that they might be free from all tyes of Duty Faith Obedience and Acknowledgment or Recognition of His Majesties Authority over them c. 1. This general Exception proved manifoldly viz. 1. By four several Instances of such Variation 2. By two notable Observations added to those Instances 3. By examining all and every of the several parts periods or clauses of their said Remonstrance and what their meaning in each must be and consequently by discovering all their subtlety of Ampliations Restrictions Abstractions Constractions Modifications Equivocations Reservations in fine all their Evasions and Subterfuges yea their beloved distinctions as well of Fact and Right as of the reduplicative and specificative sense 4. By Eighteen special Exceptions All from pag. 1. to 20 or last of this Second Treatise First special Instance of such variation and most material change 2. Second special Instance thereof 3. Third special Instance 13. Fourth and last Instance 14. These Instances back'd with two notable Observations more First Observation 16. Second Observation 17. One passage of their Remonstrance examined 2 3 5. Another 4. Two more 6. A Fifth 7. Sixth passage 8. Seventh 9. Their Conclusion 10. And after all the very beginning of their Remonstrance however it be in these words We Your Majesties Subjects the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland together assembled do hereby declare and solemnly protest before God and his Holy Angels That we own and acknowledge Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supreme Lord and undoubted Sovereign as well of this Realm of Ireland as of all other His Majesties Dominions This very specious beginning and these very words I say as proceeding from the said National Congregation and as relating to all as well the Clauses inserted after as those purposely omitted is and are evidently proved to signifie a meer nothing 10 11. Eighteen special Exceptions against the said Remonstrance of the National Congregation 18 19 20. In the Third Treatise Which considers the Three first Sorbon Propositions as applied and published by the Dublin Congregation THere can be no more assurance of the present or future faith of those Congregational Subscribers from their Subscriptions to the said three Propositions added to their Remonstrance than was before intended by them in or could be from their sole Remonstrance taken according to or in that sense of theirs declared and proved to be theirs in the former Treatise Pag. 21. The unreasonable obstinacy of the Congregation as well in framing their said Remonstrance as in applying their said three Propositions both manifestly and manifoldly appears 23. First and second Argument to prove this ib. Third Argument which is ab intrinseco 24. The said three Sorbon Propositions applied c. 25. Four several Explications of the first of those three Sorbon Propositions and all those Explications own'd by the chief Divines of that Congregation ib. First Exposition 25. Second and Third 26. The Fourth and last 29. Expositions questionless even each or every of them able to â—â—ict from any man this confession that for neither of both parâ—s or both together the first Proposition adds nothing at all to their Remonstrance Pag. 30. Their second Proposition lyable to the same Exceptions Abstractions Reservations Equivocations and even Distinctions of the reduplicative and specificative sense ib. Their third Proposition also how specious soever yet as from them is wholly insignificant as being subject especially to the distinctions of the reduplicative and specificative sense of fact and of right of humane or temporal and divine or spiritual yea of ordinary and extraordinary c. 31. Third Argument in form 30. Proofs that the three Sorbon Propositions both in themselves and as applyed by the foresaid Congregation are lyable rationally to such Constructions 33. Fourth and Fifth Argument 34. An Evasion obviated 35. The Parisian Censure of Sanctarellus at length 35 36. Confirm'd by the seven other Vniversities of France 38. In the Fourth Treatise Containing Answers to the Reasons why the Congregation would not Sign any of the three latter of the Six Sorbon Declarations c. THeir Title might not ungroundedly be turn'd to this other The Jesuits Reasons unreasonable Pag. 39. The three rejected Propositions or Declarations 40. The first Paragraph of their Paper of Reasons c. contains the first or rather onely general Reason alledg'd by the Congregation for rejecting them ib. That general Reason is in effect either the Impertinency of all and each of the said Fourth Fifth and Sixth of the Six late Sorbon Declarations to assure His Majesty of Great Britain of the future Allegiance of the Irish or is the insignificancy of the same three later Propositions to assure Him any more or better of the Irish Clergies Fidelity than His Majesty might have been by their two former Instruments viz. their Remonstrance and their three first of the said six Sorbon Propositions ib. The end which the Author hath in answering as well that first or rather onely indeed but no less false than general Reason as all the rest following I confess pretended but in truth likewise very false specifical Reasons or rather pretended specifical Proofs of the foresaid general one viz. by Induction of particulars ib. The second Paragraph of their Paper i. e. the first of their specifical Reasons or Proofs viz. That they look'd upon the Fourth Proposition of Sorbon as not material in their debate For c answer'd by demonstrating the contrary as to every point of their Allegations 41 42 43 44. Particularly their speaking these words We conceive not c. in their general Reason and in their said first specifical these other words We look'd upon it c. so much in truth against their own certain knowledge and therefore Conscience answered 40 41. And their horned Argument or Dilemma answer'd 42. And their saying that they conceive not what more they might have said thaâ— hath been touch't already positively in their Remonstrance answer'd 43. They might in terminis applying the said Fourth to themselves have said That we do not approve nor ever shall any Propositions contrary unto our Kings Authority or true Liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in the same Kingdom for example That the Pope can depose Bishops against the same Canons 41. And more at large discoursed upon Pag. 43. And their saying That they admit not any Power derogatory to His Majesties Authority answered 44 45. Third Paragraph of their Paper containing their next two specifical Reasons or Proofs and Arguments for their general one and for what particularly I mean concerns the Fifth Sorbon Declaration viz. their alledging first That whether the Pope or a General Council be above or not above c. is a School Question of Divinity which they thought not material to their affairs to talk of secondly That they conceive it not only impertinent but dangerous c. in the consequence to deny the Pope to be above a General Council for then it would follow that they must
amongst the People and amongst all Catholicks both at home in Ireland and abroad in Forreign Countries for Sufferers in the Cause of God and Catholick Religion c all those and these Considerations I say at least jointly taken made the opposers come to such an height of Insolencies and Injuries against the Subscribers that such as were otherwise willing to subscribe kept back their hands as having not withall resolution or resignation enough to expose themselves to all the obloquies and calumnies of those fiery both ignorant and malicious opposing Zelots And from the last of all the five viz. my LORD LIEUTENANT's departure some of these unreasonable men did as unreasonably derive joy and gladness But gaudium Hypocritae instar puncti as Job sayes LXXXI FOR two other much contrary and no less unexpected Accidents happen'd in July following the same Year 1664. which in some measure altered their Joy and humbled their Pride 1. A Proclamation issued on the xi of July the same Year 1664. against some of the Ringleaders of those factiously dissenting and opposing persons commanding them upon other Accounts to appear at the Council Table 2. And soon after some others of them were upon some other Information or Suspition seized upon in the County of Cavan brought Prisoners to Dublin and committed to the Marshalsea But for the greater satisfaction of curious Readers I give here at length that Proclamation By the LORD DEPUTY and COUNCIL A PROCLAMATION Requiring Denis Magee Anthony Doghertie and others to appear personally at the Council Board OSSORY WHEREAS Information hath been given unto Vs by divers Gentlemen and others of the Popish Religion That several pretended Chapters have been and are to be soon called in several parts of this Kingdom and Meetings appointed by Persons disaffected to His MAJESTIES Government and to the Publick peace and quiet who take opportunities from those Assemblies to diffuse and spread abroad amongst the people of that Religion Seditious Doctrines to the great dissatisfaction of all those who are Peaceably and Loyally inclined And particularly that one Denis Magee doth by colour of a late Commission derived from the Bishop of Rome call himself and now acts as Commissary Visitor of the Order of the Franciscans in this Kingdom and by such illegal Authority doth summon Assemblies to be held suddenly for pernicious ends contrary to the known Laws of the Land and to the Peace and Quiet of the People And that John O Hairt who goes under the title of the Prior Provincial of the Dominicans Anthony Doghertie under the title of Minister Provincial of the Franciscans Jeoffry Gibbon as Prior Provincial of the Augustinians Joseph Sall under the title of Guardian of the Franciscans in Cashel Anthony Darcy Fryer Andrew Sall under the title of Superior of the mission of the Iesuits in this Kingdom and others under colour also of Authority derived from the Bishop of Rome go in Circuits and visit the several Provinces to the great Trouble and grief of the Well-affected even of their own Religion which practises and proceedings of the said persons are Offences of a high nature and are an exercising of Forreign Iurisdiction within this Kingdom and do render the Offenders and their Orders Assistants Comforters Abettors Procurers Maintainers Fautors Concealers and Counsellers lyable to the Dangers Penalties Pains and Forfeitures ordained and provided by the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom and may tend if not seasonably prevented to the seducing of His Majesties good Subjects and to the disturbance of that peace and tranquillity which by the blessing of God upon His Majesties gracious Government this Kingdom now enjoyes in the belief whereof We are further confirmed by the proceedings of certain Fryers who have been lately Apprehended and now remain Prisoners at Dublin namely Thomas Mackiernan John Brady Anthony Gowan and others the like obstinate Seducers of His Majesties Subjects And therefore as it was an Act of Loyalty to His Majesty in those persons of the Popish Religion to give Vs the said Information so it was an Act of Prudence in them for their own safety and preservation that they who are Loyal to His Majesty a Duty due from them and from all his Subjects by the Laws of God and Nature might not be involved in the guilts of others who fail in that Duty nor incur the punishments by the Laws of the Land justly due to such Offenders And whereas We are desirous in Our tenderness of all His Majesties Subjects of that Religion who are dutifully and peaceably minded that they may be preserved from that Contagion and those Dangers which by the Contrivances and Seducements of the said Denis Magee John O Hairt Anthony Doghertie Jeoffry Gibbon Joseph Sall Anthony Darcy Andrew Sall and others of turbulent spirits are endeavoured Therefore as a Caution to them and all others We judge it fit to give them this Publick forewarning that so they may avoid the Dangers which by the Laws of the Land they may otherwise incut and do hereby in His Majesties Name strictly Charge and Command all persons of what condition soever That they or any of them do not presume to assist abet countenance or conceal any of the said persons in those unlawful doings and that they or any of them do not appear or come together upon any Summons Citation or Notice whatsoever from the said Denis Magee John O Hairt Anthony Doghertie Jeoffry Gibbon Joseph Sall Anthony Darcy Andrew Sall or from any of them or from any other exercising Forreign Iurisdiction in this Kingdom derived from the See of Rome or make any Collections or Contributions in money or otherwise for them or any of them or obey or observe any Rules or Orders or Directions issued or to be issued by them or by any of them as they will answer the contrary at their perils And these are likewise in His Majesties Name strictly to Charge and Command the said Denis Magee John O Hairt Anthony Doghertie Jeoffry Gibbon Joseph Sall Anthony Darcy and Andrew Sall upon their Duty of Allegiance to His Majesty to forbear any further proceedings by virtue of the said Forreign Authority upon their utmost perils And also to appear personally before Vs the Lord Deputy or other chief Governor or Governors of this Kingdom for the time being and Council at or before the 27th day of this present July to answer such matters as are to be objected against them in His Majesties behalf and not to depart without Our special Licence And in case they or any of them shall fail to appear as aforesaid then all Officers Civil and Military and all persons whatsoever whom it may concern are hereby Authorized and Required after the said 27th day of this present July to make diligent search and inquiry for the said Denis Magee John O Hairt Anthony Doghertie Jeoffry Gibbon Joseph Sall Anthony Darcy and Andrew Sall and wheresoever they or any of them that shall not appear as aforesaid shall be found
prayer armed and vehemently exhorted them to defend manfully the Apostolical Dogmats went on towards Ister And they being return'd to their town City endeavor to excite one an other and strongly resist the incursions of the Wolves To me truly this Narrative or History seems very admirable where I see that such a man as this Eusebius was that is according to Gregory Nazianzen's testimony of him in epist 28. et 30. a most holy man was of this perswasion that he ought much more to esteem of and observe the natural and Apostolical precept of paying obedience to Princes then to regard his own proper and so great afflictions or even to regard those most dangerous and grievous hazards of his flock to be devoured by Wolves that is by the Arrian Bishops and Priests for whom to make place and that they being once introduced might also introduce Arrianisme to Samosata it was and for no other cause that Valens the Emperour an Impious Arrian himself and cruel Tyrant indeed to all the opposers of that heresy banished the said most holy Eusebius Who albeit he had streingth to resist being he had so much power with the people and they so much fervour in his concern chose nevertheless to obey an impious edict of the Emperour 's and obey it not so much out any feare of the Prince as out of that of conscience For sayes the History he recited the Apostles praecept whereby we are perspicuously commanded to obey the Magistrats and Powers Nor did Athanasius dissent as presently we have seen Albeit some of the Bishops of our dayes and many also of the inferiour Clergie would in such cases and having that power with the people S. Athanasius and Eusebius had beat an allarme and sound a charge incontinentlâ— to opposition sedition and plain rebellion and all over armed with thundering censures and curses would fight obstinatly and hazard all even to dethrone such Princes Third Instance is of Gregory the Great and first of that name A Pope indeed however so great a Saint and withall as carefull to preserve and vindicate his own Ecclesiasticall eminency as could become him yet as perfect an exemplar of subjection and obedience to secular Princes in humane things as any Mauritius the Emperour publish'd a law at Constantinople otherwise called new Rome and sent it to old Rome and to St. Gregory himself wherein it was enacted Vt nulli qui in manu signatus est converti liceret that it should not be lawfull for any who had been marked in the hand to be conveâ—ted Which law hindering souldiers from conversion to a religious life in Monasteries for this was the conversion mean'd by it seem'd unjust to S. Gregory and yet the Emperour commanded him to publish it But he as you may read in himself l. 2. Regist epist 61. indic XI and that he might do his own duty both to God and Caesar and so in all respects discharge a good conscience by his letters modestly admonishes the Emperour of the injustice of the law this notwithstanding at the same time to shew his subjection and obedience to the Emperour fulfills his command by transmitting to several parts of the Empire that very law and having it publish'd And nevertheless in one of his letters to the Emperour he brings our Saviour Christ as speaking thus to the same Emperour Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi tua meâ— servitio milites tuos subtrahis And yet concludes at last with these words I have elsewhere quoted Ego quidem jussioni subjectus eamdem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minimè concordet ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis Dominis nunciavi Vtrâ—bique ergo quae debui exâ—lui qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minimè tacui Three great Instances great examples indeed every one of them but more especially the last by so much the farre greater by how much t is clear to us the commands were so unjust as that they were against God himself because the two first were against the true Orthodox Religion the last against the true genuine liberty of the Church at least as was conceaved by Gregory Yet Athanasius Eusebius Gregory chose rather to execute the divine precept for obeying Princes then trust to their own judgments call that obedience in question And yet in aftertimes even for such laws of Princes wherein farre less injuries were contained or enjoyned Excommunications Interdicts warrs privations depositions were both denounced and executed O tempora O mores Gregory doth not approve of the law nay he reprehends it And yet Gregory doth not onely not annul nor attempt to annul it but also that he may shew his obedience to the Prince is himself the chief Promulger of it Therefore what Pope Gelasius said to the Emperour Anastasius Legibus tuis ipsi quoque parent Religionis Antistites that all three at least both Eusebius and Gregory verified in effect and in all respects and not out of equity and decency as some of our modern Authors Carmelita cont Fulg. both ungroundedly and falsely interpret but out of a true sense of justice and of their obligation of conscience to do so by reason of the jurisdiction and power of Princes as given them by God For therefore also it was that Gregory said to the Emperour that Christ had committed his own Priests to his hands And least any should say or think here that Gregory did onely mean to signifie a bare recommendation of the Priests to the Emperours care but not a subjection of them to his power for this evasion too some of our Moderns have let our Opposers consider the same Gregory's words in his 64. epist ad Theodorum Medicum intimum Mauritji Imperatoris speaking again of the very same law Valde autem mihi durum videtur sayes he vt ab ejus servitio milites suos prohibeat qui ei omnia tribuit dominari eum non solum militibus sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit Where I plainly see dominion over Priests given by God to the Emperours and as well over Priests as over Souldiers in the judgment of Gregory and therefore jurisdiction being Imperial dominion cannot be without Imperial jurisdiction let such Canonists and such late School Divines Summists or Casuists talke contradictory non sense endlesly who treating on Bulla cenae acknowledg in secular Princes in many cases a bare civil and natural power to coerce Clerks as for the preservation of the Common-wealth or the relief of Innocents unjustly oppress'd c. and yet denye them jurisdiction over Clerks as if the latin word jurisdictio had not primarily and originally most commonly and properly meaned that pronouncing of judgment or of the law and right which is in secular Courts or which is by authority of the supream civil Power So great a testimony being that of as great and
stretch'd along on the ground at his feet weeping and beseeching him and at their representing to him how the King had threatned him and all his with exile with destruction and death unde Rex sayes Hoveden ad an 1164. plurimum in ira adversus eum commutus minatus est ei suis exilium alias exilium mortem and I say when by such means he had sworn in retracting at last on better advise so rash an oath and refusing to confirm those pretended customes by his seal or subscription 8. And lastly in refusing either to absolve the excommunicated Bishops but in forma Ecclesiae consueta or consent that his own Clerks which came with him out of France should take any unjust or unlawfull oath contrary to the two material demands or commands to him in behalf of Henry the second by his four murtherers Willelmus de Traci Hugo de Mortvilla Richardus Brito and Reginaldus filius Vrsi For to their third which was that he should go reverently to the young King and do him homage and fealty by oath for his Archiepiscopal Barony as Parker relates it its plain enough he never refused that not onely because he did so at the time of his investiture to Henry the second himself the Father King but also because that upon his return from exile which was but a month before his death he was on his journey as farr as London to the young King's Count to do and pay this young King also all the respects and duties becoming but was by the Queens Brother Gocelinus as Hoveden writes commanded in that very young King 's own name not go to Court nor proceed further whereupon he return'd back to Canterbury In all which eight several Instances as also in all their necessary Antecedents Concomitants and Subsequents I confess again ingenuously it is my own judgment that St. Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side because in some he had all the laws of both God and man for him and in the rest he had for him the very just and politick municipal laws of England as yet then not legally repealed these very laws I mean rehearsed by me in my seventh observation and because there was not any law of God or man against him in the case or in any of those Instances being the laws of the land were for him in all and because the design of Henry the second to oppress the people of England both Clergie and Layety but especially the Clergie and to render the Sacerdotal Order base and contemptible as we have seen before observed out of Polydore Virgil required that the Archbishop of Canterbury should stand in the gap as farr as it became a Subject by denying his own consent as a Peer and as the first Peer too of the Realm and by proceeding yet as a Bishop and as the Primate also of all Bishops in England and by proceeding so I say in a true Episcopal manner against such as would by threats of death force oppressive customs for new laws on both Peers and people Clergie and Layety against their own known will and their own old laws And therefore also consequently do acknowledg my own judgment to be that the Major of the Syllogistical objection against me or this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c against Henry the Second is fals may be by me admitted simply and absolutely without any distinction Though I add withall it be not necessary to admit it for any such inconvenience as the proof which I have given before of that Major would inferi or deduce out of the denyal of it In which proof I am sure there are several propositions or suppositions involved which no Catholick Divine not even a rigid Bellarminian is bound to allow As 1. that neither Church nor Pope can possibly err in matter of fact or in their judgment of matter of fact though relating to the life or death or precise cause of the death of any Saint or Martyr which matter of fact is neither formally nor virtually expressed nor by a consequential necessity deduced out of holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For Bellarmine himself confesses that even a general Council truly such may err in such matters of fact And the reason is clear because the judgment of the Church in such matters is onely secundum allegata probata depending wholly on the testimony of this or that man or some few or at most of many mortal and sinfull witnesses or of such of whose veracity in that the Church hath no authentick or absolutely certain revelation from God but humane probability or at most humane moral certainty which is ultimately resolved into the humane credit or faith we give an other man or men or to their veracity who possibly may themselves either of purpose too deceive us or be deceived themselves however innocently And the case is clear in the famous and great controversy about those heads were called the Tria Capitula all which concern'd matter of fact of three great Bishops in the fourth and fift general Councils under Pope Leo Magnus and Pope Vigilius And is yet no less clear in the controversy about Pope Honorius which was of matter of fact whom two general Councils condemn'd for a Heretick for a Monothelit so long after his death and out of his own writings and yet Bellarmine defends him from being such and on this ground defends him that those Councils were deceived in their judgment of matter of fact by attributing to him that doctrine which he held not 2. That the infallibility which Catholicks believe and maintain to be in the Church necessarily implyes her infallibility of judgment concerning this or that fact of any even the greatest Saint whereof we have nothing in holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For the Infallibility of the Church is onely in preserving and declaring or at least in not declaring against that whatsoever it be matter of fact or Theory which was delivered so from the beginning as revealed by God either in holy Scripture or Apostolical Tradition 3. That St. Thomas of Canterbury could not be a holy maâ—tyr or great miraculous Saint in his life or death or after his death at his tomb were his quarrel against Henry the second not just in all the essential integral and circumstantial parts of it from first to last were it not I say just according to the very objective truth of things and of the laws of God and man though it had been so or at least the substantial part of it whereon he did ultimately and onely all along insist had been so according his own inward judgment and though also his Soul had been otherwise both in that and all other matters ever so pure holy religious resigned to follow the pleasure of God and embrace truth did he know or did he think it were of the other side in any part of the
too he may be deceived in the objective truth of things and sometime to import onely a witnessing by bloud so spilt or a testimony of innocent and holy bloud against those cruel men who spil'd it for no other cause but that themselves might reap some worldly advantage thereby though otherwise they had no quarrel at all with such a Saint nor he with them or with any other for defence of which his life should be taken away Secondly this fourth supposition is denyed by me because neither the diffusive nor representative Church was ever concern'd I mean their pursuant veneration or invocation of any canonized for a Saint and under the title of a martyr was never concern'd in such an intrigue as this viz whether in the more strict or large sense of the word Martyr he were a Martyr nor concern'd whether his whole or even any substantial part of his quarrel as in his Legend or in the process of his canonization was true or no or such as might entitle to martyrdom strictly taken according to the objective truth of things nor truly concern'd any further in him or in his life or death but that he was a great extraordinary servant of God in both or at least at the time of his death and that now he was in the glory of God For this onely being certain though all other matters reported of him were uncertain their veneration and invocation of him must be not onely void of all impiety but acts of true religion and true piety and for the rest they are free to believe or not by humane faith according as they see those humane proofs alleadg'd to be strong or weak Thirdly that fourth supposition is denyed because the miracles wrought cannot be said upon rational grounds to have been wrought in confirmation of the at least objective truth or justice of this or that controversy whatsoever not certainly Evangelical which such a Saint or Martyr sometimes had in his life being they were not wrought at the invocation of God by the Saint himself or by any other that God might be pleased by working such miracles to evidence the justice of such a cause For if they had been wrought so the case would be clear enough as to such who saw those miracles or to whose knowledg authentick proofs of them did sufficiently come that even the obedience truth and justice of things in such a controversy had been on such a Saints or Martyr's side But otherwise wrought they can be no more but divine testimonies of his having wonderfully or extraordinarily served God either in his life or death or both whether he was deceived or no in some things and whether he had some times and in some occasions or controversies some failings or no at least out of want of true knowledg or sound reflection for the very greatest Saints might have been deceived sometimes nay and failed too sometimes in their duty and besides they can be no more or at least on any rational ground cannot be said to be any more then divine testimonies of his being now with God in glory Out of all which I think 't is evident enough there are several suppositions in the proof of the Major which I am not bound to allow not even in their principles or doctrine who teach the infallibility of the Pope in his Bulls of canonization and several suppositions which yet I am not bound to allow notwithstanding I do my self as I confess I am bound most religiously allow the canonization veneration and invocation of St. Thomas of Canterbury and all three of him as of a glorious martyr too and notwithstanding I allow also all the miracles reported of him And consequently I think 't is evident enough that it is not necessary to admit the Major to wit this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of S. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel against Henry the Second is false for any such suppositions or for any such inconvenience as that proof of it which I have given before would inferr or deduce out of the denyal of it Therefore my reason in and for admitting that Major in this my second answer is no such matter nor is that I could not maintain St. Thomas of Canterburie's extraordinary great sanctity in his life and in or at his death and his consequent canonization veneration invocation miracles not that I could not I say maintain all without admitting that Major and granting that of necessity the quarrels causes or controversies of such a Saint with such a King and in such matters as those of Thomas of Canterbury were in must have been just from first to last of the Saints side and just I mean according to the objective truth of things in themselves But my reason for admitting it so simply and absolutely without any distinction in this second answer is that I see no reason to call in question the credit of those Historians who relate the matter of fact in that controversy so and so circumstantiated or the credit of other Historians or Antiquaries who relate those ancient Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along unrepealed in our case till Henry the Second did so repeal or attempted to repeal them so and that on the other side all right reason shewes that S. Thomas of Canterbury having so the very municipal laws of the land of his side he had justice also arising immediatly from such laws of his side and consequently that the same right reason shews that whatever doctrine condemns or opposes such known justice in the quarrel of any man whatsoever Saint or not Saint Martyr or not Martyr must be false in the case And this and this onely is my reason for admitting so that Major But what then Must I admit the Minor subsumed thus But my doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c with Henry the Second Must I admit this Minor I say nothing less For I deny it plainly and flatly and that too without any kind of distinction And that I may deny it so deny it without any contradiction contrariety inconsistence or falsity you have had already in my first answer and in my precedent observations enough to convince you Therefore consequently it must be said that the conclusion does not follow or that of the Syllogisme which pretends my doctrine of a supream civil coercive power of Clerks in criminal causes to be false for it is ill inferr'd the Minor being false or being denyed upon such rational grounds as I have formerly given An other Answer yet may be as a second to the Syllogisme though a third in order to the matter in it self or to the judgment of St. Thomas of Canterbury For the Major may be distinguish'd thus whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of such part of S. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel which was all along and until the very last of his life that whereon he did and would
even to a vast number who had in former times been Diffinitors Guardians Confessors to the Cloystered Nunns and which was above all even very many esteemed even by their Enemies till then the most regular observant strict and holy in their conversation and exemplar life of all whatsoever of that Irish Franciscan Province as for example Valentin Brown Thomas Babe the whole Convent of Wexford c. who against the Nuncio appeared over-board for the Supreme Council and General Assembly of the Confederates in so good and just a quarrel in the said year 1648. and continued so constantly until they had compassed what they intended 3. That together with their own strength of number zeal learning industry and pains taken by Preaching and otherwise against their perjur'd Adversaries and wicked Cause they had the Arms and Armies and all whatever Authority both of the Supreme Council and soon after following General Assembly of the Confederate Catholick States of the Kingdom to encourage support and further them 4. That as to those Arms and Armies to which the Army also of the then Baron now Earl of Inchiquin was join'd the matter is too well known out of History which records how immediately after the Nuncio's Censures fulminated the Confederates came to unsheath their Swords in a Civil War one against another divided into the Royal and Nuncio Parties 5. And that as to what further provision by a publick Engagement or Declaration or Instrument of Protection the Supreme Council thought fit to make for the security of those Loyal Ecclesiasticks who had declared for them and stood the shock against all the fury of the Nuncio and other Prelates Secular and Regular joining with him the ensuing Copy of that Instrument under the great Seal of the Confederates dated June 3. and immediately after printed at Kilkenny that same year 1648. will give the Reader what he may demand C Locus Sigilli R By the SUPREME COUNCIL of the CONFEDERATE CATHOLICKS of IRELAND THE deep Sense which we have of the sad condition the Kingdom is at present reduced unto by the unadvised proceedings of some Prelats Secular and Regular and more especially of some Provincial Superiors of Regular Orders in this Kingdom together with our just fears that unless a timely course be taken to stop the violence of those unwarrantable wayes the whole Body of the Confederates may run irrecoverable hazard These with the conscience of doing an act most Religious by safeguarding Innocence though no common danger were suspected moving us to reflect on the Duty we owe to the Publick and on the strait tye which the Oath of Association binds us unto for its preservation therefore and for discharge of our Duty in both and stopping the current of evils which we sadly behold flowing out of the above source though the Laws both divine and natural edge us to use all extremity in business of so great concernment whereon the safety and lives of the whole Nation depends yet being unwilling to fix on any course which might seem harsh even to the offenders themselves we thought good first to admonish and desire all and every the said Prelates of what degrees soever Archbishops Bishops Abbots Vicars Generals Deans and Chapters Provincials Priors Guardians and all other Superiours conjuring them by the Sacred bond of the Oath of Association and strictly charging them on their due Allegiance to His Majesty His Crown His Kingdom and unto us as Supreme Council of the Confederate Catholicks that they shall in no wise molest any of their respective Subjects Priests or Religious for persevering in their Loyalty or in pursuance thereof for approving the late Cessation made by us with the Lord Baron of Inchiquin and that they shall not command sollicite desire or induce by word writing or deed publickly or privately any of their said Subjects to oppose the said Cessation or any other our just Commands in pursuance of it for the publick safety or to infuse into the people any disobedience to our Autthority upon any pretence whatsoever even of the Declaration made or Censures now issued or hereafter to be issued by the Lord Nuncio and his four Bishops on the same ground From all which as both groundless and unlawful we have according to the rule of Sacred Canons legally appealed to His Holiness and by that our Address not only suspended the past Sentences and Censures but also his Graces whole Jurisdiction and the said four Bishops if any they had from proceeding any further therein until His Holiness's pleasure be known AND furthermore we require by vertue of the said Oath and upon their Allegiance all inferiours of both Clergies Dignitaries Curates Preachers Confessors and all others of what condition soever they be that they shall not on any pretence even of the said Censures withdraw any Confederate from approving the said Cessation or obeying our Orders and Decrees made and to be made in pursuance thereof but rather endeavour in their publick Sermons private Conferences and upon each occasion offer'd to confirm them in their Allegiance to His Majesty and our just Decrees and Orders BESIDES We thought it most necessary and just to receive as we do by these and from this instant into the special and immediate protection of the Crown and of His Majesty the administration of whose Rights even in this particular is in our hands towards the Confederate Catholicks all Church-men both Secular and Regular of what degree soever who hither to have declared themselves faithful and obedient to the Government of this Kingdom and who have therefore and for opposing sinister and dangerous practises against us and such as are in Authority been heretofore are for the present or shall hereafter be persecuted by their Superiours vexed hindred suspended deprived or any way molested Protesting and publishing to the World That we will use all the extent of our power to support and defend their innocence herein against the Lord Nuncio and such their Superiours until His Holiness and General Superiours of Institutes being sufficiently informed provide further for the affairs of the Church and true Discipline of Regular Orders in Ireland LASTLY We Declare unto the said Prelates and Superiours and likewise unto all Inferiours of either Clergy That if henceforth any Church-men be found seducing the People as aforesaid or countenancing either Seducers or the Seduced we must and will presently upon notice given proceed against such as enemies of the common good and injurious to the Government the suddenness and greatness of the present fatal dangers necessitating us thereunto HENCE it is that none is to conceive we intend hereby since both are per viam facti and for our natural and necessary defence in assuming into our protection the unjustly oppressed Ecclesiasticks to usurp an illegal power jurisdiction or unwarrantable prerogative or to intrench upon the immunities of the Church being so far from either as we are certain our Decree in all and every the aforesaid particulars
to suffer themselves to be carried on or hold to such rash resolves but to consider more seriously and maturely what the consequences might be For said I as to the First Either you intend to give the Lord Lieutenant full satisfaction by comprising plainly in your new Formulary the whole sense of the former Remonstrance or you do not intend any such matter but only to present him with some unsignificant Formulary not reaching home the points in controversie If the former to what purpose then would you vary from the words of that Remonstrance not only signed allready by a Bishop by so many other Divines and by so great a number also of the Nobility and Gentry all of your own Church and Communion but so solemnly presented to so graciously accepted by his Majesty so much to your ease and quiet hitherto promoted and so much also desired by His Majesty and Lord Lieutenant to have your further concurrence to it by your Manual Signature Do you intend to render your selves not without cause suspected by changing that form to work a Schysm amongst those of your own Communion and Nation To condemn all those who have Sign'd the first Formulary Do not you see it lawful for you in point of Conscience and Religion to approve what hath been done already for your ease by so many Noble Learned good Patriots but unlawful for them to fall from the justification of it Must the supercilious ungrounded Letters of Roman Courtiers or unconscionable unchristian ignorant censures of a Forreign University have such power amongst you Must Passion or even a mistaken interest rule you that are the Priests of God and carry you headlong to Schysm Besides consider the Lord Lieutenant will understand very well how it must follow That if in deference to the Roman Dictators you change as much as the words only of that Forme upon the same ground you must fall from the sense also when they shall presently send their next Letters condemning what you have done Lastly consider it is not against the words of the Remonstrance as any way less reverential that the Roman Court is or hath been hitherto incensed as you may see even in Cardinal Barberin's last Letters of April 24. this same year 1666 where he acknowledges the Remonstrance couch'd in bland oribus verbis but against the sense so that if you intend to give the sense of it in other words you must nevertheless incur their indignation If the later Do you think the Lord Lieutenant after so many years experimental knowledge of the meaning and purpose of such other several unsatisfactory Forms offered to him to decline that one which was and is satisfactory will not apprehend wherein you come short or think you he understands not English words or the material sense of them as well as you Think you that none of his Council can should himself not perceive the defectiveness Or think you that I my self could or ought to dissemble your imposing on His Grace if none else could see the Imposture But to what purpose do I question what you intend I know it Fathers And know you intend a Formulary coming short even in sense of all and each the very material passages of the Remonstrance even a Formulary that signifies nothing at all for His Majesties or Graces or Councils or Parliaments or even any particular persons either Protestants or Catholicks satisfaction as to the controverted points And therefore know 't will be rejected And what think you will the consequence be What in this conjuncture of publick affairs Erit novissimus error pejor priore And you will be certainly looked upon as men of profligate Principles and Designs and in due time also both considered and adjudged as men not worthy either of Protection or other Commiseration and not you alone but all the Clergy both Secular and Regular obeying you Nay which is yet more lamentable the very Lay-people observing you will be looked upon as men carried on blind-fold to or at least fitted and prepared for all pernicious designs when you are pleased to give the Signal As to the Second resolve or answer to my Second Querie concerning a Petition for Pardon I asked them whether they had forgotten the general either Rebellion or Insurrection which they pleased to call it of the year 1641 or the National Congregation of the Clergy Regular and Secular at Waterford under the Nuncio in the year 1646 or the other at Jamestown An. 1650 even after the Nuncio's departure or who in the mean time or rather indeed all along from 1641 to the year 1648 fought against both the Laws and those who had not only the Laws but the Kings especial Commission or who had been for the Nuncio's Censures against the Cessation who against both Peaces who for a Forreign Protectour who for the alienation of the Crown who for the design of Mac Mahon the Irish Jesuits Printed Book of Killing not only all the Protestants but even all such of the Roman Catholicâ— Irish who stood for the Crown of England and Rights of the King to Ireland and for choosing an Irish Native for their King Eligite vobis Regem vernaculum I asked them further did they indeed know none at all of the Irish Clergy yet surviving none of that very Congregation guilty of any of those matters or of any part of the Blood spilt in the late unhappy Wars or thought they it needless indeed to ask pardon of the King for such men in general or did they not know there was no Act of Indempnity yet for any such at least Clergy-men And then added Alas Fathers what a reproach will the very Presbyterians of Scotland whom you esteem the worst sort of Hereticks be unto you They have throughout all their Synods and Classes both unanimously and justly too agreed to beg the Kings Pardon and accordingly have beg'd and obtained it for their former actings And I have my self read their Petitions to that purpose in Print You that esteem your selves the only Saints for a holy Apostolical Religion will you come short of them in your duty Take heed Fathers that if you persist in your inconsiderate resolution I may not properly and truly for this very cause say to you that which our Saviour did in the Gospel to his own Countrymen the Jews who were yet the only people entrusted with the Oracles of God Amen dico vobis quoniam publicani peccatores precedent vos in Regnum Dei And here I expostulated again with the Bishop of Ardagh even before all the Fathers for his contrivance or at least very strange mistake both of my intention and words when I delivered my sense to his Lordship some two days before the Assembly sate first concerning such a Petition from them And repeated there in publick what passed between him and me on that Subject as you have it before at large Sect. 9. pag. 640. From hence I returned again to the former Subject of the
perjured malignant infamous The second is That wherein provision was made for supplying the Resident Council with legal members See this second Act at large in the printed Establishment concluded upon by the last general Assembly at Killenry the 12th day of November Anno 1647. in case of the necessary absence of such as were nominated by the last Assembly or of any of the just number who are bound to reside by vertue of which Act they have subscribed as Resident who were legally brought in to supply the vacant places And for such honourable persons as above the number of Residents did vote or subscribe the Cessation it 's known they did it not officiously but out of their duty to the Publick and by the power of grand Counsellors conferred on them by the last Assembly Wherefore it being now clear from first to last both out of our solutions to all is or may be objected against the Appeal and out of positive reasons for it that according to the prescript of Canons and sense of Doctors it hath all the conditions of a just Appeal and that the Lord Nuncio and Delegates are even by the Law deprived of all or any power to question examine or judge the reasonableness or justice thereof or to cast any obligation on us either before God or the World to submit to his or their judgment in this behalf it must be inferred by a necessary consequence out of what is formerly said That your Lordships Appeal doth not only by the Canons but also by the sense of Doctors suspend the Censures their effects and consequences and all other proceedings of the Lord Nuncio Delegates Subdelegates and of all and every or any other deriving power from him or them on the same ground For that as we have formerly seen their doctrine is That a just Appeal of its own nature and as soon as 't is interposed hath all and each of the said effects And hence they may be fully satisfied who hitherto were persuaded or fearful through their own ignorance or have been deluded by the disaffected who of purpose through scruples into mens Consciences without Law or Reason taking occasion by the kind of apostles the Lord Nuncio granted which are refutatories not reverentials or dimissories to persuade the simple that by reason these refutatories were granted and not reverentials the Appeal can be of no force Which erring Assertion is plainly convinced by what hath been already said For since it is manifested That the reasonableness justice or lawfulness of an Appeal depends not of the Judges breast or answer unto it which they call apostles but is to be accounted such if the Causes alledged in it seem evident probable or likely or would be thought probable in case their truth might be proved and since it is no less evident that a refutatory that is to say a rejecting answer proceeding either from the malice negligence corruption or ignorance of the Judge or from any other motive whatsoever cannot make the Appeal unreasonable which before the answer was in it self reasonable and contained the expression of causes either evidently or probably just since lastly it hath been proved that a just or lawful Appeal of its own nature suspends the Judge from being any more Judge of the Appellant from jurisdiction over him or power to question the lawfulness of his Appeal how can refutatory apostles given by the Judge as answer to the said Appeal have power to hinder these suspensive effects If it be said That the Canons which thus deprive the Judge are not to be understood of him when he gives apostles refutatories we must say this is a most ridiculous evasion and meer non-sense Certainly they were not made against Judges who give reverentials or dimissory apostles For what Judge who gave reverentials hath ever yet been so frantick as to give wittingly such apostles and yet to frame a Process against and call in question the probability of the Appeal whereas by giving such apostles he deprived himself of all power yea should the Appeal otherwise be frivolous Neither have they been instituted only against Judges who deny both kinds in regard the words of the Text are not by any proper or common sense they may have restrained to any such limitation nor by the adjoining Glosses or opinion of Doctors Commenting thereon but may and ought according to their proper meaning to be understood generally in all cases of just Appeals whether apostles be given or no whether they be refutatories or dimissories c. And surely where the Canons would have only provided against the abuse of Judges who give no kind of apostles we find their meaning expressed in significant terms as cap. Vt super de Appellat 6. which may be read in the margent Innocent 4. in Conc. Lug. cap. Vt super de appellat in 6. Ut super appella ione ac ejus causa instructio facilior vaâ—eat in processu haberi districte praecipimus quod ille aquo appellatur Apostolos appell inti juxta tenorem Constitutionis nostrae super hoc editae tribuit requisitus si vero non exhibuerit ex tunc si â—orte in causa procedat nisi appellationi renunciatum fuerit ejus invaâ—idos irritus sit processâ—s But to unmask wholly the non-sense of this evasion let us observe the absurdity and contradiction which thence doth follow for if cap. Si a Judice de Appellat in 6. and the like are of no force against the Judge when he gives only refutatories for answer to a just Appeal then it must follow that the Judge by an unjust act that is by giving such an illegal answer or apostles refutatories when he should have given dimissories reaps a benefit to wit recovers the jurisdiction and power which before was suspended by and from the instant of the Appeal interposed until that present of receiving the refutatories And if it be said That his jurisdiction was not so suspended until the dayes passed which are allowed by the Law for deliberating on the apostles then besides that this is against the Text a plain contradiction follows in the Canons and Glosses which is that during this interval the said Judge from whom may call in question examine juridically give sentence c. of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Appeal since he is not restrained of his power during this interval and yet all Canons and Glosses affirm the contrary as we have before seen The like contradiction follows if any confess as he must that indeed the Judge could not proceed during the interval of time twixt the Appeal made and apostles given but will nevertheless say that he may presently after the apostles when they are refutatory here is we say the like contradiction in regard that if the Appeal was at first reasonable and just it remains so alwayes notwithstanding the refutatory apostles unjustly given and consequently by all the foresaid Canons Glosses and even by natural equity