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
to following ages the true â—â—â—se of the Gospel without contradiction from any in this matter Nor do I alledge those others which indeed are very many out of the clear light of nature it self the known principles or articles of Catholick Truths manifestly revealed in the Gospel being once supposed For I have resolved to abstain in this letter from treating of the principal controversie What I say now is That such of our Institution as have subscribed the foresaid Remonstrance are ready according to their rule and regular vowes according to the Statutes also of our Order nay and if your most reverend Paternity please not only according to the substantial course prescribed in the Canons of the Roman Church for judicial proceedings but even according to the nicest puntillioes formalities and rigour too of them to obey that is to answer and give account or the reason or cause of our engagement or other proceedings even in this very principal matter of our said Protestation and that not only to the most blessed Father Alexander the Seventh chief Pastor of the Universal Church but also to the Minister General of the Friars Minors and his Commissary too of the Belgick Nation your most reverend Paternity provided only that you proceed not against us by violence subreption pre-occupation or any other injurious manner but in a regular lawful way according to the Canons What I say also is That neither your most reverend Paternity nor the Minister General may according to those Canons of the Roman Church in any manner summon so great a multitude of old sickly or indigent persons from a Countrey so farr distant as Ireland to undertake so long so dangerous a journey for so many hundred leagues by sea and land to appear at Rome or Bruxels and this I say whether the King countermand them or not But with more confidence I say it where or when it is manifest That not only the King forbids them positively but the very law of the Land expresly a law in force in England from the very dayes of St. Anselme when we find it enacted in the raign of William Rufus a Roman Catholick King of England about five hundred years since Which law soon after enacted also in this Kingdom of Ireland so many other after-laws of the following Catholick Princes Edward the third Richard the Second made likewise in for both Kingdoms which laws go by name of Provision or Praemuniri as your Paternity may likewise read in the same Italian of Vrbinum Polidore Virgil in his life of Edward the Third have so extended guarded fenced with so many additions of rigour and penalties that justly it is feared as Polydore sayes like that of death whereas besides manifold other punishments one is that the transgressor lose all his Goods if he have any and withal suffer all the evils of perpetual imprisonment That your Paternity cannot according to the Canons give any such kind of summons or citations I averr Whereas the Canons are in the very letter of them clearly against you and that besides the Church is according to the ordinary maxime a Pious Mother and consequently that even according to the general assertion of modern Divines and Canonists Her commands oblige none to undergo such grievous inconveniences or any manifest hazzard of them nor oblige even Regulars notwithstanding any vows whatsoever made by them if peradventure you except not the Jesuits Discalceat Carmelits or such if any such be either these or any others as vowed by a fourth kind of solemn vow or some such special one to be ready in all kind of contingencies whatsoever even that of life or death to obey And whereas moreover that passage of the Apostle is made use of by all Divines for the deduction of many consequents inferred thence as out of a maxime doubtless of absolute certainty both in Faith Reason There is no power to destruction but to edification and that that other passage likewise of another Apostle is no less clear and certain We must obey God rather then men And finally that we cannot but see manifestly the positive absolute command of God unto us for obeying in all temporals the King next to God alone or which is the same thing more then any other mortal when he commands nothing against the law of God What I say moreover and notwithstanding that I now immediatly said is That whensoever it shall appear legally or certainly and authentickly that in your Paternities foresaid letter to Father Caron the Subscribers were intended that is admonished or summoned or indeed shall be hereafter in any other way or by any other paper and that neither your Paternity nor General Minister will be satisfied without some one appear for them and in their name on your side of the Sea I will my self petition earnestly and use all my best endeavours that it may be lawful for at least my self as well in my own behalf as in that of all the rest of the Subscribers to appear there give the best satisfaction I can Though verily what the reverend Father Caron in his answer to your Paternity desired seems without any question farr more equitable to wit that you would be pleased rather to send a Commissary to the Province it self that is to Ireland where according to the Canons all debates and causes or their merits may be far better inquired into and more uprightly judged Which his either demand or counsel seems by so much the more reasonable by how much it cannot be unknown to your Paternity that the third year of our Provincial is now very near wherein your self ought according to the Statutes of our Institution to visit the Province and view in person the several faces of those under your charge and not by Delegates at least not by such Delegates who against all laws and not so much out of custom as corruption and even to conceal from you the true state of things are desired and further desired only for the continuing still a petty tyranny of some few persons and yet further desired with the shame and loss of the Order and who are and have been notwithstanding the great evil of such a precedent or the worse consequents of so evil an example granted by you and your Predecessors now for fifty years at least And hence Good Father so many tears But if your Paternity be resolved or have any mind to send a fit Commissary that is a man worthy of that imployment and a man too qualified according to our laws one not of the same Province but of some of the next adjoyning or if which would be yet more expedient you intend in person yourself to visit now at last the Irish vineyard as you must resolve on either to what end a citation of so great a number and of such persons to appear out of Ireland on your side the Sea Truly before even such of them as are young strong and healthy if any
in his own Conscience and both before God and man confess it when he reflected on so many Texts of Holy Scripture especially on that of St. Paul 13 Rom. and on the Doctrine and Expositions of all the Holy Fathers and on the practice not only of the Primitive Church but of all ensuing Churches throughout the World and of both Laity and Clergy until Gregory the VII time some Ten entire Ages after Christ and all for the independency of the civil Power of Princes from the Church as also for the subjection of the Church in civil matters to earthly Princes Humane nay and daily humane Experience also forasmuch as we see it Taught by so many famous Divines and read in their Books That it is not alwayes safe in point of Conscience to follow that opinion in practice which in pure speculation seems probable to us nay or even that which so seems the more probable whereof I could instance a variety of Examples and see it taught and read in them consequently That some may have a pure speculative opinion as probable nay as the more probable to them for such or such a power to be in the Church in actu primo and yet not this other annexed consideratis omnibus That it is lawful for the Church to proceed at any time to the execution of it And forasmuch also as all Ghostly Fathers or the Judicious and who are of a timorous Conscience nay and others too besides Ghostly Fathers daily find it so in themselves at least in such cases wherein they know that if possibly they should err and transgress against the objective Truth of Things and Laws by following in practice such a speculation as upon some ground or other seems to them to be probable or even the more probable they may run a great hazard to undergo the punishment due in the justice of God for such breach whereas they are absolutely certain that whether their such speculation be true or false yet if they in practice follow the contrary opinion or speculation there is no Law at all as much as objectively taken which may be transgressed by them As for Example in case of such a pure speculative opinion of a power in ones self to force away his Horse or Purse or House or Lands or Lordship or Principality from another who both himself and Predecessors was and were ever till then bona fide in peaceable possession and were so if it was a Lordship or Lands c. for a Thousand years For in such a case there can be no sin no breach of any Law in not Conforming in practice to the speculation but there may be in Conforming And consequently common experience also in the daily regulation of our own Conscience tells us there must not of necessity be such a connexion of dictates Besides who sees not that whether so or no there was not in England at least in the dayes of Thomas of Canterbury any Law making it Treason to hold That the Christian Church in some extraordinary case might transfer the Right of that Crown from Henry the Second As for Example in case he had really Apostatized and not only from the true Papacy or from Pope Alexander to the Anti-Pope Victor but even from Christianity it self as some of his Ambassadors to Rome and the Bishop of London in some of his Letters extant in Hoveden seemed to Threaten either the one or the other T is true I am against the Doctrine which attributes any such power to the Church as a Church or to it at all de jure divino and much more against the lawfulness of putting such pretence in execution But hence it doth not follow That as much as in my judgment the Doctrine of such power or of such practick lawfulness is Treasonable at least in all Times and all Countries For the Church may some time and in some Countrey have such a power by meer humane Right And whether she have or no where the Law of the Countrey doth not make the practice Treason or the Doctrine or Dictate Treasonable neither can be so Each or both may be unconscientious erroneous injurious and wicked at least according to the objective Truth of Things and Laws of God in themselves but to be Treason or Treasonable is another thing I said That in the dayes of Thomas there was no such Law in England for I leave it to the Learned and Reverend Judges of England to determine Whether after the Laws of Praemunire by Edward the Third and Richard the Second were made and that Declaration in this of Richard the Second made by joint consent of the Bishops too That the Crown of England is subject to none but God it be Treasonable Doctrine in England to teach the contrary I am sure the like in France and of France though extremely and most justly too censured by all the Universities of France and the Abettors or Teachers of such degraded lately in Schools and otherwise punished yet Cardinal Peron's interposition in the time of Henry the Third of France by his fine speech in the Assembly of Estates hinderâ—d it from being then declared Treason or Treasonable or Heresie or Heretical and ever since from being accounted or punished as Treason or Treasonable though of late severely and I think justly proceeded against as at least false erroneous scandalous dangerous against the Word of God c. And yet I am sure also That whether it be so or no at this time either in France or England St. Thomas of Canterbury cannot be said to have been or to be concern'd You will say again perhaps objecting your very last and strongest reserve That whatever may be said to excuse his principles of Judgment or Doctrine from being Treasonable for that I mean which appears in any of his Epistles or in that Speech of his at Chinun or other extant nothing can be said to excuse him from actual Treason which is more and worse For you will say That the Archbishop of York and Bishop of London and Salisbury did so charge him when after his return he refused to absolve them but on such a condition as they would not lie under without the Kings consent and when therefore they having cross'd the Sea to the old King the Father to Normandy they sent an Express back to England and to the young King to persuade the said young King That Thomas had sought and endeavoured to depose him Qui ei persuaderent sayes Spondanus out of Baronius and Baronius out of the Saints own 73 Epist which was his last to Pope Alexander Thomam quaesivisse cum deponere But I answer That such a charge of his such publick and profess'd Enemies was not is not to be at all believed without other proof than their own such private suggestion of it by their own Messenger to the young timorous King That no Relation or History makes mention not only not of any proof but not as much as of any
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
but many of their Superiours amongst them had also discountenanced nay to their power even vexed and persecuted such of their underlings who had signed it and moreover had understood all the other practices of their Agents beyond Seas how I say notwithstanding all this the said Lord Lieutenant had hitherto and for their sakes who signâ—d most patiently expected an amendment of such errours in the rest and in the mean time extended even to the most ungrateful of the Dissentors and opposers all those very favours of Indulgence and connivance of Publick exercise of Religion which the Subscribers enjoy And how the Procurator himself had no way lessened his Zeal to endeavour by all means he could the continuance of those favours even to the very most ungrateful and malicious of his Adversaries in the grand contest Sixth reflected on the great variety of pretences which the dissenting both Superiours and Inferiours pleaded for so many years to excuse their non-concurrence and amongst or rather above all other excuses their desire and expectation of Licence for a National Assembly to consult of the equity of the demand See those either pretences or true cause Tract 1. Part. 1. Sect. 9. from Page 21. to Pag. 27. Where you find the Sixteenth of them to be this of a National Congregation desired Seventh was wholly taken up in the Merits of the main matter in controversie or the only chief end of their meeting viz. the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof And here the Procurator shewâ—d and at large dilated upon the Lawfulness and Orthodoxness of it in point of Conscience and both Christian and Catholick Religion even I mean as to those very causes of the said Remonstrance which was the Rock of Scandal because denying and renouncing all and every the branches and appendages of the pretended Papal Authority either by Divine or Human Right to depose the King c. or dispence with or declare against the Allegiance of Subjects or by Excommunication or otherwise to raise them to a Rebellion against His Majesty c. His Arguments against any such Papal Power and consequently for the said Lawfulness and Orthodoxness he derived evidently 1. From so many plain Declarations and express commands of Holy Scripture 2. From the unanimous consent of Holy Fathers interpreting those passages of Holy Scripture so and not otherwise for a whole Thousand years until Gregory the VII's Pontificat 3. From the Practice also as well as Theory of the Christian Church Universally for those ten whole centuries of years and consequently even from true Catholick Tradition 4. From the general opposition made even in all European Nations Kingdoms States Schools Universities and National Churches to the contrary positions even also in every age since the said Gregorie's days until this very present 5. Particularly from the known Assertions of the Gallican Church and Decisions too of the eight present Universities of France all unanimously condemning those self same contrary positions as impious wicked against the Word of God Heretical and more singularly yet from the six late Declarations of Sorbon May 8. 1663. Not to mention how Cardinal Perron by his fine circumventing speech in the general Assembly of the Three Estates of that Kingdom after the Murder of Henry Le Grand only endeavour'd these Positions should not be declared in formal Words Heretical 6. From the Practice of the Parliaments of Paris and Sicilian Monarchy too 7. From the Statuts of Provisors and Praemunire made so many Hundred years since by the Roman-Catholick Kings and Parliaments of England and Ireland even all the Lords Spiritual assenting especially those Statutes under Edward the III. and Richard the II. which declare the Crown of those Kingdoms to be Imperial and subject to none but God only 8. From the eminency and multitude of most learned Roman Catholick Writers even Scholasticks who all along these 600 years have in every Age expresly condemned and even both specifically and abundantly confuted those vain and wicked pretences set on foot first by Hildebrand 9. From the pitiful silliness unsignificancy and absurdity of all Bellarmin's Arguments for the other side arguments proving either nothing at all or certainly that which neither himself nor any not even of his very beloved Popes themselves would allow 10. And Lastly from the clearness of Natural Reason also in the cases and that I mean too whether the Revelations of Christianity be presupposed or no. From all such Topicks of convincing Reason and Authority I mean as well Divine as Human the Procurator deduced his own arguments for the above Lawfulness and Orthodoxness viz. of the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof notwithstanding any Bugbear of Roman Letters or Louain Censures to the contrary The eighth advanced hence to the consequential both expediency and necessity of their unanimous cheerful Subscription without further delay or regret being there was no other way or means to redeem themselves or their Church or to satisfie or appease the King or his Protestant People for what had been so publickly and vehemently acted in former times partly by them or at least many of them and partly by the rest of the Irish Clergy represented by them and acted even all along either in or immediatly after the very first Rebellion of the Irish Nation in October 1641. and in the unhappy Congregation of Waterford Anno 1641 against the first Peace and further in the year 1648 against the Cessation with Inchiquin and for the Censures of the Nuncio Lastly in the year 1650. and most unhappy Congregation of Jamestown against the second Peace no other way truly in the first place but of humble Submissive Penitential Petition begging pardon for so many former grievous Errors against all Laws Divine and Human. Nor indeed any other in the next place to allay the just suspicions and jealousies of their future demeanour but that of a sincere hearty Loyal Recognition of His Majesties Supream Temporal Independent Power Protestation of Obedience and Fidelity according to the Laws of the Land in all Temporal matters and all contingencies whatsoever and Renunciation also of all pretended Powers and false Doctrines to the contrary The Ninth was the conclusion of all in wishes and Prayers beseeching the Fathers by all that should be dear or Sacred to them to consider That nothing was desired or expected from them in either point but what certainly was more consonant to pure Christianity i. e. to the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ and therefore doubtless more holy than the contrary was or could possibly be 2. The sad fate which had perpetually and universally attended all Rebellions of those of their Religion however at so many several times and places entred into either in England Ireland or Scotland since the first separation under Henry the Eighth 3. Whether wise men ought not even in point of Prudence not only bid at last an eternal adieu to such both Principles and Practices as proved at all times and in all Countries