Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	french_a	king_n	treaty_n	2,930	5	9.8412	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67437	The history & vindication of the loyal formulary, or Irish remonstrance ... received by His Majesty anno 1661 ... in several treatises : with a true account and full discussion of the delusory Irish remonstrance and other papers framed and insisted on by the National Congregation at Dublin, anno 1666, and presented to ... the Duke of Ormond, but rejected by His Grace : to which are added three appendixes, whereof the last contains the Marquess of Ormond ... letter of the second of December, 1650 : in answer to both the declaration and excommunication of the bishops, &c. at Jamestown / the author, Father Peter Walsh ...	Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.; Ormonde, James Butler, Duke of, 1610-1688. Articles of peace.; Rothe, David, 1573-1650. Queries concerning the lawfulnesse of the present cessation.	1673 (1673)	Wing W634; ESTC R13539	1,444,938	1,122

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 ●●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 a● tribunal i●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

West Yet I confess the first occasion of that writing of Innocent's to the Emperour of Constantinople or that which he intended or at least pretended finally to instruct or advise the Emperour in was very just viz that the same Emperour should beare a greater respect to the Patriarch of Constantinople then to make him sit at the left side of his foot-stool so contrary to the laudable custome of other Christian Emperours and Kings cum alij Reges Principes sayes he Archiepiscopis Episcopissuis sicut debent reverenter assurgant eis juxta sevenerabilem sedem assignent But for any thing else in that epistle of Innocent which relates either directly or indirectly to our present purpose I must confess I see nothing at all but what is quite contrary in his application to the sense to the belief and to the practise too of all Antiquity if peradventure you except not that onely passage where he sayes Quod autem sequitur Regi tanquam praecellenti non negamus quin praecellat Imperator in temporalibus illos dumtaxat qui ab eo suscipiunt temporalia Which yet I for my own part do not except because under the word dumtaxat there lyes much restriction nay and under the word or verb praecellat also Because that dumtaxat restraines the latitude of those who might or should be said in temporals or by reason of their temporals to be under the Emperour and subject and obedient to him to such onely who receave temporals to witt lands revenues or perhaps besides these onely some temporal jurisdiction and consequently excludes all other Clerks from subjection or obedience to the Emperour who receave no such temporals from him albeit they have the benefit of temporal protection from his laws and sword for this last is not by Innocents doctrine as to our present purpose accounted among such temporals as he speaks of here And because this praecellat by reason of its more abstract and more common signification of it self imports not as much as a praecellency in power authority or jurisdiction over those very same Clerks who receave even such temporals of Innocent from the Emperour But however this be of Innocent's meaning by these two words or wary manner of expression by them I am sure he declares his mind plainly in the rest or in his answers to and distinctions of the Emperour's arguments out of Scripture especially of the place out of Peter to be that Clerks are not by the law of God to be subject to the Emperour For the refutation of which answers or distinctions I remit the Reader to what I have said formerly at large out of the law of God and Nature for the subjection of Clerks and to what besides I said before at leingth in answer to Bellarmines arguments for the exemption of Clerks either by the law of God or man or nature Where albeit I have said nothing in particular to that place of Peter or to Innocents quibble upon it as not being va●●ed by Bellarmine himself and therefore not produced by him for himself yet I have given abundantly what may shew the impertinency of alleadging that place of Peter against me or that quibble of Innocent upon it or even any thing else said by the same Innocent well or ill either in this canon Solicitae benignitatis de Major obed or elsewhere and particularly in cap. N●vit ille de Judicijs Which 〈◊〉 chapter I note particularly because the Catholick Bishop of Ferns alledges it singularly in a letter of his I have as very much relyed upon by the Irish Divines who live abroad in Spain and by them relyed upon as upon a strong argument for a power in the Pope to depose Kings at least ratione peccat● and consequently for the unlawfulness to sign our Remonstrance of 61. or 62. which cleerly and expresly disclaims and renounceth any such power in the Pope either upon the account of sin or any other whatsoever but onely in relation to such Kings as hold their Kingdoms in fee from him and who consequently are not absolute Soveraigns or not absolutely the supream Lords of their Kingdoms not even I mean in temporals nor hold of God immediately but of the Pope whom they themselves acknowledg to be the chief truly supream Lord of such Kingdoms though by human right onely But the truth is that no such deposing power in the Pope as to other Kings who do not acknowledg themselves to hold in fee from him can be gathered out of this cap. N●vit il●e de Iudicijs Where if strictly examined Innocent does no more sayes no more upon complaint made to the same Pope Innocent by a King of England against a King of France That he of France though admonished by him several times to keep the treaty sworn and peace agreed upon betwixt them and particularly in relation to the County of Poitiers which England held in fee from France and as agreed upon too by articles of the said treaty and peace mutually sworn did without any regard of his oath or any just cause endeavour to force in hostile manner that fee of Poitiers back again from the possession of the English where I say upon this complaint and for ought appears out of this canon in it self Novit ille de Iudiciis Innocent doth no more but write to the Clergie of France that he deputed a certain French Arch-bishop an other French Abbot to examine the matter of Fact and proceed thereupon to give sentence and besides this sayes no more in this chapter to any such purpose as the said Irish Divines alleadg him for but that the King of France being so Evangelically denounced to the Church according to that rule of the Gospel Si peccaverit in te frater tuus c dic Ecclesiae and complained of as a publick scandalous breaker of a just Peace and religious Oath he the said Innocent did not intend to judg of the Fee being the iudgment of this belong'd to the King of France but onely of the sin committed in the breach of peace and oath Non enim intendimus sayes he judicare de feudo cujus ad ipsum spectat judicium sed decernere de peccat● cujus ad n●s pertinet sine dubitatione censura quam in quemlibet exercere possumus debemus Now whether the said Irish Divines may hence and onely hence conclude their deposing power I mean as much as according to the judgment of the same Innocent himself alone I see nothing at all in all this which may force us to yeeld Innocent his Delegats might have observed all he prescribes herein or in that whole chapter and all which the Gospel allows to him or to the Church in the case that i● he and they might in case of such a publick sin in the French King of the Church's admonition and of his contumacy against such admonition have proceeded to excommunicate him evangelically that is might have deprived him

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 fix●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

power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against His or Their Crown and Dignity and do my best endeavour to disclose and make known to His Majesty His Heirs and Successors or to the Lord Deputy or other His Majesties Chief Governour or Governours for the time being all Treasons or Trayterous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear to be intended against His Majesty or any of them and I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of a Christian So help me God Nevertheless the said Lord Lieutenant doth not hereby intend that any thing in these Concessions contained shall extend or be construed to extend to the granting of Churches Church-livings or the exercise of Jurisdiction the Authority of the said Lord Lieutenant not extending so far Yet the said Lord Lieutenant is Authorized to give the said Roman Catholicks full assurance as hereby the said Lord Lieutenant doth give unto the said Roman Catholicks full assurance That they or any of them shall not be molested in the possession which they have at present of the Churches and Church-livings or of the exercise of their respective Jurisdictions as they now exercise the same until such time as His Majesty upon a full consideration of the desires of the said Roman Catholicks in a Free Parliament to be held in this Kingdom shall declare his further pleasure II. Item It is concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That a Free Parliament shall be held in this Kingdom within Six months after the date of these Articles of Peace or as soon after as Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Castelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunrie Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghne Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or the major part of them will desire the same so that by possibility it may be held and that in the mean time and until the Articles in these presents agreed to be passed in Parliament be accordingly passed the same shall be as inviolably observed as to the matters therein contained as if they were Enacted in Parliament and that in case a Parliament be not called and held in this Kingdom within two years next after the date of these Articles of Peace then His Majesties Lord Lieutenant or other His Majesties chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being will at the request of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunrie Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or the major part of them call a GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Lords and Commons of this Kingdom to attend upon the said Lord Lieutenant or other His Majesties chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being in some convenient place for the better setling of the Affairs of the Kingdom And it is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties That all matters that by these Articles are agreed upon to be passed in Parliament shall be transmitted into England according to the usual form to be passed in the said Parliament And that the said Acts so agreed upon and so to be passed shall receive no diminution or alteration here or in England Provided that nothing shall be concluded by both or either of the said Houses of Parliament which may bring prejudice to any of His Majesties Protestant party or their Adherents or to any of His Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects party or their Adherents other than such things as upon this Treaty are concluded to be done or such things as may be proper for the Committee of Priviledges of either or both Houses to take cognizance of as in such cases heretofore hath been accustomed and other than such matters as His Majesty will be graciously pleased to declare his further pleasure in to be passed in Parliament for the satisfaction of His Subjects and other than such things as shall be propounded to either or both Houses by His Majesties Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being during the said Parliament for the advancement of His Majesties service and the peace of the Kingdom which Clause is to admit no Construction which may trench upon these Articles of Peace or any of them and that both Houses of Parliament may consider what they shall think convenient touching the Repeal or suspension of the Statute commonly called Poynings Act intituled An Act that no Parliament be holden in this Land until the Acts be certified into England III. Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That all Acts Ordinances and Orders made by both or either Houses of Parliament to the blemish dishonour or prejudice of His Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects of this Kingdom or any of them sithence the 7th of August 1641. shall be vacated and that the same and all Exemplifications and other Acts which contain the memory of them be made void by Act to be past in the next Parliament to be held in this Kingdom and that in the mean time the said Acts or Ordinances or any of them shall be no prejudice to the said Roman Catholicks or any of them IV. Item It is also concluded accorded and agreed upon and His Majesty is likewise graciously pleased That all Indictments Attainders Outlawries in this Kingdom and all the Processes and other proceedings thereupon and all Letters Patents Grants Leases Custodiums Bonds Recognizances and all Records Act or Acts Office or Offices Inquisitions and all other things depending upon or taken by reason of the said Indictments Attainders or Outlawries sithence the 7th day of August 1641. in prejudice of the said Catholicks their Heirs Executors Administrators or Assigns or any of them or the Widows of them or any of them shall be vacated and made void in such sort as no memory shall remain thereof to the blemish dishonour or prejudice of the said Catholicks their Heirs Executors Administrators or Assigns or any of them or the Widows of them or any of them and that to be done when the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or the major part of them shall desire the same so that by possibility it may be done and in