even also his great Expositor Cardinal Cajetan and consequently too even all the famous School of Thomists to be Judges Nam Schysmatici sayes Thomas ibidem proprie dicuntur qui propria sponte intentione se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant qui subesse renuunt summo Pontifici membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare renuunt Nolle enim pertinaciter obedire summo Pontifici non est Schysma sayes Cajetan on the same passage of Thomas sed nolle subesse illi ut capiti totius Ecclesiae est Schysma Nam adverte diligenter sayes the same Cajetan and in the same place quod recusare praeceptum vel udicium Papae contingat tripliciter Primo ex parte rei judicatae sen praeceptae Secundo ex parte personae judicantis â—ertio ex parte officii ipsius Judicis Si quis enim pertinaciter contemnat sententiam Papae quia scilicet non vult exequi quae mandavit puta abstinere a tali bello restituere talem statum c. licet gravissime erret non tamen est ex hoc Schysmaticus Contingit namque saepe nolle exequi praecepta Superioris retenta tamen recognitione ipsius in Superiorem Si quis vero personam Papae suspectam rationabiliter habet propterea non solum praesentiam ejus sed etiam immediatum judicium recusat paratus ad non suspectos Judices ab eodem suscipiendos nec Schysmatis nec alterius vitii crimen incurrit Naturale namque est curare nociva cavere a periculis Potestque persona Papae tyrannice gubernare tanto facilius quanto potentior est neminem in terris timet ultorem Cum quis autem Papae praeceptum vel judicium ex parte sui officii recusato non recognoscens eum ut superiorem quamvis hoc credat tunc praecipuâ— Schysmaticus est Et juxta hunc sensum sunt intelligenda verba litterae hujus id est textus D. Thomae sayes Cajetan Inobedientia enim sayes the same Cajetan going on still and concluding quantumcumque pertinax non constituit Schysma nisi sit rebellio ad officium Papae vel Ecclesiae ita ut renuat illi subesse illum recognoscere ut superiorem c. Where you see clearly That according to the sense of even the Angelical Doctor himself and even of his great Expositor and consequently of even the whole Thomistical School our Remonstrance cannot be charg'd with any Schismatical proposition or clause taking this word Schismatical properly or as it imports that sin of Schism which is distinct both from the sin of pure disobedience or disobedience only and from all other sorts too of sin Because it appears out of St. Thomas and Cajetan here that no doctrine or proposition is Schismatical in this proper sense of the word but that which freely voluntarily and intentionally separates from other members of the Catholick Church or spiritual Head of it the Pope not by disobedience only but also by denying to submit to the very true proper and just Office or Headship of the Pope or to acknowledge it and it hath already appeard out of the Remonstrance it self that there is no such doctrine or proposition formal or virtual therein As for Schism improperly taken so it still imports a sin either that of pure or only bare disobedience or any other whatsoever you please if it can import in any true sin any other sin but that of meer disobedience I have also already and abundantly vindicated the said Remonstrance from such also or from any such injurious and false aspersion both all along hitherto and even in this very Section but most particularly in my argument against its being unlawful For as the sin of pure disobedience so also every other is dictum factum or concupitum contra legem Dei But if the Divines of Louain will have our Remonstrance to be Schismatical because it separates from their evil doctrine per me licet in that sense because that is a good and vertuous sense of the word though as too too improper so no way conducing to their end nor consisting with their judgment of sub Sacrilegii reatu c. and because the doctrine of all the most Holy most Catholick and Learned Fathers and of the Blessed Apostles and even of Christ our Lord himself may be truly said to be Schismatical in that sense being it separated from the wicked Doctrine of Atheists Deists Jews Scribes Pharisees Hereticks and Schismaticks truly and properly such And Secondly As to the second branch of the said Minor which second branch is that of our said Remonstrances not being Heretical I proceed thus No Remonstrance is Heretical which contains not formally or virtually some Proposition either formally or virtually against Holy Scripture or Catholick Tradition Ours is a Remonstrance which contains no such Ergo Of the Major there can be no controversie because Heresie is defined to be an errour and onely that errour which is against some Doctrine publickly revealed by God to the Church and because it is confessed of all sides there is no Doctrine so revealed by God but that which is either formally or virtually revealed in Canonical Scripture or Catholick Tradition And the Minor I have at large already proved partly in this very Section and in my first Sillogisme therein against the two suppositions expressed in the Louaine Censure and partly also as also without comparison more amply and irrefragably in so many other Sections before some of which proceeded in a negative way against the four chief grounds of the same Louaine Censure and against all the Arguments of Bellarmine and others and the rest in a positive way no less Demonstratively against the self same grounds and Arguments Where the Reader may see diffusely that the Doctrine of a Supreme even Coercive power of Lay-Princes over even all sorts whatsoever of Clergymen within their own Dominions and that of an answerable Subjection of all sorts of people both Clerks and Laicks to the same Princes is so far from being such an errour or being Heresie against either Scripture or Tradition that it is warranted by both and the contrary Doctrine likewise manifestly against both And in this very Section I have shewed already there is neither Clause or Proposition in our whole said Remonstrance but only such as contains no more in effect but an acknowledgment of the Power in Princes and of that Subjection and Obedience of Subjects Behold Christian and impartial Reader four or five Syllogisms against the Epithets either formal or virtual of the Louain Censure which four or five together with that other longer Syllogism against the two Suppositions or Causes or Reasons expressed therein compleat the whole number of my Arguments or of what I intended to say in this last Section against that abortive Censure And now I leave it to thy own serious indifferent and Christian judgment whether considering all I may not again most justly repeat and evidently
their future fidelitie hereafter in the cases or contingencies wherein they are suspected I leave the indifferent reader to be judge I know what their answer will be to these two last Objections They will say the Propositions of Sorbon had no such exception against equivocation no censure of the contrary positions But the reply is no less obvious and shews the answer in both parts unsatisfactory Because the disparity is as great as the divinity and doctrine and loyalty of that famous Colledge nay and of all the Gallican Church is known to be such that their Propositions as from them and to their King or people needed no such additional exception or censure at such time as they gave those very Propositions in the year 1663. So many books lately before written by the Divines of that Faculty and Church and by the Curats of Rouen and Paris against the whole mass of casuistical opinions amongst which that of equivocations in such cases at least as ours as likewise the other of extrinsecal probability maâ—ch in the first rank and their general horror of such vile Sophistrie and withal the settledness of the generality of the French Nation both Ecclesiasticks and Lay-men in the true honest and obvious meaning of the said Propositions as comprising without further addition or specification those very cases which our congregational Divines would by their distinctions and reservations except alwayes and yet further the very penalties enacted in the rules of Sorbon and other French Universities against any that would maintain the positions of Bellarmine or the doctrine of a power in the Pope for deposing Kings all these four arguments I say to speak no more shew there was no need that the Sorbonists in the said Propositions to their own King should expresly or any other way than by the bare Propositions in themselves protest they declared them sincerely without equivocation or mental reservation And so many former no less known heavy and home censures not only of Sorbon and Paris but of all other Universities in France against that very doctrine of any power whatsoever and consequently against that which is called by new names direct or indirect ordinary or extraordinary and casual or supernatural spiritual celestial divine c. in the Pope for deposing Kings evict this confession likewise That there was no need Sorbon should to those their own propositions in the year 1663. add any new censure at all of the contrary doctrine To all which and as well concerning that of equivocation as this of censure may be added that the Sorbon-Facultie's purpose in determining and presenting the foresaid six propositions to the French King on the eighth of May 63. was only to wipe off the false aspersion which some had lately and groundlesly cast upon them as if they had held the contrary in terminis Which to have been their chief purpose may be seen by that Title of theirs prefixed to the same six propositions Declaratio Facultatis Sorbonicae contra quasdam propositiones falso impositas eidem Facultati Now who sees not that to this end it was sufficient to give the contrary or contradictory propositions without any kind of addition or explication And who sees not that our case or that of our said Congregation of Dublin of the Irish Roman Catholick Clergy was wholy different in all particulars both the doctrine and practice contrary to the plain sincere and obvious meaning of the said six propositions conceived by men that are no Sophisters hath been and is with all truth and justice grounded on sad long and manifold experiences as withal the doctrine and practice of equivocation and mental reservation charged on the generality that is on the far greater part for number of the said Irish Clergy and their Representatives And neither of them have ever yet except only those few Subscribers of the Remonstrance of 61. for ought appears either in this age or any former since the debates arose first by Books Declarations Propositions or otherwise under their hands or names any way censured that pernicious doctrine or practices following it of the Pope's power or pretence of power for deposing Kings c. as neither the doctrine of equivocation or mental reservation in such cases as ours or in any other soever But to shew what only now remains that Sorbon had that all the rest of the Catholick Universities of the Gallican Church and kingdom had lately before and both sufficiently and smartly too censured the positions contrary to the foresaid three or that of any power or pretence of power in the Pope to deprive or depose Kings raise their Subjects or the people otherwise subject in rebellion against them I will give here out of very many others those censures only of the said Faculty of Sorbon fourth of April 1626. and of the whole University of Paris the 20th of April the same year against the said uncatholick doctrines And further only add the prosecution of the same censure by the other seven Universities of France the same year too All which the late Author of the Quaeries on the Oath of Allegiance hath rendred in English and prepared to my hand as extracted out of a Book lately before printed at Paris Entituled A Collection of divers Acts Censures and Decrees as well of the Vniversity as of the faculty of Theology at Paris The Title of that of Paris and consequently of that of Sorbon therein is A Decree of the Vniversity of Paris made by the Rector Deans Proctors and Bachelors of the said Vniversity in a General Assembly had on the 20th of April 1626. at the Matutines And then immediatly follows the Decree it self in these words to a tittle It having been represented by the Rector that the sacred Faculty of Theologie moved as well by their ardent zeal and fidelity towards the Church His most Christian Majesty and his Kingdoms as also by the true and perfect love which they bear to right and justice and following therein the illustrious examples left by their Predecessors in like cases upon mature examination af a certain Latin Book Entituled A Treatise of Heresie Schisme Apostasie c. and of the Popes power in order to the punishment of those crimes printed at Rome 1625. had in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Heresie found these propositions That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresie and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them and that this custom has been alwaies practised in the Church c. and thereupon had by a publick just and legal sentence on the 4th of April censured these propositions of that pernicious Book and condemned the doctrine therein contained as new false erroneous contrary to the law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schisme derogative to the soveraign authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of
religious or civil or both and by all right reason it is to be condemned in all temporal Kingdoms or Common-wealth where the civil laws of the land declare and provide against it as Treason or Rebellion 6. We hold it uncatholick false and scandalous doctrine which teacheth that Apostacy Schisme Heresie or any kind of sin or sins how grievous soever or any Excommunication or other Ecclesiastical censures of the Church of Christ how ever denounced can or do of their own nature as they abstract from the civil power and laws of the civil Magistrate or of the respective Kingdoms and Sâ—ates deprive any person whatsoever Prince or Subject of any of their temporal rights or Dominions or warrant any other to take away their life or any way annoy them in their persons or goods 7. We hold it manifestly impious unchristian and against the word of God to averr that a King lawfully such by title may upon any pretence whatsoever even of Schisme or Heresie or also of tirannical administration either in civil or religious matters or both be murthered or killed by any of his Subjects even in case the Pope alone or joyntly with other spiritual or temporal superiours of the Church should licence or pretend to licence it either by a publick or private or pretended sentence of Excommunication Deposition or Deprivation 8. The doctrine which teacheth that a King lawfully such by title and possession is no more King after he is deprived or deposed by the Popes sentence upon any pretence whatsoever and consequently teacheth by a vain and wicked distinction that who killeth him after such sentence killeth not a King but a private man or a publick and tirannical Usurper is false dangerous and intollerable amongst Christians 9. Notwithstanding the allegations of some for the general exemption of Clergie men by divine or human laws or both from the secular power We hold that all both Secular and Regular Clergie men whatsoever born and residing within any of His Majesties Dominions are by the law of God subject to His Majesties supream temporal both directive and coercive power as to that of their onely supream temporal Lord on earth from which none can justly pretend any exemption either divine or human other than what by the allowance favour and indulgence of the supream Magistrate and laws of the land are in force and use however they may have a right to be exempted in some cases from the temporal jurisdiction of inferiour Judicatures 10. Subjects professing declaring or subscribing any conscientious Oath Instrument Form or paper of their Allegiance and fidelity to their Prince in temporal affairs cannot in conscience make use of the doctrine of equivocation whereby they may be said to have a reserved sense in their words or mind not obvious or not conceived generally by others that intend no deceit 11. Nor can they in conscience then or at any time after make use of that other new doctrine of some Casuists or Probablists as they are called which teacheth the lawfulness of changing opinions and practices thence consequent at pleasure or as oft as you will even in matters of conscience and which teacheth consequently the lawfulness of following the opinion of others in those you judge less safe and less probable and following them even against your own fixed judgement and practising accordingly For to extend this doctrine of such Casuists that least the cases of either publick or private contracts much more or much less or any way at all â—o that of a publick or even private profession of allegiance to the Prince were nothing else but to teach perjury deceit and perfidiousness and to take away all faith and truth and safety from the world even from all kind of society of men Wherefore notwithstanding any controversie about the lawfullness of any form professing allegiance to the Prince and notwithstanding some peradventure may be who may say and even upon probable grounds either extrinsecal or even intrinsecal the said form to be unlawful that is unconscionable yet if it be not evidently such but on the contrary probably lawful it must ever hind him that taketh sweareth or subscribeth to it so that he may not at any time ever made in practice follow the contrary opinion notwithstanding any multitude or authority of its Patrons less than that of the Catholick Church 12. After mature perusal examination and discussion of the Remonstrance or Protestation of Loyalty subscribed in ouâ— at London by the Catholick Bishop of Dromore Father Peter Walsts and other Divines and by the Catholick Irish Nobility and Gentry then likewise there as also by others after both of the Clergy and Lavity here at 〈◊〉 in Ireland We find and we declare this to be our opinion judgment and conscience That notwithstanding the censure of those few Divines of the Lovaine-Faculty a censure some three years since and very imprudently too by the Agency Solicitation and Importunity of some of our Countrey-men procured and notwithstanding the Letters now of late or even those formerly sent to this Nation as from and in the name of Cardinal Francis Barbaâ—â—â— from Rome or those others from Bruxels and from the two succeeding Interâ—â—â—iuâ—'s there Hieronimus de Vâ—cchiis and Iacobus Rosâ—â—gliâ—sâ— and notwithstanding any other allegations whatsoever against the said Remonstrance or Protestation yet there is nothing in the said humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition that may justly be repâ—ted against the Catholick Faith nothing that may not be owned and subscribed with a safe conscience by every good Catholick Subject and consequently nothing that under the guilt of sacriledge or other sin ought or can at any time hereafter be disowned by such as have already or shall hereafter subscribe that Instrument And we further declare it to be our opinion judgment and conscience That for many reasons and specially for that of avoiding the imputation and scandal of our Adversaries that the Roman Catholick Tenets are inconsistent with the loyalty of Subjects due unto Protestant Kings and consequently of a disloyal inconstancy to be brought on themselves and the Catholick Religion they are bound under the heavy guilt of a sacrilegious breach of that Protestation not only not to revoke at any time for fear favour or any other respect their subscriptions but also not to decline in any wise in whole or in part the doctrine of that Protestation or the practice of it in relation to His Majesty according to the true sincere and plain meaning of the words without any kind of equivocation abstraction exception distinction or mental reservation And to the end it may appear to all the world we neither have nor will nor can have any kind of reserve we thought fit to declare our selves fully even on all the six late propositions of Sorbon as applyable to his Majesty of Great Brittain and Ireland our gracious King and to his Subjects And therefore and being we have already in the eight first
otherwise at all noxious to humane Society and then also and there to Enact those penal Laws where at the same time the Lawmakers could not but have continually before their eyes all those beforemention'd Positions and Practises which they could not but judge to be indeed of the greatest Danger Insolence Pride Injustice Usurpation Tyranny and Cruelty imaginable even those very Positions and Practises which they knew to threaten themselves above others most particularly and which they saw themselves Ten thousand times more concern'd to persecute than any pure Religious Rites or Articles nay which they also knew to be such as even according to the judgment of the greater and sounder part of the Roman-Catholicks themselves abroad in other parts of the World did of their own nature require all the severity of Laws and all the anger of Men to prosecute them I am sure the Third Estate of the Roman Catholicks of France anno 1514 1â— did think so when they desired it should be made a fundamental Law of FRANCE to be kept and known by all men That the King being acknowledged Head in his Dominions holding his Crown and his Authority only from God there is no power on earth whatever Spiritual or Temporal that hath any right over his Kingdom either to depose our Kings or dispense with or absolve their Subjects from the fidelity and obedience which they owe to their Soveraign for any cause or pretence whatsoever That all his Subjects of what quality or condition soever shall keep this Law as holy true and agreeable to God's Word without any distinction equivocation or limitation whatsoever which shall be sworn and signed by all the Deputies of Estates and henceforward by all who have any Benefice or Office in the Kingdom before they enter upon such Benefice or Office and that all Tutors Masters Regents Doctors and Preachers shall teach and publish that the contrary Opinion viz. That it is lawful to kill and depose our Kings to rebel and rise up against them and shake off our Obedience to them upon any occasion whatever is impious detestable quite contrary to Truth and the establishment of the State of France which immediately depends upon God only That all Books teaching these false and wicked Opinions shall be held as seditious and damnable All Strangers who write and publish them shall be look'd upon as sworn enemies to the Crown and that all Subjects of His Majesty of what quality and condition soever who favour them shall be accounted as Rebels Violators of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and Traytors against the King c. And I am sure also That all the Parliaments and Universities of the same Kingdom did likewise think and believe so when at several times they proceeded with so much severity in their censures against so many inconsiderate Writers that maintain'd the Papal vain pretences of Authority to depose Kings and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them But to say nothing at present of the many several Arrests of the French Parliaments on this subject and speak only of their University Censures how smart these were in general the Universities of Paris (z) 1626 4. April and Caen (a) 7. May. and Rheims (b) 18. May. and Tholouze (c) 23. May. and Poitiers (d) 26. June and Valence (e) 14. July and Burdeaux (f) 16. July and Bourges (g) 25. November sufficiently tell us in their special Censures anno 1626. against the Jesuit Sanctarellus in particular i. e. against the Doctrine of such a power in the Pope asserted by him the said Sanctarellus in his Treatise of Heresie Schism Apostasie c. The first of them viz. the University of Paris finding in the said Book this Assertion That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresie c. condemn'd it in formal words as new false erroneous contrary to the Law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative to the Soveraign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes disturbing the publick peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the obedience due to their Soveraigns and precipitating them into faction rebellion sedition and even to commit Particides on the sacred Persons of their Princes And the other seven Universities were not much behind for they also every one condemn'd it as false erroneous contrary to the Word of God pernicious seditious and detestable XI That if any shall object those penal Statutes which may perhaps be thought by some to have all their quarrel and bend all their force and level all the rigor of their Sanctions against some harmless Doctrines and practises whether in themselves otherwise true or false good or bad I say against the meer spiritual meer sacramental rites of our Religious worship of God and our Belief of meer supernatural operations following as for example against our Doctrines of the Consecration and Transubstantiation and our practice withall of the adoration of the Host which this present Parliament at Westminster in their late Act against Popish Recusants may be thought by some to make the principal mark whereat all the arrows of disfavour must now be shot the answer is both consequential and clear viz. That the Law-makers perswading themselves 1. that the Roman Catholicks in general of these Kingdoms both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks had alwayes hitherto since the schism either out of ignorance and blind zeal or a mistaken interest or irrational fear refused or at least declined to disown by any sufficient publick instrument the foresaid Anti-catholick Positions and Practises which maintain the Popes pretences of all Supreme both Spiritual and Temporal Dominion Jurisdiction Authority Power Monarchy and Tyranny c 2. That their Missionaries i e. their Priests not only day and night labour to make new Proselytes but also to infuse into as many of them and of their other Penitents as they think fit all their own Principles of Equivocation and mental Reservation in swearing any Oath even of Allegiance or Supremacy to the King and forswearing any thing or doctrine whatsoever except only those Articles which by the indispensable condition of their communion they may not dissemble upon Oath 3. That the Tenet of Transubstantiation is one of those Articles therefore to discover by this however otherwise in it self a very harmless Criterium the mischief which they conceive to go along with it thorough the folly of Roman Catholicks in these Dominions they make it the test of discriminating the Loyally principled Protestant from the disloyal and dissembling Papist Which otherwise they would not have done if the Romanists themselves in general who are Subjects to our Gracious King had by any sufficient Test distinguished amongst themselves and thereby convinced the Parliament and all other Protestant people
quarrel and though his body likewise had been subservient and obedient in all things to the most holy dictats of his Soul For we know that invincible or inculpable prejudice ignorance or inadvertisement against the truth of things in the course of a mans life in his actions or in his contests or even some time in his doctrine which strikes not at the fundamentals of Christian doctrine so his Soul be ever piously and charitably and Christianly and resignedly disposed to embrace truth when known either by evidence of reason or from such an authority as it is bound to submit unto doth not hinder either Sanctity or martyrdom or miracles or due canonization or a fit veneration or answerable invocation of him as even a martyrized and miraculous Saint The example of S. Cyprian that great holy martyrized Saint and Patriarch of Affrick who both lived and dyed in a wrongfull contest with even the Popes of Rome themselves and even also in a very material point of Christian doctrine is evidence enough for this And S Paul's contest with S. Peter at Antioch about the observation of the Jewish laws is evidence enough And very many other examples of great holy Fathers and Doctors of the Catholick Church who lived and dyed in material errours and material heresies too especially if the doctrine of Bellarmine in many places nay or that of even of many or rather most other School Divines be true may be produced ex superabundanti to make good this evidence 4. That the infallibility of Pope Alexander the third in canonizing S. Thomas of Canterbury and I speak now to them who suppose the Pope so infallible in all his Definitions or Bulls concerning any doctrine or fact or matter of Piety that he is so too in his canonization of Saints implyed or inferr'd of necessity that all his quarrels or at least the substantial part of that quarrel which occasion'd his death principally immediatly ultimatly not onely was just but must have been just according to the very objective truth of things in themselves and that otherwise there could be no infallibility in the said Alexander's canonization of him for a Saint and a martyr and that likewise the pursuant veneration and invocation of him for such by the Church and the miracles wrought at his hearse before he was interr'd as for example the candles lighting of themselves about his hearse after they had been quenched and his lifting up his hand after the office of the dead was ended and blessing the people c and so many other miracles wrought at several times at his Tomb after he had been long enterred that I say neither that veneration or invocation could be in truth practised without impiety or at least very much temerity not those miracles alleadg'd without forgery and fallacy nor he called a martyr in any true sense if his quarrels or quarrel as now is said with Henry the Second had not been just according to the objective truth of things in themselves For as I denyed the former three suppositions so I do this fourth also or at least I say that I am not bound to admit it First because that even allowing or if I did allow Bellarmine's or any other's doctrine of the infallibility of Popes in their Bulls of canonization and other Bulls whatsoever yet is it plain enough and even admitted by such Divines that possibly there may be an errour in some particular allegations or suppositions entertained by the Popes in the process formed for such canonization and even expressed also or insinuated in the very letters of the canonization and that no such allegations or suppositions reasons or motives are defined in any Bull of canonization or even in any other whatsoever but the principal design onely and that this in Bulls of canonization is onely that such or such a holy man is in the joyes of the blessed seeing God in the face and therefore he may be invocated as such and consequently that the infallibility which they do attribute to the Popes in their Bulls of canonization may subsist notwithstanding that some of those motives or inducements were in themselves false according at least to the objective truth of things For all which these Divines pretend to in this matter is the infallible assistance of Gods holy spirit or of his external Providence promised infallibly as they suppose to the Pope in not proposing any by such a solemn declaration to be invoked as a Saint who is not so indeed but not in supposing this or that which is said of some passage of his life nor by consequence in supposing what was the true cause of his violent death when he dyed so or that the cause was such as would make him a martyr in the stricktest sense of this word Martyr as used in the Church by way of distinction not onely from a Confessour but from such holy men who suffered violent deaths unjustly that is not by the prescript of the laws but by the power onely of wicked men or women and that too sometimes not for any cause they maintayn'd but out of hatred to their persons or to arrive at some worldly end which their life observed whereof St. Edward the Second a Saxon King of England Son to the good King Edgar is a very sufficient example who was and is invoked as a martyr and a very miraculous martyr too notwithstanding he was murthred onely by a servant and at the command of his Stepmother Alfreda as he was drinking on horseback and this too for no other cause but that her own Son Ethelredus should come to be King as presently he was made Polydore Virgil Anglicae Historiae l. VII as sometimes also for a cause which though not so clear on either side in the judgment I mean of some other indifferent men nay perhaps unrighteous on the side of the holy sufferers according to the objective truth of things in themselves yet invincibly appearing just or the more just and the more holy and pious unto them and to others also who had their life otherwise and justly too or according also even to the certain objective truth of other things in due veneration For Martyr in Greek is a witness in English and martyrdom in the Ecclesiastical use of the word is variously applyed sometime strictly to import a violent death suffered without any reluctance and suffered meerly and onely for professing or for not denying a known certain evident or notorious Catholick Evangelical truth or which is the same thing to import a witnessing or a bearing testimony to such a truth by such a death sometime largely or not so strictly however properly still to import by such a death a witnessing or a bearing testimony to a good zeal and great piety and excellent conscience in being constant to a cause which one esteems the more just and generally seems the more pious for all he knows though it be not an evangelical truth and though perhaps
shall answer God and such truth also as leaves him nothing to reply nor any thing at all to justifie this although conditional yet no less injurious than suspicious reflection if intended so by him or construed so by any other For although I had the honour of some little personal acquaintance in my youth with that most illustrious and most Reverend Person Iansenius himself at Lovain about some 29 years past when he was first assumed from being a Doctor of that Vniversity to the Bishoprick of Ipres being as yet but Elect onely in which quality he was pleased to honour my Philosophical publick disputes there with his presence in St. Anthony of Padua's Colledge having to that end first presented his Lordship with my Theses and Dedication to himself and although I had been soon after studying my Divinitie in the same Colledge throughly acquainted with those opinions now called Iansenisme De gratia Sufficiente et efficaâ—i c however this was by accident onely and in the writings onely too of that same Colledge and in the School dictates as they are called of that other very Reverend and learned man Father John Barnewel a little before publick professor of Divinity there and a while after Provincial of the Franciscans in Ireland Uncle to the present Lord of Trimle-stown which he defended publickly and in print though not ad mentem Scoti but Sti. Augustini and in that very Colledge some years before Iansenius was ever known or thought to write of that Subject and which also the same Father Barnewell did by the advice of that other most Reverend and learned Father of the same Order the founder of thâ— Colledge by his mediation with the Spanish Court that great Augustinianâ— Florentius Conrius he that writt de Statu parvulorum then titulary Arch-Bishop of Tuam in Ireland living in that Colledge the greatest Augustinian of the age and by whom Iansenius was indoctrinated first in those principles as they say and although moreover just when I had ended my course of Divinity in that School I was one of the very first though by meer accident onely too that ever saw and read that worke so famous now called Augustinus Iansenij for I read it in albis before it was bound and as it came from the Lovain-press about the year as I take it 1640. and although further I was curious enough to understand all the intrigues of those opinions both then and after they came soon after to publick debate in Rome and as often too ever since as I heard the great contest for or against them under the three Popes Vrban Innocent and Alexander and as farr or as much as I could heare of at so great distance or know the said contests yet I declare conscientiously before God and man 1. That I was never from the first day to this present any further concerned for Iansenius or all or any of his or the said opinions or against him or them either for the Anti-Iansenians than every or any other the most indifferent Roman Catholick in the world should be or was Nor any further at all than to know what was or might be said on both sides without any further inward prejudices of or to either than what I did or should understand the Catholick Church did or would entertain 2. That nevertheless I have always been for my own private interiour sentitiments inclined more to follow the way of sufficient grace even before any determination of Vrban Innocent or Alexander though without condemning in my own private judgement the contrary 3. That for external conformity or submission I have been alwayes resolved and am at this present as I should be in such perplexed abstruse controversies where there is no evidence on either side to acquiese in the determination of the great Pontiff unless peradventure and until a general Council truely such declare the contrary to whose determination as in all other matters of Catholick faith being bound to submit both inwardly and outwardly so in this I must and ought and will by the grace of God if ever any such Council happen to be held in our days 4. That for those Iansenists who have submitted externally to the determinations of those three great Pontiffs for what concerns the point of doctrine and are further absolutely resolved to submit both externally and internally in such and all other points or matters of Faith to the final definitions of a general Council truely such and for ought I understand all those are called Iansenists have submitted so and are so resolved I hold not them to be Hereticks at all whether those opinions attributed to Iansenius or them be Heresies or no that is onely material Heresies or no according to the phrase of the School Because to be a Heretick inwardly inward pertinacie in the judgement or will against the known faith of the Catholick Church is required and obstinacy against the sole determination of the Pope not knowing it to be withal the Church's is not sufficient as to be outwardly such outward pertinacy in words or demeanour 5. That although or if these Iansenists have been already condemned of Heresie by three Popes that is if those opinions of theirs be condemned or declared by so many Popes to be Heresies which yet implyes no declaration of the Iansenists to be or against them as Hereticks no more than did St. Cyprians doctrine of rebaptisation though declared an Heresie in it self conclude him to be an Heretick yet consequently to the Catholick doctrine of the fallibility of Popes in all kind of matters even in those of Divine belief and even those too properly and purely such we are not upon that sole account of being condemned or declared so by these Popes alone or together with their Congregation of Divines or Prelates at Rome or any other of that particular City or Diocess obliged either inwardly or outwardly to beleive them therefore infallibly such that is infallibly to beleive those opinions to be Herâ—â—es in themselves materially nor upon any other account also for what relates to extrinsecal authority besides holy Scripture evident in the points at least evident according the general and unanimous interpretation of holy Fathers but that of knowing them to be reputed and beleeved infallibly such by the Catholick or universal Church or declared such by a general Council its lawful supream Representative Which notwithstanding warrants not those Iansenists not any other to oppose or contradict those declarations of those three Popes at least in the point of doctrine and in the senâ—e the declarations were made until a general Council be convened but leaves them for their infallible directour in point of a Divine belief to another cruely certain and infallible rule indeed the declaration or consent of the Catholick Church however that be certainly and infallibly known by a general Council or otherwise 6. And lastly That I never had nor have this day nor will hereafter with Gods grace any other
the Tridentine Fathers but also quite contrary to those Doctrines and Practises which are manifestly recommended in the letter sense and whole design of the Gospel of Christ in the writings of his blessed Apostles in the Commentaries of their holy Successors in the belief and life of the Christian Church universally for the first Ten Ages thereof and moreover in the very clearest dictates of Nature it self whether Christianity be supposed or not IV. That of those quite other and quite contrary Doctrines in the most general terms without descending to particular applications of them to any one Kingdom or People c the grand Positions are as followeth viz. That by divine right and immediate institution of Christ the Bishop of Rome is Vniversal Monarch and Governour of the World even with sovereign independent both spiritual and temporal authority over all Churches Nations Empires Kingdoms States Principalities and over all persons Emperours Kings Princes Prelates Governours Priests and People both Orthodox and Heterodox Christian and Infidel and in all things and causes whatsoever as well Temporal and Civil as Ecclesiastical or Spiritual That He hath the absolute power of both Swords given Him That He is the Fountain of all Jurisdiction of either kind on Earth and that whoever derives not from Him hath none at all not even any the least Civil or Temporal Jurisdiction That He is the onely Supreme Judge of all Persons and Powers even collectively taken and in all manner of things divine and humane That all humane Creatures are bound under forfeiture of Eternal Salvation to be subject to Him i. e. to both His Swords That He is empowred with lawful Authority not only to Excommunicate but to deprive depose and dethrone both sententially and effectually all Princes Kings and Emperours to translate their Royal Rights and dispose of their Kingdoms to others when and how He shall think fit especially in case either of Apostasie or Heresie or Schism or breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or any publick oppression of the Church or People in their respective civil or religious Rights or even in case of any other enormous publick Sins nay in case of only unfitness to govern That to this purpose He hath full Authority and Plenitude of Apostolical Power to dispense with Subjects in and absolve them from all Oaths of Allegiance and from the antecedent tyes also of the Laws of God or man and to set them at full liberty nay to command them under Excommunication and what other Penalties He please to raise Arms against their so deposed or so excommunicated or otherwise ill-meriting Princes and to pursue them with Fire and Sword to death if they resist or continue their administration or their claim thereunto against His will That He hath likewise power to dispense not only in all Vows whatsoever made either immediately or mediately to God himself nor only as hath been now said in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to the King but in all other Oaths or Promises under Oath made even to any other man whatsoever the subject or thing sworn be That besides Oaths and Vows He can dispense in other matters also even against the Apostles against the Old Testament against the Four Evangelists and consequently against the Law of God That whoever kills any Prince deposed or excommunicated by Him or by others deriving power from Him kills not a lawful Prince but an usurping Tyrant a Tyrant at least by Title if not by Administration too and therefore cannot be said to murther the Anointed of God or even to kill his own Prince That whosoever out of pure zeal to the Roman-Church ventures himself and dyes in a War against such a Tyrant i.e. against such a deposed or excommunicated Prince dyes a true Martyr of Christ and his Soul flies to Heaven immediately That His Holiness may give and doth well to give plenary Indulgence of all their sins a culpa poena to all Subjects rebelling and fighting against their Princes when He approves of the War That antecedently to any special Judgment Declaration or declaratory Sentence pronounced by the Pope or any other subordinate Judge against any particular person Heresie does ipso jure both incapacitate to and deprive of the Crown and all other not only royal but real and personal Rights whatsoever That an Heretick possessor is a manifest Vsurper and a Tyrant also if the possession be a Kingdom State or Principality and therefore is ipso jure out-law'd and that all his People i. e. all his otherwise reputed Vassals Tenants or Subjects are likewise ipso jure absolved from all Oaths and all other tyes whatsoever of fidelity or obedience to him That he is truly and certainly and properly an Heretick who misbelieves calls in question or even doubts of any one definition of the Tridentine Council or of any one that is of meer Papal Constitution or of any one of those Articles profess'd in Pius Quartus 's Creed That not only the Pope but any Patriarch nay any inferiour Bishop acknowledging His Holiness may if need be both excommunicate and depose their own respective Princes Kings or Emperours and may also without their leave or knowledge reverse the Decrees of their Vice-Roys or Lieutenants and even censure depose from and restore again such Lieutenants to their former dignity and charge That all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever both Men and Women Secular and Regular Patriarchs Primaâ—s Archbishops Bishops Abbots Abbesses Priests Fryars Monks Nuâ—s to the very Porter or Portress of a Cloyster inclusively nay to the very Scullion of the Kitchin and all their Churches Houses Lands Revenues Goods and much more all their persons are exempt by the Law of Nature and Laws of Nations and those of God in Holy Scripture both Old and New Testament and those of men i. e. of Christian Emperours Councils and Popes in their respective Institutions and Canons and are indeed universally perpetually and irrevocably so exempt from all secular civil and temporal Authority on Earth whether of States or of Princes of Kings or of Emperours and from all their Laws and all their Commands that is from both the directive and coercive virtue of either or which is the same thing in effect from sin against God and from punishment by God or man for only transgressing them That consequently if any Church-man should murder his lawful and rightful King blow up the Parliament fire burn and lay waste all the Kingdom yet he could not be therefore guilty of Treason or truly called a Traytor against the King or against the Kingdom or People or Laws thereof no nor could justly be punish'd at all by the secular Magistrate or Laws of the Land without special permission from the Pope or those deriving Authority from Him That nevertheless all Clergy-men regular and secular in the World from the meanest either Accolits or Converts to the highest Generals of Orders and greatest Patriarchs of Nations inclusively may be out of all Kingdoms and even contrary to
or whoever else indoctrinated Him there have been of the other side and of the same Church as there are even at this present day many Thousands or the most Learned most Zealous most Godly Prelates and Priests and Doctors besides Laicks who have cryed them down as not only false wicked impious heretical unchristian but as absolutely tyrannical and as plainly destructive of all Government and Laws and of all Property and Peace and of all whatsoever is or can be the felicity or comfort or even freedom of the children of men This hath sufficiently appear'd in the mighty oppositions made as well from the Pulpit and by Writing as by Arms in all Countries of Europe to so many fulminating so many King-deposing pretended universal Monarchs of the World in all things both Spiritual and Temporal to these only Vicars of Christ on earth to these onely infallible Judges of his Faith Witness the Concordates of Germany the Sicilian Monarchy the Pragmatical Sanction of France the Laws of Provisors and Premunire in England and Ireland and the two Oecumenical or at least Occidental Councils of Constance and Basil and many more National Synods both before and after them held some in Italy others in Germany and others in France and held in plain contradiction to those high claims and usurpations Witness also of very late dayes the Third Estate of France in the General Assembly (t) Jan. 1614 5. of the Three Estates held under Lewis XIII Jan. 1614 3 yea notwithstanding Cardinal Perron's Oratory and of later yet all the eight Universities of that Kingdom in their sentence of Sanctarellus (u) 1626. ann 1626. and of others too before and after besides the known practice all along of their Parliaments and â—â—st of all the Theological Faculty of Sorbon and the rest of the Paris (x) 1663. Divines in the year 1663 May 8. headed by the Archbishop of that See and presenting their siâ— Declaration against the Pope to the present French Monarch Lewis XIII All which are certainly manifold clear undeniable demonstrations of what I said immediately before viz. How of the fame Roman-Catholick Church or Faith and Communion there have been all alone as there are at this present many Thousands of the most Learned Zealous 〈◊〉 Godly 〈◊〉 Priests and Doctors as well as Laicks who never approved of the foresaid either Practices or Principles but alwayes reproved condemned abhorred detested and protested against them both as not only heretical but tyrannical c. IX That consequently since the owning of such intollerable Maximes and wicked Actions or the not disowning of them cannot be justly said to be any of the peculiar Notes or characteristical Marks of a Roman-Catholick in general but only of a certain Sect or 〈◊〉 or Party amongst them whom some call Papalins others Puritan Papists and others Popish-Recusanta and since none of all the undoubted either Articles or Riâ—â—â— which all Roman-Catholicks universally without any distinction of Party or Faction do and must espouse have been hitherto reputed accused or suspected of being in themselves abstractedly and purely taken in any manner dangerous to any Government Temporal or Spiritual or to any persons either of Princes or Subjects or to the property or liberty of any Man or Woman or to the peace or quieâ— or security or conteâ—â—â—f any humane Creature however in the mean 〈…〉 â—â—al or some of them do or may seem erroneous to the learned 〈…〉 Protestants and further since King Henry VIII and the Protestant 〈…〉 Parliament of England Ireland and Scotland after him a◠〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 could not 〈◊〉 throughly understand both these things which I have now mention'd so on the other hand they could not but observe how ever since the Oath of Supremacy though framed only by Roman-Catholick Bishops Abbots and Doctors of the English Nation and defended by the Principal (y) Bishop Gardiâ—er in his Book de â—eâ—a Obedienâ—â—â— and Bishop â—oâ—â—â—r in his Preface before it of the same occasioned the first Separation or Schism amongst the Subjects of England and Ireland the far greater part of such as continued in the Communion of the Roman Church did seem also to adhere to the foresaid dangerous Doctrines and Practises i. e. to all the pretenses and actings of the Roman Court forasmuch as they generally refus'd to disown them either by that Oath of Supremacy or by any other and moreover by consequence since the same Princes and Parliaments could not but manifestly discern all their own very being as also that of all the People under their Government to be singularly marked out and even devoted to utter extirpation by a party of men so madly principled and furiously bent living amongst them out of all that has been said it must follow That the onely original and the onely true principal causes which moved them to proceed with so much severity of Laws Proclamations and Executions against all Roman-Catholicks in general of these Dominions could be no other of our side than our Fathers and our own very great neglect and folly or contempt and wilfulness not to disown and renounce for ever publickly as we ought all such whatsoever wicked Positions and Practises nor any other indeed of their side than their firm persuations of our being therefore so desperately both principled and inclined nay resolved also and ready to give the greatest possible evidences of fiery Zeal whensoever the Commands of His Holiness from abroad shall meet with a fair opportunity at home X. That it is unreasonable to think and incredible to believe That so many judicious Princes Parliaments and Convocations who had themselves gone so far and ventured so much as they did only because they would not suffer themselves or the Protestant people govern'd by them to be imposed on against their own reason in matters of Divine Belief Rites c should at the same time be so concerned to impose on others in the like i. e. in Spiritual matters purely such in those I mean of Religion and Rites no way intrenching on the Jurisdiction or other Temporal or Spiritual Concern either of King or Bishop or other Subject whatsoever as to Enact Laws of so many grievous punishments yea of Death it self in some cases of meer purpose to extort from them a complyance or submission in such matters It is no to be believed that they would Enact those Laws against their own flesh and blood and some their nearest Relations too only for not renouncing such harmless and meer Religious Tenets or Rites which all their Predecessors before them had for so many Ages held without disturbance to the Publick or inconvenience to private Persons or hindrance to Virtue or countenance to Vice if the testimony of all Christendome for so long time be of any weight and to Enact those Laws intentionally or designedly against those things which at the very worst in all possible and conditional Contingencies are but erroneous Tenets and insignificant unprofitable Rites not
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
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
defiled but certainly hold upon that matter in 〈◊〉 To be 〈◊〉 the Answers were 1. That it very ill â—â—ted with the profession of the followers of Christ and Successors of his Apostles and Disciples or the function of Priests of God and Preachers of Evangelical tâ—â—â—â— by their calling for any earthly regard or ambitious aim of titles or diguleies either 〈…〉 of the Church to decline the declaration of their conscience or of the doctrine of Christ whereby the stocks on people 〈◊〉 their charge or to whom they were sent might be sâ—â—â—dly and sufficiently instructed that to embrace 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 as prescribed by the law of God That besides they were altogether ouâ— in their way to those worldly and they proposed themselves with so little regard of their duty or conscience That the case was much altered 〈◊〉 that hath been these hundred years pasts And that if they expected a greater liberty they should withal expect a more arrow inspection from the Prince or State into their affairs and Government and to the persons amongst them advanced 〈◊〉 others and to the means and wayes of their advancement hereafter and their 〈◊〉 its consequently principles and faithfulness to the Crown 2. That 〈◊〉 of them as formerly had been so with â—unate and indeed most of them were so as to have been pactiâ—â—s in the Nunâ—â—o's and other annexed quarrels against the brights of the Crown 〈…〉 of the Kingdom had the 〈◊〉 reason now to be forward to embrace the opportunity given them of meâ—â—ing hereafter a better opinion and removing as well as they might out of His Majesties breast Lord Lieutenants and even out of all the rest of their fellow Subjects especially Protestants the jealousies and suspicions their former actions continue yet in them and must alwayes continue if they refuse to give so lawful and dutiful so catholick and conscientious an argument of their change and repentance as their subscription to the said Remonstrance must be reputed 3. That for those others of them who in the 〈…〉 him been honest and loyal all along they should 〈…〉 the fair hope they had of a â—ew 〈…〉 its a 〈…〉 then this for their further good 〈…〉 their profession and â—â—â—ingâ—ed 〈◊〉 of their 〈…〉 uniform in in their doctrine and life according to the law of God in all sentiâ—â—â— that Time servers nor Wealth â—â—ckâ— That besides they should confides the streight the King was in but with so 〈…〉 the impossibility of satisfying 〈…〉 happen in such a case that of this Countrey but why 〈…〉 That to the publick good and gâ—â—â— parts of the Kingdom 〈…〉 of particular could not be preferred That they 〈…〉 be of the necessities of the publick for disposition And if the King or now Laws did wrong any even of the best deserving of their friends their religion and their conscience and principles told them and their function or calling peculiarly they nor other Subjects had in such a case other remedy but prayers and tears and supplications to Him that can believe the oppressed when he please in this world and will certainly 〈…〉 in Christian patience in a better Finally that the liberty 〈◊〉 exercise of Religion and of indoctrinating the People in the wayes to heaten were the markâ— propâ—r 〈◊〉 them to shoâ— at and to this end they were called not to contend for partitions of earthly patrimonies And that where one Proprietor 〈◊〉 his â—and a thousand Catholicks would loose their souls if they would not pursue in 〈◊〉 even course the principles of the Religion and a good Conscience and by their concurrence wipe off the jealousies raised against and scandals aspersed on it by the doctrine and practises which that Remonstrance did condemn on disown 4. To those that had ingrafted in them an aversioâ— against all was called or reputed the Interest of the Crown of England in this Countrey it was seriously inculcated how unfortunate both themselves and predecessors had been therein during the revolâ—â—â—â—s and various attempts in prâ—secution thereof these 500 years past since Hâ—â—ty the 2d And how the principles and arguments they made use of to flatten themselves to some kind of â—â—â—â—fulness which indeed 〈◊〉 a pitiful and in point of conscienâ—â— were such as chose and no other then those which Father Charles 〈◊〉 Mahâ—n the Mâ—â—er Jesuit hath in his wicked Apology set out in Portugal however pretended to have been printed at Frandâ—fords and dispersed here amongst the Confederate though publickly burn'd by the hand of a hangman at Kilkenny and by the authority also of the said Confederate and against which the Proculator himself by the command of to then supream Council preach't nine Sermons five Sundays one after another in St. Kennys Church on that text of Jeremiah Quis est 〈◊〉 vobis sap â—â—siqui considerat hoc quare perierit terra Even such as would involve by consequence all Kingdoms and States in the whole earth whereinto my Forreigner ever enter'd as any time in perpetual war and blood shed Such as would beâ—â—â—ve of all right all conquering Nations let the causes of the invasion be never so just or continued-possession after be never so long and the submission of the conquer'd never so voluntary for what can appear to the eyes of man And such also as would arm even themselves who made use of such arguments one against another while the world did stand Nay and such too as being prest on by contrary arguments would make them confess consequently as indeed they did such of them as were ingenuous and freely spoke their minds to the Procurator urging them in point of reason that it were not a sin against the law of God for any to involve the whole Kingdom iâ— was again if he could to recover only for himself a small patrimony even of a much as twenty pounds a year whereof he had been in his own privat judgement dispossesâ—â—d unjustly in the late plantations made before the wars It was further laid open to such men how their sin entertaining such mâ—râ—â—â—es and harbouring such designs was by so much the more abominable before God and man by how much they were themselves Hypocritical in pretending only to others that knew them not a speciousness of Religion and that of the Church of God and interest of the Pope Then which or any of all which God knowes they intended nothing less but where it brought or could bring their other truly intended worke about 5. To the Regulars in general it was answer'd That they knew better their own strength and their own exemption and their own priviledges then so That they often engage against the whole body of the secular Clergie in matters wherein they are sure to offend them more and have more opposition from them and less support from others either in their own Country at home or abroad in forraign parts or even at Rome And they were sure enough the Pope would be wiser then to discountenance such a numerous body
Propositions against the Jansenists and by occasion thereof against Mr. White alias Blacklow a learned Priest of the Roman communion though much for most of his books censured at Rome And he that printed at London that excellent Latin Panegyrick of Cromwel in verse I remember well though much unbecomming for the subject a Catholick Divine however it might sute a Heathen Poet Oratour as being in the praise of such a Tyrant Usurper And he that being netled by Mr. Blacklows replyes partly to be revenged on this Gentleman or out of zeal perhaps and partly to trye the fortune of his old age and expect some reward for his earnest endeavours to stifle Iansenisme in England whether for any other end I know not went to Rome immediately after his said writings and stayed there since It was this good Father as a veterane Souldier an able Divine and penman and a forraigner too that had no dependance on England they pitched on at Rome to write and print against that Remonstrance and against the sense thereof expounded by the Procuratour in his little English book wherein he gave the best account thereof he could and the exceptions made first against it required To which purpose they got the Irish Franciscans of St. Isidore their Colledge in the City to translate that little book of the Procuratours hopeing also they might find therein some passages or propositions censurable by His Holiness or Inquisition or by the Congregation de propaganda fide and thereby also find more cause and more matter to write against both the Remonstrance and chief defenders of it such as they accounted the Procuratour and Father Caron But their labour in that particular of translating of that book was lost For when they had done all their worst and brought their translation to the Colledg of Cardinals de propaganda nothing therein was esteemed censurable at least otherwise then the bare Propositions of the Remonstrance in it self And therefore it lyes and will in all likely-hood for ever lye amongst by layed sheets in that Colledg without any danger of condemnation or prohibition as even the Catholick Primate of Ardmagh then at Rome and in all probability concurring with the rest of his Countrymen against the Remonstrance and Subscribers writâ— to my self as soon as he was returned to Paris in 65. as also he together writt that His Holiness did not would not censure at all or meddle with or concern himself in that Remonstrance pro nec con otherwise then by his displeasure only against those Churchmen that were the first Authors or chief promoters of it And indeed we have no reason yet to complain of His Holiness in this matter albeit very much of the proceedings of his Eminency Cardinal Francis Barlerin and of the two Internuncius's of Bruxels But however this be or be not el Padre Macedo lost all his labours How farre he proceeded in it I do not know but sure I am whatever it was he writt on this subject it never came to light Whether because upon after thoughts they found he could saye nothing to purpose and whatever he would saye would certainly and fully be answered and judg'd safer to proceed rather by authority then reason against that Instrument and those Subscribers and by discountenancing and keeping them from all hopes of preferment or title in that Court until they retracted or whether for any other more pious and godly consideration of the Popes Holiness I cannot say for certain But am notwithstanding certain that to this day as neither Macedo nor Brodin so none els had the confidence either at home in Ireland or abroad in other Countries to publish as much as one sheet or leaf or line on that subject against the Remonstrance in print or otherwise that came to my knowledg besides those written letters only of Cardinal Barberin De Vecchijs and Rospigliosi part of which I have before given and shall the rest hereafter in their due place and besides the Censure of Lovain XIII The second particular of those two I desired the Reader to take notice of here as an appendix of those answers is That the Procurator alwayes and to all and every though so many dissenting opposing or delaying parties and factions of the Clergy against subscription in the perclose of his particular answers appropriated to their several objections inculcated seriously and vehemently insisted on this general argument against them That whereas they all generally confessed the catholickness and lawfulness of that form or of the acknowledgments declarations protestations promises engagements and petition of that Remonstrance and consequently the lawfulness of a subscription to it and withal saw clearly not only the expediency but necessity also of their concurrence and being it was evident enough they were bound under the greatest and strictest obligation of conscience and even of eternal damnation and they above other Christians by their special function to concur to all just conscientious or lawful means or such as were not sinful and were also the circumstances of place time and persons considered both expedient and necessary as well to hinder the propagation and labour the extirpation of erroneous false sinful and scandalous doctrine amongst the people whom they instructed as to wash off their holy Faith and Church such scandals already aspersed upon it through the carriage or miscarriage of some rendring it foul and odious and horrible and therefore estranging Sectaries of all sorts from all thoughts of returning or reuniting to it at any time but rather fixing them in heresie and schisme with loss of their eternal salvation even of such infinite myriads of souls for whose reduction to the Church and means of salvation they were specially commission'd by their calling and enjoyn'd to preach and teach Evangelical truths without addition or substraction of or countenance to any other novel doubtful or controverted opinions much less of those are certainly false and scandadalous and even against the common peace not of Catholicks or Christians alone but also of Infidels even of all societies of men on earth it must follow evidently out of these premises they must confess themselves to live in a very sinful state and extreamly dangerous hazzard of Gods most severe and most terrible judgments against them on the day of account if they delayed any longer their duty to God and to the King and to their own Church Religion People and to those too that abhorred their Church and Faith upon account chiefly of such their carriage or of their not disowning as they might and ought such pernicious doctrines and practises the antecedents concomitants and subsequents whereof render the Professors of the Catholick Faith and Church so abominable to all apostatized from or otherwise born and bred out of it For it is clear that under such penalties all Priests of God and Preachers of the Gospel of Christ by special function are obliged by all just means to endeavour the best they can to render
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
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
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
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
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
very text and ends of that text or precept And it is in effect this that by higher powers both temporal and spiritual powers are understood respectively as to their own proper Subjects and that St. Pauls command being in such general terms as these Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit must by consequence be understood so as intending and only intending that all secular persons should be subject to those who are as to them higher powers viz. the secular Magistrate Prince King Emperour c. and that all Clergy persons also should be subject to their own respective higher powers that is to the Superiours Ecclesiastical as Bishops Archbishops c. and before all to the Pope who is above all A third answer is observed by some as yet more strange and absurd though Cardinal Bellarmines proper invention say they Who say they too not content with one single folly viz. that of the former second answer which he also with some other Divines of his way approveth and giveth would needs invent this indeed so rare so admired one That although St. Paul commands universally that all souls be subject to the higher powers yet he commands not they be all subject to the higher politick civil temporal or secular powers Quocirca sayes he lib. 1. de Translatione Imperii cap. 2. n. 7. antequam Principes politicos exaltare incipias super omnem animam ac proinde super ipsum etiam summum Pontificem de hoc enim potissima quaestio est demonstrandum tibi erit sublimiorem esse potestatem Principatus Politici quam Ecclesiastici But I for my part see nothing new in this answer of Bellarmine that is nothing materially different from the first erroneous old answer of those whom St. Austin oppugned and confuted in this matter as shall be seen presently or at least from that and the second both together For the only difference is 1. That Bellarmine would fain by this unreasonable distinction exempt at least the Pope from all secular power whatever would become of the rest of the Clergie And then he thought all was well enough as I have elsewhere noted 2. That he takes the word power in the abstract not in the concrete which yet the first answer did not As for the word higher or sublimioribus in the Latin text which he takes advantage of by taking it comparatively the first answer also took it so But however this be or whether this of Bellarmine be materially different or not from the former that is from the first or second or both answers together I am sure first that I have evidently confuted already all three out of the very obvious and clear text it self as you may see again and before in my proofs of the Major and Minor but more especially in that of the Major where any indifferent judicious and ingenious Reader cannot but confess that either there must be admitted not only one but manifold and most manifest contradictions and non-sense in that whole text or discourse of the blessed Apostle if any one of all these answers were true or certainly that those texts of Paul must not be understood literally Both which admissions are equally and confessedly of all sides false erroneous and heretical Only against that part of the first answer where it is said that by the sword in that text of St. Paul the spiritual of excommunication is to be understood and not the material of iron I am to add here that this too is plainly contradicted by the very text being hence it is clear that sword must be understood which is the proper sword of that Minister of God to whom tribute and custom were then paid Now it is no less clear these were not then paid to Christian Bishops Popes or Church but only to secular and even heathen Princes Secondly I am sure also that all those three Answers both joyntly and severally are no less confuted by the very only true primary and proper end of St. Pauls universal command in these words Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit and of the rest of the discourse following For this reason as even our late School Expositors as even Cornelius a Lapide himself though of the same Society with Bellarmine hath it on the said 13. to the Romans that I may not as yet alledge any thing out of the ancient holy Fathers out of Origen Chrisostom Augustine Anselme and others of them who handle directly and of purpose this very subject this reason I say which moved Paul to that general Edict proves manifestly 1. That by higher powers he only mean'd the secular civil or politick powers and consequently by the sword also mean'd no other but the material sword 2. That by omnis anima every soul he mean'd universally also the Faithful without any distinction of Laicks and Clerks or which is the same thing without any kind of exception of Clerks from the universal affection or distribution of the word omnis or word every For this reason was only was as the above Cornelius a Lapide well proves it was out of St. Augustine Psal 118. Clemens Alexandrinus l. 4. Stromatum That in the infancy of the Christian Church even in the very days of the Apostles Christ himself there was a rumour spread that by the Gospel or Doctrine and law of Christ as being a law of grace liberty humane Policies Kingdoms Republicks were quite everted as now amongst such Hereticks as pretend the liberty of the Gospel for with drawing themselves from all kind of humane power is taught That this rumour and calumny had its first origen from the sect of Iudas Galilaeus whereof you may read Acts 5. these Galilees teaching that it was not lawful for the Jews by the law of God or Moyses not even in case of death to pay tribute customes or any other duty to Cesar they being free-born by that law and Caesar deriving no right from it Whereof the Reader may satisfie himself more at large in Iosephus l. 18. Antiquit. 1. That Christ having been himself by descent a Galilaen and reputed one of that Countrey and St. Paul too having in particular preach'd and writ much of Christian liberty or liberty from the yoake of the law and pleasure of men in some other of his Sermons and Epistles though he mean'd a liberty only from the judicial and ceremonial part of the law of Moses and from the evil commands of men some of the beleevers themselves who were in themselves otherwise corrupt or ignorant were inclined to think themselves also free from humane policies and all the power of man That the whole Nation of the Jews were generally infected with that doctrine of Iudas Galilaeus even in those very dayes of Christ and the Apostles as consequently we read that in pursuance thereof they all generally rebelled against the Romans which occasioned the siege and final destruction of Ierusalem and of their whole Nation
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
against his will that he was as yet then a Novice in the Faith and that he â—â—mitted the matter to the Roman Pontiff I say this excuse is wholly vain For first who could constrain him next he was no late Convert and the matter of usurping jurisdiction over the Church was so great notable extraordinary among Christians and of such important consequence too that t is impossible he should not be instructed in it and especially in such an instance of it though he had till then been a meer Novice or even Catechumen And in the last place who sees not it is one thing to acknowledge himself an incompetent Judge and remit the parties to their own proper Judges and an other to assign and delegat Judges to the parties which Constantine did Nor was he reprehended herein or instructed either by those three French Bishops or by Melchiades himself not even although it was known that he was most pious and most ready both to heare and obey all divine instructions Nay so farre were these French Bishops was Melchiades himself from any such exception that in pursuance of this Commission or delegation from and by Constantine a Council was gathered together at Rome to the end this troublesome cause of Caecilian and the Donatist Bishops might be the more throughly and fully discussed Optatus l. 1. wherein yet onely they did sit as Judges who were so delegated by Constantine Melchiades Maternus Rhetitius and Marinus who also the matter having been heard and examined from first to last absolved Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists Augustinus in Brevic. coll di 3. c. 22. Nay Augustine insinuats no less then that the sole judgement of Melchiades had he undertaken any such himself alone in this controversie as it was then had been usurped or had been so if he had without the Emperour 's special delegation presumed to determine it but together with those other his French Collegues For Augustine treating of the pertinacy of the Donatists in their refusing to yeeld to so many former Judgements which absolved Caecilian and labouring to clear those former judgements from all opposition he objects to himself in behalf of the Donatists epist 162. thus An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare juditium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi primus Tifigitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum To this what doth Augustine answer Certainly he does not denye that such judgement of Melchiades might be justly thought in the case to be usurped but excuses the judgement of Melchiades which really de facto was not that which onely might be falsely supposed or bruted to have been and defends it that so was truly by saying again thus Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo viderent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent Hoc probamus Donatistarum precibus verbis ipsius Imperatoris So c. So Augustine above or in the foresaid epistle The appeall of the Donatists to the Emperour himself doth follow upon and against the foresaid judgement of the Bishops at Rome Optatus l. 1. cont Parm. And what doth Constantine then t is true he breaks out into this no less just then admiring exclamation O rabida furoris audacia sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerant Yet this imports not signifies not by any means that Constantine abominats the ignorance of the Appellants for having or as if they had against any divine or humane rule or canon had recourse to a laye tribunal For had it been so or had this been the motive of his exclamation he had dismissed them and remitted them back again to their own proper Episcopal Judges which yet he did not but admitted their appeal Therefore this exclamation of Constantine imports no more but his great wonder at the too great obstinacy of these Donatist Appellants and their too much want of Christian humility resignation simplicity and even of their too much want also of either peace or charity that they in professing themselves to be Christian Priests and Bishops would never leave of persecuting an other Bishop not acquiesce at all in such manifold Judgements of even stranger Bishops who sate so numerously on the cause both in Affrick and Europe but would rather as contentiously as even the meerest Gentils in the world by all the most odious and tedious advantages of secular laws and in so improbable a cause and even by such an appeal from the Emperours such Delegats continue then inveterat malice against an other Christian Bishop But however this be or whatever moved Constantine to this exclamation the matter of fact which followed cannot be denyed For sure enough it is that Constantine admitted this Appeal and not onely admitted it but would have it and had it discussed in an other Council of Bishops which he summond and convened at Orleance in France wherein too himself would be and was present to heare and see this cause again discussed and the late judgement thereupon of Melchiades the Roman Bishop and of the other three Delegats reviewed Euseb l. x. c. 5. Aug. epist 68. This admission of the appeal and this reexamination by Constantine and by his Councel of Orleance seems very harsh to Baronius tom 3. an 314. n. 35. And therefore sayes that Constantine was drawn against his will to admit so unjust an Appeal from the judgement or sentence of the great Pontiff But to that of being drawn against his will we have said before enough or that there was none could force him And for the fact in it self that is for his admission I am sure Augustine never once reprehends it how reprehensible soever the Appeal was in it self or on the behalf of the Appellants Nor did any other of the Bishops of those times reprehend Constantine's said admission of it But if Constantine however against his own will or rather inclination did so any way tyrannically or by usurpation extend his imperial power to Ecclesiastical matters or to such matters of the Church as by the law of God were out or beyond the proper sphere of his lay or civil power why were the Roman Pontiff silent Why did not Caecilianus except and not obey as he did Why so many other Bishops of greatest name and fame gathered together and celebrating great Councils and sitting as Judges to obey the command of Constantine Therefore it must follow that all the Bishops then were meer stupid brutes or certainly that Constantine was so a most cruel raging tyrant and trampler underâ—oot of all the liberties of the Church that they dared not gainsay him And whereas neither can be said that we allow Constantine to be a competent Judge of those affairs which are properly and strictly Ecclesiastical that is spiritual at least in such as are meer questions of right or of the spiritual doctrine
their own civil power both executed and decreed such corporal or civil punishment and consequently who were the sole authoritative Judges of both Priests Bishops and Popes I mean as to inflict or not inflict such corporal or civil punishments on them be the crime whatsoever you please Lay or Ecclesiastical But if you would see yet some instance or some example in particular fact of the continued possession of that authority in Princes even after I mean the tenth century of Christian Religion was compleat You may reflect on Conradus the Emperour who in presence of Benedict the ninth Roman Pontiff of that name sharply arose against and roughly laid hands that is with his own hands seized on Heribertus Archbishop of Millan as guilty of treasonable practices against the Empire albeit this Heribeâ—t saved himself after by flight and in the presence too of the same Pope Benedict in his hearing and seeing all was done decreed banishment from their Sees against three other Bishops and effectually cast them to exile the Bishop of Cremona Vercellis and Placentia Hermannus in Chron. an 1037. and Baronius eod an tom 11. Where this great Annalist Baronius divines after his own manner that surely Conradus did not this or that without consulting first and obtaining the good leave of the Roman Pontiff dreaming so what the Historians of that age were ignorant of did wholy pass over in silence without question because there was no such consultation held with the Pope no such leave asked from him for it is not likely that if any such had been they had given us no kind of hint of it And so too this prophetical or conjectural Annalist gives us his own very vain imagination for a record where he sayes that a suddain pestilence followed to revenge this fact or this usurpation of Conradus But if Conradus with licence of the Pope proceeded so against these criminal Bishops wherefore doth Baronius invent this revenge of an usurpation that was not in the case if his dream be true So little is our great interpreter of God's judgments and scourges consistent or constant to himself And if any should say for him that he meaned not that God reveng'd by such a plague any usurpation of Conrade being the Pope gave his consent also but only mean'd that God thereby reveng'd some other injustice in the proceedings albeit authorized by the Imperial and Papal powers joyntly or both together then I say that such meaning or interpretation of Baronius were it infallibly true in such meaning is nothing to his purpose here or against mine at all as the judicious Reader may himself easily see without any further illustration or observation by me And you may also reflect on Henry King of the Romans afterwards Emperour and the second of this name who continuing and persevering in the possession of the right or authority of coercing and punishing Clergiemen in imitation of his Predecessors wel-nigh a thousand years deprived of his dignity Widgerus Archbishop of Ravenna nay and the Pope himself of his Papacy Gregory the Fifth of that name Hermannus in Chron. Of other Henry's Emperours of Rome I say nothing Because in their time and by the occasion of the too great abuse by Clergiemen of the reverence to and patience of Princes with the Roman See in particular and Ecclesiastical Order in general nay and peradventure also by the occasion of the neglect and sluggishness of the Princes themselves that I may not here enlarge on or give other most certainly true causes as likewise by occasion of the many great priviledges formerly granted by Emperours and other Kings to all Priests and Bishops albeit amongst all such priviledges there was never any such to them in general as an exemption in temporal matters from the supream civil power and moreover by occasion of some special priviledges granted to the Roman See alone and to the Bishops thereof and finally by occasion of the vast both spiritual and temporal Revenues which these Roman Pontiffs were in the dayes of the other Henries possessors of they I mean the Roman Pontiffs were then arrived to such a height of worldly greatness and strength that seeing the former and indeed formidable power of the Roman Empire divided and subdivided in to so many different unsubordinate Kingdoms and seeing themselves could hardly ever want some one or other Prince amongst all to embrace their Papal quarrel against any other either Prince King or Emperour and considering also the great ignorance or blind zeal of many then who as their affections lead them or as their Preachers told them in some or many Provinces of Europe took all the Dictates of Roman Pontiffs for so many infallible or divine oracles pursuant to the doctrine hereof also first invented soon after vented by Gregory the VII I say that by these occasions and by their own improvements of them the Popes were in the times of the other succeeding Henries come to such a height of glory and greatness that they dared resist as they did Kings and Emperours in what quarrels soever and particularly in this of the pretended exemption not of themselves only but of all Bishops of the world nay and of all Priests too nay and also of all other Clerks of whatsoever lower degree from all earthly power add in all criminal causes of what nature soever pretending that such persons as being dedicated to God had no other truly proper and supream Governour or Prince on earth but themselves alone the Popes of Rome And therefore being it was then or much about that time this controversie begun which I have disputed on hitherto I have resolved to bring no instances of other Princes or Bishops since that time or of that time but content my self with these of more antiquity as best sorting with my purpose which only is and was along in this Section to shew the former doctrine of the holy Fathers and their Exposition of St. Paul 13. Rom. confirmed by the practice and in so many particular instances of both Ecclesiastical Prelats and Christian Princes in the more ancient Ages of the Church and for so many ages together all along quite contrary to both the doctrine and practice of some few or many if you please Ecclesiasticks in the later and worser and in this by little and little degenerated ages of Christianity And yet I would have my Readers take notice that I could furnish them were it necessary with a cloud of witnesses and a cloud of such particular instances both in the very said time and after the very said time of even the self same other Henries also and even also all along in every age of these very latter and worser until this present wherein we live and in this present year of it 1667. and could furnish them with these witnesses and produce to them these other such particular instances in matter of fact of Bishops and of Princes and of Roman Catholick Princes too for such only
the said supream power or understood in or by any priviledge of exemption unless it be so expresly specifically or determinatly said by clear words in such priviledge and lastly I have before demonstrated that no such priviledge or any with such words nor any canon or even any other testimony for such a priviledge or such words hath ever yet been alledg'd by any of all our Adversaries LXXVI The few remaining Objections are now to be considered and solved according to my promise and method prescribed to my self in my LXXI Section I call them remaining not that I left any of Bellarmine's arguments unanswered or unresolved where I treated against them of purpose in eight long Sections viz. from my LXIII to my LXX Section both inclusively taken but that I met elsewhere with these objections I am to examine here now or that they occurred to my self and that I have not yet of purpose cleared or sifted them in particular and that they are indeed the only which I conceive to remain as yet so of purpose particularly unresolved albeit I doubt not they are in general or by the general grounds I have laid and proved already in so many former passages and by the general solutions and reasons I have given against Bellarmines arguments sufficiently resolved However that I may leave no place at all for cavil I descend to these also in particular Whereof there are four in all The first is composed of three several Scripture Texts of St. Paul himself For this great Apostle sayes expresly 1 Cor. 10.6 that he himself had a present power to take revenge of or to punish all disobedience In promptu habentes sayes he ulcisci inobedientiam And 1. Cor. 4.21 he puts the question thus to the Corinthians Quid vultis in vïrga veniam ad vos what will you have me come in or with a rod to you And 1. Timoth 5.19 he commands Timothy that against a Presbyter he shall not receive any accusation that hath less then two or three witnesses to make it good Accusationem adversus presbyterum nolï recipere nisi sub duobus aut tribus testibus And several more such peradventure may be added Out of all which the inference must be if any at all be made against me to purpose how unjustly or ungroundedly soever that herein St. Paul contradicts himself and his own command to all souls Rom. 13. or certainly that I have all along hitherto affixed that sense to this command of Paul omnis anima c. Rom. 13. which Paul never had But the answer is very facile and solution obvious viz. that all these three texts and other such in Paul or other Apostle Evangelist or Prophet if any such other places be of him or of any of them are certainly and onely understood of the Ecclesiastical or Spiritual power of Paul and of other Church Superiours and only of meer Ecclesiastical purely such both judgments and punishments denounced or pronounced by vertue of that spiritual power In which manner and by which power it was that Paul without any doubt could deliver and did deliver some disobedient scandalous and exorbitant sinners to Sathan 1. Corinth 5.5 Now that this answer is unquestionably well grounded nor ought to be at all contradicted I need not repeat again what I have so at large produced before out of the holy Fathers generally acknowledging no other power in the Church but purely spiritual not even in the very Apostles themselves who founded the Church And as little do I need repeat those other texts of Paul Rom. 13. or what I said before upon them which is that they can have no kind of sense at all but meer contradictory nonsense if Paul did not mean by them certainly that the very Church and Church Superiours were not exempt in temporal matters from the secular Princes but subject to them in all such even as to civil coercion by the material sword and consequently if he did not mean that the Church as such had no civil corporal or temporal coercive power properly such but only and meerly spiritual or that of Ecclesiastical Censures only properly and strictly such Yet I will not upon this new occasion forbear to mind thee good Reader once more of that canon of Caelestinus III. cap. cum non ab homine de judiciis Which I have given also at large in my last Section immediatly before this present and which onely is enough to justifie in all points my solution here of this first remaining objection Caelestine there expresly declares that the â—hurch hath no power at all not even over the meerest Clerk but that which is purely spiritual by meer Church censures of suspension deposition excommunication degradation and that after pronounceing such censures she hath no more to do but to implore the secular civil power Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat sayes the said Caelestine Which being so who sees not the vanity of this first remaining objection Or who sees not that such a spiritual power in Paul Timothy and other Church Superiours can very well stand with their own subjection and with the subjection also of all their flock whether disobedient or obedient to the civil power of the civil Magistrat in all things and in such manner as is proper to the same civil Magistrat or finally who sees not but that one may have a power to punish with one certain kind of punishment and not with an other The second remaining objection is of S. Ambrose or of his having proceeded judicially and authoritatively to condemn or free a certain Virgin votress accused of whoredom and of his having renewed the judgment of this fact upon an appeal to him and even renewed it against a former judgment pronounced by Syagrius Bishop of Verona Ambrosius l. 1. ep 64. But the answer is as easy and obvious to this also and is that Ambrose sate in judgment on this crime not as intending or pretending to punish it with any civil corporal punishment nor as pretending any Church power properly such to pronounce any sentence obliging to such punishments but as intending onely a meer Ecclesiastical Episcopal and spiritual cognizance and in order onely to a meer spiritual punishment correction and amendment of the accused if she had been found guilty of the crime that is in order onely to a spiritual ejection and spiritual excommunication of her out of the Church until she had by fruitfull and exemplar repentance merited to be readmitted again into the Church Which appears hence also that Ambrose when he had heard all throughly absolved this Virgin as unjustly accused and excommunicated her accusers The third remaining objection is that this doctrine of a supream coercive power in supream temporal Princes to punish criminal Bishops Priests and other Clergiemen is and was the doctrine of Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno both of them condemned as hereticks and this doctrine of theirs condemn'd likewise as an
and Burgundy and exercised also that self same Vicariat office without any regard of the former Bulls of this Pope excommunicating deposing and depriving this Lewis for we know very well that in the Countries obeying that Emperour himself there was not nor could be any such material publication much less reception of any thing or Bull for such a part at least as struck though indirectly at the prerogatives and rights Imperial I mean such as were truly such as we know it is a maxime amongst Civilians and Canonists that laws are then laws indeed quando moribus utentium comprobantur when they are approved by reception and submission to them and yet we know withal that for such approbation or reception of and submission to all and singular the definitions of this Bull so little can be said albeit enough may be for some of them and yet not for any of them as in this Bull as it is apparant the Bull it self or the tenor of it hath been for some ages unknown and even unknown to and unseen by the very most learned and most curious at least until about some fifty or threescore years since it was by meer chance lighted on in Biblotheca Cottâ—niana Sr. Robert Cottons Library finally passing by altogether in silence as not material what Villanius an Italian Author of this Popes time and St. Antoninus too the holy Archbishop of Florence after him and others after both report of the election of this very Iohn to the Papacy or how it was himself alone being called before his Papacy Iacobus de Ossa Episcopus Cardinalis Portuensis that chose himself to be Pope viz. the Colledge of Cardinals being at variance long and compromising at last and fixing on and electing him blindly whoever he should be that were or would be elected by him alone whereupon he chose himself as likewise and as not very material passing over wholly in silence what Ciacconius relates of his breach of oath made to Neopoleon Ursinus the Archdeacon who was one of the Conclave and was author to the rest of the Cardinals to leave the whole election to him Iacobus de Ossa then but after Iohn the XXII for this oath was that he would never mount either horse or mule but to go to Rome whence his Predecessors Clement the V. had in a manner removed the Papal See by living all his life-time in France where alâ—o this Iohn or this Iames de Ossa was chosen to be Pope and yet he never once attempted to go to Rome though he lived a long and healthy life after in his Papacy and therefore the said Neapoleon would never come at him as much as once more in his life nor even after his death as much as go to his funeral ceremonies not even notwithstanding that to appease or to win him from his rigid resolution this Pope had promoted two of his Family and created them Cardinals at two several promotions Iohn Cajetanus Vrsinus and Matthew Vrsinus I say that passing by at present all the both general and specifical and particular advantages I might any way take either of the doctrine of the fallibility of Popes in general or of the fallibility of Iohn the XXII Bulls in particular or of this singular Bull of his as to some part of it at least in the sense of some Divines against Marsilius and Iandunus or of any thing else hitherto alledg'd in this last Paragraph nay supposing or granting all and each animadversion had been not only immaterial but false and which is consequent admitting the certainty of the legalâ— both emanation and publication and general reception too of this Bulâ— throughout all Christendome and of every branch of it and that even Iohn the XXII himself had either been himself alone infallible in all his Definitions of any matter to be of Catholick Faith and consequently of the matter of this Bull or at least had been so fortunate as to have defined nothing so by himself for such but what was formerly or concomitantly acknowledged to be such and even acknowledged so by the universal Church of the infallibility of which Church in matters of Faith no Catholick doubts yet I say again that granting all this My direct and positive answer to the above fourth remaining objection is very clear and very full and satisfactory viz. That although without any peradventure my doctrine hitherto all along in this Tract of a supream civil coercive power in supream temporal Princes to punish criminal Bishops Priests and other Clergiemen whatsoever dwelling and offending within their dominions is or was part of the doctrine taught as well by Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno as by thousands of the very best Roman Catholicks both in their time and before and after their time yet it is no part of that doctrine or of those articles of Marsilius or Jandunus which is properly called theirs or which as theirs John the XXII condemned or as much as touch'd at all and therefore that the objection for so much of it as is to purpose is absolutely false Which to evict no less manifestly we need no other proof then what is obvious to every judicious man by comparing together my doctrine hitherto and the above five articles which Iohn the XXII himself relates as the only proper doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus against which he takes exception and pronounces condemnation For the first of those articles is that that which is read of Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew that he paid tribute to Cesar when he commanded the stater taken out of the fishes mouth to be given to the Collectors he commanded and did so non condescensivè liberalitate suae pietatis sed necessitate coactus not out of his condescension liberality and piety but as constrained by necessity But it is evident enough the doctrine of a supream coercive power of all Clerks in temporal Princes needs not involves not the support of any such article as this first concerning Christ whatever the sense of Marsilius or Iandunus therein was good or bad false or true for the doctrine of such power in Princes speaks only of it in relation to Clerks who are only men by nature not of Christ who was both God and man by nature even as to all the perfections and power of as well the divine as humane nature Be it therefore so that Marsilius and Iandunus mean'd heretically in this first article of theirs that is mean'd to say that Christ paid tribute not only or solely to avoid scandal but also as bound by his own condition and by the sole virtue of that tribute law in it self and as abstracting wholy from all cases of scandal and be it so as it was so that Iohn the XXII rightly condemn'd this heretical sense or even be it so that he justly condemned that first article as bearing this sense and rightly judg'd it to beare this very sense and no other good sense at all what hath
and therefore say also by consequence that he lay under some constraint and some necessity and some bond tye or obligation to pay that didrachma yet is it not consequent that I say he wanted that freedom or any such freedom which is simply such or lay under any constrrint or necessity which are simply such or even under any bond tye or obligation at least of justice simply such or which might oblige him under sin or the penalty of sin or by vertue of the tribute law it self to pay any tribute for the rest of my discourse most evidently shews I mean thereby no other constraint necessity or obligation but such as are secundum quid or diminutively such even such as Iohn the XXII himself allows even such as our Saviour himself means by saying ut non scandalizemus eos da c. and even such finally as arise only from the law of love and of that divine love which told him it was not fitting for him to give cause of scandal to the weak ones by his own refusal or denial or failer and which made him at last to give his life for them that took it from him And therefore also 't is not consequent that by any thing or word said in that passage of mine page 239 I joyn or concur with Marsilius or Jandunus in this first article of theirs not even as much as in the words much less in the sense of that article condemn'd by Pope Iohn the XXII Besides it is clear enough that for the defence of my thesis against Bellarmine's argument grounded by him on the texts of Matthew Mat. 17. Ergo liberi sunt filii and ut nâ—â— scandalizemus eos c. I needed not give as I did not give in my LXIII Section page 150 151 153. where I handled these words of our Saviour at large and of purpose any such answer but solved the argument fairly and clearly there without any such or as much as reflecting on any such answer that is on any such necessity or any such obligation of justice or obedience due arising from the tribute law or other command of presumed superiour Powers And it is no less clear that I was not in my 239. page nor am here now at present nor will be elsewhere any further concern'd for Marsilius or Jandunus then they held close to the general thesis only that is to the general doctrine only of the Catholick Church and that whereever they swerve from that I do from them and where that Church condemns them I also condemn them nay and that I am content likewise to condemn them where ever Iohn the XXII himself alone or in this Bull of his condemns them and yet hold still constantly to my thesis For and forasmuch as concerns their second complex article viz. Quod B. Petrus Apostolus non plus authoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerint nec aliorum Apostolorum fuit caput Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae nec aliquem Vicarium suum fecit 't is plain it concerns not our present controversie of the exemption of Clergiemen or that even of the very Apostles themselves or that even sayl also of S. Peter himselâ— from the temporal powers and in temporal matters For that Peter should have had that is actually and immediatly from Christ himself had more authority then the other Apostles had and that he should have been made or was actually made the head of them all and that Christ should have or had left some one Head to the Church and made left some one his own Vicar which is the contradictory of this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus argues nothing at all for the exemption from temporal Princes in temporal matters of as much as Peter himself or of him that had that greater authority or of that head or of that Vicar Because the doctrine of the Catholick Church teacheth us that that greater authority of Peter whatever it was and that Headship of his over the rest of the Apostles and that one Headship and one Vicarship under Christ in the Church and over the Church was meerly and purely spiritual and because not only that very doctrine but reason also and experience tells us that such greater authority spiritual and even such one Headship and one Vicarship spiritual consist well very with a lesser authority temporal in the same Head or Vicar and even with none such at all in Him and yet with another Headship and another Vicarship temporal in another person and with a full entire subjection in temporal matters to this other person or other head and other Vicar whose authority and power is only and purely temporal as on the other side the temporal Headship or temporal Vicarship consists very well with its own subjection in spiritual matters to that Headship and Vicarship which is only spiritual And more or other then what is here said Iohn the XXII arguments in his discourse against this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus do not conclude or indeed as much as pretend to being all his reasons here are only and wholly bent against a parity of power in the Apostles amongst themselves without any exception of Peter or preheminence given to him over them How strong or how weak his reasons are I need not care at least for the present being that for the present I allow all in general both his definitions and reasons in this Bull and in particular what he reasons and defines against this second Article as not as much as in the least touching me or my thesis of the subjection of all Clergiem whether Apostles or not Apostles and even of the very spiritual Prince of the Apostles Peter himself in temporal matters to the supream temporal respective Princes within whose dominions they live For likewise as for the third of those Articles or this Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam instituere destituere ac punire as the said Iohn the XXII relates it in the beginning of his Bull or this other form of it Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam corrigere punire ac instituere destituere 't is clear enough it may be allowed as I also do allow it to be false erroneous and heretical for one part and in one sense or even for both parts in a certain sense whatever is in the mean while thought of the other part or even of either in another different sense and yet my grand Thesis and all my doctrine hitherto even where it descends or rather ascends to the Pope himself be untouch'd by any such censure That one part I allow to be so is that which sayes it belongs to the Emperour to institute and destitute the Pope and the sense wherein I allow this part to be so or to be false erroneous and heretical is that whereby any should conceive that the Emperor could at any time and by his own proper imperial authority as such
some superiour tye â—ound and in such wordly matters only wherein they are bound to observe or converse with him however this of proper or improper wording be it is most certain that I allow the very self same thing all along in my writings every where the very self same power of correction to the Pope and Church and the very self same actual coercion and punition which Iohn the XXII vindicates here to both by his arguments and which he calls here not only coactive power and coaction but also corporal coaction saying in plain terms Qâ—ud corporalis etiam à Christo coactio Ecclesiae sit peâ—missa The difference is that I call it spiritual only because inflicted or pronounced only by a meer spiritual power which hath no use nor as such caâ— have any use at all of corporal force as for example by taking the criminal by the neck clapping him to the Jayl or Stocks calling him into banishment or putting him to death or asmuch as to any other corporal torment whatsoever against his own will and that besides I must call it spiritual because it per se directly regards and falls on the spirit as it ought to be intended only for the good of the spirit and he calls it also corporal for the reason presently above given in the parenthesis or perhaps in imitation of St. Pauls manner of speaking and meaning 1 Cor. 5.5 tradere hujusmodi Sathanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fir in dit Domini nostri Iesu Christi as some do understand Paul there to speak of excommunication and of the effects of it by the ordinary power of the Church albeit others as Chrysostome ibid. hom 15. St. Augustine cont ep Parmon l. 3. c. 1. and St. Ambrose de Paenit l. 1. c. 17. understand him there far more probably to speak not of excommunication at all not of the ordinary power of the Church but of a miraculous power and miraculous punishment of the incestuous Corinthian of whom he speaks as meaning that he by the operation of such miraculous power should be corporally delivered to Sathan and both miraculously and corporally possessed and scourged by Sathan in this world and by some strange corporal infirmity Datus est Sathanae tamquam paedagogo sayes Chrysostome ut eum flagellet malo ulcere aut morbo alio Even as Iob was though not for any sin and as Paul himself was buffeted by Sathan 1 Cor. 14. but for his tryal only and for his humiliation But however this of the reason why this Pope Iohn the XXII call'd that kind of coaction which is by excommunication or why he attributed to it the epithet of corporal or even why at all he would have the power of excommunicating said to be a coactive power or excommunication it self to pass under the name of coaction it matters not being his dispute and definition against this or any other Article of Marsilius and Iandunus was not against words but against their sense or that meaning which as he would have beleeved was theirs and so different from his own and being that neither my meaning nor words taken altogether contain or signifie any thing against his meaning either in his dispute or in his definition if we take the sense of his definition as we ought in reason to do from his dispute or to be that which his arguments fight against Yet because it becomes not me as neither any conscientious Divine in the like case to dissemble what I know or what others may apprehend if they had known it to seem much more convincing that Iohn the XXII drove in this Bull at another kind of coactive power in the Church and another kind of coaction and of corporal coaction too then I have proved he drove by the former arguments I confess ingenuously his second sort of arguments or those other he gives immediatly after the former do fully convince my own self that he drove at another kind of coaction and of corporal coaction too in his meaning then that of excommunication But withal I maintain still that he drives at no coactive power at all or coaction at all which I ever yet denyed or shall at any time deny or at any coaction at all which Marsilius himself or Iandunus denyed in that manner his even second or last sort of arguments require either to be acknowledged because not at any at all inflicted by corporal force or means or by other means of man then by pure prophesie or pure prayer of some prophetical or miraculous man in the Church and consequently drives at no such other coactive power at all which we are bound to beleeve to be essential or proper to the Church as a Church or to be at all times in the Church or at all times in any individual person of the Church Inferiour or Superiour Priest Bishop or Pope as such or at all times in them altogether or at all times in all the both Clergy and Layety or in the universal Chuch taken also together in one collection and so by any of his arguments or by his second or last sort of arguments drives at none at all which is to our present purpose or which overthrows my said doctrine or any part or explication hitherto given by me of the doctrine of no coercive power in the Church as a Church to make use of any corporal force of her own or of others and as by her own proper genuine authority to make use thereof for to punish corporally the crimes of any how criminal or wicked soever and to punish him so I mean still whether he will or no. For thus Iohn the XXII proceeds immediatly after what I gave before of his first sort and thus he frames his second and last sort of arguments Preterea Beatus Petrus post ascensionem Domini in personam Ananiae Saphirae uxoris suae sine Imperiali concessione aliqua hac usus est potestate in quos quia de pretio agri Deo oblati fraudaverant mortis sententiam promulgavit quae quidem sententia non processit de ipsorum conjugum voluntate Item Beatus Paulus Elymam Magum Sergium Paulum à fide quaerentem avertere ad tempus luce corporali privavit Illum quoque fornicatorem Corinthium in carnis interitum tradidit Sathanae ut ejus spiritus salvus esset Item Corinthiis serâ—â—ns dixit idem Apostolus Quid vultis in virga veniam ad vos an in charitate in spiritu mansuetudinis In quo saetis expresse coactivam potestatem supposuit se habere Item scribens eisdem alibi dixit Arma inquit militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia sed potentia Deo id est à Deo concessa ad destructionem munitionum consilia destruentes omnem altitudinem extollentem se aduersus scientiam Dei. Et sequitur In promptu habentes ulcisci omnem inobedientiam Ex quibus patet Paulum non ab Imperatore sed à Deo habuisse
miraculous power as that of Peter and Paul by prophecy and prayer in some other or in many other godly persons of the Church even such a miraculous power as may impetrat or may foretell the most corporal and deadly punishment on this or that wicked sinner But what hath this to do with that which is the coactive power of the Church this miraculous power may be in the most inferiour person of the Church in him that hath no kind of Church office or Church power at all and that coactive power is only in some chief Officers of the Church this is extraordinary and miraculous that ordinary and requiring no miracle this very contingent and for sometimes only and tyed to no certain sort of persons that absolutely and perpetually constant for all and in one certain degree of persons And therefore I may conclude again that no such corporal coaction nor any such coactive power of such corporal coaction is concluded or may be concluded by the second or last sort of Iohn the XXII's arguments as that is which is denyed by me or by any other Christian to be alwayes proper to and necessarily resident in the Church or as that is which is properly truly and simply called the coactive power of the Church And therefore also I may conclude further that the definition of Iohn the XXII against the fift and last Article of Marsilius and Iandunus concerns not my foresaid doctrine or my foresaid explications answers or digressions where I say that the Church of Christ as such purely hath neither temporal territory nor carnal or material sword or say the same thing in these other words that the Church as a Church hath no secular corporal or carnal power from Christ but from worldly Princes and States only to punish either corporally or civilly or that none at all from Christ to punish for example by imprisonment banishment death or by confiscation or deprivation of his temporal goods or rights or by any other corporal force or means can inflict any other kind of punishment against the criminal's own consent but that all her power as from Christ is purely spiritual and the means of executing such power must also be purely spiritual whether in the mean time the power it self or execution of it be miraculous or not miraculous and whether also the things prescrib'd or enjoyn'd be in their own nature purely spiritual or not For I confess the Church even as a pure Church only may and may by her own proper ordinary and perpetually constant Church power both prescribe and enjoyn or command strictly many things which are otherwise in their own nature purely civil temporal and corporal and that such commands oblige the spirit of man under sin when they are laid clave non errante that is when the laws of God or man or nature do otherwise require the performance of the same things either as a pure satisfaction to the vindicative justice of God for the fin committed or as a pure reparation or restitution to another man of his goods unjustly detained or as a remedy to prevent sin and that therefore the Church even as a pure Church may in some cases enjoyn also even corporal fastings watchings disciplines hair-cloathes pilgrimages c. and not only a real restitution of temporal goods illgotten or ill detained Nay and I alwayes confess that for whatsoever she can justly prescribe by her directive power spiritual she hath also an answerable coactive power spiritual even also in relation to such corporal injunctions or afflictions though she have not from Christ any corporal means allowed her of her own to force due obedience to such her either directive or coactive power but only in ordinary and to her Superiours only the spiritual means of pure Ecclesiastical or pure spiritual censures or of such as are no way civil censures and in extraordinary amongst her Prophets and wonder-working Saints the spiritual means of pure prayer and prophesie All which I am sure can be very true and infallible notwithstanding I allow this definition of Iohn the XXII against the fift Article of Marsilius and Iandunus to be absolutely true and infallible even this very definition It is false erroneous and heretical that the whole Church joyn'd together cannot punish by a coactive punishment even the most wicked person unless the Emperour grant them power to do so or punish that person so For the bare grammatical words of this definition as it lyes in it self or as they I mean the two words punitione coactiva lye in it and the theological sense too of them given by Iohn the XXII himself in other words in his Bull if this sense of those or these may be gathered from his arguments as and as I have noted before it must be in all reason admit very well of my construction being coactive punition whether in its own nature it be properly corporal or properly and only spiritual is a moral genus not only to that coactive punition which is properly and purely spiritual and to that which is properly and strictly corporal but to that also which is inflicted by means that are purely spiritual and to that which is not inflicted or put in execution by such means but by meer humane civil or corporal means and force and being the rule is generally allowed that such definitions and words in them are stricti juris and consequently not to be extended beyond that which the most ordinary strict signification of them and the materia subjecta and no prejudice to a third and in a word which a good sense requires quia odia sunt restringenda as the rule of the very canon law in Sexto is Yet if notwithstanding all this or all said hitherto upon this fift Article of Marsilius and Iandunus any will be still so unreasonably contentious as to fix rather a contrary sense that is a bad sense to the definition of Iohn the XXII against it I cannot help that otherwise then to oppose to Iohn the XXII and to such bad sense affixed to him the clear and good sense of another Pope even of Celestinus III. in the very canon law too cap. Non ab homine de Judiciis quoted by me at length in my former Section or in my LXXV Section and to oppose also the clear and good sense of even a general Council and that a late one too as being held after the dayes of Iohn the XXII I mean the Council of Constance where the Fathers Sess 15. speak thus Attento quod Ecclesia Dei non habet ultra quod agere valeat judicio seculari relinquere ipsum Curiae seculari relinquendum fore decernit which they speak in the case of Ioannes Huss after they had excommunicated and degraded him and lastly to oppose the very essential constitution of the Christian Church and of her Ecclesiastical Superiours as such And yet I must advertise my Readers that the very contrary bad sense of
this definition of Iohn the XXII against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever For these two positions have no contradiction 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal and civil too if you please in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church 2. This coactive power humane corporal and civil too or not civil as you please is not altogether independent in it self but is subordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes That they are not contradictory or inconsistent we see by the example of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals For the inferiour tribunals notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively are subordinat to the superiour And so I have done at last with this long discourse occasion'd by the fourth objection or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church I have proved to be very false as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church Which Catholick doctrine or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently nay abundantly demonstrated by reason Scripture and Tradition Therefore now to The fift and last of all these objections which I call'd remaining for the reason before given that objection I mean built upon the contrary judgment or opinion as t is pretended of St. Thomas of Canterbury and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore and of his canonization also therefore and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious martyrized Saint therefore This objection I confess is very specious at first as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Divine or Canonists or both it appears to and works so T is onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death but what they read in their Breviary which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me though peradventure enough to solve any T is onely amongst those who do not consider duely nor indeed have the knowledg or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely what it amounts to in point of Christian Faith as to others or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto that any one Bishop how otherwise holy soever in his own life should have especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in general or of this or that Immunity in particular or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust I care not which made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities or those were onely pretended I care not also which T is onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion or of moe perhaps and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obedient humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently represented to them because they had other sufficient manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving though I do not averr any such prepossession here nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material T is onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposition to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen and on his exile death miracles canonization invocation appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes who are supream themselves to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoever living within their dominions Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance as you have that Censure of theirs page 120. of this first Part be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines I leave to the Reader 's own better consideration when reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it he observes moreover particularly the day of the date of it so signally express'd by them in these tearms Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die â—9 Decembris gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis Angliae quondam Primatis mortyrio consecratae Anno Dominae Incarnationis 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canterbury as most proper for such a censure I know not certainly but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy glory martyrdom and how that 29. day of December of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal signal date of theirs made me ever since now and then reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground Though to confess all the truth I never met any that fram'd it methodically or put it into any due or undue form of argument for them or of objection against me but onely in general objected that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second Which is the reason and that I may leave nothing which may seem to any to be material unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self I put all which my adversaries would be at in this concern of St. Thomas of
Canterbury as relating to our present purpose and put all that into this special form of argument Syllogisme and objection against my own grand Thesis Whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's cause quarrel or contest with Henry the second must be false But my grand Theirs of a power in secular supream Princes to coerce all criminal Clergiemen whatsoever living within their dominions is such or is a doctrine which condemns or opposes that very cause quarrel or contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury Ergo my grand Thests must be false The Minor will be proved thus and must be proved thus or not at all Such doctrine must necessarily suppose an errour both in the solemn canonization of him at least for a martyr properly such and yet he was solemnly canonized for a martyr properly such by Alexander the Third Pope of that name his own contemporary and must further necessarily suppose an errour too that both in the belief and practise of the universal Church of Christ forasmuch as they believe him to be a martyr properly such and both venerat and invocate him as such For that such doctrine as condems or opposes the justice of his quarrel against Henry the Second must also necessarily suppose such an errour in his canonization veneration and invocation as a martyr properly such appears hence manifestly that it is therefore he was canonized for such and is venerated and invocated as such because that quarrel of his was and is believed to have been just and that it was for maintaining the justice of it he suffered death and suffered death patiently and Christianly as became a true martyr without any resistance at all Now it is plain that such doctrine as must necessarily suppose such an errour in such canonization veneration and invocation of any must be false nay erroneous and schismatical nay and heretical too in Christian belief because it must consequently suppose that not onely the Pope nay not onely this or that particular orthodox nation but even the universality of all true Christian nations even the Catholick Church her self taken in her whole latitude not onely may sometime erre in matters which they she accounts to be part of her holy belief holy practise but hath already and continually err'd and almost for five hundred years compleat that is since the year of our Lord 1173. wherein Alexander Tertius canonized him solemnly for a martyr and she no less solemnly invocated him as such Then which consequent supposition what Roman Catholick can say that any may be more even fundamentally heretical For it must be granted as an article nay and also at least among Divines as a fundamental article of Christian Catholick religion that the true Christian Catholick Church is infallible in credendis agendis both in her belief and in her practise I mean such as she her self accounts divine or holy or certainly it must be granted that we have nothing at all infallible in her or in our religion delivered by her but what may without any special revelation from God or any either particular or universal tradition from her be demonstrated by pure natural reason and consequently that our belief of even the very whole mistery of the Incarnation of the Son of God and of that other no less above our natural reason of the Trinity of persons in one God which are purely credenda as likewise those of Baptisme and the Lords Supper quatenus inter agenda as they are practised are fallible and unreasonable practises being we have nothing to render us absolutely certain of the contrary if the universal Church be fallible in her belief and practise But for the Minor as I confess that I see no other proof possible but by instancing the particulars of the difference 'twixt King Henry the Second and this holy Praelat so I confess also that if in any of those particulars or in altogether my grand Thesis or any part of my doctrine hetherto in pursuance of that my Thesis may be found and that it be clear also that St. Thomas of Canterbury suffered death therefore and was therefore canonized a martyr by the Pope and as such was therefore venerated and invocated ever since or at any time by the Catholick Church then I must consequently grant the objection to be very well or at least very probably grounded as no man can deny it to be syllogistically formed or deny the conclusion to follow of necessity if both the Premisses be certainly true And for the first of them we have already seen it pretty well driven home at least by a very specious discourse and one concluding such an inconvenience as no Roman Catholick will dare allow I mean the infallibility of the whole Catholick Church either in religious belief or practise whatever in the mean time be held or thought of the Pope alone or of his particular Roman Diocess as taken a part from the rest or of any one or moe even National Churches whatsoever of Catholick communion so they amount not to that which we call and is truly the Catholick or universal Church or the general congregation of all particular or National Churches or of the more considerable parts of them or the General Representative of such more considerable parts of them which are now in Ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Bishop his particular Diocess of Rome For this general Congregation of all such particular Churches or of all the more considerable parts of them and this general Representative also whenever it is of all such more considerable parts is it I call now here and elsewhere still understand to be the Catholick Church Whereof I desire my good Readers to take special notice not that I see any special need of it to solve this objection but that I may no where seem either to equivocat or to be unwilling to be understood when there is occasion to distinguish between the sense of the Pope and that of the Church or between the authority of a particular Church or some one of ro moe peradventure and that which is properly of the universal Church Therefore now not onely to shew what may be said or not said and that even out of the very Ecclesiastical History or Annals of Baronius himself of the particulars of the said difference or quarrel and for the proof of the said Minor being it is onely from History all that can be said for the proof of it must be had and that Baronius can not be presumed to relate such matter of fact with any kind of partiality or favour to me or my Thesis or my doctrine against his own pretended Immunity of all Clergiemen or be presumed to omit any material thing which might any way advance his own pretence of such Immunity upon the contradictory question confirmed by the sense by the life and death of so great a Saint and even sealed by the bloud of so glorious a martyr
in his own Conscience and both before God and man confess it when he reflected on so many Texts of Holy Scripture especially on that of St. Paul 13 Rom. and on the Doctrine and Expositions of all the Holy Fathers and on the practice not only of the Primitive Church but of all ensuing Churches throughout the World and of both Laity and Clergy until Gregory the VII time some Ten entire Ages after Christ and all for the independency of the civil Power of Princes from the Church as also for the subjection of the Church in civil matters to earthly Princes Humane nay and daily humane Experience also forasmuch as we see it Taught by so many famous Divines and read in their Books That it is not alwayes safe in point of Conscience to follow that opinion in practice which in pure speculation seems probable to us nay or even that which so seems the more probable whereof I could instance a variety of Examples and see it taught and read in them consequently That some may have a pure speculative opinion as probable nay as the more probable to them for such or such a power to be in the Church in actu primo and yet not this other annexed consideratis omnibus That it is lawful for the Church to proceed at any time to the execution of it And forasmuch also as all Ghostly Fathers or the Judicious and who are of a timorous Conscience nay and others too besides Ghostly Fathers daily find it so in themselves at least in such cases wherein they know that if possibly they should err and transgress against the objective Truth of Things and Laws by following in practice such a speculation as upon some ground or other seems to them to be probable or even the more probable they may run a great hazard to undergo the punishment due in the justice of God for such breach whereas they are absolutely certain that whether their such speculation be true or false yet if they in practice follow the contrary opinion or speculation there is no Law at all as much as objectively taken which may be transgressed by them As for Example in case of such a pure speculative opinion of a power in ones self to force away his Horse or Purse or House or Lands or Lordship or Principality from another who both himself and Predecessors was and were ever till then bona fide in peaceable possession and were so if it was a Lordship or Lands c. for a Thousand years For in such a case there can be no sin no breach of any Law in not Conforming in practice to the speculation but there may be in Conforming And consequently common experience also in the daily regulation of our own Conscience tells us there must not of necessity be such a connexion of dictates Besides who sees not that whether so or no there was not in England at least in the dayes of Thomas of Canterbury any Law making it Treason to hold That the Christian Church in some extraordinary case might transfer the Right of that Crown from Henry the Second As for Example in case he had really Apostatized and not only from the true Papacy or from Pope Alexander to the Anti-Pope Victor but even from Christianity it self as some of his Ambassadors to Rome and the Bishop of London in some of his Letters extant in Hoveden seemed to Threaten either the one or the other T is true I am against the Doctrine which attributes any such power to the Church as a Church or to it at all de jure divino and much more against the lawfulness of putting such pretence in execution But hence it doth not follow That as much as in my judgment the Doctrine of such power or of such practick lawfulness is Treasonable at least in all Times and all Countries For the Church may some time and in some Countrey have such a power by meer humane Right And whether she have or no where the Law of the Countrey doth not make the practice Treason or the Doctrine or Dictate Treasonable neither can be so Each or both may be unconscientious erroneous injurious and wicked at least according to the objective Truth of Things and Laws of God in themselves but to be Treason or Treasonable is another thing I said That in the dayes of Thomas there was no such Law in England for I leave it to the Learned and Reverend Judges of England to determine Whether after the Laws of Praemunire by Edward the Third and Richard the Second were made and that Declaration in this of Richard the Second made by joint consent of the Bishops too That the Crown of England is subject to none but God it be Treasonable Doctrine in England to teach the contrary I am sure the like in France and of France though extremely and most justly too censured by all the Universities of France and the Abettors or Teachers of such degraded lately in Schools and otherwise punished yet Cardinal Peron's interposition in the time of Henry the Third of France by his fine speech in the Assembly of Estates hinderâ—d it from being then declared Treason or Treasonable or Heresie or Heretical and ever since from being accounted or punished as Treason or Treasonable though of late severely and I think justly proceeded against as at least false erroneous scandalous dangerous against the Word of God c. And yet I am sure also That whether it be so or no at this time either in France or England St. Thomas of Canterbury cannot be said to have been or to be concern'd You will say again perhaps objecting your very last and strongest reserve That whatever may be said to excuse his principles of Judgment or Doctrine from being Treasonable for that I mean which appears in any of his Epistles or in that Speech of his at Chinun or other extant nothing can be said to excuse him from actual Treason which is more and worse For you will say That the Archbishop of York and Bishop of London and Salisbury did so charge him when after his return he refused to absolve them but on such a condition as they would not lie under without the Kings consent and when therefore they having cross'd the Sea to the old King the Father to Normandy they sent an Express back to England and to the young King to persuade the said young King That Thomas had sought and endeavoured to depose him Qui ei persuaderent sayes Spondanus out of Baronius and Baronius out of the Saints own 73 Epist which was his last to Pope Alexander Thomam quaesivisse cum deponere But I answer That such a charge of his such publick and profess'd Enemies was not is not to be at all believed without other proof than their own such private suggestion of it by their own Messenger to the young timorous King That no Relation or History makes mention not only not of any proof but not as much as of any
a Doctrine And this to the face of a Priest pious exemplar religious I could say a Gentleman too if you will have this circumstance of blood to be of moment and who for Christ despis'd a fair Estate descended to him by inheritance and chose the Order of St. Francis A Priest so zealous for the Catholick Faith that for many years before and after this Subscription even to old Age he had laboured painfully and successfully in the Irish Vineyard to reduce Sectaries to the Church and preserve and comfort those which were Catholicks and this while the late Tyrants were in power in extreme straits and often imprisonments Who had often suffered banishment and been snatch't from the very jaws of death having been condemn'd to the Gallows by the sentence of the Laws and Judges A death which being for his Faith and the Pope he was not only most ready but most desirous to undergo but that his Judges when they saw his resolution envy'd him the glory of Martyrdom as they publickly told him This judgment of yours concerning such a man to be pronounced to his own face and pronounced by a Religious Abbot nay and also by the Abbot of Mount Royall Poor Gearnon then had better have been in his grave say you than subscribed What then is it you do not say of Caron Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers What not only of those whose names are long since in Print but which make far the greater number those who are yet only in Manuscript Guardians Priors Doctors of Divinity Bishops What of those not only Clergymen but almost of all the Lay-Catholick both Gentry and Nobility in Ireland the rest who have not yet being ready to Subscribe when call'd upon What of the English Clergy of the same Communion and Faith who 't is manifest have approved this Form of our Fidelity and made another for themselves not only not unlike ours but for what concerns the Point in Controversie far better What of the French Venetian Spanish German indeed all Catholicks in Europe and not only in Europe but all Christians of all places and all times both present and past whenever their Interest is or has been in question Nay What do you think of the Holy Doctors Prelates and Fathers whose memories are now in veneration and who conspired with us in this Doctrine nay taught it us Lastly What of the Primitive Church it self and the chief and greatest Doctors of it the most Holy Apostles and the very Princes of the Apostles Peter and Paul who first after our Saviour himself in their Epistles taught this Doctrine to the World Had it then indeed been better all these universally had never been than been defiled with this venemous Contagion Had it truly and consequentially been better too the Religion of the Cross had not been Taught by Christ Preach't by his immediate Disciples and by their Successors delivered down Better that even after it had been Preach't and believed the Superstition thereof had not been preserved but totally abolish't Better Christian Churches had been shut up their Altars profaned and destroyed the dispensation of Sacred things had ceased Sacraments Sacrifices and the Sacred dispensers of them taken away And if all this sufficed not for rooting out the pestiferous Error much better to join with Julian for restoring Paganism and Judaism or with the Saracens and Turks for setting up the fiction of Mahomet and so shutting the gates of Heaven and opening those of Hell to all Mankind by the miserable loss of souls to bring joy to the wicked spirits and make the Angels of peace as the Prophet speaks weep bitterly But a Christian Abbot to say That from whence all this would follow O shame To prefer the Temporal but most vain and false Monarchy of the Pope before the true and certain one of our eternal Bishop Saviour God! O Wickedness And to wish this rather should perish than that not be establish't O abominable and mad See my good Lord whether too much heat in a bad Cause has drawn you and the consequence of an unadvised Judgment pronounced against Father Gearnon and the Subscribers unless perhaps you would be thought to have spoken without any judgment i. e. without weighing the consequence of what you said Whatever you would have us think how much rather according to Religion more pious according to reason more prudent had it been with that most holy and most prudent Abbot of Clareval S. Bern. Ep. 170. ad Ludovic Reg. Franc. to have praised the unshakable resolution of Gearnon and the other Subscribers in performing their Allegiance to their King Although the whole World should conspire against them And by the example of that holy Saint to have added what his Writings testifie of him That even in such case viz. of a Conspiracy even of the whole world the God of Heaven is to be feared by us and therefore we are to believe that not even in such a case 't is lawful for Subjects to attempt any thing against Regal Majesty or Plot against the Life Authority or Crown of Him who is subject to God alone second to none amongst Mortals first in His own Kingdom after God and in Temporals judged by God alone How much more pious and more prudent had it been with that most prudent Saint thus to have exhorted Gearnon and each other of the Subscribers Stand thou in thy Testament exercise thy self therein and remain in the work of thy Commandments until Death take thee away as in effect also that wise Hebrew Jesus the Son of Sirach long before St. Bernard's time premonish't us Ecclesiastic xi 21 But you my Lord persuade the direct contrary and not only persuade but to your power constrain and constrain both by word and deed and that almost for these Three whole Years although not alwayes in the same words Although the whole world should be on our Kings side and the Pope alone against him by Sentence either of Deposition Privation or perhaps only Excommunication that at the back of his Holiness we not only lawfully may but ought to plot and attempt against our otherwise lawful King is your Sentence Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal your Admonition Exhortation Precept and what not Which because we do not embrace but by a publick and necessary Protestation detest on the sudden we are become wicked men deserve to be razed out of the number of the Faithful and by your Lordship are particularly termed disobedient Apostates Schismaticks Men of Dirt who have raised Troubles to the Church of God and Men who had better have been first in their Graves And thus indeed Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal however otherwise Bernard Abbot of Clarevalle But O the difference 'twixt Abbot and Abbot O Abbas Abbas as the same St. Bernard cryes out in the life of another Saint and Abbot St. Benedict comparing himself to him O the difference I say 'twixt Abbot and Abbot The Abbot who Teaches Duty to
under spiritual temporal or mixt of both is not so much disputed amongst learned men as that other far different question drawn especially from the 27th Canon of the great Council of Chalcedon as also from some others of his purely spiritual or at least Ecclesiastical power which has no respect at all to Temporals either directly or indirectly whether this power be truly by Divine right immediately over all the faithful through the whole world or onely by Humane and Ecclesiastical right or else from both at least in that latitude to which they commonly extend it that is over all the faithful everywhere none exempted either in any district of any of the other Patriarchs or in any cause With which most difficult question though I have no intention ever to meddle as however I am fully resolved to follow in this point the common doctrine and to stand unmoveably fixt to the decision of General Councils nevertheless because all men are not of the same mind that is do not judge or understand every way alike many things which may be alledged on both sides nor have the same inclinations or that forward strong and constant affection to his Holiness and the See of Rome which I have notwithstanding the injuries which I cannot deny many and as many as since the beginning of the last War in Ireland took part with the King have suffered with me I thought fit to intreat your Lordship and do with all earnestness beseech you that you will let the Subscribers live in peace not move them to impatience or anger nor reject them from Ecclesiastical charges without other demerit than this pretended one of Subscription and that you will not put a bar to the publick good of undoubted Religion for the maintenance of an assertion so far at least doubtful that in the judgment of many and those Catholick Writers and even entire Universities it deserves the name not so much as of an Opinion but of Error and Heresie and also yet so doubtful that the reason is plain why 't is call'd Heresie Understand my Lord material Heresie as they call it For I conceive no Orthodox Censurers and least of all I ever thought of charging formal Heresie upon the Pope or Church of old Rome or its particular Diocese so much as in this matter controverted betwixt us formal Heresie not being found without obstinacy against the Faith of the Universal Church undoubtedly known But as for material Heresie many orthodox learned and pious men have not doubted to fix it openly upon the Patrons of your opinion mov'd by this amongst other reasons namely that Heresie is no less in excess of than recess from the due mean in points to be believed or that 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith that is assert preach teach impose upon the Faithful to be believed as necessary to salvation or as revealed by God taught by the Apostles preserved by perpetual succession in the Church and as a part of the depositum delivered by Fathers in every age of Christian Religion to their Children That of whose necessity revelation and tradition there is no undoubted and certain evidence but opinion at most or likelihood and this only to somefew of the Faithful the rest which make a greater or as great or at least a considerable part of the Catholick Church denying disclaiming condemning abjuring it I say that according to those Doctors 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith in such manner as it is to substract from it i. e. as it is to deny any thing to be of Catholick Faith of which nevertheless t is truly undoubtedly certainly universally evident that it was revealed by Christ and deposited by the Apostles as much as any other Article of Faith Now who does not see that these who teach that Assertion of the Popes right over the Temporals of Princes as a point of Catholick Faith without the belief of which or with the witting denial of which none can be saved or entirely profess the Christian Catholick Faith relie upon Arguments at best but probable and grounding only opinion against the greater or equal or indeed the far greater remaining part of the Catholick Church which in all ages of Christianity have denied and still persevere to deny disclaim abjure that Position as impious and contrary to the doctrine received by Tradition and without difficulty solve such Arguments which they look upon as Spiders webs as ridiculous Sophisms as Trifles and pure Toyes And indeed some orthodox Doctors moved by this discourse not to mention other Reasons fear not to brand your Position with the note of Heresie But if your Lordship desire my own opinion in the case I must confess ingenuously I see not why it is not as much truly an intollerable error to assert in Popes Bishops Priests or any of the Clergy or even Laity a power to be believed as of divine Catholick Faith which does not certainly and evidently appear from the Rule of Faith that is either from Scripture or Tradition or both as it is to deny a power which does so appear * * See Bellarmine himself de Conc. l. 4. c. 4. where he teaches Errorem esse intollerabilem proponere aliquid credendum tamquam articulum fidei de quo non constet an sit verum vel falsum At last my Lord I conclude this long Letter and yet I neither repent my labour nor ask pardon for my prolixity since it no way more concerns Walsh to write Truth than it does an Internuncio to read it And if your Lordship be of the same judgment it will be well if otherwise I must bear it with patience Let it suffice me to have done what became an honest man videlicet to have refuted slanders reproaches revilings to have proved Caron and Walsh were causelesly term'd by your Lordship either Schismaticks or Apostates or which is less yet any way disobedient causelesly by contempt men of dirt causelesly also raisers of I know not what troubles to the Church of God lastly that without cause it was said to Gearnon's face he had better have been in his grave than subscribed Let it suffice to have defended the freedom of expostulating in a cause most just to have shewn it reasonable and answered those things which with most apparence are alledged to the contrary Lastly let it suffice that for a conclusion I have made you a hearty Prayer and a Petition no less earnest adding at the end and for a complement of the whole discourse that reason of so urgent a Petition which swayes with those Divines who censure with freedom your doctrine Neither have I more to add but onely my wishes that for the future the Internuncio's of Bruxels may be more men of heavenly spirit at least when they have to do with men of earthly dirt Which humbly saluting your Lordship and kissing your hands with all due respect and affection truly and from his soul wishes My LORD
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
this present then we could almost have not long since either believed or hoped we should live to see But notwithstanding such great and good effects of the signature of that Loyal Formulary Remonstrance by those few Ecclesiasticks that gave the first Example at London and soon after by the Nobility and Gentry there at that time is it not equally apparent That too too many Irish Ecclesiasticks of the same Church-communion proving ever since for so many years ungrateful for so great benefits received from His Majesty and His Majesties Lieutenant General governing this Kingdom and received too by the means of that Remonstrance and of the Subscription thereof by those who had no other end in either than to redeem their Nation from the severe execution of Penal Laws yea proving to the King himself as ungrateful truly as those barbarous People were who darted Arrows at the Sun for his comfortable beams of light and heat afforded to them either not rightly understanding or not well considering the Doctrinal points of the said Remonstrance or indeed rather out of their willful byass of proper and private interest partly and partly out of meer envy and malice have used their utmost endeavours to obtain and accordingly in Forraign Parts have obtained not only judicial or Scholastical Censures both from the Roman Ministers of State and the Faculty Theological of Louain but other vexatious and Penal proceedings against some at least of the chief Ecclesiastical Subscribers and Defenders thereof nay before and after have both Preached and Prayed at home in this Kingdom every where against the Formulary it self and Subscribers thereof representing that amongst the Vulgar People who cannot discern as undoubtedly unlawful sinful scandalous sacrilegious yea schismatical and heretical too and these consequently no better who have subscribed and yet not retracted their subscription Now being the Resolves of all and each of these Queries hitherto must be in the affirmative the consequence if we be not much mistaken must also be That it is no less notoriously known how great and urgent the very special causes are which even of necessity require such a full and satisfactory Declaration c as above from this present Ecclesiastical Meeting than it is That the end of their being by his Grace the Kings Lieutenant permitted to meet and sit and deliberate so freely as they can desire and do now here in the Capital City of the Kingdom is no other All which being so it will easily be believed our affliction must be very great when of one side we certainly understand The whole procedure of the Congregations debates and resolves hitherto these Eleven days of their Session makes it appear evidently That the chief Leaders thereof mind nothing less than that end for which they and the rest of the Members have been convened or permitted to meet yea That they are obstinately possessed with and set upon quite contrary designs of their own and when at the same time of the other side we seriously consider That the issue of such Counsels if persisted in till the Fathers be dissolved must at long running of necessity prove extreamly fatal even to the generality of all both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks of the whole Irish Nation because either represented or guided by this Congregation For being we see plainly before our eyes that since the designes of those leading Demagogues are as contrary to the just peaceable and Loyal designes which we and other Subscribers of the former Remonstrance we mean that of the year 1661 had from the beginning have at present and shall God willing hereafter always continue as even darkness and light errour and truth or Hell and Heaven are or can be one to another it must naturally follow That we must consequently and no less clearly behold all our former hopes of the Irish Catholicks welfare by this National Assembly's Convention dashed to nothing and even not only despair of any good but very justly fear great and irrecoverable evils to the Nation from this very Meeting to succeed those fair and pleasing hopes if we say the Fathers end as they have begun and proceeded hitherto suffering themselves to be misled by their passionately and blindly interested Demagogues and even hurried on furiously into a cross and effectual thwarting for the future all those very publick ends which for the good of their Nation and Religion the said former Remonstrance and both Ecclesiastick and Lay Subscribers thereof drove at And surely 't is not probable that any will not easily believe that such considerations which ought to afflict all good Patriots bring upon us by so much the greater affliction by how much we think our selves the more nearly concern'd than others who have not ventured as far as we under sufferances from our own Church of purpose to do that very Church and Professors thereof in the British Empire and particularly in Ireland all the good offices we could even also by subscribing presenting defending and promoting hitherto in all just ways That Formulary of 1661 and both Doctrine and Practice thereof as the only means or at least very first of all due means for His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects wherever in His Dominions to win upon and to ingratiate themselves with their fellow Subjects of the Protestant Religion So much of our Melancholy thoughts and hearty resentments we thought fit to represent to the Congregation by your Lordship their Chairman to the end that since it continues yet and may some days farther and several of the Members thereof are lately more and more disposed to give the Lord Lieutenant all kind of full and real satisfaction and therefore some hopes remain still that matters are not absolutely past all recovery or remedy we may further represent as we do by this address and by your Lordship to the rest of the the Right Reverend Prelats and all other the Venerable Fathers our additional and humble both desire and Petition That they will be pleased to appoint a Committee of their best or most Select Divines to debate with us their reasons if any indeed they have whether Theological or Prudential why the Signature either of the Three last of the Six Sorbon Declarations or even of the former Remonstrance hath been hitherto excepted against And wherefore on the contradictory Question such a Formulary of their own framing hath been Signed and presented by them as hath nothing material in it not any thing truly either in the same or other words of all or any the material Points of the former Remonstrance What errour against Christian Religion or Catholick Faith or sound Doctrine they found or could alledge against all or any of those Points or Clauses of the former Remonstrance which they have so of meer design omitted in their own Lastly being they profess in words They have not excepted against their own signing of the said former Remonstrance out of any prejudice against it or the Subscribers of it why they do notwithstanding refuse
to proffer so much in writing by a publcik Act of their Congregation i. e. by signing the paper to that purpose offered them to be signed unless besides other prejudices and evils which their proceedings hitherto must if not remedied by new Resolves bring of necessity on all the Roman-Catholick both Clergy and People represented or lead by them they intend also to sowe the seeds of a perpetual scandalous and fatal Schism amongst that very Clergy and People These being the heads of what we think necessary to be so debated and our desires and Petition of a Committee and Conference to such end being no other than we likewise think every indifferent Person will hold to be very reasonable in the present circumstances we have moreover thought fit to assure the Fathers That in case they convince us by reason or argument which may take with any judicious indifferent Person we shall most freely and resignedly submit to them in all and every of the controverted Points So little are we byassed against that Light which God hath imprinted on every rational Soul nay on the contrary so resolved are we to hold perpetually to the best of our knowledge to the Rule of Christian Belief which we conceive to be now or as to us and all other faithful men living the Holy Scriptures of God as they are interpreted by the constant unanimous universal Tradition of the Church and Doctrine of all the Holy Fathers even for Ten whole entire Ages of Christianity until the days and Vsurpation of Gregory the VII But if notwithstanding all and particularly so fair an offer the Congregation shall which God forbid suffer themselves to be either misguided or over-awed and over-ruled still by those persons amongst them who seek not the good of either Nation or Religion but their own peculiar worldly interest every one of them and this even knowingly to the prejudice of Evangelical truth and Propagation or Confirmation of both Schismatical and Heretical Errours or if to pleasure such persons the Congregation will not condescend to a desire so earnest and reasonable a Petition so equitable and humble for such a necessary Committee and Conference this Letter will at least bear us witness that of our part and to our power we have done what became us for preventing those evils which we mightily fear and are almost certainly perswaded the bad counsels and further designs of some leading persons amongst them will at last bring upon the Nation in general Whether in the mean time the Congregation it self can avoid the Censure of all understanding men whether even of those who otherwise might be the most fiery pretending Zealots for the Church and Pope may be worth the considering We mean when it shall be made publickly known That such a National Assembly of Ecclesiasticks would neither frame a Remonstrance of their own satisfactory to the King in point of professing their Allegiance to him for the future in meer Temporal things nor at all joyn or concur in that of others which was indeed in all respects satisfactory and as such already accepted by His Majesty and was also by not a small number of both Ecclesiasticks and Layicks of their own Countrey and Religion and amongst these and those many persons too not only considerable for other qualifications but for their Learning and judgment who even Principally to do them all the good lay in their power had freely and conscientiously signed the former Remonstrance nor yet no not even on the contradictory question would shew their Lawful exceptions or indeed any at all against the former nor even do so much as suffer it to be debated 'twixt a Committee of their own and another of the Subscribers of it no nor so much as to be debated in their own House or elsewhere by their own Divines alone whether it contain'd any Errour or any other cause of Lawful exception nor finally no not to prevent all those otherwise impending evils especially the very worst of them viz. a manifest scandalous and fatal Schism amongst the Catholick Clergy and consequently People too of this Nation the setting up or continuing of Altar against Altar would so much as testifie under their hands or by a publick Act of their House what they themselves professed there in word That they had in truth no exception against either that former Remonstrance or the Subscribers of it We say it may be worth the considering whether when all those matters and whatever else pertains unto them shall be made publick to the World this National Congregation of Roman-Catholick Irish Ecclesiasticks can avoid the heavy Censure of any understanding man Nay whether all understanding men who shall and when they shall read a perfect and full relation of all and particularly of this our present both hearty and humble Petition and withal of the Congregation's declining still nevertheless to come to such an issue will not judge That the same Fathers and together with them all other our Antagonists both at home and abroad Natives and Forreigners yield up the Cause justifie us and condemn themselves that refuse a Tryal so equitable in it self and so heartily and humbly desired of them by us This is all we have to say or pray at present save only That your Lordship may be pleased either by your self or some other Member of the House to read publickly in the House to all the rest of the Prelats and Fathers there Assembled this Letter of our Expostulation with and Petition to them all in general being it is only to this purpose directed to your Lordship as their Chairman Wherefore concluding we heartily wish your Lordship and them our Right Reverend good Lords and Venerable Fathers and wish them in their final Resolves before they dissolve the efficacious influence of the All-powerful Spirit of God which strongly and sweetly works all the good Resolves of men And so with much affection and all due respect we kiss your sacred hands Right Reverend and our very good Lord your Lordship 's most humble Servants Secular Priests Laurence Archbold Bartholomew Read Dominicans Fr. Clement Birn Fr. John Reynolds All Franciscans Fr. Valentine Brown Fr. Peter Walsh Fr. Anthony Gearnon Fr. Francis Coppinger Fr. Thomas Harold Fr. Christopher Plunket Fr. James Tuit Fr. Patrick Carr. Fr. Laurence Tankard Fr Thomas Talbot Fr. Mathew Duff F. James Fitz Gerrald Fr. Anthony Saul Fr. Valentine Cruiz What the qualifications or Titles were of these Subscribers you may see Treat 1. partly pag. 9. and partly pag. 47. In both which places they amongst others subscribe their names with their respective qualifications or Titles to the former Remonstrance some amongst the first Subscribers in England and others after amongst those who signed in Ireland Yet I confess there is one amongst them whose subscription was not valued nor desired by any of the rest but rather declined yea and had been absolutely refused by them if they had known how to refuse it prudently
this present Work immediately after the Fourth Treatise See there pag. 80. For albeit this Part or Treatise and Section of the Book where I am at present were the more proper place to give the said Propositions of Allegiance yet forasmuch as they are already Printed where I now told I having thought fit for some Reasons to give them in that place when some five or six years since I Printed the three next following Treatises viz. the Second Third and Fourth before this present First which I am now ending and that to Reprint them here again were needless and but increase of Charge in the Printing-house therefore I direct the Reader to the said Treatise 4. pag. 80. where he may see those Propositions and under this Title The Fourteen Propositions of F. P. W. or the doctrine of Allegiance which the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland may with a safe Conscience and at this time ought in prudence to subscribe unanimously and freely as that only which can secure His Majesty of them as much as hand or subscription can and that only too which may answer the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion and by consequence of the toleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State 7. That in this Title may be seen what end I had both in writing those Propositions and having them so debated even the same end which the controverted Remonstrance it self and all my Books written and Persecutions too suffered in defence thereof had hitherto and shall have hereafter 8. That in the same Title I attributed these Propositions to F. P. W. viz. to my self not so much because they were wholly my own draught and had not a word either added to or detracted from them by the said Divines save only in one or two places at most where to satisfie some of the Fathers I mollified the expression of my own Copy in a word or two or rather indeed left out and wholly blotted those words but chiefly because the Franciscan Provincial Chapter having come on and sate before the Divines had run over and throughly debated any of the three last Propositions or Paragraphs and the same Divines being consequently forc'd to adjourn for that time and such new distractions too having hapned in that Provincial Chapter as occasioned the departure of several of those very Divines who debated the former eleven Propositions there was no further meeting held either about the examination of the other remaining three last or subscription of any of all the Fourteen by these Divines as was at first intended Which want of subscription by them to those even eleven Propositions albeit otherwise throughly debated and approved by them all unanimously in the very terms even to a syllable wherein I give them printed Treat 4. pag. 80. 81 and 82. and want also of through examination by them i. e. by the said Divines of any of the three last although otherwise read publickly by them and not at all excepted against in that reading by any of their Colledge made me not to venture on publishing the said even so much as the first eleven Propositions in their name but only in my own all the Fourteen until they were or happen'd I mean to be hereafter actually subscribed by others Because if I had done otherwise I was not sure but some would peradventure say I had no authority for doing so being I had no actual subscription yet and consequently was not sure but such Title involving others and consequently the Propositions themselves would be disown'd at least by some of them But I was certain of my self to own both my own Title and whole Work even every individual of the Fourteen Propositions to the least word and syllable 9. That for my change of stile in the Thirteenth Paragraph or Complex Proposition which contains the three last of the six Sorbon Declarations made by that Faculty in the year 1663. or change thereof I mean from assertory of the outward object to promissory or rather only declaratory of an inward unalterable resolution of mind whereas in the eleven former it is assertory but in the said thirteenth only promissory i. e. or declaratory as now said containing only a promise or rather declaring our unalterable resolution never to approve or practise according to any Doctrine or Positions which in particular or general assert the contrary of any one even of the very three last of those six late Sorbon Declarations made against the extravagant and uncanonical pretences of the Pope the reason inducing me to this kind of change and to an abstaining also therein from any kind of Censure against those contrary Doctrines or Positions how otherwise false and wicked soever in themselves was That I feared several of the said Divines would hardly be drawn to concur unto approve of and least of all subscribe an assertory expression viz. upon the matter of the said three last Sorbon Declarations but doubted not they would easily be persuaded to come off to such a promissory or such a declaratory one without any Censure of the contrary Doctrines For otherwise had I in the Copy or Draught proposed to them express'd fully my own sense and what I would my self dare maintain publickly even under my own hand I had done it as to the outward object i. e. in plain terms categorically either asserting or denying the outward object or subject which you please to be so or so And therefore 1. as to the Fourth of those Sorbon Propositions I would have spoken thus The Pope hath no authority which is repugnant to the Supreme Royal Jurisdiction of our King no nor any which is so much as contrary to the true liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in the same Kingdom and by consequence it ought not nor cannot be maintain'd for example That the Pope hath any authority at all to depose Bishops against the said Canons And 2. as to the Fifth I would have express'd my self in this manner The Pope is not only not above the General Council but is under every Oecumenical Council truly such As likewise 3. and as to the Sixth I would have no less plainly thus The Pope is not infallible not even in questions of Right arising about the Articles of divine Faith but certainly fallible in all even such points if or wherein he hath not the consent of the Catholick or Vniversal Church Nay further I had to such my Assertions added as smart Censures of the contrary doctrines as any of those are which you find in any of the former eleven Paragraphs or Propositions But my business or design in drawing those 14 Propositions and consequently the Thirteenth of them having been partly to draw them so as I might rationally expect to prevail with the Colledge of Divines for their concurrence I judg'd it necessary to alter my stile from assertory to promissory and make use of no Censure at all when I came to the said
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
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
declaration and meaning to be always with this reserve that whatever this their second proposition or constant doctrine signifie or be intended or conceived by any to signifie or this their resolution so expressed never to recede from it yet all must be with perfect submission to the Pope and so that if it sufficiently appear the Pope hath already declared or shall at any time hereafter declare by Brief Bull or other letters against such doctrine as uncatholick or against such resolution as unsafe they will quit both for these causes I say there can be no rational indifferent person but will be convinced that out of this second proposition as from them there can acrue no more assurance to the King of their future fidelitie than out of the first and consequently than out of their Remonstrance alone without any such additional proposition or propositions That is as I have a little above said just none at all Nor will their third or last Proposition mend the matter They give it indeed as the two former in words specious enough to plain well-meaning men to the simple and ignorant Nay specious enough to very understanding persons but yet such persons only as are not acquainted with their explications borrowed from late School-men and particularly from Bellarmine against Barclay and from other impugners with him of the Oath of Allegiance against the most learned Father Green and Preston of St. Beâ—ns Order as well under Widringtons name at first in several works as their own at last in their Apology to Gregory the Fourteenth and against the rest of the Roman Clergy of England that so learnedly conscientiously modestly nay and patiently too maintain'd that oath in King James's dayes especially the Secular Clergy maâ—gre Cardinal Bellarmines Letter to the Arch-Priest Blackwel and maugre likewise all his other several books under his own or fictitious names and maugre also even that either true or pretended brief of Paul the Fifth in the year 1606. against the said Oath procured by Father Parsons upon the mis-representation and most false suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine and his seven or eight other fellow Divines to whom joyntly the examination of the said Oath of Allegiance was committed by the same holy Father Paul the Fifth and finally notwithstanding the best and worst endeavours of besides Lessius Gretzer Fitzherbert Becan Parsons himself and several others Franciscus Suarez the Spanish learned Jesuite at the instigation of the English Fathers of the same Society and in pursuance of the said Brief and for the unlawful advancement of his own great Masters no less unlawful interest This third Proposition therefore I say notwithstanding its words or tenor so specious at first to such as are not acquainted with the familiar explication or meaning of the chief proposers a meaning or explication learned from these late Sophisters that writ so ill and so erroneously too against King Iames's said Oath of Allegiance being reviewed being duly pondred as from them or as from those Congregational men will be found to be of as little weight as any of the two former and will be so found I mean as to the resolution justly expected from so venerable so grave and so withal justly suspected an Assembly But not to delay the Reader my longer I repeat again here that Proposition in it self barely or as they have given it in their own words We the undernamed do hereby declare that it is our doctrine that we Subjects oâ—e so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can either dispense with or free us of the same Now mark the Sophistry In the first place the reduplicative sense must be allowed in these two words We Subjects that is in as much or while we are Subjects Which will be no longer than it shall please the Pope not to denounce the King by name excommunicated or deprived of or deposed from his kingdoms by a judicial process or bull on pretence of his apostasie heresie schisme oppression of the Church or People against that which the Pope shall determine to be justice or faith Next the same reduplication must be allowed to fall on the word King And thirdly at the word power all the former distinctions of fact and of right of humane or temporal and divine or spiritual and of ordinary and extraordinary must be ushered in And in the last place from these general words under any pretext soever there must be alwaies understood an exception of those extraordinary cases or contingencies above so often repeated of destroying the Church or People tyrannically by endeavouring to make them Apostats Hereticks Schismaticks or by tyrannising over them even in their temporal or civil rights alone And the judgment hereof must be the Pope's only or the people's when they please to take it Nor will the Doctrine of the Apostles even in the cases of tyrannical heathen Emperours as of Nero and Domitian much less of the Fathers even in the cases of manifest notorious Apostats and Hereticks as of Iulian Constantius Valens Anastasius c. move the Divines of our congregation any whit at all They say with Bellarmine the Apostles and Fathers and other primitive Christians dissembled in this point because they had not strength enough of men and arms to oppose though besides that this answer is impious it be also most manifestly false in the case of Iulian the Apostat and of the succeeding Heretick Emperours Having thus with all sincerity considered all and every of their three Propositions both nakedly and abstractedly as they are in themselves and also as given by that Congregation and having layd open most sincerely too the meaning or sense these Divines or at least the chief and most leading of them have conceive or intend others should upon fit occasions understand by those Propositions and by their several clauses and words it only now remains that I briefly put in form my third Argument grounded on such abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations And I frame it thus Syllogistically because I have to deal with some caprichious Logicians or Sophisters No Propositions are sufficient in this age for giving assurance to the King of the future loyalty of a Roman Catholick people and as from such a Roman Catholick people too whom he hath already by experience and his Father before him found in several publick Instances manifestly disloyal and even perfidious in the highest nature could be but such Propositions as by clear express words from which there can be no exception or evasion and of which there can be no distinction according to the present School-divinity of Bellarmine or Suarez or such others descend to the specifical cases about which the controversie is if the Proposers be expresly desired by the King or the Lieutenant in his Name or by his Authority to descend so in their Remonstrance or Propositions to such cases and if they expresly and obstinatly too refuse to descend so or
Infidels and heretical Princes disturbing the publick peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the obedience due to their Soveraigns and precipitating them into faction rebellion sedition and even to commit Parricides on the sacred persons of their Princes The Rectors Deans Proctors Batchelors and whole Vniversity have made this Decree That the sacred Faculty of Theology ought highly to be commended for having given a judgment so pious so religious so wholsome against so wicked and dangerous a Doctrine for having so opportunely held forth to the whole Church but especially to all France the clear light of ancient and orthodox Doctrine for having so gloriously followed the illustrious generosity of their Predecessors and performed a task not only becoming their particular profession to defend the truth but deserving the imitation even of the whole Vniversity it self And to obstruct altogether the very entrance of this new and pernicious doctrine and cause all those who now are or hereafter shall be members of this Vniversity or merit promotion to any degree therein to remember for ever to form and regulate their opinions according to the judgments pronounced by that sacred Faculty and keep at utmost distance from the doctrine so justly proscribed and that every one in particular may fly detest and abhor it and as well in publick as privat combat confute and convince its falsity They do decree that in the next solemn procession as also annually in the Assembly for the procession general immediatly after opening the Schools in the month of October this censure shall publickly be read by the Proctor of the University the first business nothing to intervene and recorded in the Registers of each Faculty and Nation and that two Copies hereof written and signed by the hand of the Clerk of the sacred F-culty of Theologie shall be kept in the common Records of the University and the like number be sent as soon as may be to all Superiours of Colledges and Houses to the end all possible care and diligence be used to secure all those who frequent or reside in the said Colledges from the corruption and poyson of this pernicious doctrine and that they never give way that any person whatsoever presume to say or do any thing contrary to what has so wisely been determined and ordained by that sacred Faculty If any Doctor Professor Master of Arts or Scholler resist and disobey or go about in any sort by word or writing on any cause or pretence whatsoever to offer at the least attempt or make the least opposition against this so laudable and legal a censure let him for a note of infamy and ignominy be expelled and deprived of his degree faculty and rank by a sentence that may for ever cut off all hope of admittance Quintaine Scribe of the University The like Decrees and censures have been made and past on the same occasion and against the same doctrine that the Pope can punish Kings with temporal punishments depose or deprive them of their Kingdoms or Estates c. and have been publickly enacted by these other several Universities following as appears too out of the foresaid Collection of Divers Acts c. By the Vniversity of Caen assembled in the Convent of St. Francis 7. May 1626. By the Vniversity of Rheims the four Faculties being assembled in the Chappel of St. Patrice 18th May 1626. By the Vniversity of Tholouze the Rector and professors of all the Faculties being assembled in St. Thomas's School at the Dominicans 23. May 1626. By the Vniversity of Poitiers assembled at the Dominicans 26. June 1626. By the Vniversity of Valence assembled in the great Hall 14. July 1626. By the Vniversity of Burdeaux assembled at the Carms 16. July 1626. By the Vniversity of Bourges all the Deans and Doctâ—rs-Regent of all the Faculties assembled by the Rector 25. November 1626. By all which the said doctrine was condemned as false erroneous contrary to the word of God pernicious seditious and detestable And so I conclude this my third Treatise or my considerations of the foresaid three Sorbon-propositions as applied by the Congregation to our own gracious King and themselves or Catholick Clergy and people of Ireland Or which is the same thing my considerations of what the said three single Propositions do signifie as from them and as to any further or clearer assurance of their fidelity hereafter to the King or Government in the cases controverted than that was they had before signified by the former paper of their Remonstrance alone without any such additional propositions Now to their third or last paper I mean that of their reasons given to my Lord Lieutenant why they would not subscribe the other three or the three last of those six of Sorbon applyed mutatis mutandis to our King and them selves THE FOURTH TREATISE CONTAINING Answers To the reasons presented in writing to His Grace the Twentieth of June 1666. by Father John Bourk Vicar General of Cashil and Father Cornelius Fogarty D. V. I. in behalf of and by Commission from the Congregation The title of the said writing or reasons being The reasons why we the Roman Catholick Clergie signed not the other three propositions But no hand or Subscription either of Secretary Speaker or any other not even of those very Commissioners that delivered it unto the Paper BEcause that writing is somewhat long and I have already given it intirely and consequently word by word in my first Treatise or Narrative where the Reader may turn to it I will onely take it here by pieces as I have in my second Treatise their Remonstrance And having little to say to the title nor else but what I hope will appear in the procedure and conclusion of these answers which is that I might as justly prefix to this Treatise of mine as a Gentleman in England since the Kings Restoration did to a piece of his own this other title The Jesuits reasons unreasonable and that Father N. N. of the Society can tell his Clients the misterie of such prefixion or application as who hath been as well the chief contriver of those reasons as he was next the Chairman the grand obstructer of the Subscriptions unto I mean the three last propositions I observed their said writing consists of five Paragraphs Whereof the first though short enough truly yet comprehends in general their reasons The following other four are only to prove by induction and by special instance of their rejected propositions and consideration of them what is said so in general is that first Paragraph Which Paragraph therefore they begin and conclude in those words 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 seperatly or jointly with the first three propositions we had already subscribed But to make us believe or conceive these reasons as reasonable they give first
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
dangerous consequence or overture of such horrid disputes cannot follow the subscription of this fifth For to make good this consecution or to prove those consequents to follow the only medium must be this other proposition The Parliament or people in such an Hereditary Kingdom have the same power respectively in temporals over all persons even that of the Prince himself and even to deprivation or deposition too which the universal Church or general Council hath in spirituals over all faithful brethren amongst whom the Pope must be Which proposition doubtless the congregation might see if they pleased that neither Bellarmine nor Suarez nor any other Divine of their way ever yet evicted or sufficiently proved And from those Divines of either of both the other wayes there could be no reason to expect a proof thereof since those made it their work to disprove it by laying quite contrary principles which they abundantly evidence as I also my self have in my little Book on the Remonstrance of 61. Where I have by two clear Demonstrations More ample Account pag. 67 c one a priâ—ri and the other â posteriori and by Scriptures and Fathers and practice of the primitive Church by answers also to all material objections proved the Soveraignty or as Bodin speaks the Majesty to be in the Prince in all cases not in the Parliament or people not even in any extraordinary case or contingency whatsoever speaking at least as I do here of Hereditary Kingdoms So that the Fathers of the congregation would have dealed more ingenuously if they had omitted the second reason and in lieu thereof only said they conceived it their interest or it was their pleasure to adhere to Bellarmines doctrine as to this point rather then follow the example of Sorbon or doctrine of the Gallican and other national Churches or even that in those two General Councils above rehearsed And yet I confess they would have said this inconsequently withal forasmuch as they had already relinquished Bellarmine in the three former propositions if understood without vain distinctions and yet had not such clear authorities of General Councils therein for themselves albeit they had enough besides Scripture and Reason the Faculty of Sorbon directly on those very controverted points And further they would have said it against the chief purpose which must have been Sorbons and should be theirs to obstruct those other indeed no less certain evident natural then bad sad and dismal consequences of the Popes being asserted to be above General Councils I am come at last to their two last last paragraphs Which I give together because they are of one subject the sixth and last also of those propositions of Sorbon You have it above rendred in English by the Congregation and in these words That it is not the doctrine or dogme of the Faculty that the Pope without the consent of the Church is infallible Why the said congregation would not subscribe this proposition mutatis mutandis or taking it thus It is not our doctrine c. they give their reasons such as they are in these two paragraphs here following in their own words The sixth regards the Popes infallibility 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 Council from all parts of the world to decide define censure and condemn certain Propositions of Heresie The Iansenists 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 Herefie by the Pope be in the true sense and meaning of the Iansenists or no whether in his book or no as may appear by such as we can produce if necessary The Vniversities 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 hold the Popes Infallibility if he did define any thing against the obedience we owe our Prince if they speak of any other infallibility as matter of Religion and Faith as it regardeth us not nor our obedience to our Soveraign so we are loath forreign Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a question in a Country where we have neither Vniversity nor Iansenist amongst us if not perhaps some few particulars whom we conceive under-hand to further this dispute to the disturbance of both King and Country Where I observe the sum of what they would say after mistating the question and after so many disguises and windings to be that this sixth Proposition is impertinent odious unprofitable unfit to be disputed in this Country relates to Jansenisme is suspected to be under-hand furthered by some of that way and finally tends to the disturbance of both King and Country And therefore they thought it fit not to subscribe to it But the contriver of these reasons will now give me leave to clear this fogg which as Sorcerers use to do he hath raised before the eyes of the Reader Whom therefore I must tell That Father N. N. hath first mis-stated the question That the question was not is not whether the Pope either as a private Doctor or as a publick of the whole Church or which is the same thing as Pope either without or with a special congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats can censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie Or whether it be necessary to have a general Council from all parts of the world to decide define censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie But the qustion was and is whether the Pope even as such or even as the publick Master Doctor Director and Superiour in spiritual matters of all the faithful and even as joyntly taken with or sitting in such a special Congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats can so decide define censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie that without the joynt consent or concurrence antecedent concommitant or subsequent of the universal Church at least in its Representative a General Council such decision definition censure or condemnation must be in it self infallibly true or must be as such only without any kind of even internal contradiction opposition or doubt received and believed by all the faithful or accounted infallibly true or de fide divina Catholica of divine and Catholick faith and I say accounted such or of Divine Catholick Faith hoc ipso that the Pope hath defined it so That no Catholick Writer hath ever yet questioned or denied a power and lawful authority in or to even a particular Bishop much less in or to a
in temporal things only As may be seen in many Instances and particularly in those more immediatly relating to the Catholick Subjects of the King of Great Britain the proceedings of Paul the Fifth anâ—â— 1606. against the Oath of Allegiance enacted by King Iames and of Innocent the Tenth against the three negative propositions of the English Catholicks and the both former and latter Letters also of Cardinal French Barberin as President of the congregation De propagandi Fide and of Hieronimus de Vicâ—â—â—is and Iacobus Rospigliosi as Internuncius's of Bruxels or Low-countries and Super-intendents of the affairs of Ireland against the Irish Remonstrance of 61. That both clergie and people of the Roman communion of Ireland have been this long time and are yet as to the generality or far greater part of them so principled by the chief leaders and superiours of that Clergie that whether out of ignorance or a mistaken interest or a wilful inclination they are content to be hurried away into any perswasion that hath the approbation of his Holyness at least for as much as belongs to the regulating of their conscience and instructing them in point of Faith For they are taught to believe him infallible So that till their Clergie that is the chief in authority amongst the same Clergy declare against this doctrine of the Popes infallibility there needs no more besides a rational or seeming opportunity to put all the quiet and peace of the Kingdom in hazzard again notwithstanding any kind of Remonstrance Oath or other Declarations of Loyalty but some cunning Emissary pretending a Brief Bull or other Letter from his Holyness and letting both Clergy and people or either know the contents are against all their said Remonstrances or Declaration for being loyal to the King in such or such cases and that the cases are now in being That these four points being previously and seriously considered I do with all my heart desire to joyn issue with Father N. N. on the main debate here and leave that quaerie to all prudent men to judge whether the Universities of France saying or declaring doctrinally and by a publick Instrument That it is not their doctrine that the Pope withouâ— the consent of the Church is infallible whether I say this or the like Declaration as to and against that doctrine touched our scope or no Or which is the same thing and must be and certainly is understood the quaerie in our case whether it touched or concerned not the scope which was really the Kings and my Lord Lieutenants and either was really or at least pretendedly the Congregations That the said Congregation should say and subscribe the foresaid sixth declaration or proposition applyed to themselves and give it plainly thus under their hands It is not our doctrine that the Pope without the consent of the Church is infallible That because it is too apparent out of the very nature of the things and signification of the words and clearness in both that all prudent knowing men of the world even the very members of that Congregation even such as were most averse cannot when they consider well these four points but answer this quoerie and judge and determine this matter against Father N. N. and therefore acknowledge against his first pretence the pertinency of that sixth proposition of the Sorbonists And because Father N. N. did himself see this very well notwithstanding the mist he raised by his unnecessary discourse of Jansenists to hinder the sight of others and so well saw this that he flyes instantly to other pretences which are in effect if I understand him unnecessariness odiousness unprofitableness c. and the strongest of all if it were true the disturbance of both King and Country which pretences yet for some part he so delivers as if he would seem according to his manner unwilling to be understood and yet so too that in the prosecution he presently returns again to his former of impertinency and then finally concludes all his either weak or false pretences in this manner and words but in the Congregations name still and I confess they owned the paper We are loath that forgein Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a question in a country where we have neither Vniversity nor Iansenist amongst us if not perhaps some few particulars whom we conceive under-hand to further this dispute to the disturbance of both King and Country I must now tell him that in the next place and to his next pretence of vnnecessariness which I understand to be tacitly intimated or implyed virtually in that conditional expression and put off of his where immediatly after he leaves it to all prudent men to judge whether the 6th Proposition toucheth our scope or no he wards the blow which he saw ready for him but wards it after his manner that is with no real defence but certain and manifest equivocation of words which you have there If they think it doth let them know that we should not hold the Popes infallibility if he did define any thing against the obedience we owe our Prince I say I must now tell Father N. N. the answers to this pretence also and to all that is either formally or virtually said therein are both cleer and obvious First That if he would be understood to speake here sincerly without deceipt fraud equivocation or imposture and to the purpose too there is implicantia in adjecto The Congregation and himself contradict in effect what he would have them be understood to speake so here in words For they refused to own the doctrine of the Popes infallibility even I mean in relation to the allegiance of the Subject and power of the Prince and trouble themselves and others with their vain pretences for not dis-owning it Nay and were so obstinatly resolved on this point that therefore they were dissolved and would be so dissolved notwithstanding they knew very well the State would be on this account very ill satisfied with the whole Clergie How is it then possible that Father N. N. without manifest contradiction in the whole procedure speaks his conscience here if he intends to speake without equivocation to plain sincere men and speake that which is commonly understood amongst such men by such words Secondly That if he would not be understood so but on the contrary as he ought and what really and onely he intends in his mind pursuant to his and their principles and proceedings he sayes nothing at all here to shew the unnecessariness of subscribing this 6th Proposition Because that if the Pope should for example define their Remonstrance or three first propositions or any part or clause of either contained Heresie or some what uncatholick or unlawful and against their eternal Salvation or some obedience not due to the Prince but to the Pope onely and that this were of Catholick faith without which none can be saved and that notwithstanding such definition the King or
the doctrine or Theses of those that maintained the same pretended infallibility of the Pope to be not onely matter of Religion and faith that is to be fide divina believed but also to be so believed to extend it self to all kind of matters questions disputes or controversies of or concerning what is delivered in the Depositum of faith and what is not or concerning what is lawful and what is not even as much as the undoubted infallibility of the Catholick Church either representative or diffusive can be any way extended to such And consequently could not but know the doctrine of infallibility in all such matters disputes or controversies must of necessity regard or concern this very particular matter dispute and controversy of the obedience due or not due by Subjects in all cases or in such and such special ones to their King or to him that is reputed King being it is one of the particulars included in that Vniversal Thirdly That although it be confessed the said infallibility either pretended or true for it matters not which for our purpose now as falling upon any other matter distinct from that obedience we owe our Prince doth not per se directly and immediately regard or concern that obedience yet mediately indirectly and per accidens it may and even directly often us and the Prince himself nay and the quiet and peace too of his Kingdoms For besides the general concernment of salvation or of having or not having errors in Christian Religion obtruded on us at the Popes pleasure or fancy or out of his ignorance as it may happen or of that of his few Roman Divines only when he defines without a General Council what ever the matter be there are very many particulars wherein Popes may usurp and have usurped already a power of definition which against the universal Canons and Reason and Justice too incroach on the rights both of Prince Clergy and other Catholick People or Subjects though such particulars do not immediatly directly or per se regard this particular question of our Allegiance to the Prince in temporals or though notwithstanding such definitions we were suffered still to acknowledge and obey him as our supream Lord in meeâ— temporals without any definition against that how ever with many disturbances withal on spiritual pretences tending often though per accidens only to the both temporal and spiritual ruine of both Prince Clergy and people Whereof sufficient and manifold instances may be given out of those we call the Liberties of the Gallican Church and such as are common also to other national Churches especially in the matter of Investitures Nominations Presentations Collations Resignations Unions Translations and of Legats and Nuncius's c. That as I have said before to this of impertinency the Sorbon Divines or University or Clergy or Archbishop of Paris in 63. were not of our Congregations judgment in this point or of Father N. N's but perswaded that the Popes pretended infallibility even I say as matter of Faith and Religion and even I say too as not particularly or only relating to their Allegiance concerned notwithstanding both their Prince and themselves and that obedience too for they declared against it in general And so might and ought both Father N. N. and our Congregation but that they would seem more wise and less sincere than Sorbon and the University Clergy and Archbishop of Paris In the third place I must answer his pretence of odium where he sayes in Congregations name We are loath forreign Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a question c. That he imposeth mightily and injuriously on forrein Catholick Nations That there is not one such in all Europe and of the rest you may judge by Europe where this question is odious at all in the negative resolve to all indeed it is in the affirmative or in the assertion of such an infallibility in the Pope as matter of faith and religion unquestionably though to all also very indifferent for both sides as it is only disputed scholastically speculatively or problematically without intending it as matter of faith and religion in the affirmative or of any further design either by the affirmative or negative than of opposing truth to error and certainty of divine belief to the uncertainty of humane opinion or collection though seemingly or probably deduced out of Scripture-places or some others of great esteem amongst us That neither some few Divines at Rome nor that whole City or Clergy therein if all were of that opinion of the Popes infallibility as matter of faith and religion not even taking along with them the most blessed Pope himself the Cardinals and whole Court do make one little Nation no nor if you further aggregate unto them all those other few Divines and few I call such comparatively or in relation to all Catholick Divines of the contrary side who in several other Countreys of Europe either privately or publickly in their Schools or Writings maintain either dogmatically or problematically that assertion of the Popes infallibility or maintain it any way at all either as matter of religion and faith or as matter only of meer uncertain but yet probable opinion That by their own confession the Universities of France and these are eight in all have concurred in the negative which denyes any such infallibility to the Pope and by consequence this question as to the negative answer must not be odious in that Country That whatever France or the Gallican Church maintains in relation to faith and religion is not odious nor can be in any other Catholick Nation of Christendome because they are all of the same faith religion and communion with France and the Gallican Church That the controversie of the Venetians in 1606. with Paulus V. and all the consequents of it show manifestly that all the Catholick Countreys subject to that Commonwealth reject the Popes infallibility and hold it not odious to determine against it That for the German Hungar and Polish Nation the General Councils of Constance and Basil which for a very great part consisted of them and their general esteem and veneration to this day of those Councils and amongst other Canons made by those Councils of that particularly which altogether subjects the Pope to a General Council sufficiently prove this question and resolution of it in the negative cannot be odious to them as neither to any other Nation that maintains the Supremacy of a General Council above the Pope which all Catholick Nations and people do generally with the said Council For it must be an infallible consequence that if a General Council be above the Pope the infallibility cannot be in the Pope alone without a General Council That for Spain and other Kingdoms subject to it in the dayes of Philip the Second it may be seen out of his Edict published and observed by them against the eleventh tome of Baronius concerning the Monarchy and I mean
inclination to nor any the least tincture of a Iansenist And if what I have said here conclude me to be a Iansenist I profess my self one But if it do not as I am sure it doth not then I am none at all it not such a one as Father N. N. and the Congregation should and ought and must profess themselves in life and death if they will not live and dye out of the Catholick Church Whence it appears evidently that whatever Father N. N. intended by his few Iansenists that furthered this dispute I cannot be comprehended amongst such And I have shewed already there is none remaining to be rightly or justly intended by such But for as much as whether he really meaned any or no or entertained in his own breast with or without ground that suspition of any or no but onely intended this jealousie as a meer trick to abuse the unlearned Roman Catholicks in the reading of his paper with some kind of specious preâ—ence for not signing and consequently fixed on this of Iansenisme as the most proper to strike the greatest horrour into them of a doctrine furthered by such men as Iansenists so lately and solemnly condemned by three Popes of Heresie as he sayes I thought also fit but by no trick at all further yet a little to disabuse the readers of that unreasonable writing of his by giving here exactly and sincerely all those very doctrines which imputed to Iansenius whether found in his book or no and whether in his sense or no have been so condemned by three Popes already and are those onely which gave the name of Iansenists to such as before that condemnation maintained them in the sease they conceived them written first by Iansenius himself for such of these doctrines I mean as they allow to be in Iansenius and still maintain that neither all are found in him nor any of all condemned in his sense In giving of which I have no further end than that such readers by comparing those doctrines to this dispute may themselves be judges of this truth also that our present dispute of the Popes fallibility or infallibility without the consent of the Church hath no kind of relation to them nor they to it And of this other too that F. N. N. hath indeed no less impertinently than invidiously brought this to question The doctrines therefore of Iansenius or imputed to him in whatever sense are these following here commonly called the five condemned Propositions 1. Aliqua Dei praecepts hominibus justis volentibus et conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant 2. Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam contradicitur 3. Aâ— merendum et demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas â necessitate sed sufficit libertas â coactione 4. Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus etiam ad initium Fidei et in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent gratiam esse â—alem cui posset humana voluntas vel resisterevel obtemperare 5. Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum faisse et sanguinem fudisse Now let any man that understands reason be judge whether the dispute of the Popes fallibility or infallibility without the consent of the Church and the decision of it in the negative against the Pope cannot be furthered by any either privatly or publickly under-hand or overboard but he must fall under the suspicion of maintaining those five so condemned propositions or some â—ne of them For my own part I protest again in the presence of God I neither have maintained nor do nor will any of them unless first determined by the known consent of the Church or that of a General Council And yet I have done already and will hereafter do what becomes me to further this dispute now in hand and the decision of it already by the Catholick Universities of France against the Popes infallibility without the consent of the Catholick Church And I know others have done so before I or Iansenius was born And that all the world can do so without either formal or virtual or consequential relation to them or any of them whether they be true or false heretical or not found or not in the Book or Works of Iansenius or by those three Popes or any of them condemned or not in his meaning To his last pretence or the disturbance of both King and Countrey which he hath kept for his Triarii for his very last and strongest and surest reserve and therefore gives it in these very last words of his Paper I need not say more in this place having said so much already before to falsifie this supposition of his side and verifie it of my own against him but that were it true as he alleages it he had indeed behaved himself for so much like an Orator or Sophister of repute reserving his best argument of all to conclude all In fine triumphat Orator That being it is so manifestly false in his sense and to his purpose I wonder with what confidence he alleages it That he could not give his cause a more deadly wound than by rubbing up again our memory of this consideration That I have shewed already it is not this dispute of that sixth Proposition against the Popes infallibility and resolve of it in the negative which only was the dispute and the resolve intended all along by those that furthered it in their Congregation that can be said to be to the disturbance of either King or Countrey but the contrary dispute and resolve for that pretended infallibility must be that in this matter which ever yet since it first began hath been accompanied infallibly in several parts of the world with the disturbance of both and not with the disturbance only but with ruine also of King and Countrey together nay and of the Church too no less than of the State Politick or Civil That this latter kind of dispute and resolve for which F. N. N. and his Congregation or at least very many of them would fain be if they knew well how are already and too notoriously known to be the very first grand and necessary fundamental of the superstructure of that other so false dangerous and destructive pretence of the power direct or indirect or whatever else you call it in the Pope for deposing Kings and licencing Subjects to rebel against them That whether so or no yet no man can deny this latter pretence of power from God to depose Kings and raise their Subjects against them to be altogether insignificant where it comes to the test of reason or even of Scripture or Traditional dispute amongst rational knowing men without that other of infallibility concomitant and unseparably annexed That if so many late and sad experiences at home within this last century of years or
of so many former abroad in other parts of Europe since Gregory the 7th so manifest in History force not a confession of all this from F. N. N or if the very nature of the positions in themselves and the judgment of all judicious and ingenuous men of the world prevail not with him to confess that a general decision and resolve of the Roman Catholick Clergy in Ireland as well against the Popes pretence of infallibility as against his other of a power for deposing the King and raising at pleasure his Subjects in rebellion and against both absolutely and positively be not one of the most rational wayes to hinder the disturbance of King and Countrey as from such Clergie-men and others of their Communion and Nation and if the denyal of such decision and resolve against either pretence especially against this of infallibility since it is plain that if the Pope be admitted infallible his deposing power must necessarily and instantly follow because already and manifoldly declared by several Popes if I say this denyal convince not the denyers and such denyers as the said Congregation in this Country and Conjuncture of a design or desire or pleasure or contentedness to leave still the roots or seeds of new disturbances of both King and Countrey in the hearts of their beleevers and if I say also F. N. N. himself will not upon more serious reflection acknowledge all this to be true and â—â—ident I am sure all other judicious and knowing men even such as are â—iâ—interested wholy in the quarrel and not his partisans will That finally what I have to say is That whosoever is designed by him to be per stringed in or by this last pretence of furthering this dispute to the disturbance of both King and country may answer F. N. N. what the Prophet Elias did Achab on the like occasion Non ego turbavi Israel sic 〈◊〉 demâ—â— Patris tui 3 Reg. 18.18 qui â—ereliquistis mandata Domini secuti estis Bealim And 〈◊〉 that nâ—â— such person alone who ever chiefly perhaps intended nor his few other associates only perstringed likewise by F. N. N. and congregation in this perclose of their Paper but the poor afflicted Church of Ireland generally as it compriseth all beleevers of both sorts and sexes Ecclesiastical and Lay-persons of the Roman Communion nay but the Catholick Church of Christ universally throughout the world hath cause enough already and will I fear have much more yet to say as well to him and the Congregation as to all such other preposterous defenders of her interests what Iacob said to Simeon and Levi Gen. 34.30 upon the sack of Sichem Turbastis me â—diosum fecistis me Chananaeis Pherezaeis habitatoribus terrae hujus And more I have not to say here on this subject of infallibility But leave the Reader that expects more on that question or this dispute in it self directly and as it abstracts from the present indirect consideration to turn over to the last Treatise of this Book Where he shall find more at large and directly to that purpose what I held not so proper for this place Though I confess it was the paper of those unreasonable reasons the answers to which I now conclude here that gave me the first occasion to add that sixth and last piece as upon the same occasion I have the fifth also immediately following this fourth Only I must add by way of good advice to F. N. N That if he or the Congregation or both or any for them will reply to these answers or to what I have before said in my second or third Treatise on their Remonstrance and three first Propositions or even in my first though a bare Narrative only and matter of notorious fact related and if they will have such reply to be home indeed it cannot be better so than by their signing the 15. following Propositions Which to that purpose I have my self drawn and had publickly debated for about a moneth together in another but more special Congregation of the most learned men of this Kingdom and their own Religion held even in that very house where the former sate and immediatly after they were dissolved The Fourteen PROPOSITIONS of F. P. W. Or the doctrine of Allegiance which the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland may with a safe Conscience and at this time ought in prudence to subscribe unanimously and freely as that onely which can secure His Majestie of them as much as hand or subscription can and that onely too which may answer the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion and by consequence of the toleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State 1. Prop. HIS Majestie CHARLES the Second King of England is true and lawful King Supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other His Majesties Dominions and all the Subjects or people as well Ecclesiastick as Lay of His Majesties said Kingdoms or Dominions are obliged under pain of sin to obey His Majestie in all Civil and Temporal affairs 2. His said Majestie hath none but God alone for Superiour or who hath any power over him Divine or Human Spiritual or Temporal Direct or indirect ordinary or extraordinary de facto or de jure in his temporal rights throughout all or any of his Kingdoms of England Ireland Scotland and other Dominions annexed to the Crown of England 3. Neither the Pope hath nor other Bishops of the Church joyntly or severally have any right or power or authority that is warrantable by the Catholick Faith or Church not even in case of Schisme Heresie or other Apostacy nor even in that of any private or publick oppression whatsoever to deprive depose or dethrone His said Majestie or to raise his Subjects whatsoever of His Majesties foresaid Kingdoms or Dominions in Warr Rebellion or Sedition against him or to dispense with them in or absolve them from the tye of their sworn Allegiance or from that of their otherwise natural or legal duty of obedient faithful Subjects to His Majestie whether they be sworn or not 4. Nor can any sentence of deprivation excommunication or other censure already given or hereafter to be given nor any kind of Declaration dispensation or even command whatsoever proceeding even from the Pope or other spiritual authority of the Church warrant His Subjects or any of them in conscience to rebel or to lessen any way His said Majesties said Supream Temporal and Royal rights in any of his said Kingdoms or Dominions or over any of his people 5. It is against the doctrine of the Apostles and practice of the primitive Church to pretend that there is a natural or inhere at right in the people themselves as Subjects or members of the civil common-wealth or of a civil Society to take arms against their Prince in their own vindication or by such means to redress their own either pretended or true grievances
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
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
Suar. Tolet. Cajet alii quos citat sequitur Bonac tract de decalog d. 3. q. 9. pu unic prop. 3. nu 4. 5. according to the Catholick doctrine to relie for it is a mortal sin to tempt God by expectation of miracles And is there any man of sense will say That a dispensation which draweth along with it so much evil could either be in it self just or have a just cause specially where the cause pretended is the declining of a sin in adhering to a Cessation wherein or in which adhering we have manifestly proved no sin could be committed Nay We have evinced the said Cessation could not be not adhered unto or could not be rejected by the Council and Confederates without most grievous and fearful sins and we have shewed this to be the constant doctrine of the Catholick Divines and of the Church of God and that when the contrary was practised through ignorance and temerity the experience was fatal and cost them dear Thirdly By reason of the disesteem it would bring upon all Confederacy and of the unsecurity manifest danger and confusion it would bring upon and throw into all Christian States and Governments For if by such dispensations and upon such grounds the common Subject could be withdrawn from his Allegiance and with a good Conscience rebel what Prince what State or Republick nay what private man could live one day in security whereas they often see before their faces such boundless enraged ambition and such cruel designs of some Prelates may this be spoken without disparagement to so many other great and good Prelates who by their vertuous lives and apostolical doctrine support States Kingdoms and Monarchies of Christianity as in particular several are seen to use with us at this present such praise-worthy endeavours for the preservation of the Confederates If together with this example it were maintained as a Catholick Tenet That such Prelates or Churchmen could at their pleasure or upon such designs challenge and assume a power of the Fortunes Estates Crowns Lives of Kings and Republicks by dispensing with particulars or promiscuously with the multitude or any other in their due obedience and Oaths of Allegiance what should not be hourly feared Lastly which is hence consequent by reason of the aversion and hatred it would breed in all Infidels and Sectaries against our Religion For what Prince State or Commonwealth of any other Religion would admit of ours if our doctrine of dispensations in the Subjects Allegiance were so destructive of all Policy and good Government and so cruelly wicked Let us therefore here and evermore stop our Christian ears from such blasphemies against the Law of God and the Faith of the Holy Roman and Universal Church in all Ages to this present time And let us leave such Antichristian principles to Luther Calvin and such other infernal Furies who covered a great part of Europe with the blood of Christians by doctrine in substance not unlike this but certainly no worse than this and whereby they at their pleasures armed the Subject against the Prince and the People against the Magistrate for the destruction of Christianity and of the Church of God Read the Catholick Author who writ on Fox's Kalendar of Martyrs where he at large rehearseth the dangerous anarchical and bloody principles of late Sectaries specially of Puritans The Seventh and last Querie answered AS the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio highly entrench with submissive reverence to his Grace we say it on all Supreme Governors on the Law of Nations the Honour of the Confederates and brings a scandal on our Holy Mother the Catholick Church which contrary to his Lordships proceedings teacheth and warranteth Promises Leagues Contracts Cessations and Peace made with Hereticks to be Religiously performed as we have seen in the second Supposition made in our Answer to the first Querie and in the Authors there cited and teacheth as we have seen before that all Subjects both Laicks and Ecclesiasticks Priests Fryers Jesuites Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs Cardinals are bound under mortal sin and eternal damnation to obey all Orders of the Civil Magistrate wherein evil and sin doth not manifestly appear which we have sufficiently proved not to appear in their orders concerning this great difference so it must follow that none of either state Temporal or Ecclesiastical may without shipwrack of his Conscience and loss of his Soul disobey the orders of the Supreme Council on sole pretence of the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio these proceedings being now declared by strong and insoluble reasons to be unjust illegal invalid sinful commanding and enforcing to most enormous and execrable sins of Infidelity Perjury Rebellion Treason and to so many other abominable Crimes which stream out of these evil sources Whence is apparent how unsatisfactory and ignorant their Answer is who to excuse their disobedience to the Council alledge the Commands of their spiritual Superiours Guardians Pryors Provincials Bishops the Lord Nuncio c. to the contrary as if such Commands or of such Superiours or of any else whosoever temporal or spiritual were of more force to oblige their Consciences than the Commandments of God and than his Law which according to the Declaration made thereof unto us by St. Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. and by the doctrine of the Church of God the Holy Fathers and Catholick Doctors in all Ages on pain of eternal damnation enjoin both them and all such their Superiours whatsoever either of the Secular or Regular Clergy to obey the Council in all matters where manifest sin doth not appear And that sin doth not appear in any of the Commands of the Council concerning the faithful observation of this Agreement made with Inchiquyn yea notwithstanding any Censures of the Lord Nuncio we have more than sufficiently manifested and they who make this ignorant answer confess in regard it could not be hitherto found what Article or part of the Cessation might be with reason maintained to be sinful as by their flying to this strait they are constrained Otherwise certainly if they could shew any evil or sin therein they would rather make use of so reasonable an excuse for opposing the Decrees of the Council than of so bad a pretext as blind obedience to the Commands of Superiours who are as they obliged by the Law of God to be wholly subject to the Council for what concerns the peace and tranquility of the Commonwealth Wherefore what they call obedience to their Superiours is no true nor vertuous obedience but vitious but sinful but against their Conscience but damnation to their Souls as the Apostle hath because it implies plain disobedience to and transgression of the Commands of God who must be obeyed before all men of the earth Will any even of themselves deny but their obedience to the Commands of their Superiours enjoining them Rapine Theft Murther Adultery Sacriledge c. or enjoing them never to confess their sins never to pray
of the chief maintainers of his spiritual Primacy at least in the whole latitude of even the pretences of it execution of such pretences to so great a diminution of the ordinary power of all other Bishops wheresoever as the Bishops themselves Arch-bishops Primats and Patriarchs too complain of whether justly or injustly I meddle not with that And that moreover they could not be ignorant of what their own Divines do teach in such a case of revocation without cause at least for an unjust cause and for so ill an end as the supporting of errour and Heresy in the Church or of what St. Paul before them taught Non est potestas ad destructionem c. or of the character and power they received in their consecration or of what the power of jurisdiction imports and what it is in its own nature and that nothing els by addition but ablatio obicis and how both Christ himself and the Church of Christ supplyes what is wanting what is obstructing crosses even that ebex or obstacle when it is put by an unjust sentence and for a general destruction or corruption by any Prelate soever revokeing so or attempting to revoke so against former laws Canons Nor could be ignorant how their own Divines also teach their priviledges are most of them for such as are material inserted even in the body of the Canon Law and ratified by general Councils even by the very Council of Trent as many as are not there specifically revoked And that the Pope is not Lord absolute but Lord Keeper only of the Canons at least of those we call in opposition to others Canones Vniversalis Ecclesiae And further teach that the Priviledges of Regulars as to the main and material of them are of the nature of those are called Remunerative which cannot at least so easily and without an evident abuse be recalled Nor could be ignorant also such of them as were conversant in Ecclesiastical History how the Franciscan Order alone could and did maintain themselves and their own lawful priviledges against all the thunders of John the two and Twentieth incensed against them principally or only for maintaining their Temporal Allegiance to Ludovicus Bavarus then Emperour though deposed by the Popes unjust sentence as much I say as such a Papal sentence could depose him verbally That those Regulars moreover knew no less their own interest to be greater in the people and Clergie both of Ireland and the esteem of them farre greater than that the Ordinaries could upon such an improbable ground or would or dared attempt any thing to their prejudice much less prevaile if they would be so inconsiderate as to venture on that ground any attempt against them Whereas on the contrary the Ordinaries themselves confess'd their farre greater influence or that of Regulars on the people Which is so true that for example Doctor Daly Vicar general of Ardmagh and Judge Delegate in all that Province by Commission from the titular Catholick-Primate when at Dublin some two years past called upon to sign the said Remonstrance or give his reasons why not alleadged for not concurring then and confess'd plainly and several times his only reason for not doing it was the opposition of the Franciscans in his Province who were indeed said he the only Divines they had That for his own part he was no Divine and his learning was but a little in the Canons and that little too principally in those of the Council of Trent yet such little thereof as he had by practice because received in that Province That the Franciscans only boare all the swaye amongst his Ulster-people and that indeed so very great that if he could get but only four leading men of them Father Thomas Makiernan Anthony Gowan Malachias Corcran Bonaventure Quin to sign with him he would undertake to bring the whole Province or Arch-Bishoprick of Ardmagh with the several Ordinaries Bishops Vicars General and other inferiour Clergie to sign at Dublin And so true besides that Father Oliver Dese Vicar General of Meath alleaged also and confessed often that four or five leading men only of the several Provinces of Ireland of that very Franciscan Order who had been formerly of the Nuncios party once concurring would infallibly draw after them to a like concurrence or subscription all the rest not only of that Order but of all other Orders of the regular Clergie and not of the regular Clergie alone but even of all the Secular also in all parts of the Kingdom who hitherto either opposed or not concurr'd to it 6. To the Franciscans in particular I mean those leading Nuntiatists and their party in that Order it was answered That they had the more reason to shew on this occasion good example to others by how much they were known formerly upon an other quite contrary to have been so active in giving them bad by misleading them from their duty to the utter destruction of their Country and Religion And that now therefore they above others should endeavour singularly and hasten to redeem as much as in them laye by lawful conscientious and Catholick demonstrations of their loyaltie hereafter what they had so perpetrated in former times against the Catholick and Christian maximes of fidelity And that it is no shame to retract an errour but a very great sin to continue in it 7. To the Dominicans That union in an evil cause or purpose is not that union which deserves a blessing but a curse from God And a pursuance of it is not that perseverance to which our Saviour in the Gospel promiseth salvation but a most dreadful condemnation even fire and flames and everlasting torments in Hell That as to those Franciscans was answered it was no shame to retract or repent but the shame was in continueing obstinately an errour and it was never too late to begin to do well and the reward proposed on one side and the punishments on the other by God himself did not only countervaile but surmount infinitely all those vaine apprehensions of being reputed changelings and all that shame which they so much apprehended for doing well but which indeed they ought to have reflected on when they formerly did so ill That their first allegation of their Acts Statutes or Declarations at Kilkenny should be reputed amongst rational men both a sufficient and necessary motive for them above others to wash away the stain which they so deeply were coloured with in graine And their second which was their grand Achilles but only by a fond imagination could be no excuse at all Whereas they cannot but confess their said Oath or said Constitutions or both oblige them not but secundum aequum et bonum where no grand inconvenience follows much less oblige them at all where the laws of God or man of the Church or Kingdom Ecclesiastical or Temporal unto which they must as Subjects conform oblige them to the contrary And they could not but
confess that their both Constitutions and Oath if there be any such Oath of those amongst them them they call Masters of Divinity are only for maintaining the doctrine of St. Thomas of Aquine not as articles of Faith nor as the doctrine of the Church nor Dogmatically at all at least not out of their School Pulpits but only by way of Scholastical speculations and for sharpning of wits and shifting the truth problematically or probably in all such matters wherein the Scripture or Tradition was not clear and certain and still only within the Schools That otherwise the whole Order of the Franciscans and all the other Schools of Scotists who maintain as stiffly and are alike by their Constitutions bound to maintain against St. Thomas the Thomists all the speculations all the subtleties of the Subtile Doctor Scotus who writ ex professo against all or almost all even every individual position of St. Thomas as well in his Divinity as Philosophy where the matter is not certain otherwise by Scripture or Tradition were to be condemned by them Which yet they will not dare in point of morallity prudence and conscience That moreover it is manifest St. Thomas of Aquin is not weaker in his proofs for any of his Theological opinons then for this of a power in the Pope or Church for deposing Infidel or Heretick Princes on pretence or because of Infidelity Apostacy Schisme Heresy where he determines it so in his Theological Sum. 2. 2. q. x. ar 10. and q. 12. ar 2. And that he relyes for proof of so weighty an Assertion first on a reason that would not move the meerest novice in Divinity Quia fideles sayes he merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles qui transferuntur in filios lucis Supra q. 10. ar 10. in corp Which yet is the only reason this great Holy Doctor brings to prove that a very infidel Prince who was never Baptized may be deposed by the Church Secondly for proof of that same Assertion as relating specially to an Apostat Heretick or Schysmatick Prince that was Baptized relyes onely and wholy on the bare judgment and practise of Gregory the VII otherwise called Pope Hildebrand or on that Canon made by this Pope which you may find in Gratian. 15. q. 6. cap. Nos Sanctorum That as it is therefore manifest that St. Thomas of Aquin is not weaker in his proofs of any of his Theological Assertions then of this of a power in the Pope or Church for deposing Infidel or Heretick Princes as the Reader may see partly in the Latin notes which follow this Paragraph for the rest satisfie himself at large in Father Caro'ns Remonstrantia Hibernorum so it is no less manifest that generally where the Thomists find in any other positions of this Angelical Doctor and those too of infinite less concern insuperable difficulties they decline him there expound him or his mind by some other place of his workes where he held the contrary or perhaps retracted considerately what he had before unadvisedly handled by the example of St. Austin himself in his books of Retractation And so those Irish Fathers might if they pleased have declined in this matter St. Thomas in his said Sum and expounded St. Thomas there by following St. Thomas where he holds by plain consequence of reason the contrary in his exposition of St. Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians That they could not deny but that notwithstanding all their Constitutions and Oathes whatsoever they all now generally and confessedly and without any exposition or interpretation of one place by an other decline St. Thomas of Aquin even in that matter wherein their whole Order these full 300 years found themselves most concern'd of any in point of reputation at least to follow defend him that is in the dispute of the Blessed Virgins conception without original sin Nor can deny this matter to have come within these late years to that height in Spain even where they are in such esteem that the very Provincial of their Order in the Kingdom or Province of Castile was confined to Penna de Francia by orders from the King until he subscribed under his hand against that opinion of St. Thomas in this matter and consequently acknowledged so the Blessed Virgin conceaved without original sin against the confessed doctrine of St. Thomas and against the letter of his Constitutions and verbal tenour of his Oath as a Master And yet he was not so commanded by any decrees of the Church which as it is well known hath never yet decided that question And yet also that question of the Blessed Virgin is no less known to be of infinite less consequence to the Peace or Settlement of either Church or State for the owning or disowning of either the affirmative or negative resolution and for a subscription to either than ours of the Remonstrance of our indispensable loyaltie in Temporal things to the Supream Magistrate and our lawful and rightful King Finally that St. Thomas of Aquin's Scholastical assertion whatever it be or a Statute in an Order to teach such or such a doctrine or Oath of some few members of such an Order how learned religious or eminent soever that Order be is a very bad plea at least in such a matter as ours against ten thousand other Holy and eminent Fathers Doctors Prelates in all Countreys and ages of the Church against so many express clear passages of Holy Scriptures against the universal tradition of all Christians till Gregory the VII days about the Xth. age of Christianity and against the greatest evidence of both natural reason and of hundreds too of Theological arguments the first grounds of Christianity being once admitted Quâ—niâ—â—â— autem singula persequimur admonere oportet D. Thomam alicubi in ea opinione esse ut existimet ius dominii praelationis Ethnicorum Principum justè illis auferri posse 22. q 10. art 10. per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae authoritatem Dei habentis vt ille ait D. Thomae magna apud me authoritas est sed non tanta ut omnes ejus disputationes pro Canonicis Scripturis habeam vel ut rationem vincat aut legem Ejus ego Manes veneror doctrinam suspicio Sed non est tamen cur illa ejus opinione aliquis moveatur tum quia nullam suae sententiae vel rationem idoneam efficacem vel authoritatem profert tum etiam quia in explicatione epistolae Pauli ad Corinth 1. contrarium planè sentit tum denique quia neminem secum antiquorum Patrum consentientem habet Cap. 6. rationes multae authoritatesque in contrarium supperunt Ratio autem quam adfert est quia infideles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles qui transferuntur in filios Dei Mala ratio tanto viro indigna quasi verò si quis meretur privari officio beneficio
that We know what Innocent the Tenth and his Congregation have decreed against the three Negative propositions of the Catholicks of England We know moreover the brief of Paul the Fifth against the Oath of Allegiance Finally we know many other decrees and Canons made by several former Popes against all kind of Oathes and obligations of Allegiance to Schismaticks Hereticks or excommunicated Princes and even I say to all such as they deem such whether they be such or no indeed I could add that we know also what the Doctrine or Maximes of the Court of Rome is in particular concerning Clergie-mens exemption from the secular power and how they hold it unlawful for such men to Swear any Allegiance contrary to their own Canons or their own interpretation of the Canons And yet the Congregation would make the world believe they have by those their three additional propositions supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance But let fooles and ignorant persons believe them I am sure no wise man acquainted with the business will No nor would be induced to think that although they had come throughly home in express words as they did not at all nor any way neer and came home so as to all particulars and to the very points both in their Remonstrance and propositions added yet that only denying at the same time and with so little reason and so much passion preoccupation and obstinacy to sign those other three of Sorbon applyed to His Majesty and themselves in the case would be argument enough to evict even from themselves a confession of this certain truth that they were obstinatly resolved to give no real assurance to His Majesty of their future obedience or faith to him either by their Remonstrance or propositions or both or any other sufficient manner and that accordingly they gave none The third argument is ab intrinseco properly or from and grounded on the significancy or rather unsignificancy of the very propositions in themselves as such and without relation to the two former arguments which are though otherwise convincing enough derived from and grounded on circumstances more extrinsecal It is from the bare words and sense or meaning the leading persons or chief Divines of the congregation have conceive or would or intend only to express by these words It is from and on their distinctions of and specifical exceptions from the too too great generality of what the words may to some import though not to others And in a word it is further derived from and grounded on their abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations in these very three propositions no less then in their Remonstrance Albeit they would impose on such as they thought fit and whilst they thought it fit that by these additional propositions they supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance as at the same time they would let others know and shew them cleerly too they signified nothing at all as to the points controverted that is signified nothing or brought no obligation on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free by force of Arms to maintain any quarrel or cause against him Which to evince I will here again repeat the propositions or declarations as they are subscribed by them 1. Wee the undernamed do hereby declare that it is not our Doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in Temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second yea we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in civil and temporal affairs 2. That it is our Doctrin that our Gracious King Charles the Second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil or temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be our constant Doctrine from which we shall never recede 3. That it is our Doctrine that we Subjects owe so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can ever dispense with or free us of the same Now to pass by that Negative manner of expression in the former part of their first proposition and how unsignificant such must be from them who sees not their obvious equivocation in these words It is not our Doctrine on such as they list they will thereby impose and to others they tell that it is not indeed their Doctrine but the Doctrine of so many great and holy Pontiffs of the See of Rome and very expresly too and in many instances these five or six hundred years the Doctrine of Gregories the Seventh and Ninth and of Pascehals and Urbans and Innocents and of Boniface the Eight even in that publick extravagant Vnam Sanctam inserted in the body of the Canon law and of Sixtus's and Pius's yea and of Alexander the Seventh that now governs that See the Doctrine of all their Courts for so many ages and of so many Bishops Cardinals and other Prelats and Doctors of Nuncius's Internuncius's and other Ministers and messengers of Popes that in several Countries and in several occasions taught and maintained it by word and writing amongst whom as Bellarmine and Baronius and Peron and Lessius and Becan and Gretzer Fitzherbert Weston and Parsons have in their own dayes after those Seventy two other writers whom Bellarmine quotes against Barclay some sixty years agoe been very eminent so in ours and very lately nay and continually too any time these four years past Cardinal Francis Barberine at Rome and the two immediatly succeeding Internuncius's at Bruxels De Vecohys and Rospigliosi and the Divines of Lovayn have shewed themselves no less vehement by censuring as much as in them the protestation of 61. of the Catholick Bishop of Dromore of Fa. Peter Walsh and other Irish Divines and after them of others the Nobility and Gentry of that Nation So that our Gentlemen of the Congregation of 66. will by this gloss or explication of their word Our where they say it is not our Doctrine or by that equivocation or distinction elude at pleasure this Declaration as to any honest meaning They will say they have declared it is not our Doctrine that is It is not a Doctrine whereof we are the Authors or it is not a Doctrine proper particular and peculiar to us alone or which only we do teach or maintain or which we have broached or set on foot And will say nevertheless nay rather the more that for as much as it is the Doctrine of so many great men nay and of so many great and Holy Bishops of Rome at least these full six hundred years and that expresly and clearly too even in their very Canons it is consequently the Doctrine of the Church for they account the Pope and Church the same thing And therefore must not be disavowed or opposed by the faithful when there is occasion to follow or practice it So that they will say that in one sense they may
truely declare it is not their or it is not our Doctrine though in an other sense they cannot nor intended so to do And for to justifie this declaration distinction or equivocation they will according to the principles of equivocating Divines readily make use of that passage or words of our Saviour in the Gospel mea doctrina non est mea sed ejus qui mifit me Patris And yet when they shall find it for their advantage they will no less readily acknowledge that their intention also was to declare by those words that what follows is not the doctrine of even those very Doctors or Popes nor consequently of the Church And yet will acknowledge too this much without any prejudice to their own opinion or judgment in the points controverted and without holding themselves obliged by this Declaration understood as it ought or may not to practice accordingly For all they say in this first part of that first Proposition is We the under-named do hereby declare that it is not our doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second They will here presently when they please and shall think fit have recourse to the several meanings of the word Authority And without any necessity of using the distinction which yet is obvious enough and frequent with them of authority in fact and authority of right they will say although not with the Doctors of Lovaine in their censure of the Remonstrance of 61. that they declare it is not the doctrine of the Romae Church that the Pope hath any authority which is purely or meerly temporal or even humane at all or by humane right ways or title acquired over the King in his temporal Affairs And that neither hath he any Divine or Spiritual which is ordinary over him in such or which at his pleasure may at all times and in all cases dispose of the Kings Temporals And after this or notwithstanding any thing here declared they will say with Bellarmine that all the most supream right or authority challenged by Popes to depose Princes and dispose of their Temporals is entire and safe enough For this grand Authority indeed they have or challenge thereunto universally is not in the rank of temporals nor in the order of humane Authorities but in that of wholy spiritual and purely divine and supernatural Is not ordinary but extraordinary or as Innocent the 3d. speaks casual only that is in some particular great and extraordinary cases or emergencies and this too ratione peccati alone as the same Innocent further saith And consequently they will say that by any such general though negative Declaration or by a Declaration in such general words only or against any Authority in general to be in the Pope this very specifical this extraordinary casual spiritual celestial divine Authority in such great unusual contingencies must never be thought to be declared against according to the maxime of Lawyers and Law before given in my Exceptions to their Remonstrance For which saying they will further yield this reason That without any such specifical meaning intended their said Declaration or Proposition may be useful to shut out of doors the Popes humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right said to have been acquired and by the present Faculty of Lovaine maintained to continue still in force to these Kingdoms by donation submission prescription feudatary title and forfeiture And that such Declaration or one against such humane pretences in particular to his Majesties Kingdoms of England or Ireland nay and Scotland too was enough to be expected from them by his Majesty without putting them to the stress of resolving on that other supereminent divine pretence and which really is to all other at least christian Kingdoms in the world or all those of other Kings and in such extraordinary cases as well as to his Majestie 's They have yet in store a third explication equivocation distinction but as fallacious as if not more than any of these two already given And I call it a third way of evasion though as to the first part of it and as to the matter in it self of that first part however the words be different it varyes not or but very little from what is already said in effect It does in indeed in the second Part as will be seen They will as occasion requires or they find it expedient say nothing of the first on the words our doctrine nor of the second on the words authority in temporal affairs But when they come to Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will instantly tell you as Logicians or Sophisters of their specificative and reduplicative sense And that these words bear it And that the cause it self and the conjuncture of circumstances make their recourse to this kind of distinction very lawful They will therefore when they please to proceed a third way allow it is not the doctrine not even of the Catholick Church that the Pope hath any authority not even spiritual or divine in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will I say allow this Proposition or this part of that first complex Proposition but allow it only in sensu reduplicative in the reduplicative sense or as the reduplication falls on these last words Our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second In the specificative they will deny it and withal deny it was their meaning what ever the Sorbonists meaned by the like to their own King to declare at any time or by that Proposition that the Pope had not some authority in temporal affairs over our King considered as a Criminal or Sinner though in such not any over him considered only as our Soveraign Lord and King Charles the Second They will further say that while the Pope himself or people or both joyntly suffer or tollerat Charles the Second as King the Pope hath no authority in temporal affairs over him But yet when he finds it convenient and necessary in any of those great extraordinary emergencies not to tollerat him any longer he may by his divine authority in such cases depose and deprive him of all his temporals together and transfer the right of them to another and this by way of Jurisdiction over his person as a criminal and sinner not over his person as a King not criminal or sinful They will further say and though I meaned it hitherto as the second part of this third way yet it may be also and is a fourth way of explication or evasion that allowing it not to be the doctrine of the Church that the Pope hath any Authority of Jurisdiction Power or Superiority properly such in temporal affairs over the King considered either in the reduplicative or specificative sense and allowing too that themselves intended to declare so much by the said former part of their first Proposition yet the last refuge is alwayes open A Power and Authority in the