of God be wanting in any reverence duty or obedience which by Vow or Rule or Canon or Reason I do or may according to the Faith or Doctrine of the Universal Church owe either to the most Holy Father the Bishop of Old Rome or to any other Bishops or to any other Prelates or Superiours in their respective places whether Secular or Regular because doing otherwise I could not but condemn my self of using evil means to attain or drive at lawful ends and consequently of being as bad an Interpreter of that saying of our Lord in St. Matthew (a) Matth. 6.22 Si oculus tuus fuerit simplex totum corpus tuum lucidum erit as any of the late extrinsick Probablists are Whereunto also is consequent That I never at any time hitherto intended nor shall I hope through the same grace of God for the future willingly or wittingly intend either in my Writings Actions or Designs any thing against the Divine Authority of the Catholick Church or even against the venerable either Majesty or Primacy or even Power Authority and Jurisdiction of the First of Bishops or First of Apostolical Sees the Roman I mean not altogether so far as a number of Popes speaking in their own cause or a company of Schoolmen prepossessed by them or frighted or hired or misled through corruption and ignorance of the later times have asserted the former in their Canons and the other in their speculative Writings but as far as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath believed or taught how great soever or whatsoever that Patriarchical or Jurisdictional power be which she believes or acknowledges to be in the Roman Archbishop either from divine Title or humane onely nay which but the National Churches hard by us though composing her but in part the Spanish and the Sicilian the French and German the Venetian and the Polish notwithstanding they be of strict communion with the Pope do universally or unanimously believe For I think it too hard a task for any private man much more for me to know better what hath been delivered in all former Ages or is believed in this present as an Article or Doctrine of undoubted Faith divine by the Universal Church of Christ on earth than may be learned from the unanimous consent of those very National Churches of Europe alone agreeing together upon any Article as undoubtedly such Other humane Laws indeed or Canons or Customs they may agree in that oblige not other Catholicks of their communion in other Kingdoms or Nations but where and as much as they are received and not abolished again or antiquated either by a Municipal Law or National Canon or even by general Custom prescribing against the former The Sixth and last Appendix relating likewise generally to the former Questions That as notwithstanding my Appeal to your judgment of discretion I never intended to exempt or withdraw my self i. e. my person from the Authoritative or binding sentence of Canonical Delegates if my Adversaries continue their prosecution and His Holiness may be induced to grant me such Delegates as He is certainly bound to do or at least to acquit me and rescind all the illegal proceedings hitherto of his subordinate Ministers and Officials against me so neither do I decline their judgment of my Writings Nay on the contrary my resolution hath alwayes been and I hope shall evermore be which I do now the second or third time declare in Print under my own hand or name to submit with full and perfect resignation every word in my several Books even to the Authoritative judgment not only of the Catholick Church the House (b) 2 Tim. 3. of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth or which is the same thing of its lawful Representative an Oecumenical Synod truly such that highest Tribunal on earth in matters of Divine Faith and Holy Discipline nor only of a free Occidental Council of the Latin Church alone but even of any other Judges whatsoever many or few or even so few as two or three that shall in the interim of such a Council be delegated by His Holiness or any other that hath a lawful Church-power to require obedience from me in such cases provided those other Judges Delegate be competent i. e. indifferent or above all those exceptions which the Canons of the Catholick Church allow To the Authoritative sentence even of any such Delegates I will and do submit both my Person and my Writings in this sense that if I cannot conform my own inward opinions reason or belief to theirs yet I will abide whatever punishment they shall therefore inflict upon me and patiently undergo it until absolv'd from it or dispens'd with by a higher or at least equal power But to that of such an Oecumenical Synod or even such an Occidental onely as before I shall moreover God willing as I do at this very present for all future times most heartily conform all the most inward dictates of my Soul for what concerns any matter of pure Christian Faith and shall throughly acquiesce in their determination whatever may be in the mean time disputed by others or even my self of the absolute Fallibility as to us of the very most General Representatives or most Oecumenical Councils themselve before their Decrees be at least virtually or tacitely received by the Represented or Diffusive Church without publick opposition to them from any considerable part of the said Church Besides for what concerns not the binding power of publick Tribunals but the discerning of every private Conscience I shall and do most readily submit even every word also in my Writings not only to your â—ensure but to that of all such learned men of whatsoever Nation or Religion as diligently and sincerely seek aâ—ter Truth And God forbid I should be otherwise disposed or that I who believe and maintain the Pope himself not to be Infallible not even in His definitions of Faith if made by Him without the concurrence either of the Catholick Church diffusive or of its lawful Representative a General Council truly such wherein He is but the First or Chief Bishop onely should think my self not Fallible or not subject to Errour Yet I hope and am sufficiently assured that in any material point either of Doctrine or Practice relating to the publick Controversie in hand I have not hitherto fallen into Errour After all this submission it must not seem strange if I except as I do plainly in this Cause both against the Authoritative and Discretive Judgment of all the Roman Ministers Cardinals Consistories Congregations Courtiers and all their Clients whatsoever And yet it is not their Fallibility but their Partiality their extreme blindness or wilfulness or both in their own Cause and for maintaining their own worldly Interest and consequently it is their actual Errour yea and actual prejudgment too of the Cause without so much as giving any reason nay without so much as hearing once the Parties concern'd
either have recourse to the diffusive Church that is to the Faith of incomparably the farre greater body or number of Bishops and learned Fathers and Doctors of the several particular Churches of all ages dispersed throughout the world whereof those gathered at Nice were in comparison but a small portion or certainly in such case suffer themselves to be mislead out of their old way or belief and for and by the authority of such a Council embrace the new fancies of Arrius â—ading withal that out of one impossibility another must follow And I further demand of our Objectors whether the Catholicks answering so then to the Arrian Hereticks must have been therefore taxed with undervaluing the authority of general Councils or which is the same thing with holding absolutely or with averring or confessing absolutely and by such answer that the Council to be convened so generally at Nice could erre in that Faith of one substance If our Objectors will say that those Consubstantialists would or did think so then it is evident our Objectors will be forced by consequence to allow the Procurator to think so to and think it also lawfully and Catholickly For neither he nor they can pretend to be Catholicks otherwise in any point then as those old Consubstantialists were But if our Objectors will say as indeed they must say these old Consubstantialists must not therefore think absolutely that Council of Nice could erre it must by the same reason follow that neither the Procurator by or for the like answer to the like caprichious interogatory must absolutely or positively think a general Council truly such can erre The second case is of a new Heresie that may without any miracle yet arise in the Church about the Divine processions As for example that as there is a Father and Son in the God-head or Divine nature or amongst the Divine persons so there must be a Mother and a Daughter And put the case too as it may be that both East and West and South and North of the universal Church or in all Countreys of the World are as much devided upon this new Heresie as they have been formerly upon that of Arrius at such time as St. Hierom said after the Council of Ariminum that the whole earth groaned under Arianisme seeing it self suddenly become Arian And therefore that by the true believers and let these be the very objectors themselves a Protestation is drawn and signed against this new Heresie to hinder a further progress of it or the corruption by it of the remaining Catholick party And then suppose further that a follower of this new Heresie would put the like caprichious interrogation to our objectors this for example what if a future general Council truly such define against your opinion adding withal that the objectors themselves knew very well this new controversie was never yet in terminis decided by a general Council In this case I demand what could our objectors answer to this Querie insisted upon or could they answer otherwise then as the Procurator did to Father Brodin And yet would they allow that by or for such answer from themselves they should be justly taxed with undervaluing the authority of general Councils or with holding absolutely that a general Council truly such might erre I am sure whatever they answer to these Interrogatories I put them in this case will be but to confound themselves and make them an object of laughter and scorn for having so ignorantly or so malitiously amongst the people calumniated me or that my book or that passage of it as if I had therefore undervalued the authority of General Councils or as if I had positively or absolutely held they could erre or as if I had taught a new way of disclaiming in a general Council and of having recourse from such Council to the Diffusive Church whereas I have been truly in that very passage as farre as from East to West from any such matters being my answer was onely conditional and to a conditional Querie and the condition too according to what I delivered there absolutely impossible in the order I mean of moral impossibilities or of such as are said only to be such by reason of Gods special providence and special promises made to the Church for preserving it for ever in all saving truths Whereof to convince yet further these very objectors I must beg thy patience and pardon good Reader that I give here intirely the whole discourse from first to last and word by word which I made on this subject in my More Ample Account or which I made therein to both those Metaphysical contingencies or Queries which the foresaid Father Brodin insisted on The first being What if the Pope should hereafter define the contrary in terminis And the second What if a general Council did c By occasion of which Queries and in answer to them both I writt thus in that little book page 59. 60. 61. and 62. The answer to both these Metaphisical contingencies for indeed they can be hardly thought greater being first That in case the Pope alone condemn the Protestation as involving even heresie they would reflect on his fallibility in defining and would rather hold with France Spain Germany Venice while these Countries change no other of their present tenets and with all the ancient and modern times of the universal Church then with the Pope in that case Secondly that if even a general Representative of the Church or which is the same thing a general Council of Bishops truly such define it they would then either have a recourse to the diffusive Church or which is very probable suffer themselves to be mislead it being very possible that out of one impossibility another should follow as Logicians do tell us it is certain Nor can it therefore be rationally objected that our signatures to the Protestation or other engagement to maintain the doctrine of it and keep religiously our faith therein pledged must be unlawful or unconscientious or must not be a duty incumbent on us at least if required and such a duty moreover as we can not decline without sinning against all the laws of God and man It is manifest there are opinions and such as are confessedly such and only such which yet famous Catholick Vniversities end even whole Kingdoms engage themselves by Oath and vow to maintain I instance in that of the B. Virgins Conception and could alledg several others sworn to at least by men graduated in Schooles And there are hundreds of opinions even in matters of conscience which the Dissenters themselves I am certain very often practice and they think safely too and with a good conscience yea although they hold not seldome the contrary to be no less probable and sometime more and more safe also or which what ever they do there is no doubt but ten thousand learned and pious men do practice And yet they know all these opinions even that of the conception must be
to following ages the true â—â—â—se of the Gospel without contradiction from any in this matter Nor do I alledge those others which indeed are very many out of the clear light of nature it self the known principles or articles of Catholick Truths manifestly revealed in the Gospel being once supposed For I have resolved to abstain in this letter from treating of the principal controversie What I say now is That such of our Institution as have subscribed the foresaid Remonstrance are ready according to their rule and regular vowes according to the Statutes also of our Order nay and if your most reverend Paternity please not only according to the substantial course prescribed in the Canons of the Roman Church for judicial proceedings but even according to the nicest puntillioes formalities and rigour too of them to obey that is to answer and give account or the reason or cause of our engagement or other proceedings even in this very principal matter of our said Protestation and that not only to the most blessed Father Alexander the Seventh chief Pastor of the Universal Church but also to the Minister General of the Friars Minors and his Commissary too of the Belgick Nation your most reverend Paternity provided only that you proceed not against us by violence subreption pre-occupation or any other injurious manner but in a regular lawful way according to the Canons What I say also is That neither your most reverend Paternity nor the Minister General may according to those Canons of the Roman Church in any manner summon so great a multitude of old sickly or indigent persons from a Countrey so farr distant as Ireland to undertake so long so dangerous a journey for so many hundred leagues by sea and land to appear at Rome or Bruxels and this I say whether the King countermand them or not But with more confidence I say it where or when it is manifest That not only the King forbids them positively but the very law of the Land expresly a law in force in England from the very dayes of St. Anselme when we find it enacted in the raign of William Rufus a Roman Catholick King of England about five hundred years since Which law soon after enacted also in this Kingdom of Ireland so many other after-laws of the following Catholick Princes Edward the third Richard the Second made likewise in for both Kingdoms which laws go by name of Provision or Praemuniri as your Paternity may likewise read in the same Italian of Vrbinum Polidore Virgil in his life of Edward the Third have so extended guarded fenced with so many additions of rigour and penalties that justly it is feared as Polydore sayes like that of death whereas besides manifold other punishments one is that the transgressor lose all his Goods if he have any and withal suffer all the evils of perpetual imprisonment That your Paternity cannot according to the Canons give any such kind of summons or citations I averr Whereas the Canons are in the very letter of them clearly against you and that besides the Church is according to the ordinary maxime a Pious Mother and consequently that even according to the general assertion of modern Divines and Canonists Her commands oblige none to undergo such grievous inconveniences or any manifest hazzard of them nor oblige even Regulars notwithstanding any vows whatsoever made by them if peradventure you except not the Jesuits Discalceat Carmelits or such if any such be either these or any others as vowed by a fourth kind of solemn vow or some such special one to be ready in all kind of contingencies whatsoever even that of life or death to obey And whereas moreover that passage of the Apostle is made use of by all Divines for the deduction of many consequents inferred thence as out of a maxime doubtless of absolute certainty both in Faith Reason There is no power to destruction but to edification and that that other passage likewise of another Apostle is no less clear and certain We must obey God rather then men And finally that we cannot but see manifestly the positive absolute command of God unto us for obeying in all temporals the King next to God alone or which is the same thing more then any other mortal when he commands nothing against the law of God What I say moreover and notwithstanding that I now immediatly said is That whensoever it shall appear legally or certainly and authentickly that in your Paternities foresaid letter to Father Caron the Subscribers were intended that is admonished or summoned or indeed shall be hereafter in any other way or by any other paper and that neither your Paternity nor General Minister will be satisfied without some one appear for them and in their name on your side of the Sea I will my self petition earnestly and use all my best endeavours that it may be lawful for at least my self as well in my own behalf as in that of all the rest of the Subscribers to appear there give the best satisfaction I can Though verily what the reverend Father Caron in his answer to your Paternity desired seems without any question farr more equitable to wit that you would be pleased rather to send a Commissary to the Province it self that is to Ireland where according to the Canons all debates and causes or their merits may be far better inquired into and more uprightly judged Which his either demand or counsel seems by so much the more reasonable by how much it cannot be unknown to your Paternity that the third year of our Provincial is now very near wherein your self ought according to the Statutes of our Institution to visit the Province and view in person the several faces of those under your charge and not by Delegates at least not by such Delegates who against all laws and not so much out of custom as corruption and even to conceal from you the true state of things are desired and further desired only for the continuing still a petty tyranny of some few persons and yet further desired with the shame and loss of the Order and who are and have been notwithstanding the great evil of such a precedent or the worse consequents of so evil an example granted by you and your Predecessors now for fifty years at least And hence Good Father so many tears But if your Paternity be resolved or have any mind to send a fit Commissary that is a man worthy of that imployment and a man too qualified according to our laws one not of the same Province but of some of the next adjoyning or if which would be yet more expedient you intend in person yourself to visit now at last the Irish vineyard as you must resolve on either to what end a citation of so great a number and of such persons to appear out of Ireland on your side the Sea Truly before even such of them as are young strong and healthy if any
deposed from the sacaerdotal office but also thrust into a strict monastery to do perpetual pennance But nothing is concluded hence or may be against our case but on the contrary much for it as I mean to a lawful discovery of the sin or treason if such it be without discovering the sin or him that in his confession tells that intended treason For it licences the Confessors to consult in some cases with others telling them of the sins without revealing the sinner But for the rest it reflects not at all on the case of the Confessors discovery of an evil intended or plotted by others that never confess'd unto him such evil or such plot albeit the confessor knew it by or in the Sacramental confession of one of the very plotters or of some other that had no further hand in it then that of baâ—e knowledg Much less doth this Canon any way touch the case of a only seeming confitent or of such as is wickedly obstinately still impenitent however discovering such conspiracy in the confessional Seat And as little doth it say that either this kind of confession is any way Sacramental or the Seal or Obligation to keep it secret more then what is meerly natural or would be in case the party told it without any seeming formalities of a seeming Sacramental though truly known to the Confessor to be a very unsacramental confession Besides who knows not the general doctrine of Catholick Divines in relation to the Canons of the Church as such Canons only That they never bind nor intend to bind nor indeed can bind any not even I mean where they are received as this Canon is generally and ought to be not even where they seem in express words to come home to the case all the particular circumstances of it as this Canon doth not in any respect that I say such Canons neither do nor can bind any against the Law of God positive or natural Nay which is more that as barely such or as Canons of the Church only they bind not the faithful to observance where and when the observer must thereby suffer of loss of life or limb or estate or liberty or any other notable great and heavy inconvenience or evil which may be declined by the non observance of them For it is a known maxime of Divines in such cases that the Church is a pious indulgent mother But would she be so or not rather appear a cruel step-mother if she were supposed to make a Canon for concealing the intended ruine of King and Countrey and of an infinite number of Innocents nay and of her self too as may be well supposed in the case and concealing this also when the discovery so made by a confessor might prevent the whole mischief It s cruelty and inhumanity and want of piety and charity and religion and learning and reason too that would make any think she would be so impious And secondly what they can alleadg is That by the divine law natural as t is called by them for positive law divine they have none nor pretend any from Scripture or Tradition all Confessors must so behave themselves towards their penitents or confitents too let them say if they please as not to render the Sacrament of pennance odious And that a lawfulness once allowed in any case for the Confessor to reveal a thing or matter whatever it be told him in the confessional Seat and to reveal it I mean without his consent would render this holy Rite very odious and give occasion to many sinners not to declare their sins entirely but wholly to estrange themselves from confession for ever But if this argument concluded any thing to the purpose it would also conclude that Confessors must not discharg the duty they are confessedly and without contradiction of any side bound unto by all the laws of Reason and by all the Canons of the Fathers They would not enjoyn so many restitutions of lands and goods and same so extreamly grievous very often to penitents Nor would enjoyn so many other heavy pennances either medicinal or satisfactory no less painful then shameful too in many cases And who can deny but such injunctions render confession odious to nature Nay who can deny but the very duty it self of bare confession as it is prescribed by the Canons and Councils of the Church and by all Divines of the Roman Communion taught as necessary and as it is required to be exactly of all particular mortal sins of word deed or even inward consent alone and both of their number as farre as one can remember or conjecture after sufficient examination and of all kind of circumstances too that change the species as they speak must be very odious to nature especially when the sins are unnatural or shameful But if it be answered that such is the duty of the Confessor enjoyn'd him by the positive laws of the Church and by those natural laws also of Reason being he is Judge in that holy tribunal in the place of God and that such too is the doctrine of the Church and Catholick Faith where no liberty is left to Divines for teaching otherwise even so I answer to this allegation or objection of the Sacrament of confession to be rendred odious if the Confessor may be free in any case to make use of notices had therein without the Confitents permission It may indeed render it odious in such a case But to whom To a wicked impenitent or to a most unreasonable man To none truly rational and penitent to no such person making a true Sacramental confession or to none that is resolved at any time to confess holily will the confessors discharging his own duty render such a holy confession odious A duty whereunto and whereby in such case he is bound even by all the very laws of God as well positive as natural as may be easily demonstrated if at any time reqvired to hinder and prevent timely even by such a revelation such deplorable general and otherwise irremediable evils as would in all kind of moral certainty follow his not revealing the design communicated so in confession and let us always suppose the confitents denyal of consent to such revelation Though as I have noted before such denyal can hardly if at all be supposed in a true penitential confitent or in a true Sacramental confession unless we suppose withal the penitent to be some strange meer natural blockhead that is not capable of understanding his own obligation in such a case or the ghostly Fathers instructions in it Which yet is very like an impossible supposition 6. That our Masters of Lovain will find it a very hard if not absolutely impossible task To perswade a knowing pious man that either any dictate of natural reason or any ordinance of human Canons much less any article of Christian Faith or Catholick Religion hetherto delivered us either formally or virtually by Scripture or by tradition tye Confessors I
do not say not to reveal such fatal plots conspiracies or treasons without revealing the Confitent himself against the person of the Prince and the whole fabrick of the Commonwealth and by consequence ordinarily against so many millions of innocent harmless people without possibility or at least moral probability of seeing the end of the evils and general calamities arising thence but I say do not as much as tye them not to reveal the very person of the penitent or the confitent himself if the case be such or may be such though it can hardly ever be such that the design cannot by human industry be otherwise prevented For I am sure that neither that Canon of the Lateran Council nor any other of the Church doth reach this case As I am certain that all Divines will confess the Church can make no Canon hereafter to reach it if there be no former antecedent express or tacit rule for it in the law of God or nature And I am no less certain that until yesterday come back again neither the Doctors of Lovain nor any other in the world can ever demonstrate or prove any such antecedent rule either of natural reason or of Scripture or Tradition LVII As for the saying of some otherwise peradventure good Casuists or Canonists or even the croud of never so many of the later but worser Schoolmen who should valew them when they bring nothing to make their placits good no Scripture no Tradition no Fathers no Councils no reason at all that would take with a rational knowing pious man but on the contrary produce only their own ill grounded opinions and a world sometimes of barbarous names of Authors such as many of their own are even against the clear dictates of the law of God and nature against all virtue and piety and against all true Religion and even against the very first principles of reason I would very fain know of these Gentlemen these excellent Moralists who must needs dilate themselves on Metaphisical suppositions to shew forsooth their blind zeal for a meer fiction of a seal which neither God approved nor the Church ever commanded or allowed in our case what will godly pious understanding men Judge of them what will any good Christian Commonwealthsmen think of their foolish imagination of a very and truly not only unsacramental but also unnatural seal in a case proposed thus All the Catholick Princes and States of Europe and oâ— all other parts of the world professing Catholick Religion or enjoying the Roman Communion and all the power they can raise of horse and foot even two or three or four million more or less of men are in one field or one country joyn'd and amass'd together and the Emp. Kings of Spain France Poland Portugal c. and the very Pope with all the Court of Rome in the head of all against also all the contrary power of the habitable earth Hereticks and Jews Mahumetans and other Infidels and as well the Lutherans and Caluinsts and all the huge variety of other Sects both in the Greek and Latin Church as the Turk Tartar Persian Moore and Indian the Chinese and all the wild people of America and even those of the Terra australis incognita joyn'd also together in one body to ruine utterly the Catholick Church of Christ and raze it from the very face of the earth They are ready on both sides to joyn battle or as many battles as you please and to put all to a fatal hazard and let the resolution be so too that it is absolutely fixed upon by both sides and every individual of each side never to flye never to take quarter win all or loose all to kill or to be killed In this conjuncture suppose a Christian a Roman Catholick by name education profession and by inward belief too goes to confession to a Priest tells him of such a plot or yet a farre worse and incomparably more dangerous then that of Count Iulian against Roderico the Spanish King in that fatal battle wherein the Moores conquered Spain of some other discontented wicked Catholicks and whether himself had or had not a â—and therein it matters not that out of a divelish passion against the chief Commanders especially the Pope himself for some private quarrel had so devoted so resigned themselves over to the Divils power and to infernal revenge that they have contrived such a plot and are now ready for execution of it as will inevitably ruine all this Christian Catholick power deliver them up to their enemies and even bring to a most cruel slaughter all and singular the individuals of this never so vast army of the Roman Faith or Religion and in the first place the Pope himself and all his Cardinals and Court and all other Churchmen of the Roman City or Diocess and after all bring this â—ame holy City and Diocess and even all the temporal Patrimony of St. Peter within or without it to be plough'd up and sowed with salt to the end it may never again be inhabited as some conquerors are read to have done to some â—ebellions or enemy Cities But withall this penitent or this confitent when he reveals this so fatal conspiracy to the Priest is so possess'd suddenly by the Divels suggestion that notwithstanding any exhortations of the Priest he will not promise that himself will reveal it to those concern'd nor licence the said confessor to reveal it nor yet will tell him the persons time or place or manner of the execution of it whereby it might be prevented by the confessors giving a general notice only either in secret or in publick to the Pope or other King or General or person of the army and yet withal hath told so much and in such a manner that the confessor is and ought to be thereby absolutely perswaded of the truth of such and so unspeakably enormous conspiracy In such a case as this though a case that will never be yet because so many of our honest Casuists and famed Theologues and so great a croud of them too bring it or the like or yet a farre worse to a supposition because they suppose even the both temporal and spiritual destruction and even eternal damnation of all the World I demand what will truly pious understanding christian Commonwealthsmen or Divines that examine soberly and from its origin the true nature and the true ends of Sacramental confession or Sacramental secrecy or seal under which it is to be kept by the confessor and withal consider all the both general and particular most express and most indispensable tyes of the laws of God and man and nature of the laws of charity justice and loyalty and all the duties not of a Christian Subject only but of a man what I say will such other conscientious rational Commonwealthsmen or Divines think of their doctrine that maintain in such a case the lawfulness of quitting utterly all these duties or of reputing them no duties
testimonies of all Ages from the first of Christianity I say that being it is therefore plain and clear enough to any dis-interessed judicious and conscientious Divine that neither these Councils or Popes could upon rational grounds pretend any positive law of God properly or truly such either out of Scripture or out of Tradition at least for such exemption of the persons of Clergymen and in temporal affairs too from the supream civil coercive power it must consequently be confessed that unless we mean to charge an errour on these Councils and Popes we must allow the answer of such Divines as with Dominicus Soto 4. dist 25. q. 2. art 2. hold against Bellarmine in this matter to be not only full of respect but of reason also viz. that by jus divinum ordinatio divina voluntas omnipotentis cura a Deo commissa these Councils and Popes understand that right or law Divine that ordination Divine that will of God that care by God committed which is such only in as much as it is immediatly from or by the Canons or laws of the Church and that by jus humanum they understand the civil laws or institutions of meer Lay-Princes And indeed that of respect in this answer will be allowed without contradiction And that that of reason also cannot be any more denyed I am sure will appear likewise to any that please to consider how it is very usual with Popes and Councils to stile their own meer Ecclesiastical Canons Divine and such Canons I mean which by the confession of all sides never had any positive law of God in Scripture or Tradition for them For amongst innumerable proofs hereof which I could give that of the 27. Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon and that other in the third action of the VII General Synod will be sufficient proofs For in the former it is plain that meer Ecclesiastical Rules though concerning only the district jurisdiction and preheminence of the Constantinopolitane Patriarch and some other Bishops and Metrapolitans are called divine Canons and that in the latter too the title of divine constitutions or divinely inspired constitutions is attributed to the laws or Canons in general of the Church So that jus divinum ordinatio Dei c. must not be opposed in these places quoted by Bellarmine or any other such to all that which is properly strictly immediatly or only from men however taken for Lay-men or Church-men but to that which is from men acting by a meer lay natural civil temporal and politick power and not at all acting or enacting laws as the Church enacts by a pure spiritual supernatural and therefore by way excellency called a divine power and their laws therefore too in that sense or for so much called divine though not divine at all in the strict proper sense of a divine law as by this we ought to understand that which was immediatly made or delivered by God himself and by the mouth of his Prophets or Apostles or by Scripture or Tradition 3. That however this be or however it may be said by Bellarmine or by any other to be well or ill grounded or to be truly according to the sense or mind of these Councils and Popes he alleadges yet even Bellarmine himself and all others of his way will and must grant that although we did suppose and freely admit his sense of these places to have been that indeed of these Councils and Popes yet the argument is no way concluding any other not even I say for as much as it is grounded on the authority or manner of speaking used by these very Councils which are accounted General as Trent and both these Laterans 1. Because the canons or places alleadged are at best and even at most even the very best and most material of them but canons of Reformation or canons of meer Ecclesiastical Discipline which are worded so And no man that as much as pretends learning is now so ignorant as not to know that even entire Catholick Nations and many such too oppose very many such canons even of those very Councils which themselves esteem or allow as truly General and oppose not the bare words or epithets onely as our dispute now is of such words or even of bare epithets but the whole matter and sense and purpose nay and the very end too uncontrovertedly admitted to have been that of such General Councils And the reason is obvious enough vz That in canons of Reformation Discipline or manners as it is generally allowed and certain the Fathers deliver not nor intend nor pretend to deliver or declare the Catholick Faith and that in all other things they are as fallible and as subject to errour as so many other men of equal knowledge though without any of their authority or spiritual superiority 2. Because that in the very Decrees or Canons of Faith General Councils even the most truly such may erre in such words as are not of absolute necessity for declaring that which is the onely purpose of such Canon For so even Bellarmine himself teaches l. 2. de Concilior Authoritate c. 12. expresly and purposely and in these very words Denique in ipsis Decretis de fide non verba sed sensuâ— tantum ad fidem pertinet Non enim est haereticum dicere in canonibus Conciliorum aliquod verbum esse supervacaneum aut non rectè positum nisi forte de ipso verbo sit decretum formatum ut cum in Concilio Niceno decreverunt recipiendam vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et in Ephesino vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where you see that he exempts onely from this general rule the case wherein a Council should of purpose frame a Decree or Canon of Faith concerning the very use of such or such a word or epithet as the first of Nice-did for the word bâ—mousion or consubstantial against Arrius and the Council of Ephesus did for the word Deotocon or Godbearing against Nestorius Which cannot be said by Bellarmine or any other in his behalf or that either any Council or Pope have ever yet done so as to or concerning the use of the words jus divinum ordinatio divina c or of the single word or Epithet Divine in our case 3. Because and according also to not onely truth but eveâ— Bellarmine himself again in the same book and chapter in the Acts of General Councils even those Acts which concern Faith neither the disputes which are premised nor the reasons which are added nor those things or words which are inserted for explication or illustration are of Faith or intended by the Fathers to be submitted unto without contradiction as a matter certain and infallible but the bare decrees onely and not all even those very decrees but such of them onely as are defined expresly to be the Faith delivered that is as even Bellarmine himself elswhere and all the Schools now teach with him such as are said in such Council to have
inconsideratione aliqua violent sed una cum ipsis Principibus debitam sacris summorum Pontificum et Conciliorum constitutionibus observ antiam praestent Decernit itaque c. 2. It is also clear enough these words ordinatione divina or the Councils saying that Ecclesiastical Immunity was constituted by divine ordination imports no more of necessity then that it was Gods good pleasure and special providence and care of the Church and Churchmen that disposed affairs so and moved the hearts of Princes and people to give such exemptions to the Church and Churchmen as they indeed have For so we say that by Gods ordination or divine ordination this or that is as it is Which yet argues no positive law of God nor any law at all of God for it to be as it is As for that of Colen besides that it is but a smale Provincial Synod never yet canonized by any general Synod nor even by any Pope and therefore in Bellarmine's own principles of no authority out of that Province not even were the Decree in a matter of Faith as it is not certainly it is manifest enough the Fathers there or in that ch par 9. quoted by him speake not a word pro or â—â—n of our present dispute or if they do any way indirectly or by consequence that all is against Bellarmine forasmuch as they determine Ecclesiastical Immunity to consist chiefly in two things The one that Clerks and their possessions are free of all imports tributs and other lay duties The other that criminals flying to Churches be not forced thence Now where is a word here of Clerks being exempt even from the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes and even the most haynous crimes imaginable and committed too in meer temporal things These Fathers of Colen did not as much as dream of any such matter At least no rational Divine is to judge or conclude out of their words or expression here that they did For the onely word here whence any such thing might be any way pretended are these aliisque maneribus laicis But who sees not there are other lay duties besides customs oâ— taxes from which by the civil constitutions of the Roman Emperours at first and after by that of other Kings who succeeded them Clerks are and have been exempted nay that their exemption from other lay duties was the first exemption they had and even that which above all other was most convenient they should have as for example from all civil offices of Collectors Bayliffs Constables from the Militia c. Why then should any Divine be so unreasonable as to derive from a position so general so proper and so true of those Fathers of Colen a conclusion so particular so improper and so false as Bellarmine doth in our present case As for those other words of this of Colen jure pariter divino humano I have already said what we must rationally think they understood by jus divinum though only applied here to other exemptions then that from the supream civil power For both the Lateran Councils I confess Bellarmine and some others with him give them both equally the name of General But I am sure withal that according to all truth the latter which he considers first or that under Leo the X. does not merit as much as the name of a General Council truly such nor even of an Occidental Council truly such and that Bellarmine himselâ— elsewhere confesses it is not esteemed as such by many great Catholicks and that moreover whatsoever he thinks the whole Gallican Church many others reject it as not esteeming it such for many reasons which I shall give hereafter in this book upon another occasion As I am sure also that all the Canons of discipline reported to be of the IV. Council of Lateran or of that under Innocent the Third which Bellarmine quotes here in the next place are doubtful though for the present it matters not much whether these Canons be or be not genuine or whether this which is called the great Council of Lateran Concilium Magnum Laterananse was or was not a general Council truly such or whether only a very great Occidental Council but not for all that a Council oecumenical or General properly and truly such of the universal Church As the same for the point of being truly oecumenical or General of the whole Church is disputed by some concerning the Tridentine Synod albeit now of greatest authority with us of all General Councils truly and unconvertedly such Neither doth it matter any more one jot whether the other Lateran under Leo the X. be admitted or not for a General Council truly such For albeit this latter in the IX Session and decreeing somewhat of Ecclesiastical Discipline sayes in general and by way of supposition that by divine and humane law there is no power attributed to Lay-men over Clerks c. and the former under Innocent cap. 24. say that some Laicks endeavour to usurp too much of divine right when they compel Church-men that receive no temporal benefit from them to swear Allegiance or take oathes of fidelity to them yet no understanding person no good Divine or Canonist may therefore conclude that certainly these Councils intended thereby to signifie as much as it to be their own bare opinion much less to declare it as the Catholick Faith which indeed is not pretended of them by Bellarmine himself or any other That Clerks are by a pâ—sitive law of God exempt even in all criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of temporal Princes And my reasons are 1. Because it is a maxime of both Divines and Canonists that priviledges and laws that speak of priviledges are stricti juris or strictae interpretationis when the priviledges are to the prejudice of any third's right as also when out of any other kind of more ample interpretation some either absurdity or falsity or any great inconvenience or any errour and gross mistake attributed to the laws or Law-makers or givers of such priviledge must follow 2. Because it is a maxime too very well known and granted that where a Law or Canon dwells in Generals only we must not understand particulars or such specialties as are not specially express'd and whereof there is or may be a grand controversie whether the power of the Canon-makers could reach unto them and which moreover are such that it is not likely the Law or Canon-makers would comprehend them if expresly thought upon and specially debated 3. Because it is manifest this position of Bellarmine concerning the exemption of Clergy-men in all criminal causes whatsoever c. is such a specialty and such a priviledge And therefore it must follow that whereas these Councils of Lateran do not in specifical express terms discend to it no Divine or Canonist may in reason conclude they mean'd it But on the contrary ought rather to expound them in any other probable and rational
not to summon Clerks to their tribunals and judge their causes whensoever such causes were meerly temporal and not properly or strictly spiritual or of a purely spiritual nature And I affirm also that before Iustinians Empire which was from the year of Christ 527. wherein it was begun to the year 565. wherein he dyed no Council nor canon of Council did ever as much as declare or even as much as only suppose that Clerks were by any other authority or by that I mean'd of the very Emperours themselves exempted generally from lay tribunals not even I mean still from those of inferiour Judges And O God of Truth how can any knowing Divine any conscientious Historian Canonist or Civilian be so preoccupated as not to acknowledge or so blind as not to see it cannot be any way probable that the Fathers of those primitive and purer ages should attribute any such power to themselves as by their own proper authority to exempt others or even themselves from that subjection to which as well themselves as all other Clerks were antecedently bound by the positive law of God himself as not only St. Augustine teaches in his exposition of the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul to the Romans but all other Fathers generally who treat of this subject or expound that chapter But to clear this matter throughly we must observe Those ancient Fathers with whom Ecclesiastical Discipline whereof now there is so great neglect did sincerely and severely nourish used their utmost endeavours that Ecclesiasticks should not onely by their doctrine instruct the people but also by their probity of manners and innocency of carriage in all things And therefore admonish'd all Clerks nay enjoyned them in their own conciliary Canons and sometimes also under heavy Ecclesiastical Sanctions or Censures That none of them should presume to convene or charge an other Clerk in any cause either criminal or civil before a secular judge but either by the intervention of friends should compose all their own differences or certainly if they would not or could not do so that they should at least suffer all to be determined by Episcopal Iudgment acquiescing therein And both advised and ordained so in imitation of St. Paul himself and for the very self-same reason or certainly not unlike to it this great Apostle had when writing to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 6. and forbidding them to sue one an other before heathen Iudges he gave therein a rule to all Christians generally for that time as well Laicks as Clerks Which reason appropriated to our present purpose of Clerks onely is That if or when it should happen that Clerks should fall out of human frailty into such imperfections or sins as other men are subject to and yet are scandalized at mightily when committed by Clergie-men they might be with farre more secrecy and much less scandal corrected by their own proper Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Superiours and consequently that such deviations of Clergiemen should not come to the knowledge of the vulgar which commonly judges of the doctrine by the life or conversation of the Doctors and is apt enough upon such occasions to laugh and scorn the persons themselves and not seldome too their very sacred function it self Besides that Clergiemen who by their calling should be in a very special manner above others careful to cherish peace and concord and be themselves by word and deed paterns of charity and patience to others should not by their own example or by their own sueing of others or of one an other in the secular and publick Courts rather shew the way to contention and strife then lead to christian peace and patience Whereby as it may be easily understood the Fathers did not by such admonitions or by such decrees lessen or intend to lessen as indeed they could not if any of them would and certainly none of them have willed so to lessen the proper civil power of the secular Iudges to heare and determine the temporal either civil or criminal causes of Clerks when brought to their tribunals and brought so either by the free access of the Clerks themselves or by their constrained or commanded appearance when called or summoned by the same Iudges For to have done so or intended so would have been to take from Princes and Magistrats that right and authority which the law of Christ doth not permit any admonitions or any decrees of the Fathers not even in or by their most solemn Councils whatsoever to take from the said Princes or Magistrats The Fathers therefore by such decrees did partly forbid that Clerks should not sue one an other and partly too that neither should they sue a meer layman before a secular Iudg. For this also of not sueing laymen some Canons have And the Fathers by those decrees ordained Episcopal punishments against all Clerks that would not observe those decrees And this is all that may be gathered out of any or all the Canons of Councils alleadged by our adversaries Now who sees not that all this might be justly and lawfully ordained by the spiritual Fathers of the Church by their Ecclesiastical Councils and Canons without any the least diminution of the former civil power of the lay Iudges over Clerks For so a good natural Father in the civil commonwealth that hath many children may command them all and also forbid them under a private domestick punishment nay even under that of disinheriting them that they contend not or sue one an other before a publick Judg about any quarrel amongst themselves but leave all such differences to himself their Father or to the private domestick judgment of their other Bretheren And may command this without any prejudice at all to the publick authority of the publick or legal Judges And therefore so too may the spiritual Fathers of the Church command those who are in a special manner and by a special tye and calling their spiritual children such as all Clerks are and may command them too under such punishments or penalties as are proper to their said spiritual Fatherhood not to the one an other or even any at all before a secular Judg. And yet by no means thereby lessen or intend to lessen the power of such Judges over Clerks or their causes whensoever convened or brought either by election or coaction before them but onely to abridgâ— the Clerks themselves of their former liberty of going so freely unto them as they used to do Which any rational person may easily judg not to be an Exemption of Clerks from secular Judges but a provident course to keep them in better order and as well as may be to avoid scandal And that my bare assertion may not be given for this my interpretation I thought it worth my labour to set down here and at length distinctly those very Decrees of Councils which Bellarmine l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. Prop. 3. pleads against us though he gives there some few words onely of some of them and
bounty how much more in reason must we not deny the Church a power to deprive such of her own favours as will not perform the conditions enjoyn'd by her for the continuance of such favours Thirdly against that which is said by Barclay and which I too have said above that this canon was made by the Fathers to restrain the giddiness and rashness of such Clergiemen as would appeal from the Church to a secular Judge after the cause had been begun to be discussed in the Church against this I say of a provision made here for such a case only of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical and nevertheless before any judgement given transferr'd by a caprichious Clerk Bellarmine argues by objecting the Council of Milevi Concilium Melevitanum and it must be the second of Milevi under Arcadius and Honorius where it is prohibited in the ninth canon not that Clerks transfer to secular Courts a cause begun already in the Church but absolutely prohibited that by no means they go to the Emperour to demand of him secular Judges But the answer is obvious 1. That divers canons may be made by divers Councils And that it is most evident that whatever the Fathers of Milevi ordained in the case those of Carthage ordained no other then what William Barclay said and what I too have after him said without any kind of interpretation or paraprase of the Council but in the very words of the Council or Canon it self For these are the words precisely of that Canon Cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commâ—ta Let any one say now for Bellarmine that ought else is decreed by the Canon then what is against such Clerks as transfer a cause already begun in the Church 2. That for that Council of Milevi albeit the Fathers prohibit in the Canon cited out of it that Clerks desire no secular judgment of the Emperour yet they prohibit not the Emperour himself to assign lay Judges to a Clerk if his Imperial Wisdom think it fit to assign such Nor even prohibit Clerks to answer if called upon by such lay Judges and obey their sentence as binding them So that both Councils that of Carthage and this of Milevi say the very same thing in this matter without any other difference but only that this of Milevi extends the prohibition further that is not only to the transferring of causes already begun before or in the presence of an Ecclesiastical Judge but even to causes not so begun For it simply or absolutely prohibits Clerks to transferr as much as in them lyes any civil or criminal cause whatsoever whether so begun or not so begun to secular Judges Where yet it is apparent there is nothing at all for the Immunity of Clerks from secular Judges being the command is only to Clerks not to demand such lay judges and no command to no restriction at all of the lay Judges to proceed ex offiâ—iâ— when the causes of Clerks are brought before them The second Council that prescribed any thing in this matter was that truly Oecumenical or General of Chalcedon for the former of Carthage though of very great authority was but a National Council of Affrick however canonized after by approbation of truly General Councils held in the year 451 under Martianus the Emperour and Pulcheria the Empress who were both present and often sate in it Wherein the ninth canon made for discipline and regulation of Church affairs or those of Clergymen was this Si quis Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non derelinquat preprium Episcopum ad secularia judicia non concurrat sed prius negotium agitetur apud proprium Episcâ—pum vel certe si fuerit negotium ipsius Episcopi apud arbitros ex utraque parte electos audiatur negotium Si quis vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diaecesis Primatem aut certeâ—ad Constantinopolitanae Regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur If any Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk let him not leave his proper Bishop nor run to secular Iudicatories But first let the matter be agitated before his proper Bishop or certainly if the controversie be with this Bishop himself let it be heard by arbiters chosen by both sides But if any Bishop or Clerk have a controversie with or against the Metrapolitan of the Province let them go to the Primate of the Diocess or certainly to the See of the Constantinopolitan Royal City that the business may be ended there And this is all this canon sayes Where it is plain enough 1. That the Fathers direct their speech to Clergiemen only prescribe a rule to them only but none at all to lay Magistrats or Iudges not even to the subordinat inferiour Iudges so little do they meddle with or ever as much as thought to meddle with the supream That although they bid Clerks not to go first to secular Iudgments yet they do not bid them not to go at last or in the next or second instance to such if they cannot agree That even to the Clerks themselves they prescribe only in such cases as a Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk but not in case a Clerk have a quarrel with a Laick or a Laick to him 2. That they declare not here enjoyn or prescribe that it was not is not of shall not be in the power of a lay Judge to determine of the causes of Clerks one against another or of that of a Clerk against a Lay-man or of a Lay-man against a Clerk when either voluntarily and by the parties themselves brought before him or when by his own authority or by due course of law or by summons from him to either or both parties they appear in his Court. So that this Canon meddles not at all with the power authority or jurisdiction of the lay Magistrates or Judges but only prescribes a rule to the Clerks themselves that themselves should not freely or voluntarily sue one another at least in prima instantia in secular Judicatories and as we may justly presume upon the same grounds and for the same ends we have before noted the Fathers of Affrick did in imitation of St. Paul or of his advice or command as you please to all Christians in general to abstain from suing one another in heathen Judicatories least otherwise they would questionless betray their religion and belye it before the haters and persecutors of it 3. That in case there were as there is not any word or matter in this canon of Chalcedon restraining any way the Jurisdiction of even inferiour lay Magistrates or Judges yet it would be to no more purpose alledged against me or against any thing I have said before in this Section concerning even the very same inferiour lay Magistrates and their Jurisdiction over Clerks in politick or temporal
matters For the Canons of this Council as the Faith of this Council had the approbation and joynt concurrence and the authority of the supream civil power of the Emperour himself there in person to give them force and virtue where-ever the sole authority spiritual of the Fathers was not sufficient or might peradventure be said by any not to have been sufficient And what I have said above was that no canon of the Church or of any Council approved or allowed in so much by the Church can be produced out of which it may appear that the Fathers of the Church the Bishops did ever by their own proper Episcopal Authority exempt Clergiemen from the Jurisdiction of as much as the inferiour lay Magistrates or declare them exempted so 4. That Iustinians foresaid 83. Novel which was made by him near 200. years after this Canon of Chalcedon and notwithstanding this Canon of Chalcedon was still in force and Iustinian himself a great reverencer and observer of all was concluded in that great Council shews the word prius in this Canon must be interpreted so as I have above of the first Instance or with relation to a posteriour judgment which might be before the secular Judges in case the parties could not agree For so the said Novel of Iustinianus made in favour of the Clergy expresly decrees that Clergymen should first be convened before their own Bishops and afterwards before the civil Judges And therefore being it is just for us to suppose the word prius in this Canon of Chalcedon was not idlely or superfluously set down by so many learned and worthy men as were those 630. Bishops who composed or enacted it we must also from hence rationally conclude that the civil Jurisdiction of even secular subordinat Judges over the Clergy is not weakned by this Canon but rather confirmed The third Council in order of those alledged by Bellarmine is that of Agatha or as others call it Agde Concilium Agathense held in the year 506. where the Fathers convened there made this Canon of Discipline which is the two and thirtieth of this Council Clericus nec quenquam praesumat apud secularem Judicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare Sed si pulsatus fuerit non respondeat nec proponat nec audeat criminale negotium in judicio saeulari proponere Si quis vero secularium per calumniam Ecclesiam vel Clerum fatigare tentaverit convictus fuerit ab Ecclesia liminibus catholicorum communione nisi digne paenituerit coerceatur Let no Clerk presume without the Bishops leave to sue any in a secular Judicatory And if he be sued let him not answer nor propose nor dare to propose a criminal matter in a secular Judgement But if any secular shall attempt by calumny to vex the Church or Clergy and shall be convicted hereof let him be driven out of the Church and from the communion of Catholicks unless he repent worthily And this is what this Council ordained and the whole tenour of this Canon Concerning which the Reader is to observe first that Gratian changed the letter and sense of it in his Decretum 11. q. 1. Can. Clericum whether of purpose and willingly or whether ignorantly or perhaps that he had another but false copy of this Council different from that of all others I know not But sure I am that instead of the Councils words which are these I give here Clericus nec quenquam praesumat Gratian abuses his Reader with those other words which quite alter the sense Clericum nullus praesumat apud secularem Iudicem episcopo non permittente pulsare to the end the prohibition may comprehend Laicks also or that not even Laicks may sue a Clerk before a secular Judge whereas in truth or according as the canon is set down in the Council it self or all copies published in the Tomes of Councils it is only for Clerks without any mention at all of Laicks in that first part of this Canon Nay the last part of this very Canon it self shews the Fathers intended not to forbid Laicks not to sue Clerks before a secular Judge but only not to vex them by lies or calumnies before any Judge Which indeed the Fathers might justly do and justly also punish by Ecclesiastical Censures all such as would otherwise behave themselves towards Church-men either in a Secular or Ecclesiastical Judicatory if convicted to have willingly sued them so or falsely charged them Nor is it this canon only as to our business that Gratian corrupted but also that passage commonly alledged out of Pope Marcellinus's Epistle ad Faelicem in eadem causa quest can 3. where also instead of Clericus nullum Gratian foists in Clericum nullus So that for such Canonists as for what belongs to Councils have onely read the Collections of Gratian and consequently were deceived by his false reading or quotations of them we must not wonder if they have fallen into this errour of the general exemption of Clerks by Councils or Popes which I here impugne Though for all that I cannot my self but somewhat wonder that Bellarmine would in his controversies l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. follow this corrupt Reading of Gratianus and follow it alike both as to that Canon of Agatha and that Epistle of Marcellinus and not rather follow the true and genuin text in the Tomes of Councils and even in the very animadversions or castigations added to Gratian himself And the Reader is to observe secondly this Council of Agatha was but a Provincial Council or at most but a little National of such Catholick Bishops as lived in that part of Gaule or France which was then subject to King Alaricus the Arian Goth. For the number of the subscribers of this Council was only 24. Bishops 9. Priests Deacons who had proxy from such other Bishops as were absent That consequently the Canons of this Council may not be said to be canons of the Church but onely of such particular Churches as were govern'd by those few Bishops in that Kingdom of Alarick unless it may be shewed that these canons were approved of received or as they speak canonized again by the authority of some General Council of the universal Church as we know that divers not onely national but provincial Synods for example the third of Carthage and those of Gangra Laodicea Antioch c have been That it is not yet as much as pretended by any that this Council of Agatha was so received of or authorized by any General Council nor as much as confirmed by the Popes themselves or by any one Pope That if the Popes approbation or confirmation had been desired by the Fathers of it and granted to it which yet appears not to have been no more could be concluded thence but his bare approbation and confirmation of the acts for that Nation or that Kingdom onely for which they were made unless the Pope had moreover by his Patriachal or Papal power
Cler. l. 3. l. 6. l. 19. passim illo titulo and in the Code of Iustinian Tit. de Episcop Cler. l. 4. l. 12. l. 16. l. 27. in authenticis Iustiniani collat 9. Tit. 6. novel 123. de sanctissim Episcopis Nay do not we read how Gregory the Great himself that no less holy then learned Pope and zealous Defender of all the true liberties of the Church and canons of the Fathers admitted in the year 592. nay promulged the law of Mauritius wherein this Emperour enacted that no persons obnoxious to accounts or debts nor souldiers also who had not served their full time in the Warrs that is so many years as by law they ought before they could sue for a dismiss should be received to a Monastical life in Monasteries nay that notwithstanding this holy Pope himself conceived this law to be unjust in it self that is taken strictly and generally in all cases and to all such persons and souldiers yet in his letter on this subject to the same Emperour which is 16. Epistle l. 2. Registri cap. 100. he signifies his own obedience in receiving or publishing it in divers parts of the world vz. throughout the Occidental parts of the Empire though withall to satisfie his own conscience he in the same letter expostulate the injustice of this law with the Emperour concluding nevertheless all that very letter with these words of perfect submission and obedience Ego quidem jussioni subjectus eamdem legeni per diversos terrarum partes transmitti feci quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime concordat ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis Dominis nunciavi utrobique ergo quae debui exolici qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro deo quod sensi minimè tacui Which import as much as that having declared to his Imperial Majesty his own judgment of the injustice of that law and consequently paid to God what was from himself in that business due to God and yet having at the same time sent that very law according to the Emperours command into divers parts of the world to be published and observed he had also paid to Cesar what was herein due to Cesar Therefore I have sayes he on both sides done what I ought who have done my obedience to the Emperour and yet have not past in silence what I thought was for the service of God Thirdly and lastly because he concludes nothing at all For did we grant that the Pope may at his own pleasure fix on persons and command and force them to be ordered Clerks against their own will yet will it not follow that he may therefore or indeed upon any other ground subtract or exempt them from the secular power either supream or subordinat unless it be first supposed that whoever is once a Clerk is also exempt from the civil power But here we dispute not whether Clerks de facto now are so exempted by any law or power but whether the Pope or Church might de jure at any time exempt them so even against the contradictory will of all civil laws and and powers Which that the Pope or Church might or may do that argument will never prove Because such exemption is not of the essence of Clerk-ship nor at all necessarily annexed thereunto and Clerks might have been chosen by the Pope and other Bishops of the Church nay and have been so actually chosen for many hundreds of years and even for some hundreds too after the Emperours were themselves Christians when as yet the same Clerks enjoyed no such exemption by the laws or otherwise but were and by the very laws too of Christian Emperours expresly obnoxious even to inferiour civil or lay Judicatories Now the Reader may judge whether I grounded well that last part also of my defiance made to the Divines of Lovaine That is whether I had not reason to defye them as I have Sect. LXII to shew as much as any one convincing or even probable argument of natural reason to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream civil Prince or laws under wich they live as Citizens or Subjects or live at least as reputed Citizens and Subjects LXXI To cleer all whatever I intended either principally or incidentally in the former Section LXX it remains that I tell the Reader briefly that Bellarmine was too too confident also where and when he said against Barcley as we have seen above in the said last LXX Section immediatly going before this That not only the Pope could exempt all Clergymen from the supream civil power or could declare them formerly exempted so by the law of God but also that he hath de facto already exempted them or declared them exempted so by the law of God from all Princes and States on earth even in all politick civil criminal and other causes whatsoever mixt of both Petuit tamen voluit summus Pontifex illos eximere aut jure divino exemptos declarare sayes he adversus Guliel Barcl c. 38. For although it be not my task nor any part of my defiance or undertaking in my above LXII Section or any other place in this book nay though it be unnecessary as well in it self as for me to shew here that no meer and sole Papal Canon hath any such thing for we know that meer papal Canons or such as are made only by the Pope are not hoc ipso canons of the Church nor also hoc ipso that they are inserted in the Decrees of Gratian or Decretals of Gregory or Sixt of Boniface or Clementines of Clemens or Extravagants of Iohn the XXII not to speak of those other late canons of other Popes whereof Petrus Maffeus comprised a seventh book of Decretals and my defiance was concerning those canons which are truly and properly or simply called canons of the Church videlicet such as are made by General Councils or if at first by National or Provincial Councils or if by the Pope alone yet after have been canonized by General Councils or at least generally received by the Churches and my assertion of other canons how otherwise Papal soever is what is too of many Catholick Divines and Churches that they are not simply the canons of the Church but canons of such or such particular Churches as made or received them yea notwithstanding any extension soever of such by his Holiness and consequently that no concluding or convincing argument of general right in the whole Church as no infallible truth can be derived from them as such yet I would here advertise such Readers as are carried away and hurried into a belief of any thing which hath right or wrong the papal Authority or that of a meer and sole papal Constitutions for it not examining any further the truth of justice of it or whether the Pope could determine any such thing or upon what grounds or in what sense and by
wholly The first Prince therefore I bring to my purpose is that very same first and greatest of all Christian Emperours Constantine himself A Prince who as by the confession of all sides and all writers he was most pious and of all Princes deserved most and best of the Christian Catholick Churches so no man I think of all our Hieromonarchical sticklers will have the confidence to accuse him of having usurped any kind of authority over Churchmen or practised any at all over them but that was allowed him by the laws of God and nature and approved also by the State civil and Ecclesiastical But if any would be so impudent as to charge him in this matter I am sure he hath the general vote and patronage of all the ancient holy Church to clear him in it Theodoret. Histar l. 1. c. XI Sozom. l. 1. c. 16. And yet this very great and pious Constantine is he who in the Council of Nice or when it sate himself being present with them at Nice and often in the very Session Hall amidst the Council which was in his own Pallace there commanded the libels or petitions of accusations and criminations offered to him by Priests and Bishops against other Priests and other Bishops and as a Judge of them all of both sides and in such criminal matters commanded the said libels to be brought before him and receaved them albeit immediately thereupon having first brought all parties to a friendly attonement by his Princely wisedome and piety and by checking and rebuking severely both the accusers and accused for criminating and recriminating one an other with personal failings he cast before their faces all those libels into a fire as thinking it more expedient and pious that such humane imperfections or frailties of Bishops and Priests should be altogether hid and for ever unknown least otherwise or if their vices were known or publish'd the vulgar the lay people universally might be scandalized and corrupted as takeing from such examples a greater liberty for themselves to commit sin without remorse or shame Indeed Sozomen tells that Constantine said in this occasion It was not lawfull for him as being a man to take upon or unto himself the cognizance of such causes where the accusers and the accused were Priests But if Constantine said so at all without any kind of doubt he must be supposed to have said so partly out of some excess of reverence and piety to their Order which he would not have then and in the face of the world to be blemish'd publickly with such foule aspersions and partly must be understood to mean that part of the accusations which contained meer Ecclesiastical and not lay crimes to witt heresy and the like whereof he was not so competent a judg and above all said so that he might the more easily bring them to concord and for the more quick dispatch of the grand controversy that of Arrius's pestilent heresy in the Faith the debate of which was the great end of gathering that Council to which dispatch or even debate that of privat criminations of one another was a great delay and might be a farre greater if Constantine had not carried himself in this matter so prudently and piously For if Constantine had said so indeed and withall meand to be understood of even meer lay crimes or strictly or in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull in order to such crimes of Priests or even also to signifie that himself was not a competent judge nor the sole Iudge for the punishing of heresy in them by external coercion as by corporal or pecuniary mulcts by imprisonment exile death he had never receaved the petitions either of the accusers or accused but remitted them on both sides to their own proper judges and judicatories the tribunals of Bishops Nay the Bishops themselves at least such of them as were not particularly concern'd in such criminations had likely admonish'd him not to give eare or audience to the accusers of Bishops or at all receave their libels as not being their competent judge in any cause whatsoever at least to punish or coerce them And yet for any thing out of History none of them ever admonish'd much less reprehended him in this matter And do not we know it was that very Constantine who soon after and by his own Imperial authority proceeded with just coercive rigour against Arrius the Priest and for his most pestilent and most turbulent heresy sent him to banishment For although it was the said Council of Bishops at Nice that by their own episcopal censure condemned him for an heretick and separated him from the communion of the faithfull yet his corporal punishment was from the Tole imperial power of Constantine As when the question was again of his restitution it was neither that Council nor any other Bishops that revoked him from exile but Constantine alone and by his own Imperial power alone Athanasius de Synod Socrat. l. 1. c. 25. Sozom. l. 2. c. 28. And we know also that the same Constantine and by his own sole and proper imperial power banish'd many Bishops too that were accused to be complices in that heresy with Arrius the Priest as Constantine himself confesses of Eusebius Theognides and several others in his letter to the Nicomedians Theodoretus l. â— c. 20. Sed isti sayes Constantine honesti bonique scilicet Episcopi qui vera Concilij dividicatione ad paenitentiam agendam reservati sunt non solum eos admiserunt ad se secum in tuto collocarunt verum etiam illorum depravatis moribus communicarunt Quam â—â—rem erga istos ingratos aliquod supplicium censui statuendum propterea mandatum dedi ut asuis abrepti sedibus quà m longissimè religarentur So Constantine himself Where he expresly sayes that himself ordained their punishment and himself had given order for their being forced from their Episcopal Sees and carried exiles to the very remotest parts of the whole Empire But Cradinal Baronius cannot endure this Imperial stile And therefore in his tome 3. an 329. n. 13. endeavours to make us beleeve it was by the authority of the Nicene Council that Constantine sent these Bishops to banishment Caeterum sayes Baronius quod spectat ad Constantinum non novam in Episcopos depositionis exilij sententiam protulii sed quam sciebat olim latam a Niceno Concilio suis vero precibus revocatam voluit iterum val dari Depositos hos namo in Niceno Concilio constat tum ex ijs quae superius suo loco dicta sunt tum etiam ex ijs quae habentur in Epistola Synodali Concilij Alexandrini apud Athanasium in Apologia secunda ubi haec leguntur Postquam de Eusebio Theognide Arianis Episcopis depositis in Niceno Concilio plura Patres lâ—qunti fuerant c. So our great Annalist knows not how to distinguish or rather will not distinguish twixt a meer Ecclesiastical or meerly
and this barely too crimen Ecclesiasticum it is declared that if any charge a Clerk with the former sort of crime the secular judges shall determine the cause but if with the later that the Bishop onely shall have power to judg it Quod si de criminali causa litigium emerserit tunc competentes judices in hac civitate scilicet Constantinopolitana vel in Provinciis interpellati consentaneum legibus terminum imponant c Sin autem crimen Ecclesiasticum est tunc secundum canones ab Episcopo suo causae examinatio paena procedat nullam communionem aliis judicibus in hujusmodi causis habentibus Which although it was first or originally a meer civil constitution or Novel of Iustinian yet was after made a canon of the Church by being inserted in and received by the Church amongst her canons in corpore Iuris canonici or in Gratian. Sixt canon as to pure Ecclesiastical crimes and to their punishment in case of disobedience to the Bishops was long before and not a Papal canon onely but a canon of the third Council of Carthage which was that is called the Vniversal Council understand you of Affrick and is that also in Gratian XI q. 1. c. Petimus where it is declared that intruded Bishops contemning the admonitions of the Church belong in such case to the lay judicatory Seaventh canon distinguishing likewise in effect sufficiently and clearly enough as the above fift hath done betwixt lay crimes or at least some lay crimes that is crimes which are common as well to lay-men as to Clergie-men and both Ecclesiastical crimes or such as are proper onely to Ecclesiastical persons and other crimes too which are strictly civil but not criminal is that of the first Council of Matiscon held in the year 582. under King Gunteramnus and Pope Pelagius II. wherein and in the 7. chap. the Fathers decree Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque Iudex cujuscumque Clericum absque causa criminali id est homicidio furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum suerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur Whence appears evidently these Fathers held it no breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity that Clerks accused of murder theft or maleficium what ever they understood by this word or whether witchcraft onely according the special acception and restriction of this word or sense of it by some authors or generally all kind of lay evils or wickedness according to the general or etymological sense thereof should be subject to the meer lay coercive power of even inferiour lay judges whereof I have said more at large before And therefore by this canon Princes were to the end of the fift age of Christianity in possession of their own proper supream civil power of punishing Clerks in their own lay and princely Iudicatories tribunals or courts and even by their own inferiour proper and meer lay delegated or commission'd judges when I say the cause or accusation was purely criminal and of such crimes in specie as are murder theft or witchcraft Eight canon is that still in Gratian 23. q. 5. cap. Principes For though Isidorus de sum bon c. 35. be the original Author of it yet as in Gratian it is now allowed and accounted amongst the canons of the Church And that indeed not unworthily For thus it speaks Principes seculi non numquam intra Ecclesiam potestatis adeptae culmina tenent ut per eamdem potestatem disciplinam Ecclesâ—asticam muniant Caeterum intra Ecclisiam petesta es necessariae non essent nisi ut quod non fraevalet sacerdos efficere per doctrinae sermonem potestat hoc impleat per disciplinae terrâ—rem Saepe per regnum terrenum caeleste regnum proficit ut qui intra Ecclesiam positi contra fidem disciplinam Ecclesiae agunt rigore Principum conterantur ipsamque disciplinam quam Ecclesiae humilitas exercere non praevalet corvicibus superborum potestas principalis imponat ut venerationem mereatur virtutem potestatis impertiat Cognoscant Principes saeculi Deo debere se rationem reddere propter Ecclesiam quam a Christo tuendam accipiunt Nam sive augeatur pax displina Ecclesiae per fideles Principes sive soluatur ille ab eis rationem exiget qui corum potestati suam Ecclesiam credidit Here you see that not out of or by vertue of any commission or delegation from Bishops or Popes Princes do exercise the distriction of their power even within the Church that is against Churchmen and even too in Church affairs but out and by vertue of their own proper authority which they received from God And you see also that the Church as such by reason of its humble and essential constitution may not exercise or make use of any penal discipline as belonging to her self but for such coercion must have recourse to the power of Princes Nor let any think to evade by saying that Princes are in so much or as punishing such persons or as determining correcting or amending such affairs but Ministers of the Church and executors of the sentence or power of the Church pursuant to that which Innocent III. and the Glosse upon him say or determine cap. ut famae de sent Excom extracted out of the said Innocent's answer to the Bishop of London For I have before already in several Sections proved by reason Scripture tradition of the Fathers and practise too both general and particular and of both Fathers and Princes and Pontiffs and people that Princes have hethertoo proceeded and de jure proceeded against such persons and even too in such matters by their own proper authority without any commission had from the Church As likewise that they received from God himself such their own proper universal authority and right to proceed so against all persons whatsoever laymen or Clergiemen guilty of any crimes and in all causes too whatsoever temporal or spiritual forasmuch or wherein they relate to the external peace of the Commonwealth and to the meer external government of the Church by the power of the material sword And we have seen too already that the power of inflicting corporal punishment by way of coaction and force is absolutely denyed to the Church as a Church Which being so who will be so unreasonable as to attribute a power to Her of deputing commissioning or delegating Ministers or executors to inflict them so But what this canon or Gratian or rather Isidore who was the original Author sayes here is very observable I mean where it sayes that Princes have the height of their power within the Church and that God himself hath committed his Church to their power even as Leo Magnus the Pope writing to Leo the Emperour ep 81. sayes Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non
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
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
the said Burk and Forgery The Reasons why we the Roman-Catholick Clergy signed not the other three French Propositions The Propositions not inserted 4 That the same Faculty doth not approve nor ever did any propositions contrary unto the French Kings Authority or true Liberties of the Gallican Church or Canons received in the same Kingdom For example That the Pope can depose Bishops against the same Canons 5 That it is not the Doctrine of the Faculty That the Pope is above the general Councel 6 That it is not the Doctrine or Dogme of the Faculty That the Pope without the consent of the Church is Infallible BEcause we conceive them not any way appertaining to the Points controverted and though we did we thought we had already sufficiently cleared all scruples either by our former Remonstrance seperately or jointly with the three first Propositions we had already subscribed And as to the Fourth we looked upon it as not material in our Debate for either we should sign it as it was conceived in the French Original Coppy and we thought it impertinent to talk of the French Kings Authority the Gallican Priviledges and Canons from whence they derive their Immunities c. or that we should have inserted them mutatis nominibus the names being only changed and then we conceived not what more we might have said then had been touched already positively in the Remonstrance neither do we admit any Power derogatory unto his Majesties Authority Rights c. yea more positively then doth the French Proposition as may appear As to the 5th we thought it likewise not material to our affair to talke of a School Question of Divinity controverted in all Catholick Vniversities of the World whether the Pope be above general Councel or no Whether he can annul the Acts of a general Councel or no Dissolve the general Councel or whether Contrariwise the Councel can depose the Pope c Secondly we conceive it not only impertinent but dangerous in its consequence and unseasonable to talk of a question which without any profit either to the King or his Subjects may breed Jealousie between the King and his Subjects or may give the least overture to such odious and horrid disputes concerning the Power of Kings and Commonwealths as our late sad experience hath taught us The 6th regards the Popes Infallibillity in matters of Faith Whether the Pope not as a private Doctor but with an especial Congregation of Doctors Prelats and Divines deputed can censure and condemn certain Propositions of Heresie or whether it be necessary to have a General Councel from all parts of the World to decide define censure and condemn certain Propositions of Heresie The Jansenists already condemned of Heresie by Three Popes and all the Bishops of France to vindicate themselves from the Censure contest the first way They write in their own defence and many more against them On which Subject is debated the Questio Facti whether the Propositions condemned as Heresie by the Pope be in the true sense and meaning of the Jansenists or no whether in his Book or no as may appear by such as we can produce if Necessary The Universities of France say That it is not their Doctrine that the Pope c. Whether this touched our Scope or no we leave it to all prudent men to judge If they think it doth let them know that we should not hould the Popes Infallibillity if he did define any thing against the Obedience we owe our Prince If they speak of any other Infallibillity as matter of Religion and Faith as it regardeth us not nor our Obedience unto our Soveraign so we are loath Forraign Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a Question in a Country where we have neither Universitie nor Jansenist amongst us if not perhaps some few Particulars whom we conceive under our Hand to further this dispute to the disturbance of both King and Countrey XVII ON the 21 of June and 11th of the Congregation the Fathers being all seated and the Procurator also who had the night before from His Grace what answer He gave those Deputies upon receipt of their said Petition and other annexed paper being present John Burk and Cornelius Fogorty rendred such an account of their success as did seem both presently and mightily to startle at least the major part of the Congregation amongst whom the Archbishop of Ardmagh neither was nor seem'd to be the least concern'd if not more then any For as soon as those rarely gifted men Burk and Fogorty had related openly their manner of access to His Grace and not only his appearing extreamly dissatisfied with their address but his very short and positive Answer That the Fathers might Dissolve and depart immediately whether they pleased being they did no good by their meeting nor intended any the said Primat of Ardmagh stood up and fell so fouly on this Burk who as being older in years and dignified in Office before the other was he that gave this account that he spared not to tell him There could not have been any better success expected from his negotiation who being so unfit for any such matter had nevertheles so importunately thrust himself on And then converting himself to the Procurator entreated him in the name of all the Fathers that he would go to His Grace and obtain for them three days more to continue their Congregation and consider a little better how not to depart with His Grace's displeasure but rather to satisfie Him if possibly they could even by signing those very three last controverted and consequently all the Six Declarations of Sorbon applyed as they should be mutatis mutandis Wherein the whole House seeming to concur with the Primat the Procurator could do no less then promise them he would use his best endeavours and so departs for the Castle leaving them in much perplexity but withal desiring them to continue sitting till he returned They did so and he by good fortune not only found His Grace at leasure but prevailed with him for the Fathers and returned to them presently with that permission they desired They gave thanks He moves That immediately a Select Committee should be appointed to consider of both the pertinency and necessity especially as the case stood for assuring their Allegiance to the King To Sign even the Three last of those Six Sorbon Declarations The Bishop of Ardagh to hinder any further progress or signature vehemently cries out Rather presently to the vote of the whole House whether we shall in any wise or upon any condition subscribe or no those Three last But the Procurator albeit contrary to his former custome continuing still in the House and consequently of one side both by his reasons and pretence opening the mouthes of some and silencing others prevailing so at last That the greater voice cryed first for a Vote upon his motion for the Committee and than again for stroaking on
but in the margent of their Paper the three Propositions or those not inserted as they speak and give them truely word by word for what concerns the sense as they are in the French or Latin original and as applied by the Sorbone Faculty to themselves and French Monarch and as you have them here Fourth Proposition That the same faculty doth not approve nor ever did any propositions contrary to the French Kings authority or true liberties of the Gallican Church and Canons received in the same Kingdom for example that the Pope can depose Bishops against the said Canons Fifth Proposition That it is not the doctrine of the faculty that the Pope is above the general Council Sixth Proposition That it is not the doctrine or dogme of the faculty that the Pope without the consent of the Church is infallible After giving so these Propositions in the margent they proceed to a special observation of each and to shew either the impertinency or unsignificancy of such to their present purpose that is to any further assurance to our Gracious King of their fidelitie hereafter in the suspected contingencies or cases than hath been already given by them in the former three Propositions and in their Remonstrance taken at least joyntly together In truth were it so were those two general reasons true as they alleage them or were the proofs they give such as might be allowed for even but probable but yet withal to purpose I would my self before any if not approve yet at least not disprove a modest and rational excuse and save my self to boot some study and some paines But finding those general reasons and further specifical proofes and applications of them to be meer pretences only without either truth or colour of such to the purpose I found it an obligation on me to undeceive as farr as I can all such as are willing to be undeceived or not to be cheated by appearances and impostures And to this further end only that the peevish ill advised resolution and obstinacy of those leading men of the Roman Catholick Irish Clergie if any other such occasion be ever offered at any time hereafter as that was they had of late may no more pretend to impose on others on the account of such unreasonable reasons Wherefore now to come up close and joyn issue with them they must give me leave to tell here that when my Lord Lieutenant demanded in effect by his message sent in writing by Richard Beling Esq their Subscriptions to the three last as to the three former of Sorbone their own Procurator Father Peter Walsh gave them in their publick assembly and in his Speech then and there on the Subject both cleer and evident reasons at large for the pertinencie in our case or as to the points controverted of their Subscriptions to those three last And such cleer and evident reasons too as manifestly evict this further truth that neither Remonstrance nor former three Propositions could signifie any thing at all to the King of an assurance of their fidelitie hereafter if they decline as the case then stood the Subscription of those other three Propositions The sum of which reasons given so by me though not joyntly all together but separatly as occasion shall require I mean to give the Reader that I may not seem to obtrude my bare word on him for proof as I answer their following Paragraphs and particular distinct observations therein of each of the said three last Propositions or which is the same thing where I refute hereafter their specifical proofes of those two general pretences So that in this place I have only first to except in general against such general allegations of theirs Secondly to taxe the penman with unsincerity in wording those pretences against his own knowledge and conscience He knew very well that both himself and generalitie of the Congregation understood these three last Propositions to be many ways appertaining and very material also to the points controverted And no less understood that they had not already cleared sufficiently all scruples either by their former Remonstrance separatly or joyntly with those three first Propositions they had before subscribed And yet he would penn those his own and the said Congregations two general answers in these words Because we conceive them not any way appertaining to the points controverted And though we did we thought we had already sufficiently cleared c. Thirdly to mind the Reader that in my two former tracts I have proved evidently and at large that the Congregation neither had already cleared all Scruples nor thought they had so either by their former Remonstrance separatly or joyntly with the three first Propositions they had already subscribed And consequently that their second general reason or pretence being so already and more than abundantly refuted what must be moreover expected from me now is That without any further taking notice of or reflexion on that unsincerity of the pen-man I no less evidently refute his or their specifical proofes of the above first general reason or allegation whether he or they conceive it to be true or false though I will not altogether so confine my self as not to be at liberty where I find cause given by them in their prosecution to shew by other particular Instances different from those I have before given but as the Subject now in hand shall require that even their second general reason or allegation must be also false whether he or they conceived it to be so or no. But for the more ample satisfaction and lesser trouble of the Reader as I have purposed I repeat here in their own words their first specifical proof which takes up intirely the second paragraph of their Paper And as to the fourth they mean the 4th French Proposition above given We looked upon it as not material in our debate For either we should sign it as it was conceived in the French original copie and we thought it impertinent to talke of the French Kings authority the Gallican privileges and Canons from whence they derive their Immunities c. or that we should have inserted them mutatis nominibus the names being onely changed and then we conceived not what more we might have said than had been touched already positively in the Remonstrance neither do we admit any power derogatory to His Majesties authority rights c. yea more positively than doth the French proposition as may appear To pass by now their expression That they looked upon it c. or not to inquire whether it be true or false that they did verily so look upon that French Proposition as not material I consider the matter or proof in it self abstracting from their looke That fourth Proposition as by Sorbone applied to themselves and French King is in these words That the same Faculty doth not approve or ever did any propositions contrary unto the French Kings authority or true liberties of the Gallican Church and Canons
propositions of this paper at large and with all clearness discharged our duty as to the three first of those fiâ— of Sorbon and that now remain only the three last 13. We declare further it is our unalterable resolution proceeding freely from the perswasion of a good Conscience and shall be ever with Gods grace First never to approve or practice according to any doctrine or positions which in particular or general assert any thing contrary to His Majesties Royal Rights or Prerogatives or those of his Crown annexed thereunto by such Laws of England or Ireland as were in force before the change under Henry the 8th And never consequently to approve of or practice by teaching or otherwise any doctrine or position that maintains any thing against the genuine liberties of the Irish Church of the Roman Communion as for example that the Pope can depose a Bishop against the Canons of the said Church Secondly not to maintain defend or teach that the Pope is above a General Council Thirdly also never to maintain defend or teach That the Pope alone under what consideration soever that is either of him as of a private person or Doctor or of him as of a publick Teacher and Superiour of the universal Church or as Pope is infallible in his definitions made without the consent approbation and reception of the said Church even we mean in his definitions made either in matters of discipline or in matters of faith whether by Briefs Bulls Decretal Epistles or otherwise 14. Lastly we declare it is our unalterable resolution and shall be alwayes by Gods grace That if the Pope should or shall peradventure be at any time hereafter perswaded by any persons or motives to declare in any wise out of a General Council or before the definition of a future General Council on the point or points against the doctrine of this or any other the above propositions in whole or in part or against our selves or any others for owning or subscribing them We though with all humble submission to his Holiness in other things or in all spiritual matters purely such wherein he hath power over us by spiritual commands according to the Canons received universally in the several Roman Catholick Churches of the world shall notwithstanding continue alwayes true and faithful to our Gracious King Charles the Second in all temporal things and contingencies whatsoever according to the true plain sincere and obvious meaning and doctrine of all and every the fourteen propositions of this paper and of every part or clause of them without any equivocation mental reservation or other evasion or distinction whatsoever and in particular without that kind of distinction which is made of a reduplicative and specificative sense wherein any such may be against the said obvious and sincere meaning and consequently vain and unconscionable in this matter QUERIES CONCERNING The LAWFULNESSE of the Present CESSATION AND OF THE CENSURES AGAINST ALL CONFEDERATES ADHERING unto it PROPOUNDED By the RIGHT HONOVRABLE the SUPREME COUNCIL to the most Reverend and most Illustrious DAVID Lord Bishop of OSSORY and unto other DIVINES WITH ANSWERS GIVEN and SIGNED by the said most Reverend PRELATE and DIVINES Printed at KILKENNY Anno 1648. And Re-printed Anno 1673. The Censure and Approbation of the most Illustrious and most Reverend Thomas Deasse Doctor of Divinity of the University of Paris and Lord Bishop of Meath I The undernamed having seriously perused and exactly examined the Answers made to the QUERIES by the Right Reverend Father in God David Lord Bishop of Ossory and by the Divines thereunto subscribing do esteem the same worthy to be published in Print to the view of the world as containing nothing either against God or against Caesar but rather as I conceive the Answerers in the first place do prove home and evidently convince the Excommunication and other Censures of the Lord Nuncio c. to have been groundless and void even of their own nature and before the Appeal and besides do manifestly convince that in case the Censures had not been such of their own nature yet the Appeal interposed suspends them wholly with their effects consequences and jurisdiction of the Judge or Judges c. And withal do solidly and learnedly vindicate from all blame the fidelity integrity and prudence of the Supreme Council in all their proceedings concerning the Cessation made with the Lord Baron of Inchiquin notwithstanding the daily increasing obloquies and calumnies of their malignant opposers In the second place the Answerers do sufficiently instruct the scrupulous and ignorant misled People exhorting them to continue in their obedience to Supreme Authority as they do in like manner confute and convince efficaciously the opposition of such obstinate and refractory persons as do presume to vilifie and tread under foot the Authority established in the Kingdom by the Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks And finally the Answerers dutifully and loyally do invite all true hearted Subjects to yield all due obedience to their Sovereign and to any other Supreme Civil Magistrate subordinate and representing the Sovereigns Supreme Authority according to the Law of God the Law of the Church and the Law of the Land Thomas Medensis Given at Kâ—lkenny Aug. 17. 1648. Another Approbation BY the perusal of this Treatise intituled Queries and Answers I am induced to concur with other eminent Surveyors thereof That it contains nothing contrary to approved Doctrine sound Faith or good Manners and therefore that behooveful use may be made thereof by such as love truth and sincerity 7. August 1648. Thomas Rothe Dean of St. Canie And Protonotary Apostolick c. Another Approbation HAving perused by Order of the Supreme Council the Queries propounded by the Supreme Council c. with Answers given them by the Right Reverend DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory and other Divines and being required to deliver my sense of this work I do signifie That I find moving in the said Queries of Answers against Catholick Religion good Life or Manners but much for their advancement and great lights for the discovery of Truth I find by evident proofs declared that the Council in this affair of Cessation Appeal interposed against and other proceedings had with the Lord â—uncio and his adherents 〈◊〉 themselves with a due resentment of the general destruction of the Kingdom and with is true and knowing zeal of Loyalty for the maintenance of the Catholick Religion Justice lawful Authority the lives estates and rights of the Confedâ—ranâ—s I find by uncontroulable reasons proved That the Confederates cannot without worldly ignomity and Divine indignation fâ—ll from the said Cessation while the condition are performed and time expired I find lastly hence and by other irrefragable arguments That all and every of the Censures pronounced either by the Nuncio or any else against the Council or other Confederates upon this ground of concluding or adhering to the Cessation are unreasonable unconscionable invalid void and against Divine and Humane Laws
distinction of Countrey or Degree or Sex or Age Men Women Children from the most illustrious Peer to the most obscure Plebeian wheresoever in any of His Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions even at this present lie under all the rigorous Sanctions and all the severe Penalties of so many incapacitating so many mulctative Laws nay and so many sanguinary which reach even to life in several cases And your Predecessors before you have well nigh a whole Century of years been continually under the smart or apprehension of the severity of them And so may your Successors and your Children and Posterity after you for so long more if the true causes of Enacting at first those Laws and continuing them ever since be no better considered i.e. no more narrowly search'd into nor more effectually regarded by you than they have been by your Fathers for you or themselves But whatever Gods providential care of or goodness to your Posterity after you may be I am sure it cannot be denied but all Roman-Catholicks universally now living any where in England Ireland or Scotland must upon due reflection find themselves highly concern'd in having the Sword-point of those penal Constitutions hanging continually and even perpendicularly over their heads Do not we all manifestly perceive they are with-held at present from execution by a very small and weak Thred not only of one life that is mortal but even of one will alone that yet may be alter'd of a sudden upon many occasions which may happen when least expected Now seeing you are all every one thus concern'd in those Laws surely so you must all be in the causes of them i.e. in those genuine true proper and onely causes which continued must necessarily continue those very Laws and which removed will naturally remove them But if in those causes your concernment be such how can it be other or indeed how can it be any way less in the Subject of this Book All the several Treatises and Parts thereof and all the several Relations Discourses Disputes Animadversions therein occasion'd by either of the two Formularies drive ultimately at a plain and full discovery of those very causes and of their continual dependance on your own proper will alone and how lawfully and justly you may or rather how strictly you are even by all the known Maxims of Christian Religion Catholick Faith and Natural Reason bound in Conscience to remove them Your Concern therefore above all others in the Subject being thus at last clearly manifested I need no further Apology for the Dedication A Consecratory Address to you appears now evidently enough to have been required by the Nature of the Work it self as a necessary Appendage of that real duty which I have endeavoured to the best of my understanding all along in this Book to pay the most sacred name of Catholicks And in truth to whom other than to your selves ought or could I upon any sufficient ground dedicate a Book of so universal and weighty a Concern of yours Yet after all I must acknowledge that besides your propriety in the Subject I had the current of my own desires and my own Ideas to exact this Duty I have in truth these many years had continually even passionate desires of some fair opportunity to offer unto you but with all due submission still some farther and more particular thoughts relating both to the proper causes and proper remedies of all your foresaid evils And have at last entertain'd the pleasing Idea of a Dedicatory as the fairest occasion I could wish to speak directly and immediately to your selves all whatever I think to be for your advantage on that Subject and sutable to the measures of a Letter and what I moreover know some others think who yet have not the courage to speak or to inform you And therefore to pursue my old method I call it old having held these 26 years of delivering my thoughts fully and throughly in all Points which I conceive to be material though at the same time expecting from some contradiction and from others worse but comforting myself nevertheless with the conscience of very great Truth with the zeal of your highest advantage and with the certain expectation that all judicious good men will approve what I shall say and lay all to heart as they ought I must now tell you that if we please to examine things calmly with unprejudiced reading and unbyass'd reason we may find without any peradventure I. That the rigour of so many Laws the severity of so many Edicts and the cruel execution of both many times against even harmless People of the Roman Communion have not intentionally or designedly from the beginning aim'd nor do at present aim so much at the renunciation of any avowed or uncontroverted Articles of that Christian or Catholick Religion you profess as at the suppression of those Doctrines which many of your selves condemn as Anti-catholick and for the prevention of those practises which you all say you abhor as Antichristian II. That it is neither the number of Sacraments nor the divine excellency of the Eucharist above the rest either by the real presence in or Transubstantiation of the Consecrated Host nor the communion thereof in one kind onely nor the more holy and strict observance of Confession nor the ancient practice of Extreme Vnction nor the needless Controversies 'twixt Vs and the Protestants if we understood one another about Faith Justification Good Works or those termed Supererogatorie or about the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques Worshipping of Images Purgatory and Pardons nor is it the Canon of the Bible or a Learned Liturgy or Continency of Priests and obligation of certain Vows or holiness of either a Monastick or Cloystered life in a well-ordered Community of devout Regulars nor is it either a Patriarchical power in the Bishop of Rome over the Western Church according to the ancient Canons and Customs or which is yet somewhat more an universal Pastorship purely spiritual acknowledg'd in Him such I mean as properly flows from the Celestial power of the two Keyes of Peter as far as ever it was acknowledged by all or any of the ancient Councils I say it is not any of all these Articles or Practises nor all together not even join'd with some others whether of lesser or greater note that is the grand Rock of scandal or that hath been these last Hundred years the cause of so many Penalties Mulcts Incapacities of shameful Deaths inflicted and more ignominious Characters given us III. That of our side the original source of all those evils and perpetual spring of all other misfortunes and miseries whatsoever of the Roman-Catholicks in England Ireland Scotland at any time since the first change under Henry VIII hath been a System of Doctrines and Practises not only quite other than your selves do believe to have been either revealed in Holy Scripture or delivered by Catholick Tradition or evidenced by Natural Reason or so much as defined by
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
You may at the very first hearing of this Proposal plainly discover their design to be no other than by such indirect means of cunning delayes under pretence of filial reverence forsooth to hinder you for ever from professing at least to any purpose i. e. in a sufficient manner or by any sufficient Formulary that loyal obedience you owe to his Majesty and to the Laws of your Country in all Affairs of meer temporal concern This you cannot but judge to be their drift unless peradventure you think them to be really so frantick as to perswade themselves That from Julius Caesar or his Successor Octavian after the one or the other had by arms and slaughter tyrannically seized the Commonwealth any one could expect a free and voluntary restitution of the People to their ancient Liberty or which is it I mean and is the more unlikely of the two That from Clement the Tenth now sitting in the Chair at Rome or from his next or from any other Successor now after six hundred years of continual usurpation in matters of highest nature and now also after the Lives of about fourscore Popes one succeeding another since Hildebrand or Gregory the Seventh his Papacy and since the Deposition of the Emperor Henry the Fourth by Him in the year of Christ 1077 any one should expect by a paper-Petition or paper-Address to obtain the restoring or manumising of the Christian World Kingdoms States and Churches to their native rights and freedom or that indeed it could be other than ridiculous folly and madness to expect this And yet certainly thiâ— must be the natural consequent of the Popes or present Papal Courts giving you licence to sign such a publick Instrument as will do your selves and Religion right amongst his Majesties Protestant Subjects or as even amongst your selves will satisfie the more ingenuous loyal and intelligent Persons Thus at last in so many several Paragraphs in all eighteen I have given at large those farther and more particular thoughts of mine relating both to the proper causes and proper remedies of those Evils which as you so much complain lie so heavy on you as Papists to wit the rigorous Sanctions of the penal Laws c. And consequently I have given you those conceptions whereof I said also before not only That without peradventure you may find them to be right if you please to examine things calmly with unprejudicâ—d reading and coolely with unbyassed reason but also That beside your great concern above others in the peculiar Subject of the Book it was my desire to speak directly and immediately to your selves all that moved me to make this consecratory Address to you as esteeming the knowledge of such matters to be for your great advantage and withall considering a Dedicatory Epistle as the fittest place in which I might present them to your view A third motive yet and this the onely other if in effect it be another of this Dedication was my further desire of choosing you as the fittest Judges of such a Work seeing you are the only Professors amongst all those of so many different Churches in these Kingdoms who peculiarly derive your Faith from that of Old Rome which will still be famous throughout the World For although I thought it excusable not to importune you for Patronage to a Book whose Nativity is I know not which very hard or very easie to calculate nevertheless I held it but reasonable to submit wholly to your judgment the Book it self and the Subject therein handled or the Controversie 'twixt the persecuted Remonstrants of the year 1661 of one side and their persecuting Antagonists of the other In which judgment of yours I have the more reason to be concern'd for both That this and some other Books or Tracts of mine already printed and publish'd besides some other well nigh ready for the Press as well in English as in Latin do in that cause wholly decline the Authoritative â—udgment of His Holiness and consequently of all His suspected Ministers and all other suspected Delegates whatsoever as holding them in that Controversie not to be competent Judges but criminal Parties and knowing that not only in common reason and equity but also by the express Canons of the Catholick Church they cannot be Parties and Judges in the same cause with authority to bind others Therefore until His Holiness or His subordinate Ministers Officials or Delegates under Him in point of or in order to such Authoritative Judgment be pleased to proceed Canonically against me and other Remonstrants i. e. to proceed against us in a Regular Judicatory or Tribunal and in a Regular way that is by giving us indifferent Judges and a place of safety to appear in and both beyond all exception according to the Canons of the Universal Church I and my said Fellow-sufferers the few remaining constant Remonstrators must be in a high measure concern'd in that other I think more excellent kind of judgment which is common to you and to all judicious sober conscientious Men a judgment not of authority or power to bind others but of discretion and reason to direct your selves in order to that opinion you are to hold of and communication you may have with us after you have throughly and seriously ponderâ—d the merits of our Cause and the proceedings of those who would make themselves even against all the Rules of Reason and all the Canons too of the Christian Church our Authoritative Judges in that very Cause in which they are the principal Parties However though I cannot for my own part otherwise choose than be somewhat sollicitous for the succesâ— while it is a meer future contingency yet I hope and am almost confident That my integrity and constancy in the Roman-Catholick Religion shall be vindicated against all Aspersions and Misconstructions when I Appeal to you for Justification whose Censure would be the most grievous that can befall me For in truth I do so Appeal to you in this very passage most humbly and earnestly demanding of you 1. Whether in those two grand Controversies one succeeding another the former that of the Nuncio Rinuccini's Ecclesiastical Censures of Interdict and Excommunication in the Kingdom of Ireland (e) an 1648. against all the Adherers to the Cessation concluded by the Confederate Catholicks with the then Baron now or late Earl of Inchiquin who had then declared for the late King the later of the Remonstrance presented to His Majesty (f) an 1661 â— since His Happy Restauration in both which I have ever since continually engaged against the Roman Courts designs on the Supreme Temporal power of these Kingdoms Whether I say my Sermons or my Books my Doctrine or my Practice in the Concerns of either Controversie can be justly tax'd with so much as one tittle or one action against that Roman-Catholick Faith which you all together with the Roman-Catholick World abroad believe as necessary to Salvation 2. Or seeing there is not so much as any
submission most heartily and freely appeal That you may determine for what concerns you of the truth or falsity likelihood or unlikelihood of that worst of Scandals viz. Desertion of my Order and Religion wherewith I have been frequently asperst on several occasions as in former times even Twenty years ago by some of the Nuncio's Faction so of late during all these four last years by others of the Anti-remonstrants especially by some Church-men who so little consider their holy Function that they seem to have lost all regard to Truth and Honesty and do not boggle at the shame of being daily found in manifest Forgeries so they may but do their work to serve themselves by it or to rid out of their way any person who they fear may obstruct their ambition i. e. their design of confounding all again if they alone cannot otherwise command all Onely I shall further beg as to this matter that before you determine of it you would be pleased to read over these following Appendages First Appendage relating to the Fourth Querie That in regard of the times places and occasions I lived in and employments I had and Books and persons I conversed with of every side and my own both curiosity and concern to understand matters aright and to see into their genuine causes I may without vanity say of my self That I have had more than common opportunities to know the Doctrines and Practises of the Roman Court what they are and how hurtful how pernicious to these Kingdoms and to the Roman-Catholick Religion And that ever since I came to see into these things at least ever since I gave my self to a serious and full consideration of those principles and wayes which was about Twenty seven years since upon occasion given me by that Faction I have most heartily abhor'd and at all times and upon all occasions protested against them and the more I have known of them still the more I have seen cause to detest and to protest against them as I do at this day Second Appendage relating to the Fifth Querie That I can and do appeal to God Himelf That next after the regard of not wounding mortally my own Conscience by a manifest desertion of Truth and equivalent profession of such Errours as I know certainly to be against the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and Gospel of Christ the chiefest motive I had for bearing up constantly so long a time against all Censures Precepts Monitories Denunciations Affixions Decrees and other grievous concomitant Persecutions in the often mention'd Cause of the Loyal Formulary was the regard of not doing you all the Roman-Catholicks of His Majesties Three Kingdoms the greatest injury that I could possibly do you or perhaps any man of my degree by confessing the grand Objection against you to be insoluble For I saw clearly That if either the temptation of preferment to Offices and Dignities or the tryal of punishment by Censures and Calumnies and all their Consequents at the pleasure of some Grandees at Rome should have had that influence on me as to make me in effect absolutely to renounce my Allegiance to the King by retracting the Subscription of my hand to that Instrument professing it in meer Temporal things onely the Argument thence derivable must have been obvious to any judicious knowing Protestant inclin'd to do you a prejudice as soon and as often as the Parliament sate and were moved in your Concerns Such an Argument I mean as urged home by a good Orator would even before indifferent Judges give much colour to that grand Objection viz. The inconsistence in these Nations 'twixt the safety of a Protestant Government and the giving of Liberty to Roman-Catholicks by repealing the penal Laws yet in force against them In substance it would have been alledg'd That the Roman-Catholicks at least for the generality of them would be alwayes right or wrong directed by their Priests That their Priests are most of them on the Popes side in this Controversie And if any of them be so hardy to oppose his usurpations there is no trusting of them for there is no reason to expect that any of them will stand to his principles and hold out For Example they might have instanced in unworthy me if I had fallen off after so long and such manifold tryals of my constancy for Twenty years past and after so many and so great obligations to persevere until the end of my life This and much more would in all probability I am sure might in all reason be alledg'd to make that great Objection hold against you had I hitherto submitted to the dictates or pleasure of the Roman Court in either Cause But it is not my business here to open more at large or press more home this Argument with all the aggravating circumstances both such as are fresh in memory and such as might be derived from the memory of former times My purpose was to hint it onely as believing this enough to shew you the reasonableness of that second Motive I had for holding out so constantly in such a Cause and in the very manner I did all along against so numerous and so dangerous Adversaries especially seeing that very manner of my holding out so or of defending my self the best I could against them was and is authorized not only by the Divine Laws of Nature and Christianity but also most expresly and clearly by the positive Constitutions of men even of Roman-Catholicks viz. the fundamental Laws of England and Ireland not to speak now of other Catholick Nations of Europe so many Hundred years since Enacted by the Roman-Catholick Princes and Parliaments of these Kingdoms against all Forreign Citations or Summons from a Forreign Power beyond the Seas and also the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Catholick Church throughout the World nay of the very Papal Canons themselves forbidding in express terms Judicia Vltramarina (a) Vid. S. Cyprian Epist 55. ibi Statutum esse omnibus nobis c. Concil Affrican Episcop 217. inter quos Divus Augustinus erat Can. 92. relatum pariter in Cad Can. Eccles Affric Can. 125. Synod ad Coelest Item 3. q. 6. haecce capita viz. Ibi. Vltra Si quis Clericus Peregrina Qui crimen q. 9. cap. Nec extra Item cap. Nonnulli de Rescrip Item Stat. General Barchinonensia Ord. Min. cap. 6. §. 1. num 1. 2. ubi Patres rationem habent illius naturalis Canonum aequitatis and expresly decreeing against many other special Injustices and Nullities on other grounds in the late procedure against me (b) If you would see more Quotations both of the Canon and Civil Law against every particular Injustice committed in Summoning me to appear beyond Seas and which do justifie in all respects my procedure in not obeying such Summons you may consult my Latin Epistle to Harold pag. 6 7. besides my Latin Hibernica Third Part and you will find a very great abundance of the
clearest both Texts and Reasons imaginable Of all which manifold Authorities of Reason Gospel Humane Laws and Canons having had sufficient knowledge when I engaged in the Controversie and more when for so engaging and for that only I was so strangely prosecuted by Summons Censures c I thought that even my duty to you and the regard I was bound to have of your common interest required of me to make the best use I could of that knowledge in order to your publick good as well on the one hand to assert your and my both Native and Christian right against them that invaded it by those unlawful proceedings as also on the other hand to shew at least in one instance the untruness of that Proposition whereof depends and wherein lies the whole stress of the grand Objection against you which if I be not much deceived is in substance this viz. That for any Roman-Catholick Priest holding firmly to all and every the Articles of Faith undoubtedly believed or at least own'd as such amongst all Roman-Catholicks universally and observing all other duties required of him by the Canons received generally in the National Churches of that Religion it is impossible to be in all cases or contingencies whatsoever indispensably or unalterably obedient and faithful to a Protestant Prince or Kingdom or Government not even in so much as in all meer Civil or Temporal things onely according to the Laws of the Land especially if the Pope command him to the contrary under pain of Excommunication Now as I have behaved my self hitherto I am sure I have manifestly enough proved the untruth of that Proposition and by consequence for as much as pertains to me have really answer'd the grand Objection deducible from it And so have not a few other Irish Priests even all those who together with me suffered very much for many years in the former Cause of the Nunoio or in this latter of the Remonstrance or in both and have not as to either condemn'd or contradicted themselves hitherto by any unworthy submission though at last compellâ—d to silence and in other matters forced to desert me and to submit to their Adversaries Nor do I at all doubt but rather am certain there are this day within England above Five hundred Native Priests beside a great many more in Ireland however at present weathering out the storm so fully resolved for the future in their own persons and cases likewise to disprove that Proposition and to satisfie the Objection built thereon That if His MAJESTY and both Houses of PARLIAMENT may be graciously pleased to try them once with an Act of Grace after a hundred years punishment and to take off I say not any other Incapacity but onely that of living in their Native Countrey that when at home they have satisfied the State they may not be driven abroad to beg or starve and be there exposed to all the rage and violence of the Roman Court they will by a publick Instrument signed under all their hands declare as amply and clearly and heartily against all the foresaid new Doctrines and Practises and all other whatsoever groundless vain pretences of Rome as I have done or as that Act shall require and will be ready to renew that Assurance as oft as shall be required and even to expose their Lives if need be in defence of it notwithstanding any Declarations Precepts or Censures of the Pope to the contrary Third Appendage relating to the Sixth Querie That I know and cannot but mind you of what the Roman-Catholicks of these Kingdoms have lost even since the King 's most happy Restauration by not being advised by Church-men of honest principles in point of His Majesties independent Power and the Subjects indispensable Obedience to Him in all Civil or Temporal things according to the Laws of the Land They have lost three fair opportunities of being not only eased of all their pressures from the penal Statutes but rendred as happy as they could in reason desire or even wish under a Protestant King and Government The first opportunity was offered them in England in the year 1661 when it was earnestly and strongly moved in their behalf in the House of Lords to Repeal the Sanguinary Laws in the first place and a Hill was drawn up to that purpose The second and third were in Ireland the former in the year 1662 when a discontented Party of the Adventurers and Souldiers there had laid their design for surprizing the King's Castle at Dublin and the latter in the year 1666 when we were in the first War with Holland and near to it with France and the Irish National Congregation of the Roman-Catholick Clergy was by occasion of that War suffered to convene at Dublin in order to assure the King of their fidelity How happy the Roman-Catholicks in general might have been if they had taken time by the forelock in any of those three opportunities especially in the first may be easily understood And how unhappy their neglect or wilfulness hath proved to themselves I cannot but with grief of heart consider The rather because I was my self the onely man employed first to the Roman-Catholick Clergy both of England and Ireland on the foresaid occasions to prepare them against any obstruction from themselves of the favours intended towards them and that nothing else was required on the first occasion from those in England but their being ready to take the Oath of Allegiance onely as in the Statute 3 Jacobi His Majesty being then inclined to have dispens'd with them for the Oath of Supremacy nor in the second and third occasion was any thing required from those of Ireland more than their Signing the Loyal Remonstrance or Formulary which had been Sign'd before in the year 1661 by some of their own Ecclesiastical Brethren and so considerable number of their Nobility and Gentry For my own part I am morally certain that if those fair opportunities had not been slighted or if either the one or the other condition had been embraced you should not have seen in your dayes any such tryal of men for bearing office as that you complain of so much now a renouncing of the Doctrine or Tenet of Transubstantiation according to the late Act of the Parliament of England And I am no less certain that had you hearkned to the advice of any of those many virtuous learned Church-men amongst you who have as much true zeal according to knowledge even for the splendor of Catholick Religion and as much true reverence for and obedience to His Holiness as according to Reason or Christianity they can have and withall are truly well affected and rightly principled as to that faith and obedience which they and you all owe by the Laws of God and man to the Temporal Government you had neither slighted any of those good opportunities nor neglected to embrace either of those two most reasonable conditions Fourth Appendage but relating to all the Queries generally
the Argument of extrinsick probability than by the intrinsick reasons whereof they were not so capable And this extrinsick probability must have been by so much the greater by how much they saw the Authors of the Book to be Sixteen besides Fifteen other Approvers thereof XXII None must wonder to see amongst these Approvers the whole Colledge almost or Professed House of the Jesuits then at Kilkenny For indeed there was no more of note in their said House but Sign'd under their approbation save onely Father John Mac Egan one of their Professors of Philosophy The truth is they were all every one for the peace of the Nation and return of the People to their due obedience to His late Majesty of ever blessed Memory and Crown of England if you except the said Egan whose approbation therefore the rest thought not fit to desire at all as themselves told me They were all beside him not only of ancient English extraction but of their affection who were most against the wayes or designs of Owen O Neal and the Nuncio They were of that very Colledge of Divines that was convened to resolve the Queries They voted therein as I did against the validity of the Censures and together with the rest prayed me to write They kept their Chappels open from the first day of the difference notwithstanding the Dominican and Franciscan Monasteries of Kilkenny had shut their own Churches in observance of the Interdict In fine they were all none excepted and had been for some years before my own very civil kind familiar Friends above any other Order that was then in that City XXIII And yet I cannot deny but they play'd least in sight when the Book came to be Sign'd by the Bishop and rest of the Answerers These as soon as they had done Signing went immediately with it to the Grand Extraordinary Council of the Four Provinces Which Council expected them and it impatiently as hoping it might clear the scruples of the multitude and consequently take away the chief encouragement which Owen O Neal had to pitch his Camp so near Kilkenny that his Tents could be seen from the Walls Nor were they frustrated of their expectation Perhaps the Fathers were startled at that so near approach * Even the 〈…〉 Counâ—â—â— themselveâ— together with thâ—se other 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 them to their assistance out of the Toâ—â— Provinces were so startled at this so near approach of Oweâ— O 〈◊〉 Army and the shutting of Churches in observance of the Nuncio's Interdict and the great division of the People at the same time on the point also of the verâ— Excommunication it self that after the Colledge of 〈…〉 at least such of them as were most industrious had first confer'd Notes and turn'd Books for ten daâ—â—â— together and then laid the whole burthen on me during the three dayes and three nights I had without â—â—â—â—ting once my eyes continued at one Table writing that Book I remember very well how besides â—â—hers Richard Belings Esq a leading Member of and chief Secretary to the said Council came several 〈◊〉 from them to my Chamber to hasten my dispatch and to tell me the great danger of delay being the 〈◊〉 was in sight and the People so divided And I remember also very well how for the same reasons 〈◊〉 â—oâ—c'd to watch moreover even the very two next dayes and nights immediately following the forâ—â—â— three for studying the first Sermon that was Preach'd in Ireland of purpose on the Subject of the 〈…〉 against them and the Nuncio Nor could I not even for this other reason otherwise choose 〈…〉 before it was publish'd in all the Churches of the Town which kept not the Interdict that I 〈◊〉 next Sunday following Preach in the Cathedral on the great and then present Controversie To perâ—â—â—â— which duty notwithstanding I had not shut my eyes for five dayes and nights before God gave me strength My Text was that of Susâ—nâ—aâ— in the Prophet Daniel Augustiae sâ—nt mihi undique Dan. 13.22 〈◊〉 answerable to the great perplexity I was in 'twixt fear of the Nuncio's indignation of one side if I 〈◊〉 my duty and my belief of God's vengeance threatning me on the other hand if I did not of the Enemy and therefore absented themselves as intending if they could to sleep in a whole skin by securing themselves on every side But I nevertheless found my self more concern'd in their absenting themselves than to pass it over without Expostulation seeing I was desired by them as well as by others to write that little Book to justifie their practice XXIV Wherefore as soon as the Sixteen Notaries appointed that day by the Council for Copying it fairly had done and that I was commanded to put it in Print and to oversee it in the Press and that others also had brought me their own Approbations thereof those Approbations I mean which you see before the Book next unto the Title-page I sent to the Fathers of the Society to desire at least their Approbation under their own hands to be Printed together with the rest minding them at the same time of the publick end of the Book and expostulating with them for their absence on the former day wherein they should have appeared and Sign'd amongst the principal Answerers Whereupon they came to me and pray'd to be excused pretending 1. There was no necessity of their appearing in Print either as Answerers or as Approvers seeing there were already so many others who gave authority enough to the Book 2. That others could not be such losers as they should be without any peradventure by appearing in Print or at all under their hands in that Book against the Nuncio They had not only bestowed a Coach and Six Horses on his Lordship but lent him Twelve hundred pounds sterling which they were sure to lose for ever in case they put their hands to that Book 3. That they could excuse and justifie even before his Lordship their practice in keeping open their Chappel notwithstanding the Interdict because they did therein but what the priviledges of Regulars and the very Papal Canons allowed them to do by conforming themselves to the mother-Mother-Church or Cathedral but that of approving such a Book they could not excuse In giving these three several Reasons or Excuses the Fathers who nevertheless were my own very special good Friends drill'd on three whole dayes keeping me at a stand when the Approbations given by others were under the Press Which was the cause that seeing interest onely kept them off I desired them to consider seriously Whether since both their Conscience and Affection would lead them to give their approbation also under their own proper hands as others had already done before them the loss unto them of Three thousand pound from others were not greater than that of the Twelve hundred lent the Nuncio And whether the General Assembly had not some time before the late difference with the Nuncio promised them
off the sheets before I had the second reading of them And this was the chief cause of so many literal faults nay and mistake of some few words too 6. That I have not given any Errata for the Appendixes except one onely in the Latin Appeal which is in the Appendix of Instruments The reason is because I presume these Appendixes are all without mistakes exactly Printed For I took a more special care of them than I had done of the former Treatises and in my own perusing of them I have observed no faults i. e. no variation from the Copies which were fair enough some printed some written Those pieces in them not before Printed either in Latin or English or indeed as far as I know in any other Language are 1. The Supreme Councils Appeal from Rinuccini and his Censures to Innocent X. 2. The Marquess of ORMOND Lord Lieutenant of Ireland his Long and Excellent Letter c. All the other publick Instruments contained either in the Appendix of Instruments or in that which follows it as well as the Book of Queries and Answers have been heretofore Printed either in English or Latin some in Ireland and the rest in France either by Father Ponce in his Latin Vindiciae Eversae or by Richard Belings Esq likewise in his Latin Book of Annotations return'd for Answer to that Work of Ponce's 7. That nevertheless I cannot warrant the Articles of the Peace of 1648 to be exactly as to every word according to the Original Had I had this or indeed any perfect either written or printed Copy of them I had surely taken the greatest care imaginable to Re-print them here as exactly But having had onely one of those printed Copies of the late Re-impression of them since His Majesties happy Restauration I was forc'd to be content with that although in my opinion Printed with several faults and yet not very material ones as to the main purpose of any of the Articles However I have Corrected here as many as I could of those faults whatever they were XXVIII Because the First Treatise in Two Parts is very long contains a great variety of matters and yet in both Parts is divided onely into Sections and these marked onely by Capital and Numerical Letters before them immediately in the middle of the space by which Capital and Numerical Letters all along I understand the number of Sections though the word Section be not added to them in the space and because those very Sections notwithstanding they also be commonly very long yet they have no Argument of the Contents following prefixed to them and the general Argument prefix'd to each of the above Two Parts gives not light enough to the Reader where he may easily find the several Heads of matters forasmuch as in those Arguments the Page or Section is not added therefore I have for thy ease in this point given after this Preface a short Table of the more general Heads of the Contents throughout all the foresaid Two Parts of the First Treatise marking the Page where such more general Heads and sometime also the less general or more especial matters begin as likewise sometimes where they end But for the Second Third and Fourth Treatise they are so short and the matters treated in them are so singular that I think the Title prefixâ—d to each of them may serve to incite thee to read them through and to see by thy own reading in a few hours what all Three contain And the same I say of the Three Appendixes which follow immediately after all the Four Treatises As for a general Index Rerum Verborum or a general Table of special words and matters contained in the whole Book or even of those contained onely in the Four Treatises nay or in any one of them if I thought it worth the while to give it yet I have no leasure now to attend it And therefore I must pray to be excused for so much XXIX I have elsewhere at large and of purpose answered the ignorant Objection of some against my Printing or Publishing either this present Book or any other on the Subject thereof without the Licence of the Ordinary of the Diocess or of the Censor of Books or of my own either General or Provincial Superiour nay without so much as the Approbation of any two Divines of my own Order yea or of any one Divine whatsoever Printed therein or prefix'd to it in the Frontispiece or Beginning thereof as if I had therefore in a heinous manner transgress'd not only against the Canons of the Lateran (a) Sub Leon. X. Sess Decret de Impress Libror and Tridentine (b) Sess 4. Decret de Edit us Sac. Lib. Councils but even the very Statutes (c) De Autor Libror of my own Franciscan Order In my Latin Work intituled Hibernica viz. in the Third Part thereof as well in my Second Preface which is to Francis Maria Rhini a Polizzo the present Minister General of the whole Franciscan Order throughout the World as in the Body of that Third Part where I refute not only in general the General Decree I mean the Decree issued and Printed at Madrid against me July 28. an 1670 but in particular that Paragraph wherein both I and Father Caron long after his death are on such account declared Transgressors of the General Statutes and the Survivor i. e. my self to be even also upon that account ipso jure (d) i. e. By vertue of a general Statute lately made at Victoria in Spain as they alledge But suppose there had been any such Statute made there i. e. at Victoria What was Caron or I concern'd We were and are onely subject to the General Statutes applied unto and received in the Belgick Provinces Amongst which Statutes there is none tying or even so much as directing us to have a Licence for Printing from any General Superiour No nor is any Statute there tying us to have a Licence from any other Superiour either Local or Provincial under pain of any Ecclesiastical Censure much less of Excommunication See this your self in the printed Book of those General Statutes applied unto and received in the Belgick Provinces amongst which Provinces England Ireland and Scotland are See I say Statuta Generalia Barchinonensia Provinciis Belgiis accomodata Cap. 7. §. 6. de Auctoribus Librorum Cap. 8. §. 4. de Nat. German by the same Statutes Excommunicated for having Printed Books without Licence from the General Superiour himself I have clearly solved all the Branches of this Objection And I have consequently vindicated both Father Caron and my self from having transgressed any either binding or so much as received Canon of the Roman-Catholick Church or Statute of the Franciscan Order or otherwise sinned against any Law Divine or Humane by Printing any of our Books even as we have caused them to be Printed in such manner i. e. without any such Licence or Approbation c.
and such I mean of them as have been so Printed I have moreover shewed there that were those very Lateran and Tridentine Canons nay the very General Statutes of Victoria received in the Countries or Provinces where I Printed any of those Books of mine or Father Caron his own excepted against by Adversaries and consequently where I now publish this present Book yet the meaning of the Fathers who made those Canons or Statutes could not extend nor be construed to extend to all Causes Cases and Contingencies whatsoever nor consequently to the Cause Case or Contingency wherein Father Caron and I have Printed heretofore or wherein I do now Print or Publish this present Work or shall hereafter any other on the same Subject Nay I have there abundantly and clearly proved That it is not in the power not even of the Universal Church of Christ as such to make if they would any such Canon or Statute or any I say of such meaning or sense because * 2 Cor. 13.10 there is no power given by Christ to his Church for destruction but for edification as Paul the Apostle hath long since declared XXX As for the more malicious Objections of another nature I mean those meer Calumnies and Forgeries which the In famous Author whoever he was of the Dublin Libel some years since written and dispersed there directly against me and other my Fellow Remonstrants I confess but withal indirectly and if I be not much deceived even principally aiming at the most Illustrious person of His Grace the Duke of ORMOND hath amassed together the most speciously i. e. the most cunningly but falsely too boot he could and which therefore or however may perhaps occur to some others who have read them and yet saw no Answer to them and for that reason may work in them against this present Book of mine some kind of prejudice I must advertise thee 1. That for what concerns either my self or my said Fellow Remonstrants I have also before now at large and of purpose in my foresaid Latin Hibernica Part III cap. 5 6 7. discovered as I shall yet hereafter in the Second Tome of this English Work as in a more proper place discover the imposture of those for one part lying and for the rest deceitful vain objections as being wholly composed either of meer Forgeries or imperfect Relations of matter of Fact and those Relations too given so imperfectly out of meer design to deceive the Reader by suppressing or saying not a word of that which if known would of it self not only not leave any place for an objection but clear all objections imaginable 2. That for what concerns His Grace the Duke of ORMOND you may see in the last Appendix of this Book i. e. in His own very Excellent Letter which is there a clear both discovery and conviction of and against all the malicious and lying Reflections of that Libel on Him for His management of Publick Affairs or Conduct of the Army in Ireland since the Peace of 1648 concluded till He was forc'd out of that Kingdom in 1650 by the Declaration and Excommunication of the Irish Prelats at Jamestown c. As for His Carriage formerly and first in disposing Affairs to and then concluding the former Peace or that of 1646 you may see Him in all respects throughly vindicated in the Complete History of all the Publick Transactions and other particulars too of the late Irish Wars Which History as I have said before is now preparing for the Press 3. That you may see moreover not only in my foresaid Hibernica but in my First Latin Epistle ad Haroldum which was published last year what Penalties I say not by the municipal Laws of England and Ireland which are known to all the Students of our English Laws but even by as well the Canon Law as the Civil he i. e. the AUTHOR of the foresaid LIBEL is obnoxious to How by the Laws of the Emperours Valentinian and Valens (a) Cod. de Famos Libel l. uni◠he should be put to death by the Canon (b) 5. q. 1. cap. quidam of Pope Adrian if he can be found or if appearing of himself he cannot prove the truth of the particulars of his Libel he must be stript naked and whipt with scourges by the Council of Eliberis (c) ead cap. Quidam he is to be anathematized by the Canon (d) ead cap. Quidam ex lib. 5. Epist Greg. Epist 30. sive cap. 130. in Castorii casu supra of Gregory the Great until he appear and confess himself to be the Author he is presently de facto deprived of the participation of the body and blood of our Lord and if notwithstanding he dare approach to these adorable mysteries he is also ipso facto even as to all other Goods and Rites of and communication with the Church both excommunicated and anathematized and wholly as a deceitful pestiferous person separated from the Holy Catholick Church How also not he alone who is the principal Author but even all others qui consansum in 〈◊〉 iniquitatis consilio praebuerum who consented with him in such iniquity are in the same manner ipso facto excommunicated anathematized and separated c. by the self-same Canon of Gregory How by both Civil and Canon Law he and they are likewise ipso facto per sententiam rendred infamous (e) Infames ipso facto per sententiam esse Gloss in dictum cap. Quidam verb. potuerit How moreover both by the foresaid Canon of Pope Adrian and foresaid Law of the Emperours Valentinian and Valens it is Enacted That not only such as consent unto or participate with the principal Author in his iniquity but such as even by chance either at home or abroad in any place whatsoever light upon a Libel and not tear it presently or burn it but reveal the Contents thereof to any other are to be taken for the principal Author or Authors and are accordingly to be punish'd That is are by the Ecclesiastical Court to be sentenced to Scourging and by the Civil to be sentenced to Beheading flagellandos esse sayes the Canon and Capitali sententiae subjugandos sayes the Law 4. That for the sake of Father Peter Talbot the Titular Archbishop of Dublin and of his Complices I took the pains to quote these Laws and Canons whereby it may be seen what he and they deserved nay what de facto they lie under by their infamous wretched tricks of Libelling against me and not against me onely but also against so many others those I mean no less truly venerable and pious than sincerely Loyal and Remonstrant Irish Priests For I will speak nothing here of the most Illustrious Duke of ORMOND who is infinitely above all the malice of those Libellers and hath hitherto by so much appear'd more and more deservedly glorious by how much the malice and envy of some men have fixed the eyes of all sober men
Procurator and his maintaining or asserting The Diffusive Church onely to be Infallible proved false 69 c. Their fourth Allegation in the same manner proved false 76. Their other impertinent or unconcluding Allegations considered but more especially at large their example or precedent of Mattathias and the Maccabees against Antiochus 79 c. Their Latin Postscript considered 83. Three several Formularies of a profession of Allegiance made by them and a fourth offered 85 86 87. The Provincial and Diffinitory of the Franciscans dealt with at Multifernan by the Procurator to Sign the Remonstrance delay and why 69 90. They before with some others disclaimed the Remonstrance by a Publick Instrument and sent an Agent to Flanders to get it condemn'd 91. Nevertheless Father Antony O Docharty Provincial of the Franciscans gives privately under his hand to the Procurator a Paper of Permission for those of his Order to subscribe the Remonstrance and approves it himself in his Letter to the Duke of Ormond Lord Lieutenant 93. And yet he carried not himself in that matter of the Remonstrance or approbation of it either before or after in any wise candidly or sincerely much less constantly ib. Nobility and Gentry at Dublin Sign the Remonstrance and write to all the Counties of Ireland to invite them to a concurrence 95 96. The Lord Lieutenant countermands the sending about any of the many Duplicats of this Circular Letter and why 97. Gentry of the County of Wexford and Citizens of that Town Sign the Remonstrance Pag. 98 c. Censure and Condemnation of the Remonstrance by the Faculty of Divines at Louain 102. Letter of Father James de Riddere a Dutch-man and Commissary General over the Franciscan Order in the Provinces as well of the Low-Countries and some of those of Upper Germany as those of England Ireland Scotland Denmark to Father Redmund Caron Citing him and the rest of the Irish Franciscan Subscribers of the Remonstrance to appear at Rome or Bruxels 104. Father Caron's brief Reply from London 105. Father Walsh the Procurator's more diffuse Reply expostulating the case with the said Commissary at large out of the Canons and Reason 106. from thence to 115. The said Commissary General 's brief Answer to the Procurator 115. Act of a National Congregation of Forreign Franciscans but wherein nevertheless were present Representatives for the Franciscan Provinces of England and Ireland against the Irish Franciscan Subscribers of the Remonstrance and the same Act kept private 116. The four grounds of the Louain Censure 117. Answer to the first of them 118. To the second 119. To the third 124. To the fourth 143. and from thence to 436. Seal of Confession to a Priest in what cases and how far binding treated of at large from 124 to 142. Ecclesiastical Immunity or the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks from the Coercive Lawful and Christian Authority of the Supreme Civil Magistrate not to be proved either by Divine Law Positive 148. Or from the Divine Law Natural i. e. Law of Nature 163. Or from the Civil Law 182. Or from the Canon Law 195. That 't is in the power either of Pope or Church to grant such Exemption not probable by Reason 217. No such Exemption de facto made by any Pope 230. On the contrary That the Clergy is not exempted from the very coercive power of the Supreme Temporal even Lay-Magistrate proved first by Theological Arguments 243. Next by Holy Scripture 272. Then by the interpretation or sense of the same Holy Scripture as delivered by the Holy Fathers even Popes themselves in their Commentaries 300. In the fourth place by the practice as well of Holy Popes as of other Holy Fathers 314. In the fifth by the practice consequently of Christian Princes 345. Lastly by the very Canons even Papal of the Catholick Church 364. Remaining Objections answerâ—d 374. The Doctrine of Marsilius de Padua and Joannes de Janduno examined at large and compared c. 375. and from thence to 399 though this latter page be Printed falsely and 379 put instead of 399. The great Argument for the Exemption of Ecclesiastical persons c. derived from St. Thomas of Canterbury â—s opposition to King Henry II and from his Martyrdom c. treated at large from 399 to 436. The sixteen Customs or Laws opposed by that Holy man 407 408 409. The ancient municipal Laws of England concerning the punishment of Church-men for Murder Felony c viz. the Laws of the Saxon Danish and Norman Kings before Henry II or those of Inas Alured Ethelred Edgar Edmund Guthrun Ethelstan Canutus S. Edward William the Conqueror Henry I and King Stephen 414 415 416 417. Four several Answers to the foresaid grand Argument The First of them 418. Second 424. Third 430. Fourth Pag. 431. The Author relies or onely or principally on the two first Answers 431. St. Thomas of Canterbury why justly esteemed a Martyr 418 and from thence to 431. The heighth and amplitude of Exemption for Clerks i. e. Church-men in England formerly And it no less complain'd of 436. Contemporary Authors of good Repute condemn St. Thomas of Canterbury 433 434. St. Thomas of Canterbury vindicated from Treason 437. and from thence to 462. The LXXVII Section out of all the former Thirteen or Fourteen Sections upon or concerning Ecclesiastical Immunity infers the final conclusion of all and consequently and very particularly justifies the Irish Remonstrance of the year 1661 against the Louain Censure by four several Arguments or Syllogisms 463 and from thence to 487. Return to the relation of pure matter of Fact 488. Paper given by Gerrot Moor Esq to the Lord Lieutenant 489. A second Paper given by Patrick Daly Vicar-General of Ardmagh 490. A third Paper given by James Dempsy Vicar-Apostolical of Dublin and Capitulary of Kildare 492. Five Reasons why the Anti-remonstrants grew very insolent about June 1644. 493. A Proclamation issued by the Lord Deputy together with another accident allayes their Insolence 494. Two Letters the one from the Provincial the other from the Diffinitory of the Franciscans sitting at Multifernan to the Procurator 498. Their Letter to the Belgick Commissary General 499. The Procurator's Letter to the said Commissary 500. Cardinal Francis Barberin's Letter and Memorial therein inclosed to the said Commissary against the Procurator Father Caron and rest of the Franciscan Remonstrants with the same Commissaries Answer to the Cardinal 505 506. That Commissaries Letter answering Sir Patrick O Moledy 509. Internuncio de Vecchiis Conference with and verbal Message by Father Gearnon to Caron and Walsh 510. The Procurator's Conference at London with the said Belgick Apostolical Internuncius Hieronymus de Vecchiis 511. The same Internuncio 's Letter to Father Matthew Duff alias Lyons 513. His Letter also to Father Bonaventure O Bruodin 515. Observations on the Letters of de Vecchiis and other Roman-Ministers 516. The three Negative Articles of England with the Roman-Catholick Subscribers both Lay-men and Church-men 522 523. Doctor
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
nation should highly rejoyce the miraculous Restauration of Charles the Second their natural King their only deliverer from the hard and intollerable durance and tyranny which they so many years have suffered in his absence under the suppressions of an Vsurped power and the Irish Clergie doth hold themselves by double obligation so to do first by the tye of natural subjection to their most gracious and lawful Prince secondly that they may vindicate themselves from the innumerable calumnies and lyes whereby they are misrepresented unto the King and his Ministers most falsely suggested to them that they intend to raise rebellion and tumults Wherefore we the whole body of the Dominican Friers unanimously that it may appear to the world with what sincerity of mind and purity of intension we are inclined to our Soveraign Charles the Second following the steps of our predecessors and fully satisfied in our conscience first do render most hearty thanks unto the King of Kings for the miraculous Restauration of His Sacred Majesty to His hereditarie Kingdoms and will ever pray that the same divine power and providence that established Him in his own right may give him long time happily to raign and govern And for manifestation of our fidelity to Him we do protest before God Angels and Men without any equivocation or mental Reservation our Soveraign Charles the Second to be the true and lawful King and Supream Lord of Ireland and therefore that we are in conscience and under pain of Highly offending God to obey our said Soveraign in all civil and temporal affairs no less then any of our function to their respective Princes in Europe And do further more protest that we know no external power that can absolve us from this Religious obligation no more than other Subjects of the like function with us from the like obligation in Spain France or Germany or any elswhere Finally we execrate abjure and renounce that not Catholick pernicious doctrine That any Subject may Kill or Murthen his King by himself or any other though differing with him in Religion nay we protest the contrary saying that all Subjects are bound to manifest all rebellious and machinations against their Kings person His Kingdom at State to the King or his Magistrate which we do hereby promise to do And this protestation of our fidelity we the aforesaid body of the Order of St. Dominick in Ireland do freely offer to His most meek and clement Majesty and prostrate under His Sacred â—ee we pray he may be pleased to accept this our protestation and to defend and deliver us frâ—â— the oppression of our persecutors for our profession is to fear and follow him who in the Gospel commands to give unto God his due and to Cesar his and we will always pray for His Royal Majesty his Queen and the blessing of a happy posterity Dated the 15th of October 1662. F. Iohn Hart Provincial F. Lawrence Kelly Diffinitor F. I. Burgate Deffinitor F. Eugius Coigly Diffinitor F. Richard Maddin Diffinitor F. Dionisius a Hanreghan F. Constant de Annunciatione Kyeffe F. William Bourke F. Cornelius Googhegan F. Felix Conuer F. Patrick Dulehanty F. Thomas Philbin F. Ioanner Baptista Bern F. Geâ—ot de martiribus Ferral F. Michael Fulam F. Goruldfitz Gerrald F. Abtonius Kenogan F. Clement Berae F. Batricius Doyre F. Charles Dermoâ—â— F. Dominick Fedrall F. Daniel Nolanus F. William O Meran F. Iohn Tyny F. Tadeus mac Donâ—ogh XVIII As concerning the Letter which this Dominican Provincial Father Iohn O Hart sent then by the same bearer and of the same date to the Procuratour although it was civil enough and a complement of thanks for minding his Order of their duty and further desires both of recommending them and their cause to His Grace and of hearing from him more often all particulars yet was it withal positive enough in declaring they could not or would not do more in that business than what they had now by their letter to the Duke and Remonstrance enclosed therein Nor indeed was it ever at any time before or after to this day expected by the Procuratour they would heartily or freely do any more because he knew very well in what hands the Government of that Order was or who were Provincials Definitors and Local Priors of their Province then and for many years puff and how unanimous they were all in the Nuncio's time and for him and his quarrel and ever since for the Censures and against any kind of peace with the Royal party only four or five excepted who yet had not the courage to mutter against the rest if not in private cornes Father Marke Rochford Oliver Darey Ioseph Langton Peter Nangle and because he know they gloried particularly and mightily in their however unfortunate unity therein having suffered no division amongst themselves but runn altogether one way for ought appeared so little did they consider that unity in evil is a curse from God and because he further knew certainly how they were touch'd to the very quick and took it to heart extreamly that any at all of theirs though but three only Father Scurlog Reynolds and Scully to whom since is added Father Clemens Birne had subscribed the Remonstrance and consequently saw themselves now in some degree begun to be divided In which judgment of them in general that it may be seen the Procuratour was not deceived but their violence made known to the end it may find some check hereafter I must not pass over in silence how they left no stone unremoved to vex the patience of those three or four subscribers and force them to a recantation exclaiming against them every where discountenancing them in every thing even against the rules not of their own Order only but of the common Canons of the Church and Christian charity also threatning to deprive them of active and passive voice in all elections and by actual instances thwarting in such Father Scurlog and Reynolds making one man of purpose to decline and vex them Priour of three Convents together at one time against the very Papal Canons cap. Vnum Abbatim 21. q. 1. ex Concilio Agathensi c. 57. Nay denying not licence only or a dispensation or indulgence to Reynolds in case of sickness to eat flesh but even an absolution of his sins on St. Dominicks eve because and only because he would not retract as it was in plain tearms told himself then and even by him that so denyed it his own local Prior in the City of Dublin And yet with more uncivil and barbarous usage to a Priest and from the chief Superiour Provincial in his visitation boxing an other on the face on that account only For they never did nor could taxe him nor any of those few other subscribers with any other kind of misdemeanour Finally removeing all such Friars to other Convents from being under the direction or command of Father Clement Prior of Newtown in Vlster of purpose or because he
and grace and above all of his Holinesse's they were certain for their opposition to the Remonstrance as the Promoters of it should be certain of all kind of disfavour and so certain thereof that they could hardly ever expect any promotion or preferment in the Church or in their own Orders and that the Dissenters not only had that great advantage as to Church preferments and with the Distributers of such but no less certainly perswaded themselves to be equal in time at home even with the first Subscribers and even I say as to all protection and liberty from the King and State if they should be forced at last to subscribe such however compelled subscription sufficing the King of one side and excusing them on the other with the Pope and others beyond Seas and albeit the Procurator saw as clearly as consequently that the rest of the Romish Clergy throughout all other parts of the Countrey in the several Provinces received their punctual directions from those at Dublin some from one Order and some from another and others from the Parish-priests and accordingly guided themselves and therefore saw the necessity of prevailing first with those of Dublin notwithstanding and though he laboured much and often with every Order of them severally and Parish-Priests also yet he made it his chief work and for the reasons before given to perswade the Fathers of the Society Which alone was almost his only care for many weeks together XXV The progress and issue of all which was That by their own acknowledgment he cleared all the pretended conscientious scruples of those of them that treated with him That after this Father Iohn â—albot assured him that neither himself nor others of that Society who had past their last vows or fourth profession and consequently could not be ejected at the pleasure of the General or upon other less accounts then other Regulars would any longer delay their subscription then the Procurator had got the positive answer of their Superiour Father Shelton what ever his answer were And further that they would justifie by Letters to Rome and to their General and own publickly to him such their proceedings or subscription That having several times discoursed with the said Father Shelton and by Letter at last urged him to a resolution he before he would resolve sent these two or three Queries in â—â—iâ—ing to the Procurator desiring an answer to them in writing also Whether the Pope hath a perswasive and directive power over temporal Princes in temporal matters pro bono Ecclesiae And whether temporal Princes in such cases may lawfully obey him or are bound to obey him according to that of St. Bernard Converte gladium tuum in vaginam Tuus ergo ipse tuo forsitan nutu si non tua manu evaginandus Uterque ergo Ecclesiae spiritualis scilicet gladius materialis Sed is quidem pro Ecclesiâ ille vero ab Ecclesiâ exerendus est Ille Sacerdotis is militis manu sed sane ad nutum Sacerdotis XXVI That the Procurator answered this paper of Quaeries by another of Resolves And to the first Quaerie That not only the Pope but inferiour Bishops nay Ghostly Fathers have a perswasive and directive power of temporal Princes even in temporal matters and not only pro bono Ecclesiae but for the particular spiritual advantage of such Princes even such a perswasive or directive power as his Holiness and other Bishops Curats and Ghostly Fathers have respectively in temporal matters life death war peace estates inheritances c. of all Christians respectively subject to them for spiritual direction And therefore no such directive power of Princes in such matters even pro bono Ecclesiae as carries along with it a coercive power in the strict and proper sense of coercive but only a coercive power secundum quid that is by inflicting spiritual punishments and inflicting them only in a spiritual way or by spiritual means although it be confessed that sometimes or in some cases corporal punishments or temporal may be prescribed Yet inasmuch as these cannot be inflicted on the delinquent by the Church or which is the same thing that the Church hath no power from Christ to make use of corporal strength external force coaction or the material sword to execute on the Delinquent such punishments if himself do not freely consent therefore it is that we cannot allow even his Holiness as he is Vicar of Christ or Successor of St. Peter any coercive power properly or strictly such over any man much less in the temporal affairs of temporal Princes but only a coercive power by means or wayes that are purely spiritual that is by precepts and censures and these too only when they are ad edificationem non ad destructionem For it is manifest that although the particular Bishops of Diocesses have a perswasive and directive power of their respective temporal Diocesans what ever you say of Parish-priests and Ghostly Fathers in foro paenitentiae even I say in temporal things in that sense the Pope hath of the universal body of the faithful yet such particular Bishops cannot use external coaction force or the material sword by virtue I mean of their power from Christ or from the Church too as such to give any mans possessions and actually really transfer them to another although peradventure or in some contingency they may ex vi persuasiva and directiva even enjoyn any to a voluntary translation of all his rights as in case of necessary restitution In which case the Bishop notwithstanding would have as much power of coercion which would be necessary or essential to the directive as his Holiness And yet no coercive power simply such that is to force restitution by the material sword but secundum quid to wit by spiritual commands and prohibition or exclusion by such commands only from the Sacraments and from the Communion of the faithful Where indeed the directive and coercive power of the Church if you must needs use the word coercive so and attribute it to the Church doth and must end To the second Quaerie or the first part of the next disjunctive question the answer was affirmative whensoever Princes find not apparently oâ— clearly a contradiction in their commands perswasions or directions to the Commandements of God or Canons of the Church or find them evidently hazardous or destructive of their Kingdoms or People or of any other against the law of nature and reason or conscience And hence To the third Quaerie or second part of the complex or disjunctive question the Resolve was negative specially in all those excepted cases of a contradiction to the Commands of God or Canons of the Church or hazzards of their Crowns Kingdom or people or manifest wrong to any other against the law of nature and reason All which Princes are not bound to judge of according to the temporal interests or pretences of either his Holiness or other Bishop To
dissolution be accounted any prevarication but an amendmendment of rashness Thus have we after mature and frequent deliberation determined and decided at Lovaine in a full Congregation of the Faculty summon'd under Oath and held the 29th of December consecrated to the Martyrdome of the most glorious Bishop Thomas of Canterbury sometime Primate of England in the year of our Lords Incarnation 1662. Subscribed By the Deane and Faculty of Louaine The place of the Seale And after George Lipsius Bedel and sworn Notary to the said Theological Faculty XLVIII The first considerable effect this Lovaine Censure had was a citatory letter from the most reverend Father the Commissary General of the Franciscan order and Belgick Nation James de Riddere a Brabantine sent from Brula in Germany to Father Caron then at London The said Commissary being Ordinary Superior of all the Franciscan Order in the Belgick Nation and consequently of the Irish Franciscans as belonging to the same Belgick Nation according to the division and Statutes of that Order which divide all the Provinces thereof where-ever in the world into six Nations three Tramontaries three Cismontaines of which Cismontane the Belgick Nation is one comprehends not only at the several Provinces of lower Germany most of those of the higher but also those of Denmarke Scotland England and Ireland which four last Kingdoms or the Convents of Franciscans therein before the change of Religion though very numerous made but four Provinces of that Order So that by vertue of his Ordinary Superiour-ship General over the Franciscans in that Belgick Nation though otherwise subject himself to the Minister General of the whole Order throughout the world the said Commissary General Iames de Riddere cited Father Caron and those others mean'd by him as involved in the business to appear at Rome or Bruxels Yet having not particularly expressed the business or cause and for some other essential defects in that manner of citation Father Caron return'd the answer you have here after that citatory Letter which I give first A Letter written by the Commissary General of St. Francis Order in the Belgick German and Brittish Nation and over those of the same Order in Ireland and Denmark Father Iames de Riddere a Brabantine to Father Redmond Caron Reverend Father YOurs of the 15th of March were sent me by Father Augustine Niffo and I received them on the 17th of April at Brule in the Province of Cullen being imployed in visiting And wondred such great difficulties and dangers in obeying the commands of Superiours alledged by you who have so easily ingaged in a business full of difficulties and dangers not only to your selves in particular but the whole Order Therefore be it known to your Reverence be it known to all that have engaged themselves in the same affair That our most holy Lord whom by a special â—ye of our Rule we ought to obey doth justly expect an account from you satisfaction from your Superiors Whence it is that by iterated commands from the most Reverend Father General I admonish your Reverences and summon you to appear either before him at Rome or me at Bruxels to yield a more ample account of that act of yours to the end we may satisfie the See Apostolick be careful of the honour of the Order and of your own particular honour safety and comfort which out of a fatherly affection is desired by Your reverend Paternities most addicted Brother and Servant Fr. Iames de Riddere Superscribed To the very reverend Father Father Redmond Caron of the Order of the Friars Minors and Province of Ireland Reader Iubilate of sacred Theology As soon as Father Caron received this Letter he called together such of the Irish Franciscan Subscribers as he could meet with at London and with their consent and in all their names return'd in Latin this answer you have here translated Father Carons Reply signed by him and the rest of the Subscribers of his Order and Province of Ireland then at London Most Reverend Father YOurs of the 18th of April given at Brule we have seen whereby you summon us that have engaged in that affair to Rome or Bruxels We have sent a Copy thereof into Ireland that your summons may be known to the rest without whose answer we cannot in a Cause common to us all give that full satisfaction we intend However such as are here wonder that in your letter of Summons the cause of summoning them is not otherwise specified then by these words who have engaged themselves in that affair What affair Nay how so great a multitude being at least of the very Franciscans forty in number who with many others of the Secular and Regular Clergy and some Bishops too have signed that Remonstrance or Protestation if it or those of your Order that signed it be meaned by you may be summoned to Rome or Bruxels without any regard or consideration of either the old age of some the sickness of many and the poverty all wanting means to bear their charges for so long a journey And again how are they cited to Rome or Bruxels who by another mandate of the Right Reverend Father General which mandat is now here at London are commanded home to Ireland Whatever may be said in answer to these expostulations your most reverend Paternity may be pleased to understand the Laws of England are and of three hundred years standing that no Subject may under pain of death without the Kings licence depart the Kingdom in obedience to or compliance with any citation from forreign parts not even from Rome And that whoever doth otherwise summon or if subject to the King serues any such summons or even obeys them is in this Kingdom declared guilty of High Treason All which His sacred Majesty that now raigns hath confirmed of late and under the same penalties commanded us to observe We do not believe that your most Reverend Paternity is of opinion that we ought with so great a hazzard of our selves transgress those Laws and that command of our King to whom our bodies are subject by divine right Yet if it shall please your most Reverend Paternity to do in this case what the Canons of the Church do appoint in any such that is to appoint here or from elsewhere send unto us a Commissary or Delegate to take cognizance of our fact whatever it be where it was done to hear examine determine of and judge it we shall be very glad and most willingly submit to correction if we have swerved in any thing from the doctrine of all Antiquity Scripture or Fathers Or if peradventure you be not pleased with this submissive offer the Custos of our Province who by command of the late Middle Chapter in Ireland prepares for his journey to the General Chapter at Rome will more fully inform the Right Reverend Father General and your Paternity More we cannot say for your satisfaction until we hear from Ireland We
pray therefore that all proceedings in this matter be charitable religious deliberate and mature to the end scandals and greater dangers may be prevented protesting that we are most ready according to the Canons of the Church and light of reason to give Cesar what is Cesars due and to God what is due to Him and that both duties observed entirely your Paternity shall find us the children of obedience who are Your most Reverend Paternitie's most humble Servants Redmond Caron And the rest of the Subscribers now at London XLIX Immediatly after and in pursuance of his answer he sent a copy thereof and of the citation to Father Peter Walsh the Procurator then in Ireland Whereof the Procurator thought fit to take so much notice out of that respect due for himself also to the said Commissary General as to return both in his own name and in that of all other Subscribers of his Order at home in Ireland this long letter that follows rendred into English out of the Latin copie To the most Reverend Father James de Riddere Commissary General of St. Franci's Order in the Belgick Brittish and other annexed Provinces at Mechlin Most Reverend Father I have some twenty dayes past seen a copy of the letter which your Paternity gave the 18th of April from Brula to Father Caron at London and his answer both sent hether by the same Father And though it may not be certainly gathered either out of that your most Reverend Paternities letter or any other argument that I am my self any way concern'd therein yet because that Reverend Fathers conjecture in his foresaid answer seems not improbable to some that your Paternity intended by that very letter to summon to Rome or Brussels the Fathers of our Order and Province of Ireland who lately made to the King in a certain form or publick Instrument a profession of their Allegiance and subscribed the same and yet notwithstanding forasmuch as there are on the other side many considerations of no little force to perswade it can be no way likely that most prudent and most learned men such as without any question it is fit we should esteem the Minister General of the whole Order of St. Francis throughout the world and his most worthy General Commissary of the Northern Provinces should attempt or intend any thing against their own Sons upon the onely account of having complyed with all divine and humane laws by professing to their lawful King that fidelity in all temporals which they are otherwise bound unto and professing it also at such a time when doubtless it was both necessary and profitable to and the very interest of the Roman Catholick Church and no kind of disadvantage but a very great and known advantage to the true Orthodox Faith therefore and not in my own name onely or from my self alone but in all theirs too and from all of our Institute living now at home in the Province and these indeed are many both grave and sound men besides some Bishops and a considerable number of others amongst the inferiour Clergie not onely secular but regular also of other Orders learned conscientious and very zealous too for the Roman Faith and Papal Dignity who have subscribed that late Protestation of our Allegiance in temporals the rumour of which profession and subscription peradventure came to your hearing I very earnestly beseech your most Reverend Paternity may be pleased to signify out of hand whether you meaned them perhaps in that citatory letter sent Father Caron or whether you mean'd not rather some others accused peradventure of some kind of real faults defects or which God forbid of crimes And if the former that is the Subscribers whether such onely of them as yet are in England or live at London or even all those too residing at home dispersed in all parts of Ireland of all whose names or subscriptions the most Excellent Vice-Râ—y the Duke of Ormond hath at present the Original Catalogue as of such who have since my last arrival here subscribed the foresaid Instrument or profession of Allegiance Which about a year and a half since was first presented to His Majesty at London read and favourably accepted by him albeit then signed but by a very few hands in respect of the numbers that since have subscribed here And your most your most Reverend Paternity may be further pleased to certifie these living so at home as I have said now dispersed throughout all Provinces and parts of this Kingdom and certifie them by me or whom els you please what you think of the Reverend Father Carons exceptions given in his answer to the summons contained in that your Epistle supposing I mean that he hath so much as by guess understood aright your meaning whether they ought to be reputed probable lawful or Canonical To me indeed reading in Gratianus the Pontifical Canons or Decrees of the Provincial Councels of Carthage and Tarragona it appears manifestly out of cap. Placuit cap. Si Episcopus cap. Si quis Episcoporum d. 18. That notwithstanding any summons even I say the most legal and formal the parties summoned are excused when either by age or sickness or the Kings command to the contrary or any other corporal necessity of moment they are hindered from appearing I speak nothing at present of other Constitutions either of even the very Pontiffs of Rome or of the greatest Councels too of the Catholick Church those Canons to witt established by the authority of Synods not Provincial onely but National of the whole Affrican Church and Oecumenical of the whole earth and by that also of the consent and acceptation or submission of all the faithful of both Churches Greek and Latin even then I mean when That was reputed Orthodox and by that likewise of the concurrence of the chiefest and greatest Fathers amongst whom St. Augustine that light of Doctors was one Which Canons prescribe the judgment or tryal of causes to be held where no danger can be of wanting witnesses of either side or only where the witnesses may conveniently appear And therefore that judicial causes or the parties accused be not drawen or summond to any place where they may not come within a very few days not summond at all to appear without the bounds of the Province where they live nor forced likewise beyond the Seas whether commonly neither the accusers themselves nor the accused much less the witnesses either will or can goe For say the Fathers of that Synod of Affrick which is called Vniversal in their Synodical epistle to Pope Celestine speaking of the Fathers of former times specially of those who made the Canons of the great and first Councel of Nice it was most prudently and justly determined by them that all judicial causes should have their decision where they had their rise And verely whoever is of an other judgment and will rather fix on a judicatory beyond the Seas will scarce or not even scarce be able to
such be amongst the Subscribers can make themselves ready for the voyage before they can fit themselves with necessaries for so long a journey before they can get money to bear their charges and Passes to save them harmless the time will be wherein according to our constitutions the Commissary Visitor must go about the Province at home in Circuit And if so wherefore a journey so chargeable tedious and no less dangerous specially of so great a multitude and of persons too not convicted nor confessed nay of persons never once heard to speak or write for themselves never yet as much as once any way questioned either by messenger or by letter to this very day What I say further is That it would very well become your Paternity and the Minister General to consider seriously with your selves what your selves would do if your own condition or case in the Dominions of Spain Germany Franâ—e Poland Venice or other States and Principalities of Italy were like ours here If banishment proscription treason death it self the worst of evils and the vilest kind too of death were established by law where you live against the maintainers of the great Pontiffs pretended power either direct or indirect for deposing your own King and bereaving him of Crown and life together If you had now your selves groan'd for some ages under the yoke of severest laws against your Religion led the life of slaves in servitude and bondage if your Altars had been destroyed your Churches polluted your Holies contaminated your Goods confiscated and persons out-lawed And that now at last after so great and so long sufferings you saw a beam of light discovering some comfort some fair hopes of seeing in your own dayes under a pious King a cessation of your evils end of your persecutions restitution of your people liberty of religion intended for you and nothing else expected from you by a good lawful and merciful Prince your own natural Prince I mean but only that you would under your hands-writing renounce the late bloody horrid assertion of a Sermarine or Bellarmine Comitolus or a Suarezius a Gretzer Becan Lessius or any other such one or more Neotericks whether Divines or Canonists or both Assertions publickly and frequently condemned heretofore even by the most famous Universities Prelates Clergie and people of the greatest Catholick Nations of Europe and besides that you would only profess against assertions so strangely enormous pernicious and scandalous of such the foresaid few Divines or Canonists to be unalterably undispensably faithful in temporals to your own Monarch notwithstanding any attempts or machinations whatsoever of any person or power on earth even that of the great Pontiff to bereave your King of his temporal rights Scepter Crown or Life I say it would become your Paternitie and Minister General of the Order to consider with your selves coolely what you would think lawful to do in that case of your own what to determine as Christian Divines and what to declare promise and subscribe as faithful Subjects to your King Likewise to consider with your selves what then you would think of Caron Walsh or any others of your own Order that subscribed our above mentioned Form if I mean they in the now supposed case had the same power of or superiority over you which you indeed have over them and they used I say not abused it to estrange to alienate you and all other fellow Subjects from being so faithful to your King in his temporal Government to this end proceeded against troubled molested you with illegal summons and breach of Canons and did so too with the manifest prejudice of Catholick Religion and with the yet more special infamy hatred horrour of the Seraphick Institution amongst those are not of our Church Certainly prudent wise learned men men so zealous for Religion Faith and the service of God would alledge That there is no power given for destruction but for edification that we must rather obey God then any men whatsoever commanding against God Faith and Religion against the publick good or peace of a Catholick Nation so strangely of late and so many years together afflicted then men men too I say proceeding so either out of a certain blind obedience that sees not God or out of zeal that is not according to the knowledge of God or lastly and which is worst of all out of a sinful awe they stand in of other men who rule by power only domineering amongst the Clergie against the Prince of the Clergies precepts of Faith and examples of Life And what I finally say is That however your most reverend Paternities would carry your selves in the supposed case it concerns you in that wherein you are to be very careful and cautious that as the reverend Father Caron well adviseth in this matter or controversie if it be this indeed you intended in your Letter to the said Father your Paternities proceed religiously maturely and charitably or which is the same thing that without a just cause you proceed not to citations censures or any sentences whatsoever For when the sentence is either notoriously null by reason of an intollerable errour or through want of matter that is of a lawful cause or sin and this very sin to have a clear contumacy along with it or when the sentence is otherwise unjust by reason the substantial or essential form of judicial procedure such as the Canons and reason prescribe is not observed and much more when both that and this are manifest what fruit what effect can you hope thereof Certainly it appears out of the Canons and Doctors that a sentence of this nature obliges not Which you may see in cap. Venerabilibus Parag. potest quoque de sent Excom in 6. cap. per tuas Parag. nos igitur eod tit in Tâ—let l. i. c. 10. and Gandidus disquis 22. 24. dub 3. de Censur where he alledges Sâ—tus d. 22. q. 1. a. 2. and Suarez de Censur disp 6. sec 7 n. 52. averring moreover that when a censure is in this manner invalid or null in both Courts that is the internal of conscience and external of the Church its unnecessary to have an absolution as much as for caution as they speak With whom Henriques too l. 13. de Excommunicat cap. 15. Sayrus l. 1. de censur cap. 16. go along And as to the generality of the sentence all other Divines and Canonists Nay it appears out of that most learned and most holy Chancellor of the School of Paris Gerson de Excom consideratione 5tâ— tom 2. that a farr greater and more sinful contempt of the keyes of the Church is to be imputed to the Prelate or Ecclesiastical Judge so as is now said abusing his power then to the party censured if there be any comparison at all in the abuse Nay it further appears out of this most famous Divine that it may and is sometimes both meritorious in it self and honourable to the
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
Sir James Ware hath of an Irish King long before the English conquest whether the story be true or false to have gone to Rome out of devotion and layd down or offered up his Crown at St. Peters shrine Which if it had given a real title to the Pope or that See it must follow that the Bishop and See of Winchester hath as much great just certain and lawful to the Kingdoms of England Denmarke and all those others by inheritance or conquest belonging sometimes to Canutus For this devout King did no less there after he had checked the vain flattery of his Courtiers when upon a day sitting on the shore and the tyde coming in and they calling him Lord of Lands and Seas he commanding the floud not to advance and being not obeyed by the Waves but wett to some purpose presently and directly went to the Cathedral of Winchester and there offered up to God his Crown laying it on the high altar with resolution never more to put it on his head but acknowledg him the only Soveraign King of Sea and Land who commanded that little Wave to wet him And the only Original pretence of the Popes or See Apostolique's human right to England was the donation or submission of King Iohn to Innocent the thirds Legat at Dover Cardinal Pandulphus But who is so ignorant in Divinity as to pretend a right acquired by such a donation or submission were it absolutely certain as yet even Polidore Virgil himself seems to think it not to be forasmuch as he writes of it upon report onely Both law and reason tell us that a King cannot without consent of His Kingdom alien at the title thereof And Histories tell us that King Iohn who was an Usurper too for a long time at least made that donation or submission or whatever you call it directly against the Kingdom so farre he was from having the consent of his Peers people or Parliament That Henry the 3d. the Kingdom of England soon after the troubles were appeased expresly protested against it protested so even by their express Embassadour to that purpose the Archbishop of Canterbury even before in the presence of the General Councel of Lyons See Walsingame ad an 1245. and Harpsfield ad Sec. 14. c. 5. That so many laws made by all the three estates in Parliament under Edward the third and Richard the second which declare England to be an Empire and the King thereof to acknowledg no other on Earth above him but God alone did protest against it And the prescriptions of five entire ages confirm without all controule these protestations So that the Lovain Divines could not on coole and sober reflection but Judge this first ground either as to the first Original or continuance of it to be all composed of sand either as to England or Ireland or both For the same arguments are equally of force against that pretended gift of the Irish Monarch being that if we declined the likeness of it in all points or as to his intention of a reverential true acknowledgment of Gods power only or of a tye of himself and his Crown to be alwayes militant for the faith and confession of St. Peter or of a donary only of his bare Crown as to the materials of it not of the politick rights and power signified thereby to the Church of that holy Apostle or if we granted as we do not by any means That this Irish Monarch intended absolutely as much as in him to give up all the temporal Soveraignty of Ireland to that holy See yet whereas it appears not by any kind of Allegation History or Scroll that he was commission'd by the Provincial Kings or by the States of the Kingdom to do so such intention of his or such oblation donation or subjection as proceeding thence or made by him amounts to a meer nothing For no man gives that so as thereby to transferre a right which he is not empower'd by the laws to give As for the Bull or Bulls granted by Adrian the IV. to Henry the second for either the Lordship or Kingship for both were granted or at least are pretended to have been granted as may be seen in those copies extant in Baronius they are to no purpose at all in this matter Because if those we read in that great Annalist be true and not subreptitious or counter fit it is manifest out of the very tenour of them they are wholly grounded upon errour because the only ground alleadg'd in them for the Popes right to dispose of Ireland is That al Ilands on which the Sun of Justice that is Christian Religion did shine belonged to the See of Peter But whence this title came to the Ilands a lone more then to the continent nothing at all is pretended in those Bulls nor by any for them other then a meer forged imposture of donation by Constantine the great who yet is known to have never had the least footing in Ireland * As it is known that c. Constantinus d. 96. in Gratian. is not onely a meer Palea but speaks as well of the whole continent of Europe as of the Ilands For to pretend as a ground of them or of such donation or the right to make it Bellarmines indirect power in the Pope over the temporals of all Kings in ordine ad spiritualia besides that the restriction in the said Bulls to the Ilands alone and no extension to the Continent ruines this pretence or allegation it cannot be made use of by the Lovain Divines to justifie this first ground of their censure which is only meer humane right and that of Bellarmine is Divine as derived or pretended to be derived from Christ himself immediately But I confess the Lovain Divines were wary enough to decline this least they should bring on themselves a more dangerous censure from their own King and raise the power and just indignation of all Kings States and people even of their own communion to punish their temerity LIV. Nor can their next ground any whit more justifie their Censure The power of binding and loosing which the Catholick Churches of the Roman communion throughout the world acknowledge in the Pope or Church is that only which binds sinners in their sins or in just Ecclesiastical and meerly spiritual censures by denying them absolution from either clave non errante and that besides which enables them to lay binding commands or make binding laws Ecclesiastical and purely spiritual not against the laws of God and Canons of the Vniversal Church but conformable to both for the suppression of vice and furtherance of virtue And is that only which looseth sinners by absolving them in due circumstances from both sins and censures and further by dispensing with them sine prejudicio tertii in vowes or Oathes made to God alone or in other Obligations arising from the Canons of the Church only where a third person is not concern'd in point of
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
a yet impenitent wicked sinner sacramental absolution or the power of a Priest to absolve extending only as indeed sacramental confession it self to sins already committed in thought word or deed and as such declared to be absolved from For 1. in the case some person kneels as to confess his own sins penitently and with purpose to quit them for evermore and then by way of accusation of himself tells the Confessor he hath had a hand by acting or consenting or by knowing only and concealing such a wicked plot treason or conspiracy or he tells him this by way of consultation only to know whether he hath sinned or not by so demeaning himself in such a matter but still nevertheless consequently with purpose to be led to repentance and receive pennance and make satisfaction or do all his own duty hereafter as the Confessor shall instruct and injoyn him And this penitent withal tells this plot only depends of himself alone or of himself with others who have a share in it already and can execute it whether he will or no if he do not reveal it Or 2. in the case another comes in shew only to sacramental confession layes himself down at the Confessors feet and it matters not with what design whether that of consulting about the manner of engageing others or whatever else you please tells him of such a plot but withal shews manifestly to the Priest that he comes without any purpose to quit or reveal it though he should be enjoyn'd by him to reveal it and however the sinfulness and horrour of it be represented to him by his instructions Or thirdly in the case another or the same person comes to a Confessor or to any Priest and without putting himself in posture to confess his sins or sign of any such purpose tells him he hath somewhat of concern to both or either or some others to communicate to him so he would promise to receive it under the seal of confession The Priest promises and this person discloses the treason In this last case it is too too manifest that if the Priest reveal the treasons there is no discovery nor can be of any sin told in sacramental confession nor consequently a breach of any sacramental secrecy or seal not even in case the matter discovered were no treason at all nor other wickedness whatsoever Nay nor although it were such even of its own nature as ought to be kept secret and which could not be to the prejudice of any to be kept so For as the seal of sacramental confession depends not of the will of men but of the nature of the Sacrament and the law of reason and Canons of the Church which so strictly forbid Confessors to render sacramental confession odious by revealing the sins and the sinner or rather at any time or upon any occasion ever the sinner himself without his own consent so it is to no purpose to look for such discovery or such breach where there is no such confession And for the same reason it is no less manifest that if in the second case the Confessor reveal the treason there is neither such discovery nor such breach For and forasmuch as relates to or depends of this other seeming penitent if indeed at all as much as seeming such what he doth is so farr from a sacramental confession that it is most certainly the most execrable profanation of sacred rites can be as for no other end which a man not perfectly frantick could fix upon then to involve the Confessor himself and by him others in the same horrid enterprizes The first case therefore only remains to be considered But who sees not that scarce ever there can possibly be any such need in this case to engage the Confessor to reveal any matter at all if he discharge his own duty towards the penitent For in this true penitents case whether by way of consultation or by that of confession only he reveal such treason to him the confessor is bound to tell his said penitent that his sins cannot be forgiven by the Keys of the Church nor the Sacrament of pennance be intire as to him before he actually and by himself or some other discover the treason to those concern'd to know it being it is a Catholick verity this Sacrament consists of three essential or integral parts of the penitents side contrition confession and satisfaction as the duties necessarily antecedent concomitant and subsequent to the absolution given by the Priest and being the penitent cannot possibly be a true penitent that is any way fitted for or capable of absolution from the Priest unless he be really and truly resolved to observe all the laws of God and all those too of man which are not against those of God and therefore not capable of such absolution unless he hath either actually and already done his duty to the Prince or State or even to any other particular person if and when the conspiracy is only against such particular person by revealing to such as he ought by the laws of charity and justice what he should reveal and concerns them so neerly and highly to be revealed to them or unless he hath at least such a present real true positive effectual preparation or disposition of mind to reveal it immediately before there can be any danger and being this actual past discharge of his duty or this present effectual preparation of his mind must be known with as much certainty as may be to the Confessor And therefore too if the Confessor be discreet or wise conscientious and if the danger be very great and if he see any strong rational grounds which he can scarce ever see in this our first case to suspect a new tentation to come on the penitent if once absolved that may draw him back from his present resolution to reveal such intended wickedness the same Confessor is bound to tell the Penitent that he ought and must give him leave to discover what he knows from him I mean what is of absolute necessity to be discovered for preventing the evil And the Penitent as he is questionless bound to give him this leave so he will give it actually and immediately and even without any peradventure if we do not alter the case So that neither in this first case there can be any danger of the Confessors revealing any thing at all heard in Sacramental confession and revealing it I mean against the Seal of that Sacramental confession whether sin already committed by the Penitent himself and subjected by him to the Keys of the Church to be both absolved from and kept secret or whether any thing els not so committed or not so subjected by him to be absolved from or so kept secret 5. That no good and gracious no solid or conscientious Catholick Divine in the world can say or justifie a meer fiction of a Sacramental Seal of Secrecy where there is no Seal where none can be
at all I mean about so wicked a consultation or so impertinent and frantick a relation though amongst or together with some other acts not of a holy Sacramental but of a truly horrid not Sacramental confession as in the second case or any can be supposed where the seeming penitent so indeed sacrilegiously abuses the confessional Seat and all the rites of Sacramental confession and mocks at the Sacrament it self and God himself who instituted the Sacrament not for any such end certainly as to conceal such enormous evils to come not evils perpetrated already and as such confess'd penitently but to be hereafter perpetrated without any remorse at all of pennance or conscience And that our Lovain Divines may see if they please this saying or this doctrine of mine is so far from being mine alone that it hath for Patrons their own most approved classick Authors treating of this matter in hand of the Seal of confession Innocent W. in cap. omnis utriusque sexus Abbas ibid. Alens part 4. q. 78. m. 2. artic 2 Sylvest verb. confessio 3. q. 5. who all and each of them and the first no less himself then a Pope taught this doctrine constantly in the above places without retractation in any other That a discovery of a future sin made in confession doth not fall under the Seal of confession Because in such a case the Priest is not to the penitent a Minister of God or of that Sacrament of confession but a meer natural Friend Councellor or Adviser and therefore is not bound to conceal the evil to be committed but rather bound to discover so much as may and will suffice to hinder it Or because such detection of future crimes belongs not to that penitential Divine Court of this Sacrament of confession And may further see if they please what Dominions Soto hath Relect. de Ratione regendi Secreti m. 8. q. 4. conclus 2. to confirm this very Doctrine where he treats of or brings for example some wicked persons who had conspired against the Pope and affirms that Secrets or sins of this nature must not be concealed but discovered presently Out of all which Catholick Classick writers their reasons our Lovain Doctors may conclude the rashness of their own Censure as to this point we now handle Because they may see in them there is no true sacramental seal of secrecy in our case but a meer fiction of such nor other kind of Seal but that which is meerly natural and ordinary of keeping secret what is told us under secrecy and of keeping such and for that part only which ought to be kept so And further see in them that this natural or ordinary Seal of secrecy ought not to seal any persons mouth when the matter is of a design for the future of such horrid consequence as is for example the unjust taking away an other mans life or the unjust ruining of him in all his fortune or that either which is more pretious to him then his goods or fortunes or whatever be said of such designs against particulars or private persons ought not to do so when the matter is of such both incomparably and universally more fatal and more deplorable consequence as must be a treasonable conspiracy against the King or State if not prevented timely Nay and that this which I now say is most certain in it self without any dependence of the extrinsick authority of such Catholick and Classick writers our Lovain Divines must allow unquestionably if they can produce no positive law of God nor Canon of the Church nor evident or convincing dictat of natural reason in the case or against such revelation of such a treasonable conspiracy to be made by the Confessor albeit the seeming penitent did not or even would not give him leave at all to reveal it For if no such argument can be alleadged by them against it who sees not but the Confessor not only may with a safe conscience but ought if he will not have a most unsafe and most wicked conscience discover what he knows to be necessary for preventing a mischief so fatal horrible and general the evil which will be prevented by discovery of such a secret is infinitely greater then any can be prevented by keeping it still a secret or by not discovering it And of two evils the least is to be chosen that is to be suffered to follow especially when the least is the natural or consequential punishment of mens own malicious designs And therefore that by the very law of nature the pretended obligation of keeping secrecy in that case yields and gives place to a higher obligation or to that which cannot in any right reason be controverted at all or questiond to be higher But so it is now that I am absolutely certain the Lovain Divines cannot alleadge any such argument or produce any one positive law of God or any one Canon of the Church or any one evident or convincing dictate of natural reason in the case or against such revelation by the Confessor and am so absolutely certain hereof that I dare defie them or any for them to instance as much as one of all What they can alleadg but yet to very smale purpose or rather to none at all is 1. That Papal Canon attributed to the 4th Councel of Lateran though only framed at first by the Pope himself who was Innocent the III. however debated after by the Fathers but for any thing known certainly not made a conciliary act or canon of that Council As may be said also of all the rest of those other 60. Canons or Sexaginta Capitula attributed likewise to that fourth Lateran Councel I say that what they can alleadg is first that Canon inserted in the Decretals by Gregory the IX extra de Paenit et Remis in cap. Omnis utriusque sexus Where the Pope or that Council or both if you please admonish the confessor and under most grievous penalties enjoyn him not to reveal by word or sign the sinner or the sin as relating to him and confess'd by him privately or auricularly for absolution The words of the Canon are these Caveat autem omnina ne verbo vel signo vel alio quovis mâ—do prodat aliquatenus peccatorem Sed si prudentiorum consilio indigverii illud absque ulla expressione personae cautè requirat Quoniam qui peccatum in paenitentiali judicio sibi detectum praesumpserit revelare non solum a sacerdotali officio depâ—nendum decernimus verum etiam ad agendam perpetuam penitentiam in arctum monasterium detrudendum Let him the Confessor in any wise beware that neither by word or sign or any other manner soever he discover in any sort the sinner But if he want counsel of the more prudent let him warily seek it without any expression of the penitents person For we decree that whoever shall presume to reveal a son discovered to him in penitential judgment shall not only be
at all and on the contrary establish a meer fiction of a duty or that which cannot be thought a duty unless God himself expresly and clerely declare it such with his own mouth or had by such means as he did his Gospel declared it so And yet too endeavour to establish such a fiction without as much as any appearance of either text of Scripture or conveyance by Tradition or sense of the Fathers or Canon of the Churches or any principle of natural reason but that is voyd of all reason and false to boot Beati quâ—â—um remissae sunt iniquitates quorum tecta sunt peccata Psal 31. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are hidden say some of these excellent Moralists out of King Davids one and thirtieth Psalm â—â—â—nium iniâ—uâ—tatem ejus non recordabor Ezek. 18. I will not remember all or any of his iniquities sayes another out of Ezekiels eighteenth Chapter where God himself speaks these words It hath been the custom of the Church or of Priests in all ages of Christianity not to reveal the penitents sayes a third Gregory the Great and the old Canon out of him in Gratian de Paenitentia d. 6. cap. Sacerdos enjoyn'd perpetual peregrinations or pilgrimages during life to the Priest revealing confession that is revealing to as the penitent might be known without his consent and cap. omnis utriusque sexus de Poenitentiis Remissionibus above cited out of the IV. Council of Lateran chang'd that punishment into another yet more severe into a perpetual deposition and perpetual imprisonment in a cloister'd life sayes a â—oâ—rth The Priest in the confessional seat is the Vicar of God and hath no other knowledge of what is told him there but what is proper to God and God for his part conceals his own knowledge therefore so should the Priest sayes a fifth of them What is told auricularly to the Priest in the confessional seat at least with other sins whereof one accuses himself in order to absolution is told under a natural bond of the greatest secrecie imaginable until the penitent or confitent dispense in it sayes a sixt To hold it lawful for a Confessor to reveal in any kind of contingency the sin and sinner both or the matter confess'd and him that confesses it would render the Sacrament of confession odious and divert those from it who otherwise would frequent it sayes a seventh Finally say the rest it is the received common doctrine of the Schools and the undoubted constant opinion of all people generally whether Schoolmen or not that it is not lawful to reveal confession directly or indirectly as that of such or such a one by name or by any kind of expression mark or token whereby he may be known And here is all they do or can alledge But O weakness of such Casuists O vanity of such Theologues who labour to establish the most pernicious maxime can be upon such feeble grounds Who alledge Scripture to conclude from the staff to the corner A holy custom to prove that which is impossible to be known as ever yet once either holily or unholily accustom'd General and wholsome Canons to resolve against a particular case whereof the Fathers never dreamed which never yet was comprehended nor could be in any Canons The Priests vicariat office and vicariat knowledge of God and Gods making no revenging use any more of his own knowledge of sins that are duly subjected to the keyes of the Church or declared penitently in a true sacramental confession to make the Confessor as wicked as the most wicked Confitent on earth that confesses not sacramentally but sacrilegiously but impenitently and impiously as in actual defiance of God and confesses not a sin past and retracted but a present resolution of future sin and even of the most enormous could be perpetrated A horrible abuse of the Confessors ear and confessional seat and either a divelish or foolish accusation without any possible true order to sacramental absolution and a meer chymera of a bond of nature to bind a Priest against all true bonds both of Grace and Nature An odium or aversion which hath never yet been which will never be nor can be in any man or woman resolved to confess holily penitently or sacramentally and an edium or aversion therefore which can have no other being but a false being or that of a false imagination only in the brain of the Alledgers and all this to further a most damnable conspiracy and as damnable secrecie of it which in effect would bring on such a confitent and such a Confessor all the real odium and aversion of God and Man and Angels too and even of the very devils themselves however the first Suggesters of such either conspiracy or secrecy Finally the common received doctrine of the Schools and the undoubted constant opinion of all people generally whether Schoolmen or not for the sacramental seal of sacramental or penitential confession of sins committed to conclude thence what cannot be concluded thence by any inference of Logick or by any topicks of either natural or divine reason such a seal where no such confession is nor can be in our case but certainly both an impenitent and impertinent hypocritical insacramental discovery of sins resolved on to be hereafter committed But to leave our metaphisical or morally impossible case and to instance no more any that hath never been not is like ever to be nor at all can be morally speaking and to instance this doctrine in such cases as may very well be and have been already of a divilish infernal conspiracy to ruine the State Church and Christian People of some one particular Nation to be revenged on the King thereof and to sacrifice both King and People how Catholick soever to the Swords of Mahumetan Moores as it happened some eight or nine hundred years since to Spain under King Roderick by the horrible and revengful treachery of Câ—unt Julian for the rape committed â—n his Daughter by that unhappy King and to suppose for example that that very Câ—unt Julian or any other of those eight thousand traytors who conspired with him had in such an impenitent or impertinent manner revealed to a Spanish Confessor that his fatal design it is plain the very self same reasons prove evidently that Confessors tye of conscience to discover the very person of such a fained penitent even without and against his own consent I mean there being no possibility of preventing the design otherwise as is supposed in the case And that the same too might and ought to be said in the case of the Powder-plot-reason or of F. H. G. Provincial of the English Jesuits his having had knowledge of it in the confessional seat if the said plot could not have been otherwise prevented the very same reasons do most evidently convince any rational man For as it is most certain that magis minus non 〈…〉 the minority
or majority of those real cases that have alreaâ—â— happened or which may yet without any stress of moral impossibility happen hereafter in other or the 〈◊〉 same Nations having the like generation of wicked men do not vary or change the species or moral nature of the sin of one side or obligation on the other from that of the above metaphysical or morally impossible contingency so it is no less certain that the Kings or States being Protestant or Catholick doth not alter a jot aâ—â— our present purpose the nature of such confession or of the seal consequent or pretended to be conseque it or of the obligation of the Confessor 〈◊〉 repute no seal to be consequent where none at all can be or in right Reason and sound The â—ogy and Christian Doctrine ought to be reputed to â—e however the great Divine Suarez in his Work against King James l. 6. â— 3. sub finem doth but most undiscreetly and unreasonably too distinguish in this matter and yet distinguishes so too as to the discovery not of the person of such confitent but even of the treason it self or future such design only without any discovery of the confitent And it is no less certain with me that Father Gâ—â—â—â—â— never had out of any such inward perswasion of a true obligatory seal in the case abstained from discovering both the treason it self intended and the very person of the traytor that so confess'd it to him if this were necessary for prevention and if what the said Father preâ—eâ—ded of such knowledge had by him in the confessional seat only were true had he not been himself aâ—â—â—â—â—ed or at least not been not disaffected to that horrid conspiracy or had he not reputed it an attempt in point of conscience lawful just and meâ—â—tâ—â—â—ious too before God to wit grounding himself upon those other yet more plainly wicked and horrid and even I say too plainly heretical maximes of his old companion the said Father Suarez and other such Divine concerning the no Allegiance no Faith due by Subjects to heretical Princes of States oppressing the Church For a man of his calling breeding years and place could not be so little conversant in those very Catholick and Classick Authors or in the matter it self of the sacramental Seal which should require those Authors to be at least quoted Authors who are known to determine for the no sacramental confession no seal at all in our case no kind of obligation or tye on the Confessor not to discover such a confitent even I mean kill against his very will if it be of absolute necessity to discover so his person for prevention of such a future damnable treason 〈…〉 even fâ—â—â— prevention of the death or destruction of any one other even the most private person whatsoever in the world though no further evil were to be feared And yet I confess always the Confessor if such a case happened is bound to use all possible means which would not hinder what of necessity must be discovered or the discovery thereof to prevent scandal or an opinion of him that he would reveal Sacramental confession albeit there be no such confession really in the case but imaginarily or only in the erroneus imagination of others The hindering or clearing nevertheless of which imagination every Confessor is bound unto not by virtue of a seal which is not in the case but of charity towards our scandalized neighbour Which not only Confessors but all persons must observe in all kind of cases and more especially than others the Confessor in such cases wherein or whereby through want of his cautious prudential carriadge others might be frighted from confessing to him And I no less acknowledg that for preventing at least particular mischiefs of private men by discovering when it is of absolute necessity for prevention the person of such an unsacramental confitent the Confessor is not obliged under sin to discover if he rationally fear his own destruction thereby or that of other men who have no hand nor knowledg of it What I say therefore in such case of the confessor is that he may lawfully without sin nay meritoriously with the grace of God if he please out of charity either expose or even loose his own life for saving others Majorem â—aritatem nemo habet quam ut quis penat animam suam pro amicis suis but is not bound to either by any law of God unless peradventure to save the publick only For the saving of which I must confess I know no rule of reason or Divinity can excuse any person from hazarding himself if it be necessary and that he withal know or believe or hope rationally he may save it by hazarding himself And what I say besides in such case is that although therein the confessor may reveal the person of such a confitent declaring a resolution or design of such a sin to be hereafter committed yet in no case may he reveal the person of a Sacramental confitent as such of sins already committed and as such confess'd by him let the sins be never so horrid even the most inhuman treasons and the most general executions imaginable Lastly what I say and repeat again is that our masters of Lovaine will find it too too hard a taske if not altogether impossible to disprove what I have now so positively said of revealing and the lawfulness of the confessors obligation also to reveal at least where he may without danger to himself or other honest men the very person that confess'd to him so unsacramentally or consulted with him so impenitently in the confessional seat such wicked resolutions or designs to be hereafter executed to reveal such person I say without his Confitents either express or tacit consent nay against his consent expresly denyed him provided still that he reveal nothing of any sin already committed and sacramentally confess'd nor any more of the person of such the foresaid unsacramental confitent or of his actions past or of his resolutions for the future or of those of any others which he knew in that manner no more I say than is necessary for preventing the evil and provided also that he declare not in what manner he had such knowledge or that he had it in the confessional seat being this circumstance must be as well unnecessary as odious But if our Lovaine masters think otherwise of the case as I do not believe they do whatever they say or seem to say in their first and long censure or if they must undertake to refute what I here say let them proceed on a Gods name and prove their such thinking saying or undertaking to be just and prove it so either by Scripture tradition reason or by any Canon or Custom of the Church and I promise I will most willingly yield my self to be indoctrinated by them Otherwise they must pardon me if I tell them they are no less erroneous than censorious masters and no
christian Doctors at all in this point as neither in any other that relates to either of their Censures their first and long and their last and short one of our Remonstrance For I am sure there is no Divine no knowing christian no man of reason in the world that knows what christian Religion is will say there can be other convincing proof of a Theological assertion or censure either in the affirmative or negative but one of those I offer them to prove theirs by And yet I know there may be vitious customs in the Church though not therefore imputable to the Church as approving but only at most to the Superiors or some or the chief of those Superiors as not correcting them And confess too there may be amongst either the old or late canons of those which are commonly stiled amongst us the Canons of the Church some concerning discipline only which conclude no man not even any Roman Catholick necessarily so as to render it uncatholick or unlawful in point of conscience for him to swerve from them either in a good opinion of them or moral practice by them in all cases times or Countries On which Subject and to which purpose Canus the Dominican learned Bishop of the Canaries one of the Trent Fathers may be consulted with in his work de Locis Theologicis But the rejection in so many Catholick Diocesses and countries of those very Canons of Discipline in our most famous Tridentine Council though generally amongst all of the Roman Communion held for Oecumenical besides many others of like nature and several other Councils too even uncontrovertedly general of elder standing may be more seriously considered All which notwithstanding or notwithstanding that what I have now observed of such customs or canons be a consideration of great importance yet I wave it freely as to my present dispute with the Divines of Lovaine about the seal of confession or the Confessors obligation to reveal both the treason and person in our case of such damnable confession or consultation in the confessional seat and when the evil cannot be otherwise prevented LVIII But to the end the Readers may see if they please I am not more single or singular in this very case of revealing so the very person of such a Confitent when of absolute necessity for preventing of such evil than I was in that other of revealing the evil only or treason it self to prevent it the very self same Catholick and Classick Authors especially Sylvester verb. Confessio 3. Quaesito quarto et quinto quoted by me above in my fift consideration will sufficiently prove being themselves of the same opinion and upon the self same grounds maintaining it that is not only the lawfulness of such revelation but an obligation too on the confessor to discharge himself so when he may without danger to himself For although Sylvester does not in those places querie or even resolve in express tearms about revealing the very person of such a Confitent yet it is as clear as the Sun he both means and reaches it both in his Queries and Resolves First because in his first Querie of that Chapter or title where he demands quid cadat sub sigillo Confessionis he resolving that those sins only fall under that seal which directly fall under Sacramental confession and all things els which indirectly or out of which any third person might come to knowledge of any such sin not simply in it self but relatively to the person that confess'd it ex quibus deveniri potest in notitiam peccati non simpliciter sed relative ad personam quae illud confessa est resolves consequently as well in that very place or in answer to that first Querie as in an other place after or amongst his answers to the 4th Querie and resolves too with all truth and Divinity and with Scotus and the common Doctrine of Divines against Panâ—rmitan That no sins confess'd fall under that seal as simply sins or simply confess'd but only as having relation to this or that person Secondly because that after having layd this ground in that first Querie he demands in his fourth Vtrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessionem revelare contra dictum sigillum propter aliquod damnum aut peccatum vel periculum vitandum whether it be lawfull for the Priest in any case to reveal confession against the said seal for prevention of any hurt sin or danger And in his fifth Quibus casibus andita in confessione dici aut manifestari possint sine fractione dicti sigilli In what cases the Confessor may without breach of that seal reveal what he knew in confession And thirdly because his resolves to the said fourth and fift Queries and his Instances and the reasons he gives for such resolves and instances evict plainly this truth For having first answered negatively that fourth Querie according to the common doctrine of St. Thomas and others he restraines and limits immediately after that general resolution by a specifical exception of such cases wherein there is not a true sacramental confession but a meer fiction of such for other evil ends as those for example of engageing the Confessor himself or of getting his advice or other help to execute a sinful design And gives for a reason that such a fained Penitent or Confitent opens not such matters to the Priest as to the Minister of God nor as in sacramental confession As the Reader may see here in his own words and language Quarto utrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessionem revelare contra dictum sigillum propter aliquod damnum aut peceatum vel periculum vit andum Et dico secundum S. T. et Pe. et communem omnium quod non Quod limita secundum Rai et gl in tit de paen et re quando quis vere confitetur Secus quando ficté ad impetrandum a confessore auxilium vel â—â—nsilium super aliquo peccato Hoc enim non est confessio etiam si dicatur hoc tibi dico in confessione sed confessionis destructio Et consentit Innoc. in dicto capite omnis dicens non esse verum quod tales dicant in paenitentia vel Dei Ministro cum animae consilium non requirant And having answer'd the fift Querie affirmatively or that in many cases the sin heard in confession may be revealed by the Confessor without any breach of that Seal he instances in the third place or case one that tells in Confession he hath still a real fixed purpose to commit some evil as for example to murder some body and in this third case resolves with Innocentius and Panormitan 1. That such confession is no confession at all belonging to the penitential or sacramental Court nor the Confessor bound to conceal it as being not of a sin already committed but hereafter to be committed and consequently of a sin by no means told in the sacrament or under the Seal of
be not mistaken in his rules of concluding And the minor is as manifest as the text of Silvester which I have before given is It remaineth only therefore that for a greater illustration yet of the major albeit there be no need I form this other syllogisme Whoever teacheth all this or all that above doctrine which I have given in the Latin text it cannot be rationally denyed to be as clear as the Sun that he meaneth and reacheth the lawfulness for and obligation also on the Confessor in our case to reveal all that is on evident grounds conceived by him to be necessary for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom For that doctrine supposes upon one side all the general laws of God and Nature of Charity Piety and Justice both exhorting and commanding the Confessor to prevent by all just and lawful means the execution of so evil a design and on the other side supposes also that there is no particular law of God or Nature or Man or Church against the revealing of all whatever the Confessor knows by such a confession and is conceived by him to be necessary for prevention For the only such particular law can be pretended by any is that of a seal of confession And the above doctrine expresly teacheth there is no seal at all of confession nor can be in the case or in such a confession as it expresly teacheth that when or where this seal is as it is alwayes in a true sacramental confession it is a seal wholly and only as to the person of the Confitent not as to his sin or other appendage Whereby it is further plain and evident that the above doctrine or argument derived from it cannot be eluded by saying it denies a seal as to the sin but not as to the person being it acknowledges no seal but as to the person and denies expresly all kind of seal in our case or confession But whoever meaneth and reacheth the lawfulness for and obligation too on the Confessor in our case to reveal all that is on evident grounds conceived by him to be necessary for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom meaneth also and reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of such a Confitent because that for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom to reveal even the individual person of such a Confitent and without his own consent is in our case upon evident grounds conceived to be necessary Ergo whoever teacheth expresly the above doctrine it cannot be rationally denied to be as clear as the Sun that he meaneth reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of the Confitent and I mean still without nay against his consent when the danger to a third person much more to a Kingdom Commonwealth or even any lesser community is great and not otherwise to be prevented and that he may reveal him without danger to himself Out of all which if it be not clear that I have Sylvester on my side and by consequence Abbas Innocentius and so many other both ancient and modern Catholick and Classick Schoolmen who teach the same Doctrine with Silvester I must confess I see not what is clear Which is the reason I dare conclude that if the Doctors of Lovaine will oppose me in the Doctrine of this sixt consideration they will raise too great a storm against themselves And I have at least no less reason to think it will be so with them too if they write against the Doctrine of any of the other five precedent Yet I would have them or all that stickle for them in this Country where the language of this book of mine is understood for if God lend me life and health I mean to speak in good season yet to the Lovaine Divines in their own language or that of their Censure I say I would have them all to understand that I have not laboured so much as I have now here to prove my Doctrine out of Silvesteâ— or any other as if I were perswaded that I could not or dared not warrant any doctrine unless I could shew it extracted from or conformable to that of other Schoolmen that writ before me on the same subject As I am farr enough from such perswasion or such fear in matters wherein I may ground my self on plain Scriptures certain Tradition or evidence of natural Reason and see no plain Scripture or Tradition or undoubted and received true Canon of the Catholick Church to gain-say that evidence although I saw at the same time ten thousand Canonists and Summists or other Casuists and even ten thousand too of the very best School-divines against me so I assure the Reader my only design by so long a discourse of Silvester was no other but to confound the more those Lovaine Divines by the very Authors who are so familiar with and approved of in their own Schools For otherwise I know well enough it is the Doctrine of the very Schools that no man is bound to swear to their doctrine jurare in verba Magâ—stri upon this ground only of its being theirs I know very well too that the more common doctrine or absolutely and simply the common doctrine of the Schools is not alwayes the more true or even simply true That some doctrines have been common amongst them three hundred years since which now are so farr from being common as not to be scarce of any one man That some also now common have been some two or three ages past the doctrine of one single man And what is now of a single School-man against the torrent of the other side may after some few years more prove it self a torrent of all sides In fine that the doctrine of the Schools as such and the doctrine of the Church as the Church are 〈◊〉 least oâ—â—en 〈◊〉 wide one from another as Heaven and Earth LIX Bu◠〈◊〉 pâ—â—â—venture some may yet object the passion of Father 〈…〉 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—gation at or before his passion or death when he 〈◊〉 examined concerning the Gun powder-treason his opinion consequently against the doctrine of revealing in such a case the person of the Confitent although I have to this objection said enough already yet because what I â—aid so was only per transennam or transiently I thought fit to repeat here again that and further add what I conceive necessary to remove this only remaining but pitiful presence of a meer made scruple 1. That his passion or death suffered by him was not to bear testimony to the contrary doctrine but for having been found guilty himself by the law at least as a concealer of that wicked plot And that as it is most certain there was never
nay and meritoriously too abide the sentence of death even in prima instantia from a Judge of Assize according to the laws of England or Ireland or both and the Execution of it and even at the same time acknowledge himself bound under pain of sin to abide this sentence and this execution patiently and christianly without resistance and yet at the same time also challenge the priviledge of the Canons or at least not renounce the priviledge of the Canons and even of such as he really conceives to be obliging Canons whether groundedly or ungroundedly he conceives or alledges such Canons it matters not to our purpose or that he may at the same time also alledge and the case may be such that he may truly too alleadge that he is proceeded against unjustly both by the Inferiour supream Judge both against the legally established received unrepealed obliging Canons of the Church and the uncontroverted clear just and wholsome laws of the State And therefore it is no less evident that there can be no inconsistency no contradiction at all betwixt a Priests acknowledging the duty of such an obedience and his challenging alwaye nevertheless a right not to be proceeded against by such a sentence That our further declaring in the said Remonstrance That notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication deposition c. we will alwayes be true obedient faithful Subjects to the King that we renounce all forreign power spiritual or temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to absolve us from us Allegiance or dispense with us therein or give us leave to raise tumults bear arms c. against his Majesty or Laws That we bold the doctrine impious and renounce â—t as such which teacheth that any Subject may murder the anointed of God his Prince though of a different Religion from his That we acknowledge all supream temporal Princes to be Gods Lieutenants on earth or in their Dominions and obedience due to them respectively in all civil and temporal affairs by their own Subjects That finally we protest against all contrary doctrines and practices That I say our further declaring any or all these particulars together doth not either formally or virtually or expresly or tacitly draw with it our declaring against or our disacknowledging renouncing declining or quitting the Exemption or Ecclesiastical immunity of Clerks either as to their Persons or as much as to their Goods if by this Exemption or Immunity that be understood as it ought certainly which all Catholick States Kingdoms Nations Councils Parliaments People Divines Universities Bishops Clerks and consequently Churches do understand in France Spain Germany Italy Venice Poland c. For the truth of all and every such declaration and obligation consequent may and doth very well stand in their opinion and according to their practice with such Exemption being they all hold this Exemption to be not independently from the soveraign power of the Princes or States or of their Laws but with dependance alway in relation to that soveraignty or supream Majesty from the inferiour Judicatures and in such cases only whether civil or criminal as are priviledged and only too in prima instantia or at most in so many other instances as will not require manifestly or by manifest necessity an appeal or recourse to the Prince or State civil or pollitick â gravamine or the interposition of the Prince's or States supream power in the case without any such appeal or recourse of either Plantiff or Defendant but ex officio where the Prince or State see a manifest necessity of such interposition as the case may be very well as it hath often been that the Ecclesiastical Judges are themselves involved in the same crime for example in treason or sedition and therefore will not punish the criminals accused before them but rather encourage them as much as they dare That moreover as it appears manifestly out of all the foresaid passages either separatly or collectively taken there is not from the first word to the last of the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance not I say any passage at all any word or syllable in that whole Declaration being these I have given are all it contains of any matter soever that may be formally or virtually expresly or tacitly directly or indirectly understood by any rational impartial man to dis-acknowledge or declare against Immunity Ecclesiastical or the Exemption of Clergy-mens either Persons or Goods as this Exemption is allowed or approved by the Catholick World or Church or as by either understood so it appears no less manifestly that in the petitionary address which immediatly follows the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance and of principles belonging to such Allegiance there is neither as much as one word which may import to an impartial understanding Reader or to any that is not clouded by ignorance or byassed by malice any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such immunity or exemption And that if in this petitionary address there be nothing to this purpose or any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption it must be and is confess'd by the very most scrupulous or most invidious Adversaries there can be none at all in all or any part of that Remonstrance or in that whole Instrument entituled The humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland To prove this last conditional assertion I need not add any thing more to what I have said already or observed in considering all the several distinct parts of the Act of Recognition in it self and other declarations following therein and to what moreover I have presently hinted of the confession of our most carping Adversaries but only this one advertisement more to the Reader whereof himself by reading only over that whole Instrument can be Judge that nothing else is contained in the paper but a bare Remonstrance of grievances persecution odium c. which no man ever yet quarrel'd against as pretending therein a ground for this fourth Exception or any other whatsoever What remains therefore to be cleared is the petitionary address of that paper as that indeed against which for ought I heard from the Dissentors themselves or any of them all their quarrel is on this pretence of quitting Ecclesiastical Immunity and subjecting Clergy-men to Lay Judicatories or to Secular Courts in criminal causes But how justly or unjustly be you Judge good Reader when you have considered the words sense and scope of that Petition so often returned for answer to this invidious Exception The words and whole tenor of that perclosing Address are these and no other These being the tenets of our Religion in point of Loyalty and submission to your Majesties commands and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrenching on that perfect obedience which by our birth by all laws divine and humane we are bound to pay to
wilfully blind even in this particular we now handle And so I have done with the Procurators first answer to their fourth ground LXII His second answer to this same 4. ground was That granting the Remonstrance had either in that perclose or some other part even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream civil or temporal coercive power of the Prince or Magistrate provided still it did not declare as verily it does not against that which is indeed the real true and well grounded exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour civil Judicatories according to the respective civil laws or customs of several Kingdoms and as farre as the respective laws or customs do allow such exemption from such inferiour Judicatories yet neither the Divines of Lovaine nor any other could justly censure it therefore And the Procuratours reason for this second answer which he gave ex superabundanti was first in general that he defied those of Lovaine or any other Divine or Canonist in the world to shew any law Divine either positive or natural or any law human either civil or ecclesiastical for such exemption or which is the same thing to shew any one text of holy Scripture or any one tenet of Apostolick tradition or any Canon at all of the Catholique Church or even as much as any kind of passage out of the civil law of Emperours nay as much as any one convincing or even probable argument of natural reason to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream civil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or live as at least reputed Citizens or Subjects And secondly his reason also in general for it was that on the contrary he durst undertake against the Divines of Lovaine to prove there is no such exemption nor can be and with much evidence to prove this even by clear express texts of holy Scripture in that sense the holy Fathers generally understood such texts even for a whole thousand of years But not content with these two general reasons given for that his second answer to the fourth ground of the Lovaine censure the Procuratour descended often to particular proofs of each Which I think not unworthy my pains and your patience good Reader to give at length here Protesting nevertheless that I have no design at all to lessen the priviledges Immunity or Exemption of the Sacred Ministers of God but onely to oppose the unlawful extension of it and erroneous doctrine of some Divines in this point or that which they teach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption from the supream civil coercive power against all the known laws of God LXIII And therefore and for what concerns any Divine law positive or command of God expresly either formally or virtually delivered us by Revelation and this Revelation made known unto us either by holy Scripture or by Tradition for such command it is that all Divines call the Positive law of God as it is distinguish'd from that other which they also call in opposition to this the law divine natural or as others call it the law of nature only without further addition being nothing els but one of those commanding dictats of meer natural reason which natural reason consequently such dictats thereof God hath given the Soul every man generally from his birth by the very condition of his being a man and of having his organs rightly disposed and therefore is called the law divine natural I say that for what concerns any positive law of God revealed in holy Scripture the case is clear enough even by the concession of Bellarmine himself De Clericis l. 1. cap. 28. where he confesses plainly in the proofs of his fift Proposition That there is not in holy Scriptures any precept or command properly such for the exemption of Clergiemen either as to their goods or as to their persons in publick matters that is in temporal civil or worldly affairs from the civil Magistrate And he means too by the civil Magistrate here not onely the supream civil Magistrate but even all subordinate inferiour Magistrates And confesses further though even for the matter in plain contradiction to his own Thesis immediately before that is to his said fift proposition there are onely in the old Testament some testimonies or some examples out of which per quandam similitudinem as he speaks by some kind of similitude one may deduce the exemption of Clergie-men as of Divine Right or that God is pleased they should be so exempted labouring by this vain explication to reconcile the Catholick Divines and the Canonists those maintaining very truly and learnedly that the exemption of Clerks such as it is is onely by meer humane right or law and these no less falsely and ungroundedly that it is de jure divinâ— And I say That whether Bellarmine had so confessed or no the case is clear enough still if we but consider those very testimonies and examples of Bellarmine or by him or others alleadged either out of the old Testament or out of the new The first of those Testimonies or examples out of the old Testament is that in 40. of Genesis 22. and 26. verse wherein we find that in the general famine and sale which by occasion thereof was made by all the people of Egypt and of all their lands cattle and even bodies for ever to Pharao and for bread to relieve themselves Ioseph exempted those Idolatrous Priests of Egypt from that slavery of either bodies or lands gave them corn gratis out of the Royal granaries and would not after subject as much as their lands to the condition of others which was to pay the King a fift part for ever of the encrease or fruit of their lands The second example is out of 1. Esdras cap. 7. verse 24. where it is read that King Artaxerxes commanded his Treasurers beyond the river as before 21. verse not to sess the Priests or other Ministers of the Temple at Ierusalem with any taxes c. We do you also to understand concerning all the Priests and Levites and the singers and the porters the Nathineits and Ministers of the house of this God that you have no authority to put tole and tribute and yearly rents upon them The third example or testimony is out of Leviticus 3. chap. where God himself commands Moyses to bestow on Aaron the high Priest and on his Sons the other Priests and to give them as a gift for ever all the Levits or children of Levy And God himself further expresly declares twice verse the 12. and 45 that the Levits were and should be his own mei sunt and mei erunt And these are all that Bellarmine alleadges out of the old Testament though he troubles not himself so much as to deduce them at length
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
pastors at the same time in other cases and respects and in order also to those very other men must notwithstanding all this be directed govern'd judg'd in the self-same other cases and respects and by the very self-same other men who yet are themselves in such other cases and respects but meer metaphorical sheep and no pastors at all I say that to conclude so must of necessity be no other then to conclude that which cannot be concluded but by a manifest inconsequence against natural reason no less manifest abuse of this very similitude because as it is now apparant it concludes the metaphorical Pastor wherein he is pastor to be directed by his own metaphorical sheep To his Fourth argument from the Greek word Cleres or Latin Clerici or the title of Clerks appropriated or at least attributed as originally peculiar to Ecclesiastical men or to the argument derived from the signification of that word name or title importing as much as a lot and consequently signifying Churchmen to be in a special manner of the lot or portion or share of God The answer is obvious 1. That were that indeed the etimological reason of that title as attributed to them which yet this Cardinal hath not proved and others that dive unto such etimological reasons deny saying that Churchmen are not therefore stiled Clerks but because they of their own parts are by their orders supposed to take God onely for their own portion lot share inheritance yet I say were the meaning that which he gives this word certainly no more could be thence concluded for their exemption or immunity from the supream civil coercive power then could be for the like exemption of the Levits by the words of God himself so often repeated in Leviticus mei sunt And being these words of God himself prove no such exemption to have been of the Levits as I have before discoursed in the former section much less can the title of Clerks assumed by our churchmen themselves or given them by other men though I confess significantly and properly enough 2. That notwithstanding that Clergiemen are by special function and in a more special manner then meer laymen the Ministers of God and consecrated for to be so and were it granted besides that all Clergiemen are at the time of their consecration or other designation such as that is of the onely first clipping of their haire by the Bishop which is called primi tonsura and which without any more adoo makes them Clerks were it I say granted that at such time all the lay people and even the very supream civil Magistrate himself amongst them did offer to God for his Ministery all Clergiemen whatsoever that is all such as are then to be initiated by the Bishop which yet cannot be granted being we see often too many unfit in many respects initiated so against both the express Canons of the Church and known judgment of both Prince and People no more can be rationally concluded from either such designation or such oblation or both together but that neither people nor Prince may at any time evermore divert or hinder from the Sacred Ministery the persons so consecrated by the Bishop and offered by themselves to God for that his special Ministery Nor therefore of such initiated persons no such exemption at least as that pretended to be of them from even the very supream civil power and in all causes even the most criminal soever can at all from such consecration or oblation or both together be concluded by any principle of natural reason Because natural reason and practise too of all ages and countries tels us there is no incompatibility at all betwixt the duty or subjection of sacred persons to or not exemption from at least the supream civil power and that of their special holy function but on the contrary that the former doth much advantage the later And because both natural reason and christian Religion tels us that Clerks by their sacred initiation are not freed from any other former duties or from such as they had till then been bound unto by the laws of God or nature to be performed to other men as for example the duty of paying a pecuniary sum borrowed from a Neighbour the duty of reverencing honouring obeying and serving their natural parents in all such things and cases as children ought c. And lastly because it is confessed of all sides that subjection to the not onely supream but subordinate civil Magistrate in such criminal causes was a former duty Whence also it is clear enough that the exemption of Clerks from the subordinate or inferiour civil Judges cannot be said to be annexed perse or naturally or necessarily at all to any such initiation oblation or both together but meerly by accident and by the free will of others forasmuch to witt as it pleased the civil Magistrate civil power and civil laws to exempt them from such inferiour civil Judges in all or many or some cases according to the divers customs of divers Countries 3. That were that assumption of Bellarmine universally true without any distinction where he sayes That in things offered and consecrated to God and therefore made in some sense as if they were the peculiar and property of God no secular Princes can have any right or were it true in his sense and to his purpose or were a peoples being made in some sense as if they were the peculiar and property of God were this I say wherein Bellarmine here puts all his force an argument of the exemption of such people from all meer civil or lay power then must it follow that all not onely the 12. tribes of Israel and not the tribe of Levi alone had been in the old Testament exempted from all meer lay power but even that all Christians are universally in the new For all the 12. tribes were not onely purified and sanctified by several aspersions and other ceremonies performed by Moyses and Aaron and offered also and devoted by themselves to God and this too by the appointment of God himself but were also all of them generally adopted by God and by his own mouth declared his own chosen people portion lot inheritance and sanctified by himself and for his own service segregated out of all the Nations of the earth Eritis mihi sancti quia sanctus sum ego Dominus separavi vos a caeteris populis ut essetis mei Levit. 20. words I am sure spoken by Moyses as from the mouth of God himself and spoken by him to all the 12. Tribes universally and not to that of Levi alone And therefore all the 12. Tribes of Israel were made as of the property and peculiar of God himself quasi ipsius dei propria facta sunt according to Bellarmines phrase speaking of Clerks And for all Christians too universally who is so ignorant as not to know or so obstinate as not to confess that they are offered by their Godfathers
once made nor consequently lawful ever after to convert it to prophane uses that is to any other uses but those intended by vow for the more especial service of God Whence further it must no less plainly appear that were that very same law of Leviticus binding Christians now under the new Testament no more can be concluded to Bellarmines purpose and as to our dispute concerning the exemption of Clergymen from the civil power but that which should as well restrain the Pope as the Prince Because no more but that neither temporal nor spiritual Magistrate could secularize Churchmen or Church-lands or Church-beasts once they had been consecrated Church men or Church-lands or Church-beasts Which yet neither Bellarmine himself nor even any of his Defenders will allow as indeed both reason and so many thousands and even daily un-reproved instances tell us it cannot be allowed So that our learned Cardinal alledgeth in this point a law which is no more a law at all to us that are Christians and yet a law which were it a law for us hath not one word to his purpose For who sees not the consistency of these two 1. A right or a power from God in the supream civil Magistrate to force consecrated persons to behave themselves as becomes such consecrated persons 2. No right or power from God in such Magistrate to prophane those consecrated persons or to apply them to any other calling or profession which is or must be inconsistent with the ends of their consecration And who sees not consequently the vain flourish of this Querie wherewith this eminent person concludes his fourth argument Quis autem dicere audeat jus esse profano homini en ea quae sancta sanctorum id est sanctissima dici meruerunt who dares be so bold as to say that a profane man hath right to those things which have deserved the name of holy of holies that is most holy And then adds as a final conclusion of all Qua ratione bona etiam temporalia Clericorum bona Dominica proprie dicuntur in can 4. Apostolico ideo tanquam Deo sacra jucisdictioni laicorum subjecta esse non possunt Upon which account sayes he temporal goods of Clergymen are in the fourth Apostolical Canon properly said to be Dominica or the Lords goods and therefore as being consecrated to God cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of Laymen But he needed not make this so vain flourish of a querie or corrollary following which himself could not but know to have been ten thousand times over and over answered by Catholick Divines and Catholick Bishops and even by some very learned and very holy Popes too who in all ages both acknowledged and asserted a right in Emperours Kings and other supream temporal or civil lay Magistrates to govern command and even force by the sword if necessary all in their Territories even the most eminently consecrated to do their several duties to God and to the Commonwealth and to all their neighbours respectively As likewise they acknowledged and asserted in the same supream civil Magistrate a right to provide by good wholsome laws and otherwise that the temporal goods of Churchmen should be rightly used by them and not abused at all against those holy ends for which only either Princes or People or both had questionless devoted such goods to God Therefore to answer his question directly and briefly I will my self be one of those who dare say that such profane men as these supream civil Magistrates are since Bellarmine must needs have all kind of Laicks how Christian soever esteemed profane men have such a right as I have here declared over such holy of holies or most holy persons and things And that his allegation not out of the fourth Apostolical Canon as he quotes it but out of the 40. were those Canons authentick or indubitable Canons of the Apostles as this learned man himself knew very well they are not makes very much less for his exemption of the Goods of Ecclesiasticks c. from such a right in such profane persons For as this Canon attributes not the title of res Dominicae to all the goods whatsoever possessed by Clerks being it doth not to the Bishops own proper goods but to those only which being in common to all the Church or as well to other Priests and Ministers as to the Bishop whereof the text it self which I give here is proof sint autem manifestae res propriae Episcopi si tamen habet proprias et manifestae Dominicae ut potestatem habeat de propriis moriens Episcopus ficut voluerit de relinquere c. so it is clear enough out of what is said hitherto that no more can be concluded out of this denomination precisely against such a supream right as I have now declared in the supream civil Magistrate then may be out of any other epithet or word signifying only a pious or godly use of such goods And therefore no such matter as Bellarmine concludes which is to be in all senses and to all purposes exempt from even the very supream jurisdiction of all kind of lay Princes Doth natural reason teach us any inconsistency 'twixt some right or some power in the lay Prince or Parliament in some cases to tax the lauds or goods of the Church and the being nevertheless of those very lands or goods still designed for pious and holy uses or that even such taxation made by such a lay supream power and the execution and use of it may it not be of absolute necessity to preserve both the State and Church and the very continuance of these goods or lands hereafter in the immediate possession and property and use of the very Church and Church-men And is it not clear that as the meer lay Subjects property in their own hands must not cease at all by their being subject to necessary contributions or taxes when the supream legislative power layes such taxes on them for the maintainance of the publick even so those goods or lands whichh are for some special ordinary use called Dominicae must not therefore cease to be Dominicae or in the property of the Church because they may according to natural reason be in certain cases lyable to the like taxes imposed by the same supream lay power and by virtue of a true right in this very supream lay power to impose by its own authority alone such taxes on Church-lands albeit the Church-men themselves should unreasonably deny their own consent nay hath not the practice of the Christian world for many ages under great and good and most religious Christian Princes shewed us that the lands of the Church were often taxed so by them and by virtue of their own proper authority alone without being once ever told by the Church that they did amiss therein or at all against the ends or use of Dominicae Did not St. Ambrose himself confess in the difference he had with the young Emperour
Valentinian and with his Arrian Mother about the giving up a Church in Milan to thense of the Arrians did not I say this so great and so holy and so knowing Ambrose tell the Emperour that indeed the lands of the Church were under his power and therefore payed him tribute but that the Church it self was not for such an impious use Therefore our learned Cardinal is much out in his collection here from this Canon of the Apostles when he sayes that by natural reason because the goods or lands of the Church are called Dominicae therefore the cannot in any wise or for any use or in any case be subject to the supream lay Jurisdiction To his fifth and last argument I need not say much because it so little requires other answer than That it is the very worst sort of argument he could use for his Ecclesiastical Immunity and for the being of it as such from the very law of Nations and Nature For to pretend or alledge even true miraculous extraordinary judgments or punishments from God on the Profaners of holy places or even too on the tyrannical Oppressors of holy or Ecclesiastical Persons as also on a Prince or People for having made first or observed after out of covetousness hatred envy pride ambition or any other sinful end such laws as naturally must lessen the holiness or esteem or reverence which must be due to either such places or such persons what hath this to do with the religious worshippers of such places and with the careful protectors of such persons or with either Prince or People that for a just and holy end make a wholsome law which being observed by Church-men will make them more holy and more reverend Besides how often have we read of extraordinary judgments of God pursuing presently the injustice committed by either Prince or People against meer lay men and against such as could pretend no such exemption and against such too as had no right of their side but from the positive civil Institutions or Laws made by other meer lay-men If our most eminent Cardinal had alledged and proved but one only miracle wrought in the case that is wrought by the invocation of God and either expresly or even tacitly for the confirmation of his Thesis or the being of Clergymen so exempt as he would have them in all cases and all respects from the supream civil jurisdiction of lay Princes then indeed he might have had some colour to amuse the Reader with that his fifth Argument Albeit yet such miracle would not be home enough unless withal it appeared wrought to confirm their being so exempt by the law of Nations and Nature But neither for Churchmen or Church doth he as much as pretend to any such material miracle or any such extraordinary punishments from God And good God! what is it to prove such exemption as he pretends That the sacrilegious robbers or any other wicked prophaners of a Church dyed presently That a passionat wicked Prince who did without any form of justice without any just cause at all and who did even against his own laws and his own conscience persecute to death a Religious Prelate or Priest onely for having been a good Prelate or good Priest in reprehending wickedness that I say such a Prince had an evil or strange and suddain end Certainly were it acknowledged of all sides did God himself now expresly and intelligibly and evidently reveal it to all the world that notwithstanding any pretence or even any positive laws of men hitherto all kind of Churchmen and Churches and their persons goods lands houses c. were as other men in all kind of temporal matters subject to the disposition and coercion of not only the supream but also of the inferiour civil Magistrate yet from the providence and goodness and justice also of God we might rationally expect sometime and pray sometime also for such extraordinary and exemplary miraculous punishment of such as would abuse that right or that power given them by God to govern well questionless to govern holily and justly the Church of God and Ministers and lands and revenues of it Besides how often have such extraordinary miraculous punishments seized on the very Ecclesiastical Governours themselves and even on the very supream Ecclesiastical Governours who have oppressed the inferiour Clergie And yet there was no exemption of this inferiour Clergie from them concluded thence Lastly how knows for what injustice in particular did those extraordinary punishments from God and let us suppose them still truly miraculous and from God in a special way which yet will be hardly proved of most of them seize upon such as were said to have violated Churches or Churchmen against that which this learned Cardinal pretends to be Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty Did God reveal it was particularly for infringing that or infringing any part of all that which Bellarmine understands or pretends to be of true and due Ecclesiastical exemption and was moreover to shew by a testimony from Heaven That this Ecclesiastical Immunity of his must be admitted to be such by the law of Nations and Nature Or did God reveal it was not perhaps for some other indeed more unquestionably exorbitant wickedness of those very men so punished miroculously Or must the single conjecture of Basilius Porphyrogenitus be to us a certainty that indeed those evils happened at that time to the Constantinopolitan Empire by reason or because of that law whatever it was made by Nicephorus Phocas and further yet a concluding argument for the being of Bellarmine's such pretended Ecclesiastical Immunity from the law of Nations and Nature which onely is our present business or dispute Nay must we not rather according to reason attribute those very plagues or judgments from God at that time to other causes that is to the undoubted uncontroverted injustices and wrongs done by Nicephorus Phocas in using ill and abusing very much the supream power he had over the Clergie if I say there was any thing extraordinary in those plagues or if they were such as the like or farre worse did not fall on that people or Emperour of Constantinople very often before that law was made and after that law was again abolished and when Ecclesiastical Immunity was as strictly and religiously observed as ever or when the supream civil power as rightly used as ever for the veneration of holy places and holy persons Do not the Greek Historians of those times Curopolates and Cedrenus Zonaras and Glycas do not Baronius and his Abbreviator Spendanus ad Annum Christi 962. 964. confess with those Greeks That Nicephorus Phocas though otherwise an excellent and victorious Prince had been charged with several other exorbitances as with having suffered himself after the death of Romanus to be chosen Emperour by the Army notwithstanding that Basilius and Constantinus both lawful Sons to the deceased Emperour Romanus were yet alive and lawful Heirs of the Empire and
is Ecclesiastical Judges given them in such exempted causes both criminal and civil but given them so by the supream authority civil and proceeding in so much against them to a meer civil determination execution and coaction by vertue onely of the power derived from the civil laws and supream civil Magistrate and not by vertue of any spiritual power or other whatsoever derived from the Church as purely a Church Because the Church as such hath neither territory nor sword consequently no external criminal or civil Judicatory with any external or temporal power of coaction or coercion properly such but onely a spiritual power of meer spiritual censures which is but secundum quid or diminutively and improperly called coercion or coaction for what belongs to our purpose here But however this be or be not it is clear enough First that by no civil law of the Roman Emperours Clerks have been ever yet at any time exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat or from the supream civil coercive power of his laws Which I take to be so absolutely certain That Bellarmine himself for proof of his third Proposition which he hath cap. 28. l. 1. de Cler. in these general words Non possunt Clericiâ—a Judicâ— seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent had not the confidence to alleadg any other imperial or civil constitution but onely those of the Emperour Justinian's Novells 79. 83. and 123. where yet Bellarmine confesses this Emperour decreed no more but the exemption of Clerks and Monks from secular that is laye judicatories in civil causes onely and not in criminal Nay confesses that for criminal causes the same Justinian particularly and expresly decrees in these very Novels that Clergiemen be subject still to the lay or civil Pretors Jurisdiction with this caution only that judgment of death be not pronounced in the Pretors Court against a Clerk before he be degraded by the Bishop So that by the very concession and confession of Bellarmine himself it is not only clear enough that no civil constitution can be produced for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream lay power but also clear enough that no such can be pleaded for their exemption in such causes from all subordinate inferiour lay Courts being the Pretors Court was a subordinate one at least unto the Princes own supream Tribunal and being that Bellarmine having confessed this much of this law of Iustinians finds no other civil Institution for his purpose in criminal causes to alledge but flyes presently to his Ecclesiastical Institutions in that point saying that albeit the civil law did not so exempt Clerks in criminal causes from the civil Judicatories yet the Canons of the Church did as sayes he appears clearly out of the Epistle of Cains the Pope to Felix and out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and also out of the XI book of Gregory the Greats Register epist 54. ad Joannem Defensorem and saying further that the civil law must yield to the Canon Law cum possit summus Pontifex Imperatori praecipere in iis praesertim quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent whereas sayes he the supream Pontiff or Pope may command the Emperour especially in such things as concern the Church Where it is evident that Bellarmine confesses plainly there is no civil Institution or Law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the civil or lay Courts For the Reader is to take notice here that by the civil law in this matter no other civil law is understood but that only of Emperours From which indeed originally and only all the exemption of Clerks proceeded even in those Christian Countreys which have shaken off the yoke and even in those too which never yet were under that of the Imperial Power or Laws but have made themselves peculiar municipal laws Which yet albeit they be meerly and properly civil laws yet are they not the civil laws whereof Bellarmine treats and his other Associats contend as we are sure they give more exemption to Clerks either in criminal or civil causes then those of the Roman Emperour did But forasmuch as many of our Clerks are ignorant of that spring of their exemption whatever this exemption truly groundedly be as others are no less ungrateful for not acknowledging it I will oblige those and check these by laying here before their eyes the very first laws the several degrees of them whereby they came by the meer favour of the Roman Emperours to that exemption from Secular Courts which they have truly ever since enjoyed more or less in Christendome according as these laws were continued practised or even by other Princes not subject any more or at all to the Roman Emperours and Laws enacted a new or allowed of Therefore and that we may not erre hereafter in this point the Reader is to know that all these several priviledges liberties or exemptions either of persons lands or other goods which the Clergy hath now in Christian Kingdoms and States have not been granted at first by any one Emperour or at any one time The very first exemption ever yet granted to Clerks was that of Constantine the Great whereby after this good Emperour had formerly published his edicts of liberty for Christian Religon in general he particularly gave this priviledge by law to those of that religion were called Clerks that they should not be obnoxious to nominations or susceptions that is that if they were named or elected for any civil office of Magistracy or Wardship or of gathering of Taxes Tributes c. yet they should not be bound to undergo any such whereas before that law or priviledge Christian Clerks being named or elected were bound to undergo all such offices without any such excuse at all But eight years after this law so made the same Câ—nstantine made another whereby he gave a general exemption to such Clerks from all kind of civil offices l. 1. 2. Cod. Theod. de Episcop Cleric l. 16. wherein he gives the reason of this priviledge least sayes he Clerks sacrilego livâ—re quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur may out of the sacrilegious envy of some be called away or diverted from their divine imployments And indeed it is very observable against the ungrateful temerity of some Clerks who are loath to acknowledge the spring of their Immunity to be from the secular power that the same most Christian Prince calls those exemptions priviledges For so he calls them in express tearms Haereticorum factiâ—ne comperimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Clericos ita vexari ut nominationibus seu suceptionibus aliquibus quas publicus mos exposcit centra indulta sibi privilegia pregraventur we have found sayes he that by the faction of Hereticks the Clerks of the Catholick Church are so vexed that they are forced to submit to nominations and susceptions which publick use requires against the priviledges granted them In reference to and
criminal causes while or during their being Clerks or before degradation For as for that other passage or those other words which Bellarmine takes hold of to abuse his Reader prius hunc spoliari a Deo amabili Episcopo sacerdotali dignitate ita sub legum manu fieri in English these this Clerk to be spoiled first of his sacerdâ—â—al dignity by the beloved Bishop of God and so to be put under the hand of laws who sees not that please to read that Novel nay that please to read what Bellarmine himself before and elswhere l. de Cler. c. 28. most expresly and particularly taught of the contents of that Novel who sees not I say that these words prius hunc spoliari c. ita sub legum manu fieri do not signifie in that law that Clerks were not before the Bishop degraded them subject in such criminal causes to the lay Presidents of Provinces or to the laws but onely after such degradation It is expresly provided in that very law as Bellarmine himself in the book of his now quoted confesses That the lay judg is in the very first place of all and before any such degradation to take cognizance of such criminal causes of Clerks and that in the next place if this lay judge find him guilty the Bishop is to degrade him before the execution or judgment of execution be given by the judge Is it not plain enough that by this very law or Novel of Iustinian Clerks were in such causes subject to such lay Judges and laws before any degradation by the Bishop could such lay Judges take cognizance of any cause or person that were not by law subject to them Therefore it is evident that the words prius spoliari c. in that passage quoted by Bellarmine and words ita sub legum manu fieri must as there be onely understood in relation to a publick definitive sentence of punishment and execution of such Which that Novel ordains for the honour of the sacred function of Priests not to be pronounced before the Judge give notice to the Bishop to degrade such a Priest as is by the same lay Judge upon examination and full discussion of the cause found to have deserved some infamous punishment as for example to be condemned to death or to the mines or perpetual banishment That so it may not be said that a Priest but a man despoiled first of the dignity of a Priest and of the very order it self as much as could be and of all kind of priviledges of the Clerical order was legally condemn'd and suffer'd such an ignominious punishment And by consequence the priority signified by that word prius relates to the posteriority of a definitive publick sentence of such infamy and to the execution of it not at all to a posteriority of power in such lay Judge over such a Clerk in such a cause which power we have now seen by that very Novel to have been anteriour to and wholly independent of the Bishops degradation being that the power of judicial cognizance of the crime was such And by the same consequence that being under the power of the civil laws imported by those other words ita sub legum manu fieri signifies onely a certain kind of being under and that too in order onely to such a subordinate Judge in such a cause but not all kinds of being under nor any kind at all in order to the supream civil Judge As for Bellarmines Allegation here of the Council of Constance Ses 31. it s not to the purpose because whatever may be said to have been meaned by the Fathers in those or any other such words or whether they intended only an exemption from the subordinat ciuil or lay Judges or even from the supream yet they say not here or elsewhere that such exemption whâ—tever was given by the civil laws Besides it is evident that the Fathers of Constance made no Canon at all in this point of exemption and that albeit they have these words alledged here by the Cardinal yet they only have them or make use of them in a particular case decreeing the liberty of the Bishop of Aste from an unjust imprisonment wherein he was by force kept by Philip the Count of Virtues a Philippo Comite virtutum who was not the said Bishop's supream temporal Prince or Lord but a subordinate and who without any warrant from the Supream had by usurpation imprisoned the said Bishop So that the Fathers of Constance alledging in the particular sentence they gave for this Bishop and against this Counâ— and in such a particular that laici nullam in Clericos potestatem aut jurisdictionem habent and alledging this only too by way of supposition or as a reason of their said particular sentence in favour of the said Bishop must not be presumed to have supposed more then was necessary for the justification of their said sentence especially where to have supposed so must have been point blanck without any former canon of the Church or law of the Empire or custom of the world and consequently against plain Scripture Rom. 13. as I will shew hereafter But to be exempt from the jurisdiction or coercive power of subordinat civil or subordinat lay Judges Lords or Princes according to the late civil laws of the Empire and to the custom that by little and little was introduced and then in force in the Christian world was enough for that purpose or justification of that sentence notwithstanding a plenary subjection still of even Bishops to the supream lay coercive power The Fathers of Constance therefore being justly exasperated against the said Earl did rationally and pertinently secundum subjectam materiam make use of these words in the sentence they gave against him attendentes quod subditi in eorum Praelatos Laici in Clericos nullam habent jurisdictionem potestatem For it is a rule in both the canon and civil Law that the sense of words how indefinit soever in any instrument writing or speech whatsoever must not be what they import in a strict Gramatical or Logical sense but what they do ex intentione loquentis according to the intention of the speaker or writer and that this intention must be gathered not only out of the beginning middle and conclusion or end of any such instrument writing or speech and out of the collation of altogether Cum utriusque Juris argumenta nos doceant ea quae in medio ad finem atque principium ea quae in fine ad utrumque vel corum alterum recte referri sayes Nicholas III. in his Decretal Exiit de verbor significatione in Sexto but also as natural reason tells us ex subjecta materia out of the very matter whereof or concerning which the law instrument writing or discourse is What last of all is alledged out of Frederick the Second's Constitution being it is no more but a general ordinance or
an ordinance in such general or rather indefinit terms for the exemption of Clerks in a criminal question from the civil-Judicatory or being it is but a command or law That none should presume to call or draw an Ecclesiastical person in a criminal question or even civil to a secular judgment against the Imperial Constitutions and Canonical Functions and whereas there was never yet any Imperial Constitution or Canonical Sanction either made before his time or in his time or after his time that exempted Clergymen in either of both sorts of questions civil or criminal from the supream civil and absolute power of the Emperour themselves or of other Kings that acknowledge neither Emperour nor Pope nor any other above themselves in their temporal government who sees not that out of this Constitution of Frederick nothing can be concluded for such exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power but only from that of subordinat inferiour and ordinary civil or secular Judicatories Besides we know Fredericks laws were only for those few Cities or Provinces that remain'd in his time which was about the year of Christ one thousand two hundred and twenty and therefore could not pretend nor did pretend to prescribe laws to other Kingdoms or Kings for the exemption of Clerks either in civil or criminal causes or even to the inferiour Iudicatories of other Kings And that we know also that that law of Frederick was not imitated by the like in other Principalities not subject to him not imitated I say generally as to the exemption of Clerks in all either civil or criminal causes whatsoever from the very subordinat inferiour civil Iudicatories nor even in prima instantia So that I must conclude that Bellarmine was put to a very narrow strait for an imperial or civil law wh◠〈◊〉 pitch't on this of Frederick which was not known nor as much as 〈◊〉 of in other parts of even Europe it self as owning no subjection to Frederick And yet a law not to the purpose were it of the same authority those Imperial Constitutions were when the Orient and the Occident South and North as far as the Roman Empire was ever spread at any time or even in great Constantins days were under one Lord. An imperial or civil law in those days or of such others for some ages after which wâ—e received in the wide christian world consequently generally retained might have been to purpose if it had clearly expresly on particularly enacted any thing to our present purpose But conceived in such terms as this of Frederick coâ—lâ— not be to such purpose For it is one thing to be exempted from the subjection due to Emperours or Kings and another to be exempted a forâ— secuilâ—i from a secâ—â—â—â— Iudicatory The Emperours had under themselves and established by themselves and by their own civil laws two sorts of Iudicatories The one termâ—â—â—g meer civil or meer secular Iudicatory where peculars onely or meer â—ay men were Judges And the other termed 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Iudicatory where Ecclesiastical Persons only or persons depâ—â—â—â— by them were Iudgeâ— whatever the cause or question was civil or criâ—â—nal temporal or spiritual or mixt of both And both had their power which as coercive or a 〈…〉 with any coerciâ—â—â— from the Emperours and from their civil law 〈◊〉 So that the Emperours exempting any from the secular Iudicatory 〈…〉 leave or put such under the subordinat pâ—â—er of the Ecclesiastical Judges deputed by the same Emperours or by their laws Which they might have done in favour of meer lay men 〈◊〉 some lay-men and in some or many or all case whatsoever made had it been their Imperial pleasure as often they did by instances grant Epise 〈◊〉 And entiam to meer lay men and in meer lay crimes or lay causes 〈◊〉 civil and criminal at leaâ— in civil Would Bellarmine conclude therefore that those were exempted or should be in such a case and by the Emperours themselves or their laws exempted from their own supream civil coercive power in criminal causes or indeed in any whatsoever Or must it follow that because by the law of England a Lord for example 〈◊〉 be condemned or tryed in a criminal cause but by his Peers that therefore in England a Lord is exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the King himself Or that it is not by a power derived from the King thâ—â— Peer 〈…〉 condemn or free another Peer Or even that by the supream power of the King which formerly established such a law of priviledge for Peers the same law may not be justly again or upon just grounds repealed and a contrary law made in Parliament if at any time it were found by manifest experience that the Peers did manifestly and manifoldly and even to the ruine of the King and Kingdom and against the very primary intention of all priviledges and laws make use of or rather abuse such a former law or former priviledge Or finally and consequently that whatever priviledge of exemption though only from Inferiour lay Judges was so granted as before to Clerks by the supream civil power of Emperours Kings and other States was such that in case of manifest and manifold abuse even to the ruine of the publick and without any hope of amendment it could not be revoked again or moderated by another law and equal power to that which gave it before Therefore from first to last I think it is now clear enough that by the civil law no Clerks are exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of such temporal Princes or States under whom they live LXIX That neither by the Canons of the Church I am now to prove Wherein I find so little difficulty that notwithstanding the general errour so wide spread or supposed amongst as well Divines as Canonists to the contrary but introduced at first and continued after out of some passages of Councils very ill understood considered or examined I dare say boldly that not onely none of all those Councils or Canons of Councils alledged for such exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power but not even any of them alledged for their exemption from as much as the subordinat civil power of inferiour Judicatories hath any such matter at all Though my purpose here be not other then to prove this truth for what concerns the supream power only To which purpose I affirm that no where in any Council is it found that the Fathers attributed such authority to themselves as by their own sole power to exempt Clerks from lay Tribunals â— or which is the same thing to deprive secular Judges or Magistrates of power empire command judgment coercion or Iurisdiction over Clerks or which also imports the very same to prohibit the secular Judges not to take cognizance of or give sentence in the causes either civil or criminal of Clerks brought unto their tribunals or finally and it is still in effect the same
of the rest none at all The first Council then which decreed any thing concerning this point was the third Council of Carthage held Anno Domini 307. St. Augustine being one of the Fathers and subscribers of it Whereof the 9. Canon is of this tenour and very words Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum Praesbyterorum Diaconorum seu Clericorum cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commota si relicto Ecclesiastico judioiâ— publicis judiciis purgari â—â—luerit etiamsi pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia locum suum amittat hoc in criminali judicio In civili vero perdat quod evicit si locum suum obtinere voluerit Cui enim ad eligendos judices undique patet authoritas ipse se indignum fraterno câ—nsortiâ— judicat qui de universa Ecclesia male sentiendo de judicio seculari poscit auxilium cum privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri atque ibi determinari praecipiat Also we have ordained that if any Bishop Priest Deacon or other Clerk being charged in or before the Church with a crime or having but even a civil suit commenced against him shall decline Ecclesiastical Judgment and choose rather to have his cause tryed in publick Courts or Judicatories though he have sentence given for him yet he shall loose his place and this in a criminal judgment But in a civil that he forgo what he hath wonn if he desire to hold his place For he that is at full liberty to choose his Judges where he will shews himself unworthy of the fellowship of his bretheren when judging ill of the whole Church he sueth to secular judicatories for help whereas the Apostle commandeth that the causes of private Christians be brought to the Church and there determined Is there I beseech you any word here out of which may be gathered by any probable consequence That this Council intended to exempt Clergie-men from the jurisdiction of secular Magistrats or to declare that no Laicks are lawful Judges in any causes of the Clergie So little of any such matter that on the contrary the whole tenour shews plainly enough those Affrican Fathers beleeved that Laicks were always very legal and competent Judges in the politick or temporal causes of Clerks And shews plainly enough those Fathers endeavoured onely by this Canon to bridle the stubborness and restrain the giddiness of such Clerks as when their causes were already begun to be debated in the Church before Ecclesiastical Arbiters did nevertheless without any cause and before sentence renounce them and run to the secular Judges for a determination In which case yet this Council disallows not the sentence given by the secular Judge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Judge but onely for punishment of the levity and improbity of such a Clerk prescribes him to quit the benefit of such a sentence or els to loose his place But that those Fathers at the same time acknowledg'd the civil Magistrats to be lawful Judges of Clerks may hence be sufficiently evicted that they restrained this decree to that case onely wherein a crime is in the Church that is before an Ecclesiastical Judge charg'd on a Clergieman or a civil suit commenced against him in the Church quo crimen Clerico in Ecclesia fuerit intentatum aut civilis causa commota Out of these two cases therefore it was lawful for a Clerk notwithstanding this Canon to have recourse to lay Judicatories and secular publick Judges How clear soever this matter be yet Bellarmine would needs argue against it in his book against William Barclay cap. 34. where he tels us that himself sees in this canon many things for the exemption of Clerks Primum enim sayes he aperâ—è damnant Patres recursum ad judicia secularium Magistratuum quod certe non facerent si seculares Magistratus omni ex parte legittimi judices Ecclesiasticorum fuissent c. For first sayes he the Fathers openly condemn a recourse to secular Magistrats which truly they would not have done if the secular Magistrates were in all respects lawful judges of Ecclesiasticks For what sin or fault had it been to appeal from the judgment of the Bishop to the judgment of the President of the Province or of the Prince himself if the President or Prince were a lawful Judge not onely of the Clerk but also of the Bishop Next this Council rescinds the sentence of the secular Judg pronounced against a Clerk forasmuch as the canon decrees that a Clerk absolved in a criminal cause by a secular Judg shall loose his place and in a civil cause shall loose that which was adjudged to him and so shall in neither of both causes reap any benefit by a sentence pronounced in his behalf by a secular Judg. For albeit the Fathers decree so by way of punishment yet the punishment had been unjust if it had not been a crime for and in a Clerk to acknowledg any secular judgment Lastly because Barclay sayes this Council doth reprehend onely those Clerks that after a cause begun to be discussed before an Ecclesiastical judg transferre it to a secular which may seem to be injurious to Ecclesiastical judges let him see what the Council of Milevi of the same age and celebrated in the same Affrick sayes For thus it speaks in the Nineteenth canon Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitinem judiciorum publicorum petierit Honore proprio privetur si autem Episcâ—pale judicium ab Imperatâ—re postulaverit nihil ei obsit It hath been our will that whoever shall of the Emperour demand the cognizance of publick judgments shall be deprived of his proper Honour but if from the Emperour any demand Episcopal Audience that such demand shall not disadvantage him Where we see the Fathers do not treat of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical but absolutely prohibit Clerks under a most grievous penalty that they shall not have recourse to the Emperour to demand any secular discussion and yet do licence the recourse of Clerks to demand Episcopal Audience to wit for avoiding secular judgments Hetherto Bellarmine Notwithstanding all which it is always clear enough that not onely nothing at all is decreed in this canon of Carthage for the exemption of Clergiemen from secular Iudicatories but even very much against it if the canon be considered without prejudice For if it had not been lawful even I mean in point of conscience for the secular Magistrate or judg to here the causes of Clerks wherefore did not the Fathers in this Council of Carthage forbid under censures the secular Iudges themselves not to admit Clerks to their Courts or not to give judgment in their causes But here is not a word against the judges that do so Besides when the Fathers give the reason of their said decree forbidding Clerks to go spontaneously of themselves to try their causes in secular Iudicatories they
said not they decreed so because Laicks were not lawful judges in the controversies of Clerks but quod ipse se indignum fraterno consortio iudicat cui cum possit per Ecclesiastices judicari de universa Ecclesia male senâ—iendâ— de judicio seculari poscit auxilium because he renders himself unworthy of fraternal society who whereas he might be judged or have his case determined by Ecclesiastical judges men of his own fraternity entertains an ill opinion of the whole Church when he desires help of the secular judges I say therefore it is clear enough these Fathers believed that the secular Magistrate or judge might without sin and for what concern'd himself or his own person lawfully determine of the causes of Clerks whereas condemning Clerks who leaving their Bishop go to the lay Court or Bench they do not therefore or at all for any other reason condemn the secular judg himself admitting such Clerks nor condemn the Clerks themselves upon account of having recourse ad judices nonsuos to judges that were not their judges but on this other account onely that whereas they might be judg'd by Ecclesiasticks yet would not they did thereby render themselves unworthy of Ecclesiastical Society For it was by the laws in the power of a Clerk in controversy with an other Clerk to sue him before the Bishop or before the judg which was it these words of this canon did mean Cui enim ad eligendos judices undique patet authoritas c. And Clerks might be convented before the judg Ecclesiastical but yet so as a Laick Plaintiff was not bound to make use of the Court Ecclesiastical Which is it we read enacted also by Martianus the most Catholick Emperour some few years after the date of this Carthage Council in his law Cum Clericis 25. Cod. de Episcop Cleric where it is said that if the Actor will not convent a Clerk before the Bishop he may convent him before the Prefect of the Praetorium And yet the Fathers of Carthage had reasons enough to forbid Clerks to choose spontaneously this way of secular Iudicatories videlicet that they should not be thereby made rocks of scandal to seculars who as the manner is would from the pleas and contestations of Clerks take occasion often to fall into vile detraction of the very order of Clerks and that such as should be exemplars of charity to others should not fall into such contentions as they would not suffer to be taken up or composed amicably or peaceably and without noyse by their own Ecclesiastical brothers or superiours Which were the very genuine reasons moved the Apostle when he either commanded or advised the Corinthians 1. Cor. 6. to forbear sueing one an other in the publick Iudicatories of Heathens In imitation of which these Carthaginian Fathers themselves declare they made this canon Cum say they privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri atque ibi determinari praecipiat But it is very certain the Apostle did not forbid the Corinthians to appear in publick Courts and before the lay Heathen Imperial Judges when summond by these judges or called before them by any other nor did either command or advise the Christians not to obey the sentence of these very Heathen judges in any temporal cause whatsoever civil or criminal Which not onely St. Thomas and Lyranus do expresly teach in their Commentaries on that passage to the Corinthians but our most eminent Cardinal himself is forced also expresly to confess in his foresaid Book against Barclay cap. 20. Therefore neither do the Fathers of Carthage forbid Clerks when so called upon to appear before and stand to the sentence of the lay Judges albeit they forbid Clerks to go of themselves freely or spontaneously to secular Iudicatories or to sue one an other in such Courts But let us examine yet more particularly what the Cardinal objects He sayes first that these Fathers openly condemn the recourse of Clerks to the judgments of secular Magistrats They do indeed but then onely when a Clerk may without any such recourse have his cause decided by an Ecclesiastijudg And in such case they condemn the contumacy of such a Clerk in relinquishing and contemning also thereby all his own brethren collegues and Fathers but in no case condemn the lay Plaintiff or Actor that draws a Clerk to the forum seculare or lay Court nor in any case at all condemn the lay Magistrat or Judg that pronounceth judgment either against or for a Clerk As for the sin or fault which Bellarmine desires to know what it should be committed by a Clerk who relinquishing his own Bishop goes freely of himself to the secular President for Justice if the President be a lawful judg of the Clerk or of his cause I have already said it was the sin of contempt of the Church and of scandal to others c. That I may pass over in silence the sin of disobedience and contumacy against this very Council whom other Clerks should observe as their Fathers and consequently their canons too as the most religious commands of their Fathers In the second place he sayes The Fathers rescind the sentence of a secular judg pronounced against or in the cause of a Clerk Nothing less But onely punish Clerks transgressing their canon and punish them onely too in wayes or by means or penalties sutable to their own jurisdiction For it is proper to the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical to judg whether a Clerk be worthy of that place he holdeth in the Church This canon therefore punisheth the disobedient Clerks but rescinds no sentence of the secular Judg. For it sayes onely thus Si pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia locum suum amittat hoc in criminali judicio If he have the sentence for him let him loose his place and this in a criminal judgment Behold how they call not in question the sentence of the Iudge nor command that it should be retracted or revised or that it should be discussed again in the Court Ecclesiastical whether the crime was justly charged or no after it was determined by the secular Court But only depose the Clerk that in contempt of this Canon made choice to be tryed and purged rather in the secular Court then in the Ecclesiastical In civili vero perdat quod evicerit si locum suum obtinere voluerit But if it be a civil action let him loose what he hath wâ—n by such a sentence if he will hold his place Is this to rescind the sentence of the secular Iudge Certainly even the most privat lay person may to his gifts or legacies add the like conditions as for example that the Legatee or Heir shall not sue before a Iudg for the legacy or inheritance Can such a private man therefore be said to have rescinded the sentence of the judg¿ If to private men it be lawful to bereave such as they think fit of the benefit of their own free
Pontifice suo ad judicia publica pertrahant Proinde statuimus ut hoc de caetero non praesumatur Si quis hoc praesumpserit facere causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus Out of both these Councils that is out of that eight canon of that first Matisconensian Council and this 13. canon of the third Toletan our learned Cardinal endeavours again to impose on his unlearned Readers But not so much in his great work of controversies l. 1. de Cler. c. 28. where he onely or at least commonly cited the bare chapters and not as much as the material words of Councils so farre he was from composing arguments but in that other book he writ long after against D. W. Barclay and in defence of his foresaid Controversies and particularly of what he taught therein or in his often quoted first book de Cleric c. 28. It is therefore in this reply of his which he also entitles as Barclay did his own book against him De potestate Papae in Temporalibus and it is in the 24. chapter of it and after so many other arguments weak enough as I have already shewn them to be framed and replyes made against William Barclay on pretence of those other councils and in behalf of his own allegation of them it is I say in this little and last beloved piece of his old age he argues thus interrogatively or Socratically out of both these last Councils Si Laici Magistratus c. If sayes he Lay Magistrats were legal Judges of Clergiemen by what right law or title could the above Matisconensian Council decree that all causes of clerks should be determined in the presence of the Bishop or Presbiter or Archdeacon And how could this Toletan Council also with so great asperity of words tearm it praesumption and unlawful attempts in Clergiemen to have recourse to secular Iudicatories And how lastly would this same Council dare to rescind or annull the sentence of the secular Judg and besides to excommunicate the Clerk that procured such sentence or sued any other Clerk in a secular Court or Iudicatory For so much do these words import Causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus let him loose his cause and be made a stranger to communion But the answer is facile enough and clear 1. That neither of both Councils or canons determins any thing against the secular Judge himself or against his having still a power of Iurisdiction to judg the causes of Clerks when called or come before him but onely prohibits Clerks themselves to have recourse of themselves or freely of themselves to sue one an other in secular Courts as hath been said before to the canon of Carthage And for prohibiting such voluntary recourse of Clerks that these Fathers of Matiscon and Toledo had respectively the same rights or authority which those of Carthage or even those of Chalcedon had even that very same which St. Paul had when he either commanded or advised his Corinthians not to sue one an other before Heathen judges c. And therefore that these Councils do rather confirm then any way infirm the jurisdiction at that time yet of lay Judges 2. That Bellarmine is much out of the way in thinking if ever he thought so indeed that by these words causam perdat the Fathers of Toledo rescind or annul the sentence of the secular judg by their own proper Episcopal or spiritual authority For and for what belong'd and was necessary to such rescission or annullation strictly taken the Fathers in making this canon as likewise in making any other such or that would or should require a politick civil power properly such in the canon-makers derived their authority from King Recaredus himself at whose command this third Council of Toledo was called and therefore sate in it himself and made the first speech to open it and several speeches after and finally confirmed it with his own subscription in these words Flavius Recaredus Rex hanc deliberationem quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo confirmans subscripsi Having also before his said subscription premised this declaration or admonition to all concern'd Praecedente autem diligenti cauta deliberatione sive quae ad fidem conveniunt sue quae ad morum correctionem respiciunt sensus maruritate intelligentiae gravitate constant esse digesta Nostra proinde authoritas hoc omnibus hominibus ad regnum nostrum pertinentibus jubet ut si qua definita sunt in hoc Concilio acto in urbe Toletana anno Regni nostri faeliciter quarto nulli contemnere liceat nullus praeterire praesumat For so it hath been usual that where the civil and Ecclesiastical power agree well together in making laws each or both do make such use of one an others authority that as to the words the Church sometimes doth seem to speak as having civil jurisdiction and the Politick or secular civil power also to make such laws as are of Ecclesiastical Notion Neither indeed doing so or seeming so by vertue of its own proper innate authority but by that borrowed from the other or as being certain of the others approbation and ratihabition Which was the cause that Recaredus the foresaid King of Spain though a meer layman ordained in his confirmation of this Toletan Council in his own name too that if any person Concilii observator esse noluerit superba fronte majorum statutis repugnans si Episcopus Praesbiter Diaconus aut Clericus fuerit ab omni Concilio excommunicationi subjaceat What is the power of excommunication in a lay Kings hands Or did Recaredus the very first Catholick King after those Arian Gothish Kings of Spain a King so truly Catholick and pious as he is confessed to have been did he usurp the rights and proper powers of the Church and even in that very Edict unto which the Fathers of this Toletan Council did themselves subscribe themselves Nothing less What he did in this respect or by such words was by consent of the Fathers nor in so much did he assume peradventure as much the person of a law maker as of a publisher of that law which in this particular of excommunication was onely made by the Fathers Though withal I confess that a secular Prince may by his own proper supream and even still meer civil power make a law commanding or enjoyning the Bishops to excommunicate in certain cases and a law besides ordaining some temporal punishment for such as without any just cause or against the known canons of the Church should excommunicate For to say so we are not onely warranted by natural reason or consideration of the proper office of the supream civil Magistrate which consists in taking care that all degrees either civil or Ecclesiastical under his charge do justly and religiously discharge themselves but also by the canon De illicita 24. q. 3. taken out of a Paris Council where the Fathers speak thus De illicita excommunicatione Lex
onely that what he sayes of canon law in the point is perspicuous out of the Epistle of Pope Caius to Bishop Felix out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and out of the XI book of the Register of S. Gregory ep 54. ad Ioannem Defensorem and lastly to compleat this his second argument assumes this other Proposition as a maxime That the civil law must yield to the canon law whereas sayes he still consequently the Pope may command the Emperour especially in such matters as concern the Church This strange way of argueing in a matter of such consequence out of authorities or quotations of books or chapters the words not given to the Reader which yet is familiar with this great Clerk especially where he finds the authorities or words of the text if seen at length not to be much to his purpose hath put me to more trouble then I would be and then I knew the argument deserved However I took the pains as I have also in all other material quotations of his to turn to the canons books or places quoted and see the words of those three Popes Which indeed concerning the two former as they are alleadg'd by Gratian XI q. 1. c. 1. I find to be these of Caius first Nemo unquam Episcopum apud Iudicem secularem aut alios Clericos accusare praesumat And these too ead Caus. and quest cap. 2. Nullas Iudicum neque Praesbiterum neque Diaconum aut Clericum ullum aut juniores Ecclesia sine licentia Pontificis per se distringat aut condemnare praesumat Quod si fecerit ab Ecclesia cui injuriam irrogare dignoscitur tamdiu sit sequestratus quousque reotum suum agnoscat mendet And next I find the words of Marcellinus to be these other ead caus quest cap. 3. Clericum eujuslibet or dinis absque Pontificiâ— sui permissu nullus praefumat ad seculdâ—am Indicem attâ—here neâ— Lâ—â— qâ—â—â— libet Clericum liceat accusare To which my answers are 1. That Caius having suffered Martyrdom in the year of our Lord 296. and Marcellinus being chosen the same year nay within eleven days after the passion of Caius they are both consequently of the number of those Popes whose Decretal Epistles or such as go in their names are not by learned men even of the Roman communion esteemed other then meerly supposititious or at least corrupted and therefore such as cannot be alleadged for good or certain proof in any matter 2. That these two Popes having lived and dyed before the first liberty of Christian Religion under Constantine were it certain they had really prohibited the lay Judges to proceed in any causes of Churchmen nay which is more expresly declared that such lay Judges had no kind of Iurisdiction over any Clerk in any matter soever and were it also granted that such their sole prohibition or sole Declaration were hoc ipso a canon of the Catholick Church or obliging it in general as much as any canon of even a general Council each of which particulars is so farre from being certain or being granted as in the opinion of great Divines none of all three is any way probable yet any judicious man will see plainly that by secular judges here we must not understand such Judges as were truly such by the publick authority of Emperours Princes and laws but onely such as were by a compromise onely or submission of the Christian Litigants and by the private authority of the Churches or Congregations according to that of St. Paul 1. Cor. 6. appointed to determine amongst themselves the differences of those of their own Religion and consequently such as were rather voluntary arbiters then Judges simply or properly such with coercive power For who sees not it had been most imprudently or rather indeed madly done to have prescrib'd meer humane and also unnecessary laws to those heathen Imperial Judges that put all to death whom they knew to observe as much as the very most necessary most divine law of God himself Or shall we attribute such madness to men farre less prudent then we must suppose the wisest men in the world those holy and great Pontiffs of Rome And being we cannot how then doth Bellarmine alleadg this prohibition of Caius and Marcelline Or must it follow that because these Popes commanded that none of the secular Christian Judges appointed by the several private Christian Congregations should presume to judg of Clerks without the Bishops leave therefore the same was intended or given as a rule to the publick heathen Judges commission'd by the supream absolute civil and coerecive power of Emperours The general persecutions against all Christians generally both Clerks and Laicks were continued long after the days of Caius and Marcelline throughout the Roman Empire which till Dioclesians surrender was heathen And so long the Popes could not make laws of Discipline for the Judges appointed by that Empire Nihil ad nos de iis qui soris sunt judicare sayes the Apostle himself who certainly had no less power then any Pope 3. That for the former quotation of that either pretended or true Epistle of Caius it is not material The jurisdiction of civil or Imperial heathen Judges over Christian Clerks and Bishops too might be very well acknowledged by Caius notwithstanding he had thought it convenient for avoiding scandal to forbid all Christians not to presume to accuse any Clerk before heathen judges St. Paul forbade all Christians generally and consequently the very Laicks not to accuse even other Laicks before such heathen Judges yet no man sayes that St. Paul thereby meant that Christian Laicks were exempt from the jurisdiction of those Judges And that for the later quotation also out of the same Epistle of Caius which Gratian gives in the second place or second chapter of his foresaid eleventh cause and first Question it is mark'd with a Palea in Gratian himself and therefore also is of no authority no valew at all according to the doctrine of many Canonists which doctrine must be disproved before any such allegation can be urged 4. That for Marcelline's canon whether false or true I have before observed how Gratian hath if not corrupted at least misquoted the text which is not as he hath it Clericum cujuslibet ordinis nullus praesumat accusare c. but as it is in Concil 3. Aurel. in Panormia Clericus nullum praesumat accusare And that being so read it concludes nothing to Bellarmine's purpose if not a generâ—l exemption of all persons generally as well Laicks as Clerks from secular Judges and for what onely would concern a suit commenced by a Clerk Which yet is not to Bellarmines purpose at all nor at all for any exemption of either Laicks or Clerks from the jurisdiction of secular Judges but onely for a restriction of Clerks from scandalous litigiousness as I have also before in other cases or in my answers to the canons of Carthage Chalcedon
Matiscon c observed Besides that however it be read the last passage of it or this Nec Laico quemlibet Clericum liceat accusare shews plainly it cannot be a true canon but a manifest corruption and contradiction of all canons if without any gloss understood as the bare words require For who ever yet asserted it unlawful for a Laick to accuse a Clerk at least before the Bishop when there is just cause 5. That for the text of St. Gregory the Great in his 54. Epistle ad Ioan. Defens and l. XI Registri I have consulted that too and read the whole Epistle through and have been for all my pains so farre from finding as much as one word of any such matter as Bellarmine quotes it for the exemption of Clerks â—â—â—m all civil power both subordinate and supream by the canons of the Church that I must perswade my self our learned Cardinal never once turned to that Epistle or read it with his own eyes when he remitted us to it For I will not charge him with imposture Which yet any must do that will grant or suppose he had read this Epistle himself and not taken that sense of it he gives us upon credit Whereas it is plain in the whole tenour of this Epistle that although St. Gregory prescribe to this Iohn the Defender whoever he was going to Spain that he should relieve a certain Presbiter whom he names not otherwise who had been wronged and a certain Bishop whom he names Ianuarius who had been violently drawn out of a Church by some inferior civil Magistrats and another Bishop also called Stephanus who had been likewise violently forced to judgment either to a secular judg or to other Bishops that were not of his own Province or rather both in some civil or criminal case and without the permission of the Emperour yet St. Gregory pleads onely in all these three cases for the said Iohn's warrant to relieve them so the civil laws of the Emperours Leo Augustus Iustinian Arcadius Honorius and Theodosius which laws the Saint quotes expresly and at large all a long that Epistle and disputes out of them onely there to prove the foresaid Praesbiter and foresaid Bishops Ianuarius and Stephanus wronged being these Imperial laws expresly ordain 1. That the causes of Presbiters be first decided or brought before the Bishops 2. That none be drawn by violence out of any Church by the secular Magistrats for any crime whatsoever except onely that of treason against Majesty and except also the Churches of the Royal City of Constantinople where the Prince himself resided and when it pleased him to give orders for pulling any criminal out of them and moreover ordains that it be treason to break these laws of Sanctuary 3. That no Bishop could be forced to a civil or military Judg in either a pecuniary or criminal cause or to appear even before other Bishops then his own Metropolitan But alleadges not as much as a syllable of any canon or institution made by the Church it self or by Ecclesiastical power in any of these cases not even from the first word of that Epistle to the last The very beginning of it being this De persona praesbiteri boc attendendum est quia si quam caeusam habuit non ab alio teneri sed Episcopus ipsus adiri debuit sicut novella constitutio manifesta quae loquitur de sanctissimis Deo amabilibus ac reverendissimis Episcopis Clericis Monachis Iustinianus Augustius Petro gloriosissimo Praesecto Praetorio Si quis contra aliquem Clericuni aut monachum aut Diaconissam aut monastriam aut assistriam habeat aliquam actionem adeat prius sanctissimum Episcopum c. And some what after and concerning the case of Ianuarius in particular proceeding thus De persona Ianuarii Episcopi sciendum est graviter omnius contra leges esse actum ut violenter de Ecclesia traheretur dum si quamlibet aliam injuriam a quccum Episcopo in Ecclesia passus fuerit injuriantem lex capitali poena percutiat sicut Majestatis reum omnibus det accusandi illum licentiam ut hujus serie loquitur Codieis libro primo titulo sexto constitutione decima Imperatores Arcadius Honorius Augusti Theodoro Praefecto Praetor Si quis in hoc genus sacrilegii proruperit ut in Ecclesias Catholicas irruens sacerdotibus ministris vel cultoribus ipsis locoque aliquid importet injuriae quod geritur a Provinciae Rectoribus animadvertatur atque ita Provinciae moderator sacerdotum Clericorum Catholicae Ecclesiae ministrorum loci quoque ipsius divini cultus injuriam capitali in convictis seu confessos reos sententia noverit vindicandum Et post pauca sitque cunctis laudabile factas atroces sacerdotibus aut ministris injurias veluti publicum crimen insequi atque de talibus reis ultionem mereri c. Data VI. Kalend. May Mediolani Honorio Augusto quater Eutychiano ter consulibus Libri suprascripti titu XV. Constitut III. Imperator Honorius Theodosius Augusti Ionio Praefecto Praetor Fideli ac devota preceptione sancimus nemini licere ad sacre-sanctas Ecclesias confugientes abducere sub hac videlicet definitione ut si quisquam contra hanc legem â—â—nire tentaverit sciat se majestatis crimine esse retinendum Data Kalend. Aprilis Honorio Septies Theodosio tertio consulibus Item ejusdem titul constit V. Imperator Leo Augustus Eurithrio Praefecto Praetor Praesenti lege decernimus per omnia loca valitura excepta hac urbe regia in qua nos divinitate propitia degentes quoties usus exegerit convocati singulis causis atque personis praesentanea constituta praestamus nullos penitus cujuscumque conditionis de sacre-sanctis Ecclesiis orthodoxae fidei expelli aut trahi vel portrahi confugas Et post pauca Qui hoc moliri aut facere aut nuda cogitatione saltem atque tractatu ausi fuerint tentare capitali ultima supplicii animadversione plectendi sunt Ex his ergo locis eorumque finibus quos anteriorum legum praescripta sanxerunt nullos eiici aut expelli aliquando patimur nec in ipsis Ecclesiis reverendis ita quemquam detineri atque restringi ut ei aliquid aut victualium rerum aut vestis negetur aut requies c. Data pridie Calend Martii Constantinopoli Leâ—ne Augusto tertium Consule And after this again and concerning the other Bishop Stephanus and his case proceeding further thus De persona Stephani Episcopi ad hoc attendendum est quia nec invitus ad judicium trahi nec ab Episcopis alieni Concilii debuit judicari sicut novella quaedam traditio quae de Episcopis loquitur continet Ait enim sed neque pro qualicumque pecuniaria vel criminali causa ad judicem civilem sive militarem invitum Episcopum producere vel exhibere citra imperialem jussionem permittimus sed judicem qui
tale aliquid sive ex scripto sive ex non scripto praesumpserit imperare post cinguli privationem XX. librarum auri poenam exolvere jubemus Ecclesiae cujus Episcopus produci aut exhiberi jussus est executorem similiter post cinguli privationem verberibus subdendum et in exilium deportandum Item post multa si autem a Clerico aut Laico quccumque aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam apud sanctissimum ejus metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas et nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum Patriarcham Diocesees illius referatur causa et ille secundam canones leges huic praebeat finem Finally but yet moreover after quoting the law of Gratianus Valentinianus and Theodosius out of the Code l. VII titu XLVII constit III. in the point of nullity of a sentence when pronounced a non suo Iudice and the laws of Arcadius Honorius C. l. IX titu I. censtit XX. in the point of accusation made by Servants or Slaves except only the case of treason or crime against Majesty and the judgment of Modestinus the Lawyer ad legem Iuliam Majestatis l. Famosi lib. Pandectarum XLVIII in the point of credit not to be given to such accusers even in such a crime if the life or esteem of the accused was not such before as might render him suspected and another Novel Constitution as he calls it which is Authent de testib Parag. Et hic vero in the point of not condemning any by or for testmonies of witnesses to near which he was not called and of not receiving the testimonies of vile persons sine corporali discussione as he begun with and proceeded all along only out of the civil laws so he concludes at last that whole epistle out of the same civil laws tit XLIV lib. Câ—diâ—is in the point of giving sentence in writing quia scriptis debuit judicaâ—i Nam ibi inter alia dicitur atque praecipitur ut sententia quae sine scripto dicta fuerit ne nomen quidem sententiae mereatur sayes Gregory putting a final perclose to this 54 epistle ad Joan. Defensor l. XI Registri And this being the whole tenour as to the substance of that letter of St. Gregory and not as much as any one Canon at all as much as related unto by him therein from the first word to the last but only those canons in general which concern the order of Appeals in a Bishops cause not in that of other Clerks from the Metrapolitan to the Patriarch and yet these Canons too related unto here not by Gregory but by Leo Augustus himself and this also according to former civil laws of other Emperours and with so many exceptions still particularly for the cases of treason against Majesty and of a special warrant from the Prince himself to a lay subordinat Judge who sees not that Bellarmine had no kind of ground in this Epistle to abuse his Reader with quoting it as containing some argument to prove that although the civil law or Novels of Iustinian did not generally exempt Clerks in criminal causes from all publick or civil Judicatories yet the canon law did exempt them so or in such causes from all such Tribunals even the very supream But as for that other proposition which to compleat his second argument he assumes as a maxime That the civil law must yield to the canon law and for that also which to prove this maxime he further sayes That the Pope may command the Emperour especially in such matters as concern the Church which say at present of each a part and both together and of this manner of arguing is that in all I see nothing alledged or proved I mean to his purpose here but ignotum per ignotius and that my following Sections will further shew that in his sense or as applyed to his purpose or at least is necessarily inferring his Thesis or grand proposition or assertion of his Ecclesiastial Immunity both maxime and proof are absolutely false and yet and moreover consequently that his ratiocination or discourse composed of both is nothing else too but falsum per falsius However because neither the truth or probability as neither the untruth or improbability of any thing before said by me in this present Section depends of the truth or falsity of either that maxime or that other proposition assumed to make good that maxime being the dispute hitherto hath not been whether the Church could heretofore make or hereafter can make such canons as Bellarmine would have for such exemption or consequently whether in such case the civil laws being contrary must and ought to yield and be corrected by the canons or whether in such case too that maxime and proposition assumed to prove it might not be alledged and ought not to be admitted as out of controversie but the dispute hitherto in this Section having only been of the fact of the Church not of the power that is having been whether indeed she hath either justly or unjustly right or wrong validly or invalidly made at any time already or heretofore until this very present any such canon and because I perswade my self that I have sufficiently enough and very clearly too solved all that ever Bellarmine alledg'd either in his great work of Controversies and even in the very last edition of that great work or in his little book writ after of purpose by him De Potestate Temporali Papae adversus Gulielmum Barclaium for any such canon hitherto made I will now finally conclude that wherewith I begun this Section which is that neither by the Canons of the Church there hath ever been yet any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends or his Schollars in this the Divines of Lovaine of any Clerks whatsoever Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs c. from the supream civil temporal or lay power or Magistrats under which or whom they live And I conclude also my two several Affirmations immediatly following that Assertion and given or made there so immediatly as further illustrations of my meaning And to this conclusion add only here That I have taken so much pains in examining the canons alledg'd by our great Cardinal not indeed out of any purpose desire or inclination to exagitat the priviledges of Clergiemen or that I do at all or would envy them such priviledges or endeavour to lessen the reverence or esteem due or the honours or favours done or bestowed on their sacred functions and persons which any one may easily believe that knows me to be one of them my self through Gods mercy and favour to me how otherwise undeservedly soever But that next to that of speaking all necessary truths as it becomes a man of my profession in defence also of this so certain and christian truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from the supream secular civil Power as likewise of so many
other annexed not only necessary but holy but Apostolical and Evangelical Truths which the ignorance or interest of so many late Schoolmen hath so much obscured I would as an humble Son of the Church and as a concern'd member of that most sacred body of Churchmen with all due respect admonish them not to be ungrateful to their so great so good and true and proper benefactors the secular Princes who only were they indeed that bestowed on them originally continue still what ever true exemptions they have how great soever as without question they are very great and I from my heart wish they may be greater so as not abused but all used to the glory of God and the more holy exercise of their sacred function For being it appears evidently out of what I have hitherto said since I begun this particular of exemption and shall yet farther out of what follows till I end it that secular Princes were and are the only true Donors Patrons Defenders and Protectors of the said exemptions liberties and other worldly priviledges and that the canons of the Church in such matters had no subsistence but in the former laws or good pleasure of Princes certainly it must follow that the Clergie is everlastingly bound to acknowledge the Princes as such and with all gratitude all hearty submission reverence and obedience to acknowledge their supream temporal power and Lordship even over themselves as well as over the Layety and even also as continuing still over both the very same it was in the beginning over both and never to deny from whence or whom they had their freedom or that it was from the secular Princes they had and have it still Which yet some do attributing their whole Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty as they call it to the canons that is to the constitutions of Popes and Councils Then which indeed nothing more ungrateful can proceed from ungrateful hearts being it is so clear and perspicuous to any that will not willingly shut his eyes at least to all men of learning such as Clergymen especially Bishops and Priests ought to be That it is not from the Pontiffs but from the Princes nor from the canons but from the laws the Clergy have received all the temporal exemption they have whatever it is they truly have Which to be so certainly true that it could not otherwise be or that not only it is not the Pontiffs or Canons or any power of the Church that hath de facto given such exemption to Churchmen as they have but also that de jure no Pontiff or Pontiffs not even the very Prince of Pontiffs himself the Pope of Rome nay nor even the universal Church it self as properly and purely the Church could by any proper Pontifical Sacerdotal or Church-power or any whatsoever without the consent of the secular Princes and supream civil power give and grant this very exemption which the Clergy enjoys in some cases or many or most or even all cases whatsoever as you please to think or say from only the subordinate inferiour Judges will the more evidently yet appear out of what I am to say further now LXIX For by this time having throughly declared all Bellarmines arguments grounded by him on either holy Scriptures imperial Constitutions or Church-canons no more remains now of my particular proofs or grounds for my defiance to the Doctors of Lovaine above LXII Section but that I clear also the arguments pretended only from natural or Theological reason for the expediency and necessity of such exemption or of such a power in the Pope or Church to grant such exemption of Clergymen from the very supream civil power even in all kind of temporal causes whatsoever and even without nay against the will of secular Princes Wherein truly however over and over again considered by me I find so little difficulty that I dare again repeat here that very last passage of my defiance LXII Section which was and is That I defied those of Lovaine or any other Divines or Canonists in the world to shew as much as one convincing or even probable argument of natural reason to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergymen from the cognisance and coercion of the supream civil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or live at least as reputed Citizens or Subjects But now to draw near my said particular grounds or reasons of this last part of my general defiance in the above LXII Section I believe the Reader will be perswaded I shall give sufficient if I produce here all the very choicest natural or Theological reasons which all the very best Divines and Canonists of Bellarmines way have yet alledg'd where of set purpose they handle this subject and if withal I give them every one such clear solutions as will leave no place for any material reply And I suppose still that Bellarmine hath for his own sake fixed on the very best Divines and Canononists of his way where he gives a list of such of both professions as maintain this power in the Pope It is not in his great Works of Controversie or any edition of them or of his books there de Clericis but in his foresaid latter little book de potestatae temporali Papae in temporalibus cap. 34. that he gives a list of those he found most to his purpose even of those very Divines and Canonists who as he himself there both rightly and materially notes maintain Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not de jure divino but de jure positive humano For that all such other Divines or such other Canonists as maintain on the other side that Ecclesiastical Exemption is de jure divino do and must consequently hold that even the Pope hath either such a power to exempt Clerks so or at least hath a power to declare them so antecedently exempted by God himself no man doubteth and Navarre expresly teacheth cap. Novit de Judiciis notab 6. n. 30. But that the very same of the Popes power is taught also by the former who hold the exemption of Clerks not to be de jure divino is manifest sayes Bellarmine ubi supra out of Franciscus Victoria Relect. de Potestate Eccles q. 6. prop. 5. Dominicus Soto in 4. dist 25. q. 5. art 2. Martinus Ledesma in Quartum parte 2. q. 20. art 4. Dominicus Bannes in 2. 2. q. 67. art 1. and Didacus Covarruvias pract quaest cap. 31. conclus 3. 4. And it is not unworthy our observation to note the very words of Dominicus Sotus and Did. Covarruvias's assertion hereof in the places now quoted Papa potuit sayes Dominicus conclus 6. inconsultis Principibus debuit Clericos ab eorum exactionibus foro excipere cui quidem exemptioni Principes contravenire nequeunt And sayes Covarruvias conclusione 4. Quamvis exemptio Clericorum a jurisdictione secularium jure tantum humano sit introducta Princeps tamen secularis
first are to prove it necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen as the last is to prove it necessary in reference also to their goods Soto's first medium or assumption to prove Ecclesiastical Exemption necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen Whereas Churchmen are divino jure by the law divine ordained Ministers of the Church eidem juri proximum esse videtur vt nequeant a Judicibus secularibus evocari it seems in the very next degree to that law that secular Judges have no power to summon or proceed against them And this he further proves out of that saying of St. Paul Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus No man warring to God intrigues himself to secular businesses 2. ad Timoth. 2. But Soto will give me leave here first to distinguish necessaries that we may understand one another then I will answer directly to his proposition For of necessaries as to our present purpose some are per se et ex rei natura of themselves and of their own nature and at all times such to attain the end of such Ecclesiastical Power and all that are necessary in this sense are likewise de jure divino warranted by the law of God For all such necessaries or all power means rules necessary of themselves or of their own nature for that end the Church hath received from God himself not from any sanctions of Popes or Councils And others are now and then for a time or only by accident occasion or supposition necessary that is are to be necessarily observed because they happen to be commanded by the Church and freely submitted unto by the people as for example Fasting-dayes Holydayes c. Now if Soto mean the exemption of Clerks and I mean too here any kind of exemption of them in temporal matters or of their persons goods lands or houses nay or of even the very sacred Churches to be necessary in the former sense he contradicts himself for he holds Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not of divine but of humane institution If in the latter he touches not the question For at present we dispute not whether now that Clergymen have by either the Sanctions of Princes or Canons of the Fathers or both many Exemptions and if from the Princes only whether now when the Church also layes heavy injunctions on us to observe the laws of Princes in this matter it be necessary for salvation and only during such laws not to violate the true priviledges or exemptions whatever they be of Clerks given them by such laws But the question we dispute here is whether it be necessary or whether it hath been alwayes necessary for salvation that Clerks should have been so exempted at any time or by any law at all either of God or man of Prince or Church for that exemption which is pretended to be now from even the supream civil power or even for that exemption which is from inferiour lay Judges Which distinction and animadversion premised I answer directly to his proposition and absolutely deny that it seems so as he sayes or that the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the civil power seems to be eidem juri divino proximum in the next degree of proximity to that divine law whereby Clergimen are appointed by God to be Ministers of the Church For I demand how that proximity appears by this argument which yet must be the only argument to prove it Clerks are de jure divino by the law of God Ministers of the Church Ergo by the same or other law of God they cannot in civil causes be accused before or judged by the civil Judges For even so will I argue for a proximity of divine law in behalf of the civil Magistrats exemption from the Church in spiritual matters The civil Magistrats are divino jure by the law of God appointed Ministers of temporal things Ergo in Ecclesiastical or Spiritual things they cannot be judged by Ecclesiasticks Besides we have sufficiently shewed before that neither can the Pope himself or Church lay binding commands in all matters which have such or as much proximity or affinity as this of Ecclesiastical exemption hath to the law divine For his allegation of St. Paul's saying That none warring to God intrigues himself in worldly affairs who sees not the impertinency of it Did Paul speak or mean this of Clerks meerly It 's plain he mean'd it of all Christians generally If then to any purpose of Exemption alledg'd it must be necessary that all Christian Laicks be exempted as well as Clerks from the civil power Much different God knows was this divine Apostles sense exhorting that in as much as lyes in us we estrange our selves from worldly cares to the end we may the more simply and perfectly attend the will of God Besides it s also clear enough that by these words he no more interdicted the Clergy from civil Judicatories then from honours possessions moneys all which do no less highly and extreamly involve the lovers or earnest pursuers of them in secular businesses And yet amongst all Clerks in the world who will be found that will believe St. Paul did ever mean it as necessary to salvation that Clerks should not in any circumstances and observing all other commandments modestly and moderatly endeavour to attain honours possessions riches intending still to make good use of them To Soto's second argument in reference to the persons which is that it may happen that amongst some ecclesiastical causes whereof lay-men cannot be Judges some civil causes be mixed and therefore if Clerks be not exempt from the secular power it must follow that in such cases they must remain perplexed as called upon by both tribunals the civil and ecclesiastical not knowing which to obey the answer is facile enough and clear That hence no necessity of their being so exempted follows but only some greater vexation or trouble in such cases of Clerks whose fortune it is to be involved in them For we see Laicks also and not seldom contending about such matters as are partly of spiritual cognizance and partly of civil so that they are forced to appear before both the Judges Ecclesiastical and the temporal Magistrats And yet no man will therefore say it to be necessary that Laicks be exempt either from the one Court or other To Soto's third medium in reference to the persons Quod non esset decorum ut Ministri Ecclesiae qui pastores sunt etiam Iudicum Regum tanduam rei coram ipsis sisterentur That it would not be honourable that the Ministers of the Church who are Pastors even of those lay Judges even of the very Kings should be obliged to appear before them as criminals or guilty persons I answer first that to be honourable or decent is one thing and to be necessary is another Secondly that neither is it undecent As on the contrary it is neither dishonourable nor undecent that the King who in
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
the Romans that by the law of God Clerks are bound in conscience to pay tribute understand you if not dispensed with by the Princes Therefore in his doctrine it is not necessary that they do not pay tribute And consequently in his doctrine t is not necessary that the Church have power to exempt Clerks from tribute whether Princes will or not Moreover and for the natural equity or congruity it self which we confess may be for the exemption of Clerks from tribute alleadged out of St. Thomas and with due restrictions pleaded also from natural reason doth either tell us of Soto's even sole congruency for such exemption to be made by the sole power of the Church and not rather by the Princes themselves Or will not this allegation of natural equity or congruitâ— be satisfied if Clergiemen be freed by the secular Princes themselves and onely too in such cases as these Princes shall not upon rational and evident grounds find it necessary for the defence of other good of both Clerks and Laicks to sess the Clerks for some time again and for what they can well spare without any hinderance to divine service Finally have not Clerks in regard or lieu of their labours received so many other great and rich and excellent and superabundant compensations as well by lands and revenues as by other priviledges or will nothing els serve them but a total exemption from the royalty of Princes and of those very goods and lands too which the same Princes gave them and which the same Princes continue and protect them in all ways Behold as from or for what concerns those arguments of Soto how farr it is from necessary that either the goods or persons of Clergiemen should be exempt by the power of the Church nay indeed or by any other from the supream civil Magistrat But as an addition to all I have allready said I demand yet when it began to be necessary that either goods or persons should be so exempt For it is manifest that neither hath been allways or in all ages of Christianity from the beginning nor even from the beginning of those very ages or that very time wherein Christian Religion was by law established publickly neither so exempt I say by either Pope or Prince And I demand also whether before they were exempted any thing necessary was wanting to the Church or after this time any thing at all times necessary accrued to the Church And as Soto must answer affirmatively to both these last demands whether he can answer or no to the first so I must out of his affirmations conclude presently That neither in the days of the Apostles nor during five hundred years after and more the Church had all necessaries to attain her own proper end which is no other but salvation Then which nothing can be said more impious and horrible by Soto or any other To the first reason of Franciscus Victoria wherein he discourseth thus that because the Republick Ecclesiastical is perfect and sufficient for it self that is sufficiently empowr'd to attain its own ends therefore it hath power to make such laws as are convenient for the administration of the Church and therefore also consequently if the exemption of Clerks be so convenient this Republick may enact laws for such exemption I answer 1. That for this which is a Republick to be perfect and sufficient or simply to the perfection and sufficiency of a Republick is not required that it may enact all such laws as make for its greater splendour and glory but onely such as are necessary for its being safety and condition And that I have shewed already heer in this section That laws of Ecclesiastical exemption are not such that is are not necessary for its being c. nay or either for its well being safety and condition as it drives to its own proper ends 2. And that if this be not admitted which I say in this my first answer it must follow out of this reason of Victoria which himself too a little after it confesses to follow That the politick temporal or civil commonwealth whereas it is also perfect and self sufficient vz. in its own nature of such a commonwealth may also make laws to the prejudice of the spiritual if such laws do seem convenient to the decor and Majesty of the civil Nay this conveniency doth wholly ruine their purpose For I demand whether is most convenient that secular Princes and for the security of their secular principalities and greater splendour and Majesty of them still retain that civil power over Clerks which the laws of God and nations give them over Clerks or that the Church to the end her self may seem or be more adorned and more dignified bereave Princes of that power even against their known will and maugre all their opposition by laws and arms What if the Church shall find it sometime convenient also to subtract from the yoake or obedience of Princes even a great part of the very meerest Laicks to be as emancipated persons or freemen evermore at the pleasure of the Church ready to serve her as the Patroness of their freedom and serve her too against their former Lords That convenient is of too great and too too dangerous extension To the second reason of the same Francis Victoria which was that the Pope might by his own proper authority choose Ecclesiastical Ministers notwithstanding any contradiction of the civil power And therefore may upon the same ground exempt such Ministers from secular iudicatories The answer is that the reason is vain First because we know that no man is bound to be a Clerk not even albeit the Pope should elect or appoint him for Clerkship Or which is that I mean that it is not in the Popes power to fix on this or that meer Layman and force or command him to Clerkship at least to such Clerkship as hath so many burdens annexed to it by the positive canons of the Church onely Although I confess it is in the Popes power as belonging properly to his office to choose out of the whole number of such as freely offer themselves whom he shall think fittest and have these ordered and appointed Ministers of the Church Secondly because we know and that in the primitive Ages of Christianity when established by law as the religion of the Empire such have not been admitted to Clerkship whom the Emperours prohibited or by their laws incapacitated as much as they could from that course of life For hence it is we read so many laws in the Code of Theodosius and Justinian concerning such as ought not to be admitted to Clerkship and commanding such to be degraded and secularized again who were admitted contrary to such laws even laws made by most Christian and most Orthodox Princes the Roman Emperours Constantine the Great Valentinian the elder Arcadius and Honorius Theodosius the younger Leo and Iustinian T is a clear case ex C. Theodos. Tit. de Episcop
purpose Nothing but against oppressive taxes contrary to law and former customs and taxes too imposed by the Consuls only and Rectors of particular Cities Nothing in specie against even any such oppressive taxe tallies exactions collections laid or made by an absolute order law or constitution of the supream civil power or of Kings Emperours States who certainly are not understood by the names of Consuls and Rectors of Cities And however this of taxes of Clerks be nothing at all for the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the supream civil power in all other civil and criminal causes whatsoever which only is it we dispute of here Nothing besides but what was convenient for the Government of the people within the Popes own temporal Patrimony for which only the additions of Gregory were unless it pleased other Countreys and of themselves to receive his said additions Finally nothing but what the Pope Innocent might as justly have decreed in case he believed certainly that Clerks had their exemption whatever it be from the sole civil power as if he had believed they had it only from the Church or from himself or some other of his Predecessors in the See of Rome 3. For although cap. Ecclesia sanctae Mariae de constitutionibus be a meer papal constitution of Innocent the Third only and hath indeed an expression which imports some such thing as the exemption of Churches and of the persons too of Churchmen from the power of Laicks yet forasmuch as this expression is not specifical or not in specie relating to or comprising the very supream lay power it self but so generical only as these words which are the words there concerning this matter Nos attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super Ecclesiis personis Ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa potestas and consequently forasmuch as these words may have a very true and rational sense notwithstanding the subjection still of the persons of Clerkes to the supream lay power because the civil laws or customs which prevailed at that time under Innocent the Third or which is the same thing because the Emperours themselves had given or permitted under themselves to the Church and Churchmen proper Ecclesiastical Judges for all their own both civil and criminal causes how ever still subordinat Judges in such causes to the Emperours and the same must be said of other Kings who had granted the like Ecclesiastical Judges and moreover forasmuch as this canon or chapter of Innocent is only a decision of a particular controversie in matter of a possession controverted betwixt a certain Church called here the Church of S. Mary and a certain Convent termed likewise in this canon the Convent of St. Sylvester which possession was adjudged by a certain lay judge called Senator against the said Convent without previous confession conviction or examination of the same Convent and those words above or meaning of them no part of that which was intended or decided by the Pope in this canon but assumed only and that also transiently as in part importing his reason or motive to remand that possession back to the said Convent and that we know the reasons motives or suppositions expressed in a sentence or canon are not therefore defined by the Pronouncer of the sentence or maker of the canon and further yet because those words neither distinguish nor determine by what authority or law that is whether by divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical authority or law it was so enacted that lay-men could have no power in the causes of Church-lands or Church-men and because too they say nothing at all of any Pope's having made such a law whether by a true or only pretended power as did incapacitat all kind of Laicks even the very supream civil Magistrate himself or indeed as much as the very subordinate inferiour lay Judges from having any judicial authority over Churchmen finally because those words of themselves take away no such authority from Laicks but only at most signifie the not being of such authority attributed to Laicks whatever those Laicks were and by what means soever it came to pass not to be attributed to them therefore it is plain enough this canon Ecclesia sanctae Mariae is to no purpose alledged for Bellarmin's voluit that is for the matter of Fact of any Pope's having done so or having exempted so by his own Power all Clerks from the jurisdiction of even supream lay Princes or even of having declared them so exempted by the law of God himself 4. That albeit also cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto and cap. Clericis de Immunitate Ecclesiar be two meer Papal canons as made by the sole authority of Boniface the VIII and although it be confessed this Pope did challenge all the both spiritual temporal power on earth in Church and State to himself alone as likewise consequently to his Predecessours and Successours in the See of Rome which his extravagant Vnam sanctam De Majoritate obedientia and his other proceedings against a King of France besides the later of these two canons here quoted the said cap. Clericis can prove abundantly yet I dare confidently averre that neither of these canons of his however otherwise too too exorbitant at least the later of them comes home enough to prove that any Pope hath de facto by his own meer Papal authority exempted Clerks in all civil and criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of Lay Princes or hath de facto as much as declared or defined that Clerks have been so or are so exempted by the law of God in such causes from the said supream power of temporal Princes That for the former canon seculares de foro competenti the case is clear enough out of the very words and whole tenour of it Which being but short I give here altogether not omitting one word Seenlares judices qui licet ipsis nulla competat jurisdicto in hac parte personas Ecclesiasticas ad soluendum debita super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur litterae vel probationes aliae indueuntur damnabili praesumptione compellunt a temeritate hujusmodi per locorum Ordinarios censura Ecclesiastica decerninus compescendos where you see first there is not one word directly or indirectly of criminal causes but only of a civil in matter of debt Nor secondly any specifical comprehension no nor any comprehension at all of Kings States or Princes but onely of those inferiour persons whose peculiar office it is to be judge twixt party and party Nor thirdly is there any word here declaring by whose law or authority that is whether by that of the Pope or that of the Church c. it came to pass that these very inferiour Lay Judges have no jurisdiction in hac parte in a civil cause of debt challenged on a Clerk or declaring how it came to pass that the proceeding judgment or determination
Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption by such his proceedings What therefore might be the cause of his desiring or accepting such a Bull if the story of it be true we may easily conteive to be of one side King Philips inexorable rigour I will not say cruelty first in excluding so many thousand religious and sacred men from all pardon and grace and next in pursuing and destroying them as irreconciliable enemies when he might have made them very tractable Subjects and on the other the Popes pretence of even the temporal Soveraignty or supream Lordship of the Country and Kingdom of Portugal as having been made tributary to the Church of Rome by Alphonsus the first Duke and King thereof according to Baronius ad annum Christi 1144. and the proceedings after of several Popes against some Kings of Portugal upon that ground by excommunicating and deposing some instituting others in their place and by exacting of them yearly at first agreed upon under Lucius the II. four ounces of Gold and after that four Marks of Gold under Alexander the IV. as an acknowledgement of his being the supream Lord of it or of its being held in Fee from the Bishops of Rome King Philip therefore to establish himself against the titles of so many other pretendents to that Crown thought it the safest way when he had done his work to make all sure with the Pope for after-times and get himself acknowledged King of Portugal even by him who pretended to be supream Lord of the Fee Though otherwise it be apparent also in Baronius that the Kings of Portugal did acknowledge so much dependence from the Kings of Castile as being bound to appear at their Court when called upon and give them three hundred Souldiers to serve against the Moors amounts unto But this could be no prejudice to a former independent and supream right of Popes to Portugal if there was any such especially whereas the same Barnius makes Castile it self feudatary to nay all Spain (a) Baron ad an Christiâ—â—â— â—01 〈◊〉 1703 the property of the of See Rome as likewise he doth in several places of his Annals all the Kingdoms of Christendome not even France (b) ad an 702. it self excepted And therefore nothing can be concluded from King Philips admission of this Bull but either his remorse of having abused that power God gave him over those religious men or used it in so much more like a Tyrant then a King unless peradventure he perswaded himself upon evident grounds they would never be true to him or his wariness in seeming so the more observant of the Pope in all things according to the maximes of Campanella while he drove at the universal Monarchy But however this be or not its plain enough out of his so publick refusal in the face of the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile and in that publick Assembly of all the Estates amongst which the Ecclesiastical was the chief and out of his so long and severe prosecution and persecution of those Monks for three whole years till he destroyed them all and out also of the silence even by the Ecclesiasticks themselves of that argument of exemption when the occasion to alledge it was the greatest might be offered at any time and finally out of his receiving continually the most holy Sacraments of the Church all that time without any reprehension or objection made to him by the Church of so publick and so scandalous and so bloody and sacrilegious violation of her pretended nearest and dearest laws I say it is plain enough out of all that whatever the story be of that Bull or whatever the true or pretended motives of King Philip to accept of it neither his own Subjects of Spain or Portugal Clerks or Laicks nor those of other Churches or Kingdoms either Princes or people nor even the Prelats or Pope himself that was then did any way so regard the suppositions or even admonitions comminations nay or even actual censures of other Popes in their Bulla caenae or otherwise as to think perswade themselves that a true obliging canon or law either of God or Man of the State or Church or even as much as of the Pope himself could be concluded thence for any real or true exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power in criminal causes And so I have done with Bellarmines voluit As for his other saying above That hitherto only Hereticks have contradicted this kind of Exemption even this so extraordinary and extravagant exemption of all Clerks in all temporal causes whatsoever civil or criminal from the supream civil and coercive power I remit the Reader to the next following Section saving one where he shall see a farr other sort of Doctors then Hereticks to contradict it even Austins and Hieroms and Chrysostoms and Gregories nay the whole Catholick Church in all ages until these later and worser times wherein the contest was raised first and again renewed by some few Popes and their Partizans against the supream temporal power of Emperours Kings and States Only you are to take notice here Good Reader That 't is but too too familiar with our great Cardinal to make Hereticks only the opposers of such private or particular but false opinions or doctrines of his own as he would impose as the doctrines of the Catholick Church on his undiscerning Readers as on the other side to make the most notorious Arch-hereticks to be the patrons of such other doctrines as himself opposes and would fright his Readers from how well and clearly soever grounded in Scriptures Fathers Councils Reason Which is the very true genuine cause wherefore he gives us where he treats of such questions so exact a list of those chief and most notorious Hereticks who held against him on the point and gives them also in the very beginning of his chapter or controversie whatever it be As in this of Ecclesiastical Exemption besides what I have quoted now out of his book against Barclay cap. 35. he tells us l. de Cleric c. 28. First in general that very many Hereticks contend that all Clerks of what soever degree are de jure â—â—vin by the law of God or by the same law ought to be subject to the secular power both in paying tributes and in judicial proceedings or causes Secondly that Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno though Catholick Lawyers to Lodâ—uick of Bauer the Emperour but esteemed Hereticks by Bellarmine because some tenets of theirs were condemned by Iohn the XXII Pope of that name taught that not even our Sauiour himself was free from tribute and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the didrachme or tribute money he did not freely without any obligation to do so but necessarily that is to satisfie the obligation he had on him to do so Thirdly that Iâ—hn Calvin l. 4. Institut c. 11. Parag. 15. teaches that all Clerks ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of secular Magistrats excepting
were bound to stand or conform always or in all causes Ecclesiastical or even in any at all purely such to the sole decision made by the secular power of what was to be believed in point of Divine Faith or of what was to be acted in point of a good conscience they erre most grossely in this as they did in so many other tenets in other matters And yet all sides must confess that in such causes or in such manner Ecclesiasticks are no more exempt from the civil power then meer laymen For both equally have the same Doctors and Judges of their Faith and of their conscientious or lawful actings in relation to the laws of God or Christianity as both have the same supream civil Judges of temporal corporal and civil coercion LXXI Behold Reader in these eight last Sections which are from LXIII to LXX both inclusively taken the particular proofs or particular reasons of the Procurator's defiance to the Divines of Lovaine by his first general reason for his second answer given LXII Section to the fourth ground of the Lovaine censure For albeit as he noted before in that LXII Section he needed not have given that second answer to the said fourth ground of the Lovaine Divines the first answer which he created at length in the LXI Section immediately foregoing having sufficiently destroyed this fourth pretence of the Lovanians to witt their charging the Remonstrance of 61. and consequently all Clergiemen subscribers of it with renouncing or disclayming in Ecclesiastical exemption yet he would ex superabundanti give that very second answer you have seen in the said LXII Section videlicet That granting the Remonstrance had c. even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity on exemption of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream civil or temporal coercive power of the Prince or Magistrat provided still it did not declare as verely it does not against that which is indeed the real true and well grounded exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour civil Judicatories according to the respective civil laws or customs of several Kingdoms and as farre as the respective laws or customs do allow such exemption from such inferiour Judicatories yet neither the Divines of Lovaine nor any other could justly censure it therefore And the Procuratour would also give this second answer of meer purpose to dilate himself at large and at full on this subject of Ecclesiastical exemption and to ravel the whole intrigue of such tenets and arguments in this matter which have so often occasion so much trouble confusion in Christendom Which was the reason too that of meer sett purpose also he gave those two general reasons in the above LXII for this second answer of which two general reasons the first was that he defied those of Lovaine or any other Divine or Canonist in the world to shew any law divine either positive or natural or any law humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for such exemption or which is the same thing to shew any one text of holy Scripture or any one tenet of Apostolical tradition or any canon at all of the Catholick Church or even as much as any kind of passage out of the civil laws of Emperours nay as much as any one convinting or even probable argument of natural reason to prove power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream evil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or literal at least reputed Citizens or Subjects And the self-same purpose of ravelling that whole intrigue was the cause he spent so much time and took so much paâ—â—â—â—â—ther too in eight long Sections to descend to and give so many particular proofs of the reasonableness of this defiance by answering for fully and clearly as he thinks he did all sorts of arguments hetherto alleadged by Bellarmine or any other against that second answer or against the subjection of Clerks to the supream civil coercive power of Princes or which is the same thing alleadged for the exemption of Clerks from this power But forasmuch as the Procuratour not onely so defied the Divines of Lovaine by that his first general reason for his second answer to their fourth ground but also by his second general reason for the same second answer confidently said writ LXII Section that on the contrary he durst undertake against the Divines of Lovaine to prove there is no such exemption nor can be and with much evidence to prove this even by clear express texts of holy Scripture in that sense the holy Fathers generally understood such texts even for a whole thousand of years I therefore now proceed to those particular proofs also of this second part or of this so confident undertaking whereby the Procuratour in his discourses of that Remonstrance more directly assumed when occasion required the person of an Assailant as in the former he did that chiefly of a Defendant And because these particular proofs or reasons given by him for this second part and the confutations of Bellarmine's replyes to some of them for some also there are which either Bellarmine saw not or if he saw them did neither well or ill replye unto will take up some few sheets more I will observe the same method I have hetherto in answering Bellarmine's arguments for his own assertions that is will treat them in several Sections apart for the Readers more easy finding and understanding what I would be at For my next Section which is in order the LXXII shall give my first three arguments whereof two are out of Bellarmine's own concessions as I shew also by further argument that in point of either Theological or Philosophical reason such concessions and even as inferring my conclusions must be made by him and all other men that will speak according to natural reason or Christian Religion And the third argument I take to be a general maxime granted by all Statists Canonists Philosophers Divines nay by all men on earth though Bellarmine hath not a word of it but tranfiently answering it as ridiculously My LXXIII Section gives at large the fourth argument which is purely Theological and is that grounded on the 13. to the Romans according to the general and unanimous exposition of that passage by the holy Fathers until the age of Gregory the Seventh My LXXIV immediatly following shall give some instances of their practices according to this their doctrine and some canons too of Popes and Councils And my LXXV some few remaining objections and answers to them But my LXXVI and last of all on this subject of Ecclesiastical Exemption or as relating to it or to the fourth ground of the Lovaine Censure shall inferr my finall conclusion out of all that is out of these next following five and out of the former eight Sections shall withal consider the meaning of the word Sacriledge of these
excellency or dignity even the very supream of that Order is in it self unreasonable unevangelical and altogether groundless and unmantainable I referr thee first Good Reader to my foregoing LXIII LXIV LXV LXVI and LXVII Sections where as I have already in this very Section told you I have of purpose examined throughly and fully answered all Bellarmines arguments for his law divine either positive or natural alledged by him for the exemption of Clerks and secondly referr thee to the very next two or three Sections immediatly following this present but more especially to the first of them which in order is my LXIV of this first part of this first Treatise where I at large and of purpose and by positive arguments of Scriptures and Fathers demonstrate even the quite contrary of what Bellarmine sayes here of heathen Princes Besides that as I have also noted above my two next arguments of natural reason which you shall have immediatly in this present Section demonstrate the falsity of this last Answer as it relates to all Clerks in general Yet for as much as Bellarmine hath given us here a most particular or special exception of the Pope however the rest do for he thinks all may be in effect safe enough if the heal only he safe being that if the Pope himself alone be exempt by divine right or law de jure divino he may then by his own papal constitutions exempt all the rest of the Clergy whether Princes will or not I must give also here my animadvensions upon his reasons or those given by him for that special exceptions made or his Holiness and for his own answer to saying that Barclayes argument which I have reheâ—â—sed a little before had two faults viz a false Antecedent and a vitious or ill inferr'd Consequence that antecedent of Bâ—rclaye being That the Pope himself had not his own exemption 〈◊〉 that of his own person but from the meer liberaliâ—â— and favour of Princes because sayes Barclay as even our Adversaries confess the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to heathen Princes as other Citizens were and that consequent also being That therefore that is for the Popes having been subject by the law of God to heathen Princes before they were converted it must follow that he must also by the same law be subject to them when converted or which is the same thing to Christian Kings and Emperours I say that Bellarmine for his giving answer that the antecedent is false and consequent vitious alledges first for reason of the former That our Sauiour Christ had made the Pope his own Vicat on earth and that hoc ipso by making him such he exempted him from all power of earthly Princes And in the next place alledges for reason of the latter That whereas the Pope is by the same Lord and Saviour constituted over the whole family of beleevers and that Kings and Emperours are consequently incorporated by him to be directed and ruled by him certainly no reason suffers that he be subject to them over whom he is by divine right to preside But who sees not that as Barclay assumed that very Antecedent not only from Scripture Tradition and Reason as well appear in the next Section but from the common doctrine of all at least the best sort of even School Divines and which is more from Bellarmine himself for as yet our learned Cardinal had not set forth his Recognitions and Barclay could not have once suspected that Bellarmine would in his last days of old age have changed from that which till then he had publickly exposed to the world in his Controversie so that reason which Bellarmine alledges to prove it false must appear it self to be most unreasonable to wit that Christ had appointed the Pope his own Vicar and thereby exempted him from the power of Princes Indeed if Bellarmine could evidence that our Saviour had created the Pope his Vicar General and in all things and his own Vicar too as himself was the natural Son of God and second person of the Trinity and as God by pure nature not by communication or hypostastical union and not as a mortal man or as he appeared on earth before his Resurrection or if Bellarmine could evidence briefly that our Lord created the Pope his own Vicar as well in all kind of earthly powers and temporal matters whatsoever as in some kind of limited spiritual power and things then he might have truly said that Barclayes Antecedent is false and the contrary certain or that it is not from the favour of Princes the Pope hath what exemption he hath but from the law and power of God immediatly But nothing is more certain then that the Pope was not created such a Vicar General his power as that of the Universal Church being purely and only spiritual It is true Joan. 3.35 27.21 the Father gave Christ all things into his hands and the power of all flesh Pater dedit Christo omnia in manus potestatem omnis carnis But our Cardinal hath not yet proved that either Son or Father gave or ever yet committed so large a power to any one Vicar and the contrary is otherwise in it self very certain both by Scripture Tradition and Reason Our Saviour Jesus Christ therefore left by his law the temporal administration to the temporal civil or politick Magistrates as before and from the beginning it was by all laws to the great Pontiff he committed what was agreeable to a Pontiff only or to the prime Pontiff that is to be his Vicar in all pure spiritual administration and in such only too according to the holy canons of the Catholick Church And it is clear this Function or this Dignity how great soever it be doth no more exempt the Pope as Pope from temporal subjection that is from subjection in temporal matters to a meer lay or secular Prince or Magistrate then the most high supream and by God himself immediately ordained civil power of secular Princes Kings Emperours can or doth exempt them in spiritual matters from the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope or even of any other their own proper Patriarch or Bishop or even also of an inferiour Priest in the confessional seat or other administration of the Sacraments to them And who sees not that as that Consequent of Barclay follows manifestly and necessarily out of the Antecedent once admitted because that as I have already proved and as Barclay too alleadged Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo c even so it must follow and whether it follow or not it is clear enough in it self that Bellarmine's reason to the contrary or to shew this consequence to be vitious or ill inferr'd is a most pittifull unsignificant one indeed and as such by me very often answer'd already For how many times was it answered before that the Pope as Pope is by our Lord and Saviour appointed the chief Superintendent or
he could use means to compel the Princes themselves to exempt them so de jure Or is it to command Princes under the prescribed penalties that they should suffer Clerks to be and live de facto at liberty whom he himself had already or de jure set at liberty And if this be the Popes design in fulminating such censures then is it also plain that this very allegation destroyes that vain pretence of any material diversity or difference in the cases For that I may omit what I said a little before viz. that Christian Princes may be found I should rather say that all Christian Princes are de facto such who would be no more effectually compelled or moved to manumise de facto such vast numbers of Cittizens or Subjects then the very meerest Infidel Princes certainly this allegation reason or cause must be wholy conversant in matter of fact not in that of right because thereby it is not proved that the Pope might rather de jure exempt Clerks from the yoake of Christian Princes then of Ethnick but only that he might the more easily from and by Christian Princes get them de facto exempted whom himself had before de jure exempted which is nothing at all to the question As for the rest or that which Bellarmine alledgeth in the former words viz. these Clericos absolvte exemit a potestate principum fidelium qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt that the Pope hath absolutely exempted Clerks from the power of faithful Princes who acknowledge his power I have already above observed both falsity and fallacy therein Falsity because the Pope is no where read to have ever yet made canons for such exemption but only canons after and in pursuance of the exemption before granted by Emperors which is not not the exemption we dispute of here For the truth is that both Pope Church received vindicated what they could that ecclesiastical exemption was bestowed on them freely by Princes vindicated it as given to them by others but not as having had it formerly of their own either de facto or de jure Fallacy because that although Christian Princes acknowledge the Popes power yet they acknowledge this power as such to be no other then purely spiritual or in spiritual things only And by no means acknowledge such a power in him as may set loose free in all things from their own regal and temporal power such a great number of their people and this absolutely too as Bellarmine thought fit to express himself For so much hath our learned Cardinal himself granted in effect nay alledged l. 1. de Cleric cap 28. for the only proof of his second proposition there which is Nâ—n sunt exempti Clerici ab obligatione legum civilium quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio Clericali And so much in effect is granted by him in that other book of his which goes under the name of Franciscus Romulus where he sayes in Responsiâ—â—te ad praec capita Apologiae pag. 114. That Bishops ought to be subject in temporal matters tâ— Kings and Kings to Bishops in spiritual Episcopi Regibus in temporalibus relâ—us Reges Episcopis in spiritualibus subjecti esse debebunt Yet after such concessions and notwithstanding such affirmations and allegations when the same are urged against himself to some purpose by William Barclay he flyes presently to his vain distinctions and reserved sense how inconsistent soever with any kind of rational or material sense First he tells â—od c. 28. l. 1. de Cler. That although he said in his above second proposition that Clerks are not exempti from the obligation of the civil laws which are not contrary to the sacred canons or Clerical Office yet as he meaned only those politick laws which direct humane actions in temporal commerce as for example when the Prince or lay Magistrate ordaines a certain price of vendible things or commands that none go abroad with armes at night or without light or that none transport or export corn out of the Province and the like so his meaning was not that by such laws Clergiemen are bound â—verciâ—ely obligatione â—â—actina for these are his own words but only that they are bound by that kind of obligation which is called and is solely directive sâ—lum directiva are his own words also if peradventure the same civil laws be not approved by the Church And that if the canons of the Church had ordered or disposed of the very same temporal things that is had ordained or prescribed how men should demean or carry themselves in the self-same temporal occasions or matters Clerks would then be obliged to follow the disposition of the canons whatever it were even in such matters and not be obliged as much as directively to observe the civil law that is would not be obliged to or by the very directive part or virtue of the said civil law and not only not to or by the câ—ercive sanctions of it which prescribe punishment tunc or nunc legem civilem ne directive quidem observare tenerentur sayes he in plain terms Secondly he sayes l. contra Barclaium cap. 24. That although Clerks be Cittizens and a certain part of the politick State or Commonwealth this proves no more but that they are bound viâ—rationis by the force or vertue of reason but proves not they are bound vi legis by vertue of the civil law it self And sayes he had no other meaning that is mean'd no other kind of bond or obligation when or where he brought in his book of Clerks cap. 28. that argument of Clerks their being Cittizens or certain parts of the politick State to prove his above second proposition or that Clerks were not exempt from the obligation of the civil laws which are not repugnant to the sacred canons or clerical Office Thirdly he sayes cap. 15. lib. contra Barclaium that Franciscus Romulus in the above quoted place speaks only of that subjection de subjectione quam habebant Episcopi alii Clerici ad observandos leges politicâ—s c. which Bishops and other Clerks had on themselves to observe the politick laws and not to disturb the politick order setled by Kings even as sayes he the Popes Gelasius and Nicholas do teach the one in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor and the other also in his Epistle to the Emperour Michael both whom Franciscus Romulus hath quoted But hence sayes our Cardinal it follows not that a Bishop may be forced by the King to obey or may be punished by the King if he obey not whereas the King hath no power at all over Bishops or Clerks which is most manifestly read in the Councel of Constance Behold here the very quintessence of our most eminent Cardinals final Reasons or doctrine of his continâ—â—al aequivocations and reservations in this matter In effect therefore his answer to my second argument would be were he to answer it in form that he would
in plain tearms deny the Major to wit for the last part of it and for the former distinguish the word Cittizens parts members and again the word Subject For he would say that albeit whoever are Cittizens or parts and members and not the civil or politik heads of the civil or politick common-wealth Empire Kingdom Principality as such or as a civil and politick society are subject to and not exempt from the politick head power and laws which is the first part of the Major yet he would deny that which follows as the second part of the same proposition to wit this nor consequently from the supream coercive power of it And he would in the former part distinguish and say that indeed whoever are Cittizens parts members c. are subject either coercively or directively or both and that lay Cittizens or lay parts or members are both ways subject in all temporal matters but Ecclesiastical members not otherwise but directively and by no means coercively and that such members I mean Ecclesiastical are then onely as much as directively subject when the canons of the Church do not order the same temporal things Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo For what els do you see in the writings of this great Clerk but a perpetual change from one doctrine to an other in this matter and some other such of the Pope and Clergie as of the King also and Layety one doctrine while he was young an other when he was grown old and in his old age it self so many distinctions and evasions or rather confusions and contradictions that we know not where to and him or what to learn from him He would have the Clergie as politick parts or members of the politick common-wealth to be called Subjects to Kings whom he confesses to be the Politick Heads and he would have Kings to be called their Kings too and not onely called Kings in relation to lay subjects and he alleadges and truly too alleadges that Clergiemen as well as laymen pray for them as for their own Kings and we know it must be confessed by him they are so prayed for being the very publick Liturgy in the mass book hath that publick prayer which all Priests and Bishops too mast say and sing publickly at the altar of God wherein they say and pray for the King as their own King Et pro Rege nostro c. nay and he confesses too there in really an obligation whereby they are bound and really a subjection which they owe to Kings and yet after all he renders doth the names unsignificant and things inconsistent For I beseech you how can the King be a King that is a supream politick head and Governour to the Clerks of his Dominions or how can these they be politick Cittizens parts members of his Kingdom or bound to him or be his subjects that is be under him as such if he have no power of and over them or to command them or tye them by laws and precepts or if he have not as much as a directive power to command them or if they be not bound by as much as a directive obligation that is by an obligation arising or proceeding from the directive virtue of the command given or layed upon them To be a King of or over any or to be such a Head or such a Governour of any implyes essentially a power to command him or them over whom he is such and a passive tye of obedience in or obligation on him or them who are subjects or truly or in any proper sense named subjects And yet Bellarmine sayes in effect and gives it for his final Resolution though in contradiction to himself elsewhere nay and every where that in order to Clerks there is no such power in the King in any case not even in the very meerest temporal whatsoever nor any such obligation or tye on Clerks For he sayes as you have seen a little before that Clerks are not bound to obey their Kings meer civil laws in meer temporal matters whensoever the canons of the Church order the same matters and sayes too they are not bound as much as by the directive virtue of such laws and therefore sayes they are not bound at all being there is no tye can be but either coercive or directive and consequently must say though again in contradiction to himself the King is not King at all of Clerks nor Clerks subjects at all to the King For as the case hath already been in many even meer civil or temporal things that the canons or commands of the Pope for both are the same and the same too with these of the Church as to Bellarmines purpose have been even contrary to the civil laws of Kings and to their civil commands so the case may soon be and very well be that is whenever the Pope shall please that the canons be contrary in all such things How then can the essence or essential nature of Kingship or of Prefection and Subjection 'twixt the King and the Clerks of his dominions be And for the case that is at present wherein some temporal dispositions or a disposition in some temporal matters is left to the civil laws of Kings or left I mean as yet untouch'd by Papal constitutions who sees not plainly but that according to the above other final doctrine and subtle distinction of Bellarmine I mean his viâ—rationis and vi legis there is not even in such things or in order to the civil laws or civil commands of the King any obligation at all on Clerks to the King or to his even such commands or laws nor consequently any power of Kingship in him even in such things or by such laws over Clerks and as even now at present the case is For he tels you plainly that Clerks are not vi legis sed vi rationis bound not even as much as directively bound by virtue of such law but onely by virtue of reason And yet here also he contradicts again both himself and reason too Being that if they be bound by the virtue of reason to observe such a civil law of the Kings that is by that of natural reason or of a practical dictate of such reason for I can understand nothing els by his vis rationis which tells them they are bound in the case to observe such a law then must it be that they are bound also vi legis or by the at least directive virtue of the law it self For it is plain that no otherwise do we conclude or gather or perswade our selves that Laymen are bound either by the directive or coercive part of such law or that indeed any humane law at all even Ecclesiastical or perhaps too any law that most immediately divine obligeth us obligeth any Laicks or Clerks vi legis but onely hence that natural reason or a practical dictat of our understanding even that light of Gods countenance or that which God himself hath imprinted on
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
in it self purely or as abstracting from matter of fact we say two things here to clear all the fog which many of our late School Divines do raise without any cause at all to loose themselves and others in it The one is that in this cause of Caecilian and such others of Church-men wherein Constantine or other Christian Emperours interposed their imperial authority and carried themselves properly as Judges that wherein they did so was pure matter of fact whereof questionless the lay Emperours when judicious and just were secundum allegata probata as competent Judges as any Ecclesiastick And the other is that whereas the Emperour and the same we must say of every other supream or Soveraign Prince within his own dominions is of supream absolute independent power within his Empire he must consequently have sufficient authority from God himself to promote all that may be for the publick good peace or safety of his people in this life and of their happiness too in the other according as he is directed by the law of God and therefore also must have sufficient power from God himself to see and take effectual care and such effectual course as is necessary that the very Ecclesiastical affairs within his Empire be duely carried on Therefore albeit he be not the competent Judge in a doubtfull case what was or was not the Faith delivered once in such or such a point controverted yet he is a competent Judge to see and determine as to matter of Fact whether the Ecclesiasticks of his Kingdom duely observe the uncontroverted Faith or that part of Faith which all men which even themselves confess acknowledge to be that which was once so delivered or whether they duely observe the known and holy canons of the Church made for preservation of that Faith And he is a competent Judge also or hath a competent sufficient absolute independent power to force the very Ecclesiasticks themselves to keep that Faith entire and sound even also I mean as to the very Theory of it and to all questions of divine right especially where and when he sees that by reason of controversies arising about such very questions or Theory the publick external peace of either Church or State may be endangered or that the publick tranquillity depends of the unity of his people in such matters according to what was from the beginning taught By which very consideration that Constantine himself was very much induâ—ced â—o interess himself in these matters of Faith even himself also writes apud â—arrâ—nium tom 3. an 313. n. 37. least otherwise he should have seen dangeâ—ous troubles and commotions in his Empire and thence have suffered also very much in his reputation as not governing well or prudently or also as haveing imprudently embraced that religion whose professours he could not keep in peace or unity amongst themselves Of which consideration and judgement of Constantine or rather of which power and authority of Constantine or indeed of both the one and the other St. Augustine speaks ep 162. where he writes thus Quasi verò ipse sibi he means Felix Aptungitanus â—â—c comparavit ac non Imperator ita quasi jusserit ad cujus curam de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset res illa maximè pertinebat But of this authority and superintendency in general of Emperours Kings Princes and other supream temporal or politick States in and over the Church or the spiritual or Ecclesiastical both Superiours and Inferiours of the same Christian Catholick Church this is not the proper place to treat at large It sufficeth at present to say that forasmuch as Constantine did so and so often too interess himself in this cause of Caecilian and deputed Judges to hear and determine it he did all this by the true proper genuine authority of an Emperour and even of a Christian Emperour whose duty it is when the Ecclesiasticks themselves alone cannot end or compose their own dissentions that he by his own supream authority assist and promote their agreement and even force them to a just and equitable agreement Which the Milevitan Council approves in effect canone 19 and ponitur xi q. 1. c. 11. and in these tearms Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum petierit honore proprio privetur Si autem Episcopale judicium ab Imperatore postulaverit nihil ei obsit But that Constantine did in aftertimes adorn and magnifie the Church or Churchmen with most singular and most ample priviledges concerning civil judgments or judgments in civil affairs this he did not as Baronius tom 3. an 314. n. 37. would make us believe he did to correct or by way of correction of those former judgments of his own in the said or like affairs of Ecclesiastical persons which judgments our great Annalist sayes were unduly and unjustly usurped by the Emperour but did so or gave such priviledges out of his meer liberality and piety alway nevertheless reserving his own proper supream and general and imperial authority to provide upon emergencies by himself or by such others as he should think fit to depute for the necessities of the Church and Churchmen as often as he saw need However let us proceed in the matter of fact which is our proper subject here For notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment also of the Council of Orleance the Donatists yet appeal even from it and the second time to the Emperour himself against and in that cause of Cecilian and the Emperour admits again their appeal judges the matter himself absolves Cecilian and condemns the Donatists St. Augustine is my author and witness ep 48. and epist 162. where yet he neither accuses nor reprehends the Emperour Nor doth Cecilian except but obeyes and freely presents himself to be judged by the Emperour For it was a criminal judgment that is the matter debated was a crime charged upon him Nay St. Augustine openly sayes and avers that neither the accusing or appealing Bishops themselves were to be reprehended on this account that they drew or brought the affairs or causes of or accusations against other Bishops to a lay secular Judicatory For thus he writes ep 48. Si autem sicut falso arbitramini vere criminosum Caecilianum judicandum terrenis potestatibus tradiderant quid objicitis quod vâ—strorum praesumptio primitus fecit he speaks to the later Donatists quod eos non arguerimus sayes he quia fecerunt si non animo inuido noxio sed emendandi corrigendi voluntate fecissent Therefore St. Augustine sayes that where and when the dispute concerns the correction and amendment of Ecclesiasticks to demand the judgment or sentence and to appeal to the power of earthly Princes is not reprehensible if the accusers proceed not in such or indeed any other application out of envie or malice Concerning this second admission of Constantine or indeed rather concerning his whole procedure in this affair by admitting any appeal at all or
18. these Bishops had been precondemned in the Council I must again advertise the Reader that the Council never condemned any otherwise then by declaring him an Heretick and excommunicate or at most to be deprived of or deposed from his See That besides that pre-damnation especially to exile no where appears in Councils Nay that St. Hierom in Chron. ubi de Maximino Treuerensi not acknowledgeing these pre-damnations affirms expresly Constantinum quaesivisse ad paenam Athanasium that Constantine sought for Athanasius to punishment And certainly Felix the Aptungitan Bishop who was the Orderer that is the Consecrator of Cecilian about whom the great contest was was by the command or warrant of the same Constantine sent to his Proconsul in Affrick Helianus to be judged by him Augustinus post collat ep 33 ep 152. Opt. And Photinus condemned in the general Council of Sardica obtained new Judges from the very self same Constantine as Epiphan heres 71. tells The before often mentioned St. Athanasius was to the said pious and great Emperour Constantine accused as a homicide or of having murthered Arsenius And Constantine committed the cognizance hereof as we have toâ—ched before to Delmatiuâ—s the Censor of Antioch a meer lay Officer of the Empire that he might proceed therein as a Judge Delegat For verily so doth St. Athanasius himself in Apol. and for to defend his own innocency in that matter tell us And yet he doth not upbraid the Emperour nor at all object to him that his Majesty had herein usurped a power which he had not by the laws of God or canons of the Church or â—ules of natural reason over a Churchman From which objection he was so far as himself tells that his submission to Constantin's delegation in that and more to his own immediat imperial and personal cognizance in all such matters was ready and voluntary Behold hitherto Good Reader arguments enough of the practise to our main purpose of that very Constantine who notwithstanding all hitherto given is said to have said to the Bishops in the Nicene Council accusing one another to him Deus constituit vos sacerdotes potestatem dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis recte judicamur vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium Ruffin l. 1. c. 2. But but if it be true that Constantine said so at all as it is very true and certain that this saying whosoever's it be must either be expounded not rigorously or strictly according to the bare words but very benignly and gently or questionless must be rejected and condemned even by those who alledge it for themselves as appears at least out of the two later clauses viz. that Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari and that other Propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium yet I say if it be true that Constantine said so at all and even I say did say so also in any good sense whatsoever wherefore did not his following deeds agree with his words as much as in that very sense our Adversaries pretend Therefore if Constantine said any such thing or expressed himself in such words according to reason it must be said by us and by all whoever examine and weigh that expression or those bare words rightly that either he spoke them out of some excess of piety and reverence to the Bishops or certainly that for what concern'd the denying or not acknowledging a power in men to judge the Bishops and saying that they were reserved or rather desiring that they should be left to the judgment of God alone and in saying before that they received power from God to judge of himself the Emperour he must be understood to mean First that Priests had a spiritual power from God to judge even himself spiritually or in a spiritual way and by a meer kind of spiritual judgment or in relation only to his spirit to wit by declaring to him wherein he had sinned and by remitting or retaining his sins by their judicial absolution or censure in the confessional seat or penitential Court of conscience but not that they had a power external and temporal or coercive of him in his meer temporals or by any sentence at all transferring his temporal or civil rights or jurisdiction or able to bereave him of any such or obliging him to submit his said temporal rights to them Secondly That meer Lay-men could not judge of them in causes properly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual such as those of Faith and Heresie and religious rites are as to the questions of right Or if he mean'd any matter of pure fact especially of those are called lay crimes that then he understood nothing else by non potestis ab hominibus judicari but the same we do our selves commonly or in ordinary speech when we say we cannot do a thing this or that whatever it it be we have no mind to do or think not expedient to do We signifie therefore by such words not alwayes an absolute defect of either natural or legal power in us to do that we are desired but our own unwillingness to do it and our resolution not to do it for some unexpediency we conceive in doing it Constantine therefore cannot be concluded to have otherwise mean'd when he said to the Bishops and of their personal failings non potestis ab hominibus judicari but that it was so unexpedient to bring their private failings to the publick hearing of the world before the lay people by a judicial procedure that it should not be done nor would he suffer it especially in that conjuncture when a good repute of all and peace and charity amongst them all was so necessary to carry the matters of Faith in the Council against the growing heresie of Arrius For verily otherwise or if you take non potestis philosophically and rigourously or strictly as denying a natural or legal power and a power too either temporal or spiritual and take hominibus universally or even indistinctly for what this word of it self may import as not determined of it self nor by any other word here to lay-men more then to churchmen you must consequently fix that sense to these words of Constantine which neither Baronius himself nor Bellarmine will allow For so they will also signifie no legal canonical or spiritual power in the Pope himself nor even in a general Council of Bishops where the Pope himself presides to judge and censure condemn or punish not even in a spiritual way I mean the very most scandalous sailings of other Bishops And therefore thirdly Constantine must be understood where he sayes sed Dei sâ—lius judicium expectate that as he mean'd not thereby to deny a canonical power in a general Council of Bishops to censure and condemn other Bishops when their failings deserved it but only that he thought it more expedient as the case
I mean here partly out of the general Cronicles of Italy Germany Hungary Venice Spain France England before the suppresion or change by Henry the Eight c. and partly also out of the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Church and of these very later ages of it but in particular out of these very Annals compiled by the often quoted Henricus Spondanus a Catholick Bishop of France and the Continuer of the Annals of Baronius from the year 1198. wherein Baronius ended until the year 1640. which puts an end also to these Annals of Spondanus But for that reason I now gave I forbear insisting upon or enlarging my self upon or indeed producing at all here any of all these latter Instances LXXIV Therefore to proceed from those other particular instances which I have produced of Bishops Popes and Princes in and after the dayes of Constantinus Magnus conformable to the general practise of all Christians universally before his dayes all along up even to those inclusively of the Apostles and Christ our Lord now in order and pursuing the method I have in my LXXI Section prescribed to my self I come to the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Canons of the Church for me against my Adversaries in this point of a supream civil coercive power in lay and earthly Princes over all criminal Clerks whosoever within their Dominions and of all crimes too whatsoever of Clerks whether they be lay crimes or such only as are called Ecclesiastical crimes The first of these canons which I alledge for my self or to my purpose is that of Pope Pelagius ep 5. and as it is in Gratianus dist 17. cap. Hac licuit Wherein after command given that whoever have any doubt in matters of Faith shall be taught or resolved by the Sees Apostolick it is further said thus Quod si ita obstinati contumaces extiterint sayes Pelagius ut doceri non velint eos ab iisdem Apostolicis sedibus aut attrahi ad salutem quoquo modo necesse est aut ne aliorum perditio esse possint secundum canones Conc Antioch c. 3. Chalced. Act. 4. per seculares comprimi potestates Out of which it is most clear and evident that if Clerks are to be coerced properly or strictly speaking of coercion that is if they are to be corporally or forcibly restrain'd or punished they must according to the very Canons be coerced or restrain'd or punish'd so by the secular Powers for Pelagius writ his letter of which or out of which Gratian form'd the above canon and writ it I say to Narsetes Patricius and of the Bishops of Aquileia and Millan both Clerks without any peradventure And consequently it is also most clear or evident that by the very canons the supream civil coercive power and authority of coercing criminal Clerks or punishing them so and even too for Ecclesiastical crimes for the crime here was such must be confessed to be in the secular Princes The second Canon is in Gratian. 23. q. 5. c. Relegentes and is extracted out of another epistle of the same Pope Pelagius epist 4. ad Nâ—rsetem Patricium where he doth yet more clearly express this power and authority of secular Princes calling it also in express tearms their due authority and exhorting them to make use of it against these delinquent Clerks he complains of Quamvis igitur sayes he vestra per illorum scelus utilitas facta sit nolite tamen impunitam praesumptionem iniquorum hominum grassari permittere Si enim hoc quod in vestram gloriam praesumpserunt non fuerit vindicta compressum quod in minoribus non valeant puniri ambigi ultra non debet Exercete igitur in talibus debitam authoritatem ne cis amplius talia committendi spiritus crescat vestris coercitionibus reprimantur Ad hoc sequidem Dei nutu etiam contra vos talia praesumpserunt ut alia vobis corrigentibus ab eodem seclere alios possitis Deo propitiante munire And then or about or near the end of this 4. epistle Auferte tales ab ista Provincia utimini oblata vobis à Deo opprimendi perfidos oceasione Quod tunc plenius fieri poterit si authores scelerum ad Clementissimum Principem dirigantur maxime Ecclesiae Aquilegiensis invasor qui in schysmate in eo maledictus nec honorem Episcopi poterit retinere nec meritum Consonant to which is that which he also writ before Epist 3. thus Nolite ergo dubitare hujusmodi homines principali vel judiciali anthoritate comprimere quia Regulae Patrum hoc specialiter constituerunt ut si qua Ecclesiastici Officii persona cui subjectus est restiterit vel seorsim collegerit aut aliud altare erexerit seu schisma fecerit iste excommunicetur atque damnetur Behold all the punishment inflicted by the Church to wit excommunication and deposition and ejection from the number of faithful Quod si forte hoc contempserit permanserit divisicnes schisma faciendo per potestates publicas opprimatur And this he sayes to be a law Ecclesiastical and sayes truly so For in the Fifth Canon of the Council of Antioch it is ordained so and almost in the very self same words And in the rule approved in the Council of Chalcedon in epistola Archimandritarum ad ipsum Concilium actione 4. in Collectione Martini Cracarensis c. 37. it is ordained even so too Third Canon is of Leo the IV. Pope of that name and is that which you read in Gratianus dist 10. c. De Capitulis where this Pope speaks to Lotharius Augustus the Emperour in these words De capitulis vel praeceptis Imperialibus vestris vestrorumque Pontificum praedecessorum irrefragabiliter custodiendis conservandis quantum valuimus valemus Christo propitio nunc in aeuum nos conservaturos modis omnibus profitemur Fourth is also of the same Leo or that which you find in Gratian. 2. q. 7. c. nos sâ— where again this very Leo speaks in the like manner to Ludouick the Emperour and in these other words Si incompetenter aliquid egimus in subditis justae legis tramitem non conservavimus vestro ac Missorum vestrorum curata volumus emendare judicio c. For sayes Gratian himself 2. q. 7. Paragrap Item Regum est corporalem irrogare paenam sacerdotum spiritualem inferre vindictam Fift canon is very particular express and home enough even also as to the very inferiour lay judges but onely as to the lay crimes of Clerks without leaving any place for vain distinctions even it which you find also in Gratian XI q. 1. cap. Si quis cum yet not extracted out of the third Council of Carthage as a certain great writer would have it but out of the 74. Imperial constitution of Iustinianus c. 1. where in effect sufficiently and clearly distinguishing betwixt the lay crimes of a Clerk and his Ecclesiastical crimes though calling that onely and imply causam criminalem
solum ad mundi regimen sed maxime ad Ecclesiae praesidiuâ— esse collatum At most therefore what is in this matter granted to the Church is that Ecclesiasticks be not by Princes proceeded against coercively to punishment if their transgression be onely or meerly Ecclesiastical and the punishment be corporal I say be not so and in such case punished corporally unless or until the Church do her own duty first by depositions or censures or both Except you always still such extraordinary cases wherein the Superiours of the Church should or would themselves also peradventure be too refractory or too contumacious against reason as guilty of the same crimes or for any causes whatsoever countenancing or favouring the criminal Clerks and therefore refusing to proceed at all or at least onely against them For when a degraded Clerk is given over to the secular Court he is not delivered so by the Church to the secular Magistrats as if the Church did mean or intend these Magistrats should proceed by vertue of a power derived from her or be the Ministers or executioners of her own sentence which if capital she hath no power no authority at all from God or man to pronounce or decree as if any other way it be purely civil or forcible at all corporally for example to corporal restraint or imprisonment she hath for so much all her power from man and from the civil laws onely but he is given over so by the Church as meaning and intending onely that such a criminal Clerk be thenceforward under the ordinary power of even the inferiour lay Magistrats and Judges and by such delivery or giving over signifying unto them that they may now proceed if they please and think fit either to absolve or condemn him For even Caelestinus III. himself a Pope of the later times confesses c. Non ab homine de judic that Ecclesiastical punishment is of a quite other nature then that which is lay and that the Church hath no kind of power or authority to inflict such punishments as are in their own nature lay punishments or which is the same thing that she hath no power no authority at all of her self as a Church to inflict any punishment but purely Ecclesiastical but suspension deposition excommunication the lesser and greater and finally degradation when the criminal Clerk is delivered over or left under the secular power let the crimes of such a Clerk be ever so great and ever too such pure lay crimes even perjury theft and murder c and even heightned also by incorrigibleness A nobis fuit ex parte tua quaesitum sayes the above Caelestine utrum liceat Regi vel alicut seculari personae judicare Clericos cujuscumque ordinis sive in furto sive homicidio vel periurio seu quibus cumque fuerint criminibus deprehensi Consultationi tuae taliter respondentus quod si Clericus in quocumque ordine constitutus in furto vel homicidio vel periurio seu alio crimine fuerit deprehensus legittime atque convictus ab Ecclesiastico Iudice deponendus est Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit excommunicari debet deinde contumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri postmedum verò si in profundum malorum veniens contempserit cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat ne possit esse ultra perditio plurimorâ—m per secularem comprimendus est potestatem ita quod ei deputetur exilium vel alia legittima paena Where you are to observe singularly as to our present purpose of distinction betwixt Ecclesiastical and secular punishment and of no power at all in the Church to inflict corporal secular civil or lay punishments what Caelestinus sayes in these words Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat As you are also to note that he answers not directly or rather indeed not at all to the main question whether the King or other secular powers could punish Clerks guilty of or manifestly deprehended in perjury theft or murder but declines that of the authority of Kings or of other secular powers acting of themselveâ— in such cases without relation to the desires of the Church that they should act so and onely prescribes to the Ecclesiastical superiours how they themselves are to proceed by degrees aâ— becomes them against such criminal Clerks For otherwise it hath been seen before and in the very laws of Iustinian submitted unto by the Church that in such criminal causes the civil Praetors proceeded immediately against Churchmen though execution of the sentence was suspended until degradation was by the Bishop And it hath been seen that in a very auncient Council of Bishops long before this Calestine the first of Matisconum I mean the cases of theft murder and malefice were still expresly and particularly supposed or rather declared to have no Ecclesiastical exemption but to be still under the cognizance of even the inferiour lay judges And reason it self and the necessary preservation of both State and Church tell us that Caelestine's answer here cannot be otherwise understood in all the formalities of it and as relateing to the power supream of Kings who acknowledg none but God above them in temporals and who recieve not or incorporat not by their own proper power and into their own civil law this canon of Caelestine in any other sense or any other Church canon at all either like or unlike to it exempting Clerks in such crimes and in the first Instance from their supream legal cognizance or even from that of their subordinat ordinary secular and lay judges For I confess that in such Kingdoms or temporal States if any such be wherein the Princes or people or civil Governours and civil laws or customs have recieved such Ecclesiastical canons for the exemption of Clerks in such crimes until such Ecclesiastical formalities had preceeded it is fitting they be obserued and ought to be observed while the civil laws which onely gave them force or a binding virtue remain unrepealed and if the litteral observation of them strike not at the very being or at least peaceable and well being of the Commonwealth But observed so that is by virtue of the civil reception and incorporation of them into the civil laws and by the civil power they make nothing at all against my main purpose or against that of those other canons I alledg for the power of Kings from God to punish delinquent Clergiemen with civil and corporal punishments where and when they shall upon rational grounds judg it necessary and expedient for the publick good of either Church or State and where and when it is not against the laws of the land that they punish them so either by themselves immediately or by their subordinat lay judges either extraordinary or ordinary The Bishops of Affrick acknowledging this power in temporal Princes write in this manner and stile to the Emperour Vt novellae praesumptionis scandalum quod adversus fidem nostram attentatum
Ex his omnibus datur intelligi his own conclusion is in general tearms only importing that a Clerk is not either in a civil or criminal cause to be convented in publick that is in lay or secular Judicatories Quod Clericus sayes he ad publica judicia nec in civili nec in criminali causa est producendus not descending to the particular or specifical case of the regal power and regal cognizance intervening by special commission or special warrant or in a special emergency nor descending also to or considering the special case of times or Countryes when or where no such canon of the Church or Pope no such priviledge imperial at least in that latitude is in use or perhaps hath ever yet been received or if once received hath been again repealed Therefore Gratian may be rationally expounded to mean by his judicia publica in this Paragraph those ordinary Judicatories only which are of inferiour lay Judges and those too but only where such Canons are received or such priviledges allowed by the supream civil powers and laws But if any must needs press further yet or in any other sense the conclusion of Gratianus then I must say three things The first is that as I have proved already elsewhere in this work if a Clerk sue a Layman for any temporal matter or in a meer civil cause that is not criminal he must sue him in a lay Court and before a lay Judge and this lay Judge albeit only a subordinate inferiour and ordinary Judge shall give a binding sentence against this Clerk if the law be in the case for the Layman So that neither is it generally true not even by the very Canons I mean that Clerks in all civil causes are totally exempt from the jurisdiction of as much as the very inferiour lay Judges For the very Canons not to speak of the civil laws now in force throughout the world have ordered so Quod Actor sequatur forum Rei let the Actor be ever so much a Clerk or Ecclesiastick The second is that generally for criminal causes of Clerks Gratianus hath not produced as much as any one either imperial constitution or even any one Church Canon sufficiently either in particular or in general revoking or anulling or sufficiently declaring that revocation of the 74. Constitution of Iustinianus whereby this Emperour appoints and impowers the lay Judges for those within Constantinople and for those abroad in the Provinces the lay Pretors in the same Provinces to iudge the criminal causes of Clerks nay nor hath at all as much as attempted to answer or gain-say it albeit this very 74. Constitution was the very last chapter saving one which himself produced immediatly as a canon before the foresaid last paragraph Ex â—is omnibus Thirdly that for those Church Canons or those more likely authorities or passages true or false of some Popes or some Councils alledged by Gratianus in that his eleventh cause and first question or those in him which may seem most of any he hath to ground another sense then that I have said to be his sense I have before sufficiently nay and abundantly too cleared and answered them at large in my LXIX Section of in my answer to Bellarmine's aâ—legations of the Canons for himself and for the exemption of criminal Clerks from the supream royal coercive power of Kings where I have also noted some of Gratian's either voluntary or unvoluntary corruptions of the Canons Fourthly and consequently that whether Gratian was or was not of a contrary opinion it matters not a pin It is not his opinion and let us suppose he had truly and sincerely declared his own inward opinion for I am sure many as good and as great and far greater then he dared not declare their own when he writ his Decretum or declare any at all but in the language of the Papal Court It it is not I say his opinion but his reason we must value for sin he did not himself nor any for him does pretend to infallibility And I am sure he neither brings nor as much as pretends to bring any Scripture at all or any Tradition of the Fathers or even as much as any argument of natural reason for the warranty of any other sense And I am certain also that my judicious and impartial Readers will themselves clearly see and confess that he brings not for himself or for such a sense as much as any one Canon true or false to confront these I have alledg'd for my self and for that sense I intend all along or any one Canon true or false that denyes that which I have given for the coercive power of secular Princes to have been and to be the sense of Paul the Apostle Rom 13. or to have been and be the general and unanimous sense of the holy Fathers in their commentaries and expositions of it or finally any one Canon true or false that particularly and either formally or virtually descends to the specifical debate 'twixt the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius or their followers the present Divines of Lovaine and me concerning the supream royal and external Jurisdiction of Kings to punish criminal Clerks by their own immediate authority royal and by virtue of their own royal commissions and delegations extraordinary in all cases and contingencies wherein the preservation of the publick peace and safety of either Church or State require it and by their mediat authority also in their inferiour Judges and by vertue of their ordinary commissions or delegations to such Judges or of the ordinary power which the civil laws of the land give to these Judges in all cases I mean wherein the same civil laws or the makers of such laws have not received or admitted of the more or less ancient constitutions of Roman Emperours or of the more or less ancient Canons of the great Pontiffs or of other Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Councils for what concerns the exemption of Clergie-men in criminal causes from the meer civil and ordinary Courts and lay inferiour or subordinate Judges and their subjection to Ecclesiastical Judges only and the Prince himself who must be without any peradventure and even in such causes too of Clerks above all Iudges in his own Kingdom whether lay or Ecclesiastical Judges For I have before sufficiently demonstrated that all Ecclesiastical Exemption in temporal matters or in all both civil and criminal causes is only from the supream civil Power as from the only proper and total efficient cause and I have also before demonstrated that no exemption to any persons or person whatsoever could be given by that Power from it self or at least for the matter of coercion and when the publick good required it unless at the same time it freed such persons or person from all kind of subjection to it self and I have likewise demonstrated before that such exemption from it self in any case at all whatsoever cannot be rationally supposed as given by
day murthered him in the Church as he was at evening prayer Seventhly you are to observe good Reader what the ancient Christian civil or municipal laws of England or those I mean of the State politick and civil as they are distinguish'd from the meer canons of the Church were concerning the immunity of Clergiemen from secular tribunals in the punishment of their crimes and were yet in the days of S. Thomas and Henry the second or at any time before that contest not legally repealed then by a contrary civil or municipal law of that land or by any contrary custom admitted or in force For I must confess that often considering with my self how it was not probable that so vertuous and just a man and even so knowing a man also as S. Thomas of Canterbury must have been being he studied so long both in Oxford and Paris and the civil law in Italy and was one of the Justiciers in London before he went to Italy was after Archdeacon and last of all before made Archbishop was five whole years great Chancellour of England sitting and judging in the Court of highest judicature how I say it was not onely not probable but not even really possible that such a man being made Archbishop of Canterbury should upon false grounds that is upon any such vain or trifling grounds as those are of some of our late School-divines Canonists or Historians or as those are of Bellarmine Baronius c. for the exemption of Clergiemen from secular tribunals even the very supream in or as to the judgment or punishment of their crimes whatsoever contend so mightily and so dangerously and so fatally at last with Henry the Second or contend with him at all upon such grounds for any kind of exemption of those two Clerks whereof before from the Kings Judicatories especially when the King himself desired they should be delivered to the secular Court because of their own proper great delinquency and because also or indeed cheifly of the great clamours were then against the more general delinquency of Clerks in England as not regarding much Ecclesiastical punishments or should also but I say still upon the grounds of Bellarmine or his Associats contend with that King upon the matter or subject of the second of those 16. Heads which begins Clerici citati c. and which is the only indeed of all those 16. Heads that any way touches our present controversie or which of all those Heads may at all be made use of against my doctrine of the subjection of Clerks in criminal causes to the supream civil power Therefore I took the pains in reading over all the more ancient civil or municipal laws of England as many as I heard were extant and not only the Saxon laws publish'd of late by Abrahamus Whelocus though formerly translated into Latin out of the ancient English or Saxon language by Gulielmus Lambardus but also the Norman laws made for England by William the Conquerour and his youngest Son King Henry the first as Roger Twisden gives them as likewise I yet further took pains in consulting the Histories of William the Conqueror William Rufus Henry the First King Stephen Henry the Second c. because I perswaded my self it could not be otherwise but that certainly S. Thomas had some good sure ground for himself in the municipal proper peculiar laws of England for that which concern'd his grand contest or even for that second head fingly taken of those above 16. or even also for his not delivering up to secular judgment those two criminal Clerks Nor truly was I deceived in my perswasion nor frustrated in my inquisition For having read the laws of King Inas who began to raign an 712. and ended an 729. of King Alured who began his raign an 871. and ended an 900 of King Ethelred who began an 979. ended an 1016. of King Edgar who began an 959. ended an 975. of King Edmund who began 940. ended 946. of Edward the Second of that name of Saxon Kings who began 900. end 924. and of Guthrun the Danish tributary King those laws I mean which are called Faedera Edwardi ac Guthruni Regum of King Ethelstan who began his raign 924. ended 940. of King Canutus who began 1016. ended 1035. of Edward the Third of that name of the Saxon Kings otherwise called Edouardus bonus Edward the Confessor and St. Edward who began 1042. ended 1066. as likewise those of Gulielmus Conquaestor who began 1067. ended 1087. and of Henricus primus who began 1100. ended 1135. I find enough to my purpose 'T is true those of Inas Ethelred and Aelstane have nothing in particular touching it nor those even of Edgar which were renewed again LXVII years after his death and after that by reason of the intervening wars they had been so long out of use and were so renewed by Edwardus bonus St. Edward the Confessor any thing but that in general which is the first of all his laws Primum Ecclesiae Dei jura ac Immunitates sitas omnes habento deâ—umas quisque c. yet those of Alured determine thus Sacerdos si quempiam interfecerit eorum omnium quae ope domicilii fretus acquisierit confiscatio sequitor eumque gradu spoliatum Episcopus è fano pellito ni Dominus data capitis aestimatione veniam illi exorarit And those of Edmund thus si quis hominis Christiani sanguinem effuderit ad Regium conspectum etsi ei seruierit non admittitor ni prius id sceleris juxta ac fuerit ei ab Episcopo ac sacerdote imperatum compensarit But those of Edward the Second and Guthrum thus Si quis sacris initiatus clepserit dimicarit peierarit aut fornicatus fuerit capitis aestimatione mulcta aut legis violatae paena pro îpsa delicti ratione compensato Deo saltem prout se regulae habuerint Ecclesiasticae faciat satis atque in custodiam ni fidejussores admoverit conjicitor Sacerdos si in diebus festis aut jeiuniis populo indicendis erraverit 30. solidis si quidem id inter Anglos evenerit mulctator fin idem in Dacis acciderit sesquimarcam pendito Sacerdos si ad dies in hoc condictos oleum non pararit sacrosanctum aut baptisma cum usus fuerit denegarit inter Anglos mulctator in Dacis autem legis violatae paenas luctooras nimirum duodenas numerato Si quis sacris initiatus capitale quidquam perpetrarit capitor ut tandem Episcopo criminis admissi paenas dependat And those also of Canutus in part after the same manner and in part otherwise or thus Si eorum qui Arae deservierint aliquis hominem occiderit aut insigne aliquod perpetrarit flagitium gradu honore dispoliatus perinde ei atque Papa circumscripserit habitandi locum exulato ac cumulatè compensato Sin is crimen fuerit inficiatus excusatio tripla esto Atque ni hanc quae Deo hominibus
Leges quas Edovardus tertius utendas dederat in pristinum usum revocat quae tamen sensim absoluerunt Normaâ—â—s pro commâ—do Principis ad incommodum Anglorum leges a Gulielmo primo conditas constantissime usurpantibus And again about the end of his life Tulit initio sui Principatus aliquot leges quas nec ipse nec Reges qui secuti sunt hine servaruaâ— However those I have given were his laws not repealed after by himself in Parment for he began Parliaments in England or otherwise by any publick Instrument declared as a law to the people albeit I deny not but those 16. heads controverted after twixt Thomas of Canterbury and King Henry the Second were first conceived in writing by this very Henry the first but never as a law published by him To all which I will add those further laws yet which were to our purpose also made by King Stephen Henry the First 's immediat or next Successour in two several Parliaments one at Oxford and t'other at London in that of Oxford abolishing quite that kind of tribute or assessment which other Kings had formerly often exacted from every hyde or acre of ground and promising too that neither Episcopacies nor other Ecclesiastical Benefices or Sacerdotal Prefectships should be kept vacant as much as for any the least time and in this of London or Westminster enacting for the Clergy's sake because they had liberally contributed for the warr in hand that whoever should strike any Churchman in holy orders or should without licence from the Court Ecclesiastical or Bishops lay hands upon or seize any criminal Clergymen whatever his crime were should be held excommunicat impious and accursed and should not be restored at all to the communion of the Church or absolved but by the Roman Pontiff onely Of which laws of King Stephen albeit there be no Parliament Records preserved of them as neither indeed are of all or any of those held before King John's days Polydore Virgil tels us expresly and particularly in his 12. book of Histories and life of the said Stephen For these are his words concerning the first Stephanus autem ex sententia summum consecutus imperium Oxonium proficiscitur atque ibi Principum conventum facit quo in Conventu inter caetera ut suorum animos sibi devinciret illud tributi genus quod alij Reges per singula jugera terrae saepe exigere a populo solebant prorsus sustulit atque promisit se curaturum ut deinceps Episcopatus aliae Prefecturae sacerdotales ne puncto quidem temporis vacarent c. And concerning the second these Interea Rex Londinum venit ubi celebrem Principum ac Antistitum conventum peregit in quo talia verba fecit Cum Principes fidelissimi c His dictis cuncti praesidium salutis ac libertatis defendendae se laturos pollicentur At Episcopi cum suis sacerdotibus quia pugnare fas non est pecuniam conferre promittunt quibus ut aliquid gratiae referretur in eodem Conventu constitutum est ut quicumque deinceps sacris initiatos percuterent aut alicujus criminis reos Episcoporum injussu caperent impii importunique haberentur nec ab aliquo praeterquam a Romano Pontifice in piorum caetum restitui possent quemadmodum jure Pontificio iampridem sancitum esset sed apud Anglos ante id tempus minus servatum And so I have given at large whatever I would have the Reader observe in this Seventh place of the proper civil or municipal laws of England before Henry the seconds time concerning our purpose especially the exemption of criminal Clerks even in case of murder from the lay Judges Eightly and in the last place you are to observe but onely out of this present book of my own which you you read now that is out of all said by me formerly in so many Sections from that place where I first began to dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity what my doctrine is against which the objection is made for and to come to the answering of which I have premised so long a discourse in so many observations And you are to observe well that my said doctrine is no other in effect but what I now repeat heer briefly viz. 1. That neither by the law divine positive or natural nor by the canons of the Catholick Church which are properly those are and are called Canones universalis Ecclesiae nor even by those other canons which are more properly and onely stiled Papal Canons Clergiemen living within the dominions of any Supream lay or secular Prince are exempt in criminal and temporal causes from his supream civil even coercive power 2. That not onely they are not so already exempted by any such law of God or man but also that they cannot be hereafter by any pure law of man not even of Pope or Council exempted from the said supream civil even coercive power without the consent of the Princes themselves 3. That neither can the supream secular Princes themselves grant any such exemption to Clerks living still within their dominions and remaining Subjects to them because this implyes a plain contradiction or to any Clerks at all but to such as are at the same time wholly set free from all kind of subjection or acknowledgment of their Principalities 4. That on the other side both by the natural and positive law of God and especially by the 13 of the Romans by the letter and meaning and scope or end of that whole text of St. Paul there all Christian Clerks not even the Popes not even the Apostles themselves exempted are subject in temporal matters and criminal causes even to the coercive power of the supream secular Magistrat 5. That by the doctrine also of the holy Fathers generally until Gregory the VII and by their exposition or understanding of that text of Paul all Churchmen whatsoever were and are so in the dominions of the respective supream temporal Princes whom these Clerks own to be their own legal Princes 6. That by the practise also of so many Christian Bishops Popes and Princes they were and are so 7. That even by the testimony of clear even Papal canons they were and are so that by no argument hithertoo alleadged out of reason scripture tradition Fathers Councils Papal Canons Histories by any of our adversaries the contrary is as much as any way convincingly deduced 9. And finally and in a word that all their true exemptions from either inferiour or supream secular judicatories in any temporal or criminal cause whatsoever as to the coercive punishment of them by the civil power force and sword is originally from and wholly still depending of the supream civil power In all which or in any discourse or clause said thereupon by me you are also to observe that I never said or say or intend to say that Clerks have not a true right to those exemptions from lay judicatories which the
to a perpetual cloyster'd life c was derived unto them and wholly depending of the supream temporal or civil coercive power residing originally and independently in the Prince and in his laws for the very Papal canons even Pope Caelestine the III. himself cap. 〈◊〉 homine de judicijs as I have quoted him in the former section confesseth that after and besides suspension excommunication and deposition or degradation the Church hath no other nor any more punishment for any 4. Because the very self same supream civil coercive power which as Legislative authorized the Bishops to be the onely ordinary Judges of criminal Ecclesiasticks and did also both prescribe and warrant that kind of punishment which they inflict on such Clerks and did ordain there should be no other punishment but that for such persons and the very self same supream civil power that made those municipal laws for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Judges may again unmake them upon just occasion or may lessen or moderat that exemption as there shall be cause and consequently criminal Clerks are still in so much under the supream civil coercive power as de facto de â—ure they are indeed and were indeed always for so many other respects and in so many other cases and contingencies notwithstanding the most ample municipal laws for exemption that are or have been 5. And lastly because there is no contradiction inconsistence or contrariety betwixt S. Thomas his being of this opinion and perswasion and the being of the laws of England such as I said they were then Which yet we may easily understand by the example of the priviledge of Peers For certainly the Peers of a Kingdom will not pretend themselves exempt from the supream coercive power of the Prince albeit they cannot by the laws of the land be judg'd or condemned but by their own Peers Therefore an exemption from one sort of Judges doth not argue an exemption from the supream power that is above all sorts of Judges And therefore nothing can be alleadg'd out of the life or death or sanctity or martyrdom or canonization or invocation or even miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury nor out of all these joyntly taken with the laws of the land for which he stood to prove that he was of a contrary judgment or perswasion to my doctrine All that is alleadged of any such matters do onely evidence the purity of his Soul and justice of his cause neither of which my doctrine doth at all oppose but allow approve and confirm But if any should replye that the laws of the land as to our controversy were chang'd by the swearing of those 16. Heads of customes by all the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons Abbots Priors and whole Clergie and even by St. Thomas of Canterbury himself first of all as Matthew Paris tels us in these tearms Hanc recognitionem consuetudinum libertatum Deo deâ—estabilium Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Priores Clerus cum Comitibus Baronibus Proctribus cunctis juraverunt se observaturos Domino Regi heredibus ejus bona fide absque malo ingenio in perpetuum Inter alios etiam his omnibus Thomas Cantuariensis consensit and should replye that after such change by such swearing S. Thomas of Canterbury did fall into his own former opposition of or differences with Henry the second even as to the second head of those customes and in prosecution of his former refusal to deliver up to secular justice those two criminal Clerks and should therefore conclude that S. Thomas must have pretended for himself at such time not the former laws of the land which were so repealed by a contrary law of Henry the second but either the laws of God Nature or Nations or the Canons of the Church or Pope c if I say any should make this objection here the Answer is at hand very facile and clear out of my former observations viz that such swearing alone was not enough without further signing and sealing as it seems the custom then was of the Bishops and Peers in making of laws nor all three together whether signing and sealing was necessary or not without a free consent in those or of those who swore so or sign'd or sealed so and that there was no free consent but a forc'd one by threats of imprisonment banishment death appears out of my said observations and all the several Historians especially Hoveden who treat exactly of this contest Now it is plain that such laws are no true laws or have not at all as much as the essence of laws which are not freely made without such coaction And therefore consequently it is plain that such repealing was no true legal repealing of the former laws Whereof also this was a further argument that Henry the second himself did in the end of the contest wholly quit his challenge to those controverted customs which he did so for a time constrain the Bishops Clergie and people to submit to against their own will and their own true laws Yet as it must be granted by such as are versed in the antiquities of England that there was a time and some ages too of the Christian Church in England even after the conversion of the Saxons before such municipal laws were enacted for such favourable and ample immunities to Clergiemen and before also the Clergie did as much as pretend by custom or otherwise to any exemption in criminal causes from the lay courts so I confess there have passed several ages of the very Roman Religion professed by law in England after the same great immunities and exemptions in criminal causes were in some part or for the greatest part legally repealed by law or custom or both and free consent or submission of the very Bishops and Clergie themselves upon new occasions and grounds being weary of contesting with the lay judges and Kings and that immediatly too or very soon after the days of Henry the second himself the very Popes also themselves at least many of them either consenting or certainly conniving at this change in the laws customs and practice of England in order to Clergiemen Whereat we are not much to wonder being that Roger Hoveden so faithfull an Historian as he was as he was also contemporary to Alexander the third and St. Thomas of Canterbury and was moreover so extraordinary an admirer of this Saint as may be seen by reading his Annals of him being I say this Roger Hoveden tels us in plain tearms ad an 1164. that the said Pope Alexander the third himself before his going to Rome out of France sent express directions to Thomas of Canterbury when the great difference began about the 16. Heads to submit himself in all things to his King and to promise to receive observe and obey without any exception those very customs or laws controverted Deinde sayes our Annalist Hoveden venit in Angliam vir quidam Religiosus dictus
great strictness in his own way I mean according to the judgment of the Prelats and Nobles of that Assembly at Paris But for a judgment also given of purpose on that whole controversie and given by a contemporary Historian a Catholick by religion a Monk by profession and writer of very good repute Gulielmus Neubrigensis and a judgment given by him of this matter even after Thomas had been both martyrized and canonized you have it in his third Book cap. 16. and in these words Sane cum plerique soleant in iis quos amant laudant affectu quidem propensiori sed prudentia parciori quicquid ab iis geritur approbaâ—e planè ego in viro illo venerabili ea quae ita ab ipso acta sunt ut nulla exinde proveniret utilitas sed feruor tantum accenderetur Regius ex quo tot mala post modum pullulasse noscuntur laudanda nequaquam censuerim licet ex laudabili zelo processerint sicut nec in Beatissimo Apostolorum Principe arcem jam Apostolicae perfectionis tenente quod geâ—tes suo exemplo Judaizare coegit in quo eum Doctor gentium reprehensibilem deciatat fuisse licet eum constat laudabili hoc pietate fecisse Third reason That he might possibly be imbued with the doctrine which was growing then of the exemption of Clergiemen either by divine immediate right of the positive or even natural law of God or by that which is pretended to be mediatly divine and immediatly canonical or humane from the Canons of the Church or at least from the bad or false interpretation of those Canons or by some prescription and will and power of those Popes who so mightily in his dayes and for almost a whole age before his dayes immediatly and continually contested with the very Emperours themselves and all other Bishops for both the spiritual and temporal soveraignty of the world and this too by a pretence of divine right And that we must not wonder that even on so great a Saint as Saint Thomas of Canterbury himself the authority of the first Apostolick See and the numbers of her admirers adorers and followers then in what quarrel soever and the specious pretence of piety in the cause and education in such principles or amongst such people should work a strong pre-possession of zeale as for the cause of God being it was reputed the cause of the Church however that according to the veritie of things or true laws divine or humane as in themselves nakedly or abstractedly it might peradventure not have either the cause of God or the cause of the Church Fourth reason and it is a confirmation that is a very probable argument though nor perhaps throughly or rigidly demonstrative of the truth of the Third That in the speech or words of St Thomas of Canterbury in the time of his banishment to his King Henry the Second at Chinun which Honeden ad an 1165. calls Verba Beati Thomae Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun we find this sentence of his Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere c. Wherein I am certain this holy Bishop was point blanck contrary to the sense of ten thousand other holy Bishops before him in the more primitive ages of the Church and contrary to plain Scripture and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for at least the ten first and best ages of Christianity Fift reason That it is not so clear in all respects that those sixteen heads of customs passed not legally and long before the Saints death into a just municipal law of the land or of England notwithstanding that St. Thomas denyed and even justly too denyed his own hand and seale or even justly also retracted his own former consent by oath yea and notwithstanding that it was meerly out of fear that the rest of the Bishop did at first consent or gave their own consent by oath likewise For it may be said first and said also upon very probable grounds out of the several ancient Catholick and even Ecclesiastick Historians who writ of purpose of those dayes and matters that they all freely after consented And secondly it may be said that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament having the consent royal whether one Bishop or moe peradventure or even all the Bishops dissent And thirdly yet iâ— may be said that all laws most commonly or at least too often may be called in question upon that ground of fear of the Prince Sixt and last reason That we must rather give any answer that involves not heresie or manifest errour in the Catholick Faith or natural reason obvious to every man then allow or justifie the particular actions or contests or doctrine of any one Bishop or Pope how great or holy soever otherwise or even of many such or of all their partakers in such against both holy Scriptures plain enough in the case and the holy Fathers generally for the ten first ages in their explications of such Scriptures and consequently against that universal Tradition which must of necessity be allowed Nihil enim innovandum sed quod traditum est observandum Behold here six reasons which taken at least altogether may justifie my giving the two last Answers or my adding them to the other two former As for the rest I leave it to the Readers choice which of all four he will fix on though I my self and for my own part and out of a greater reverence to the Saint himself and to the Pope that canonized him or to that Pope I mean in as much as he canonized him for a martyr in such a cause if he did so or intended so taking the name of martyr properly and strictly whereof what we read in our very Breviary of the cause for which the Pope sayes he suffered may perhaps give some occasion of scruple being it is there said of those Laws of Henry the Second and only said that they were leges utilitati ac dignitati Ordinis Ecclesiastici repugnantes but not said that they were laws against the laws of God though I say I could wish for these reasons that all my Readers did fix as I do my self rather on the first and second Answer then on the two last But on which soever of all four they six I am confident none may infer that they or I question Thomas of Canterbury's sanctity in this world either in his life or at his death or his glory in heaven after his death or question the Bull of of his canonization or question the holy practice of the Catholick Church in her veneration or invocation or finally question as much as those miracles which I suppose were sufficiently proved in the process form'd for his canonization or even those which as wrought after that time at his Tomb or elsewhere are alledg'd upon sufficient grounds if any such be so alledg'd Though I cannot here
Ecclesiae conterendos Where though he insinuate some Authority of power received also from the Church to allure some by fair and sweet means others by sowr severity yet after he tells the King That besides that Authority he hath the Office of the Sword also gladii officio and carries it for the crushing and cutting off Malefactors but sayes not that he received this Sword or the Office or Power or Authority of it from the Church nay sufficiently insinuates by the placing of his words That Kings receive not this at all from the Church And therefore also insinuates clearly enough that they receive not at all at least otherwise than I said their true civil or politick Royal power or the true Essentials or necessary Appendages of it from the Church for this is the same with the office of the Sword And secondly out of that whole passage of his to the Bishop of London where he makes the whole Regal power to be the immediate institution of God and derived from Him alone and no less immediately than the Sacerdotal is and in the perclose most significantly shews the difference 'twixt them by saying That God ordained the one Authority to which he gave the power but the other to which he would have reverence done Vnam cui potentiam concessit alteram cui reverentiam exhiberi voluit as meaning earthly power and signifying that no such was given by God to the Church and consequently that the Church could not give it to any other for nemo dat quod non habet but onely and wholly to earthly Princes Therefore from first to last the natural and genuine meaning of St. Thomas of Canterbury in that passage of his at Chinun which I alledgd against my self out of Hoveden must be that whereas it is certain it was from the Church your Majesty received that extraordinary power you have in some Church affairs and that she hath her own proper supreme purely spiritual and properly Ecclesiastical from Christ alone and not from you or any other Prince and whereas either she hath never given you that power you challenge in so many other Church affairs or if she hath to any of your Predecessors she hath again upon rational grounds revoked it therefore pace vestra loquor you ought not to command Bishops to absolve whom you will and when you will or to excommunicate whom and when you please or draw or send Clerks to Secular Courts both against the Laws of the Land and her Canons nor ought you to interdict Bishops or command them that in their own Ecclesiastical Courts and Ecclesiastick manner they handle not the breach of Oath or transgressions against Faith c. For albeit that in some other matters which St. Thomas objected here to the King the Church peradventure had nothing to do with the cognizance of them as to the determination of Right but what she had from humane Laws and the very municipal Laws of the Land I mean yet once she had that Right given her by such Law there is no question but that until such Law were legally again Repealed by an Authority equal to that which made it she might proceed by her own spiritual Authority Supreme and Independent from any but Christ alone and in a pure spiritual way proceed against any Prince whatsoever that invaded even such her Rights however acquired humanely or by humane Laws as all other Temporal Rights are by all sorts of people acquired For even to preserve the only humane Rights of meer Lay-men to their Goods or Lands c She may use her spiritual power when it is necessary and seasonable against any Invader or Usurper And consequently St. Thomas having the Law of the Land on his side where there was nothing positively determined pro or con in the Laws of God or Nature he might even as to such matters very justly have said to Henry the second Pace vestra loquor non haberetis Episcopis praecipere c. And might have said so and all the rest either consequent or antecedent of the Authority received from the Church and said all without any kind not only not of Treason but of as much as the least Treasonable principle in pure speculation abstracting from all fact and intention of fact which could entrench upon the Majesty of the Prince or safety of the people And I am sure there can be neither Treason in fact nor in habitude either by the nature of things or interpretation of Laws but against either As I confess that all Treason properly such as Treason is taken here i. e. Legally and not Etymologically or as it is taken for that which we call in Latin Crimen laesae Majestatis must be only against the person or persons in which or in whom only the Supreme civil power is or in which only or whom that we call Majesty is And therefore that in an absolute Monarchy where we know that Majestas non est in populo there can be no such crime as this Treason committed against the people but only against the Prince Whereof Bodinus may be read in his Books de Republica 3. Because it is no Treasonable principle by it's own Nature or by Law at least in Speculation or Theory That such Authority as is not essential or necessarily annexed to the Supreme civil or temporal power but accidental and accidentally annexed or permitted to it by or at the pleasure of another or others not subject at all to such Supreme power civil or at least not subject in such matters especially if such Authority be not in its own Nature purely politick or civil at all that I say such Authority so hitherto accidentally annexed or permitted may even at least in some cases be either suspended or prohibited or lessened or altered or even totally revoked and even also totally transferred by those which so annexed or permitted it formerly to the Supreme civil Magistrate And the reason is because it can be no Treasonable principle which dictates not nor inclines not to actual Treason that is to an unlawful or injurious hurting or lessening or endangering of Majesty or of that which is the essential or necessary Appendages of Majesty in this one or in these more persons wherein it is placed according to the several Forms of Government And this principle neither dictates nor enclines to any such unlawful or injurious hurting lessening c. Now if this principle be not Treasonable which sayes That such Authority so given by the Church to the King may be again Revoked from the King at least in some cases how can that other be Treasonable which only sayes That he received sometime such Authority from the Church Nay and I add now or how can that be Treasonable which only sayes That Christian Kings originally or some-time past received whatever Authority you please or even their whole very politick or civil and temporal Authority from the Church in whatever wise the Church was able to
here I gave it not purposely for any such end unto which I know it both improper and forreign but gave it occasionally and only to shew the Reader that neither am I single in some other matters particularly or signally in that of the Oath of Supremacy wheresoever in this Work or elsewhere I reflect thereon mildly and interpret or expound it more benignly though withall more truly and groundedly than furious Zealots would But to strengthen S. Clara's Testimony and elucidate my own foresaid Answer in my fourth Reason the learned Reader may be pleased to consult Bruno Chaissaing a French Recollect of the same Franciscan Order Penitentiary to and under Gregory the XV and Vrban the VIII in the First or chief Church of Europe St. John Laterane at Rome and consult and read him in his Work intituled Privilegia Regularium printed at Paris with approbation Anno M.DC.LIII In which Work besides this Proposition Bruâ—o Chaissaing de Privil Reg. Tract 1. cap. 1. prop 9. 10. Possunt Reges Supremi Senatus licite retinere Bullas Apostolicas in casu vel magni scandali aut perturbationis aut praejudicii tertii aut aliorum similium which is his Tenth Proposition in order Tract 1. cap. 1. You may also find his former Ninth Proposition to be this other viz. Potest legitime appellari de abusu ad Principem Saecularem seu Senatum Supremum quotiescunque potestas Ecclesiastica pronunciat aut agit contra Canones Privilegia potestque Princeps Senatus Supremus appellationem suscipere appellantes a violenta suorum Praelatorum vexatione eripere And you may see him there purposely and at large by several Arguments proving this Ninth Proposition But you shall no where see him mincing or using any kind of nicety about the word or term Appeal nor quitting it for that other of Recourse but a fair and clear Assertion in express terms That it 's lawful for all sorts of Ecclesiasticks even the strictest Regulars to Appeal to the Secular and Supreme Lay-Power from the unjust or uncanonical Pressures of their own Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates and this also as often as the said Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates pronounce or do any thing contrary to the Canons of the Church or Priviledges of their Order And consequently you shall not in this Author Bruno Chassaing meet with Franciscus a Sancta Claras Nudam potestatem civilem but with Jurisdictionem proprie dictam in the Majesties or Persons of Kings and other Lay Supreme States over all Clergy men whatsoever living under them Otherwise how might it according to the said Bruno's Doctrine in the place above quoted be lawful for Clergymen to Appeal I mean in the proper and strict sense of this word Appeal from their own Ecclesiastick Superiors to the King or State Or how might it be lawful for the King or State to receive such Appeals For Appeals properly or simply such argue Jurisdiction no less properly and simply such in the Judge of such Appeals Further and although it be not so much to my present purpose yet if to what St. Clare hath of the power of meer Lay Princes or States in general and in particular of that of our Kings of England to collate or to nominate and present for Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices I add also the Doctrine of another very late Roman Catholick Writer and Doctor of Divinity Joannes Baptista Verius in his Book intituled Pastorale Missionariorum Tract 4. Art xi Joannes Baptista Verius S. Theologiae Doctor in Pastorali Missionar Tract 4. ar xi I hold it not amiss For in the place thereof now quoted this Doctor Verius not only teaches with Lessius and Sanchez Two Jesuits whom he quotes but out of the Extravagant Ad evitandum c. of Martin the V. in the Council of Constance expresly proveth That even all Heretick Lay Patrons whatsoever not yet by name denounced enjoy still their former right of Canonical Patronage and that consequently all such do notwithstanding their Heresie both validly and as to all effects bindingly nominate or present fit persons to all kind of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices whereof they or their legal Predecessors at any former time were the acknowledged Patrons Now from such whether necessary or unnecessary digressions to return to the series of my proofs for my main purpose here viz. that of St. Thomas of Canterbury's not having at any time for ought appears been guilty as much as of any Treasonable Principles or Doctrines My fifth Reason is 5. Because that a pure speculative judgment of either the probability or certainty of such or such a power to be or to remain as yet or to be naturally still inherent in the Church not only to give Royal Authority at first to these or these persons but also to take it away again from them or others deriving from them in some extraordinary case of grand demerit or grand incapacity must not infer a practical dictate or any at all for the lawfulness of taking it so away And because both Reason and Experience tell us That no such pure Speculation while it remains such and comes not to be practical or to have a practical or other dictate flowing from or annex'd to it either assuring us of the lawfulness of putting such power in execution or prompting us accordingly to execute can at all annoy hurt or in any wise lessen either in fact or intention the Majesty of Temporal Princes or States as it is clear enough to any rational man without further Discourse But that such a pure speculative judgment of such a power in actu primo in the Church doth not infer a practical judgment prompting so or any other judgment practical or speculative of the lawfulness of such execution in actu secundo of such a power we have also Theological reason and Humane Experience Theological Reason which approves that Maxim of both Civilians and Canonists and of natural Reason too where the Plea is not clear against the Defendant who is in possession Melior est conditio possidentis And which tells us also Quod ubi partium jura sunt obscura favendum sit Reo magis quam Actori And tells us moreover That none is by a probable Title only to be deprived of that which he holds by as probable a Title Have not Kings at least as probable a Title for their own civil and temporal Power to be even originally independent from the Church as the Church or any Churchman Divine Civilian or Canonist hath ever yet alledged That it is dependent from the Church either in the first Institution or after Conservation of it Or is it possible That any knowing man or at least such a great and excellently and Divinely knowing Church Prelate and Lawyer as Thomas of Canterbury was suppose him never so much prepossessed with the opinion or practice of the Roman Court then growing or already grown over-mightily should but know and confess this
the Canons or Laws of the Catholick Church viz. fidelity and obedience in spiritual things and pure spiritual commands which are just or which are given according to the Canons clave non errante Now being that both these Declarations are lawful just and honest in point of Conscience because they are both warranted by the Laws of God and Reason and the latter without any diminution of the true Royal power or any opposition to His Majesties just Laws or Commands and the former also without prejudice to the true Papal power or just Papal commands and whereas the very self-same form of expression is observed in them which you have seen in the above third Clause of our Remonstrance it is plain by all consequence of Reason that for such expression that Clause or the Remonstrance for it may not justly be censured to signifie at all or even as much as by any kind of probable consequence how far fetch'd soever to signifie any thing against the Popes true power or against his just sentence declaration or determination whatsoever being indeed it declares for no other power in the King or faith or obedience in the Subjects to the King but for such as are at the same time consistent without any contradiction contrariety or opposition with acknowledging the true Papal power and obeying all just Papal commands or being it declares only for a Supreme temporal power in the King and for the obedience of His Subjects to Him in Temporal things neither of which nor both together oppose a pure and true Supreme spiritual power in the Pope above the same Subjects and King too nor their obedience to the just commands of the Pope in meer spiritual matters Fourth Period or Clause is in these words And we openly disclaim and renounce all Forreign power be it either Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults bear Arms or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person Royal Authority or to the State or Government In which Clause or words of it albeit the Clause and the words of our Remonstrance which above any other in it our Adversaries pretend to be the stumbling Block and Rock of Scandal to the more ignorant Readers yet even not only our said very Adversaries do confess but are forced by manifest Reason and Construction of those very words to confess that herein is neither Block nor Rock but to such as wilfully frame one to themselves nor as much as a virtual declaration for any other power in our King or obedience due by His Subjects but for the Supreme politick Civil or Temporal in Him in His own Kingdoms For no Forreign power Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal or other specificatively taken as Logicians speak but only reduplicatively taken is at all openly or not openly disclaimed or renounced in this Clause or words or sense thereof that is none at all simply or absolutely taken or taken without any modification or restriction is disclaimed or renounced but diminutively conditionally and modificatively taken or taken with that extreme modification and restriction imported by the words Inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation For who sees not that these additional words are meerly and purely reduplicative that is diminutive modificative restraining and limiting the sense of the former words Papal Princely Spiritual Temporal and confining it to that only of such Forreign power pretending or of such only as pretending to dispense with Subjects in their natural or bounden Duty of Allegiance and Subjection to their Prince And who sees not but that the two examples given a little before by me in my explanation of the former third Clause may as well be made use of here nay and many other such to justifie this expression too of this fourth Clause As for instance or example here If any should say and subscribe this Proposition We disclaim and renounce all either Forreign or even not Forreign power Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from the Obligation we have on us by the Law of God and Nature to honour our natural Parents to sanctifie the Lords day as we are bound by his Law to worship God alone with divine worship not to take his Name in vain not to Kill Steal commit Adultery nor hear false Witness nor covet our Neighbours Goods c. not to do I mean any such thing in any case wherein we are prohibited by the Law of God I say That if any should say so and subscribe this grand complex Proposition or any one single therein contained I am sure there is none of our Opposers but must notwithstanding confess That such Subscribers could not therefore be said to disclaim or renounce at all simply or absolutely or any way indeed the true either Papal or Royal power And why so marrie because they would say and truly say the words Inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend both diminish restrain limit and determine the signification of the former words Papal and Royal Power to another thing quite different from that which is truly such and determine it to that which is only such in a false imagination as the word pictus added to homo in this Oration or Complex homo pictus alters the signification of homo or signifies not a true man but a painted man only Besides who sees not that the words shall free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation or even these last two words this Obligation as in this fourth Clause import no other kind of Obligation but that of Allegiance and Loyalty as formerly mentionâ—d in Temporal or Civil Affairs for the word this must be Relative and the relation of it as in this clause and whole form can be to no other obedience but what is in meer Temporal and Civil Affairs being no other obedience is expresly or tacitly mention'd before as neither any where after And who sees not moreover That the following last words or part of this same fourth Period to wit these or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults bear Arms or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person Royal Authority or to the State or Government confirm all what I have said hitherto on this self-same whole fourth Period That is to say That they shew manifestly we disclaim not simply nor absolutely renounce thereby any other proper but only secundum quid or inasmuch as they are falsly pretended powers for such a wicked sinful end And yet shew manifestly we do not own or acknowledge other power in the King or State or other obedience due from our selves to either but that power in Temporals which is in all Kings and States over their own respective
in general against the said Censure or on the account only or by occasion only of those two Suppositions or two Causes or Reasons expressed therein wherefore the Louain Doctors did so Censure our Remonstrance as you have seen or in formal words did declare it to be unlawful detestable sacrilegious and wherefore they did also virtually or consequentially as you have likewise seen before Censure and Declare it further to be Heretical or Schismatical or both and forasmuch as I find it at least no less behoveful to speak yet more directly and particularly against those very Essentials both formal and virtual or consequential of that Censure I form these following Arguments against all I. No Remonstrance Declaration Paper or Form of Allegiance to the Prince is unlawful or can be Censur'd to be unlawful which contains not some Clause or some Proposition against some Law divine or humane For therefore only any thing can be said to be unlawful forasmuch as it can be justly said to be against some such true and undoubted Law But that Remonstrance c. of ours contains no Clause or Proposition against any Law divine or humane Ergo 't is not unlawful nor can be Censur'd to be unlawful The Conclusion evidently follows out of the premises And the Minor which is the only Proposition wants proof you have already seen proved partly in this very Section and partly throughout those many other long and large Sections before wherein I have first proceeded in a negative way answering all the Laws alledg'd by either Bellarmine or any other for the Exemption of Clergymen from the Supreme Civil Coercive power of Lay Princes and next have also proceeded in a positive or affirmative way alledging on the contrary all those Laws divine and humane which you may see there for the subjection of even all kind of Clergymen to the said Supreme Civil power II. No Remonstrance can be justly Censur'd to be detestable but that which can be justly said to contain some Clause or some Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd for only that which is justly reputed such can be justly said to be detestable Ours contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd because it contains nothing against any Law divine or humane and the Remonstrance which contains no such thing contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd Ergo our Remonstrance cannot be justly Censur'd to be detestable III. No Remonstrance can be according to any true Theology Censur'd to be sacrilegious or the Subscribers of it declared to be tyed under the guilt of Sacriledge to refix or revoke their Subscriptions which contains not some Clause or some Proposition warranting Sacriledge either taken in the true proper and strict sense of this word Sacriledge or in that at least which is the improper and larger sense of it But ours is a Remonstrance which contains no such Clause or Proposition c. Ergo c. The conclusion follows evidently according to the rules of Logick and the Major is evident ex terminis to any that is not a Beetle-head The Minor which only of all the Propositions of this Syllogism requires proof I prove thus no less evidently Sacriledge properly and strictly taken and according to the Etymology of the word sayes Azorius Instit Moral l. 9. cap. 27. is the stealing of a Sacred thing Vnde Sacrilegi dicuntur sayes he speaking in this proper and strict sense qui res Sacras surripiunt aut qui rem non Sacram in loco tamen Sacro depositam aut commendatam furantur And Sacriledge in the improper and larger sense sayes the same Author and with him other Divines and Canonists as it is often also now or even more commonly taken is a sin whereby a Sacred thing is polluted or unworthily and impiously handled used or treated that is not with that honour veneration and respect which the Laws of God or man commands us under sin to use or treat Sacred things Appellatione autem rei sacrae sayes the same Azor accipitur ea quae sanctitatem aliquam habet aut Christi institutione aut Ecclesia consecratione unctione benedictione ut vocatur quae est precatio qua Ecclesiae Minister certis ritibus ceremoniis Ecclesiasticis adhibitis bona precatur rei quam sacrat Ea item quam Ecclesia ad sacros usus ministeria destinavit But who sees not that there is not in our said Remonstrance any proposition or clause or passage warranting either the stealth of any Sacred thing according to the first sense or in the latter the pollution violation injurious force done to irreverence or dishonour or any unworthy or impious usage handling or treating of any Sacred thing whatsoever Religion or Faith Sacrament or Sacramental Place Goods Lands Rite Ceremony c For what I have already said at large in this very present Section and what I have before Treated yet far more largely in so many other preceding Sections against the four grounds of the Louain Theological Faculty do without any possible contradiction which may as much as seem rational most evidently demonstrate That there is not in our said Remonstrance any such proposition clause or passage warranting c. First Because what is so said in both does most evidently demonstrate That in the Remonstrance there is no power attributed to the King nor obedience acknowledg'd or promised as due from the Subjects but meerly Temporal and Civil or rather in meer Temporal and Civil things and according to the Laws of God and Nature and Canons also of the Church nor any denied to the Pope or Church not even any I mean out of the Popes or Churches own peculiar temporal Territories but only such power and such obedience as are not spiritual or in spiritual things nay this very present Section besides other matters demonstrates also That there is nothing else in the Remonstrance Secondly and particularly because the attributing such Temporal power to the Prince and requiring or warranting such obedience in Temporal or Civil things from or in the Subjects cannot be Sacriledge in either sense nor the denying of the same Supreme Royal politick power in Temporal matters to the Church or Pope in other Territories than such as are acknowledged or indeed are their own peculiarly and independently as to the Supreme politick power can be any more Sacriledge in either sense For who sees not that here is no violation of any kind of Right due by any Law to either Sacred persons or other Sacred things whatsoever And who knows not it is confessedly true That Sacriledge in either sense must be a violation of some such Right Lastly Because I have most particularly and professedly demonstrated before these four things 1. In so many different long Sections That the Pope hath not either de facto or de jure any either divine or humane Right to the temporal or politick Supremacy of
England or Ireland in temporal things as indeed I confess our said Remonstrance denies him to have any such 2. That albeit our Remonstrance denies the Pope any kind of power to dispense in our temporal or civil Allegiance yet it no way therefore or even for any cause or in any other clause whatsoever denies the Pope that binding or loosing power which is proper to the Church or which is any way given the Pope either by Christ himself immediately or immediately by the Church 3. That albeit our Remonstrance also tye even the Priestly Subscribers to reveal all Treasons which come to their knowledge as to be perpetrated hereafter yet it touches not on nor binds to the breach of the Sacramental Seal of Confession 4. That should it as indeed it ought not be expounded so as to renounce all Ecclesiastical both liberty and immunity of Church persons and places wherein either is contrary to the Supreme politick power of Princes in temporal matters over all persons and places whatsoever within their own respective Dominions and inasmuch as such power is necessary for the preservation of the Commonwealth either spiritual or temporal and is own'd by the municipal Laws yet it would not therefore nor doth for any cause or in any clause whatsoever disclaim in or quit in any wise the true Ecclesiastical Liberty or true Ecclesiastical Immunity And these being all the specifical grounds of charging our Remonstrance with Sacriledge in either sense of the word it must be consequential that these being overthrown as they are already and most clearly and most diffusely too the Censure of Sacriledge must be also overthrown as having no subsistence but in these four grounds or in some one of them For to ground a Censure of Sacriledge on the bare naming or mentioning at all the special Title of the great Bishop or on the word Pope expressed in our Remonstrance or on the words We disclaim and renounce all Forreign Jurisdiction be it Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from our faithful Loyalty and due Allegiance or to ground it I say on those two former words disclaim renounce of this clause as not Reverential enough or less Reverential than other words expressing the same sense is the greatest vanity and folly and nonsence can be Because Sacriledge either properly or improperly strictly or largely taken must be a sin and therefore against some true binding Law divine or humane and therefore also must be a violation of some Right belonging to divine persons or things and belonging to them by some Law divine or humane positive or natural and consequently too must be an injurious breach of their priviledge or right by some such Law But herein or in these bare words and sense of them as explained by the other following words is no sin because no such violation or breach being there is no Law to the contrary in the case nay being all Laws divine and humane positive and natural are for those words and senses of them as explain'd by the other words following Besides there was either an absolute necessity or at least very much expediency to use those very words Pope renounce disclaim as I have shewed before Now doth it matter at all that other words might be found more Reverential For as magis minus non variant speciâ—m or do not make that which is Reverential in the positive to be Irreverential in the negative So I am sure no rational man will say that we are under the sin of Sacriledge or other whatsoever bound to use at least in a doctrinal declaration and speaking of a third person the most or even the more Reverential words or even also any words at all of Reverence so we use none of Irreverence being there is no Law binding us in such a case to use such words but only words expressing truly and plainly such meaning as is lawful for us to express Lastly who sees not but that we commit no Irreverence if speaking of the King as a third person we call him barely the King Nor also any Irreverence if upon a just occasion we should say that we disclaim and renounce his Royal power as certainly we do inasmuch as it might seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from that obligation which we have on us by the general Canons or consent of the whole Catholick Church or at least of the Occidental or Western part of it to acknowledge and obey them in meer spiritual things and according to the true undoubted Canons of the same Church and in that sense wherein the universal Church understands the same Canons Or if upon a just occasion and being required we should renounce and disclaim in the King or in His Royal power inasmuch as he or it might seem able or should pretend to the preaching of the Word Ministration of Sacraments or to that spiritual power of binding and loosing sinners or of shutting and opening the gates of Heaven or of the Church which Christ gave to his Apostles and by his Apostles to the same Church that is to the meer spiritual Rectors and other meer spiritual Ministers of it And as I am sure this expression could not be at least in such case Irreverential much less Sacrilegious against the Sacred person of the King or His Sacred power Royal or against His Sacred unction so neither could that of ours in our Remonstrance and in that case which was really ours be any way Irreverential much less Sacrilegious or any way at all sinful or unlawful IV. My fourth and last Argument and Syllogism is against the virtual affixion of Schism or Heresie or both to our said Remonstrance by the often mention'd Louain Theological Faculty and Censure And I frame it thus No Remonstrance is either Schismatical or Heretical and much less both which contains not some proposition or some clause either formally or virtually Schismatical or Heretical for if it be both as it must contain both so consequently it must contain either Our said Remonstrance is a Remonstrance which contains neither that is which contains no such proposition or clause c. Ergo c. And because the Major of this last Syllogism is evident and even per se nota ex terminis amongst Divines and all men of Reason who understand the terms and withall consider that I take here Schismatical and Heretical or Schism and Heresie in the proper sense of the words or as they import a special sin distinct from all other sorts of sins and consequently because it needs no further evidence it s own native light abundantly sufficing I proceed to the proof of the Minor And first as to the first branch of it which is that of our said Remonstrances not being Schismatical In the deduction of which proof I will make even St. Thomas of Aquin himself 2. 2. q. 39. ar 1. ad 2. and
his power and authority And we know there may be many other pretended grounds powers authorities However these matters be I declare first It was not the homeness of the Irish Formulary against the Pope but rather defect of that full and perfect and unavoidable undistinguishable homeness thereof that troubled me Though withall how defective or unhome soever it may be said by some to be against the Pope and Church or for the King and Civil Magistracy yet no man will deny now but that the Roman Court esteems it too too home and full against their Interests and Papal Usurpations Secondly That had I been at first consulted with as to the framing or fixing on a Formulary of Allegiance to the King neither King nor Council nor Parliament or House of Commons nor other Protestant Subject or not Subject whatsoever should have any ground left for excepting against the shortness or defectiveness of it as to any point controverted hitherto in that which relates to indispensable Allegiance in all Temporal things whatsoever or to its being open to Evasions or lyable to any kind of Quibbles not even to that of the reduplicative or specificative sense Thirdly That nevertheless I should not have been moved hereunto out of other respect than that of redeeming the Roman-Catholicks from the severity of the Laws against them hitherto these 100 years And I mean that of redeeming them only by a Declaration of their future fidelity and obedience in all Civil and Temporal matters so full clear and positive as would be answerable in all points to their so long consultation about such a one this whole entire Age past wherein they have declined first the Oath of Supremacy next that of Allegiance and by their demurs on both rendred themselves not only obnoxious to so many Laws but also to so many jealousies and suspitions of their Loyalty to the Crown and Kingdom of England Ireland c. as if they inclined to the vain pretences of Forreign powers And what I pray you will judicious learned Protestants say or rather what will they not say now when they cannot but understand how the said Catholicks oppose now again even a very cautious Declaration of bare and meer Allegiance in Civil things only and such a Declaration too I mean as was framed not by any Protestant but by themselves Or will not such Protestants as please have hence a very specious and probable ground to alledge in Parliament and plead there openly against the comprehension of Papists in any Act of Indulgence to Tender Consciences should there be any such And to alledge and plead I say A manifest inconsistence betwixt the safety of a Protestant Prince or State and the Repeal of Laws heretofore made against People so principled or any absolute liberty or freedom of exercise of Religion to them whose Religion appears by so many Arguments to be destructive to the very fundamentals of any Civil State especially Protestant because denying still to acknowledge as much as the very essence of such a State this essence if not consisting in at least requiring for one part of its essentials to be absolutely Sovereign or Supreme and Independent from any but God alone in all Temporal and Civil things And may not consequently the same Protestants plead That such Roman-Catholicks as peremptorily refuse to acknowledge that absolute Sovereignty or Supremacy and Independency in such a form of Declaration or Oath as cannot be lyable to any Evasions in any kind of Contingency whaâ—soever have no Title at all to His MAJESTIES gracious promises in His Letters from Breda for Indulgence to be given to all Tender Consciences that hold not Principles destructive to the fundamentals of Government For surely if any Opinions be destructive to such fundamentals those of the said Roman-Catholicks or of such Roman-Catholicks I mean as hold them must be of necessity Let any one therefore judge now with what sincerity or knowledge or truth the foresaid Internuncio Hierom de Vecchiis writ as you have seen to Father Bonaventure Brodin That the Valesian Formulary is it which may do more hurt and mischief to the Church of God than all the foreacted persecution of Hereticks And judge you Reader whom he understands here by Hereticks What by the Church of God What by hurt or mischief or ruine to that Church But blessed be God we are not so mad yet as to confine the Church of God to the walls of Rome or Papal and Cardinalitial Consistory or to the small number of men wherever diffused that either out of ambitious flattery or cowardly fear or ignorance or other respect whatsoever maintain the Papal Usurpations over Church or State asserting them so in plain contradiction both to Scripture Tradition Fathers Canons and practice too of the Catholick Church and not only to natural reason Nor yet so mad as to think that whatever hurts annoys or ruines the wicked Usurpations or unjust worldly Emoluments of such men must be esteemed any way truly hurtful to the Church of God and not rather on the other side both highly and truly advantagious and profitable Nor further yet so mad as to hold all those for Hereticks whom the Roman Ministers Tribunals or even many of their Popes even or also Boniface the VIII himself held for such No nor yet so mad as to esteem that to have been a persecution in the bad sense of this word which was a just prosecution of so many Emissaries sent heretofore from Rome of meer and set purpose to overthrow both King and Kingdom here by plotting and raising or endeavouring to raise even bloody horrid Rebellions of Subjects against both that I may say nothing now of the Invasion of Eighty Eight against Queen Elizabeth or the Powder-plot Treason after against King James and both His Houses of Parliament or of the late Rebellion in Ireland in our own dayes and year 1641. Nor finally so mad as to account the Remonstrants a Sect in the bad sense of this word albeit de Vecchiis would fain have them reputed such not only by Nicknaming them Valesians but also by joyning them in a comparative manner with those he expresly calls Hereticks For certainly it is meer madness either of blind ignorance or extreme malice that should make any to esteem the Teachers of fidelity and obedience in all Temporal things to a lawful King of what Religion soever to be therefore a Sect in the bad sense of this word Although in the Etymological sense generically taken or in any innocent thereof and in opposition to the present Roman Court its Partisans in the grand Controversie and in that or like good sense consequently whether generical or specifical wherein St. Paul confessed himself to be of the Sect of Pharisees in the point of Resurrection the Remonstrants confess themselves a Sect and glory in being so But the Internuncio gains nothing hereby if not that himself and his Associates how great or numerous soever be really in the worst sense
possis rationabilem causam praetendas quia patienter sustinebimus si non feceris quod prava nobis fuerit insinuatione suggestum If sayes he at any time we write to your Brotherhood what may seem to exasperate your mind you ought not to be troubled Weighing seriously the quality of the business whereof we write either fulfill reverently our Command or by your Letters pretend a reasonable cause for which you may not observe it For we shall patiently bear if you do not that which shall be suggested by evil information And therefore I have further particularly and consequentially noted in the 53. page of that little Book That nothing is more known then that even after or when the Papal Bulls appear to be authentick and that it moreover appears they have not been grounded on any sinister Information as to matter of Fact from others yet according to the Pope's own Law and natural reason too if they proceed from ignorance of the Divine Law or of that of Nations or of the Canons of the Universal Church or from hatred malice or other evil passion or any unjust end or when they are notably prejudicial to Justice or the rights of a third passion they may be suspended as to any execution of or obedience to be given to them until his Holiness be informed by those that find themselves aggrieved by such Letters or Decrees or Bulls and until there may be a legal fair and equitable discussion of the cause and where it may conveniently or ought to be discussed And that it will be sufficient for such as are so concern'd or find themselves so aggrieved to alledge or even to pretend only for their excuse to his Holiness some rational cause that is such as were it true might and ought to be reputed rational to save them from any disobedience or irreverence This much and many other things also to this purpose I have said in my More Ample Account against that pretended Brief of Paul the V or use made thereof against our Formulary But much more as well of that Brief or condemnation by Paul V as of the other by Innocent X pretended by de Vecchiis I have said in a Letter to this Internuncio himself which you may read in the next Section saving one following this And therefore I will not here detain you any longer on this Subject but refer to that following Section and Letter Only what I did not give in that Letter I mean the specifical Articles or three negative Propositions in specie said to have been condemn'd by Innocent X I will for the Readers satisfaction give here together with their Names who in England subscribed these negative Propositions or Articles Because otherwise it may be hard to find or know what they were As for the Oath of Allegiance said to be condemn'd by Paul the V I need not give that being any man can find it in the Statute Books and many others at hand And because that matter of those negative Articles is of importance to be truly and fully known and that I can say nothing of my own knowledge thereof but what I read and hear from others I will give here without Comment two Papers of that matter delivered to me lately by some of those who have been either Actors or conversant with some of the chief yet alive who acted in it and subscribed the very Original of those Articles in the year 1647 or 1648. One of those Papers is in Writing never yet Printed as I am told and hath first a Preamble containing the motives of the Subscription next the affirmative Propositions themselves whose negatives were subscribed then the Subscriptions of Seven Roman-Catholick Lords of England and Seven and Twenty Esquires and Gentlnmen of the same Religion and Countrey after these Subscriptions it hath another short Preamble to the other Subscriptions of Clergymen Secular and Regular which follow and so in the last place the Names of these Clergymen Eight in all The other Paper is in Print and besides those Articles doth contain a long and good Letter from Paris written by Dr. Holden to England upon that matter The written Paper is of this tenor THE Roman-Catholicks of this Nation taking into consideration the Twelve Proposals of His Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax lately publish't this present year 1647. and how prejudicial and destructive it might be to them at this time tacitely to permit an Opinion by some conceived of an inconsistency in their Religion with the Civil Government of this Kingdom by reason of some Doctrines and Positions scandalously laid upon them which might thereby draw on persons that cannot Conform themselves to the Religion here established an incapacity to receive and be partakers of a general benefit intended for the ease of Tender Consciences have thought it convenient to endeavour the just vindication of their integrities therein And to remove the scandal out of all the minds and opinions of moderate and charitable persons do declare the Negative to these Propositions following I. That the Pope or Church hath power to absolve any person or persons whatsoever from his or their obedience to the Civil Government established in this Nation II. That it is lawful by the Popes or Churches command or dispensation to kill destroy or otherwise injure any person or persons whatsoever because he or they are accused or condemned censured or excommunicated for Error Schism or Heresie III. That it is lawful in it self or by the Popes dispensation to break either word or oath with any persons abovesaid under pretence of their being Hereticks And in farther Testimony that we disallow the said precedent Propositions as being no part of our Faith or ever taught us by our Pastors we have ratifi'd the same under our hands Winchester Brudenell Petre. Teinham Powiis W. Montagu E. Brudenell Walter Blunt Henry Bedingfield Francis Howard Tho Gascoigne Francis Mannock John Arundell Fran Slaughter Fran Petre. Will Arundell Will Havington Edw Smith Robert Hennage Joh. Webb James Yates Thomas Gage Edmond Thorold Nicholas Crispe John Chapperline Antâ— Monson Rich Cotton Edmond Plowden Jo Tasburghe Geo Pulton Geo Fortesen John Chamberline Hen Bedingfield Upon the ground given in the Twelfth Proposal printed Aug. 1. 1647. by Authority from his Excellence Sir Tho Fairfax That the penal Statutes in force against Roman-Catholicks shall be Repealed and farther that they shall enjoy the liberty of their Consciences by grant from the Parliament if it may be Enacted That it shall not be lawful for any person or persons being subject unto the Crown of England to profess or acknowledge for truth or persuade others to believe these following Propositions That the Pope c. These Premises considered we under-written set our hands that every one of these three Propositions may be lawfully answered unto in the Negative Geo Gage Tho Dade Dominican Henry More Jesuite William Penry Fryar Bonaventure Bridges Phil Champet Tho Carre Geo Ward The printed Paper is of this
such other excellent Casuists for the lawfulness of murthering or assassinating not only your declared known enemy or inveterate or even any way profess'd or not profess'd Adversary but also any other even your own Consort or Companion that either affronts you never so little or but reveals nay or but threatens to reveal hereafter nay also or but whom you only suspect or fear may reveal although only out of lightness or vanity and not out of any malice to you some or any one even true imperfection or fault or fact of yours which being known may either defame or lessen or hinder you or your Society Order or Colledge from that power authority dignity esteem or advantages and emoluments you or they aspire unto provided only that you conceive the death of such a person to be necessary or behoveful either for the recovery or preservation of your name fame or of that which is or is called your worldly honour credit or esteem or even but your utility or profit temporary and earthly Finally you shall see the said most Reverend Prelate proving effectually by his carriage towards those Remonstrants for three or four years past That notwithstanding his formal Ejection or Dismiss out of the Society and he knows for what and knows moreover that I am not ignorant nor have been since 1659. either of that very true cause or of the very great person that procured his said Ejection yet he hath continued still a pragmatical constant close Disciple in the worst of Maxims to those very worst of Moralists Equivocatists Probablists Academists Scepticks nay and Assassins too retaining so whatsoever evil could be learn'd of them but relinquishing all that was good or just the more Christian precepts and practices he might have seen in some others even Writers of that very Society which threw him out Whether it was therefore that when he was created Archbishop by the Pope some Three years since his then Father General Oliva did complement him so high in a Letter which I my self have read from Rome promising himself and his Society in Ireland c. I know not what even certainly all that was great and wonderful now that he the foresaid Prelate was made Archbishop of the Head City or Metropolis of that Kingdom I am sure it argued what otherwise I my self did and could not but observe 1. That notwithstanding his ejection by the Fathers of purpose that they might please or rather not too much and too openly displease him whose affairs and hopes he the very same Prelate or person though not then a Prelate endeavoured to betray and utterly ruine Anno 1659. and by whose application therefore to the General of the Order his ejection was urged home yet the same General and ruling Cabal of that Society understood him and he them very well all along both before and after his ejection or dismiss given to him And how therefore and notwithstanding it and continually after it he observed a no less intimate correspondence with them and promoted their interests no less wheresoever he might than he had before 2. That in a very special and particular manner he did so by undermining covertly in all occasions and opposing also publickly in some all he could the Subscription of the Remonstrance As if indeed by that Formulary or advance of it his whole Ignatian Order's Reputation in these Kingdoms lay at stake His Letter out of England ann 1666. to Father Barton the English Jesuit then in Ireland persuading him to hinder all he could the National Congregation from Subscribing the Remonstrance may testifie this abundantly Which Letter the said Barton shewed and read then to my self Or if he had seriously considered what was most certainly true how well nigh a whole Century of years albeit more especially since the Powder-plot Treason and Oath of Allegiance made by King James the Professors of that Society of the Ignatian Order have labour'd so mightily both by word deed and writing to impose on the World and above all other parts or people of it upon His MAJESTIES of Great Britains Roman-Catholick Subjects That the power or authority and the doctrine or positions renounc'd disclaimed and abjured by the Oath of Allegiance made by King James and consequently as Internuncio de Vecchiis sayes those also protested against by that our late Remonstrance are positive and affirmative points of the Christian Religion And that all sincere Catholicks ought rather to suffer not only loss of goods and liberty but of life also even death it self than take any Oath declaring against such matters And moreover That such a death questionless should would and ought to be reputed Christian Martyrdom in a proper and strict sense of these words and consequently also reputed that very Baptism of blood which of its own nature without any Sacrament not only washes away clean all kind of sins both as to guilt and even temporary punishment but further purchaseth that extraordinary even accidental glorious Garland in Heaven which the Divines call Aureola Martyrii 3. That his foresaid promotion whether Legal or Illegal or whether as much as Canonical or Uncanonical nay whether absolutely void invalid or null by the Canons of the Universal Church I question not here was upon such and the like consequential accounts further'd in an high measure by the above General Oliva and other Jesuits of the Cabal as a matter conducing mightily to their interest the principles and genius of the man and consequently that he was the fittest instrument they could pitch upon being considered And certainly whoever knows that Societies power in the Court of Rome and how ignominious a punishment note and blot Ejection out of any Religious Order is or is esteem'd to be when it is after so many years profession and continuance in such Order and is moreover pretended to be for criminal causes and withall how when there is no intrigue in the matter there must also by consequence be or certainly and commonly is rather some extraordinary hatred or at least a very great strangeness and distance 'twixt the Ejectors and Ejected than any kindness and besides without peradventure how easie it is for the General or even Procurator of any Order at Rome to obstruct the like promotion of any that hath ever at any time before professed their Institute and after deserted it whereas if the Canons of the Church or even those of the Tridentin Council nay or the very Papal constitutions and ordinary practice of scrutiny at Rome it self de vita moribus and other qualities of such Episcopal candidates be observed or not rather wilfully and extraordinarily omitted a very small Objection made by men of Authority will serve to that end but much more questionless the infamous note of having been ejected for criminal matters who ever I say considers all this will certainly out of the above Letter of Oliva infer That the foresaid late promotion was on those very same or like consequential
little on those Aspersions which in the progress of your discourse with Father Gearnon were cast upon Caron and me For you were pleased to reproach our Descent Parentage or the meanness of our Birth and Families and withall to complain of I know not what Troubles rais'd by us to the Church of God Homines de luto quas molestias Ecclesiae Dei creaverunt Men of dirt said you what troubles have they not caused us and to the Church of God Good God! A Christian an Ecclesiastical an Apostolical man to reproach other Clergymen in the School of the Humble of Christ and his Apostles and reproach them I say with their Lineage how mean soever This from a Minister of the Successor of Peter Of his Vicar who for the meanness and poverty of his stock was born in a Hovel in a Stable and laid in a Manger and who according to the Law was truly called and truly also was a Carpenters Son Of that See in which have sate so many Bishops Supreme Judges of the World of the lowest extraction and almost in our Age a Weaver and Brewer and that Minorite Fisher too as our Holy Malachias 500 years before Prophetically called him And yet 't is your Lordships pleasure to upbraid Caron and Walsh with the meanness of their Birth Apostolical man Worthy Minister of the Supreme Bishop Who would persuade Christian Priests Philosophers Religious persons to esteem the Goods of Fortune Goods which are Trifles and for the most part misfortunes and make it shameful to want these things which do not make a good man O my good Lord how much more proper had it been for you to have admonish't us from the Apostle Doctor of the Gentiles to attend to our vocation and often inculcated the reason from him viz. because not many wise according to the flesh not many powerful not many noble but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise 1 Cor. 1.27 and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong and the ignoble and contemptible things of the world and those which are not God hath chosen to confound those that are that all flesh may not glory in his sight For as the Evangelical Prophet Isaiah long before said All flesh is hay and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field Isaiae 40 6. Nevertheless I would not have your Lordship think I have alledged these things to excuse a base extraction or acknowledge the truth of that reproach of yours Nothing less my good Lord. Neither have our Parents or Families been in themselves such or at all reputed such And we were born not only not of Jews or Mahumetans or Hereticks or Schismaticks or any sort of Infidels or so much as Neophits whence according to the rigour of any Canons or Statutes any note of infamy any suspition or incapacity could in the Church or our Order be derived to the children but even of unblemisht Christians and old Catholicks And those too not of the very lowest sort or dregs of the people Not of Slaves or Workmen Mercenaries or Hirelings nor even of Mecanicks Tradesmen Artificers or Bores not only not of persons in any kind base I speak for the present according to the manner and account of the World but of such who were neither so mean nor so poor as to be taken for Dirt I mean in the sense of your Lordship Otherwise I know very well what not only may but ought in a like occasion be said not only to ours but to whatsoever Pedigree of whatever mortal whether base or noble as Elihu the son of Barachiel the Buzite said to Job Ecce me sicut te fecit Deus de eodem luto ego quoque formatus sum Behold God made me as thee and of the same clay or dirt was I also formed Job 33. Fortune or to speak more Christianly Providence gave us both Parents content with their moderate lot My Ancestors to my Father who being the second Brother could not therefore be Heir have almost now for 500 years enjoy'd an Estate of inheritance in Lands and Villages belonging to them in Ireland The Son in a right Line still succeeding the Father Caron likewise has Ancestors who peradventure were able to reckon more Ages of ancient descent and possession than those among the ancient Romans who were proudest Wherefore let not these things be understood as said in defence of a fordid Extraction but in Reproof of a most vain untruth For I cannot but according to the admonition of St. Paul esteem this Objection of our Descent most vain whether it be true or false An Ethnick Poet could say I hardly call our own or Ancestors or Stock or what we have not done our selves And 't is the saying of another wise man That 's true Nobility which adorns the mind with vertuous manners But while I repeat the sayings of wise men am not I my self become foolish to use the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles pleading thus in my foolishness for flesh and blood and pedigrees Be it so But you have constrain'd me 2 Cor. xii 11. as the same Apostle answered in a case not much unlike Besides I may add 't is lawful for a Clergy or Religious man to have a care of Honour too such I mean as is according to the esteem of the world Honour so it be not contrary to Goodness or Holiness especially where he sees that by the lessening of it his authority and power to persuade people to the Truths of the Gospel is lessened and that such is the design of his envious Calumniators And I suppose your Lordship will not be angry that I have as becomes every honest man endeavoured to wipe off the dirt thrown in my face that is answer'd the reproaches and injuries objected Nay so far am I from fearing this that I should much more fear to pass for truly vile and unworthy either to speak or any way have to do with your Lordship if out of Cowardize I should neglect or out of Baseness omit to give a free and true Answer For which Reason my Lord neither can I here pass over in silence your Lordships judgment of Father Gearnon Whom after you had ask't if he were of the number of the Subscribers and he had acknowledged it it had been better replied you you had been in your grave first Now of all that came from you in your Discourse with Father Gearnon this judgment which you made of him can least be past in silence because it reaches by consequence not only all the Subscribers but all other maintainers and that for all Ages of Christian Religion past and future as well as present all Doctors Favourers Abettors nay all Believers or any way Assenters to this Doctrine That Kings may not be depos'd by the Pope It had been better said you to have been in your grave before you had subscribed to such
Kings and the Abbot who Teaches Treachery The Abbot who approves Subjection and the Abbot who approves Rebellion The Abbot who writes for Truth and the Abbot who writes for Lyes for Vanity Falshood and most dangerous Errours Lastly the Abbot who leads to Life and the Abbot who leads to Death both temporal of the body in this World and eternal of the Soul in the next I have spoken freely I must confess but not more freely than truly nor is the freedom I take more then necessary Your Lordship is the Assailant I only defend my self and that with the moderation of an unblameable defence A defence not of my self alone but of many others of thousands of almost all the Catholicks of Ireland England Scotland nay of the universal Church wheresoever diffused For that speech of yours that judgment rashly given of Gearnon has injur'd all wheresoever they live who are against the temporal Monarchy of the Pope And those former practises and attempts of yours as likewise of his Eminence Cardinal Barberin by so many Epistles and Emissaries by which you have rendred all His Majesties Catholick Subjects suspected beyond measure in the point of Allegiance and continued them under the yoke of most severe Laws have dejected afflicted and for the present quite ruin'd them all And what we had done by that publick Declaration of our Allegiance with a good Conscience and right Faith and a good and necessary end namely to clear Catholick Religion from the scandal and infamy especially amongst Sectaries of the most odious Tenets of King-deposition and King-deprivation nay and King-killing too at the will of the Pope in order to Spirituals by a pretended either direct or indirect power and besides to get those Laws taken away which have long been made against Catholicks in these Kingdoms and principally against the abettors and believers of such most wicked assertions your Lordship and his Eminence have suddenly blown away and by those Epistles of yours so busily dispers't through Ireland and England reproved either of Lying or Errour Then which in the circumstances in which things then were nothing could come to the hands of those Protestants who were enemies to Catholicks more acceptable or more wish't for nothing more contrary to the Orthodox nay or such even Heterodox as being moderate and well-affected desired a Repeal of Laws made against Religion Those being overjoy'd they had now got out of your Letters evident as they thought Arguments to overthrow or obstruct the end and scope of our Form of Protestation and prove that Catholick Religion is wholly inconsistent and incompatible with the absolute and indispensable allegiance of Subjects and the safety of the King and State especially in a Kingdom of a contrary communion These on the other side dejected with extreme grief to fall thus from their hopes when they saw that must happen which did namely That the Catholick Clergy at least in Ireland would by such Letters break into Parties and by consequence would not so unanimously freely seasonably and ingenuously give such assurance of their Allegiance for the future by subscribing the Protestation as might stop the mouths of all their Adversaries and open those of their Friends and which our good King and his principal Ministers would admit as sufficient Wherefore 't is Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal and Cardinal Francis Barberin who for the present have cast down afflicted and ruined the Catholick interest and hopes thereof in Ireland principally And consequently only you two and your credulous Clients and Zealots after you for the most part over-ignorant dull and envious not Caron nor Walsh nor any other of the Subscribers either singly or altogether you two I say are the men who in the British Empire and chiefly Ireland have raised to the Catholick Church of Christ not only troubles but mischiefs to be deplored for ever unless the mercy of God and a good King divert them and we are chiefly they who have prescribâ—d remedies against those troubles and mischiefs You two alone more than all the rest have bravely bestirr'd your selves and to your power endeavoured to obstruct all peaceable and Christian nay even in any sort probable or apparent ways to a Catholick people not only for restoring Orthodox Religion and Faith but re-establishing also the Papal Rights I mean those are truly such We are they who have laid open the onely lawful honest holy peaceable evangelical way of entirely restoring both viz. the ancient Religion and Papal Jurisdiction As far namely as that Jurisdiction is true not pretended as 't is admitted by the Canons of the universal Church not usurped against and above them as 't is purely spiritual and of the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven not temporal not mixt not confused not of the ensigns of a certain worldly Dominion and to speak in one word as far as 't is either acknowledged or received by all other Roman Catholicks of Europe Lastly you alone have been the leaders of those who as the Samaritans and Idumaeans of old look with malicious eyes upon the repairing the Holy Temple under our Cyrus and run headlong upon and with all sorts of weapons fiercely fight and this almost daily and hourly against the builders of the walls We are they who with one hand lay stones in the holy wall with the other drive back the enemy Let the Church of God and our Holy Father the Pope himself consider in equity and justice what thanks what rewards belong to you what crime is to be imputed and what punishment inflicted on us Confidently and undoubtedly I speak it If we who have subscribed that Protestation have not been nor shall be able to restore the veneration due to his Holiness by the way we have taken that is an Apostolical Christian way a way of Allegiance in Subjects peace to the People and all manner of security to Princes it will never be restored by that contrary way of yours which you have hitherto shewn us that is by Anti-apostolical Anti-evangelical Antichristian doctrines and practices both of Tumults Seditions Conspiracies Rapines Perjury Homicide nay Regicide too of Treasons and Rebellions and by consequence of acting in a most impious War and cruel Murthers and more then cruel effusion of innocent blood My Lord there has been tryal enough of that execrable way of yours enough of Attempts enough of Rebellion enough and more then enough of War Of all which Ireland alone is and to all Ages will be a sad argument for History God who is good not being inclined to give a blessing or wish't success to wicked arts or means used either in a pretended or even truly intended quarrel of Religion Nor our humble Saviour Jesus Christ crucified being pleased that his Religion should be restored by other wayes than what he first ordained or any other indeed than that of Humility and the Cross as that alone which he both in life and death in word and work shew'd his ungrateful people the Jews
any their former carriage And besides these in particular witness also in general all the whole body of well nigh 2000 Churchmen whereof the far greater part had formerly joyn'd with or submitted unto his Capital Adversaries the Nuntio and his Prelates and yet all now indistinctly under His own Government and by His Authority and Clemency protected at home So much of Kilfinuragh and by his occasion Of the Bishop of Ardagh what I can say is That notwithstanding his untrue relation and rash and violent carriage in the Congregation all along yet his restraint was soon over and he permitted to go whether he pleased as freely as before either to his own Diocess or any other part or place in the Kingdom and stay there still or return back to Dublin when he would That accordingly he went sometimes to the Countrey though returning soon after to and residing commonly in Dublin but never in his own Diocess of Ardagh For which his non-residence let himself answer the Canons As likewise for his endless Imposition of hands i. e. Ordination of so vast a number of all sorts of even the very most illiterate and otherwise too in all respects contemptible persons whereby the order of Priesthood is now despised even amongst those of the Roman-Catholick Profession in that very Countrey it being now reported to be more easie to find a Priest in Ireland than a Horse-groom or Cow-heard But this not being my business at present I leave himself in this point also to answer the Canons of the Church and his own Conscience and the great complaints likewise of that kind of moving intervention which hath been all along from the very first beginnings of Christianity so severely and manifoldly and penally too forbidden by all the Laws of God and man relating to the ordination of Clerks What is my purpose here is to assure the Reader That both he and all the rest of the Members of the Congregation nay and of all the Roman-Catholick Irish Clergy in general throughout Ireland were at full liberty even after the said Congregation was ended and notwithstanding even any carriage or rather miscarriage of any or all the Fathers therein or elsewhere and certainly continued so free during the Duke of Ormond's being Lieutenant of Ireland Unless peradventure some malicious man will take exception here at the restraint of some few Priests long after viz. in the year 1648 those Priests I mean who in some Counties of Vlster and Connaught were for some little time secured upon account or at least suspition of their favouring and abetting or at least their not discountenancing the Tories or Outlaws Woodkerns and Highway men that in great numbers run out and wasted the Countries But even these very Priests though only on such account seized were all of them within a little time set free again entring Security to answer when called upon Of all which matters any way relating to the King's Lieutenant and those Bishops and their now dissolved Congregation I would in this place inform the Reader because I know by experience they have already been falsely represented by some others and may be yet further by their Historians if they see nothing extant otherwise in Print to check their false reports On the second of those points or as I called them before Appendages viz. The Procurator's judgment of this Congregation leading Members thereof and of their several interests and ends what I would say here is 1. That when I had seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears the carriage and words and answers and final resolves of the Fathers in that Assembly but more especially had considered their clapping of hands and stamping of feet and their denying to debate any thing Theologically or indeed at all by reason nay their absolute and so great slighting of the King's Lieutenant's three several Messages to them that even then I say St. Gregory Nazianzen's judgment of the Councils which himself had seen and his aversion too for their sake from all other Councils to come or to be held after occurred both immediately and frequently to my remembrance as that holy Saint himself delivers both in his Epistle to Procopius and there in these words Ego Gregor Nazianz ep 55. si vera scribere oportet hoc animo sum ut omnem Episcoporum Conventum fugiam quoniam nullius Concilii finem laetum faustum vidi nec quod depulsionem malorum potius quam accessionem incrementum habuerit Pertinaces enim contentiones dominandi cupiditates ac ne quaeso me gravem ac molestum existimes haec scribentem ne ullis quidem verbis explicari queant citiusque aliquis improbitatem arcessetur * Here is a fault certainly in this Latin Translation or Print See whether it should not be either improbitatis or arcessat dum aliis se Judicem praebet quam ut aliorum improbitatem comprimat Propterea memet ipse collegi animaeque securitatem in sola quiete ac solitudine mihi positam judicavi 2. That therefore I could frame no better judgment of this Irish National Council Synod or Congregation as to their decisions either of matters of Fact or Questions of Right whatsoever than Gregory Nazianzen did of any of those he perstringed so as we see in his own words especially when I further considered the fate of so many other National Congregations of the Irish Clergy which I had formerly seen in my own dayes viz. that of Waterford under the Nuncio and those other of the Bishops after at Cluanmacnoise Jamestown and Galway the same Spirit which possess'd them ruling also and yet more unreasonably in this of Dublin 3. That consequently my judgment of the leading Members thereof in general must have been certainly no other than That their immoderate excessive endless ambition or desire of both Rule and Gain and their consequential fear of Rome abroad and mutual too of one another at home hurried them all along and made them resolve so peremptorily obstinately desperately even against all their own inward lights of religious reason and checks of Christian Conscience In particular That the Primat who could not well aim at a higher Title than amongst them he enjoyed already had nevertheless continually before his eyes to byass him the temptation of 5000 l. old yearly Revenue belonging to that Title and therefore due to him as he thought however possessed by another viz. the Protestant Archbishop and Primat Margetson And the Bishop of Ardagh had been a long time solliciting at Rome by his Agent Oliver Plunket and was now daily expecting a translation to a better richer and more honourable See i. e. from that of Ardagh to the Metropolitical of Dublin or at least the more beneficial of Meath And Kilfinuragh too had his thoughts wholly intent on the Succession of Tuam whose then present old decrepit Archbishop John Burk was for the matter already dead or if that failed on some other good
free to disown and disacknowledge him at such times and to such persons as they shall think good or expedient And so I conclude this my second and long Instance The third Instance briefly is in their voluntary and purposed omission and even upon the contradictory question both privatly and publickly so often made to them about this omission of the immediate preamble that in the Remonstrance of 61. goes before the Protestation therein inserted We know what odium all the Catholick Clergie lies under by reason of the calumnies with which our tenets in religion and our dependence upon the Popes Authority are aspersed And we humbly begg 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 Their omission I say of this preamble as to the last words without equivocation or mental reservation or of any other words in lieu thereof that might signifie or import so much Which voluntary purposed omission of theirs at least in so much contradiction of it and in the present circumstances evidently confirms the reasonableness of all the several exceptions made hitherto all along this Paper And that they did omit these words or any equivalent of set purpose to reserve unto themselves a liberty of equivocation and mental reservation in all and every the several clauses of theirs just as those Fathers of the Franciscan Order in their meeting at Killiby 1665. and in their framing there another though fan better Remonstrance that which they sent under the great Seal of their Province to my Lord Lieutenant then at London expresly refused to insert therein any word at all against equivocation or mental reservation nor could by any reasons be induced to insert such as those that were present with them do testifie In imitation or pursuance of which omission and refusal of the said Franciscans and for the same ends proposed by them unto themselves this General Congregation of these Representatives of the whole Irish Clergie both Secular and Regular hath done the like here Which being so I would faine know of themselves again as it hath been several times already demanded of them publickly in their said meeting but never answered to what purpose is their Protestation or what assurance of their fidelity can the King derive from thence Fourth and last instance is in their omission likewise of the sequel or of the final petitionary address and resignation in the Remonstrance of 61. and I mean their omission of the last passage only or of the two last lines which contained the foresaid resignation But that I may be the better understood in this matter I must give first the genuine words and whole tenor of that sequel petition and resignation which the Remonstrants of 61. made thus These being the tenents of our Religion in point of loyalty and submission to your Majesties commands and our dependence of the See of Rome no way intrenching upon that perfect obedience which by our birth by all lawes divine and humane we are bound to pay to your Majestie our natural and lawful Soveraign we humbly begg prostrat at your Majesties feet That you be pleased to protect us from the severe persecution we suffer meerly for our profession in Religion leaving those that are or hereafter shall be guilty of other crimes and there have been such in all times as well by their pens as by their actions to the punishment prescribed by the law Now it is to be observed that one of the very first and greatest exceptions by several Priests and Church-men of Ireland against that Remonstrance then was That in these two last lines was contained though not so clearly and expresly yet virtually or implicitly a resignation or renunciation of Ecclesiastical Immunitie or which is the same thing a subjection of Priests and Bishops and other Clergie-men and this by their own free offer to the punishment of secular Courts and Magistrats and even to the punishment of such Courts and Magistrats as are not of their own Religion That such resignation is unlawful or sinful against the lawes of God and holy Church That by these lawes of the Church nay and according to the opinion or Doctrine of great Divines of the Roman Communion by the very lawes of God Clergie-men are exempt from the secular power lawes tribunals as at least to any Coercion or punishment to be inflicted on them by such That Clergie-men are not obliged to own any other subjection to the civil lawes courts power Magistrat or Prince but that of a meer passive direction not of coaction or coercion at all That by the directive part or virtue of the civil law they are not bound in conscience or under pain of sin but only ex aequo et bono That finally being the civil lawes and power cannot bind them in conscience under pain of sin but where the lawes of God positive or natural or the Canons of the Church joyntly bind them and for as much only and solely as such lawes of God or Canons of the Church bind them and being these Canons of the Church or Papal constitutions do not only not bind them for they do not seem once to reflect on the lawes of God as they are sufficiently declared in holy Scripture and positive in binding them to subject themselves to Kings or their lawes at least as to the coercive power of such but expresly bind them to the contrary and excommunicat them if they subject themselves so or at least their persons what ever be said of lands or goods which in all cases are by the said constitutions wholy exempt until after degradation they be freely delivered over by the Ecclesiastical Judge to the secular power and being moreover that it is an act of such transcendent virtue to oppose the secular power intrenching on at least these personal immunities or exemption of Clergie-men that St. Thomas of Canterbury was therefore canonized a martyr and hath been these 400. years by the Catholick Church publickly invoked as such with God in glory it must follow consequently out of all here said that the said resigning perclose of that Remonstrance of 61. must have been sinful and scandalous All which objections having been made use of by many these 4. years past upon several occasions though without sufficient ground in the foresaid passage words or any proper meaning of them conceivable by unbyassed Readers for to such I am sure those words can import no more than a resolution in the subscribers not to interpose for any of their Country and Communion that should happen thenceforth to be punishable by the lawes for other crimes then such only as by the letter of the law are accompted or presumed crimes for professing and serving God according to the belief rites and manner of worship used throughout the world amongst Catholicks that communicat with the See of Rome not
determining at all whether the King or his inferior Courts or Judges may or may not justly and by their own proper supream or subordinat civil authority and expresly against the Popes decrees proceed against such criminals according to the present municipal lawes of the land nor determining whether such Ecclesiastick criminals may in conscience where they may or can choose subject themselves in such cases as wherein by the Canons of the Roman Church they are exempt from the power and punishment of the secular Magistrat and his lawes unless or until they be delivered over to him by the Church albeit the subscribers of that Remonstrance of 61. were then are now and will so continue principled in conscience and doctrine that by the lawes of God no Canons of the Church may exempt any Church-men of what rank or degree soever no more then they can meer Lay-men from either the directive or coercive supream temporal power of such Kings as have not any other superior in their temporals but God alone nor against their wills or lawes from their courts or subordinat Judges though it be most conformable to the law of God and nature that Princes should for the reverence of the sacred function exempt them generally from the power of inferior or subordinat judicatures and leave them to be punished by their own Ecclesiastical superiors if not in such cases or contingencies as they shall find their said Ecclesiastical superiors to be unwilling or unfitting or to be involved themselves in the same crimes or the chief Patrons of them But however this be in truth and whatever the subscribers of 61. think or think not of this matter and whether the foresaid two lines which finally conclude their said sequel petition and resignation imply formally or virtually or any way at all such renunciation of Ecclesiastical immunity or implye it not in any kind of manner yet for as much as upon many occasions great use has been made as I have said before of the above objections though as often cleerly and throughly solved as made against the Remonstrance of 61. and that in this other of 66. the contrivers and promoters of it have intirely omitted that passage both as to the words and sense and I mean that sense which they themselves conceive or certainly would have others conceive of purpose to render that passage and by and for it the whole foresaid Remonstrance of 61. odious and scandalous and for as much also as from persons so principled in that point of Clergie mens exemption there can be no assurance to the King by general words and notions or by such too too general acknowledgements protestations declarations and promises of any real true and significant subjection intended or promised by them but such only as leaves them alwayes at liberty that is free from the supream temporal Coercive power of the King and his laws and leaves them not so much as under an inward obligation of sin to conform outwardly or submit as much as to the direction or directive part virtue or power of any kind of Temporal or civil Magistrat or laws but only under such an unsignificant obligation as these words ex aequo et bono import and for as much further as until they declare sufficiently that is cleerly expresly and particularly against this dangerous false and scandalous doctrine it must in reason be to no purpose for them to offer or for His Majestie to receive any kind of Protestation of Allegiance from them therefore I found this alteration and omission of the said two lines nothing equivalent as to that sense how injuriously or invidiously soever conceived by them being in their own Remonstrance given in lieu thereof I say I found that change a most material exception and if not a greater at least as great as any of all the former Leaving to the judicious Reader to be considered soberly and coolely what according to such doctrine of the exemption or immunity of Clergy-men signifies any word acknowledgment protestation declaration or promise as from such Clergy-men in their Remonstrance even in case there had been no other Exception to it What those words which are their very first beginning of it We your Majesties Subjects the Roman Catholtck Clergy of Ireland c Or whether from such men so principled in this matter these words must be construed or understood to import any more then that they profess themselves verbally not really equivocally not univocally Subjects Or do not they withal and at the same time perswade themselves and stiffely maintain that however in word they complement yet in deed they are not Subjects either in soul or body not even in any kind of case to any civil or temporal power or law on earth as barely such Or doth the Kings Majesty pretend his own to be other then barely and only such that is temporal and civil And so I conclude all my four Instances Which especially the second and fourth or this last I confess might be comprized in a fewer Lines But I chose this method of purpose to make the weaker sort of capacities to understand at large the causes of dissatisfaction my Lord Lieutenant and Council have in this Remonstrance of the foresaid late Assembly how specious soever it may appear at first reading to such as are not throughly acquainted with the intrigues And now to those Instances and Exceptions will only add in brief two Observations more Which especially the first of them confirm evidently enough to any indifferent man that is not a fool how little how weak and frail and false the assurance is the King can derive from such a Remonstrance of such men and in such a country and time as this First Observation That upon the sole account of their express refusal on the contradictory publick debate in the Assembly to petition his Majesty as you have seen at large in the Narrative whlch goes before the Exceptions for pardon of those crimes or offences chargable on them as committed by them or any of them or any else of the Irish Clergie by reason or occasion of the first Insurrection 23. Octob. in 41. or of the after conjunction of the rest of the Irish Catholicks the same or following year in a social war with the first Insurrectors or by reason or occasion in particular of the Clergies general Congregation at Waterford under the Nuncios Authority and their Declaration therein and those other actings afterwards in pursuance thereof in the next general Assembly of the three Estates in Kilkenny against the peace of 46. or of the total breach and publick rejection of it in all parts of the Kingdom or by reason or occasion also of the Declarations of the Bishops at Jamesstown against the second Peace or that which followed in 48. and of the consequent breaches thereof by so many other persons and parties and in so many other Provinces and Counties of the Kingdom I say that upon the sole account of
proper to Him or indeed by any word or words sufficiently as from them comprehending Him Third Exception That by their form of Recognition in this Remonstrance they do not positively or absolutely but at most and at best relatively conditionally and modally acknowledge Charles the Second to be their true and lawful King supream Lord and undoubted Soveraign of Ireland Fourth Exception That neither according to this relative conditional or modal recognition of this Remonstrance it acknowledges Charles the Second to be rightful King of Ireland which yet the former did but this latter not leaving so the Subscribers elbow-room to play fast and loose with their distinctions and say they so acknowledge Him King of Ireland de facto only or only at most by that presumptive right which is from humane Laws in force not by that which is the true right only and is only derived from the Laws of God or Nature or Canons of the Church Fifth Exception That by the title of supream Lord in this Remonstrance as from that Congregation must not be understood a Supremacy of Lordship not subordinat in Temporals to the pretended both temporal and spiritual supream Lord of the whole Earth or at least of the whole Christian Earth Nor which is the same thing a Supremacy of independence in Temporals at least in all cases from any but God alone But only such a a Supremacy in Temporals as ordinarily excludes Subordination in power to or dependence in such from any of his own People or even from altogether in most cases and in ordinary cases also from the Pope or Church though not from the Church Pope or People in some extraordinary contingencies Sixth Exception That consequently the profession of their being His Majesties Subjects made here by the Congregation signifies no more but a subjection answerable to such a Lordship and such a Kingship And yet further such subjection as obliges them not to acknowledge themselves thereby or by the Laws of God or canons of the Church bound under pain of sin to obey Him or by such laws or canons bound under any pain to obey Him as much as other Subjects ought or as much as the Laws of the Land or humane rules of Government in this Kingdom require at their hands Seventh Exception That as from them it doth not bind them not to acknowledge and assert alwayes what they or any of them at any time hitherto have contended for or do contend or at least pretend that they contend for even at this present their divine or celestial their extraordinary and casual as well positive as negative supream temporal power or pretended power of the Pope over in or to the kingdoms of Ireland England c. as well as over all other Kingdoms Empires States and as well and as truly and properly over their Temporals as over Spirituals at least ratione peccati or in ordine ad spiritualia Eighth Exception That as from them it does not sufficiently exclude dis-acknowledge or disown the Popes even meer humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right by Donation Submission Prescription Peter-peace Feudatary title given or Forfeiture made c. to the temporal Supremacy or supream temporal King-ship Lord-ship or supream power of Goverment ship of England Ireland c. in some cases as being in such cases legally devolved to him and by him to be disposed of at his pleasure to whom he will Ninth Exception That as from them it no way binds them or any else to disown the Popes pretended lawful power either divine or humane for dethroning deposing or depriving the King or binds them any way to dis-allow of the pretended just and lawful execution if any should happen of such power or pretended power by Excommunication and actual denunciation of such Censure and of all the penalties annexed by Papal constitutions or by other sentence or declaration or by any other means whatsoever Nor as from them binds them or any other not to obey the Pope in such matters and disobey the King Nay nor both to disown him as a King and fight against him as a Tyrant and as a Tyrant too as well by title as by administration according to the doctrine of Suarez Def. Fidei Cath. L. 6. C. 4. de formâ Juram Tenth Exception That as from them and pursuant to their meaning by the title or word Supream it professes not against that other seditious doctrine of a pretended natural and inherent right or power in the people themselves not as a Church of Christ but as a natural temporal politick and civil society of men to dethrone or depose the King by virtue thereof when or if they shall on rational grounds or grounds seeming such to themselves judge it necessary for their own preservation or doing themselves right where they think themselves oppressed and the complaints are general A power indeed were it true as the Authors of this doctrine pretend it to be the only supream or that is only and simply and properly such or at least is more truly and properly such then that attributed by this Remonstrance to the King though not according to Bellarmine and those of his way to be compared at all to that of the Pope which alwaies must be the superlatively supream over all Eleventh Exception That as from them it binds them not nor any other not to approve of the practice of that wicked maxime which avers it lawful in some case for Subjects to murther or to kill not only their Prince of a different Religion from theirs but even their Prince of the same true Catholick Religion with them Twelfth Exception That as from them it doth not bind them to acknowledge the Kings either Coercive or directive power of themselves Or That they or any other Clergy-men are bound under pain of sin to submit by a passive obedience to the coercion or by an active obedience conform to the direction of any meer Lay Magistrate or Prince how supream or rightful soever or of his Laws not even in things otherwise indifferent or not prohibited by the Laws of God nor even in things not prohibited by the Canons of the Church if not peradventure to such Lay-Princes only and such laws of theirs if there be indeed any such as are particularly and specially priviledged by the Pope And consequently does not bind them to condemn or disown that most wickedly dangerous Aphorisme attributed to Emanuel Sa in some of his Editions but certainly necessarily and evidently derived from Bellarmine and Suarez c. That in relation to any meer Lay-Prince or King or State Clergy-men cannot be said in any case whatsoever to be guilty of high Treason or of that horrid crime of Laesae Majestatis or of defying denying or lessening Majesty Thirteenth Exception That in case the Pope should declare this Remonstrance of theirs to be uncatholick or unlawful or any way unsafe in point of conscience as to those very small inconsiderable acknowledgments or promises
which they make or intend to make there if any at all indeed they make or intend together with so many quibbles and fallacies yet this Remonstrance at least as from them does no way bind them after such declaration of the Pope to hold as much as to such however inconsiderable acknowledgements or promises Fourteenth Exception That further yet as from them and without relation to any such matter declared by the Pope it leaves them alwayes at liberty upon another account not to hold to their said however inconsiderable acknowledgments and promises Videlicet upon account of their maximes of extrinsick probability or of their perswasion of the lawfulness of changeing opinions and of practising too according to the contrary opinion of others and consequently of practising against all their acknowledgments ownings Declarations promises and oaths in this their own Remonstrance according to the doctrine of such Catholick Authors as maintain all oathes of Allegiance made to a Heretick Prince to be rendred absolutely void by the very Canons of the Roman Church in corpore Juris Canonici Fifteenth Exception That finally as from them it leaves them still at liberty to say they framed and subscribed it according to the very largest rules of equivocation and mental reservation and with as many and as fine abstractions exceptions constructions restrictions and distinctions too especially that of the specificative and reduplicative sense as any the most refined Authors and most conversant in such matters Canonists or Casuists or School-divines could furnish them with in time of need And these being the most obvious material Exceptions against this Remonstrance of 66. the Reader may judge of their reasonableness or unreasonableness as he please if he hath already or when he shall have read through not only the former part of this Second Treatise but both the first and second part of the first Treatise of this Book To which if he add the reading also of all the other four he may without any question judge the better of these Exceptions whether they be well grounded or not THE THIRD TREATISE CONTAINING The three propositions of Sorbon considered as they are by this Dublin Congregation applyed to His Majestie of Great Britain and themselves And what they signifie as to any further or clearer assurance of their fidelity to the King in the cases controverted HAving given in my Narrative the occasion upon which and the persons by whom after a long dispute these propositions with the other three of the six late of Sorbon were first offered to be assented to and signed in a distinct or different instrument or paper from that of their Remonstrance and how after those very persons hindered the signing of the other or last three and further in my exceptions to instances against and observations upon that Remonstrance of theirs upon their wording of and meaning by and in the several passages or clauses all along having noted their voluntary and contradictory omissions of what was necessary and what was both expected and demanded from them on the particular points and noted their abstractions reservations exceptions equivocations illusive expositions and yet no less if not more destructive constructions I need not say much here to shew the unsignificancy of the said three propositions I mean as to the publick end for which these Assembly subscribers would impose on others or flatter themselves they were subscribed by them For it will be obvious and easie to any understanding man that shall first read those fore-going small Tracts of mine to see evidently there can be no more assurance of the present or future faith of those Congregational subscribers or from their subscriptions to the said three additional propositions than was besorâ— intended by them in or could be from their sole Remonstrance taken according or in that sense of theirs which I have so declared at large I confess that in the state primitive or in that of the innocency of Christians these alone peradventure might have been sufficient to that end Nay and at this very present are very significant as proceeding from and applyed by the Sorbon-faculty and Gallican Church to their own most Christian King and themselves To wit amongst a People and in a Country where no other doctrine is taught or believed or as much as scarce thought upon if not by a very few privâ—tly in corners but that which they have learned from the express Canons of their own ancient Councils and of that particularly of Paris well-nigh a thousand years since in pursuance of the Tradition of their yet more ancient Fathers all along to the Apostles of Christ and Christ himself That kingly power is immedietly from God alone as from the primary and only efficient cause and no way depending of the Church or People Where the practice was so frequent when occasion was offered to resist the usurpations and incroachments of Popes on the Jurisdiction Royal and to oppose and contemn their Sentences of Deposition Deprivation Excommunication and other attempts whatsoever of the See of Rome against their Kings Parliaments or People Where Pithou's most Catholick and voluminous Books of the natural and genuine liberties of the Gallican Church and so many other great Catholick Writers on that subject are extant and frequent and conversant with them daily Where finally that King in their opinion is both their own and really most Christian and themselves of the same Religion with him and by him all their interests both religious and civil spiritual and temporal in the greatest latitude and height they can desire maintained exactly I confess that from such men of such principles in such a Country and to such a Prince these three Propositions barely as they are worded might peradventue do well enough But to conclude hence or that because the French King was pleased or satisfied with them so as coming from and presented to himself by Sorbon His Majesty of Great Britain our Gracious King must be or should be in our present case and on the points controverted amongst us pleased or satisfied with the self same resolutions or propositions aâ—d in the self same words only the application changed without any further addition explanation or descent to particulars and so pleased with them as coming from us were a very great fallacie and very great folly The cases are different in all particulars And therefore it must be consequent in reason that more particulars may and should be required and in other words that is in words expresly and sufficiently declaring as well against all equivocations and other evasions as particularly to the particular points in our own case The design having been as it is and must be yet to get us to resolve and declare satisfactorily and our own Interest and that of our Religion too especially as now in Ireland leading us thereunto But alas the private Interests of some very few men of that Congregation blew durst in the eyes of all the rest so as they
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
all ignorance malice and other preoccupation whatsoever nay and from their subscription too the Fathers will find it a very hard taske to shew I say not impertinency for this I am sure they can not after what is said before with any colour insist on any longer but any such danger in the consequence of this Proposition It is not our doctrine that the Pope is above a general Council or of this simply The Pope is not above a general Council or of this other as simple which yet is the same in effect A general Council is above the Pope That such Divines of either Greek or Latin Church either Catholick or not as affirm the Papacie or Papal authority as such or as allowed either by those Canons which in opposition to others or by way of excellency are commonly stiled Canones Vniversalis Ecclesiae or as approved even by those other Canons which are properly and onely Papal Canons and are those of the western-Western-Church whether all or how many of them received generally in the Western-Church or not it matters not at this time that such Divines I say of either Church Greek or Latin as affirm this Papal authority over all other Churches in the world to be onely at the utmost and immediatly such by ecclesiastical and human institution of the Church not by any of Christ otherwise then by his approbation and ratification above in Heaven of what the Church long after his Ascension had here on earth ordained will find no kind of difficulty to shew the inconsequence of the Parliament's being above the King if a general Council be above the Pope First Because the power of a general Council truely such representing the Catholick diffusive Church is by all sides confessed to be originally and immediatly de jure divino or by the immediat institution of Iesus Christ himself whether in that passage of the Gospel dic Ecclesiae or in some other Secondly Because this power is unalterable undiminishable unsubjectable even by the Council it self to any other without a new revealed command from God himself which hath not been hitherto And therefore and out of that very passage of Mathew Dic Ecclesiae must be above the Pope being the Pope can not deny himself to be one of the faithful brethren and being all faithful brethren without exception of any are commanded by Christ himself in that passage of Mathew to be under pain of Excommunication obedient to the sentence of the Church in case they be accused or charged with any guilt before it Thirdly Because on the other side the power of Parliaments is by them not onely denied to be originally or immediatly either jure divino or humano over all persons whatsoever of the respective hereditary Kingdoms if we include the Prince amongst such persons but as such denied also to have been as much as in after times introduced by any allowance or Custom approved either by God or man Prince or people themselves Fourthly Because the very same divines assert constantly the power of supream or soveraign temporal Princes or Kings at least hereditary such as our King is and of which consequently the present dispute is to be jure divino or to be given them from God himself immediatly not from or by the people Or if these divines or any of them allow it has been originally and immediatly from the people at first even as from an efficient cause yet withal maintain that the people also did originally and immediatly so transferr the whole supream power from themselves even in all contingencies whatsoever that it must be ever after irrevocable by them Alleaging for proof that the Scriptures are so clear for the Subjection and obedience of the people even to had tyrannical Kings and not for fear alone but for conscience And further alleaging that there is no tribunal of the people and consequently there is no Parliament appointed by the law of God as neither by the laws of man or nature not even in the most extraordinary cases against their Prince or against any other offending besides that erected by the Princes power Whereunto certainly he never subjects himself so as to give the people or Parliament a supream power above his ownself or a power of superiority or jurisdiction over himself and coercion of himself though he some times bind himself and limit in some cases his own power but by his own power and will alone not by any inherent in the people And who sees not in this doctrine the great and cleer and evident inconsequence of this argument The Pope is not above a general Council Therefore the King is 〈◊〉 above his Parliament Or therefore whoever subscribes that antecedent gives an overture to those late horrid disputes Would not these divines rationally say upon their own grounds this were not to argue à simili but à dissimili Would not they tell you presently what the six hundred Catholick Bishops convened in the 4th general Council that of Calcedon I mean declared in their 27th Canon albeit some great and even holy Bishops of Rome complained of it grieviously that it was the Fathers that gave the priviledges to the Bishop of ancient Rome and that it was therefore they gave such priviledges to him because ancient Rome was then the Seat of the Empire That by consequence the Papacie and power thereof as such must be acknowledged to be as instituted by the Church onely at first so till the last to be dependent subordinate and under the power of the same Church because this power of the Church is for ever unchangeable while the world continues as having been given to it by Christ himself when upon earth And therefore the Pope cannot be above but under a general Council being it is either of all sides confessed the whole power of the Church is in a general Council truely such of it must be so at least in their grounds whether any els confess or oppose it And would not they further tell you the case is quite contrary in that of King and Parliament That first there is no such thing by divine immediate institution or by that of Christ or God immediatly as a Parliament or a power thereof That neither by the mediat institution of God that is by the laws of man there is any such thing or power at least in hereditary Kingdoms which may stand in opposition to the power of Kings Nor any at all in or without such opposition but what they derive originally immediatly and solely from the pleasure of Kings at least and as I mean still in hereditary Kingdoms That secondly or in the next place the power of Kings at least hereditary Soveraign and Supream is immediatly originally and onely from God himself Or if at first any way from the people yet so from them that after their institution translation and submission hoc ipso they must be so absolute and independent that they do not acknowledge nor any way have
indeed any but God alone above them in temporal affairs as the very Fathers too of the Congregation avow by their own subscription of the 2d of those Propositions of Sorbone if they will have that subscription and Proposition taken in the plain obvious and honest sense and further yet is such and by reason too and Scriptures plain and cleer enough demonstrated to be such that every person in their respective kingdoms is subject to them And consequently all Parliament men however convened together as being not in any consideration or quallity soever exempt from that general command of God by the Apostle Paul 13th Romans Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subditasit And now if in this doctrine and pursuant to it of those Divines whether Greek or Latin the Fathers of the Congregation such of them at least as are understanding and knowing men see not the great and cleer and evident inconsequence of that argument of theirs which is their second specifical reason for not signing the 5th Proposition or if they see not they argue not here à simili but à dissimili and therefore conclude very ill or if they see not the cases are quite contrary or hugely differing that of the Pope and Council on one side and that of the King and Parliament of the other as to the purpose here I am extreamly mistaken But whether they do or not others I am sure do very cleerly That for such other Catholick Divines as are great sticklers for the Papacie to be Jure Divino immediatly or immediatly ordained by Christ himself during his aboad on earth in that sense at least wherein it is allowed and approved by those Canons are learned Canones Ecclesiae Vniversalis and by the several Catholick Churches Kingdoms and States which have continued in perpetual communion with the Bishop and particular Church or Diocess of Rome though not in that sense and height of latitude of jurisdiction attributed thereunto by the Popes themselves in their own peculiar Canons for such Divines I say as maintain so the Papacie to be De jure Divino immediatly and nevertheless withal do constantly maintain the authority of general Councils above it by the same ius divinum or immediat institution of Christ delivered to us in that passage of Math. 18. Dic Ecclesiae or in any other of the new Testament whether in writing or not or not otherwise known evidently or sufficiently but by unwritten tradition onely the Fathers of the Congregation may see these Divines also declaring and very cleerly and consequently too without any kind of stress in their own principles against the said consequence For they will undoubly say and with very much reason also this to be a meer non sequitur The General Council which hath its power not from the Pope but originally immediatly only and perpetually from Iesus Christ over all the faithfull being declared in the 18. of St. Mathew the very last and supream Tribunal to which an offending Brother must be accused and to whose sentence he must be lyable and being so declared by Christs own mouth even to Peter himself present as may be seen in the foresaid place of Mathew taken together with St. Luke in ch the 17. must consequently be above the Pope albeit the Pope must be above every individual of them separatly taken out of the Council or when there is not any Council in being Therefore the Parliament which originally immediatly and only had its power from the King and yet none from the King or his Laws much less from the Law of God above the King Himself must nevertheless be above him even as yet remaining King and so above him too that they may deprive depose and put him even to death if they shall judge it expedient yea notwithstanding his Royal Power is given him originally immediatly and only from or by God himself and notwithstanding also the express Law of God commands all his people without any distinction of being sate in Parliament or not and commands them all even under pain of damnation to be subject to him and notwithstanding too the very Parliament themselves even sitting in Parliament confess themselves to be of the number of his People or Subjects Yet this must be the very argument which the Fathers of the Congregation must frame here to their purpose if they would pin their foresaid consequence upon even these other Catholick Divines who maintain the Papacy de jure Divino And therefore it must also be that in the opinion too or doctrine of this very class of Divines who are all admitted by Bellarmine himself as undoubtedly Catholick and no way Schismatical who maintain or admit as I have presently said the Papacie it self to be jure Divino from this proposition The Pope is not above a General Council no such dangerous consequence can be drawn no overture of any such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Commonwealths as our late sad experience hath taught us That finally if in the opinion or according to the principles or doctrine of any other Catholick Divines that dangerous consequence follow as I know it does in Bellarmine's and such others of his way who to subject the Crowns of Kings the more easily to the Popes disposal reduce all earthly temporal civil power and resolve it ultimatly into their supream pretended inherent right in the people whom as they say withal and consequently to their other principles the Pope may at his pleasure or when he shall judge it expedient command by excommunication and other ecclesiastical Censures to resume it or that their pretended inherent power for the punishment of an Apostat Heretick Schismatick or otherwise contumacious refractory or disobedient Prince if I say according to this doctrine of this third and last class of Divines how Catholick soever in other matters that dangerous consequent and overture of such odious and horrid disputes follow the above proposition or the not being of the Pope above the General Council yet for as much as their other principles which must be first admitted before any such consequent may be deduced are in themselves very false and in the case of Hereditary Kingdoms evidently such amongst Christians that please to understand the Scriptures plainly and sincerely as the primitive Believers did especially that passage omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit and what follows afterwards to the same purpose in the 13. of the Romans and not go about to elude these and such other express and clear places by distinctions whereof some are apparently ridiculous and some very blasphemous too as I can instance the Fathers of the congregation might notwithstanding with much reason and even abstracting too I mean as well from all precedents as from all ignorance malice or other pre-occupation nay and from their own subscription also of the second or any other of the three first propositions though not from the doctrine of them observe how that
great Archbishop Primate Patriarch and least of all in or to the chief of Patriarchs to decide define censure and condemn in his own Diocess and in his own Diocesan Synod or when he shall see cause even without any such Synod certain propositions of Heresie provided he carry himself warily circumspectly have sufficient knowledge of or in the divine Scriptures Traditions Canons or Faith of the universal Church concerning the points controverted That notwithstanding the Catholick Church or Doctors thereof require submission and obedience at least externally even to such decisions and from all kind of persons respectively subject to the direction of such Deciders and require that submission and obedience universally where ever and whensoever the decision appears not or until it appear by sufficient and clear evidence to be in it self indeed against the faith received or at least to be very much doubted of by the rest of the faithful or by a considerable party of the learned and pious yet not only in the opinion of Jansenists but even of most of the most Orthodox Anti-Jansenists the same Catholick Church hath never yet attributed infallibility to any such decision as barely purely and only such but on the contrary held it alwayes as such to be fallible That in the same opinion likewise and as well of most of the severest Anti-Jansenist's as of the very most rigid Jansenist's when the Propositions defined so are in themselves infallibly true and of divine Catholick belief they must not therefore nor are by the Catholick Church required to be by the faithful believed to be such that is infallibly true ratione formae or by reason onely or at all of any such decision definition censure or condemnation or of any how formal soever so made as above even by the Pope himself and even with an especial Congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats but ratione materiae by reason of the matter onely whereon such decision falls Although to the vulgar and ignorant such particular decision onely may and ought to be a sufficient motive of even the most internal submission of their Soules as long as they hear no publick contradiction of the points by any of the rest of the Churches or pious and learned Doctors which are within the pale of the Catholick Church That as it is confessed notwithstanding that there are some other Divines of the Catholick communion who in those later and worser ages of the Church attribute infallibility to such decisions made by Popes onely without any further consent or concurrence of the Catholick Church by a general Council or otherwise than by such few Divines or Canonists as the Pope is pleased to consult with nay or otherwise too than by his own onely judgment declared to all Christians by a Brief Bull or Decretal Epistle though even against the judgment of all other Divines Canonists Prelats even those of his own particular Diocess Church or City of Rome for they place all his infallibility nay that of the whole Church in his own judgment alone declared by him as Pope or ex Cathedra that is in their explication of Cathedra declared by him to all the faithful in a Brief Bull or Decretal Epistle authoritate Petri et Pauli Apostolorum or commanded by him under pain of Excommunication or anathema or forfeiture of Salvation to be followed as the faith delivered once by the Apostles of Christ so most of this way or this opinion have been long before there was any Iansenist in the world before Iansenius himself had ever put penn to paper nay before he was born Though it be confessed withal it took strongest footing in many Schools since Bellarmine undertook the patronage of it but this too was before Iansenius's time That therefore the question in it self and even as well in relation to the Parisians or Sorbonists as to us here in Ireland and certainly of us there can be no kind of dispute abstracts wholy from all kind of Iansenisme as it is also well known the former or that of the Pope's authority over or subjection to a general Council does That whether the Sorbonist's or any of them in subscribing the 6th Proposition took occasion in part from that Bull of Alexander the 7th wherein he declares the five condemned Propositions to be in Iansenius or further took any from that Blasphemous thesis of Cleremont asserting the same infallibily to the Popes declaration even in matter of fact which Christ our Saviour had when upon earth or whether they took from neither any such occasion as indeed they might and should very justly from that of Cleremont and therefore likely have it is manifest enough that the Sorbonist's who subscribed this 6th Proposition or declaration against the doctrine of the Popes infallibility are no Iansenist's as being men that are all known to have subscribed the condemnation of the five Propositions of Iansenius and men too that most of them have been earnest all along against his doctrine and against the Patrons of it how ever some time of their own Faculty but not at all long before the date of these six Propositions That besides considering the State of the Kingdom of France and affairs of their King in the month and 8th of May 1663. when the Sorbonist's made these declarations and His being at defiance with the Pope at that very time and considering also that the four first import directly and onely for the matter what concerned their said Kings security against all such future pretensions or attempts of Popes as those were of Boniface the 8th or Iulius the second and considering besides that the whole Vniversitie of Paris not Sorbone onely went altogether with the Arch-Bishop of that See heading them to present the same declarations to their King and that his French Majesty took such special care to publish them in Print throughout his Kingdom with his own declarative commands prefixed to them and moreover considering that the former five without the 6th could not be sufficient in point of doctrine to secure him of his Catholick Subjects against the Pope and further yet considering that the said French King himself was constantly and is so farr from being a Iansenist that he hath always been and was at that very time as he is now at this present a great persecuter of them and finally considering that all the Bishops of France with all its Vniversities and for the matter the whole Gallican Church concurred with those three Popes in the condemnation of that which is reputed Iansenisme I mean the five Propositions commonly said to be found in Iansenius I say that considering well and joyning all together it may be easily and rationally concluded that amongst other motives as that of Cleremont concerning the Popes infallibility in matter of Fact equal to Christs and as that of Sorbone's wiping of the imputation of the same doctrine also of the Popes infallibility in general according to Bellarmines way so lately
of Nature Scripture Nations and Canons of Holy Church This is the sense of James Talbot Doctor of Divinity Kilkenny Aug. 4. 1648. The Approbation of the Fathers of the Society of JESUS THE ensuing Answers to the Queries being learnedly and laboriously performed replenished with variety of both Moral and Divine Doctrine as the many Authors Canons and places of holy Scripture therein cited do abundantly manifest containing nothing contrary to Catholick Faith and Religion we judge most worthy to be published as an efficacious mean to remove scruples to satisfie each one and to settle the Consciences of all sorts Hen Plunket Superior of the Society of Jesus at Kilkenny Robert Bath of the same Society Christoph Maurice of the same Society Will St. Leger of the same Society Will Dillon of the same Society John Usher of the same Society Another Approbation BY Order from the Supreme Council I have perused these Queries with their Answers and do find nothing contrary to the Catholick Religion or good Manners nay rather that they contain very solid Doctrine well grounded upon the Holy Scriptures and authorized by the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and are most worthy the Press whereby the World may be satisfied and the most tender Consciences resolved in their groundless Scruples and many dangers removed the which unsatisfied might threaten ruine on a Catholick Commonwealth James Talbot Professor of Divinity Sometimes Visitator of St. Augustin's Order in Ireland c. Another Approbation HAving perused this Book of Queries and Answers made unto them by the most Reverend Father David Lord Bishop of Ossory and several Divines of most Religious and exemplar Life and eminent Learning I see nothing contrary to Faith or good Manners nay rather judge it a very solid and profitable work grounded on the Laws of Nature of God and of Nations confirmed by Councils taught and preached by the Holy Doctors and Fathers of the Church and most worthy to be Printed forthwith That to the world may appear the just and most conscionable carriage of the Supreme Council and their adherents in this Controversie about the Cessation and the unwarrantable and illegal proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and others of the Clergy and Laity who for ends repugnant to their Oath of Association seem disaffected to the English Government as it was even in Catholick times and wholly averse from any Peace or Settlement whereby our dread Sovereign Lord and King might be relieved from his present saâ—l condition Kilkenny 12. Aug. Fr Thomas Talbot One of Her Majesties Chaplains The Approbation of Divines of Saint Francis's Order VVE have diligently read this Work and seen in all pages and parts thereof Truth enfranchiz'd Ignirance enlightned the Councils present proceedings for the Cessation and against the Censures vindicated from injustice as the opposers of their Authority are convinced of sinful Disobedience and Perjury Kilkenny the 10th of August Sebastianus Fleming Thesaurarius Ecclesiae St. Patricii Dublin Fr Thomas Babe Fr Ludovick Fitz-Gerrald Fr Paul Synot Fr James De la Mare The Supreme Councils Letter to the most Illustrious and Reverend DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory concerning the Assembling of Divines and returning his and their Result on the QVERIES FInding that to the great hinderance of the Publick quiet and the benefit of the Common Enemy the Lord Nuncio hath issued his Excommunication and thereby so far as in him lay distracted the Kingdom and divided the Nation notwithstanding that by our Appeal presented unto him the 4th of this Month his Graces further proceedings according to the Law are to be suspended Yet because it concerns the duty we owe the Kingdom to omit nothing that may remove the least scruple in any of the Confederate Catholicks by which he might avoid the visible breach of his Oath of Association by declining the Authority intrusted with us we have thought fit to let your Lordship know it is our pleasure and accordingly we pray your Lordship to assemble forthwith all the Secular and Regular Clergy and all other the able Divines now in this City together before you and to get their present Result upon the enclosed Propositions to be transmitted to us with all speed We know your Lordship so zealous a Patriot and so desirous of setling the Consciences of such few of your Flock as may haply be yet unsatisfied as you will use all possible expedition herein which is earnestly recommended to your Lordship by Kilkenny Castle 14. June 1648. Your Lordships very loving Friends Athenry Luk Dillon Rich Belling Patâ— Brian Joh Walsh Rob Devereux Gerald Fenell The QUERIES I. WHether any and if any what part of the Articles of the Cessation with the Lord of Inchiquin is against the Catholick Religion or just ground for an Excommunication II. Whether you hold the Appeal by uâ— made and interposed within the time limited by the Canon Law and Apostles being granted thereupon be a suspension of the Monitory Excommunication and Interdict and of the effects and consequences thereof and of any other proceedings or Censures in pursuance of the same III. Considering that the Propositions of the Lord Nuncio now Printed were offered by his Lordship as a mean whereby to make the Cessation conscionable whether our Answers thereunto likewise Printed are so short or unsatisfactory and wherein as they might afford just grounds for an Excommunication IV. Whether the opposing of the Cessation against the positive Order of the Council by one who hath sworn the Oath of Association be Perjury V. Whether if it shall be found That the said Excommunication and Interdict is against the Law of the Land as in Catholick time it was practised and which Laws by the Oath of Association all the Prelates of this Land are bound to maintain Can their Lordships notwithstanding and contrary to the positive Orders of the Supreme Council to the contrary countenance or publish the said Excommunication or Interdict VI. Whether a Dispensation may be given unto any Person or Parties of the Confederates to break the Oath of Association without the consent of the General Assembly who framed it as the Bond and Ligament of the Catholick Confederacy and Union in this Kingdom the alteration or dissolution whereof being by their Orders reserved only unto themselves VII Whether any persons of the Confederates upon pretence of the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio may disobey the Order of the Supreme Council ANSWERS Made to the foresaid QUERIES BY THE Most Reverend Father in GOD DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory and by the Divines The Preface in form of Letter directed to the Right Honourable the Supreme Council AS well in obedience to your Honours Commands as for satisfaction of our Consciences and guiding Souls committed to our Charge or clearing their Scruples and resolving such from Perplexities who come to us for their spiritual instruction We have seriously considered the Questions delivered us from your Lordships And having first proposed God before our eyes with firm resolutions