity and fearfull apprehensions of others and at the entreaty and perswasion and tears also of the Bishops of Salisbury and Norwich and of the Earls of Lester and Cornwal and of those two Templars Richardus de Hastings and Tâ—stes de St. Homero all
quarrel and though his body likewise had been subservient and obedient in all things to the most holy dictats of his Soul For we know that invincible or inculpable prejudice ignorance or inadvertisement against the truth of things in the course of a mans life in his actions or in his contests or even some time in his doctrine which strikes not at the fundamentals of Christian doctrine so his Soul be ever piously and charitably and Christianly and resignedly disposed to embrace truth when known either by evidence of reason or from such an authority as it is bound to submit unto doth not hinder either Sanctity or martyrdom or miracles or due canonization or a fit veneration or answerable invocation of him as even a martyrized and miraculous Saint The example of S. Cyprian that great holy martyrized Saint and Patriarch of Affrick who both lived and dyed in a wrongfull contest with even the Popes of Rome themselves and even also in a very material point of Christian doctrine is evidence enough for this And S Paul's contest with S. Peter at Antioch about the observation of the Jewish laws is evidence enough And very many other examples of great holy Fathers and Doctors of the Catholick Church who lived and dyed in material errours and material heresies too especially if the doctrine of Bellarmine in many places nay or that of even of many or rather most other School Divines be true may be produced ex superabundanti to make good this evidence 4. That the infallibility of Pope Alexander the third in canonizing S. Thomas of Canterbury and I speak now to them who suppose the Pope so infallible in all his Definitions or Bulls concerning any doctrine or fact or matter of Piety that he is so too in his canonization of Saints implyed or inferr'd of necessity that all his quarrels or at least the substantial part of that quarrel which occasion'd his death principally immediatly ultimatly not onely was just but must have been just according to the very objective truth of things in themselves and that otherwise there could be no infallibility in the said Alexander's canonization of him for a Saint and a martyr and that likewise the pursuant veneration and invocation of him for such by the Church and the miracles wrought at his hearse before he was interr'd as for example the candles lighting of themselves about his hearse after they had been quenched and his lifting up his hand after the office of the dead was ended and blessing the people c and so many other miracles wrought at several times at his Tomb after he had been long enterred that I say neither that veneration or invocation could be in truth practised without impiety or at least very much temerity not those miracles alleadg'd without forgery and fallacy nor he called a martyr in any true sense if his quarrels or quarrel as now is said with Henry the Second had not been just according to the objective truth of things in themselves For as I denyed the former three suppositions so I do this fourth also or at least I say that I am not bound to admit it First because that even allowing or if I did allow Bellarmine's or any other's doctrine of the infallibility of Popes in their Bulls of canonization and other Bulls whatsoever yet is it plain enough and even admitted by such Divines that possibly there may be an errour in some particular allegations or suppositions entertained by the Popes in the process formed for such canonization and even expressed also or insinuated in the very letters of the canonization and that no such allegations or suppositions reasons or motives are defined in any Bull of canonization or even in any other whatsoever but the principal design onely and that this in Bulls of canonization is onely that such or such a holy man is in the joyes of the blessed seeing God in the face and therefore he may be invocated as such and consequently that the infallibility which they do attribute to the Popes in their Bulls of canonization may subsist notwithstanding that some of those motives or inducements were in themselves false according at least to the objective truth of things For all which these Divines pretend to in this matter is the infallible assistance of Gods holy spirit or of his external Providence promised infallibly as they suppose to the Pope in not proposing any by such a solemn declaration to be invoked as a Saint who is not so indeed but not in supposing this or that which is said of some passage of his life nor by consequence in supposing what was the true cause of his violent death when he dyed so or that the cause was such as would make him a martyr in the stricktest sense of this word Martyr as used in the Church by way of distinction not onely from a Confessour but from such holy men who suffered violent deaths unjustly that is not by the prescript of the laws but by the power onely of wicked men or women and that too sometimes not for any cause they maintayn'd but out of hatred to their persons or to arrive at some worldly end which their life observed whereof St. Edward the Second a Saxon King of England Son to the good King Edgar is a very sufficient example who was and is invoked as a martyr and a very miraculous martyr too notwithstanding he was murthred onely by a servant and at the command of his Stepmother Alfreda as he was drinking on horseback and this too for no other cause but that her own Son Ethelredus should come to be King as presently he was made Polydore Virgil Anglicae Historiae l. VII as sometimes also for a cause which though not so clear on either side in the judgment I mean of some other indifferent men nay perhaps unrighteous on the side of the holy sufferers according to the objective truth of things in themselves yet invincibly appearing just or the more just and the more holy and pious unto them and to others also who had their life otherwise and justly too or according also even to the certain objective truth of other things in due veneration For Martyr in Greek is a witness in English and martyrdom in the Ecclesiastical use of the word is variously applyed sometime strictly to import a violent death suffered without any reluctance and suffered meerly and onely for professing or for not denying a known certain evident or notorious Catholick Evangelical truth or which is the same thing to import a witnessing or a bearing testimony to such a truth by such a death sometime largely or not so strictly however properly still to import by such a death a witnessing or a bearing testimony to a good zeal and great piety and excellent conscience in being constant to a cause which one esteems the more just and generally seems the more pious for all he knows though it be not an evangelical truth and though perhaps
insist ultimately without any change did Henry the second quit all other branches that such doctrine I say is false concedo But that whatever doctrine condemns or opposes such other branches of his quarrel whereon he would not so insist ultimately to the effusion of his bloud if the rest were quitted by the King that such doctrine I say is false nego Or even thus that the doctrine is false which condemns or opposes the Saints quarrel above the 16. Heads collectively taken concedo But that doctrine to be false which condemns or opposes the justice of his quarrel if he had any such as 〈◊〉 he had not for every one a part or for every head not onely collectively taken or joyntly with all the rest but even severally or separately taken nego Or thus also if you please yet more neer home to our purpose whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of his quarrel as in relation to the second Head of the sixteen and as it was proposed in terminis is false concedo but as in relation onely to the punishment of criminal Clerks by the supream civil coercive power or even by the subordinat when the laws of the land are for the civil Judges nego Or finally thus Whatever doctrine condemns or opposes so the quarrels or even any part of the quarrels of St. Thomas of Canterbury with Henry the Second that it also condemns or opposes his Sanctity or martyrdom in all the several and Ecclesiastical acceptions or uses or senses of the word martyrdom or opposes at all his canonization veneration invocation c is false concedo that condemns or opposes otherwise that contest only is false nego And conformably the Minor being distinguish'd I am sure the consequent inferr'd in the Syllogisme will appear to any and be in it self a meer non sequitur And further yet a fourth answer may be to the matter of this objection and a third to the Syllogisme by denying that there is any necessity to admit the Saints quarrel or controversy with Henry the Second to have been objectively just in all respects for any part of it whether original intermediat or ultimat or by denying that it was objectively prudential for the Saint to have been so rigid or so stiff in his own way and in such matters or any part of them against that King all circumstances duly considered Conformable to which answer to the matter the major and minor of the Syllogisme may be again distinguish'd and the consequence denyed absolutely as a non sequitur Which two last Answers the third and fourth I add to the former two not that I find those former two first any way defective or unsatisfactory or that I do not my self insist on those former as the answers which I own and which chiefly I would have reputed to be my own or those onely upon which I do most rely or that I do at all give this last of all or the fourth answer as my own but that I observe several reasons why it is not amiss to give them for the solution of the argument one way or an other in all sorts of judgments of Catholick writers and even also contemporary writers to St. Thomas himself who gave their judgment severally though briefly on those contests of his with Henry the Second Whereof The first reason is that St. Thomas of Canterbury doubtless might without any sin have complyed with Henry the Second that is might have had permitted him to have his will in all the several Instances or branches of the whole contro either of the first original complex of the five first or of the intermediat grand and long of the 16. customs or even of the final which was the onely proper and immediat cause or occasion of his death For to lay aside that which Parker sayes but sayes onely by guess might have been the very first of all originals in this controversy the Saint's changing his former way of living vainly and changing it into the strictness and holyness of a Saint I say that leaving this onely a side as not being to be or even indeed that was not quarreld at by the King nor quitted nor to be quitted at any mans pleasure by the Saint without sin he might cease from such earnest pursuance of those laymen who till his time held those lands alienated to them by his predecessours from the Church of Canterbury and without sin retayn his office of Chancellorship without sin abstain from hindering the temporal revenews of vacant Churches to be payed into the Kings Treasury or Exchequer and abstain also from speaking against the collection of hyde money without sin deliver over to secular justice the two criminal Clerks I say that he might without sinning have yielded in all those five instances which make the complex of the first original causes of the following evils to such earnest desires of such a King and that moreover he might without sin have yielded to him also in signing sealing the 16. customs especially when he knew all the other Estates both spiritual and temporal to have approved of them and to have entreated him so earnestly and passionatly to concurr that likewise he might without sin have abstained from appealing to the Pope and from his flight to Flanders incognito and against the Kings will and from incensing so much as he did in his voluntary exiâ—e the Papal Court against his King and from procuring or accepting a Legantine power to proceed joyntly by such an extraordinary power of Legat a latere by special commission and of his own ordinary Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction against even the King himself and from threatning and preparing himself to publish an Interdict against all the Kings dominions and from excommunicating by name and during his exile so many Bishops and others who had sided against him in the controversy of the 16. customs and from falling a new upon others at his return from exile in the temporal concerns of his Church of Canterbury lastly that he might without any sin have not only absolved the excommunicated Bishops without any condition being he very well knew they were excommunicated by the Pope at his own instance and that himself had all the Papal power might be delegated and that the injury was not such as lay not in his own power to remit without such a condition tying them to stand to what the Pope should enjoyn to or determine of them but also have permitted his Clerks to swear the oath proposed or to be proposed to them viz. that of maintaining the Kings laws and his said 16. customs for it could be no other oath I say that without sin St. Thomas of Canterbury might have so behaved himself as to have let the King have his desire in all and each of these branches and therefore in his whole controversy with Henry the Second being these instances or branches I have now repeated make up the whole series of his controversies and
York and London laugh'd him to scorn in his own presence London would have with his own hands forc'd his Archiepiscopal Cross out of his hands for the Saint himself carried his own Cross in his own hands that day to Court or to that Parliament Some came to him there and then and told him that his death was sworn by his adversaries à Regalibus as Houeden ad an 1164. relates it The Earls of Cornwal and Leister came to him where he sate to bid him hear the sentence they came to pronounce against him from the Barons notwithstanding his appeal And Thomas being in such a stress commanded them on pain of excommunication to pronounce no sentence against him that day because he had appeal'd to the Popes presence And while they return'd with this answer of his to the King slipt out alone got a Horseback and one of his Servants who was there and saw the gate shut and the Guards astonish'd and a bunch of Keyes hanging hard by lighted by chance on the right key open'd the gate no man opposing and he rode peaceably to the Chanons Regular chang'd at night his habit and took a boat privatly for Flanders to save his life What treason was this None by nature of such flight in it self nor any by any law that was then nor indeed by any binding law of man that could be in the case The law of nature gives leave to even the greatest criminal to save his life by flight when he makes no other opposition or any by force of arms or forcible resistance And Christ himself said to his own Apostles and by them to Thomas of Canterbury and such others in such cases as went against their conscience Cum persecuti fuerint vos in una civitate fugite in aliam And if King Henry refused to give leave to Thomas of Canterbury when a little before his Appeal he demanded it to leave the Kingdom and that after his Appeal he departed without any more asking or obtaining such leave that matters nothing to render him guilty of treason for the reasons before given or even to render him guilty of any other misdemeanour or even of as much as any culpable disobedience for he had leave in the case from the King of Kings and from his general law for all Christians and no positive law of man much less personal precept of man can take away that liberty among Christians because there is no law nor precept amongst Christians understood to bind against the law of God or to bereave a man of that liberty and power which he hath from the law of God and nature at least in such a case which concerns the preservation of his life when it is in such evident hazard Nor will it be to any purpose to alledge the law or custom of England since the raign of William Rufus who begun it by his bare Edict as Polydore Virgil sayes l. x. Hystor Anglic. and upon a wicked occasion which the said Rufus's general expilation of all sorts and estates of people both of the Layery and Clergie and for an unmerciful end also to wit least they should elsewhere find any redress or remedy of their evils being that as Cicero sayes those evils are more tollerable which we hear then which we feel which Edict was that none should depart the Kingdom without his Pass for it is answered that the Law or Custom of England ever since and in pursuance of that Edict of Rufus either is not at all that none shall depart England without the Kings Pass as we see by daily experience it is not but only that none shall depart when he is served with a Writ ne exeas regno or were it so even in Henry the Second's dayes and in order to the very Clergie as I say it could could not be then when they were restored to all their former liberty and this too by the very Laws of Henry the First and laws and practice also at least as to this point and many others of King Stephen and yet I say were it so even at the time of our Saints Controversie at Northampton with Henry the Second as I am sure it was not the law of nature and law of Christ dispensed with our Saint for his flight against the letter but not against the rational sense of such a law of the Land or of such a Custom or whatever else you call it And it will be also to as little purpose to alledge here against St. Thomas what Houeden tells us ad an 1165. how all cryed after him upon his going out of the Room and getting to Horse whether do you go Traytor For so Houeden tells it in express tearms Dum autem sayes he praedicti Comites redirent ad Regem cum responso illo Archiepiscopus exiuit à thalamo progrediens per medium illorum uenit ad Paiefridum suum ascendit exivit ab aula omnibus clamantibus post eum dicentibus Quo progrederis proditor Expecta audi judicium tuum This I say will be to as little nay less purpose to be alleadg'd For Hoveden there doth but relate barely matter of fact and the cry of the ignorant flattering multitude And we know such a cry makes no man a Traytor indeed And we know his very Judges how unconscientious or incompetent how malicious or ill affected or how fearful soever they were not to comply in all things with their King against Thomas gave no such sentence against him as indeed they could not with any kind of colour being the said King had no other pretence to get him sentencâ—d by them but that Thomas refused to give a second account for the administration of which and of the accounts of which he had been long before legally acquitted both by the Judges and by the young King himself ideo amplius nolo inde placitare said our Saint Quod cum Regi constaret sayes Hoveden dixit Baronibus suis cito facite mihi judicium de illo qui hono meus ligius est As for Hoveden's own judgement its clear enough all along for the Saint where he of purpose and at large writes his life and death and martyrdome and miracles inserts his Epistles at length accounts him a most holy man in his life and a most glorious martyr and Saint in his death and after his death 4. But after his flight to Flanders a Country in peace at that time with England he went to France and to King Lewis which was but a back friend to England and he went to the Pope and incensed him against the King of England And yet here was no treason committed nor hostility raised by the Saint against his own King nor for ought appears out of History intended at all by him He went to France and to the King of France and to the Pope also partly to excuse himself and shew the cause why he denyed to comply with his own King for his
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
give and they to receive it from Her But sayes not That the Church may by her own power or at her pleasure or in any case Revoke that Authority again or hurt lessen or endanger it but wholly abstracts from this whether it be so or not according to the truth of things in themselves 4. Because the Querie made after the Objection or that which ask't thus Is there any man would think so but would also think at the same time that the Church might take away again or transfer the power of Kings is soon and rationally answer'd in the affirmative For so do very famous Catholick Doctors both Divines Civilians and Canonists and they all of strict communion with the Roman Church and Pope maintain and maintain also I mean too concerning such authority and power as without any question they had at first originally from the Church and could not have but from her but hath been time out of mind annexed to their Crowns or hath been originally or at some time granted them per modum contractus vel concordati vel transitionis And that you may not have my saying so for proof you may be pleased to run over this Latin insertion extracted out of that very learned School Divine and English Father and Doctor of St. Francis's Order who was lately and three several times Minister Provincial of his said Order in England and for ought I know lives yet Father Francis Davenport alias a Sancta Clara. And I give it wholly in his own words as it lies in his Paraphrase on the XXXVII Article of those XXXIX of the Protestant Church of England And give it so at length not only that you may see in it Catholick Doctors and Writers enough confirming what I have so answerâ—d in the Affirmative to this Query but for to clear your judgment in some other matters also relating to the Subject in hand here or at least to that of my whole Discourse of Ecclesiastical Exemption if not to some other questions in this my present Book And yet give it not as meaning to tye my self in all things to his judgment or at least to his too fearful or scrupulous expressing and tying of himself in meer words to some other late Schoolmen especially where he rather follows their opinion or their expression who deny Jurisdiction to Kings ex jure Regio de jure Divino naturali over the persons and in the causes of Ecclesiasticks and only attribute to them nudam potestatem civilem temporalem c. over such persons and in such causes than theirs who on the contrary attribute to Kings the thing and word Jurisdiction over the same persons and things and this too per se and by the Law of God and Nature Hic articulus sayes he meaning the foresaid XXXVII Article of the Protestant Church of England subministrat materiam examinandi Quaestionem longe gravissimam An scil laici sint capaces jurisdictionis spiritualis Primo advertendum ex omnium sententia illos non esse capaces clavium quia tunc etiam remissionis seu absolutionis a peccatis Secundo advertendum jurisdictionem spiritualem seu potestatem jurisdictionis non esse immediate ipsam potestatem clavium immo separabiles nec actu semper conjungi vel jure divino vel positivo Tertio supponendum summum Pontificem in omni sententia secundum absolutam potentiam suam posse jurisdictionem talem laicis concedere quia non expresse contra jus divinum ut recte Soto 4. dist 20. quaest 1. art 4. Scot. 4. d. 20 q 1. a. 4. Mirand in Manual q. 3. a. 2. D. Alvin c. 3. c. sic etiam Miranda in Manuali quaest 3. art 2. hoc non solum respectu virorum sed foeminarum Addit tamen Miranda hoc respectu foeminarum nusquam adhuc concessum Quod tamen negat D. Alvin c. 3. de Episcopis Abbatibus Abbatissis c. 22. citat multa jura ex quibus actu conceditur Abbatissis potestas jurisdictionis non quidem excommunicandi per se sed praecipiendi suis subditis Sacerdotibus ut excommunicent rebelles contumaces moniales hoc valere vel ex jure communi vel consuetudine vel saltem ex privilegio vel strictius loquendo dicendum cum Laimanno lib. 1. Laiman l. 1. tract 5. p. 1. c. 3. n. 3. 4. tract 5. p. 1. cap. 3. num 3. 4. quod non habent jurisdictionem spiritualem proprie sed usuram quandam jurisdictionis Et hinc conferre possunt beneficia instituere clericos in Ecclesiis ad Monasterium suum pertinentibus c. Vt sensum meum in re tam gravi aperiam Dicendum putem nullo quidem jure ut praetactum est eis competere potestatem seu jus spirituale ut loquitur Joannes de Parisiis de potestate Papae c. 21. quo gratia spiritualis causatur id est Joan. de Paris c. 21. de potest Papae potestas administrandi Sacramenta Et idem est judicium de potestate quae consequitur ex priori ut est inflictio poenae spiritualis scripturarum expositio Ministrorum Ecclesiae institutio confirmatio vel examen alia id genus multa Quodvis enim horum de jure divino restringitur praecise ad homines spirituales sen Deo sacros ut olim definitum est a Joan. 22. contra Marsilium de Padua ut videre est apud Turrecrem l. 4. Summae sub finem Joan. 22. contra Mars de Padua Turrecr l. 4. summae Caeterum quoad potestatem seu jus antecedens non de per se necessario annexum spiritualibus officiis bene potest in laicis subinde residere sicut praesentatio collatio beneficiorum punitio temporalis clericorum alia id genus multa ut dixi de Abbatissis praecipue ex concessione Ecclesia vel longa consuetudine praescripta convenientibus Praelatis Ecclesiae Dixi merito etiam ex consuetudine quia non solum concessio Innoc. in c. novit c. Salgado p. 1. c. Prael 3. nu 120. sed consuetudo ipsa tribuit jurisdictionem etiam in spiritualibus ut docet Innocent in cap. Novit de judic multi praesertion quando consuetudinis exercitium a tempore immemoriali probatur ut declarant Juristae de quare vide Salgado p. 1. c. 1. Praelud 3. n. 122 deinceps Dices hic non solum concedi Principibus nostris potestatem ex consuetudine seu concessione sed supremam ut ibi asseritur quod noâ— potest eis competere in spiritualibus ut omnes Doctores tenent Respondeo quod Doctores praedicti asserant Papaâ— non posse auferre jurisdictionem Principum ex consuâ—tudine vel concessione firma valide licite introductam Nav. c. 27. in Enchir. n 70. Salz sch Ber. Diaz cap. 55. Sect. Apud Gall. Duvall de disc Eccl. p. 3 fol. 405. sicut satis insinuat Navar. c. 27. in
Kings Absolution by the Cardinals having this Title Charta Absolutionis Domini Regis and beginning thus Henrico Dei gratia illustri Regi Anglorum Albertus tituli sancti Laurentii in Lucinia Theodinus tituli sancti Vitalis Presbyteri Cardinales Apostolicae Sedis Legati salutem in eo qui dat salutem Regibus Ne in dubium veniant quae geruntur c. And so proceeds to signifie his said Purgation and their own Absolution given to him upon the fame conditions Now I demand Whether there be any kind of likelihood that so knowing and so great a King as Henry the Second was then for he had Conquered Ireland that very year and thence it was that he Sail'd immediately to Normandy of purpose to purge himself and be absolved so as soon as he heard those Legates were come thither from Rome And he had the whole Sea-side of France and far in to the Land all along to Navarre in Spain under his dominion and in actual possession and had Scotland also Tributary though it was Two years after before he took the King of Scots should have made so wonderful a submission and in such words and received Absolution on such terms if he could have alledg'd any thing or matter of Treason against Thomas of Canterbury And that he also performâ—d all and more than all this for appeasing God's wrath against himself for having only given without further design the unfortunate occasion of the Saint's death we have seen already and in part before in his extraordinary Pilgrimage to and Humiliation at the Saint's Monument And we may in part also gather hence That by actual instance he quitted the requiring of that Oath of the Clergy for the observation of the sixteen customs For so doth Matthew Parker himself confess in express terms and in his life of Richard a Monk of St. Benedicts Order Prior of the Monastery of Dover who was the next succeeded Thomas Becket in the Archbishoprick and Primacy of Canterbury and in a Legatine power Apostolick also being fix'd upon by this very King Henry the Second to succeed so and confirm'd and consecrated so by the same often mentioned Pope Alexander the Third at Anagnia in Italy Et paulo post sayes Parker Archiepiscopus Primas Romanae Sedis Legatus cum Pallio in Angliam rediit Hic electus Regi fidelitatem juravit salvo ordine suo nulla prorsus facta mentione de prioribus regni consuetudinibus observandis Behold eight several Arguments which if at least taken all together and especially if they be also taken together with all I have said before in this second Appendix to answer such Objections as my self framed against my self I must confess I cannot for my own part but judge them to be so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter as Treason possible to have been truly charged at any time on St. Thomas of Canterbury that I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of him And so I conclude this second Appendix against the unweigh'd Relation and very inconsiderate Censure of Parker and much more yet against the barbarous and impious judgment of those Judges who under Henry the VIII above Three hundred years after the death of the Martyr condemn'd him for a Traytor repeating here again what I said before against the grand Atheistical Counsellor of the said King Henry the VIII in this matter who ever he was That it was neither Treason nor even any other less or real and certain misdemeanor he saw or he read in the life or death of Thomas of Canterbury put him on so execrable an Enterprize Sed avaritia illa quae caâ—tivavit discipulum comitem Christi captivavit militem custodem Sepulchri as St. Austin said of Judas who betrayed Christ and of the Souldiery that kept the Sepulchre of Christ And so also I conclude whatever I intended to say principally or incidentally against the tacite Objection of the Divines of Louain of this glorious Martyrs Contests with Henry the Second and of his opinion or judgment in such Contests in relation to the Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Exemption from the supreme civil coercive power of temporal Princes or to my own Doctrine which I am sure is the Catholick Doctrine and whatever else I intended to say principally or occasionally of the sanctity of his life and glory of his martyrdom and of the consistency of both with some humane invincible errors of his side speaking according to the objective verity or being of things in themselves as we see that other great and undoubted Saints and even the very Princes of the Apostles have fallen into such humane errors without prejudice to the sanctity of their lives or glory of their martyrdoms that Peter erred so out of zeal to gain both Jewes and Gentiles in Judaizing among the Jews c. and who reprehended him in that did no less himself err so in another occasion in making himself a Nazarâ—te and in circumcising Timothy so much against his own Doctrine there Si circumcidamini Christus vobis nihil proderit and elsewhere And finally whatever I intended to say directly and of purpose to shew that indeed St. Thomas of Canterbury did not in any part of all his Contests with Henry the Second as much as err so that is not err at all as much as inculpably or invincibly or at all against the very objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves And yet I must tell my Reader that if Augustinus the first Archbishop of Canterbury had contested so or Reginaldus Polus the last Catholick in that See or many others after Austin for some Ages and before Cardinal Pool in other Ages intervening 'twixt his and that wherein Thomas Becket was Archbishop of that same See I could not justifie any of them for contesting so but plainly condemn them Because in their Times the municipal Laws of the Land were quite contrary in many points as they are at this day and have been so as to the punishment of criminal Clergymen in cases of Treason Murther Felony c. a long time and perhaps several Ages in England as well in those immediately after Henry the Second's dayes and notwithstanding the conditions of his Purgation Absolution and Satisfaction and then almost uninterruptedly till the change and after the change by Henry the VIII until this present as in those before the dayes of that Christian King of the Saxons who ever he was that first gave Clergymen those priviledges of Exemption in Criminal Causes from Lay Judicatories which I quoted before and proved to have not been repealed at any time after until Henry the Second's Reign And because they were the municipal Laws of the Land which only could warrant the grand Contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury at least in relation to the exemption of Criminal Clerks
Reason which should govern or direct their particular Actions as well in order to themselves as to others and should foresee what might be objected False against Truth because so manifestly against both the Divine revealed Truths of Christian Religion and against those evidences also of natural Reason given by me before against the fourth ground of the same Louain Divines Injurious against Justice because against the most considerable right can be of all Princes States and People and even of the Clergy too if considered aright And in the highest degree may be Scandalous against Charity because in the highest degree may be harming the name and same of their Christian Catholick Neighbours and of so vast a multitude of them and because also not only of endangering in the highest degree inasmuch as in them lay even the very Temporal safety of so great a number of all the poor Catholicks in the British Monarchy and the peace of the King of Englands Dominions but further yet of raising against and casting and continuing on the Roman Religion it self in general or wheresoever professed the greatest hatred and blackness and hideousness and horrour may be and because too consequently of continuing still the chief cause of the grand Schism in Europe by keeping still that Block of stumbling and Rock of Scandal in the way of all Sects whatsoever which above any other hinders them from thinking of a Return to their Mother Church whereby to save their Souls in the Unity and Truth of the Catholick Church Than which I am sure nothing can be either more highly or more properly and strictly scandalous As for the Minor of the Syllogism being the last part of it which sayes that the second or short Censure of Louain judges our Remonstrance to be unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. is so manifest that it cannot be disputed since you read it so in that very Censure it self the former part only which sayes also and where it sayes That our Remonstrance contains only in effect word and sense an Acknowledgment only of a meer Supreme Temporal power in the Supreme Politick Magistrate and a promise of Obedience and Fidelity in meer Temporal things to the same Power and Magistrate remains to be made here no less manifest and to be made so manifest by analysing resolving and taking in pieces the whole frame of the Act of Recognition and all the Appendages of it whereof the dispute is or may be whether it contains any things besides such Temporal power in the Magistrate and such Obedience and Faith in Temporal things in the Subjects or by considering every clause of it one after another apart and the relations of one to another and to the whole and of the whole to each For there can be no other way to demonstrate this former part of the Minor And this is an easie way ad oculum and will save the Reader some labour of turning to the 7 8 and 9 pages where the whole Remonstrance is wherein that Act of Recognition and those other Appendages of it are inserted Yet before I come to an issue on this point the Reader is to be Advertised First That in that publick Instrument which hath these six or seven years past occasioned so many Differences or Disputes or rather renewed them having for Title The humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland it which in this distinction of words and proper strict sense of them as distinct is and ought to be understood by the word Remonstrance as in this Title so distinguish'd is not that which is at all controverted For that which is so understood is only the Representation of their then present sad and deplorable condition or of such grievances persecution suspition calumnies and odium under which for their Religion they lay then amongst their Protestant Fellow Subjects in Ireland Secondly That that which is and ought to be understood by the word Acknowledgment properly and strickly taken as in this Title signifying somewhat distinct from the meaning of the former word Remonstrance is no other than that which in the same Title is imported also by the word Protestation with this only difference That the whole Act of Recognition with all its Clauses and Appendages may be and is properly and truly an acknowledgment and confession both of the Supreme civil or Temporal power and of that obedience as above And that the very same whole Act of Recognition or Acknowledgment is in the Title called a Protestation partly because the Remonstrants or Subscribers do about the end of the same Act of Recognition formally or in formal express words Protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary of that which they acknowledge confess c. in that very Act of Recognition and partly too because that having done in the former part of that publick Instrument with the Representation of their Grievances in general then and immediately before they begin their said Recognition they speak thus We know what odium all the Catholick Clergy lies under by reason of the Calumnies with which our Tenents in Religion and our dependance upon the Popes Authority are aspersed and we humbly beg Your Majesties pardon to vindicate both by the ensuing Protestation which we make in the sight of Heaven and in the presence of Your Majesty sincerely and truly without equivocation or mental reservation and partly also because by the word Protestation any publick Testimony whether it be by an Oath or not may be truly and properly understood And therefore I confess ingenuously that within the whole Act of Recognition separately taken from the rest of that Instrument there is no Protestation at all understanding by the word Protestation that kind of Testimony which is by oath For indeed there is no oath at all either formal or virtual in the whole Act so taken separately or in any Clause or Appendage of it so taken And yet I confess too that is or may well be understood to be either a formal or at least a virtual oath which is in the passage immediately antecedent or going before that Act. But this oath imports no more then that the Remonstrants or Subscribers do so antecedently swear or protest in the sight of Heaven that they do sincerely and truly without equivocation or mental reservation acknowledge confess disclaim renounce declare promise profess protest hold abhor and detest whatever they acknowledge confess c. in their following Declaration or said Act of Recognition And therefore by no meâ—â— imports that they swear their Acknowledgment Confession Renunciation c. are made conformably to the objective truth of Things or Laws in themselves For Example They swear not nor protest at all in the sight of Heaven That our Sovereign King Charles the Second is Lawful and Rightful King Supreme Lord c. or I mean that He is so according to the verity of Things and Laws in themselves but only that they
Supremacy of the Pope whatever this be which the Catholick Church allows him For a pure Supreme Temporal in one and a pure Supreme Spiritual in another and over the same persons and causes are very truly certainly and evidently consistent The second Period or Clause being this And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal Affairs as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands and consequently being only and wholly of the obedience due by Catholick Subjects to Hâ—s Majesty and being it doth in formal express words determine this obedience to all Civil and Temporal Affairs as you see it doth there can be therefore no dispute of this Period The third Period also containing only in effect an acknowledgment of their resolution to acknowledge evermore and perform their Loyalty and true Allegiance to the King notwithstanding any contradiction by or from the Pope or by or from any other deriving power from the Pope or See of Rome for the words are these And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against Your Majesty or Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our Abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty I say that being the third Period hath no other words or matter it 's very evident that the whole entire Subject of it is nought else but obedience in Temporals because the Loyalty and true Allegiance of Catholicks to their at least Protestant Prince can be no other but obedience and fidelity towards Him in all Temporal matters and because that by these words Our Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty neither His Majesty Himself nor other Protestant nor any indifferent and judicious Catholick ever yet understood nor indeed ought to understand any other Loyalty or Allegiance but that which is in meer Temporals Nor can it be said upon any rational ground that because the Remonstrants do here acknowledge That notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope c. or any sentence c. or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal c. it must follow That they either deny the true spiritual Authority of the Pope over any Christians or any part of the world or even his Temporal within his own temporal Territories or within those Territories I mean which are His uncontroverredly even also as to the temporal Government or that they are resolved or that they promise or declare that they will disobey or oppose any just sentence or declaration of his obliging themselves or any other Nothing less then either doth follow by any kind of consequence whereas indeed no more but that they are persuaded that the Pope hath neither any true Spiritual nor any true Temporal power from God or man to devest the King of his Temporals or to hinder them from being His loyal liege men in such Temporals and that if he pronounced any sentence or gave any command to the contrary though it were even by Excommunication such sentence and such command and even such Excommunication would be as to all effects and purposes null and void because against the Laws of God and man and nature and not proceeding from any true power he had from God or from the Church of God but only from a vain and false presumption of power or authority in the case and a clave errante from a Key errant or which is the same in effect at most and at best from such an abuse of his authority as invalidates and annulls his sentence in all respects whatsoever They do not therefore at all hereby or in this Clause as neither in any other not even as much as virtually or consequentially in any manner soever deny or oppose his true and pure spiritual power of judging or binding or that which truly and really is in him to judge and bind spiritually or in a spiritual manner both King and Subjects or to pronounce even Excommunication against either themselves or the King if or when there shall happen any just cause thereof But they only deny 1. That he hath no kind of Temporal power acquired either by divine or humane Right that reaches to the King or his Crown People or Dominions 2. That the spiritual power which he truly and really hath either from God immediately or from the Church and which the same Catholick Church acknowledges to be so in him or which the Subscribers admit to be in him can have no such effect by Excommunication or other sentence or means as is the bereaving the King of his Temporals or as is the hindering the Subjects to obey or making it lawful for them in point of Conscience and Religion not to perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to His Majesty And that this third Period or Clause or words or meaning of them import no more but this or that such Clause or Subscribers of it cannot be rationally said to deny or declare against any true power of the Pope or any true or just or legal or even as much as only valid sentence of his I shew evidently thus by two several examples of the like expression used in another matter For without denying or opposing the Popes true power or any true just or valid or binding sentence of his his Sons may declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against their natural Father or his Fatherly Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their natural duty and filial obedience to their said Father And without denying or opposing the Kings true power or any true just or even any valid or binding sentence of his the very Subscribers themselves may declare as I for my part do here declare and I am sure all the rest are ready to declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the King or of His Crown or Kingdom or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by His Majesty His Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from Him or His Kingdoms against their spiritual Father the Pope or his true Papal Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their Canonical fidelity and all that true obedience they are bound unto by
Ecclesiasticos quam Saeculares praesertim Nobiles congruis admonitionibus sedulo continere satagat in sincera perfecta erga Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem observantia rejectis commentis novae formulae fidelitatis Valesianorum Illud enim est quod Ecclesiam Dei majori damno ac pernicie afficere potest quam quaevis anteacta Haereticorum persecutio In eo autem munere obeundo non est quod Paternitati Vestrae suggeram utpote ubertim in hujusmodi materiis instructae ex propria eruditione ac prudentia praeter ea quae nuper ipsi viva voce insmuavi signanter ut sic refutetur arguatur illud Juramentum ne tamen Regii Ministri ansam accipiant in Catholicos saeviendi eosque tanquam Regiae Dominationi quia ab Ecclesia defecerit infestos persequendi De omnibus porro quae in causa fidei at statu Ecclesiae digna notatu compererit gratissimum mihi erit Paternitatis Vestrae Litteris identidem edoceri Illas autem inscribat absque operculo A Monsieur Monsieur Francois Rossi-Bruxelles ita enim secure ad me perferentur Denique Paternitatis Vestrae Sacrificiis me animitus commendo Bruxellis 7. Octobris 1663. Paternitatis Vestrae Studiofissimus Hieronymus Abbas Montis Regalis In English thus Reverend Father in Christ YOur Paternities most friendly Letters dated at Paris the 20th of the last month I have received wherein you signifie that you are now again upon thoughts of your Journey to Ireland Wherefore I wish you a most happy Journey and send you the Faculties of an Apostolical Missionarie As for that which you mention of danger of Confusion in that Kingdom by occasion of the Visitor now suddenly to be Commission'd he meant the Visitator of the Franciscan Order in Ireland who was then to be sent or at least Commission'd from beyond Seas I could wish you did particularly inform me on that Subject that understanding fully the whole Affair I might timely take my measures Nothing occurs to me which at present I may recommend But the sum of all consists herein That rejecting the Comments Lyes or false Device of the new form of Fidelity of the Valesians you labour diligently by congruous Admonitions to contain your Countreymen especially the Nobility and Gentry in a sincere and perfect observance of the See Apostolick For that Formulary is it which can do more harm unto and bring more ruine upon the Church of God than all the forepast persecution of Hereticks In order to the discharging of that Duty incumbent on you its needless that I suggest any other thing to your Paternity being a man throughly and abundantly instructed in such matters by your own eradition and prudence besides those which I have lately by word of mouth insinuated to you signally That the said Oath be refuted and reproved so as that notwithstanding the Royal Ministers may not thence take occasion of severity against Catholicks or of persecuting them as people studiously and maliciously undermining the Royal Dominion on account of its having fallen from the Church As for the rest know it will be most grateful unto me that by your Letters I be frequently advertised of all Note-worthy matters concerning the cause of Faith or State of the Church which shall occur to you Your Letters without cover you may superscribe A Monsieur Monsieur Rossi-Bruxelles for so they will securely be brought to me To conclude I commend my self heartily to your Paternities sacrifices Bruxels 7. Octob. 1663. Your Paternities Most Affectionate Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal On either Letter though you need no Animadversions because they are of themselves plain enough as it is also plain that as well by these as other you have Sect. vii this Internuncio begun that which his Successors ever since more vigorously pursued viz. to have the Remonstrants esteemed both Schismaticks and Hereticks yet I cannot here but give some few Observations First Observation is How these men would pull out our eyes and make us believe the Pope would have all kind of Duty Faith and Obedience paid by us to our King to be exemplars of these vertues even to Hereticks and in a place of darkness the lights of the world in such matters and yet at the same time and by the same Letters to condemn us in effect as Schismaticks and Hereticks for any way acknowledging our King to be King and promising to obey Him as such and at the same time also to procure a publick University Censure of the Louain Divines to condemn our Subscription of such acknowledgment and promise and no less solemnly than formally or in express words to judge both to be unlawful detestable and sacrilegious yea and consequentially or virtually to be also Schismatical and Heretical For that our very such bare acknowledgment and promise c. were so condemn'd by them is manifest because our said Remonstrance and Subscription neither contain'd nor imported any more than such bare acknowledgment and promise c. being they contain'd and imported only this much That we acknowledge the King to be Supreme in all Temporal and Civil Affairs and that we promised to be faithfully and unchangeably obedient to him in such that is only in all Temporal and Civil things leaving out of purpose all mention of any kind of Spiritual things or causes Now who sees not that if we be condemn'd for only acknowledging the King to be Supreme in Temporals we are consequently condemn'd for the bare acknowledgment of his being at all or in any way or sense our King For there are but two or at most three wayes or senses wherein any can be truly said to be King The one that he be Supreme both in Temporals and Spirituals The other that he be in Temporals only and the last that only in Spirituals either purely and essentially or only by extrinsick denomination such But we have not Remonstrated nor have we Subscribed our acknowledgment of the King 's being our King either in the first or last sense but have been as to the words of our Formulary as far from either of both these two senses as Heaven is from Earth And therefore have only in the second Whence is further most evidently consequent That being we are condemn'd for Remonstrating or Subscribing in that sense we are also for the very barest acknowledgment can be of the Kings being any way King For how can we acknowledge him King if ever also as to very Temporals we deny his Kingship And therefore it is not only a meer Cheat and Imposture but Folly Non-sense and even plain contradiction to say That his Holiness would have us to be and continue still in our duty faith and observance to any person as to our King and yet at the same time to tell us That our profession of fidelity and obedience in Temporal things is unlawful detestable and sacrilegious nay Schismatical and Heretical upon this account that by such profession we both promise a more ample obedience to
time overpowred by a declared Forraign Enemy And that amongst other such means and devices First the Commissary General alias Commissarius Generalis Familiae of the Franciscan Order in Spaine by name Pedro Mannero sent immediately into Ireland new Parents revoking and annulling the delegat Authority of Father Redmund Caron over all the Irish Franciscans of that Kingdom to take thereby all support of Church-Authority from the numerous party of them that were and would be still to the very last opposers of the Nuntio's Faction of those who design'd to alienat Ireland totally and utterly for ever from the Crown of England although it was then and now likewise clear enough that even according to the very General Statutes of that Order neither the said Manero nor any other in his Office had or could have by vertue only of such Office or without special Commission from Rome which yet he did not specifie or allude unto any kind of Authority over the above Redmund's Commissariat Power delegated unto him by the Belgian Commissary General of the North-west Nations Next and soon after that Danielâ—a Dungo an Italian being chosen Vicar General of the whole Franciscen Order throughout the World for the Minister General had been dead some moneths before during the vacancy of whose place the Belgick Commissary Reverendissimus Marchantius when he had no Superiour in the Order above him sent and delegated the foresaid Redmund with full Authority into Ireland commanded by the Supream Power at Rome sent a second Patent of his own whereby not only the Supream Power at Rome sent a second Patent of his own whereby not only the said Father Caron's delegation was totally extinct but a fierce Irish Nuntiotist by name Eugenius Fildeus or Owen O Fihilly put in the same power which Caron had over all his Order in that Kingdome And then also it was that wicked Cabals were every day a forming both in Camps and Cities amongst many both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks against the King's Lieutenant the Marquess of Ormond the Nuntiotist Clergy-men of Owen Oneills Party being indefatigable in making use of the Argument of ill success not considering they had themselves been the only chief and first causes of that very success nor scrupling once to mix truth and lies indifferently so they could as indeed they did corrupt thereby but too too many Then I say it was that Limmerick and Galway plaid their prizes and when so many Troops and Regiments so many even of Horse and Foot in every Province seduced into private Confederacies and correspondencies to undoe themselves expecting every day to see Emerus mac Mahon the Bishop of Clogher then General only of the Vlster Army to be declared by himself and others of his way in the other several Provinces and really to command as Generalissimo of all Ireland and to see presently Armes and Money arrived to him as such out of Spain by the Agency of Patrick O Duff a Franciscan now at the writing hereof in the year 1672. arrived in London as a Successor to the said Emerus in that Bishoprick of Clogher employed sometimes before out of Ireland into Spain for that purpose and consequently to see moreover a Forreign Protector of the Roman Catholick Religion c. But God otherwise provided the said Emerus's Vlster Army being defeated by the Parliament Forces in that Province and he himself taken and put to death by them An accident which I also my self bewailed though I had little reason if I had considered onely my self For no sooner had that Army come in upon capitulation on the death of Owen O Neill to the Duke of Ormond and march'd up to Kilkenny and with them the said Clogher and that he was made there one of the Twelve Commissioners of Peace in behalf of the former Confederates of Ireland and sate with the rest in that City before he was made General by the King's Lieutenant no sooner invited in by my self and sent by the rest of those Commissioners to the Franciscan Monastery where I my self was then Superior and a great company before him and Bishop also of Dromore reasoning together of some differences in order to compose them by the mediation of the foresaid Twelve Commissioners of Peace he upon my answering modestly enough some things alledged falling suddenly into a violent and extravagant passion and converting his face and speech to me by my own name then calling me Apostate and great Writer of Books though he mean't onely the little Book of Queries written against the Censures of the Nuncio and withal vehemently striking his hand on the Table at which he Dromore and many more of the company sate took a solemn bloody Oath That although it happen'd that all the rest of Ireland might peradventure be forgiven yet I never should But however these private matters were I return to what more to my present purpose happen'd then or immediately before and after that defeat and death of Clogher For a little before that as far as I can remember it was 1. That the rest of all or very near all the Archbishops and Bishops hoping all to be their own now that they had the Bishop of Clogher made General of the confident victorious Catholick Army of the North as they call'd it and amongst them even many of those Bishops too that so lately before appeared against the Nuncio's Censures met together at Jamestown in Connaught and together also with some other Clergymen Secular and Regular assumed to themselves the Supreme civil power by declaring and that by a publick Instrument dated at Jamestown in the Convent of the Franciscans there Aug. 12. an 1650. against the Kings Lieutenant General and General Governour of that Kingdom by restoring the former Confederacy and by excommunicating also all persons whatsoever that would any more obey him c. 2. That the five other Bishops and one Vicar Apostolick remaining at Galway did on August 23. of the said month and year confirm under their hands too and as to every particular what those of Jamestown had done 3. That the new Commissary Visitator of the Franciscan Order Eugenius Fildeus having before summon'd a Provincial Chapter to the Convent of Kilconel in Connaught and holding it the 17 of August that same year 1650. at such time as most of the other temporal Provinces of Ireland had been over-run by the Parliament Forces and yet encourag'd by the example of the Bishops and the Nuntiotists of that Order convening there in great numbers and such as were for His Maiesties Lieutenant and yet came thither for all came not being not only deprived of voices and otherwise too proceeded against contrary to all form of Justice even their Enemies also being made their Judges but moreover with Threats and actual violence used to the chief of them Father Valentine Brown Professor Jubilat of Divinity and a holy man and a man also who had been Provincial near Thirty years before being frighted to an unworthy
Ressort pour a la diligence de ses Substituts y estre pareillement leues publiees signifiees aux Professeurs de Theologie dudit Ressort a ce qu'aucun n'en pretende cause d'ignorance Faict en Parlement a Rennes le 21. Aoust 1663. We shall hereafter see those six above inserted Sorbon Declarations whether French or Latin as you have them here in both Languages out of the French Copy translated into English by the Fathers of our National Irish Assembly But for as much as it may peradventure be objected by some of the more unreasonably exceptious and contentious Irish That I ought rather to give here an exact Copy of the very and only Paris Impression it self in Latin of those Acts of that University than of any of them elsewhere in France Printed I thought fit to obstruct also herein such endless wranglers and give that which was transmitted in the said year 1663. immediatly from Paris to London Acta Parisiensia Declaratio Facultatis Theologicae Parisiensis per illius Deputatos Regi exhibita circa theses de Infallibilitate Papae OCtavo Maii die Ascensionis D. N. Jesu Christi convenerunt domini deputati de Mince Morel Betille de Breda Grandin Guyard Guischard Gabillon Coguelin Montgailard in domum Facultatis juxta decretum pridie in Congregatione Generali factum ut convenirent de iis quae Regi Christianissimo declaranda erant ex parte Facultatis per os Illustrissimi ac Reverendissimi D. Archiepiscopi Parisiensis designati cum Amplissimo Comitatu Magistrorum ejusdem Declarationes Facultatis Parisiensis factae apud Regem super quibusdam propositionibus quas non nulli voluerunt ascribere eidem Facultati I. NOn esse doctrinam Facultatis quod summus pontifex aliquam in temporalia Regis Christianissimi Authoritatem habet imo Facultatem semper obstitisse etiam iis qui indirectam tantummodo esse illam Authoritatem voluerunt II. Esse doctrinam Facultatis ejusdem quod Rex nullum omnino agnoscit nec habet in temporalibus superiorem praeter Deum eamque suam esse antiquam Doctrinam a qua nunquam recessura est III. Doctrinam Facultatis esse quod subditi fidem obedientiam Regi Christianissimo ita debent ut ab iis nullo pretextu dispensari possint IV. Doctrinam Facultatis esse non probare nec unquam probasse propositiones allas Regis Christianissimi Authoritati aut Germanis Ecclesiae Gallicanae libertatibus receptis in Regno Canonibus contrarias v. g. quod Summus Pontifex possit deponere Episcopos adversus eosdem Canones V. Doctrinam Facultatis non esse quod summus Pontifex sit supra Concilium Oecumenicum VI. Non esse doctrinam vel dogma Facultatis quod summus Pontifex nullo accedente Ecclesiae consensu sit infallibilis Ita de verbo ad verbum Acta Parisiis Impressa Regi exhibita Mense May 1663. For so word by word is the Printed Copy of the very Latin Paris Impression of these Acts and Six Declarations presented to His Most Christian Majesty in the month of May 1663. XIII THE Reader may now questionless expect an account from me of some either learned or at least prudential debate amongst the Fathers in so grave an Assembly upon so solemn a Message as you have before seen to them on such a Subject from the Duke of Ormond His Majesties Lord Lieutenant then of that Kingdom But I am sorry I can give none at all either of the one or other sort nay nor of any either learned or unlearned or prudential or imprudential because of no kind of debate on that Message For indeed they took no more notice of it than if none at all had been sent them the leading men the Prelats and their numerous and sure sticklers over-awing and silenceing presently any that seemed inclining to move for paying as much as any even due or civil respect in such matters to the Lord Lievtenant or as much as to dispute the equity of what their Cabal had privately before the Congregation sate resolved upon viz. not to comply with His Grace in any material point but to sign and present a new unsignificant Formulary of their own i. e. That prepared to their hands and utterly decline That which His Grace expected from them yea not to suffer any mention at all to be as much as once made in publick of the former Remonstrance So powerfully influential on them was their Prophetical opinion of wonders to be expected by and for themselves done in that wonderful year of 1666. Nor did they seem at all to consider they might be as well defeated of all such their vain worldly carnal hopes of Empire Glory Pomp which they drove at as the Apostles were when before receiving the Holy Ghost in fulness on the 5th day they put this vain question Domine si in tempore hoc restitues Regnum Israel But to leave animadvertions so it was indeed That the Fathers did not once debate not only not the heads of the Procurators Speech but not a word of the very Message from his Grace Albeit they considered how to gratifie the Procurator himself for what was past i. e. for the liberty they had now enjoyed for so many years since 1662. through his endeavours and oblige him also for the future to continue the like endeavours for them as their Procurator And indeed I had scarce been an hour abroad hard by them walking in a Garden to take the fresh air after my long speech which together with the heat of the room made me retire a little when Father Francis Fitz Gerrald a Franciscan one of the Members of that Congregation as Procurator for the Vicar General of the Diocess of Cluan a vacant See in the Province of Casâ—el came with pleasing news to flatter me as he thought telling me the Congregation had voted two thousand pounds sterling to be Levied of all the Clergy of the Kingdom by several gales to be payed me towards my expenses hereafter in carrying on as general Procurator the great affair of their liberty and freedom as till then I had the four last years Him at that time I only answered that was not the point to be either resolved or debated Soon after the Primat himself came forth to me where I continued alone walking And he also would with the same consideration have wrought me to a more plyant temper I answered him to this purpose My Lord you should have known me better then to think to amuse me with the news of any such prepostrous either motions or resolves There will be time enough to consider of such inferiour matters when you shall have first done your duty in order to the King to my Lord Lieutenant and Protestant State Council Parliament which are and ought to govern you under God in all temporal affairs nay your duty to your Native Country and Irish Nation your Church and Catholick Religion and when you shall consequently
those words our Supream Lord and further because of the genius and temper and so many several interests of the men that composed that Congregation and Interests also though in some or many respects divided yet all through pre-occupation ignorance and a perverse obstinacy conspiring together in the main of not speaking their conscience plainly either pro or con for these reasons I say this acknowledgment from them and in these words alone of the Kings Supremacy in Temporals or to speak more properly as I would fain to the purpose of the Kings temporal Supremacy or supream politick and civil Power with the Sword corporal or carnal if I may so speak over all persons subject to him and in all causes indifferently wherein corporal force or co-action is used is lyable to as many deceitful evasions and interpretations as any of the former in that recognition or of those that follow after in their confessions or promises And yet herein they need not find out any way that hath not been chalked before them by some of their sophistical Predecessors these sixty years It is but to pursue their steps and tell the people as several of their chief Speakers and Interpreters have already by clear expressions given sufficient cause to expect they will when they find it convenient that he is acknowledged Supream for the present but not so for the future That both for the present and future he may be acknowledged Supream but their meaning may be and is That he is and may be so de facto not de jure in fact only in actual possession and by force only not by right That he may be so by right also but by such right only as the laws of the Land can or do give him not by such right as the laws of the Church may much less by that right which the laws of God and nature have not given him in those contingencies above Finally as they leave themselves a latitude by the former answers notwithstanding this recognition of Supream in those bare words only or any thing else in this Remonstrance to maintain alwayes the saâ—rilegiousness of the Remonstrance of 61. I speak according to the Censure of the Lovaine Divines of that Remonstrance of 61. and even upon their grounds of humane right which the Popes pretend to the kingdoms of England and Ireland and which those Divines of Lovaine assert unto the See of Rome viz. Those of a pretended submission donation prescription feudatary title given and forfeiture made so they retain the like notwithstanding this acknowledgement here notwithstanding all said before and after To maintain no less stiffely when they shall think fit the other pretended but divine Supream both Temporal and Spiritual right of Popes as well to the Realms of England and Ireland as to all and over all at least Christian Kingdoms and Kings in the world For they will and may say according to their principles which they flatly denied to quit by any sufficient expression or indeed rather denied to meddle with at all or declare themselves in any manner on the point according to such I say they will plead when they shall think it may be done prudently That they do not here acknowledge the King their Supream Lord but in relation only to or in rank and order only of such Lords as are meerly temporal not by any means absolutely or without such relation not at all in relation to such Lords as have a power absolutely divine or supernatural and is composed by God himself both of temporal and spiritual natural and supernatural and is immediatly given by Him to them over the whole earth at least the parts of it that are Christian and also at least in some extraordinary cases Of the emergencie of which cases that they themselves alone I mean such Lords are Judges appointed by Him and that such Lords are the Popes only and certainly they will say And consequently that by no general acknowledgement of a meer temporal â—upremacy in a King by a Catholick it can be presumed he any way intended to relate to that divine spiritual supernatural extraordinary Attribute Power or Supremacy of the Popes even in temporal matters or intended any way to deny it For it is a maxim with Canonists that in a general expression is not to be understood that which the Expressor would not specifically grant were it demanded of him in specie much less that which being demanded of him specifically he of set purpose refuses to express it so though he write not under his hand that specifical demand or denial but passes both by I will say nothing at present of the relative or comparative form of this recognition which they choose rather then that positive and absolute one of the former Remonstrance of 61. Though I be sure that that of 61. being absolute and positive for it is worded thus We do acknowledge and confess your Majesty to be our true and lawful King supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other your Majesties Dominions puts us not to an inquiry after the manner or measure of the truth lawfulness rightfulness or supremacy of his Titles of his Kingship Lordship or Soveraignty over or to all his other Dominions or those are called his besides Ireland as this of the Congregation must them that please to understand it by the rules of Sophistry or Subtilty Whereby they gave cause to suspect they would have their own relative or comparative form understood by such as listed to understand or interpret it so when they found it could be done prudently For they would have their 's not to be positive at all but relative as you see in their own words which say only thus We acknowledge your Majesty to be our true and lawful King supream Lord and undoubted Soveraign as well of this Realm of Ireland as of all other your Majesties Dâ—minions Now the Querie is how well they acknowledge or would have others to acknowledge him True and lawful King supream Lord and undoubted Soveraign of all other his Majesties Dominions How well of Tangier Jamaica or France c And if his Majesties title to these or either of them be uncertain with them or by many or some of them not accounted good or just at all whether by this relative form they choose of purpose they declare or acknowledge his title to Ireland to be any better The liberty they leave themselves by their manner of expression here to have recourse for interpretation when they please to their logical Sophistry and make this acknowledgement sometimes and to some persons a modal Proposition at other times and to other persons a Proposition not modal but only de extremo modificato gives them the trouble to answer these Queries As in the impartial understanding Reader it and what is here said thereupon may work this perswasion That notwithstanding this their kind of owning and acknowledging his Majesty they are still
that We know what Innocent the Tenth and his Congregation have decreed against the three Negative propositions of the Catholicks of England We know moreover the brief of Paul the Fifth against the Oath of Allegiance Finally we know many other decrees and Canons made by several former Popes against all kind of Oathes and obligations of Allegiance to Schismaticks Hereticks or excommunicated Princes and even I say to all such as they deem such whether they be such or no indeed I could add that we know also what the Doctrine or Maximes of the Court of Rome is in particular concerning Clergie-mens exemption from the secular power and how they hold it unlawful for such men to Swear any Allegiance contrary to their own Canons or their own interpretation of the Canons And yet the Congregation would make the world believe they have by those their three additional propositions supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance But let fooles and ignorant persons believe them I am sure no wise man acquainted with the business will No nor would be induced to think that although they had come throughly home in express words as they did not at all nor any way neer and came home so as to all particulars and to the very points both in their Remonstrance and propositions added yet that only denying at the same time and with so little reason and so much passion preoccupation and obstinacy to sign those other three of Sorbon applyed to His Majesty and themselves in the case would be argument enough to evict even from themselves a confession of this certain truth that they were obstinatly resolved to give no real assurance to His Majesty of their future obedience or faith to him either by their Remonstrance or propositions or both or any other sufficient manner and that accordingly they gave none The third argument is ab intrinseco properly or from and grounded on the significancy or rather unsignificancy of the very propositions in themselves as such and without relation to the two former arguments which are though otherwise convincing enough derived from and grounded on circumstances more extrinsecal It is from the bare words and sense or meaning the leading persons or chief Divines of the congregation have conceive or would or intend only to express by these words It is from and on their distinctions of and specifical exceptions from the too too great generality of what the words may to some import though not to others And in a word it is further derived from and grounded on their abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations in these very three propositions no less then in their Remonstrance Albeit they would impose on such as they thought fit and whilst they thought it fit that by these additional propositions they supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance as at the same time they would let others know and shew them cleerly too they signified nothing at all as to the points controverted that is signified nothing or brought no obligation on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free by force of Arms to maintain any quarrel or cause against him Which to evince I will here again repeat the propositions or declarations as they are subscribed by them 1. Wee the undernamed do hereby declare that it is not our Doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in Temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second yea we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in civil and temporal affairs 2. That it is our Doctrin that our Gracious King Charles the Second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil or temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be our constant Doctrine from which we shall never recede 3. That it is our Doctrine that we Subjects owe so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can ever dispense with or free us of the same Now to pass by that Negative manner of expression in the former part of their first proposition and how unsignificant such must be from them who sees not their obvious equivocation in these words It is not our Doctrine on such as they list they will thereby impose and to others they tell that it is not indeed their Doctrine but the Doctrine of so many great and holy Pontiffs of the See of Rome and very expresly too and in many instances these five or six hundred years the Doctrine of Gregories the Seventh and Ninth and of Pascehals and Urbans and Innocents and of Boniface the Eight even in that publick extravagant Vnam Sanctam inserted in the body of the Canon law and of Sixtus's and Pius's yea and of Alexander the Seventh that now governs that See the Doctrine of all their Courts for so many ages and of so many Bishops Cardinals and other Prelats and Doctors of Nuncius's Internuncius's and other Ministers and messengers of Popes that in several Countries and in several occasions taught and maintained it by word and writing amongst whom as Bellarmine and Baronius and Peron and Lessius and Becan and Gretzer Fitzherbert Weston and Parsons have in their own dayes after those Seventy two other writers whom Bellarmine quotes against Barclay some sixty years agoe been very eminent so in ours and very lately nay and continually too any time these four years past Cardinal Francis Barberine at Rome and the two immediatly succeeding Internuncius's at Bruxels De Vecohys and Rospigliosi and the Divines of Lovayn have shewed themselves no less vehement by censuring as much as in them the protestation of 61. of the Catholick Bishop of Dromore of Fa. Peter Walsh and other Irish Divines and after them of others the Nobility and Gentry of that Nation So that our Gentlemen of the Congregation of 66. will by this gloss or explication of their word Our where they say it is not our Doctrine or by that equivocation or distinction elude at pleasure this Declaration as to any honest meaning They will say they have declared it is not our Doctrine that is It is not a Doctrine whereof we are the Authors or it is not a Doctrine proper particular and peculiar to us alone or which only we do teach or maintain or which we have broached or set on foot And will say nevertheless nay rather the more that for as much as it is the Doctrine of so many great men nay and of so many great and Holy Bishops of Rome at least these full six hundred years and that expresly and clearly too even in their very Canons it is consequently the Doctrine of the Church for they account the Pope and Church the same thing And therefore must not be disavowed or opposed by the faithful when there is occasion to follow or practice it So that they will say that in one sense they may
truely declare it is not their or it is not our Doctrine though in an other sense they cannot nor intended so to do And for to justifie this declaration distinction or equivocation they will according to the principles of equivocating Divines readily make use of that passage or words of our Saviour in the Gospel mea doctrina non est mea sed ejus qui mifit me Patris And yet when they shall find it for their advantage they will no less readily acknowledge that their intention also was to declare by those words that what follows is not the doctrine of even those very Doctors or Popes nor consequently of the Church And yet will acknowledge too this much without any prejudice to their own opinion or judgment in the points controverted and without holding themselves obliged by this Declaration understood as it ought or may not to practice accordingly For all they say in this first part of that first Proposition is We the under-named do hereby declare that it is not our doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second They will here presently when they please and shall think fit have recourse to the several meanings of the word Authority And without any necessity of using the distinction which yet is obvious enough and frequent with them of authority in fact and authority of right they will say although not with the Doctors of Lovaine in their censure of the Remonstrance of 61. that they declare it is not the doctrine of the Romae Church that the Pope hath any authority which is purely or meerly temporal or even humane at all or by humane right ways or title acquired over the King in his temporal Affairs And that neither hath he any Divine or Spiritual which is ordinary over him in such or which at his pleasure may at all times and in all cases dispose of the Kings Temporals And after this or notwithstanding any thing here declared they will say with Bellarmine that all the most supream right or authority challenged by Popes to depose Princes and dispose of their Temporals is entire and safe enough For this grand Authority indeed they have or challenge thereunto universally is not in the rank of temporals nor in the order of humane Authorities but in that of wholy spiritual and purely divine and supernatural Is not ordinary but extraordinary or as Innocent the 3d. speaks casual only that is in some particular great and extraordinary cases or emergencies and this too ratione peccati alone as the same Innocent further saith And consequently they will say that by any such general though negative Declaration or by a Declaration in such general words only or against any Authority in general to be in the Pope this very specifical this extraordinary casual spiritual celestial divine Authority in such great unusual contingencies must never be thought to be declared against according to the maxime of Lawyers and Law before given in my Exceptions to their Remonstrance For which saying they will further yield this reason That without any such specifical meaning intended their said Declaration or Proposition may be useful to shut out of doors the Popes humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right said to have been acquired and by the present Faculty of Lovaine maintained to continue still in force to these Kingdoms by donation submission prescription feudatary title and forfeiture And that such Declaration or one against such humane pretences in particular to his Majesties Kingdoms of England or Ireland nay and Scotland too was enough to be expected from them by his Majesty without putting them to the stress of resolving on that other supereminent divine pretence and which really is to all other at least christian Kingdoms in the world or all those of other Kings and in such extraordinary cases as well as to his Majestie 's They have yet in store a third explication equivocation distinction but as fallacious as if not more than any of these two already given And I call it a third way of evasion though as to the first part of it and as to the matter in it self of that first part however the words be different it varyes not or but very little from what is already said in effect It does in indeed in the second Part as will be seen They will as occasion requires or they find it expedient say nothing of the first on the words our doctrine nor of the second on the words authority in temporal affairs But when they come to Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will instantly tell you as Logicians or Sophisters of their specificative and reduplicative sense And that these words bear it And that the cause it self and the conjuncture of circumstances make their recourse to this kind of distinction very lawful They will therefore when they please to proceed a third way allow it is not the doctrine not even of the Catholick Church that the Pope hath any authority not even spiritual or divine in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will I say allow this Proposition or this part of that first complex Proposition but allow it only in sensu reduplicative in the reduplicative sense or as the reduplication falls on these last words Our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second In the specificative they will deny it and withal deny it was their meaning what ever the Sorbonists meaned by the like to their own King to declare at any time or by that Proposition that the Pope had not some authority in temporal affairs over our King considered as a Criminal or Sinner though in such not any over him considered only as our Soveraign Lord and King Charles the Second They will further say that while the Pope himself or people or both joyntly suffer or tollerat Charles the Second as King the Pope hath no authority in temporal affairs over him But yet when he finds it convenient and necessary in any of those great extraordinary emergencies not to tollerat him any longer he may by his divine authority in such cases depose and deprive him of all his temporals together and transfer the right of them to another and this by way of Jurisdiction over his person as a criminal and sinner not over his person as a King not criminal or sinful They will further say and though I meaned it hitherto as the second part of this third way yet it may be also and is a fourth way of explication or evasion that allowing it not to be the doctrine of the Church that the Pope hath any Authority of Jurisdiction Power or Superiority properly such in temporal affairs over the King considered either in the reduplicative or specificative sense and allowing too that themselves intended to declare so much by the said former part of their first Proposition yet the last refuge is alwayes open A Power and Authority in the
in question it was I say to avoid the grossness and odiousness and the danger withal of the consequences of that third explication or gloss in this second part they chose rather to have their more ordinary recourse to the two former and yet more plausibly to the second than first And indeed the said Father N. N. who as I have told in my Narrative was the chief man at first to offer to my self and draw the Congregation to a Subscription of them though not for any real end that might be to assure the King of their Loyaltie but for that only in my Narrative expressed and for no other besides but for a meer blindation and though after his first heat and upon a more serious reflection he was the chief man also to keep them back from subscribing the last three of those six of Sorbon I say the said wel-spoken Father when I dealed with him freely and to make himself to my self in plain tearms declare his own distinctions and evasions when I asked him familiarly how could he that was so great a stickler for Bellarmine and so great an opposer of the Remonstrance of 61. where it was against Bellarmine how could he holding still to that stickling and opposition subscribe that clause or second part of the first proposition so plainly or seemingly against Bellarmin's Doctrine of the indirect power Or how consequently would he choose rather to subscribe those propositions of Sorbon applyed to our King than the said Remonstrance of 61 or would he indeed by the promise in the first proposition to oppose the assertors of even the indirect power have it understood that he promised so in case of Excommunication Deposition Deprivation issued or pronounced by the Pope for the crimes of Apostacy Heresie Schisme tyrannical administration publick oppression of the people c when I put these queries to the said Reverend and both eloquent and learned Gentleman of the Society his answer was plain and positive That as the propositions reached not descended not expressed not such cases so the Congregation would not subscribe them as comprehending any such himself would not the words imported no such meaning And therefore he excepted alwayes those cases And questionless his meaning was as I know his principles are that the Pope alone is the only Judge of those cases that is can determine whether and when the King is or shall be guilty of Apostacy Heresie Schisme tyrannical administration publick oppression of the people or finally of any other hainous crime which may merit Excommunication or Denunciation and what is consequent deprivation deposition c. And yet notwithstanding all this Father N. N. would subscribe and hath subscribed that he shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over the King in civil and temporal affairs And yet maintains as all the rest do this subscription is not any way prejudicial to that explication of his and of theirs all in general The fourth and last explication of this second part of the said first proposition is both of the learned and unlearned of those Gentlemen of the Congregation and of their adherents or beleivers That indeed the promise must be understood with this tacit condition virtually implyed or supposed to be implyed in or annexed to all kind of lawful promises provided it appear not to us hereafter that the Pope hath already declared or shall at any time henceforth declare this our promise to be unlawful unconscionable or against the safety of our Soules or which is the same thing to be of a matter unlawful of it self to be promised or of a thing which either in it self or by consequence is against the sinceritie of Catholick Faith and Religion For say they it must be supposed alwayes and by all men that we will submit and conform to such a declaration being we have on the contradictory question expresly refused to disown the Popes infallibility Behold here four several expositions given by themselves that is by their chiefest Divines of each of both parts of this first proposition Expositions questionless even each or every of them able to evict from any man this confession that for neither of both parts nor both together this first proposition adds any thing to their Remonstrance or gives the King in the cases doubted any more assurance of their Loyaltie than their unsignificant acknowledgments declarations promises engagements oathes in the said Remonstrance do That is even just nothing at all No kind of obligation thereby on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free to maintain by force of Arms any quarrel or cause against his Majestie And for as much as their next which is their second proposition in order is liable to the very self same or the like expositions to the very self same exceptions reservations equivocations and even distinctions of the reduplicative and specificative sense and that it hath not a word able or significant enough I mean in this age and amongst Sophisters to obstruct these evasions learn'd at last in the later and worser ages of the Church from a few deceiptful or deceived Schoolmen and for as much as Father N. N. and the other chief Divines of the Congregation those interpreters of their mind and sense do in very deed and self same way and no other to whom and where and when they think fit expound the second also and for as much as though they declare positively in this second It is their doctrine that our gracious King Charles the second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil and temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be their constant doctrine from which they shall never recede yet they understand first those three words our gracious King and every of them in a reduplicative sense only not in the specificative that is while he is suffered to be King and is theirs and gracious withal unto them or until he be deprived or deposed by the Popes sentence or otherwise or even cease to be any more truly our King by the very nature of his pretended misgovernment and secondly understand by that clause nor hath in civil and temporal affairs any power above him under God I say they understand in that clause by the word power an ordinary power only not that extraordinary power which as before they still reserved to the Pope in those extraordinary cases of Apostacie Heresie c. and when they please too a power meerly and solely temporal such as never is the ordinary power which they attribute the Pope over Kings and thirdly tell us on those other words under God that the power of the Pope is the same which God hath and fourthly where in the end of the said proposition they declare that to witt the former parts of the same proposition to be their constant doctrine from which they shall never recede expound their
this Kingdom and in that particular too that the Pope could not depose Bishops in Ireland against the same Canons for that their third allegation I say it appears already out of all hiterto said to be even as to both branches of this fourth proposition or in relation to the said branches more than positively more than abundantly false especially if we understand by the Kings authority rights c. what honest men without Sophistry understand For if we do not the allegation must be to no purpose though it should relate only to the first branch as appears manifestly out of what is before said to their first and second allegation And for the second branch or part of the said fourth proposition they have not as much as any kind of colour to say that in their Remonstrance or three first Propositions they have as much as glanced at it Which the Reader may see with his own eyes and of himself without any further proof of mine conclude evidently by comparing together this fourth Proposition and their said three former Propositions and Remonstrance What ground then had they for this third Sophistical allegation of a more positiveness I confess that notwithstanding I have read and read again ten times over and over their said Remonstrance and three Propositions signed by them and compared both to this fourth I see none at all but that very vnsignificant and sorry one which is by a little inconsiderable change of the first Proposition which the Congregation was absolutly necessitated unto if they would not be convinced by every Soul that knew their former actions of a manifest untruth and lye For the first Proposition of Sorbone declaring in the second part that the said Faculty had always or at all times thitherto resisted or opposed even such as attributed to the Pope as much as an indirect authority or an indirect authority alone over the temporals of the most Christian King it is manifest our Congregation could not imitate Sorbone as to that part or I mean for what concerned the time past or could not have said as those of that Faculty did in these words immo semper obstitisse Pacultatem eriant ijs qui indirectam tantummodo voluerunt esse illum authoritatem Which was the reason that forced them to change the Precerpâ—â— perfect tense of the infinitive moode which tense the Sorbonists did and justy could make use of as they framed that first Proposition and change it to the future tense of the Indicative moode and put it into this form we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in Civil and temporal affairs Now what more positiveness hath this of the future tense argued I would fain know of any man And other argument than this sorry though necessary change I see none if not peradventure the words natural and just added to obedience in the third Proposition Epithets not made use of here by Sorbone be not thought by Father N. N. to be arguments of more positiveness But if he do and shew himself herein less than a Sophister every understanding man can tell him presently that where Sorbone sayes and declares in the said third Proposition their doctrine to be quod Subditi fidem et obedientiam Regi Chriâ—â—tae nissim it a debent ut ab ijs nullo praetextu dispensari possint it was needless to add those or any other Epithets to that faith and obedience which they profess there to be so due from his own Subjects to the most Christian King that under no pretext soever they may be dispensed with therein For certainly every man knowes there is no faith or obedience due from them to him but natural and just as neither can be from us to our own King So that albeit those Epithets be good yet they and nothing to the French proposition much less more positiveness in the declaration And whither the word faith which the Sorboniâ—â— have in this their third Proposition and yet is omitted in the same by our Congregation whither purposely or not I know not certainly do argue a less positiveness of less â—ye or obligation I leave it to others to determine Having done with their second Paragraph we are now come to their third Which I give likewise at length and in then own words As to the 5th they mean the 5th Sorbone Proposition as here in terminis that it is noe the doctrine of the Faculty but applied to the Congregation That it is not our doctrine that the Pope is above the general Couneâ— We thought it likewise not material to our affaire to talke of a School-question of Divinity controverted in all Catholick Vniversities of the world whether the Pope be above general Councils or no whether he can annul the Acts of a general Council or no dissolve the general Council or whither contrary-wise the Council can depose the Pope c. Secondly we conceive it not onely impertinent but dangerous in its consequence and unseasonable to talke of a question which without any profit either to the King or his Subjects may breed jealousy between the King and his Subjects or may give the least overture to such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late sad experience hath taught us Where I observe two Specifical reasons and no more given by them for the applicableness to their present purpose here of their above first general pretence The first is that whether the Pope be above a general Council or no is disputed in all Catholick Vniversities The second that their subscription to the fifth Proposition of Paris or to their resolve on this question would give others to understand it must consequently follow it is not their doctrine that the King is above the Parliament It seems they were put to very narrow shifts when they stuffed their Paper with such weak arguments But the illness of the cause afforded them no better and their resolution not to subscibe having been so unalterable as it was they must have pretended the most specious they could not certainly out of any hope to render by such pretences their obstinacie excusable with any judicious knowing men much less to impose on the Lord Lieutenant for whose immediat satisfaction they would have others believe these reasons and arguments were so digested but for a quite other design which was to abuse the multitude or vulgar by pretences of reasons and arguments whereof the common People could not understand the weakness whom therefore I have thought paines-worthy to disabuse by these following answers And first to their first argument which sayeth it is disputed in all Catholick Vniversities whether the Pope be above a general Council or not and therefore concludes the immaterialness and impertinency of their subscription to that 5th of Paris or to this It is not our doctrine that the Pope is above a general Council it is answered That those of
Catholick faith and Christian Religion That all the Catholick Vniversities of France which are Eight in number and many more which are in Poland Germanie State of Venice c. do not otherwise controvert this proposition For they hold it positively for certain and undeniable ever since the Council of Constance that a general Council is above the Pope That finally not so many Catholick Vniversities alone maintain this maxime but even the whole Gallican Church nor the whole Gallican Church alone but the Vniversal or Catholick Church in its latitude and by its lawful Representatives even in two general Councils that of Constance I mean about 300 years since and that of Basile immediately after or within 12 years after have amongst their Canons defined this to be a catholick truth All which joyntly with what is said before in this matter if the congregation had seriously considered it is like they would have declined their vain pretence of a School question of Divinity controverted in all catholick Vniversities of the world as they speake What more I have to say on this Subject of that 5th proposition abstractedly in it self considered though by occasion of the said first unreasonable reason of the Congregation or of their absolute refusal to subscribe it upon this or any other ground whatsoever they know best what that ground was will more conveniently be said in a distinct Treatise which will be the 5th in order of this work and followes immediatly after my answers to their allegations for not signing the sixth and laâ—â— proposition and after some few more additional propositions of my own added there Secondly or to their second specifical reason whereby they labour to prove the Subscription of this 5th proposition to be not onely impertinent in it self but dangerous in its consequents and unseasonable c Its answered that indeed to take of any question so as this talke in all the circumstances of it without any profit quiet or other good to the King or his Subjects should be thought in â—ight reason to be a cause of breeding new jealousies or renewing the old between the King and his people or of giving the least overture to such odious and horrid disputâ— concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late experience hath taught us would be now unseasonable though not therefore nor at all impertinent That nevertheless to talke of this specifical or particular question whether the Pope be above the general Council and talke of it now or in this present conjuncture in Ireland and talke of it so as the Congregation might and should and as expected from them or talke of iâ— so as their talke would be to those good and rational ends of bringing dissentors of their country and Religion to a free conscientious and vnanimous subscription of the negative and of thereby obstructing much occasion of new troubles and further of rooting out the seeds of Rebellion from amongst the Roman-catholick Clergie of Ireland on pretence of Papal decrees alone or letters from the Court of Rome that I say to talke of this specifical or individual question and talke of it in this manner or to these or other such good ends and in that Congregation would not be to talke of a question either impertinent in it self or dangerous in its consequents or unseasonable in any kind of respect either of the matter persons time Prince or other people but on the contrary most pertinent safe and seasonable and bringing a long with it naturally much profit both to King and Subjects because much peace and quiet by setling a truth so necessary and of so great importance against a sly error of so pernicious destructive consequence as is the contrary position That if from such talke of this specifical or particular question in such manner to such ends and in such a Congregation any should either out of ignorance or malice fall into such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late sad experience hath taught us it could not therefore be dangerous to give in such an occasion to such disputes so little overture as talke so qualified can be rationally thought by any indifferent man to give being this overture at most and worst could not be to other than the speculative part onely of those other odious and horrid disputes but not by any means to the practical at least for the present in that Congregation or Catholick Clergie of Ireland whom that Congregation represented and commanded That in giving so little overture to that speculation or speculative part onely of that other question and giving such overture not at all necessarily but accidentally and onely out of the biass and malice or ignorance of some of themselves both which themselves too partly and partly others also as was offered might and would easily rectifie if they pleased there could be no danger at all as to the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland or as from them But that in relation to others of the Monarchy of great Brittain who of late or in the late Warrs engaged themselves practically or in the practical part of those other odious and horrid disputes it is nothing this Congregation could say or unsay on that point or any other would engage anew or disengage them That Sorbone and the whole Gallican Church and the French King himself and his Council who all maintain without contradiction as even do his very Parliaments nay his general Assemblies of all the three estates of that Kingdom the most absolute Soveraignty of the French Monarch over all his people even collectively taken in what assembly soever the most independent from them or from any els but God alone can be desired in pursuance of that other tenet they all hold in the said Gallican Church of the Kings power to be given him immediatly by God alone as by the onely efficient of it that I say that learned subtile Faculty Church Prince or people never found that impertinency or danger or unseasonableness in the subscription of Sorbone to the said Proposition But on the other side much pertinency and safety and seasonableness towards the perpetual establishment of that absolute independent power in their King whereof they are jealous as of the apple of their eye and I fear much more incomparably than most Fathers of the Congregation were of the like in their own King if not to deny it him That as these good Fathers declared publickly in their said Congregation and privatly one to another the precedent of Sorbone was enough to secure them in their subscription of the three first Propositions nay and of all for this too they said so they might and ought for the same reason perswade themselves effectually no less at least of the pertinency and safety and seasonableness of their subscription to this 5th also than of the Catholickness and lawfulness of it That further yet or even abstracting as well from all precedents as from
Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall for the present agree upon such persons who are to be authorized bay Commission under the Great Seal to be Commissioners of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in and throughout the Kingdom to continue during pleasure with such power as Justices of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in former times of Peace have usually had which is not to extend unto any crime or offence committed before the first of May last past and to be qualified with power to hear and determine all Civil Causes coming before them not exceeding Ten pounds Provided that they shall not meddle with Titles of Lands Provided likewise the authority of such Commissioners shall not extend to question any person or persons for any Shipping Cattel or Goods heretofore taken by either Party from the other or other injuries done contrary to the Articles of Cessation concluded by and with the said Roman-Catholick Party in or since May last but that the same shall be determined by such indifferent persons as the Lord Lieutenant with the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall think fit to the end that speedy and equal justice may be done to all Parties grieved And the said Commissioners are to make their Estreats as accustomed in time of Peace and shall take the ensuing Oath viz. YOV shall Swear That as Justice of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in the Counties of A. B. C. in all Articles of the Commission to you directed you shall do equal Right to the Poor and to the Rich after your cunning and wit and power and after the Laws and Customs of the Realm and in pursuance of these Articles And you shall not be of Council of any quarrel hanging before you And the Issues Fines and Anerciaments which shall happen to be made and all Forfeitures which shall happen before you you shall cause to be entred without any concealment or imbezling and truly send to the Court of Exchequer or to such other place as His Majesties Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom shall appoint until there may be access unto the said Court of Exchequer You shall not let for gift or other cause but well and truly you shall do your office of Justice of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery in that behalf And that you take nothing for your office of Justice of the Peace Oyer and Terminer Assizes and Gaol-delivery to be done but of the King and Fees accustomed And you shall not direct or cause to be directed any Warrant by you to be made to the Parties but you shall direct them to the Sheriffs and Bayliffs of the said Counties respectively or other the Kings Officers or Ministers or other indifferent persons to do execution thereof So help you God c. And that as well in the said Commission as in all other Commissions and Authorities to be issued in pursuance of these present Articles this Clause shall be inserted viz. That all Officers Civil and Martial shall be required to be aiding and assisting and obedient unto the said Commissioners and other persons to be authorized as abovesaid in the execution of their respective powers XXIX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That His Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects do continue the possession of such of His Majesties Cities Garrisons Towns Forts and Castles which are within their now Quarters until settlement by Parliament and to be commanded ruled and governed in chief upon occasion of necessity as to the Martial and Military affairs by such as His Majesty or His chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being shall appoint and the said appointment to be by and with the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them And His Majesties chief Governour or Governours is to issue Commissions accordingly to such persons as shall be so named and appointed as aforesaid for the executing of such Command Rule or Government to continue until all the particulars in these present Articles agreed on to pass in Parliament shall be accordingly passed only in case of death or misbehaviour such other person or persons to be appointed for the said Command Rule and Government to be named and appointed in the place or places of him or them who shall so dye or misbehave themselves as the chief Governour or Governours for the time being by the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall think fit and to be continued until settlement in Parliament as aforesaid XXX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That all Customs and Tenths of Prizes belonging to His Majesty which from the perfection of these Articles shall fall due within this Kingdom shall be paid in to His Majesties Receipt or until recourse may be had thereunto in the ordinary legal way unto such person or persons and in such place and places and under such Comptrollers as the Lord Lieutenant shall appoint to be disposed of in order to the defence and safety of the Kingdom and the defraying of other the necessary publick Charges thereof for the ease of the Subjects in other their Levies Charges and Applotments And that all and every person and persons who are at present entrusted and employed by the said Roman-Catholicks in the Entries Receipts Collections or otherwise concerning the said Customs and Tenths of Prizes do continue their respective employments in the same until full settlement in Parliament accomptable to His Majesties Receipts or
justice or such dispensation may be given without manifest injury to a third and besides where it is not repugnant to the law of God positive or natural And all this binding and loosing power in the Pope even in the whole Execution of it according to the Canons of the Vniversal Church and as farre as these Canons allow it as it is and will be religiously acknowledged and observed still by the Subscribers in all occasions so it is left wholly untouch'd unspoken of unmedled with but supposed still by the Remonstrance as a most Sacred Right not to be controverted much less denyed the Pope by any Catholick nor even to other Bishops of the Church for the portion belonging to them by the self same Canons But what hath this to do with the Lovain pretence of a power in the Pope to bind people by the Popes own peculiar laws Canons precepts or censures by Bulls or otherwise to do that which according to plain Scriptures practise of the primitive Church and Churches following for XI entire ages and according to the interpretation or sense delivered by Holy Fathers of those very Scriptures and according to the very first and clearest reflections also of natural reason must be vitious wicked and even most enormously wicked transgressions of those laws of God wherein neither Pope nor Vniversal Church have any power to dispense what to do with a pretended power in any to absolve from Subjection or command the Rebellion of Subjects against Soveraign Princes who are accountable to none for their temporals but to God Or what to do with binding or loosing to the prejudice and manifest injury not of one third person alone but of so many millions of third persons as there are people in a Kingdom or State This loosing is not of sin or of the penalties of sin but of virtue of Christian duties and divine injunctions Nor is such binding a binding to Holy righteousness but to Horrible depravedness And therefore both such binding and such loosing must be from no true power Divine or Humane from no Gospel of Jesus Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church nor from those Holy Keyes of knowledge or jurisdiction given St. Peter to open Heaven to penitents or shut it to impenitents nor from any Keyes at all but very false and errant Keyes if not right or true Keyes in this sense and to this purpose only that they set open the Gates of Hell first to receive all such unhappy Soules as make use of them and then to lock them in for ever Yet now that the Pope is and while he is or shall be continued a Soveraign temporal Prince in some part of Italy for the time hath been for many ages of Christianity even since Christian Religion was by law established when the Pope had no such not only Soveraign or supream but not even any inferiour subordinate temporal Princely power and may be so again for ought any man knows the Subscribers will freely grant the Lovain Divines That upon just grounds when truely such are or shall be the Pope may in the capacity of a temporal Prince but not of a Christian Bishop and may I say without any breach of the law of God declare and make Warr against the King of England always provided that he observe in all particulars what the law of God Nations and Nature require from him in the declaration or prosecution thereof And may do so with as much right as any other Soveraign Prince meerly temporal can but with no more certainly And further that the grounds of warr may possibly or in some extraordinary case be such on the Popes side as not only in the unerrable judgement of God but in the opinion of all men that shall know the grounds of both sides truely and sincerely stated the Warr may be just on the Popes side and unjust on the Kings The Subscribers do freely grant the Lovain Divines all this and all the advantages they can derive hence But what then must it follow that the subscribers have therefore sacrilegiously or against the sincerity of Catholick Religion declared in general or promised in their Remonstrance that they are ready to stand by the King and loose their lives in defence of his Person Rights or Crown or of his Kingdom State and people against all invaders whatsoever Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal c. forraign or domestick Or must this follow albeit we grant also the said promise or Declaration of standing so by the King to extend it self to or comprehend that very extraordinary case or contingency of our certain evident knowledg of the injustice of the Warr on the Kings side and clear Justice on the Popes Certainly neither the one nor other follows For albeit the case or supposition be rather metaphysically then morally possible that the generality of Subjects of either of the Princes or States in Warr together may evidently know or certainly assure themselves of the cleer Justice of the affailants fide at least so as to have no such kind of probability of any Justice on the defendants part and forasmuch as he is a Defendant yet admitting the case were morally possible who knows not that natural reason tells us and Divines and Lawyers teach that however the Prince both rashly and unjustly brings a Warr on himself and people yet both he and they are bound to hazard their lives each for others mutual defence that is for the defence of the Crown Kingdom State and Republick and for the lives liberties goods and fortunes of all that compose it though not for defence of any rashness or injustice So that although it be granted that both Prince and people are to quit all kind of unjust pretences yet their own natural defence or that of their goods lives and liberties as it comes not under that notion so it is unseparable from their taking armes in their own mutual defence in a meere defensive Warr or even that which happens after to be offensive before a good or Just peace can be obtained and is so I mean unseparable notwithstanding any injustice whatsoever done at first by Prince or people that brought the Warr upon themselves Be it therefore so that the Pope in such temporal capacity would make Warr on the King of England and be it granted for the present what otherwise in it self is very doubtful at least if not manifestly false That for the only unjust laws or only unjust execution of such or only other misgovernment or oppressions whatsoever of one King or Prince of his own proper natural undoubted Subjects without any injury done thereby to forraigners or any other forraign Kings Subjects or Prince or State such forraign Monarch or Common-wealth may justly declare and make Warr against him as for example the French or Spanish King and by the same reason the Pope also in his said temporal capacity against the King of England and be it clear and evident likewise that the
pretence or even true real only cause of Warr so declared and prosecuted by the Pope against our King is purely and solely for unjust laws made and executed against Catholicks and against as well their temporal as spiritual rights and only to restore such rights to the Catholick Subjects of great Brittain and Ireland and be it further made as clear and certain as any thing can be made in this life to an other by Declarations or Manifestoes of the Popes pure and holy intentions in such an undertaking and of his Army 's too or that they intend not at all to Usurp for themselves or alienat the Crown or other rights of the Kingdoms or of any of the people but only to restore the Catholick people to their former state according to the ancient fundamental laws and to let the King govern them so and only disinable him to do otherwise and having put all things into such order to withdraw his Army altogether let all this I say be granted yet forasmuch as considering the nature of Warr and conquest and how many things may intervene to change the first intentions so pure could these intentions I say be certainly known as they cannot to any mortal man without special Divine revelation what Divines can be so foolish or peremptory as to censure the Catholick Subjects for not lying under the mercy of such a forraign Army or even in such a case to condemn them either of Sacriledg or of any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith only for not suffering themselves to lye for their very natural being at such mercy Or if any Divines will be so foolish or peremptory as these Lovain Divines proved themselves to have been by this second ground of their Censure I would fain know what clear uncontroverted passage of Holy Scripture and allowed uncontroverted sense thereof or what Catholick uncontroverted doctrine of holy Tradition or even what convincing argument of natural reason they can alleadg in the case And as I am sure they cannot alleadg any so all others may presume so too being their said original long Censure wherein they lay down all their grounds and likely too their best proofs of such dare not see the light or abide the test of publick view And if all they would have by this ground or pretence of ground or by the bad arguments they frame to make it good were allowed it is plain they conclude no more against a Remonstrance which assures our King of his Roman Catholick Subjects to stand by him in all contingencies whatsoever for the defence of his person Crown Kingdom and people and their natural and political or civil rights and liberties against the Pope himself then they would against such a Remonstrance as comprehended not such standing by against the Pope but only against French Spanish or other Princes of the Roman Church or Communion For the Pope hath no more nor can pretend any more right in the case to make Warr on the King of England then any meer temporal Prince of that Religion can being if he did Warr it must be only and purely as a meer temporal Prince for as having pure Episcopal power either that wich is immediately from Jesus Christ or that which is onely from the Fathers and Canons of the Church or if you please from both he is not capacitated to fight with the sword but with the word that is by praying and preaching and laying spiritual commands and inflicting spiritual censures only where there is just cause of such And I am sure the Lovain Divines have not yet proved nor will at any time hereafter that the non-rebellion of Subjects against their own lawful Prince let his government be supposed never so tyrannical never so destructive to Catholick Faith and Religion or even their taking arms by his command to defend both his and their own civil and natural rights against all forraign invaders whatsoever and however specious the pretext of invasion be is a just cause of any such spiritual Ecclesiastical censure Nor have proved yet against them or can hereafter that such censures in either of both cases would bind any but him alone that should pronounce them and those only that besides would obey them Yet all this notwithstanding I am farre enough and shall ever be from saying or meaning that Subjects whatsoever Catholick or not Catholick ought or can justy defend any unjust cause or quarrel of their Prince when they are evidently convinced of the injustice of it Nor consequently is it my saying or meaning that Catholick Subjects may enlist themselves in their Princes Army if an offensive Warr be declared against the Pope or even other Catholick Prince or State soever and had been declared so by the Prince himself or by his Generals or Armyes and by publick Manifesto's or otherwise known sufficiently and undoubtedly to be for extirpation of the true Orthodox Faith or Catholick Religion or of the holy rites or Liturgy or holy discipline of it Nor doth our Remonstrance engage us to any such thing but is as wide from it as Heaven from Earth It engages us indeed to obey the King even by the most active obedience can be even to enlist our selves if he command us and hazard our lives in fighting for the defence of his Person Crowns Kingdoms and People amongst which people our selves are but only still in a defensive Warr for his and their lives rights and liberties but engages us not at all to any kind of such active obedience nor ever intended to engage or supposed us engaged thereunto in case of such an offensive Warr as I have now stated What obedience the Remonstrance engages us unto in this later case is onely or meerly passive And to this passive obedience I confess it binds us in all contingencies whatsoever even the very worst imaginable But therefore binds us so because the law of the Land and the law of God and the law of Reason too without any such Remonstrance bound us before The Remonstrance therefore brings not in this particular as neither indeed in any other any kind of new tye on us but only declares our bare acknowledgement of such tyes antecedently Even such tyes as are on all Subjects of the world to their own respective lawful supream politick Governours Which bind all Subjects whatsoever to an active obedience when ever and where euer they are commanded any thing either good of its own nature or even but only indifferent and where the law of God or the law of the Land doth not command the contrary or restrain the Princes power of commanding it And to a passive obedience when he commands us any evil or any thing against either of both laws That is to a patient abiding suffering or undergoing without rebellion or any forcible resistance whatever punishment he shall inflict on us for not doing that which he commands and is truly evil in it self as being against the laws of God or is
that exemption be indeed or truly amounts to I pass over the little value many Countries of the Pope's even very strict communion and both many great and Catholick and Classick Authors too even very great sticklers for the Papacy it self as de jure divino have for this Bull or obligation of it yea notwithstanding all the solemnity used at Rome every year in renewing it How yet they will not receive nor publish it nor suffer it to be published amongst themselves nor hold themselves obliged at all by the publication of it either at Rome or in other places Whereof as enough may be seen in Suarez and Salas de Legibus where they treat of this subject so that was a notable instance which happen'd at Brussels in Albert and Isabels Principality over the Low Countreys resigned to them for ever by the King of Spain Philip the Second when the Nuncio Apostolick there at that time an Italian Archbishop thought he had met with such a conjuncture as therein he might introduce that Bull and therefore caused it to be affixed to the gates of the great Church of St. Gudula yet by commands from the Council of Brabant and Archbishop of Mechlin it was presently torn and pulled down quia non accessit placitum Principis and therefore too any further publication or observation of it prohibited ever since Which relation I had my self from the reverend Fathers de Young and Derkennis two famous professors of Divinity in the Colledge of the Jesuits at Lovaine when I studied in that University But whether this be so or no or whether the great number of those very famous Catholick Divines quoted by Suarez and Salas and by others too who maintain stiffely that Bulla caenae obliges no man in any Diocess out of the temporal Patrimony of the Roman Bishop as neither any other Bull of the Pope at least in matters of Discipline where not legally both published and received by the particular Churches Bishops Princes Clergy and People whether I say that great number of Divines be well grounded or no in maintaining so the invalidity of this Bull of the Supper without a special publication and reception in every particular Diocess neither the one viz. of that relation of the Fathers nor the other to wit of these Divines matters one pinn For I have shewed already that whether so or no whether without such particular publication and reception obliging or not obliging according to its tenour it hath not one word or clause to prove Bellarmin's voluit if by voluit he understand what he ought to our present purpose that is if the Pope's having actually or de facto as much as in him exempted Clerks by a Decretal Epistle Bull or Brief or other Declaration whatsoever sufficient for such purpose as much as according to the doctrine of the very Roman Divines and exempted them too even from the very supream civil power it self of temporal Princes or States For I confess that if any will understand by Bellarmine's voluit a meer inclination affection or good will of Popes to do so if they had found it feasible or according to the rules of prudence to do so that is if they feared not to loose all by doing so it may be granted and ought to be granted that within this last five hundred years many Popes have been spirited so whereof that conroversie in particular of Paul the V. with the Venetians in the year 1606. is for that one Pope a very notable instance But withal it must be granted on the other side that either this is not it which Bellarmine intended by his voluit or at least that he intended nothing to even his own purpose For such a will signifies nothing because not executed The contests therefore of several Popes with several Princes or States about jurisdiction as relating to Clerks argues no more but that such Popes did suppose or at least would have others believe they did suppose Clerks already or by some former law of God or Man or by humane custom in some places left in all causes whatsoever to the Court Ecclesiastical But argues not that any of themselves or other former or latter Popes whosoever did so exempt or attempted to exempt them so And for their suppositions or euen admonitions and comminations of censures nay or actual and manifold censures fulminated in such controversies against their opposers it is apparent in Ecclesiastical History they were little regarded by Princes or States or by other particular Churches of the papal communion or by their Divines Whereof also besides the State of Venice and several other Kingdoms and Principalities we have a most singular argument in the proceedings of Philip the Second that most religious and Catholick King of Spain when after the Usurpation of the Crown of Portugal by Anthony the Bastard Prior of Crati who by the faction and countenance chiefly of the Churchmen of Portugal got himself crown'd he reduced and subdued Portugal to himself as the more lawful Heir of that Kingdom For Spondanus ad Annum Christi 1581. tells how this great Catholick King expresly refused to extend to the religious of Portugal his Act of general Indemnity which in the general Assembly of Estates held by himself at Lisbone the said year he granted all those other Portugueses had opposed his title or the Duke of Alva his General or who had submitted to the said Anthony Nay excluded positively in the same Act and from the benefit of it all the Regulars or Monks of Portugal and besides them none at all but the said Prior Anthony himself the Bastard Usurper illegitimate Sou to Prince Lodovicus Franciscus Portugallus Count Vimiosi Iohn his brother Bishop of Guardia fifty other principal ring-leaders of Anthonie's faction And tells moreover that notwithstanding the general discontent arising from such exclusion or exception and notwithstanding all the frequent expostulations and supplications to his Catholick Majesty to mitigate this rigour he could never be wrought upon until at least two thousand Priests and Monks had by several kinds of violent deaths in several places partly within Portugal it self and partly abroad in the Islands of Azoras been destroyed in the prosecution of the warr against the relicks of Anthoni's Faction whereof also many were said to have been privatly dispatch'd It is true indeed that Thuanus L. 74. quoted by Spondanus ad annum Christi 1583. relates how it was rumour'd that Philip by his Embassadours at Rome obtained a Bull wherein the Pope pardoned him the killing of two thousand persons consecrated to God by a sacred and religious life But it is also true that neither Spondanus himself though a very precise religious Catholick Bishop and a great defender of all just laws of Popes and priviledges of the Clergy nor any other Historian or Writer I have yet seen reprehends nor tells that any other Divine or Clerk or even the Pope himself did reprehend King Philip as having violated
Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption by such his proceedings What therefore might be the cause of his desiring or accepting such a Bull if the story of it be true we may easily conteive to be of one side King Philips inexorable rigour I will not say cruelty first in excluding so many thousand religious and sacred men from all pardon and grace and next in pursuing and destroying them as irreconciliable enemies when he might have made them very tractable Subjects and on the other the Popes pretence of even the temporal Soveraignty or supream Lordship of the Country and Kingdom of Portugal as having been made tributary to the Church of Rome by Alphonsus the first Duke and King thereof according to Baronius ad annum Christi 1144. and the proceedings after of several Popes against some Kings of Portugal upon that ground by excommunicating and deposing some instituting others in their place and by exacting of them yearly at first agreed upon under Lucius the II. four ounces of Gold and after that four Marks of Gold under Alexander the IV. as an acknowledgement of his being the supream Lord of it or of its being held in Fee from the Bishops of Rome King Philip therefore to establish himself against the titles of so many other pretendents to that Crown thought it the safest way when he had done his work to make all sure with the Pope for after-times and get himself acknowledged King of Portugal even by him who pretended to be supream Lord of the Fee Though otherwise it be apparent also in Baronius that the Kings of Portugal did acknowledge so much dependence from the Kings of Castile as being bound to appear at their Court when called upon and give them three hundred Souldiers to serve against the Moors amounts unto But this could be no prejudice to a former independent and supream right of Popes to Portugal if there was any such especially whereas the same Barnius makes Castile it self feudatary to nay all Spain (a) Baron ad an Christiâ—â—â— â—01 〈◊〉 1703 the property of the of See Rome as likewise he doth in several places of his Annals all the Kingdoms of Christendome not even France (b) ad an 702. it self excepted And therefore nothing can be concluded from King Philips admission of this Bull but either his remorse of having abused that power God gave him over those religious men or used it in so much more like a Tyrant then a King unless peradventure he perswaded himself upon evident grounds they would never be true to him or his wariness in seeming so the more observant of the Pope in all things according to the maximes of Campanella while he drove at the universal Monarchy But however this be or not its plain enough out of his so publick refusal in the face of the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile and in that publick Assembly of all the Estates amongst which the Ecclesiastical was the chief and out of his so long and severe prosecution and persecution of those Monks for three whole years till he destroyed them all and out also of the silence even by the Ecclesiasticks themselves of that argument of exemption when the occasion to alledge it was the greatest might be offered at any time and finally out of his receiving continually the most holy Sacraments of the Church all that time without any reprehension or objection made to him by the Church of so publick and so scandalous and so bloody and sacrilegious violation of her pretended nearest and dearest laws I say it is plain enough out of all that whatever the story be of that Bull or whatever the true or pretended motives of King Philip to accept of it neither his own Subjects of Spain or Portugal Clerks or Laicks nor those of other Churches or Kingdoms either Princes or people nor even the Prelats or Pope himself that was then did any way so regard the suppositions or even admonitions comminations nay or even actual censures of other Popes in their Bulla caenae or otherwise as to think perswade themselves that a true obliging canon or law either of God or Man of the State or Church or even as much as of the Pope himself could be concluded thence for any real or true exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power in criminal causes And so I have done with Bellarmines voluit As for his other saying above That hitherto only Hereticks have contradicted this kind of Exemption even this so extraordinary and extravagant exemption of all Clerks in all temporal causes whatsoever civil or criminal from the supream civil and coercive power I remit the Reader to the next following Section saving one where he shall see a farr other sort of Doctors then Hereticks to contradict it even Austins and Hieroms and Chrysostoms and Gregories nay the whole Catholick Church in all ages until these later and worser times wherein the contest was raised first and again renewed by some few Popes and their Partizans against the supream temporal power of Emperours Kings and States Only you are to take notice here Good Reader That 't is but too too familiar with our great Cardinal to make Hereticks only the opposers of such private or particular but false opinions or doctrines of his own as he would impose as the doctrines of the Catholick Church on his undiscerning Readers as on the other side to make the most notorious Arch-hereticks to be the patrons of such other doctrines as himself opposes and would fright his Readers from how well and clearly soever grounded in Scriptures Fathers Councils Reason Which is the very true genuine cause wherefore he gives us where he treats of such questions so exact a list of those chief and most notorious Hereticks who held against him on the point and gives them also in the very beginning of his chapter or controversie whatever it be As in this of Ecclesiastical Exemption besides what I have quoted now out of his book against Barclay cap. 35. he tells us l. de Cleric c. 28. First in general that very many Hereticks contend that all Clerks of what soever degree are de jure â—â—vin by the law of God or by the same law ought to be subject to the secular power both in paying tributes and in judicial proceedings or causes Secondly that Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno though Catholick Lawyers to Lodâ—uick of Bauer the Emperour but esteemed Hereticks by Bellarmine because some tenets of theirs were condemned by Iohn the XXII Pope of that name taught that not even our Sauiour himself was free from tribute and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the didrachme or tribute money he did not freely without any obligation to do so but necessarily that is to satisfie the obligation he had on him to do so Thirdly that Iâ—hn Calvin l. 4. Institut c. 11. Parag. 15. teaches that all Clerks ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of secular Magistrats excepting
est auferatur fratremque nostrum Paulum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae Episcopum Regali authoritate vt nobiscum id est cum omni generalitate orthodoxé sapere debeat coarctare degnemini Concil Lateran consult 2. sub Martino 1. they desire the Emperour that by his legal authority and by corporal coercion he force him who not onely was a Priest not onely a Bishop but in the highest degree of the Hierarchy ordained by humane constitution or by the canons of the Church even the very Patriarch of Constantinople For a ninth canon that which is in the Ninth Council of Toledo cap. 1. may very well and properly serve where the Fathers acknowledging this supream coercive power of Clerks in Princes ordain thus against Clerks that defraud the community or the Church of the oblations intended in common for the Church Vt si sacerdotem seu ministrum aliquid ex collatis rebus praeviderint defraudare aut commonitionis honestae conventione compescant aut Episcopo vel Iudici corrigenda denuntient Quod si talia Episcopus agere tentet Metropolitano ejus haec insinuare procurent Si autem Metropolitanus talia gerat Regis haec auribus intimare non differant Where you see this ancient Council of Spanish and very orthodox Bishops ordaining that the excesses of Ecclesiastical persons of Priests Bishops and Metrapolitanes be in the last place or when no remedy is applyed by the Bishops or Metropolitanes themselves complained of to the King to be questionless by him and by his regal authority corrected and coerced Tenth and last of those canons I pitch upon and restraine my self unto here is a canon of the Synod of Ravenna convoked by Iohn the ninth Pope of that name about the nine hundredth year of Christ For in this Council Lambertus the Emperour being himself there in person and at some variance with that Pope who who was likewise present in his own person amongst his Capitula or heads which he proposed to the Council and as to be admitted by the Pope and Council proposed in the first place of all this Si quis Romanus cujuscumque sit ordinis sive de clero sive de Senatu seu de quocumque ordine gratis ad nostram Imperialem Majestatem venire voluerit aut necessitate compulsus ad nos voluerit proclamare nullus ei contradicere praesumat Donec liceat Imperatoriae Potestati eorum causas aut personas aut per Missos nostros deliberare Which capitulum was assented unto and ratified by the Fathers and made a conciliary Act and therefore too a Canon of that Council and all this done so solemnly and even in the sight and with the approbation also and consent of the very Roman Pontiff himself there in person present to the end it might appear to the world that after the more directly spiritual or purely Ecclesiastical Canons had been ended by the Fathers the Emperour would by this particular Canon of another nature have it declared that he preserved still entire his own right of judging the very Clergy of Rome it self as an Emperour and in all matters whatsoever belonging to his imperial cognizance and consequently still preserved intire his own imperial coercive power of criminal Clerks or that of punishing them civilly corporally if or when their delinquencies or crimes or the preventing of such crimes for the future in others required such punishments To conclude this Section of Canons I must give some few and brief advertisements to the Reader concerning them and my purpose in alledging them 1. That I alledge them not as causes or as grounds or springs of such authority in secular Princes but only as testimonies of the sense of the Fathers who made them and for those ages wherein they were made that there was by and from a superiour power such a previous original proper essential independent right in supream secular Princes and that for the more certain more demonstrative proofs of such a right in Princes I relye not somuch on any express Canons of either Popes or Councils as upon those plain texts of holy Scripture and those other so plain and so express of all the holy Fathers generally who in their other writings that are not Papal or conciliary Canons commented upon the same Scriptures and besides these two arguments of Scripture and Tradition which I have before given at length in three Sections for I make that of my Instances of practise part of the argument of Tradition that I do also very much relye upon those other evidences of natural reason which you may turn to Sect. LXXII 2. That although for these Canons which are only Papal that is those which are made or issued by the sole authority of one or more Popes without a Council I pretend them not to be of equal authority with such as had the consent of a Council nor hold those meer Papal Canons or any other in Gratian to be properly and strictly the Canons of the Church being these are such as were made at first or approved at last by a general Council or otherwise introduced by universal consent or custome albeit others too may be Canons for the occidental Church apart or apart for the oriental yet as to my present purpose meer Papal Canons may be justly presumed to be most sufficient testimonies because against the Popes themselves or against the present exemption of Popes by divine right and their pretended power also by any right whatsoever to exempt others I mean still out of their own dominions or those wherein they are themselves at present supream temporal Princes 3. That in my interpretations of those Canons or in my conclusions derived or intended from them I do not tye my self either to Gratian whom I confess to have seen many or most or perhaps all of them or to any of his Glossatours if indeed Gratian himself how otherwise great and earnest soever a Hiero Monarchist or Zealot for and assertor of the Roman and Papal Hieromonarchy interpret conclude or say any thing at all point blanck either directly or indirectly or consequentially or virtually against my interpretations or conclusions here out of these Canons or against my assertions all along of the supream royal coercive power of criminal Clerks For truly he may be very well understood without any such meaning xi q. 1. where he had most occasion to deliver himself as of purpose treating there of the proper Judicatory of Clerks Because that forasmuch as of this matter he treats only according to the Canons of the Church and priviledges given by Emperours and that I have shewed and proved already elsewhere in my LXIX Section â—e brings neither an Imperial constitution nor allowed Church canon nor as much as any true or certain though meer Papal Canon which maâ—y be home enough against my assertion of such an absolute independent supream coercive power in Kings and that also in his last Paragraph which begins thus as even his former doth
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