Catholick Faith and holy Scripture and the said Authors also to be therefore not onely hereticks but Arch-hereticks and which was consequent condemning likewise not onely the book it self of Marsilius and Iandunus out of which those articles were extracted but all other writings whatsoever containing the same articles adding moreover yet and commanding for a perclose of all that whoever and of what dignity order condition or state soever should thenceforth presume to defend or approve the said doctrine he should by all others be accounted of as a heretick I say that these onely five assertions which you have now read in the latin text and in their own proper tearms being those articles against which and no other assertions at all this thundering sentence of Iohn the XXII was pronounced at Auenion an 1327. as Spondanus tels of the year though he gives us no part of the Bull X. Calend. Nou. and on the VII of the same Calends and year sent in an other Bull bearing this last date to the Bishop of Woster to be published in England therefore we may conclude it will be an easy matter to ruine the above third remaining objection For passing by at present all the general advantages I might take of the doctrine and firm grounds of the doctrine which teacheth the fallibility of all sorts of Papal definitions as such or as meer Papal definitions without the joynt approbation of a general Council or of the Church it self in general be the Pope that defines whoever you please so he be not or was not any of the immediat Apostolical or Evangelical Colledg of Christ our Lord and passing by too all the specifical and particular advantages I might otherwise justly take against all the definitions of this very individual Pope Iohn the XXII as such more then against any definitions of most other Popes as being he that was himself so notoriously tainted with the heresy which holds none of the Blessed see God nor shall see him before the day of general judgment that he had immediatly before his death prepared a Bull to declare so much and define it as an Article of Faith and in his death bed retracted his opinion in this particular no further then onely to submit it to the Church and as being he that so contrary to both former and later definitions of former and later Popes especially of Nicholaus Quartus in cap. exiit de verb. signif in 6. and Clemens V. in Clementina Exiti de Paradiso set out his three Extravagants 1. Ad conditorem canonum 2. Cum inter and 3. Quia Quorumdam whereof the first and last cannot be reconciled at all not even in Bellarmine's judgment l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 14. to the said former definition of Nicholas the Fourth or sayd later of Clement the Fift however the said Iohn himself and in his said first and last Extravagant and Ioannes de Turrecremata l. 2. Sum. c. 112. labour mightily to reconcile them but all in vain and as being he moreover against whom Gulielmus Occâ—mus that great Franciscan Doctor and Prince of the Noâ—â—inals writ his special book or Tract entituled Contra triginta duos errores Ioannis Papae XXII and finally as being he or the Pope against whom and from whom that famous general Representative of the whole Franciscan Order throughout the world or their General Chapter at Perusium in Italy held under their Minister General Michael de Cesenas appealed in their own name and in the name of their said whole Order to a future General Council of the universal Church charging him with strang errors and other miscarriages if not crimes of the highest nature against all the State of Christendom passing by also the special exceptions which may be offered against this very Bull in particular whereof we treat now above other Bulls or more then against any other Bull Decree Declaration or Extravagant of this very Pope viz that being as Spondanus writes Marsilius de Padua alias Marsilius Menandrinus born in the City of Padua and Ioannes Iandunus of Perusia condemned in this Bull were the first learned Councils in point of law or divinity or both whereof the Emperour Ludovicus de Bavaria made use and the first learned Doctors who appeared for him in writing to justifie his quarrel and his imperial rights against so many thundering sentences of excommunication deposition c. pronounced by the same Pope Iohn XXII and prosecuted by him even all his life after inexorably against this Emperour and not onely by him but by his two next Successors Benedict the XII and Clement the VI. even for 33. years continually the whole extent of time wherein the said Lewis maugre all the opposition of the said three Popes one after an other vigorously defended the legality of his own election to and possession ever after of the Empire until his death and being it was in defence of such election and possession and consequently of both the Electoral and Imperial powers independence from the Pope as also in reproof of the usurpation of Popes upon the Empire and particularly of the said Iohn the XXII that Marsilius writ and publish'd his own book an 1324. directed to the said Lewis of Bavier the subject of which book was the Imperial and Papal jurisdiction as the title was Defensor Pacis and that Iandunus also writ and publish'd an other of his own de Potestate Ecclesiastica therefore the above given Bull of Iohn XXII and it in particular above any other Bull of his at least next to that other one or those moe whereby he both excommunicated and deposed the said Emperour Lewis and yet further declared his own plenitude of even supream temporal power to dispose of the Empire as he thought fit is at least for some parts of it most rationally subject to a well grounded censure of its being though indirectly a new devise and an other product of that vehement and obstinat passion of his against the same Lewis's person and even against all the Imperial power it self whatever person challeng'd or had it and of its being the most truly effectual and most speciously Papal means he could fix upon to take away all support from Lewis and to justifie his own procedure against Lewis passing by moreover that which concerns the legal or canonical both publication and reception of this Bull generally in Christendom or in any considerable parts of Christendom or whether indeed either was as he desired both should be as much as throughout France it self where he resided albeit the King of France then was sometimes an enemy to Lewis as at some other times he professed to be his friend or as much as in England notwithstanding his direction of it to the Bishop of Worster being we know that Edward the 3d then of England was mostly in league with Lewis of Bavier against the French King and was moreover by the same Lewis created Vicar of the Empire in the tract of Low countries
vniversae personae regni qui de Rege tenent in capite habent possessiones suas de dominico Regis sicut Baroniam inde respondent justitiis ministris Regis sequuntur faciunt omnes consuetudines regias rectitudines sicut ceteri Barones debent interesse judiciis curiae domini Regis cum Baronibus usque perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem 4. Si quisquam de Proceribus Regni diffortiaverit Archiepiscopo vel Episcopo vel Archidiacono de se vel de suis justitiam exhibere Rex debet justitiare si fortè aliquis disfortiaverit domino Regi rectitudinem suam Archiepiscopi vel Episcopi Archidiaconi debent eum justitiare ut domino Regi Satisfaciat 5. Catalla eorum qui sunt in Regis forisfacto non detineat Ecclesia vel â—â—meterium contra justitiam Regis quia ipsius Regis sunt sive in Ecclesiis sive extra fuerint inventa 6. Filii rusticorum non debent ordinari absque assensu domini de cujus terra nati dignoscentur Fourthly you are to observe out of the same Authors Baronius Spondanus c That notwithstanding the principal or grand quarrel was concerning these and those in all sixteen heads yet the more immediat motive of the Saints death was only his refusal of giving absolution from Ecclesiastical censures but upon a certain condition to some Bishops after the King was reconciled to him For to pass by at present all other matters happen'd in prosecution of the said great difference from the year 1164. wherein the Saint presented those heads to Pope Alexander and 1170. wherein being reconciled to the King in France and with his licence return'd to England he suffer'd at Canterbury and to say nothing at all here of the Kings excessive cruelty against the favourers of St. Thomas during those six years after of his exile nor of the Saints earnest prosecution of the grand quarrel and of his own part against the King abroad in the Papal Court both in France and Rome when that Court was removed to Rome in the interim nor of the first meeting design'd 'twixt the Pope himself and the King to determine the controversie but frustrated or rather impeded wholly because the King would not assent to the Saints being present nor of that other meeting which came after to be held about the same controversy twixt the same King of England Henry the second and King Lewis of France even the Saint himself too being admitted to be present nor of three or four solemn Embassies even along to Rome about the same matter from the same Henry and so many more of Bishops Archbishops and Cardinals part of them French and part Italian sent from Pope Alexander to Henry nor of the different judgments or affections of the same Cardinal Embassadours or Legats and how some complain'd they were corrupted by the Kings money nor of King Lewis of France though otherwise both a pious Prince and great favourer of Thomas his having been dissatisfied with our Saint's rigour at the conference with Henry wherein Lewis interceded for him to Henry nor of the said Lewis's favouring again mightily the Saint and in his quarrel undermining closely at Rome King Henry nor of the Legantine power for the Kingdom of England excepting only the Diocess of York committed by the Pope to our Saint notwithstanding his being still a banish'd man in France nor of the revocation or moderation and suppression for a time of that same power upon new applications made to Rome by Henry not also of the renewed confirmation after all this of Thomas in all the fulness of the same power extending even to the Kings own person and to the inderdiction of his whole Kingdom if it pleased Thomas nor of Thomas's condemning while yet he was in France eâ—iled the controverted laws especially and namely some chief heads of them by virtue of his said Legantine power excommunicating also all the advisers upholders observers c. of them and absolving moreover all the Bishops from the oath they took firmly to observe them nor of the excommunications he moreover pronounced nominatim as well against the Kings Embassadours to the Emperour Frederick as against several others in England nor of the other difference happened twixt him and the Archbishop of York with his associat Bishops who joyntly consecrated the young King at the old Kings or Fathers command and consecrated him so in the Diocess of Canterbury against the express inhibition sent them both by himself the ordinary of that Diocess and whose right or priviledg such consecration was and by Pope Alexander too nor of the excommunication also and other censures fulminated partly therefore against the said Archbishop and his consecratours the Bishops of London and Salisbury and fulminated even by the very self same Pope Alexander and partly for having sworn to maintain or observe the 16. controverted laws nor of the preparations made by Thomas to interdict by his own Legantine power both King and Kingdom nor of the peremptory day prefixed the King even also by the Pope himself and by some other extraordinary Legats sent him to agree with Thomas at his peril by the said day nor of the final and terrible threat indeed sent also by them to the King from the said Alexander to witt that if he would not restore Thomas immediatly and without any condition at all of observing the controverted laws His Holyness would deal with him as he had all ready done with Frederick that is bereave him by a judicial sentence of his Crown and Dignity rayse both his own people and forraigners against him c nor of the absolute reconciliation of Thomas by such threats to the King on the Feast of Mary Magdalen and his solemn admission then to his Majesty by the mediation of the said last extraordinary Legats the Archbishop of Roan and Bishop of Nivern and without any condition at all on S. Thomas's side nor of the King 's falling off immediatly in some things from his promise to the Legats by denying to restore to the Church some lands which Thomas claimed as its proper right nor lastly of the new threats of Interdict from Pope Alexander for not restoring these lands I say that to pass by at present and say nothing here of all these and some other particulars happen'd in the prosecution of the principal controversy twixt the said King Henry and S. Thomas from the year 1164. until 1170 it is manifest even also out of Barâ—nius himself that after the King had newly promised Thomas to restore those lands when he I mean the King should be in person return'd from Normandy to England and that Thomas himself laying aside all further delayes of his own return to his own See of Canterbury having the Kings licence to return and the Dean of Salisbury to safe-guard him along by the King's command had accordingly embarked and was landed though
justice or such dispensation may be given without manifest injury to a third and besides where it is not repugnant to the law of God positive or natural And all this binding and loosing power in the Pope even in the whole Execution of it according to the Canons of the Vniversal Church and as farre as these Canons allow it as it is and will be religiously acknowledged and observed still by the Subscribers in all occasions so it is left wholly untouch'd unspoken of unmedled with but supposed still by the Remonstrance as a most Sacred Right not to be controverted much less denyed the Pope by any Catholick nor even to other Bishops of the Church for the portion belonging to them by the self same Canons But what hath this to do with the Lovain pretence of a power in the Pope to bind people by the Popes own peculiar laws Canons precepts or censures by Bulls or otherwise to do that which according to plain Scriptures practise of the primitive Church and Churches following for XI entire ages and according to the interpretation or sense delivered by Holy Fathers of those very Scriptures and according to the very first and clearest reflections also of natural reason must be vitious wicked and even most enormously wicked transgressions of those laws of God wherein neither Pope nor Vniversal Church have any power to dispense what to do with a pretended power in any to absolve from Subjection or command the Rebellion of Subjects against Soveraign Princes who are accountable to none for their temporals but to God Or what to do with binding or loosing to the prejudice and manifest injury not of one third person alone but of so many millions of third persons as there are people in a Kingdom or State This loosing is not of sin or of the penalties of sin but of virtue of Christian duties and divine injunctions Nor is such binding a binding to Holy righteousness but to Horrible depravedness And therefore both such binding and such loosing must be from no true power Divine or Humane from no Gospel of Jesus Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church nor from those Holy Keyes of knowledge or jurisdiction given St. Peter to open Heaven to penitents or shut it to impenitents nor from any Keyes at all but very false and errant Keyes if not right or true Keyes in this sense and to this purpose only that they set open the Gates of Hell first to receive all such unhappy Soules as make use of them and then to lock them in for ever Yet now that the Pope is and while he is or shall be continued a Soveraign temporal Prince in some part of Italy for the time hath been for many ages of Christianity even since Christian Religion was by law established when the Pope had no such not only Soveraign or supream but not even any inferiour subordinate temporal Princely power and may be so again for ought any man knows the Subscribers will freely grant the Lovain Divines That upon just grounds when truely such are or shall be the Pope may in the capacity of a temporal Prince but not of a Christian Bishop and may I say without any breach of the law of God declare and make Warr against the King of England always provided that he observe in all particulars what the law of God Nations and Nature require from him in the declaration or prosecution thereof And may do so with as much right as any other Soveraign Prince meerly temporal can but with no more certainly And further that the grounds of warr may possibly or in some extraordinary case be such on the Popes side as not only in the unerrable judgement of God but in the opinion of all men that shall know the grounds of both sides truely and sincerely stated the Warr may be just on the Popes side and unjust on the Kings The Subscribers do freely grant the Lovain Divines all this and all the advantages they can derive hence But what then must it follow that the subscribers have therefore sacrilegiously or against the sincerity of Catholick Religion declared in general or promised in their Remonstrance that they are ready to stand by the King and loose their lives in defence of his Person Rights or Crown or of his Kingdom State and people against all invaders whatsoever Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal c. forraign or domestick Or must this follow albeit we grant also the said promise or Declaration of standing so by the King to extend it self to or comprehend that very extraordinary case or contingency of our certain evident knowledg of the injustice of the Warr on the Kings side and clear Justice on the Popes Certainly neither the one nor other follows For albeit the case or supposition be rather metaphysically then morally possible that the generality of Subjects of either of the Princes or States in Warr together may evidently know or certainly assure themselves of the cleer Justice of the affailants fide at least so as to have no such kind of probability of any Justice on the defendants part and forasmuch as he is a Defendant yet admitting the case were morally possible who knows not that natural reason tells us and Divines and Lawyers teach that however the Prince both rashly and unjustly brings a Warr on himself and people yet both he and they are bound to hazard their lives each for others mutual defence that is for the defence of the Crown Kingdom State and Republick and for the lives liberties goods and fortunes of all that compose it though not for defence of any rashness or injustice So that although it be granted that both Prince and people are to quit all kind of unjust pretences yet their own natural defence or that of their goods lives and liberties as it comes not under that notion so it is unseparable from their taking armes in their own mutual defence in a meere defensive Warr or even that which happens after to be offensive before a good or Just peace can be obtained and is so I mean unseparable notwithstanding any injustice whatsoever done at first by Prince or people that brought the Warr upon themselves Be it therefore so that the Pope in such temporal capacity would make Warr on the King of England and be it granted for the present what otherwise in it self is very doubtful at least if not manifestly false That for the only unjust laws or only unjust execution of such or only other misgovernment or oppressions whatsoever of one King or Prince of his own proper natural undoubted Subjects without any injury done thereby to forraigners or any other forraign Kings Subjects or Prince or State such forraign Monarch or Common-wealth may justly declare and make Warr against him as for example the French or Spanish King and by the same reason the Pope also in his said temporal capacity against the King of England and be it clear and evident likewise that the
pretence or even true real only cause of Warr so declared and prosecuted by the Pope against our King is purely and solely for unjust laws made and executed against Catholicks and against as well their temporal as spiritual rights and only to restore such rights to the Catholick Subjects of great Brittain and Ireland and be it further made as clear and certain as any thing can be made in this life to an other by Declarations or Manifestoes of the Popes pure and holy intentions in such an undertaking and of his Army 's too or that they intend not at all to Usurp for themselves or alienat the Crown or other rights of the Kingdoms or of any of the people but only to restore the Catholick people to their former state according to the ancient fundamental laws and to let the King govern them so and only disinable him to do otherwise and having put all things into such order to withdraw his Army altogether let all this I say be granted yet forasmuch as considering the nature of Warr and conquest and how many things may intervene to change the first intentions so pure could these intentions I say be certainly known as they cannot to any mortal man without special Divine revelation what Divines can be so foolish or peremptory as to censure the Catholick Subjects for not lying under the mercy of such a forraign Army or even in such a case to condemn them either of Sacriledg or of any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith only for not suffering themselves to lye for their very natural being at such mercy Or if any Divines will be so foolish or peremptory as these Lovain Divines proved themselves to have been by this second ground of their Censure I would fain know what clear uncontroverted passage of Holy Scripture and allowed uncontroverted sense thereof or what Catholick uncontroverted doctrine of holy Tradition or even what convincing argument of natural reason they can alleadg in the case And as I am sure they cannot alleadg any so all others may presume so too being their said original long Censure wherein they lay down all their grounds and likely too their best proofs of such dare not see the light or abide the test of publick view And if all they would have by this ground or pretence of ground or by the bad arguments they frame to make it good were allowed it is plain they conclude no more against a Remonstrance which assures our King of his Roman Catholick Subjects to stand by him in all contingencies whatsoever for the defence of his person Crown Kingdom and people and their natural and political or civil rights and liberties against the Pope himself then they would against such a Remonstrance as comprehended not such standing by against the Pope but only against French Spanish or other Princes of the Roman Church or Communion For the Pope hath no more nor can pretend any more right in the case to make Warr on the King of England then any meer temporal Prince of that Religion can being if he did Warr it must be only and purely as a meer temporal Prince for as having pure Episcopal power either that wich is immediately from Jesus Christ or that which is onely from the Fathers and Canons of the Church or if you please from both he is not capacitated to fight with the sword but with the word that is by praying and preaching and laying spiritual commands and inflicting spiritual censures only where there is just cause of such And I am sure the Lovain Divines have not yet proved nor will at any time hereafter that the non-rebellion of Subjects against their own lawful Prince let his government be supposed never so tyrannical never so destructive to Catholick Faith and Religion or even their taking arms by his command to defend both his and their own civil and natural rights against all forraign invaders whatsoever and however specious the pretext of invasion be is a just cause of any such spiritual Ecclesiastical censure Nor have proved yet against them or can hereafter that such censures in either of both cases would bind any but him alone that should pronounce them and those only that besides would obey them Yet all this notwithstanding I am farre enough and shall ever be from saying or meaning that Subjects whatsoever Catholick or not Catholick ought or can justy defend any unjust cause or quarrel of their Prince when they are evidently convinced of the injustice of it Nor consequently is it my saying or meaning that Catholick Subjects may enlist themselves in their Princes Army if an offensive Warr be declared against the Pope or even other Catholick Prince or State soever and had been declared so by the Prince himself or by his Generals or Armyes and by publick Manifesto's or otherwise known sufficiently and undoubtedly to be for extirpation of the true Orthodox Faith or Catholick Religion or of the holy rites or Liturgy or holy discipline of it Nor doth our Remonstrance engage us to any such thing but is as wide from it as Heaven from Earth It engages us indeed to obey the King even by the most active obedience can be even to enlist our selves if he command us and hazard our lives in fighting for the defence of his Person Crowns Kingdoms and People amongst which people our selves are but only still in a defensive Warr for his and their lives rights and liberties but engages us not at all to any kind of such active obedience nor ever intended to engage or supposed us engaged thereunto in case of such an offensive Warr as I have now stated What obedience the Remonstrance engages us unto in this later case is onely or meerly passive And to this passive obedience I confess it binds us in all contingencies whatsoever even the very worst imaginable But therefore binds us so because the law of the Land and the law of God and the law of Reason too without any such Remonstrance bound us before The Remonstrance therefore brings not in this particular as neither indeed in any other any kind of new tye on us but only declares our bare acknowledgement of such tyes antecedently Even such tyes as are on all Subjects of the world to their own respective lawful supream politick Governours Which bind all Subjects whatsoever to an active obedience when ever and where euer they are commanded any thing either good of its own nature or even but only indifferent and where the law of God or the law of the Land doth not command the contrary or restrain the Princes power of commanding it And to a passive obedience when he commands us any evil or any thing against either of both laws That is to a patient abiding suffering or undergoing without rebellion or any forcible resistance whatever punishment he shall inflict on us for not doing that which he commands and is truly evil in it self as being against the laws of God or is
the King labours and watches for the defence not onely of Laicks but of Clerks also therefore not Laicks onely but also Clerks do give him that honour which is due to Kings according to the precept of the Apostle Peter Fear God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. Finally they pray for the King as the Apostle bids them 1. Timoth. 2. saying I desire therefore first of all things that obsecrations prayers postulations thankes-givings be made for all men for Kings and all that are in preheminence Nor onely do they power their prayers to God for Kings in general but say in specie in particular pro Rege N. vel pro Imperatore N. for our King N. or for our Emperour N. expressing their names First therefore what Bellarmine sayes here is that the King may exempt some part of his own people from some part of his own power or even from his own whole power And this he proves thus Because sayes he the King may bestow on some house or Citty an exemption or immunity from tributs What 's this to our question Doth an exemption from tributs work this effect that whoever is so exempted is no more bound to the Prince in any kind of subjection For this is the onely question We confess the priviledges given to Clerks to be greater then a sole exemption from tributs but we deny that Clerks therefore are totally manumised set free or exempted from their subjection to Princes But sayes Bellarmine it is the prerogative of a Prince to exact tribute as it is to command or judge or punish and therefore if he can remit the one why not the other A vast difference there is most eminent Cardinal It is indeed proper to or the prerogative of a Prince to exact tributes because none exact such but Princes or States which are the same thing here But it is also proper to a King to remit tributes because none else may and that by such remission he ceaseth not to be â—â—ince of the same persons or people or City to which tribute is so remitted and that it may also be expedient sometimes for his Principality to remit them Nay if Princes had universally remitted all kind of tribute to all the people of their Dominions as Nero thought to do and could and would content themselves and bear all the charges of the publick and defend it too with by and out of their own patrimony would they fall therefore from their Principality But it is no way proper to a King to remit to any in all things all kind of obedience or subjection to himself and yet still to be truly called and truly essentially or properly to be or to remain King of those very persons to whom such remission is made because the power of lording commanding judging punishing at least in some cases is the very essence of Principality so that the Prince cannot remit or quit this and withal continue Prince Nor doth Bellarmine help himself by saying that albeit the Prince may not exempt or set free all his people and still remain Prince yet he may some part of them For it is plain that he cannot any part and together be Prince or King of that part whereas it is of the very essence of a King to lord it over and command his whole Kingdom to provide for his whole Kingdom and to have all within his Kingdom Natives Forreigners Dwellers Sejourners Inmates Travellers c. of what degree or quality soever obnoxious or subject to his will and laws the good to be encouraged to be rewarded by him and malefactors to be coerced and punish'd also by him Nor indeed is he instituted King to govern any part or parts of his Kingdom but to govern the whole Kingdom And therefore it must be that if he exempt any part from subjection to himself which yet he cannot de jure without the consent of all the Estates of the Kingdom he must as well in order to such part cease to be King as he would in order to all if he had bestowed that plenary exemption upon all and every part of his Kingdom For I beseech you what rational man would perswade himself that for example the present French or Spanish Kings are absolute Kings respectively of all France or of all Spain or of all French and Spaniards if in the richest and fruitfullest Territories of all France there be four or five hundred thousand Frenchmen and so many French women and if double trebble or quadrubble that number be in the Spanish so exempt from the French and Spanish Kings Dominions and yet so diffused in every Province County City Corporation and the very Villages that nothing can be more and yet having moreover so much influence on the rest of the people that they can turn them which way they please Or how could for another examples sake either Henry the Eight in England or his Catholick Predecessors be justly called or stiled Kings of England if the Clerks of that Kingdom then almost innumerable and possessing as their own proper lands and goods wel-nigh the one entire moyety of it were not truly and properly subjects to the said Henry and to other his said Predecessors Secondly what Bellarmine sayes though by way of interrogation is That if some great King doth in the middle of his Kingdom free some one City or absolutely bestow it on another he may be notwithstanding said to be King of his whole Kingdom But I would fain know what our great Cardinal understands by these words Rex totius regni sui King of all his own Kingdom Doth he repute that City so exempted or so made free by that great King to be notwithstanding part of that very Kings own whole Kingdom If so our Cardinal recedes not only from truth but from common sense For I pray what is it else to be a King but to lord it over those or to command those of whom he is King Can Bellarmine himself deny the King to be Superiour in relation to those of whom he is King And yet himself teaches cont Barclaium cap. 13. that every Superiour may command his Inferiour omnis superior potest imperare inferiori suo Some indeed question how far or in what things the power of Kings extend to their people but none at all whether in any thing or even very many things it reach or command them But our Cardinal will have that City exempted to be no more subject in any thing to be no more commanded in any matter by that King Therefore he is no more King of it Nor doth it make any difference in the case that he protect or defend that Citty For it is one thing to be a Protector or Defender and an other to be King Who is it would say that the Kings of England or France were Kings of Holland and of the rest of the United Provinces at any time since the said Provinces rebelled against their own natural King albeit we know and it
be confessed that the French and English Kings were their Protectors and Defenders against the Kings of Spain Or who would say that Henry the Second of France was King of the Confederate Princes of Germany although it be confessed also that the said Confederate Princes chose him for their Protector And as little doth that other reason or pretence and allegation of Bellarmine cives illi leges regni sponte servent that the Cittizens of that so exempted Citty do freely observe the laws of the Kingdom make any material difference in the case unless peradventure that if the Spaniards would receive the laws of France and by an express Statute enact these laws for themselves or otherwise out of custom observe them it must be granted that consequently the Spaniards renounce their own Principality and yield themselves to that of France But if Bellarmine understand or mean that Citty so exempted to be no more of the Kingdom then is the similitude to no purpose being himself grants and averrs that after and notwithstanding the exemption of Clerks Kings are not onely Kings of the Laymen but also of the Clergiemen Reges esse nonsolum Laicorum sed etiam Clericorum Reges Yet as for the reasons which he gives for this concession and asseveration I must say they are childish and unworthy of Bellarmine The first is that Clerks do freely observe the politick laws But I have rejected this presently or a little before Nor indeed can it be said with any colour that it some Nation as for example now the Armenians did receive observe the laws of a forraign King as for example too those of the King of France or Poland or Spain c. therefore such Nation must be said to acknowledg this forraign King for their own King The second is quia Clerici causas quas cum Laicis habens cum actores sunt aâ— tribunal iâ—sius Regis deferunt in judicio sententiae ejus in ejusmodi causis acquiescum that Clerks when being Actors against Laicks bring their causes to the King's tribunal and in such causes acquiesce to the judgment and sentence of his temporal Court or politick Judges But who sees not that this is not to acknowledg him to be their King And who sees not that there is no other subjection of Clerks herein but such as is acknowledged by meer strangers forraigners aliens and such as is necessary in all kinds of judicial proceedings If a Frenchman have a suit with a Spaniard if any man of this King 's natural and legal Subjects commence a suit against the Subject of an other King and living still in the Dominions of this other King must not such a Plaintiff or such an Actor apply himself to the Courts or Judicatories of the Defendant that is to those of this other King Will the Plaintiff therefore acknowledg this other King to be simply or absolutely his own King will a Spaniard if he sue in France and before French Judges acknowledg therefore the French King to be his own King or will a Hollander sueing an Englishman in England therefore acknowledg the King of England to be his own meer trifles Actor sequitur forum Rei And therefore as you rightly conclude that he is the Defenders King simply and absolutely before whom in the case he is convented so is it unreasonably inferred that he is the Actor's King before whom such Actor convents an other But sayes Bellarmine Clerks do pray in specie for the King and pray thus Pro Rege nostro N. For our King N. c. And what is more against Bellarmine For hence nothing follows more directly then that the King is King of Clerks also and that Clerks are his Subjects For who can conceive the King to be King of Clerks and yet that Clerks should not be his Subjects Being that as Almainus de sup potest c. q. 2. cap. 5. teaches Aliquem esse Regem nihil aliud est quam habere superioritatem erga subditos in subditis esse obligationem parendi Regi c. One to be a King is nothing els but to have a politick both directive and coercive power of superiority over all the people of his Dominions and that consequently there be obligations answerable on the same people as Subjects to obey him However Bellarmine would needs by so many absurd arguments uphold his very absurd sentences which say in plain tearms the King to be King of Clerks and yet Clerks not to be Subjects to the King a Citty or people to be absolutely free and yet have the King for their King and themselves for part of his Kingdom and which in word consequently confound the very notions of King and Subject and of ruling and being ruled But certainly nothing could be said to confirm and illustrate more my purpose here or that of no power in Kings to exempt Clerks from their own supream power then that Bellarmines answers and reasons for the contrary are such wretched ones indeed Out of the refutations of which and of all said before in this Section especially in prosecution of my second and third Argument it will be obvious enough to frame this other in behalf of that Corollary or Incidental Position which I gave only as an appendix of my third argument Whoever have and continue any office which essentially involves a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions may not devest themselves of the power of directing and coercing the same Clerks unless they do withal devest themselves of that office as towards the self same Clerks Because they cannot devest themselves of the essence of that which they hold still or while they hold it or for the time wherein they are to hold it this arguing a plain contradiction But the office of Kings involves a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions For this I have proved already and at large by very natural reason Ergo whoever have the office of Kings may not devest themselves of a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions unless with all they devest themselves of the office Kings as towards the self same persons Now we have seen hitherto that not only by reason and experience but even by our learned Cardinals own concessions and allegations Kings have not devested do not devest themselves of the office of Kings towards the Clerks of their Dominions but on the contrary that Kings are truly properly and essentially Kings also of such Clerks And consequently too we have seen that while the case is so and for the time it shall be so with them they cannot by any priviledges at all they have given hitherto or shall give hereafter so exempt Clerks as to exempt them from their own supream directive and coercive power And so I end this LXXII Section of my three grand Arguments of all their appendages composed partly of undoubted Theological
York and London laugh'd him to scorn in his own presence London would have with his own hands forc'd his Archiepiscopal Cross out of his hands for the Saint himself carried his own Cross in his own hands that day to Court or to that Parliament Some came to him there and then and told him that his death was sworn by his adversaries à Regalibus as Houeden ad an 1164. relates it The Earls of Cornwal and Leister came to him where he sate to bid him hear the sentence they came to pronounce against him from the Barons notwithstanding his appeal And Thomas being in such a stress commanded them on pain of excommunication to pronounce no sentence against him that day because he had appeal'd to the Popes presence And while they return'd with this answer of his to the King slipt out alone got a Horseback and one of his Servants who was there and saw the gate shut and the Guards astonish'd and a bunch of Keyes hanging hard by lighted by chance on the right key open'd the gate no man opposing and he rode peaceably to the Chanons Regular chang'd at night his habit and took a boat privatly for Flanders to save his life What treason was this None by nature of such flight in it self nor any by any law that was then nor indeed by any binding law of man that could be in the case The law of nature gives leave to even the greatest criminal to save his life by flight when he makes no other opposition or any by force of arms or forcible resistance And Christ himself said to his own Apostles and by them to Thomas of Canterbury and such others in such cases as went against their conscience Cum persecuti fuerint vos in una civitate fugite in aliam And if King Henry refused to give leave to Thomas of Canterbury when a little before his Appeal he demanded it to leave the Kingdom and that after his Appeal he departed without any more asking or obtaining such leave that matters nothing to render him guilty of treason for the reasons before given or even to render him guilty of any other misdemeanour or even of as much as any culpable disobedience for he had leave in the case from the King of Kings and from his general law for all Christians and no positive law of man much less personal precept of man can take away that liberty among Christians because there is no law nor precept amongst Christians understood to bind against the law of God or to bereave a man of that liberty and power which he hath from the law of God and nature at least in such a case which concerns the preservation of his life when it is in such evident hazard Nor will it be to any purpose to alledge the law or custom of England since the raign of William Rufus who begun it by his bare Edict as Polydore Virgil sayes l. x. Hystor Anglic. and upon a wicked occasion which the said Rufus's general expilation of all sorts and estates of people both of the Layery and Clergie and for an unmerciful end also to wit least they should elsewhere find any redress or remedy of their evils being that as Cicero sayes those evils are more tollerable which we hear then which we feel which Edict was that none should depart the Kingdom without his Pass for it is answered that the Law or Custom of England ever since and in pursuance of that Edict of Rufus either is not at all that none shall depart England without the Kings Pass as we see by daily experience it is not but only that none shall depart when he is served with a Writ ne exeas regno or were it so even in Henry the Second's dayes and in order to the very Clergie as I say it could could not be then when they were restored to all their former liberty and this too by the very Laws of Henry the First and laws and practice also at least as to this point and many others of King Stephen and yet I say were it so even at the time of our Saints Controversie at Northampton with Henry the Second as I am sure it was not the law of nature and law of Christ dispensed with our Saint for his flight against the letter but not against the rational sense of such a law of the Land or of such a Custom or whatever else you call it And it will be also to as little purpose to alledge here against St. Thomas what Houeden tells us ad an 1165. how all cryed after him upon his going out of the Room and getting to Horse whether do you go Traytor For so Houeden tells it in express tearms Dum autem sayes he praedicti Comites redirent ad Regem cum responso illo Archiepiscopus exiuit à thalamo progrediens per medium illorum uenit ad Paiefridum suum ascendit exivit ab aula omnibus clamantibus post eum dicentibus Quo progrederis proditor Expecta audi judicium tuum This I say will be to as little nay less purpose to be alleadg'd For Hoveden there doth but relate barely matter of fact and the cry of the ignorant flattering multitude And we know such a cry makes no man a Traytor indeed And we know his very Judges how unconscientious or incompetent how malicious or ill affected or how fearful soever they were not to comply in all things with their King against Thomas gave no such sentence against him as indeed they could not with any kind of colour being the said King had no other pretence to get him sentencâ—d by them but that Thomas refused to give a second account for the administration of which and of the accounts of which he had been long before legally acquitted both by the Judges and by the young King himself ideo amplius nolo inde placitare said our Saint Quod cum Regi constaret sayes Hoveden dixit Baronibus suis cito facite mihi judicium de illo qui hono meus ligius est As for Hoveden's own judgement its clear enough all along for the Saint where he of purpose and at large writes his life and death and martyrdome and miracles inserts his Epistles at length accounts him a most holy man in his life and a most glorious martyr and Saint in his death and after his death 4. But after his flight to Flanders a Country in peace at that time with England he went to France and to King Lewis which was but a back friend to England and he went to the Pope and incensed him against the King of England And yet here was no treason committed nor hostility raised by the Saint against his own King nor for ought appears out of History intended at all by him He went to France and to the King of France and to the Pope also partly to excuse himself and shew the cause why he denyed to comply with his own King for his
being there was no law divine at all obliging him to the contrary nor any humane either civil or Ecclesiastical that could oblige him to the contrary and in the case where of one side he saw the three Estates of the Kingdom consenting to the King in those matters controverted and on the other the so powerfull and passionat a King fully resolved to ruine him and all his partakers But I say this onely as in relation to the objective connexion or being of things and laws in themselves not to that of the same things or laws as they perhaps appeared otherwise in that holy zealous Bishop's apprehension or misapprehension of them or of some of them or of all or of some circumstances which by an unerring judgment ought to be or would be considered And however I by no means say that either according to his own apprehension he was bound under sin to conform to that Kings will in any of all those Instances nor that abstracting from all then present circumstances he was so bound according to or by the very objective nature of the things or laws in themselves whatever they were subjectively in his conception For there is a great deal of difference betwixt saying that he might without sin have done so and that he was bound under sin to do so Second reason That very ancient and at least some of them contemporary Catholick and even some of them also Ecclesiastick persons and authors too of great esteem credit and faith seem partly in their relations of matters of fact and partly too in their own judgments delivered of purpose on such matter and seem also manifestly enough to condemn our Saints too much rigour in not submitting to what Henry the Second desired of him For during the Saints exile of what passed after that Lewis of France and Henry the Second of England were made friends for lately before they were at warr and that Henry went to see Lewis to Paris and that amongst other matters some overtures of reconciliation twixt the same Henry and Thomas of Canterbury were made by Lewis St. Thomas himself being then personally at the French Court though not appearing then before his own King but sending his desires in writing to him amongst which this was that his Majestie would restore him to his Bishoprick restore also the fruits or revenews of his said Bishoprick detain'd from him and received by whomsoever during his exile and moreover yet would restore him to all the other lands taken from him after he was made Archbishop and after that the King had answered to these demands that he could restore nothing to him who freely of himself without any compulsion had deserted his own Church by his voluntary flight and so had rendred it or made it to be accounted or held pro derelicta as forsaken and given him just occasion to make use of his Royal power in applying the vacant fruits to other persons according as the law and custom of the Kingdom was in such cases and yet that he was ready to give him all due satisfaction before either the King of France himself or the Parliament of Paris or even before the Vniversity of Paris wherein so many learned and disinteressed persons were out of many different Provinces and Nations and after that King Lewis and other of his Court present at this answer had been by it reconciled to Henry no less then they had till then and in relation to St. Thomas been extreamly prejudiced against and averss from him and that hereupon immediatly Thomas being admitted to the presence had prostrated himself at King Henry's feet saying these words Domine Rex totam causam unde inter nos orta est dissentio tuo committo arbitrio salvo honore Dei and after that King Henry being much troubled at thiâ— adâ—eâ—tion salvo honore Dei had called Thomas an unmindful ingrateful person for all his royal munificence favours to him and turning himself to the King of France had said as followeth I say that of what passed then in such a presence Abbas Theokesburiensis writes in these words Et ad Gallum conversus Quicquid isti inquit displicuerit dicet honori Dei esse contrarium Sed ne videar vel Dei vel suo honori in aliquo velle resistere hoc tantum postulo Multi in Anglia extiterunt Reges quorum quidam majori quidam minori authoritate atque ditione fuerunt quam ego sum Multi rursus Archiepiscopi Cantuarienses praeter hunc magni atque sancti viri Itaque quod officii suorum antecessorum maximus meorum minimo praestitit hoc mihi Thomas praestet acquiescam Quae cumdixisset Rex ab astantibus undique acclamatum est Rex satis se humiliat Cumque Thomas aliquantisper siluisset Gallus quid injuit Domine Archiepiscope vis esse major sanctis viris vel major Petro Quid dubitas Ecce pax pro foribus And writes moreover that to this question of King Lewis of France Thomas of Canterbury answered that the condition of those and these times or of the times of his Predecessours and of his own were not the same Illos sayes he as the same Author relates his words pedetentim Reges ad Christum obsequio allexisse cum omnia quae ad religionem spectarent uno memento perficere non poterant se ab his non esse recessurum quae jam Ecclesiae acquisita atque incrifacta sunt Praeterea lapsos illos in multis ut homines ipsumque Petrum singulos fuisse quorum exempla sequi necesse non haberet crevisse Ecclesiae facultates semper constantia Praelatorum quas suae jam acquisitas Ecclesiae ut diminuantur nunquam esse passurum And the same Author partly and partly Matthew Paris write that upon this answer of Thomas the Nobility of both Kingdoms France and England there present imputed to this extraordinary stiffness and rigour of Thomas that a perfect peace and reconciliation was not concluded 'twixt the King and him at that very time and place and said it was unfit that a voluntary fugitive from his own Countrey should be maintain'd in France That however so many and so powerful were the intercessors for him that questionless the King and he had then agreed if he had not so rashly added the Proviso salvo honore Dei that the King proffered him all kind of security preter osculum pacis but that the Archbishop refused all other conditions of peace Finally that when the Assembly was parting or breaking up the Bishops and other Peers who were mediators in the matter upbraided the Archbishop to his face Quod semper superbus elatus sapiensque in oculis suis fuisset propriaeque semper sectator voluntatis quod per ipsum ex parte jam destructa penitus cito destrueretur Ecclesia So these Catholick Authors as to their relation of some part of the matter of fact and as to their relation also of the Saints too
its Clients in Ireland or elsewhere 12. That further in or about the year 1658. Richard Ferral an Irish Capuccin did present at Rome to the Congregation of Cardinals de propaganda Fide the wicked Book attributed to him The Book of Lyes of Malice and of the very grand mystery of all mischief and of the very original inveterate and fatal division no less unhappily than cursedly renewed so often these 500 years and last of all by this Firebrand 'twixt those of the meer or more ancient Irish extraction and those of the latter or as they are called of the ancient English Conquerours of that Kingdom under Henry the II. or after in the following Ages And the Book presented of purpose to be as a standing Rule or Module to the said Congregation for governing thenceforward the affairs of Ireland as shewing them in effect and plainly enough 1. That no Families not even of the very eldest English extraction in Ireland how Catholick soever in their formal profession were to be trusted with any Prelacies or other at least chief offices in governing the Clergy either Secular or Regular 2. Declaring in express terms all such to be wicked Politicians addicted wholly to the Protestant Kings and State of England 3. On that account falling also fouly even both upon the Right Reverend Nicholas French Bishop of Ferns and Sir Nicholas Plunket although formerly both of them in such esteem with and so beloved of the Nuncio that they were his Darlings and the two Embassadors recommended so specially by him as by his approbation sent from the Irish Confederates to Rome in the year 1646. And 4. suggesting further That none of those either Bishops or others Secular or Regular who had at any time opposed the Nuncio or Owen O Neill and his Army the onely Catholick Army with this Author ought to have permission from Rome to return home lest they should again corrupt the People and hinder them from the new Catholick Confederacy which the Author so expresly drives at therein Now that such a Book so plainly discovering to the world what the ultimate designs of the Irish Nuncio Party had been still from the beginning and continued yet so to be even in the general desolation of Ireland should be so received and countenanced by that Congregation of Cardinals at Rome as it was then and so indeed that it seem'd in effect to have been their Rule both some years before it was heard of publickly and after too for some other years could not but make the small remainder of the Appellant or peaceable Irish Clergy to despair utterly It is true indeed that now since the years 1668. the Court of Rome seems not so much to regard that National distinction which hath been the old bane of Ireland these 500 years But to their own purpose the Romans have nevertheless effectually regarded even so lately and do still and will evermore while they can a far more advantagious to themselves and much more underminingly dangerous to the rights of the Crown of England and peace of the People not only of Ireland but of other Nations subject to the Imperial Crown of England They have lately made some of English and other Forreign Extraction such as Ferral counts them to be even some of those very Families whom this Author expresly and specifically maligns in the highest degree and have lately I say made some of them even Bishops and Archbishops but nevertheless upon full assurance that they have been alwayes and would hereafter unalterably continue fixâ—d even in all respects to all the very temporal interests and pretences of the great Pontiff And they have thereby impos'd on the generality of those who consider no more but bare names and know not the Romans have only seem'd at present for a time only and some few persons only to have quitted that so odious and invidious charge of that national and fatal distinction and this onely too because it was of no more use to them at least not of so much universal use in the present conjuncture The Romans far more politick than Ferral had seen by experience of how great use a few Prelates of that extraction which he decryes had been to them in Ireland even upon the very first insurrection in Octob. 1641. and much more both in forming the Confederacy at Kilkenny _____ in 1642 and in rejecting the first peace at Waterford in 1646. and in opposing the Cessation first and second peace after in 1648 and finally in the fatal meetings of the Archbishops Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks at Jamestown and Galway in 1650 to overthrow again the said second Peace The Romans knew full well the argument was derived from the conjunction of some few eminent Ecclesiasticks of that extraction with those others albeit the only Catholicks in the said Ferral's Book and the great and effectual use indeed was made in Ireland of that argument to persuade the men of Arms and other Laicks Noblemen Gentlemen and all sorts of that same English or other Forreign extraction For the argument was this in short If said those onely Catholicks it had been lawful in point of Religion or Conscience to oppose the first taking of Arms or the following Confederacy or the rejection of the first Peace or the Censures against the Cessation following or Owen O Neill's holding out so long even against this second Peace or at last the Declaration and Excommunication of the Bishops against that very second Peace or if these matters look'd finally upon the setting up a native of the more ancient Irish extraction or bringing in a Forreign Prince or quitting any due Allegiance to the King of Great Britain then surely Thomas Flemming Archbishop of Dublin Thomas Walsh of Cashel Robert Barry Bishop of Cork Comerford of Waterford Nicholas French of Ferns c. and so many other good men also even of the inferiour Clergy Regular and Secular of that extraction whose name or relations cannot pretend to a foot of Land or House to inhabit in Ireland but by or from the Crown and Laws of England had never join'd with those others And this was the argument that in Ireland was more useful to the ends both of the Romans and first Irish either Insurrecters or Opposers of the following Cessation or Peace than any other than even the very unjust designs of the Lords Justices Parsons and Borlacy yea also than any strength after of those very first or grand designers of the meer or more ancient Irish extraction For it is well known that these had never signified any thing considerable in any of the foresaid undertakings but had been crush'd presently if the English Colonies persuaded by that argument had not join'd with and supported them As even it is no less and even consequentially known by experience that any one Prelate or Churchman at least of parts and repute extracted from the old English stock both hath been heretofore and is at present more able to work