if the Pope define evil to be good or vice to be virtue that is define that to be good or virtuous which you thought was evil or vitious you must believe him And so do all our Sophisters maintain now a dayes that all he does is very well done and that he cannot err in that regard And so especially and particularly must all the Fathers of the Society maintain and think too not so much because of their 4th vow as it is in the Bull of Julius the 3d. wherein their Order and Statutes are confirmed but chiefly for that which their founder Saint Ignatious Loyola layes before them as the chief if not onely fundamental of their Society the denial of their own judgement in a letter of his written in Italian to the Fathers of Portugal and in this passage of it We easily endure to be out-done by all other orders in fastings watchings and other hardnesses which they use in a holy manner according to their Institution But in purity and perfection of obedience I earnestly desire that you would surpass all the rest with a true resignation of your own will and a denial of your own judgement and also because of that which moreover is said in the very articles of their institution confirmed by the Popes Buls and inserted in that above mentioned of Julius the 3d. that they are bound to acknowledge Christum velut praesentem Christ as present not onely in the person of the Pope but also of their General Moreover so must even all the assertors whatever they be of what order or institution soever of the doctrine of obedientia caeca blind obedience as it is commonly taught in this age maintain and think Further yet and to return once more to the Society in particular so have several of them very cleerly expresly and zealously taught and thought if they taught not otherwise than they thought at Coloâ—e as appears out of that prescribed Rule of theirs in Censura Colonienst fol. 136. If any man examine the doctrine of the Pope by the Rule of Gods word and seeing that it is different chance to contradict it let him be rooted out with fire and sword Finally and to return once more also to Bellarmin's own self so has this most eminent Cardinal no less distinctly and positively delivered in four several assertions in his fourth book third fourth fifth and sixth chap. de Rom. Pont. the very first genuin but sandy foundation of all this ruinous however guilded structure of the Popes pretended infallibility These assertions are First that the Pope when he teacheth the vniversal Church in such things as appertain to faith can in no case erre Secondly that not onely the Pope cannot err in faith but not even the particular Church of Rome Thirdly that the Pope cannot err not onely in matters of faith but not even in precepts of manners which are commanded to the whole Church and which consist in things necessary to salvation or such as are of themselves good or bad Fourthly that it is probable and may be piously believed that the Pope not onely as Pope but even as a particular person cannot be a Heretick by believing with obstinacy any error against the faith Although I must confess that notwithstanding all this learned Cardinals painful indeavours to prove each of these assertions throughout all the foresaid whole chapters and for eight or nine chapters more to disprove the contrary by solving as well as he can all objections making therein a particular enquirie of all the Popes that ever lived and have been charged with error and maintaining also the best he can that not one amongst them ever yet errect and that they were all honest and holy men yet he sayes nothing in all his arguments or solutions in this matter to perswade any judicious man of his pretended infallibility But however this be or not it is plain enough that according to these very principles or assertions alone any according to onely the first and third which at least of all four Father N. N. and the Congregation infallibly own as yet and refuse obstinatly to disown we cannot make sense but that which is contradictory and not to any purpose of what he sayes here not though I say we grant his meaning therein grounded on those two suppositions Fifthly That be his meaning so grounded or not or be it what ever els or however he please yet he cannot deny but the Congregation refused openly and either constantly or obstinatly as he will and even too upon the contradictory question to give as much as this very Proposition or promise under their hands that if the Pope did would or should define any thing against their Remonstrance or three first Propositions they would notwithstanding maintain them and be accordingly faithful and obedient to the King Nor can deny that there is not so much as one hand of theirs or of any els for them to this paper of reasons wherein it is said as in their name they let all prudent men know that they should not hold the Popes infallibility if he did define any thing against the obedience they owe their Prince Both which being so what truth can be in this confident assertion whatever it imports Or how can such an allegation serve them in any prudent mans opinion to wave the subscription of what was so rationally expected concerning the 6th Proposition or declaration against the Popes infallibility without the consent of the Church or a general Council Or to shew the unnecessariness thereof in their case or in relation to a sufficient assureance of their fidelitie hereafter to the King against all pretences of the Pope to his Crown or other Royal rights And so having done more than abundantly with his tacite pretence of unnecessariness virtually implyed in that allegation I must in the next place observe his transient return to his plea of impertinency again If sayes he and in the Congregations name still they he means all prudent men speake of any other infallibility as matter of Religion or faith as it regardeth us not nor our obedience to our Soveraign c. For although I have before now sufficiently demonstrated the pertinency of the question and Proposition or declaration concerning the Popes pretended infallibility without a general Council yet because Father N. N. seems to distinguish here a two-fold infallibility of the Pope for as much as he sayeth any other infallibility I must tell him First That he had more properly and intelligibly distinguished the matter in which the Popes pretended infallibility must be said to be conversant than the form of infallibility in it self which form questionless in esteem must be one and the self same whether it fall on the obedience we owe our Prince or on any other matter soever capable Secondly That he knew very well the dispute and declaration of Sorbone was against the Popes infallibility in general or in any kind of matter and against
the authority or passage alledg'd out of St. Bernard the answer is 1. That it is curtail'd by the Quoter the words immediatly following part of the same sentence and last period of that passage being purposely omitted That period being thus concluded by the Saint Séd sanè ad nutum sacerdotis jussum imperatoris Where he manifestly shews the difference betwixt the direction of the Priest and command in the Emperour over the temporal or material sword 2. That St. Bernard never mean'd to impose any any necessity of conscience on the Prince to draw his sword whensoever and as often soever as the Priest or Bishop would becken or nod or which is the same thing would advise counsel or endeavour to perswade him But mean'd only that the material sword should indeed be drawn by the Emperours command in such controversies or quarrels as the Priest might and ought in conscience to justifie according to the laws of God And that temporal Princes in undertaking war or in matter of publick or private justice where they must use the sword or force should if their be any doubt whether the undertaking or execution be according to the law of God or no and if themselves cannot resolve themselves should I say in such cases advise with or consult the Priest in that which belongs to conscience The Saint without any question supposing what the Prophet Malachy speaks That the lips of the Priest shall preserve knowledge and others shall demand of him the law of truth 3. That were St. Bernard speaking to the Bishops of Milan Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem or to him of Paris London Toledo or Triers or to any other particular Bishop in the world that had a temporal Prince or General of War within his Diocess he might and would have said so much to him nay to the Priests that are no Bishops at all I mean the Ghostly Fathers or Spiritual Directors of Princes 4. That this very Saint himself doth abundantly clear all scruples in this matter For not to take notice of those words tuo forsitan nutu to quit the advantage of these other jussum Imperatoris both in this very passage quoted against me that other in his first book of Considerations to the same Pope Eugenius c. 5. is abundantly sufficient Non monstrabunt puto sayes he ubi aliquando quispiam Apostolorum Iudex sederit hominum aut divisor terminorum aut distributor tèrrà rum stetisse denique ego Apostolos judicandos sedisse judicantes non lego c. Ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus potestas vestra quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistis claves regni caelorum praevaricatores utique exclusuri non possessores Quaenam tihi major videtur dignitas potestas dimittendi peccata an praedia dividendi sed non est comparatio Habent haec infima terrena judices suos Reges Principes terrae Quid fines alienos invaditis After all which he gave in the same paper of his answers that is in the skirt of it this Advertisement The Reader may be pleased to take notice That however this be or whatever may be thought of this doctrine yet the Subscribers to the Protestation are not any way engaged either in the affirmative or Negative it being manifest that the protestation in it self abstracts from either part and consequently both from these Answers and the Queries too XXVII That besides and after sending the foresaid two or three Quaeries to the Procurator the Jesuits now I remember not which of them or by whom sent him this other of one single Quaerie and reasons for the Affirmative Which because it and the former were the only papers and indeed only Quaeries and Reasons either by paper or without paper insisted on seriously by them or any others in Ireland ever since this dispute concerning the Remonstrance began And none else but those Fathers of the Society and in this manner only insisted on them so I give wholly and exactly as in the original given me without any subscription Whether a temporal or corporal punishment may be inflicted by virtue of a spiritual power Some reasons offered for the Affirmative First it is a maxime of Aristotle and allowed of by all Statists Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law and by all Divines that frustra datur potestas directiva sine coerciva The spiritual power is directiva Therefore in all reason we must allow potestas coerciva or a coactive power I know the answer of such as hold the negative is that potestas directiva hath a coactive power intra eandem sphaeram that is to say when the potestas directiva is spiritual it must have potestas coerciva or a coactive power ejusdem generis of the same kind and therefore spiritual punishments are allowed to the potestas directiva spiritually as Excommunications interdicts c. but no temporal punishments To this I reply that they can scarce produce one Classick Author of any note that giveth this exposition and they that hold the affirmative may produce as many as ever wrote ex professo of this matter for the contrary teste Basilio Pontio one of the most eminent men of this age who expressis verbis saith haec est communis omnium Catholicorum opinio Secondly omitting many other proofs it is the opinion of two General Councils that of Lyons and that of Lateran though perhaps not enacted per modum decreti But because General Councils are undervalued by some that believe that only the diffusive Church is infallible I will stand to the general practice of the diffusive Church which is the surest way to know its opinion When any person is nominatim Excommunicatus he is not only put from Mass and deprived of the suffrages of the faithful but also he is forbidden any civil commerce and conversation with the faithful he must not eat or drink with them he must not discourse nor be saluted by them besides they are whipped and commanded to undergo austere penances But all these are corporal punishments Therefore the opinion of the Diffusive Church is that a spiritual power can inflict corporal punishments And this being once granted it must be also allowed that the corporal punishment may be the greater pro qualitate delicti and consequently when the crimes are great it is in the power of the Church to inflict great punishments corporal and temporal Thirdly It is recounted 2. Machab. cap. 2. that Antiochus being King of the Jews the Priest Mathathias seeing a Jew by the Kings command ready to offer sacrifice to the Idols killed both the Jew and him who by the Kings command did compel the Jews to sacrifice Is it found in Scripture that this act is reprehended or doth any of the holy Fathers condemn Mathathias of unlawful murther in this case The same Mathathias being ready to depart this world and give an account to God of all his actions exhorteth his Sons to take arms
nay and meritoriously too abide the sentence of death even in prima instantia from a Judge of Assize according to the laws of England or Ireland or both and the Execution of it and even at the same time acknowledge himself bound under pain of sin to abide this sentence and this execution patiently and christianly without resistance and yet at the same time also challenge the priviledge of the Canons or at least not renounce the priviledge of the Canons and even of such as he really conceives to be obliging Canons whether groundedly or ungroundedly he conceives or alledges such Canons it matters not to our purpose or that he may at the same time also alledge and the case may be such that he may truly too alleadge that he is proceeded against unjustly both by the Inferiour supream Judge both against the legally established received unrepealed obliging Canons of the Church and the uncontroverted clear just and wholsome laws of the State And therefore it is no less evident that there can be no inconsistency no contradiction at all betwixt a Priests acknowledging the duty of such an obedience and his challenging alwaye nevertheless a right not to be proceeded against by such a sentence That our further declaring in the said Remonstrance That notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication deposition c. we will alwayes be true obedient faithful Subjects to the King that we renounce all forreign power spiritual or temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to absolve us from us Allegiance or dispense with us therein or give us leave to raise tumults bear arms c. against his Majesty or Laws That we bold the doctrine impious and renounce â—t as such which teacheth that any Subject may murder the anointed of God his Prince though of a different Religion from his That we acknowledge all supream temporal Princes to be Gods Lieutenants on earth or in their Dominions and obedience due to them respectively in all civil and temporal affairs by their own Subjects That finally we protest against all contrary doctrines and practices That I say our further declaring any or all these particulars together doth not either formally or virtually or expresly or tacitly draw with it our declaring against or our disacknowledging renouncing declining or quitting the Exemption or Ecclesiastical immunity of Clerks either as to their Persons or as much as to their Goods if by this Exemption or Immunity that be understood as it ought certainly which all Catholick States Kingdoms Nations Councils Parliaments People Divines Universities Bishops Clerks and consequently Churches do understand in France Spain Germany Italy Venice Poland c. For the truth of all and every such declaration and obligation consequent may and doth very well stand in their opinion and according to their practice with such Exemption being they all hold this Exemption to be not independently from the soveraign power of the Princes or States or of their Laws but with dependance alway in relation to that soveraignty or supream Majesty from the inferiour Judicatures and in such cases only whether civil or criminal as are priviledged and only too in prima instantia or at most in so many other instances as will not require manifestly or by manifest necessity an appeal or recourse to the Prince or State civil or pollitick â gravamine or the interposition of the Prince's or States supream power in the case without any such appeal or recourse of either Plantiff or Defendant but ex officio where the Prince or State see a manifest necessity of such interposition as the case may be very well as it hath often been that the Ecclesiastical Judges are themselves involved in the same crime for example in treason or sedition and therefore will not punish the criminals accused before them but rather encourage them as much as they dare That moreover as it appears manifestly out of all the foresaid passages either separatly or collectively taken there is not from the first word to the last of the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance not I say any passage at all any word or syllable in that whole Declaration being these I have given are all it contains of any matter soever that may be formally or virtually expresly or tacitly directly or indirectly understood by any rational impartial man to dis-acknowledge or declare against Immunity Ecclesiastical or the Exemption of Clergy-mens either Persons or Goods as this Exemption is allowed or approved by the Catholick World or Church or as by either understood so it appears no less manifestly that in the petitionary address which immediatly follows the said Act of Recognition or Declaration of Allegiance and of principles belonging to such Allegiance there is neither as much as one word which may import to an impartial understanding Reader or to any that is not clouded by ignorance or byassed by malice any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such immunity or exemption And that if in this petitionary address there be nothing to this purpose or any such dis-acknowledgment of or declaration against such Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption it must be and is confess'd by the very most scrupulous or most invidious Adversaries there can be none at all in all or any part of that Remonstrance or in that whole Instrument entituled The humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland To prove this last conditional assertion I need not add any thing more to what I have said already or observed in considering all the several distinct parts of the Act of Recognition in it self and other declarations following therein and to what moreover I have presently hinted of the confession of our most carping Adversaries but only this one advertisement more to the Reader whereof himself by reading only over that whole Instrument can be Judge that nothing else is contained in the paper but a bare Remonstrance of grievances persecution odium c. which no man ever yet quarrel'd against as pretending therein a ground for this fourth Exception or any other whatsoever What remains therefore to be cleared is the petitionary address of that paper as that indeed against which for ought I heard from the Dissentors themselves or any of them all their quarrel is on this pretence of quitting Ecclesiastical Immunity and subjecting Clergy-men to Lay Judicatories or to Secular Courts in criminal causes But how justly or unjustly be you Judge good Reader when you have considered the words sense and scope of that Petition so often returned for answer to this invidious Exception The words and whole tenor of that perclosing Address are these and no other These being the tenets of our Religion in point of Loyalty and submission to your Majesties commands and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrenching on that perfect obedience which by our birth by all laws divine and humane we are bound to pay to
onely that what he sayes of canon law in the point is perspicuous out of the Epistle of Pope Caius to Bishop Felix out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and out of the XI book of the Register of S. Gregory ep 54. ad Ioannem Defensorem and lastly to compleat this his second argument assumes this other Proposition as a maxime That the civil law must yield to the canon law whereas sayes he still consequently the Pope may command the Emperour especially in such matters as concern the Church This strange way of argueing in a matter of such consequence out of authorities or quotations of books or chapters the words not given to the Reader which yet is familiar with this great Clerk especially where he finds the authorities or words of the text if seen at length not to be much to his purpose hath put me to more trouble then I would be and then I knew the argument deserved However I took the pains as I have also in all other material quotations of his to turn to the canons books or places quoted and see the words of those three Popes Which indeed concerning the two former as they are alleadg'd by Gratian XI q. 1. c. 1. I find to be these of Caius first Nemo unquam Episcopum apud Iudicem secularem aut alios Clericos accusare praesumat And these too ead Caus. and quest cap. 2. Nullas Iudicum neque Praesbiterum neque Diaconum aut Clericum ullum aut juniores Ecclesia sine licentia Pontificis per se distringat aut condemnare praesumat Quod si fecerit ab Ecclesia cui injuriam irrogare dignoscitur tamdiu sit sequestratus quousque reotum suum agnoscat mendet And next I find the words of Marcellinus to be these other ead caus quest cap. 3. Clericum eujuslibet or dinis absque Pontificiâ— sui permissu nullus praefumat ad seculdâ—am Indicem attâ—here neâ— Lâ—â— qâ—â—â— libet Clericum liceat accusare To which my answers are 1. That Caius having suffered Martyrdom in the year of our Lord 296. and Marcellinus being chosen the same year nay within eleven days after the passion of Caius they are both consequently of the number of those Popes whose Decretal Epistles or such as go in their names are not by learned men even of the Roman communion esteemed other then meerly supposititious or at least corrupted and therefore such as cannot be alleadged for good or certain proof in any matter 2. That these two Popes having lived and dyed before the first liberty of Christian Religion under Constantine were it certain they had really prohibited the lay Judges to proceed in any causes of Churchmen nay which is more expresly declared that such lay Judges had no kind of Iurisdiction over any Clerk in any matter soever and were it also granted that such their sole prohibition or sole Declaration were hoc ipso a canon of the Catholick Church or obliging it in general as much as any canon of even a general Council each of which particulars is so farre from being certain or being granted as in the opinion of great Divines none of all three is any way probable yet any judicious man will see plainly that by secular judges here we must not understand such Judges as were truly such by the publick authority of Emperours Princes and laws but onely such as were by a compromise onely or submission of the Christian Litigants and by the private authority of the Churches or Congregations according to that of St. Paul 1. Cor. 6. appointed to determine amongst themselves the differences of those of their own Religion and consequently such as were rather voluntary arbiters then Judges simply or properly such with coercive power For who sees not it had been most imprudently or rather indeed madly done to have prescrib'd meer humane and also unnecessary laws to those heathen Imperial Judges that put all to death whom they knew to observe as much as the very most necessary most divine law of God himself Or shall we attribute such madness to men farre less prudent then we must suppose the wisest men in the world those holy and great Pontiffs of Rome And being we cannot how then doth Bellarmine alleadg this prohibition of Caius and Marcelline Or must it follow that because these Popes commanded that none of the secular Christian Judges appointed by the several private Christian Congregations should presume to judg of Clerks without the Bishops leave therefore the same was intended or given as a rule to the publick heathen Judges commission'd by the supream absolute civil and coerecive power of Emperours The general persecutions against all Christians generally both Clerks and Laicks were continued long after the days of Caius and Marcelline throughout the Roman Empire which till Dioclesians surrender was heathen And so long the Popes could not make laws of Discipline for the Judges appointed by that Empire Nihil ad nos de iis qui soris sunt judicare sayes the Apostle himself who certainly had no less power then any Pope 3. That for the former quotation of that either pretended or true Epistle of Caius it is not material The jurisdiction of civil or Imperial heathen Judges over Christian Clerks and Bishops too might be very well acknowledged by Caius notwithstanding he had thought it convenient for avoiding scandal to forbid all Christians not to presume to accuse any Clerk before heathen judges St. Paul forbade all Christians generally and consequently the very Laicks not to accuse even other Laicks before such heathen Judges yet no man sayes that St. Paul thereby meant that Christian Laicks were exempt from the jurisdiction of those Judges And that for the later quotation also out of the same Epistle of Caius which Gratian gives in the second place or second chapter of his foresaid eleventh cause and first Question it is mark'd with a Palea in Gratian himself and therefore also is of no authority no valew at all according to the doctrine of many Canonists which doctrine must be disproved before any such allegation can be urged 4. That for Marcelline's canon whether false or true I have before observed how Gratian hath if not corrupted at least misquoted the text which is not as he hath it Clericum cujuslibet ordinis nullus praesumat accusare c. but as it is in Concil 3. Aurel. in Panormia Clericus nullum praesumat accusare And that being so read it concludes nothing to Bellarmine's purpose if not a generâ—l exemption of all persons generally as well Laicks as Clerks from secular Judges and for what onely would concern a suit commenced by a Clerk Which yet is not to Bellarmines purpose at all nor at all for any exemption of either Laicks or Clerks from the jurisdiction of secular Judges but onely for a restriction of Clerks from scandalous litigiousness as I have also before in other cases or in my answers to the canons of Carthage Chalcedon
great Archbishop Primate Patriarch and least of all in or to the chief of Patriarchs to decide define censure and condemn in his own Diocess and in his own Diocesan Synod or when he shall see cause even without any such Synod certain propositions of Heresie provided he carry himself warily circumspectly have sufficient knowledge of or in the divine Scriptures Traditions Canons or Faith of the universal Church concerning the points controverted That notwithstanding the Catholick Church or Doctors thereof require submission and obedience at least externally even to such decisions and from all kind of persons respectively subject to the direction of such Deciders and require that submission and obedience universally where ever and whensoever the decision appears not or until it appear by sufficient and clear evidence to be in it self indeed against the faith received or at least to be very much doubted of by the rest of the faithful or by a considerable party of the learned and pious yet not only in the opinion of Jansenists but even of most of the most Orthodox Anti-Jansenists the same Catholick Church hath never yet attributed infallibility to any such decision as barely purely and only such but on the contrary held it alwayes as such to be fallible That in the same opinion likewise and as well of most of the severest Anti-Jansenist's as of the very most rigid Jansenist's when the Propositions defined so are in themselves infallibly true and of divine Catholick belief they must not therefore nor are by the Catholick Church required to be by the faithful believed to be such that is infallibly true ratione formae or by reason onely or at all of any such decision definition censure or condemnation or of any how formal soever so made as above even by the Pope himself and even with an especial Congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats but ratione materiae by reason of the matter onely whereon such decision falls Although to the vulgar and ignorant such particular decision onely may and ought to be a sufficient motive of even the most internal submission of their Soules as long as they hear no publick contradiction of the points by any of the rest of the Churches or pious and learned Doctors which are within the pale of the Catholick Church That as it is confessed notwithstanding that there are some other Divines of the Catholick communion who in those later and worser ages of the Church attribute infallibility to such decisions made by Popes onely without any further consent or concurrence of the Catholick Church by a general Council or otherwise than by such few Divines or Canonists as the Pope is pleased to consult with nay or otherwise too than by his own onely judgment declared to all Christians by a Brief Bull or Decretal Epistle though even against the judgment of all other Divines Canonists Prelats even those of his own particular Diocess Church or City of Rome for they place all his infallibility nay that of the whole Church in his own judgment alone declared by him as Pope or ex Cathedra that is in their explication of Cathedra declared by him to all the faithful in a Brief Bull or Decretal Epistle authoritate Petri et Pauli Apostolorum or commanded by him under pain of Excommunication or anathema or forfeiture of Salvation to be followed as the faith delivered once by the Apostles of Christ so most of this way or this opinion have been long before there was any Iansenist in the world before Iansenius himself had ever put penn to paper nay before he was born Though it be confessed withal it took strongest footing in many Schools since Bellarmine undertook the patronage of it but this too was before Iansenius's time That therefore the question in it self and even as well in relation to the Parisians or Sorbonists as to us here in Ireland and certainly of us there can be no kind of dispute abstracts wholy from all kind of Iansenisme as it is also well known the former or that of the Pope's authority over or subjection to a general Council does That whether the Sorbonist's or any of them in subscribing the 6th Proposition took occasion in part from that Bull of Alexander the 7th wherein he declares the five condemned Propositions to be in Iansenius or further took any from that Blasphemous thesis of Cleremont asserting the same infallibily to the Popes declaration even in matter of fact which Christ our Saviour had when upon earth or whether they took from neither any such occasion as indeed they might and should very justly from that of Cleremont and therefore likely have it is manifest enough that the Sorbonist's who subscribed this 6th Proposition or declaration against the doctrine of the Popes infallibility are no Iansenist's as being men that are all known to have subscribed the condemnation of the five Propositions of Iansenius and men too that most of them have been earnest all along against his doctrine and against the Patrons of it how ever some time of their own Faculty but not at all long before the date of these six Propositions That besides considering the State of the Kingdom of France and affairs of their King in the month and 8th of May 1663. when the Sorbonist's made these declarations and His being at defiance with the Pope at that very time and considering also that the four first import directly and onely for the matter what concerned their said Kings security against all such future pretensions or attempts of Popes as those were of Boniface the 8th or Iulius the second and considering besides that the whole Vniversitie of Paris not Sorbone onely went altogether with the Arch-Bishop of that See heading them to present the same declarations to their King and that his French Majesty took such special care to publish them in Print throughout his Kingdom with his own declarative commands prefixed to them and moreover considering that the former five without the 6th could not be sufficient in point of doctrine to secure him of his Catholick Subjects against the Pope and further yet considering that the said French King himself was constantly and is so farr from being a Iansenist that he hath always been and was at that very time as he is now at this present a great persecuter of them and finally considering that all the Bishops of France with all its Vniversities and for the matter the whole Gallican Church concurred with those three Popes in the condemnation of that which is reputed Iansenisme I mean the five Propositions commonly said to be found in Iansenius I say that considering well and joyning all together it may be easily and rationally concluded that amongst other motives as that of Cleremont concerning the Popes infallibility in matter of Fact equal to Christs and as that of Sorbone's wiping of the imputation of the same doctrine also of the Popes infallibility in general according to Bellarmines way so lately
one tittle or any one action hitherto alledg'd against me as such other than what is in effect and substance my Assertion or Vindication of the Supreme Temporal Sovereignty of the Crowns of these Kingdoms i. e. of their being in all Temporals and all Contingencies whatsoever independent from any but God alone and therefore in Temporals no way dependent from the Pope either by divine or humane right Whether any person may on such ground call in question the sincerity of my believing or professing as I ought all the undoubted Articles of the Roman-Catholick Faith 3. And seeing there was never yet any other matter not even by my greatest Persecutors at any time objected articled oâ— pretended against me beside that i. e. besides my former opposing the Nuncio's Censures and my later promoting the Remonstrance and my endeavours in both against the pretences of the Roman Bishops to the Crowns of England Ireland Scotland c Whether it may in any wise be said or thought by unbyassed learned men That I have given any real ground for the vile detraction of those who treat me every way as if I had been a desertor of the Church 4. Nay Whether considering first The nature of those two grand Controversies wherein I have so freely engaged against all the power of the Roman Court abroad and all the endeavours of the Nuncio's Party and Antiremonstrant Clergy at home secondly The most grievous manifold and continual persecutions I suffered in both Causes one while by Suspensions and Deprivations another while by Excommunications then by Imprisonment in a Forreign Countrey even as far off as Spain and then again by new Thunders of Ecclesiastical Censures and by scandalous Declarations and posting of my Name besides other frequent enterprizes on several occasions against both my Liberty and Life thirdly My continuing constant in both Causes even all along to this very day even also then and that not only once happening when I had no support in this World but my own Conscience of suffering i. e. my own certain knowledge of my suffering onely for Righteousness sake nay then also when some of my chiefest Adversaries laboured with all their powerful malice even here at London to compel me and spared not to speak openly that either they would compel me to renounce the Roman-Catholick Church and declare my self an Heretick or they would make me submit to the Roman Court in the latter of these two Causes viz. that of the Loyal Remonstrance it being the onely matter then prosecuted against me fourthly Their failing nevertheless to this present in obtaining their will of me in either the one or other Whether I say considering all this whereof besides many men I am sure the All-seeing God is witness it be not more likely That no kind of prejudice against the Roman-Catholick Faith or Church but a true and powerful zeal according to knowledge for the primitive Christian purity of both is it that hath set me against those opinions and practices flowing in the corruption of latter Ages from the Roman Court which have shaken Religion divided Christendom and brought a scandal upon Faith as if it were to be supported or advanced by the wrath and rage of men by Rebellion and Slaughter by Subversion of Government and Confusion of the World so making it a ground of jealousie to Magistrates and diverting peaceable and charitable Souls from that union which ought to be amongst the Disciples of Christ 5. Also whether it may not by rational men be at least charitably believed That I would not so often at several times and upon several occasions since first I engag'd in either Controversie especially in the last have refused many Preferments in my own Order have rejected many tempting proffers too even of Episcopal dignity in my own Countrey have also particularly and lately in the National Synod or Congregation held at Dublin anno 1666 and that in publick before all the Fathers refused to yield by any means to their pressing offer not only of all the best Commendatory Letters that could be drawn on Paper in my behalf both to His Holiness Himself who then was and the Cardinal Patron and the Congregation de Propaganda and all other Ministers of the Roman Court as many as were concern'd in the Affairs of Ireland but also of a yearly and very considerable Salary too by general Applotment amounting as they esteemed or computed it in Three years to Two thousand pound English money and in lieu of all these offers have deliberately chosen to run the manifest hazard of undergoing and accordingly since to have in very deed undergone all the vexatious infamy of Ecclesiastical Censures in my own Church Order and Countrey and all the further Evils not only of some at least consequential hardships but of many black Calumnies many bitter Reproaches yea and some yet more inhumane Machinations of cruel men even here in England these four last years since 1669 Whether I say it may not by rational men be and be at least charitably believed That I would not have rejected freely all those tempting offers and in lieu of them voluntarily chosen to lie under all these Sufferings for any thing less than the keeping a good Conscience and the preserving the honour of Christian Catholicism untainted at least in some Priests and Religious men of the Roman-Catholick Religion in these Nations and the justifying my self and those of my way the few Irish constant Remonstrants with such others who communicate with them Loyal Subjects to our Prince the King of England and the winning also for the good of Catholicks in general upon His Majesties Councils Parliaments and all good Protestant people by our peaceable Conversation and Faithfulness amidst all our Sufferings from every side notwithstanding any difference from the Protestant Church in some few Articles of Religion Whereas such other Church-men of the Roman Communion as by their practises or principles have formerly shewn themselves and still appear to continue Enemies to the Supreme Temporal Government of these Kingdoms may in all reason expect the severest Laws to be edg'd against them by Authority under which it will be sad to suffer as evil doers 6. Lastly Whether it had not been very much for the advantage of Roman-Catholicks in general and their Religion in this Monarchy That these last hundred years they had been indoctrinated onely and wholly guided as to their Consciences by such Roman-Catholick Priests and Church-men as are of my principles in relation to the Temporal Powers independence from Rome and the indispensable obedience of Subjects in Civil matters and both the injustice and invalidity or nullity of Ecclesiastical Censures pronounced against either Prince or People or Priests for maintaining these not onely Rational but Christian Principles or asserting any of all their necessary Antecedents Consequents or Concomitants And now my Lords Fathers and Gentlemen to your impartial judgment on all and each of these Queries I do with due
of God be wanting in any reverence duty or obedience which by Vow or Rule or Canon or Reason I do or may according to the Faith or Doctrine of the Universal Church owe either to the most Holy Father the Bishop of Old Rome or to any other Bishops or to any other Prelates or Superiours in their respective places whether Secular or Regular because doing otherwise I could not but condemn my self of using evil means to attain or drive at lawful ends and consequently of being as bad an Interpreter of that saying of our Lord in St. Matthew (a) Matth. 6.22 Si oculus tuus fuerit simplex totum corpus tuum lucidum erit as any of the late extrinsick Probablists are Whereunto also is consequent That I never at any time hitherto intended nor shall I hope through the same grace of God for the future willingly or wittingly intend either in my Writings Actions or Designs any thing against the Divine Authority of the Catholick Church or even against the venerable either Majesty or Primacy or even Power Authority and Jurisdiction of the First of Bishops or First of Apostolical Sees the Roman I mean not altogether so far as a number of Popes speaking in their own cause or a company of Schoolmen prepossessed by them or frighted or hired or misled through corruption and ignorance of the later times have asserted the former in their Canons and the other in their speculative Writings but as far as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath believed or taught how great soever or whatsoever that Patriarchical or Jurisdictional power be which she believes or acknowledges to be in the Roman Archbishop either from divine Title or humane onely nay which but the National Churches hard by us though composing her but in part the Spanish and the Sicilian the French and German the Venetian and the Polish notwithstanding they be of strict communion with the Pope do universally or unanimously believe For I think it too hard a task for any private man much more for me to know better what hath been delivered in all former Ages or is believed in this present as an Article or Doctrine of undoubted Faith divine by the Universal Church of Christ on earth than may be learned from the unanimous consent of those very National Churches of Europe alone agreeing together upon any Article as undoubtedly such Other humane Laws indeed or Canons or Customs they may agree in that oblige not other Catholicks of their communion in other Kingdoms or Nations but where and as much as they are received and not abolished again or antiquated either by a Municipal Law or National Canon or even by general Custom prescribing against the former The Sixth and last Appendix relating likewise generally to the former Questions That as notwithstanding my Appeal to your judgment of discretion I never intended to exempt or withdraw my self i. e. my person from the Authoritative or binding sentence of Canonical Delegates if my Adversaries continue their prosecution and His Holiness may be induced to grant me such Delegates as He is certainly bound to do or at least to acquit me and rescind all the illegal proceedings hitherto of his subordinate Ministers and Officials against me so neither do I decline their judgment of my Writings Nay on the contrary my resolution hath alwayes been and I hope shall evermore be which I do now the second or third time declare in Print under my own hand or name to submit with full and perfect resignation every word in my several Books even to the Authoritative judgment not only of the Catholick Church the House (b) 2 Tim. 3. of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth or which is the same thing of its lawful Representative an Oecumenical Synod truly such that highest Tribunal on earth in matters of Divine Faith and Holy Discipline nor only of a free Occidental Council of the Latin Church alone but even of any other Judges whatsoever many or few or even so few as two or three that shall in the interim of such a Council be delegated by His Holiness or any other that hath a lawful Church-power to require obedience from me in such cases provided those other Judges Delegate be competent i. e. indifferent or above all those exceptions which the Canons of the Catholick Church allow To the Authoritative sentence even of any such Delegates I will and do submit both my Person and my Writings in this sense that if I cannot conform my own inward opinions reason or belief to theirs yet I will abide whatever punishment they shall therefore inflict upon me and patiently undergo it until absolv'd from it or dispens'd with by a higher or at least equal power But to that of such an Oecumenical Synod or even such an Occidental onely as before I shall moreover God willing as I do at this very present for all future times most heartily conform all the most inward dictates of my Soul for what concerns any matter of pure Christian Faith and shall throughly acquiesce in their determination whatever may be in the mean time disputed by others or even my self of the absolute Fallibility as to us of the very most General Representatives or most Oecumenical Councils themselve before their Decrees be at least virtually or tacitely received by the Represented or Diffusive Church without publick opposition to them from any considerable part of the said Church Besides for what concerns not the binding power of publick Tribunals but the discerning of every private Conscience I shall and do most readily submit even every word also in my Writings not only to your â—ensure but to that of all such learned men of whatsoever Nation or Religion as diligently and sincerely seek aâ—ter Truth And God forbid I should be otherwise disposed or that I who believe and maintain the Pope himself not to be Infallible not even in His definitions of Faith if made by Him without the concurrence either of the Catholick Church diffusive or of its lawful Representative a General Council truly such wherein He is but the First or Chief Bishop onely should think my self not Fallible or not subject to Errour Yet I hope and am sufficiently assured that in any material point either of Doctrine or Practice relating to the publick Controversie in hand I have not hitherto fallen into Errour After all this submission it must not seem strange if I except as I do plainly in this Cause both against the Authoritative and Discretive Judgment of all the Roman Ministers Cardinals Consistories Congregations Courtiers and all their Clients whatsoever And yet it is not their Fallibility but their Partiality their extreme blindness or wilfulness or both in their own Cause and for maintaining their own worldly Interest and consequently it is their actual Errour yea and actual prejudgment too of the Cause without so much as giving any reason nay without so much as hearing once the Parties concern'd
Propositions against the Jansenists and by occasion thereof against Mr. White alias Blacklow a learned Priest of the Roman communion though much for most of his books censured at Rome And he that printed at London that excellent Latin Panegyrick of Cromwel in verse I remember well though much unbecomming for the subject a Catholick Divine however it might sute a Heathen Poet Oratour as being in the praise of such a Tyrant Usurper And he that being netled by Mr. Blacklows replyes partly to be revenged on this Gentleman or out of zeal perhaps and partly to trye the fortune of his old age and expect some reward for his earnest endeavours to stifle Iansenisme in England whether for any other end I know not went to Rome immediately after his said writings and stayed there since It was this good Father as a veterane Souldier an able Divine and penman and a forraigner too that had no dependance on England they pitched on at Rome to write and print against that Remonstrance and against the sense thereof expounded by the Procuratour in his little English book wherein he gave the best account thereof he could and the exceptions made first against it required To which purpose they got the Irish Franciscans of St. Isidore their Colledge in the City to translate that little book of the Procuratours hopeing also they might find therein some passages or propositions censurable by His Holiness or Inquisition or by the Congregation de propaganda fide and thereby also find more cause and more matter to write against both the Remonstrance and chief defenders of it such as they accounted the Procuratour and Father Caron But their labour in that particular of translating of that book was lost For when they had done all their worst and brought their translation to the Colledg of Cardinals de propaganda nothing therein was esteemed censurable at least otherwise then the bare Propositions of the Remonstrance in it self And therefore it lyes and will in all likely-hood for ever lye amongst by layed sheets in that Colledg without any danger of condemnation or prohibition as even the Catholick Primate of Ardmagh then at Rome and in all probability concurring with the rest of his Countrymen against the Remonstrance and Subscribers writâ— to my self as soon as he was returned to Paris in 65. as also he together writt that His Holiness did not would not censure at all or meddle with or concern himself in that Remonstrance pro nec con otherwise then by his displeasure only against those Churchmen that were the first Authors or chief promoters of it And indeed we have no reason yet to complain of His Holiness in this matter albeit very much of the proceedings of his Eminency Cardinal Francis Barlerin and of the two Internuncius's of Bruxels But however this be or be not el Padre Macedo lost all his labours How farre he proceeded in it I do not know but sure I am whatever it was he writt on this subject it never came to light Whether because upon after thoughts they found he could saye nothing to purpose and whatever he would saye would certainly and fully be answered and judg'd safer to proceed rather by authority then reason against that Instrument and those Subscribers and by discountenancing and keeping them from all hopes of preferment or title in that Court until they retracted or whether for any other more pious and godly consideration of the Popes Holiness I cannot say for certain But am notwithstanding certain that to this day as neither Macedo nor Brodin so none els had the confidence either at home in Ireland or abroad in other Countries to publish as much as one sheet or leaf or line on that subject against the Remonstrance in print or otherwise that came to my knowledg besides those written letters only of Cardinal Barberin De Vecchijs and Rospigliosi part of which I have before given and shall the rest hereafter in their due place and besides the Censure of Lovain XIII The second particular of those two I desired the Reader to take notice of here as an appendix of those answers is That the Procurator alwayes and to all and every though so many dissenting opposing or delaying parties and factions of the Clergy against subscription in the perclose of his particular answers appropriated to their several objections inculcated seriously and vehemently insisted on this general argument against them That whereas they all generally confessed the catholickness and lawfulness of that form or of the acknowledgments declarations protestations promises engagements and petition of that Remonstrance and consequently the lawfulness of a subscription to it and withal saw clearly not only the expediency but necessity also of their concurrence and being it was evident enough they were bound under the greatest and strictest obligation of conscience and even of eternal damnation and they above other Christians by their special function to concur to all just conscientious or lawful means or such as were not sinful and were also the circumstances of place time and persons considered both expedient and necessary as well to hinder the propagation and labour the extirpation of erroneous false sinful and scandalous doctrine amongst the people whom they instructed as to wash off their holy Faith and Church such scandals already aspersed upon it through the carriage or miscarriage of some rendring it foul and odious and horrible and therefore estranging Sectaries of all sorts from all thoughts of returning or reuniting to it at any time but rather fixing them in heresie and schisme with loss of their eternal salvation even of such infinite myriads of souls for whose reduction to the Church and means of salvation they were specially commission'd by their calling and enjoyn'd to preach and teach Evangelical truths without addition or substraction of or countenance to any other novel doubtful or controverted opinions much less of those are certainly false and scandadalous and even against the common peace not of Catholicks or Christians alone but also of Infidels even of all societies of men on earth it must follow evidently out of these premises they must confess themselves to live in a very sinful state and extreamly dangerous hazzard of Gods most severe and most terrible judgments against them on the day of account if they delayed any longer their duty to God and to the King and to their own Church Religion People and to those too that abhorred their Church and Faith upon account chiefly of such their carriage or of their not disowning as they might and ought such pernicious doctrines and practises the antecedents concomitants and subsequents whereof render the Professors of the Catholick Faith and Church so abominable to all apostatized from or otherwise born and bred out of it For it is clear that under such penalties all Priests of God and Preachers of the Gospel of Christ by special function are obliged by all just means to endeavour the best they can to render
multis aliis reclamabant dicentes ad Papam non pertinere Imperatorem instituero vel destituere Out of all which I think I may conclude that the Objectors themselves will if they lay aside prejudice and passion and compare all I have answered here to their objection of the opinion of two General Councils that of Lateran and that of Lyons will I say confess this allegation of theirs not only vain but absolutely false XXXI Thirdly they will find their allegations false where they say That General Councils are undervalued by some that believe only the diffusive Church is infallible I say they will particularly find this transient animadversion of theirs to be very false if they mean here the Procurator as they do undoubtedly but withal either stupidly or maliciously grounding themselves on what he hath in The Mare Ample Account pag. 60. Where indeed there is no ground at all for this calumny nor any man but a meer blockhead will say there is whatever may be said upon serious consideration of the controversie in it self about the fallibility or infallibility of General Councils debated throughly of purpose For his discourse there is no other then this That in case of such a metaphisical or morally impossible contingency as was caprichiously proposed to him by Father Bonaventure Brudin a little before one of those Franciscan Professors of Divinity at Prague in Bohemia and insisted on mightily and by way of interrogation What would the Subscribers do or think of their Remonstrance if a general Representative of the Church or a General Council truly such did hereafter condemn it His discourse I say upon this occasion as in answer to this wilde interrogatory was That in such case should it happen which yet the Procurator seemed clearly there to hold it was impossible it should happen the Subscribers would either have recourse to the diffusive Church or which is very probable suffer themselves to be mislead it being very possible said he that out of one impossibility another should follow as Logitians tell us it is certain Where it is evident he is so farr from undervaluing General Councils That according to at least some very learned Catholick Divines he rather overvalues them in seeming here to hold it absolutely impossible they should erre against any doctrine of Faith once delivered plainly in Scripture and by Tradition For that he seems to say so here if he say any thing at all of the question of either side or of the fallibility or infallibility of General Councils is most clear and manifest by or in that reason he giveth for his said disjunctive answer and for either the first or second or both parts of it it being very possible that out of one impossibility another should follow c. Where any rational man will confess he holds it impossible That a General Council truly such should define the contrary And why so but because he supposed two things 1. That the doctrine of the Remonstrance was and is a doctrine of Catholick Faith clearly delivered as such by Scripture and by Tradition 2. That it was and is impossible That a General Council truly such should define against any such doctrine or any doctrine so delivered And is not this as much as in plain terms to hold absolutely That a General Council truly such is infallible in all definitions of Faith or at least so infallible as never to define against Faith and consequently rather to overvalue than undervalue the authority of General Councils if I say we regard what some other eminent Catholick Writers teach or what in particular may be read in Franciscus à Sancta Clara's learned work of Councils that I mean which he calls Systema And any rational man will further confess That that disjunctive resolution of the Subscribers and only for such a case expressed so by the Procurator was purely conditional and the condition such too as for any thing known there of the Procurators judgment was and is absolutely impossible considering the special providence of God his promises to the Church but possible only in the fond imagination of the Proposer or of such a case which wil never be nor can ever be according to all that may be gathered out of that book or passage of the Procurators opinion For what else can his reason signifie which he gives for that disjunctive conditional answer or what these words it being very possible that out of one impossibility another should follow as Logicians tell us it is certain Which is that one impossibility that must be here the antecedent which is it I say if not this That a General Council should define the doctrine of the Remonstrance to be false and which is the other impossibility that must be the consequent if not the recourse of the Subscribers to the diffusive Church or suffering themselves to be mislead c Now therefore it is clear first that he holds both that Antecedent and this Consequent to be impossibilities for so he sayes expresly they are And next it is no less clear that he holds the Antecedent absolutely impossible upon this ground only that he also holds the doctrine of the Remonstrance to be delivered plainly by Scripture and by Tradition and withal holds it an absolute moral impossibility that a general Council truly such should define any thing against plain Scripture or Tradition For otherwise how could he call that imaginary supposition or case an impossibility or as he speaks there one impossibility There is no man of reason would say deliberatly it were impossible that a General Council should define against any controverted doctrine unless he held as well and as firmly that a General Council might not erre as he holds well and firmly either part of that controverted doctrine it self Which is so plain that it needs no further illustration being there is no other ground imaginable for maintaining or asserting an impossibility of a General Councils defining so No other ground therefore is given here by the Procurator for being taxed with undervaluing the authority of General Councils but only this conditional proposition which he confesses implied virtually in his discourse If a General Council shall define the contrary doctrine to be true such General Council will erre But that this conditional proposition which yet was forced from him by that chimaerical Interrogation doth not amount unto an assertion of any real true moral possibility of a General Councils erring himself hath further demonstrated by several unanswerable arguments in the prosecution of his said discourse or answer pag. 62. as by that of St. Paul to the Galathians chap. 1. ver 8. Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed And by that of our Saviour Christ himself to the mis-believing Jews Ioh. 8.55 If I shall say that I do not know him meaning his Father I shall be like unto you a lyar 'T
christian Doctors at all in this point as neither in any other that relates to either of their Censures their first and long and their last and short one of our Remonstrance For I am sure there is no Divine no knowing christian no man of reason in the world that knows what christian Religion is will say there can be other convincing proof of a Theological assertion or censure either in the affirmative or negative but one of those I offer them to prove theirs by And yet I know there may be vitious customs in the Church though not therefore imputable to the Church as approving but only at most to the Superiors or some or the chief of those Superiors as not correcting them And confess too there may be amongst either the old or late canons of those which are commonly stiled amongst us the Canons of the Church some concerning discipline only which conclude no man not even any Roman Catholick necessarily so as to render it uncatholick or unlawful in point of conscience for him to swerve from them either in a good opinion of them or moral practice by them in all cases times or Countries On which Subject and to which purpose Canus the Dominican learned Bishop of the Canaries one of the Trent Fathers may be consulted with in his work de Locis Theologicis But the rejection in so many Catholick Diocesses and countries of those very Canons of Discipline in our most famous Tridentine Council though generally amongst all of the Roman Communion held for Oecumenical besides many others of like nature and several other Councils too even uncontrovertedly general of elder standing may be more seriously considered All which notwithstanding or notwithstanding that what I have now observed of such customs or canons be a consideration of great importance yet I wave it freely as to my present dispute with the Divines of Lovaine about the seal of confession or the Confessors obligation to reveal both the treason and person in our case of such damnable confession or consultation in the confessional seat and when the evil cannot be otherwise prevented LVIII But to the end the Readers may see if they please I am not more single or singular in this very case of revealing so the very person of such a Confitent when of absolute necessity for preventing of such evil than I was in that other of revealing the evil only or treason it self to prevent it the very self same Catholick and Classick Authors especially Sylvester verb. Confessio 3. Quaesito quarto et quinto quoted by me above in my fift consideration will sufficiently prove being themselves of the same opinion and upon the self same grounds maintaining it that is not only the lawfulness of such revelation but an obligation too on the confessor to discharge himself so when he may without danger to himself For although Sylvester does not in those places querie or even resolve in express tearms about revealing the very person of such a Confitent yet it is as clear as the Sun he both means and reaches it both in his Queries and Resolves First because in his first Querie of that Chapter or title where he demands quid cadat sub sigillo Confessionis he resolving that those sins only fall under that seal which directly fall under Sacramental confession and all things els which indirectly or out of which any third person might come to knowledge of any such sin not simply in it self but relatively to the person that confess'd it ex quibus deveniri potest in notitiam peccati non simpliciter sed relative ad personam quae illud confessa est resolves consequently as well in that very place or in answer to that first Querie as in an other place after or amongst his answers to the 4th Querie and resolves too with all truth and Divinity and with Scotus and the common Doctrine of Divines against Panâ—rmitan That no sins confess'd fall under that seal as simply sins or simply confess'd but only as having relation to this or that person Secondly because that after having layd this ground in that first Querie he demands in his fourth Vtrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessionem revelare contra dictum sigillum propter aliquod damnum aut peccatum vel periculum vitandum whether it be lawfull for the Priest in any case to reveal confession against the said seal for prevention of any hurt sin or danger And in his fifth Quibus casibus andita in confessione dici aut manifestari possint sine fractione dicti sigilli In what cases the Confessor may without breach of that seal reveal what he knew in confession And thirdly because his resolves to the said fourth and fift Queries and his Instances and the reasons he gives for such resolves and instances evict plainly this truth For having first answered negatively that fourth Querie according to the common doctrine of St. Thomas and others he restraines and limits immediately after that general resolution by a specifical exception of such cases wherein there is not a true sacramental confession but a meer fiction of such for other evil ends as those for example of engageing the Confessor himself or of getting his advice or other help to execute a sinful design And gives for a reason that such a fained Penitent or Confitent opens not such matters to the Priest as to the Minister of God nor as in sacramental confession As the Reader may see here in his own words and language Quarto utrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessionem revelare contra dictum sigillum propter aliquod damnum aut peceatum vel periculum vit andum Et dico secundum S. T. et Pe. et communem omnium quod non Quod limita secundum Rai et gl in tit de paen et re quando quis vere confitetur Secus quando ficté ad impetrandum a confessore auxilium vel â—â—nsilium super aliquo peccato Hoc enim non est confessio etiam si dicatur hoc tibi dico in confessione sed confessionis destructio Et consentit Innoc. in dicto capite omnis dicens non esse verum quod tales dicant in paenitentia vel Dei Ministro cum animae consilium non requirant And having answer'd the fift Querie affirmatively or that in many cases the sin heard in confession may be revealed by the Confessor without any breach of that Seal he instances in the third place or case one that tells in Confession he hath still a real fixed purpose to commit some evil as for example to murder some body and in this third case resolves with Innocentius and Panormitan 1. That such confession is no confession at all belonging to the penitential or sacramental Court nor the Confessor bound to conceal it as being not of a sin already committed but hereafter to be committed and consequently of a sin by no means told in the sacrament or under the Seal of
be not mistaken in his rules of concluding And the minor is as manifest as the text of Silvester which I have before given is It remaineth only therefore that for a greater illustration yet of the major albeit there be no need I form this other syllogisme Whoever teacheth all this or all that above doctrine which I have given in the Latin text it cannot be rationally denyed to be as clear as the Sun that he meaneth and reacheth the lawfulness for and obligation also on the Confessor in our case to reveal all that is on evident grounds conceived by him to be necessary for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom For that doctrine supposes upon one side all the general laws of God and Nature of Charity Piety and Justice both exhorting and commanding the Confessor to prevent by all just and lawful means the execution of so evil a design and on the other side supposes also that there is no particular law of God or Nature or Man or Church against the revealing of all whatever the Confessor knows by such a confession and is conceived by him to be necessary for prevention For the only such particular law can be pretended by any is that of a seal of confession And the above doctrine expresly teacheth there is no seal at all of confession nor can be in the case or in such a confession as it expresly teacheth that when or where this seal is as it is alwayes in a true sacramental confession it is a seal wholly and only as to the person of the Confitent not as to his sin or other appendage Whereby it is further plain and evident that the above doctrine or argument derived from it cannot be eluded by saying it denies a seal as to the sin but not as to the person being it acknowledges no seal but as to the person and denies expresly all kind of seal in our case or confession But whoever meaneth and reacheth the lawfulness for and obligation too on the Confessor in our case to reveal all that is on evident grounds conceived by him to be necessary for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom meaneth also and reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of such a Confitent because that for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom to reveal even the individual person of such a Confitent and without his own consent is in our case upon evident grounds conceived to be necessary Ergo whoever teacheth expresly the above doctrine it cannot be rationally denied to be as clear as the Sun that he meaneth reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of the Confitent and I mean still without nay against his consent when the danger to a third person much more to a Kingdom Commonwealth or even any lesser community is great and not otherwise to be prevented and that he may reveal him without danger to himself Out of all which if it be not clear that I have Sylvester on my side and by consequence Abbas Innocentius and so many other both ancient and modern Catholick and Classick Schoolmen who teach the same Doctrine with Silvester I must confess I see not what is clear Which is the reason I dare conclude that if the Doctors of Lovaine will oppose me in the Doctrine of this sixt consideration they will raise too great a storm against themselves And I have at least no less reason to think it will be so with them too if they write against the Doctrine of any of the other five precedent Yet I would have them or all that stickle for them in this Country where the language of this book of mine is understood for if God lend me life and health I mean to speak in good season yet to the Lovaine Divines in their own language or that of their Censure I say I would have them all to understand that I have not laboured so much as I have now here to prove my Doctrine out of Silvesteâ— or any other as if I were perswaded that I could not or dared not warrant any doctrine unless I could shew it extracted from or conformable to that of other Schoolmen that writ before me on the same subject As I am farr enough from such perswasion or such fear in matters wherein I may ground my self on plain Scriptures certain Tradition or evidence of natural Reason and see no plain Scripture or Tradition or undoubted and received true Canon of the Catholick Church to gain-say that evidence although I saw at the same time ten thousand Canonists and Summists or other Casuists and even ten thousand too of the very best School-divines against me so I assure the Reader my only design by so long a discourse of Silvester was no other but to confound the more those Lovaine Divines by the very Authors who are so familiar with and approved of in their own Schools For otherwise I know well enough it is the Doctrine of the very Schools that no man is bound to swear to their doctrine jurare in verba Magâ—stri upon this ground only of its being theirs I know very well too that the more common doctrine or absolutely and simply the common doctrine of the Schools is not alwayes the more true or even simply true That some doctrines have been common amongst them three hundred years since which now are so farr from being common as not to be scarce of any one man That some also now common have been some two or three ages past the doctrine of one single man And what is now of a single School-man against the torrent of the other side may after some few years more prove it self a torrent of all sides In fine that the doctrine of the Schools as such and the doctrine of the Church as the Church are 〈◊〉 least oâ—â—en 〈◊〉 wide one from another as Heaven and Earth LIX Bu◠〈◊〉 pâ—â—â—venture some may yet object the passion of Father 〈…〉 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—gation at or before his passion or death when he 〈◊〉 examined concerning the Gun powder-treason his opinion consequently against the doctrine of revealing in such a case the person of the Confitent although I have to this objection said enough already yet because what I â—aid so was only per transennam or transiently I thought fit to repeat here again that and further add what I conceive necessary to remove this only remaining but pitiful presence of a meer made scruple 1. That his passion or death suffered by him was not to bear testimony to the contrary doctrine but for having been found guilty himself by the law at least as a concealer of that wicked plot And that as it is most certain there was never
delegating others or sitting himself alone or with others in judgment on this cause of Cecilian a Bishop the other excuse of Baronius tom 3. an 316. n. 58. is no less vain and frivolous then his former pretences For now he sayes that Constantine yielded to or admitted of such unlawful unjust appeals to the end the schismatick Donatists being so in all tribunals overcome should at last desist from that cause and be ever after quiet and the Affrican Church so then divided by schisme might be sometime again united in peace and concord and because he thought Affrick could otherwise hardly be continued under the Roman Empire being so powerful a faction as that of the Donatists did shake the Affricans already as to their allegiance ut sic victi sayes he speaking of these schismaticks à causa desisterent penitusque conquiescerent Ecclesia Affricana schismate scissa pace atque concordia uniretur quodque existimaret haud facile posse sub Romano Imperio contineri Affricam tam potenti factione labantem To which excuse I suppose first in general that evil is not to be done for any end how good soever And yet even in such a case of Affrick the procedure of Constantine must have been evil because against both the natural positive law of God if the suppositions and positions too of Baronius and Bellarmine were true concerning the Immunity of Ecclesiasticks even also in criminal causes from all kind of lay or civil Judicatories Next I suppose in particular that the politick rules of some worldly Princes for governing or containing their people in obedience cannot excuse a pious Prince if the true liberties of the Church be hurt by the practice of such And I say moreover it is very strange that Baronius a Priest and a Cardinal Priest should admit here of such politick reasons of Constantine or rather in and for Constantine against Ecclesiastical Immunity which yet himself maintains all along also here to have been usurped upon and unjustly hurt by such procedure of Constantine yea notwithstanding that pretence of danger in Affrick In his fifth Tome an 400. n. 41. he himself praises and perhaps justly too praises the vigour and piety of St. Iohn Chrysostome in dissuading the Emperour Arcadius from granting to to Gainas the Arian Rebel that only one Church which he desired for the people of his Sect within Constantinople Theodoret. l. 5. c. 32. albeit the Emperour was otherwise and vehemently too inclined as considering the power of Gainas and suspecting he aimed at the Empire and therefore praying Chrysostome's consent for giving him that one Church to try if that would lessen the rage of Gainas for he was already in the head of an army But all was in vain for Chrysostome would not be moved But whether this was in the case rather too much rigour then true vigour in Chrysostome according to prudential maximes and pious too I leave others to judge I am sure other good Churchmen and even great Bishops have also in our own age and some former too consented to the giving awaye from Catholicks to Protestants and to the use of Protestant Ministers and their divine services not one Church only but some hundreds if not thousands of Churches in Germany France Flanders c. and this also for ever and even by publick articles of pacification And I am sure also if this were not lawfull and I mean in point of conscience or of Gods law I see not how Caholicks living under the dominion of Protestant Princes or States now at present in Europe may with any colourable argument of reason urge the restoring or bestowing on themselves some or any of the Churches which are at present and have been so long in the possession and made use of by protestant Ministers and Bishops For these Princes States Ministers Bishops and their protestant people must at least for the generality of them be supposed to hold the Roman Religion and rites to be prophanations of those Churches as Chrysostome held of the Arrian Religion and Rites so that until they be convinced that the present Roman Religion and rites are the true ancient and true rites of the true Christian Apostolick Church or that their own Religion or Rites are false no man will be able to perswade that is to convince them by reason it may be safe in point of conscience for them to permit freely in their own dominions where they can otherwise avoid it the use of any Churches to Roman Catholicks if I say Chrysostome justly and prudently speaking not according only to his opinion but according to the verity of things in themselves denied his own consent to the Emperour Arcadius for giving that one Church in Constantinople to the Arrians at that time or in that conjuncture and denied it justly and prudently I mean still upon that only account of being against conscience or against the law of God Other politick and wise considerations he might have had indeed as I beleeve he had and as I beleeve also whether he had or not he advised that herein which he thought most pious but such concern us not here As no more doth this whole Instance it self nor any part of it but only to argue ad hominem out of Baronius himself against himself and to shew that if Chrysostome be praise worthy for choosing rather to let the whole Empire nay the whole Catholick Church too run the risco of being over-run by an Arrian rebel Tyrant then consent to or permit the delivering up to the Arrians for their divine service one material Church or Temple or House only however consecrated yet composed of lime and stone or brick inanimate things Constantine is not excusable by him and by his pretence here if he transgressed Ecclesiastical Immunity in usurping on and profaning the sacred persons of Bishops who are the principal parts of the very living Church albeit a portion of the Empire were in hazard if he had not done so To pass by therefore this excuse of Baronius or to say no more of it Constantine is far better defended by saying what the truth is and was that he wanted no excuse at all being he did nothing in this whole procedure or any other of judging Churchmen in criminal causes and such dangerous variance but what became and was the duty of a pious Prince who carries the sword and ministers vindicative justice For by actual and effectual Instances to appease the tumults of the very Sacerdotal Order and to assume the protection of the Faith peace and tranquillity of the Church and to force also when necessary the Churchmen themselves to live in peace among themselves and with others is part of this princely royal and imperial duty I say nothing here of Iohn the Meletian Bishop or of those many other Egyptian Bishops commanded and actually sent by Constantine to exile of whom Baronius tom 3. an 336. n. 16 17. But forasmuch as Baronius sayes ibid n.
Ex his omnibus datur intelligi his own conclusion is in general tearms only importing that a Clerk is not either in a civil or criminal cause to be convented in publick that is in lay or secular Judicatories Quod Clericus sayes he ad publica judicia nec in civili nec in criminali causa est producendus not descending to the particular or specifical case of the regal power and regal cognizance intervening by special commission or special warrant or in a special emergency nor descending also to or considering the special case of times or Countryes when or where no such canon of the Church or Pope no such priviledge imperial at least in that latitude is in use or perhaps hath ever yet been received or if once received hath been again repealed Therefore Gratian may be rationally expounded to mean by his judicia publica in this Paragraph those ordinary Judicatories only which are of inferiour lay Judges and those too but only where such Canons are received or such priviledges allowed by the supream civil powers and laws But if any must needs press further yet or in any other sense the conclusion of Gratianus then I must say three things The first is that as I have proved already elsewhere in this work if a Clerk sue a Layman for any temporal matter or in a meer civil cause that is not criminal he must sue him in a lay Court and before a lay Judge and this lay Judge albeit only a subordinate inferiour and ordinary Judge shall give a binding sentence against this Clerk if the law be in the case for the Layman So that neither is it generally true not even by the very Canons I mean that Clerks in all civil causes are totally exempt from the jurisdiction of as much as the very inferiour lay Judges For the very Canons not to speak of the civil laws now in force throughout the world have ordered so Quod Actor sequatur forum Rei let the Actor be ever so much a Clerk or Ecclesiastick The second is that generally for criminal causes of Clerks Gratianus hath not produced as much as any one either imperial constitution or even any one Church Canon sufficiently either in particular or in general revoking or anulling or sufficiently declaring that revocation of the 74. Constitution of Iustinianus whereby this Emperour appoints and impowers the lay Judges for those within Constantinople and for those abroad in the Provinces the lay Pretors in the same Provinces to iudge the criminal causes of Clerks nay nor hath at all as much as attempted to answer or gain-say it albeit this very 74. Constitution was the very last chapter saving one which himself produced immediatly as a canon before the foresaid last paragraph Ex â—is omnibus Thirdly that for those Church Canons or those more likely authorities or passages true or false of some Popes or some Councils alledged by Gratianus in that his eleventh cause and first question or those in him which may seem most of any he hath to ground another sense then that I have said to be his sense I have before sufficiently nay and abundantly too cleared and answered them at large in my LXIX Section of in my answer to Bellarmine's aâ—legations of the Canons for himself and for the exemption of criminal Clerks from the supream royal coercive power of Kings where I have also noted some of Gratian's either voluntary or unvoluntary corruptions of the Canons Fourthly and consequently that whether Gratian was or was not of a contrary opinion it matters not a pin It is not his opinion and let us suppose he had truly and sincerely declared his own inward opinion for I am sure many as good and as great and far greater then he dared not declare their own when he writ his Decretum or declare any at all but in the language of the Papal Court It it is not I say his opinion but his reason we must value for sin he did not himself nor any for him does pretend to infallibility And I am sure he neither brings nor as much as pretends to bring any Scripture at all or any Tradition of the Fathers or even as much as any argument of natural reason for the warranty of any other sense And I am certain also that my judicious and impartial Readers will themselves clearly see and confess that he brings not for himself or for such a sense as much as any one Canon true or false to confront these I have alledg'd for my self and for that sense I intend all along or any one Canon true or false that denyes that which I have given for the coercive power of secular Princes to have been and to be the sense of Paul the Apostle Rom 13. or to have been and be the general and unanimous sense of the holy Fathers in their commentaries and expositions of it or finally any one Canon true or false that particularly and either formally or virtually descends to the specifical debate 'twixt the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius or their followers the present Divines of Lovaine and me concerning the supream royal and external Jurisdiction of Kings to punish criminal Clerks by their own immediate authority royal and by virtue of their own royal commissions and delegations extraordinary in all cases and contingencies wherein the preservation of the publick peace and safety of either Church or State require it and by their mediat authority also in their inferiour Judges and by vertue of their ordinary commissions or delegations to such Judges or of the ordinary power which the civil laws of the land give to these Judges in all cases I mean wherein the same civil laws or the makers of such laws have not received or admitted of the more or less ancient constitutions of Roman Emperours or of the more or less ancient Canons of the great Pontiffs or of other Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Councils for what concerns the exemption of Clergie-men in criminal causes from the meer civil and ordinary Courts and lay inferiour or subordinate Judges and their subjection to Ecclesiastical Judges only and the Prince himself who must be without any peradventure and even in such causes too of Clerks above all Iudges in his own Kingdom whether lay or Ecclesiastical Judges For I have before sufficiently demonstrated that all Ecclesiastical Exemption in temporal matters or in all both civil and criminal causes is only from the supream civil Power as from the only proper and total efficient cause and I have also before demonstrated that no exemption to any persons or person whatsoever could be given by that Power from it self or at least for the matter of coercion and when the publick good required it unless at the same time it freed such persons or person from all kind of subjection to it self and I have likewise demonstrated before that such exemption from it self in any case at all whatsoever cannot be rationally supposed as given by
this definition of Iohn the XXII against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever For these two positions have no contradiction 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal and civil too if you please in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church 2. This coactive power humane corporal and civil too or not civil as you please is not altogether independent in it self but is subordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes That they are not contradictory or inconsistent we see by the example of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals For the inferiour tribunals notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively are subordinat to the superiour And so I have done at last with this long discourse occasion'd by the fourth objection or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church I have proved to be very false as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church Which Catholick doctrine or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently nay abundantly demonstrated by reason Scripture and Tradition Therefore now to The fift and last of all these objections which I call'd remaining for the reason before given that objection I mean built upon the contrary judgment or opinion as t is pretended of St. Thomas of Canterbury and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore and of his canonization also therefore and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious martyrized Saint therefore This objection I confess is very specious at first as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Divine or Canonists or both it appears to and works so T is onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death but what they read in their Breviary which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me though peradventure enough to solve any T is onely amongst those who do not consider duely nor indeed have the knowledg or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely what it amounts to in point of Christian Faith as to others or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto that any one Bishop how otherwise holy soever in his own life should have especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in general or of this or that Immunity in particular or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust I care not which made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities or those were onely pretended I care not also which T is onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion or of moe perhaps and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obedient humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently represented to them because they had other sufficient manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving though I do not averr any such prepossession here nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material T is onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposition to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen and on his exile death miracles canonization invocation appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes who are supream themselves to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoever living within their dominions Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance as you have that Censure of theirs page 120. of this first Part be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines I leave to the Reader 's own better consideration when reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it he observes moreover particularly the day of the date of it so signally express'd by them in these tearms Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die â—9 Decembris gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis Angliae quondam Primatis mortyrio consecratae Anno Dominae Incarnationis 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canterbury as most proper for such a censure I know not certainly but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy glory martyrdom and how that 29. day of December of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal signal date of theirs made me ever since now and then reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground Though to confess all the truth I never met any that fram'd it methodically or put it into any due or undue form of argument for them or of objection against me but onely in general objected that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second Which is the reason and that I may leave nothing which may seem to any to be material unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self I put all which my adversaries would be at in this concern of St. Thomas of
the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury and by the Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along till Henry the Second himself 's own raigne and until after this controversie happen'd criminal Clerks even guilty of murder were to be judg'd and punish'd only by the Court Ecclesiastical â—ay that not only by the same laws all Clergiemen 〈…〉 all crimes whatsoever to be judg'd only by the Bishops but that all the very 〈◊〉 of the Church were â—â—all causes whatsoever to be adjudg'd only in the Church of Ecclesiastical Tribunals nor should have recourse to those were by way of distinction commonly called the Kings Courts but only in default of justice done according to law in the Courts of the Church Which being in or as to both differences the law of England contrary to which iâ— both differences oâ— cases Henry the Second would have forced St. Thomas and no other law of God or Man commanding St. Thomas to submit to the King in either as the case stood not even that of St. Paul 13. to the Romans because St. Thomas had in both as in all his other differences the sublimer â—oâ—â—ers in the law of the land for himself who sees not that St. Thomas needed not for his own justification in either differences pretend either the positive law of God or the natural law of God or the law of Nations or the Imperial law or even any Church law or Papal law or Canon for the exemption of criminal Clergiemen from the secular Courts when he denyed to deliver up the two criminal Clerks or when he refused to sign or seal that second Head of Henry the Second's customes which second head was such as subjected all Clergie-men in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt spiritual and temporal to the cognizance of the Kings even ordinary lay Judges and Courts as you may see by turning to and reading over again in my fourth Observation that second Head of those 16 And who seeâ— not but he might at the same time without any contradiction inconsequence oâ— contrariety maintain that still it was true that abstracting from the laws of England then as yet 〈◊〉 because not legally repealed all Clerks in England were by the laws of â—eason and laws of God and doctrine of the Fathers and many Canons too of Popes and Councils subject in all temporal causes both civil and criminal to the lay civil Courts and Judges of Henry the Second Nay who sees not but for any thing alledg'd or known out of the Histories of either his life or death or martyrdome or canonization or miracles or invocation of him after as a glorious martyrized Saint and even martyrized only too if you please in meer defence of the Church liberties and immunities who sees not I say but that notwithstanding any thing hitherto so alledg'd out of all or any of those Histories he not only might be but was rigidly and constantly of this judgement and opinion especially being these Histories tell us in one instance that when he was so much pressed to sign to those 16. Heads as the royal customes of Henry the First he doubted they were no such customes of Henry the First or were no customes at all and therefore chiefly and only fell off after swearing them and would not sign or seal them at all as was desired and expected from him albeit his Cross-bearer's check did forward his repentance for having sworn Sed cum descriptas consuetudines sayes Parker himself in the life of our Saint perlegisset Thomas for when he swore to observe them he did not see them in writing nor were they digested at all into heads and therefore he only swore in general to observe those customes which Henry the Second called â—nitas consâ—â— tudines his Grandfathers customes and royal customes â—ulâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 an ill â—um quaedam inter consuetudines essent habendae itâ—â— diem deliâ—â—◠〈…〉 sigillum chirographum adhiberet petiit and whereas also he could not be ignorant of the laws both Imperial which he had studied and of the laws of England where he lived and judged so long as Chancellor Or who sees not briefly that that there is no contradiction that a most rigid 〈◊〉 Bishop should dye for the rights of the Clergie and be therefore a Marâ—â—◠〈◊〉 yet acknowledge all those rights or at least many or some of them 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ch he dyed as for example that of exemption came to the Clergie from the meer civil or municipal and politick just laws of the land and only from such laws of the land and not by any means immediatly from any other law divine or humane of nature or Nations or of the Church Pope or Emperour if not in so much only as the laws of God and nature approve all just laws of every land 〈◊〉 they be repealed by an equal authority no that which made them Finally who sees not also that notwithstanding all this or notwithstanding the municipal laws of England were for St. Thomas in every particular of his said manifold opposition to his King or that by the same laws the English Clergie had such exemptions from secular Courts yet St. Thomas might have been of this opinion also and perswasion at the same time and was so too most rigidly and constantly for ought appears to the contrary out of the Acts of his life or other Historians that as by no other laws of God or man or reason so neither by those very laws of England either himself or any other Clergieman was exempt from the supream civil coercive power or even could be exempt during their being subjects or their acknowledging to be so or their living in the quality of subjects 1. Because the very name and nature of subjection draws along with it and either essentially or at least necessary implyes this which is to be subject to the supream coercive power at least in some cases and some contingencies 2. Because that if both himself and all other Ecclesiastical Judges and Bishops taking the Pope himself too in the number did fail in their duty of punishing Clerks notoriously scandalously and dangerously criminal or that if the criminal Clerks themselves would not according to the law of the land submit to the sentence and punishment prescribed into them by the Bishops or if even also the Bishops themselves were altogether guilty of the same crimes or patronizers of the criminals and would not amend or satisfie of themselves without any peradventure t is evident that the supream civil coercive power might and ought in such cases to proceed against them by plain force and corporal coâ—rcion cuia salus populi suâ—rema lex esto 3. Because the power whereby S. Thomas himself and all other Bishops and Ecclesiastical Judges proceeded in a compulsory way to any civil or corporal coercion of criminal Clerks against the will of the same Clerks as to seizing their persons imprisoning them whiping them taking away their temporal goods confining them
but give my Reader this advertisement also That even with such questions both the infallibility of the Catholick Roman Church and the religious and rational piety also of that very Church in venerating and invoking him may subsist Because her infallibility regards other matters as I have said before and because her veneration and invocation of this or that Saint in particular whose sanctity on earth and glory in heaven is not revealed unto her otherwise or taught by clear Scripture or constant Tradition from the beginning doth and must of necessity alwayes imply as to such I mean who see no evident miracles or who are not throughly convinced of such this tacit condition That he or she whom they invoke be in glory and because also moral certainty from humane faith may ground a religious and pious practice as no certainty at all but meer probability of natural grounds may be sufficient to enact a binding law or sanction even also in order to piety and because moreover the prayers of the faithful to Saints whether they invoke them in recto or in obliquo regard principally and without any comparison but that of an infinit disproportion God himself and are terminated in him alone and so farre only regard the Saints as they are in his favour grace and glory and so far only as he is pleased we should either venerat or invoke them So that if in any kind of contingency it may happen that the Church be deceived in her opinion which in this matter depends of humane testimonies and humane knowledge apprehension or sense it cannot be therefore said that her practice is either impious or irreligious or indeed any way foolish Not impious or irreligious for the reasons hitherto given of the tacit condition and primary termination of the worship and prayer nor foolish being she hath grounds enough of and for a moral humane certainty or firm adhesion of such humane belief or perswasion to the material object of her understanding by reason of the formal object of her assent in such matters this formal object being in part the most credible testimonies of other men and in part also at least sometimes the evidence of sense And so I have done at last with all my answers to the fourth and grand and very last of all those I call'd remaining objections and have done also with all my observations and advertisements to the Reader concerning this matter of Thomas of Canterbury Only for a final perclose and for the greater satisfaction yet of the more curious Reader I will add here two appendixes The one is brief and concerning the height or amplitude whereunto the exemption of some persons and some crimes from the civil Judicatories in England grew For at last it came to be such that not only the criminal Clerks themselves however guilty of what crime you please but also the very most enormous lay criminals when their crimes had relation to or had been committed against a Clerk that is when they had impiously and execrably murdred any Clerk Priest or even Bishop or Archbishop were exempted from the secular power but understand you this conformably to my doctrine before were sent to Rome to receive such pennance as the Pope should be pleased to inflict and thereby were absolutely freed of all other punishment that is of any which the civil power and the civil or municipal laws did use or inflict for murder All which to have been so in England for some time is so true that not even any of those very most impious four murtherers of St. Thomas of Canterbury himself though a long time after remaining peaceably and publickly altogether in the village of Cnaresburc in the West of England and at the house of Hugh de Mâ—roville who was himself one of the four murtherers and Lord of that Town or Village of Cnaresburc was at all enquired after by the lay Judges nor as much as touch'd or proceeded against in any wise by them but suffer'd to depart peaceably to Rome when themselves saw that all men and women shun'd their company and that none would either speak or eat with them nor even the very dogs taste of their relicks or fragments whence they were sent by Pope Alexander to do pennance at Jerusalem where finally living a penitential life by his command in Manic nigro they dyed and were buried without the gate of the Temple with this inscription Hic iacent miseri qui martyrizaverunt Beatum Thomam Archiepiscopum Cantuaâ—iensem And yet is so true that immediatly or at least very soon after the dayes or death of St. Thomas of Canterbury Richard Archbishop also of Canterbury either he that was the Saints immediat Successor or he at least who was the Sixt after him in that See for both were Richards and this last was called Richardus Magnus and sate as I take it in the dayes of Henry the Third and I have not leasure now to see which of them it was nor is it material much to set down here which complain'd of the abuse and complain'd thus most grievously of it as you may read in Petrus Blesensis and in his seventy third Epistle to the Bishops of England Clerici vel Episcopi occisores Romam mittuntur sayes he euntesque in deliciis cum plenitudine Apostolicae gratiae majore delinquendi audacia revertuntur Taltum vindictam excessuum Dominus Rex sibi vindicat sed nos eam nobis damnabiliter reservamus atque liberam praebentes impunitatis materiam in sauces nostras Laicorum gladios provocamus Ignominiosum est quod pro capra vel ovicula gravior pro sacerdote occiso paeâ—a remissior irrogatur Where also you see this good Archbishop acknowledging in formal words not only a double inconvenience arising from such exemptions and reservations but in effect also and expresly enough acknowledging that the King did upon one side justly challenge to his own say Courts the punishment of such criminals and that on the other side the Bishops did as damnably that is unjustly reserve them to their own ecclesiastical cognizance only The other appendix is a redection upon their impiety and inhumanity who wel-nigh four hundred years after the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury and in the general sack of all the Churches and holy places in England but more especially of those which were more eminent and rich and yet more particularly of the three excellently glorious monuments the first of Alban the Protomartyr of Great Brittain under Dioclesion the Emperour the second of St. Edmond that Christian Saxon King and martyr too as who was killed by the Pagans in odium fidei and the third of St. Thomas of Canterbury perswaded Henry the eight to have a process formed against him I mean Thomas of Canterbury in a Court of Justice and perswaded this King accordingly and effectually though otherwise ridiculously enough to have him declared guilty of high Treason and yet perswaded this King to have an
was not so neerly concerned he could not but retain still kindness enough for Henry albeit the King of France as nearer him and of greater use could not but sometime cross that very kindness 8. But the former Cardinal-Legats come the first time from Rome to compose the difference 'twixt Henry and Thomas where they had a conference with him betwixt Gisortium and Trie amongst other things objected to him in the behalf of Henry and after they had been with Henry that he had perswaded the King of France to war upon him Adjecerunt etiam querelas sayes Hoveden ad an 1169. injurias quibus Rex Angliae se ab ipso lasum esse conquestus est imponens ei etiam inter caetera quod ei excitaverat guerram Regis Francorum But in these words you see Hoveden sayes that this was an imposture or that Henry imposed on Thomas in this particular And immediately after the same Author tells that Thomas refuted this and all other objections by true and probable reasons Cantuariensis autem sayes he in omni humilitate mansuetudine spiritus post gratiarum actionem Domino Papae illis debitam respondit ad singula rationibus veris probabilibus querelas Regis evacuans injurias Ecclesiae damna intollerabilia patenter exponens You will say that however this be of such actual treason or treason in fact against his Prince by setting on the King of France it cannot be denyed that he held treasonable Principles that is such Principles as were suitable to such practise or such treason in fact because such as lessen the Majesty of the King and Kingdome if not wholly subject it to others forasmuch as his opinion and judgment was that Kings receive their power from the Church as himself declared in his own words to the King at Chinun Is there any man would think so but would also think at the same time that the Church might take away again or transfer the power of Kings But I say that as he cannot in act or fact be accused of treason so neither in habitude or aptitude or inclination or true meaning or natural sequele of that word saying opinion or judgement of his at Chinun may he be charged with any as much as speculative treasonable Principles however otherwise abstracting wholly not only from fact but even from intention or even also from being rendred any kind of way or framed into practical dictates 1. Because it is one thing to say that Christian Kings receive their power from the Church and another to say that after they have once received their power so the Church may either revoke it again wholly or any way lessen it As it is one thing to say that from the people as a civil society of men and not from them as a Church Kings especially in elective Kingdomes receive their power and an other that the people having once conferr'd it and so transferr'd the Majesty from themselves may revoke it againe either at their pleasure or in any case whatsoever without the King 's own consent And because the first or the assertion of receiving such power either from Church or people is no way treasonable either by the nature of such reception or such assertion in it self considered or by any positive law in any Country for ought we have heard not even in England nor certainly was treasonable in the days of Thomas of Canterbury However perhaps it be an errour against the truth of things in themselves to say that Kings in hereditary Kingdomes receive their politick royal power either from the Church or from the people or even in elective Kingdomes otherwise from either then as from bare instrumental or conditional causes or such as Philosophers call conditiones sine quibus non c. not at all from either as from the true proper efficient cause of the power For this efficient is according to the sounder doctrine in Christian Religion and in reason too God alone As even according to the Doctrine of Bellarmine God alone is the onely true proper immediate efficient of the Papal power albeit he had not been Pope if he had not first been elected by the Church or by their Representative now the Colledg of Cardinals or formerly by the Emperours or before that by the Roman Clergy or before that also by the Clergy and people of Rome both joynd together 2. Because that although we find this entire passage Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere non ipsam ab illis sed a Christo salva pace vestra loquor non haberetis Episcopis praecipere absolvere aliquem vel excommunicare trahere Clericos ad secularia examina judicare de decimis de Ecclesiis interdicere Episcepis ne tractent de transgressione fidei vel juramenti multa alia quae in hunc modum scripta sunt inter consuetudines vestras quas dicitis avitas I say that although we find this entire passage amongst those which are called in Hoveden Verba Beati Thoma Cant. Archiep. ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun nay although we did admit it as truly such and admit all the rest of that Speech in Hoveden as words spoke by St. Thomas himself whereof yet I have this ground to doubt that I find not in the whole series of the History of matter of Fact either in Hoveden himself or any other when or how or that at all St. Thomas ever met that King during his banishment but twice once in Paris and in presence of the King of France and another time in the fields abroad when they were at last reconciled by the mediation of the last Legates Where then was Chinun here or any such words However admitting those Words and that entire passage of or amongst those Words as really spoke by St. Thomas and at such a place and Councel I see nevertheless partly in some former passages of that very speech at Chinun and partly also and more fully perhaps in his long and second Letter which no man doubts to be his own true letter to Gilbert Bishop of London and see in both ground enough to answer and say that in this passage I have already given the Saint mean't not at all that from the Church Kings receive so their true civil or politick Royal power or their power of the material sword at least as to the essentials or even as to the necessary appendages of it in pure civil or temporal matters that without such reception as he mean't of it from the Church they had had none at all or that without such reception as he mean't neither their birth-right in hereditary Kingdomes nor election of the people in elective Kingdomes nor any other Title whatsoever in either could be sufficient to give them as man can give true civil and politick Royal Power or to give this I mean antecedently to their receiving what they use to
here I gave it not purposely for any such end unto which I know it both improper and forreign but gave it occasionally and only to shew the Reader that neither am I single in some other matters particularly or signally in that of the Oath of Supremacy wheresoever in this Work or elsewhere I reflect thereon mildly and interpret or expound it more benignly though withall more truly and groundedly than furious Zealots would But to strengthen S. Clara's Testimony and elucidate my own foresaid Answer in my fourth Reason the learned Reader may be pleased to consult Bruno Chaissaing a French Recollect of the same Franciscan Order Penitentiary to and under Gregory the XV and Vrban the VIII in the First or chief Church of Europe St. John Laterane at Rome and consult and read him in his Work intituled Privilegia Regularium printed at Paris with approbation Anno M.DC.LIII In which Work besides this Proposition Bruâ—o Chaissaing de Privil Reg. Tract 1. cap. 1. prop 9. 10. Possunt Reges Supremi Senatus licite retinere Bullas Apostolicas in casu vel magni scandali aut perturbationis aut praejudicii tertii aut aliorum similium which is his Tenth Proposition in order Tract 1. cap. 1. You may also find his former Ninth Proposition to be this other viz. Potest legitime appellari de abusu ad Principem Saecularem seu Senatum Supremum quotiescunque potestas Ecclesiastica pronunciat aut agit contra Canones Privilegia potestque Princeps Senatus Supremus appellationem suscipere appellantes a violenta suorum Praelatorum vexatione eripere And you may see him there purposely and at large by several Arguments proving this Ninth Proposition But you shall no where see him mincing or using any kind of nicety about the word or term Appeal nor quitting it for that other of Recourse but a fair and clear Assertion in express terms That it 's lawful for all sorts of Ecclesiasticks even the strictest Regulars to Appeal to the Secular and Supreme Lay-Power from the unjust or uncanonical Pressures of their own Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates and this also as often as the said Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates pronounce or do any thing contrary to the Canons of the Church or Priviledges of their Order And consequently you shall not in this Author Bruno Chassaing meet with Franciscus a Sancta Claras Nudam potestatem civilem but with Jurisdictionem proprie dictam in the Majesties or Persons of Kings and other Lay Supreme States over all Clergy men whatsoever living under them Otherwise how might it according to the said Bruno's Doctrine in the place above quoted be lawful for Clergymen to Appeal I mean in the proper and strict sense of this word Appeal from their own Ecclesiastick Superiors to the King or State Or how might it be lawful for the King or State to receive such Appeals For Appeals properly or simply such argue Jurisdiction no less properly and simply such in the Judge of such Appeals Further and although it be not so much to my present purpose yet if to what St. Clare hath of the power of meer Lay Princes or States in general and in particular of that of our Kings of England to collate or to nominate and present for Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices I add also the Doctrine of another very late Roman Catholick Writer and Doctor of Divinity Joannes Baptista Verius in his Book intituled Pastorale Missionariorum Tract 4. Art xi Joannes Baptista Verius S. Theologiae Doctor in Pastorali Missionar Tract 4. ar xi I hold it not amiss For in the place thereof now quoted this Doctor Verius not only teaches with Lessius and Sanchez Two Jesuits whom he quotes but out of the Extravagant Ad evitandum c. of Martin the V. in the Council of Constance expresly proveth That even all Heretick Lay Patrons whatsoever not yet by name denounced enjoy still their former right of Canonical Patronage and that consequently all such do notwithstanding their Heresie both validly and as to all effects bindingly nominate or present fit persons to all kind of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices whereof they or their legal Predecessors at any former time were the acknowledged Patrons Now from such whether necessary or unnecessary digressions to return to the series of my proofs for my main purpose here viz. that of St. Thomas of Canterbury's not having at any time for ought appears been guilty as much as of any Treasonable Principles or Doctrines My fifth Reason is 5. Because that a pure speculative judgment of either the probability or certainty of such or such a power to be or to remain as yet or to be naturally still inherent in the Church not only to give Royal Authority at first to these or these persons but also to take it away again from them or others deriving from them in some extraordinary case of grand demerit or grand incapacity must not infer a practical dictate or any at all for the lawfulness of taking it so away And because both Reason and Experience tell us That no such pure Speculation while it remains such and comes not to be practical or to have a practical or other dictate flowing from or annex'd to it either assuring us of the lawfulness of putting such power in execution or prompting us accordingly to execute can at all annoy hurt or in any wise lessen either in fact or intention the Majesty of Temporal Princes or States as it is clear enough to any rational man without further Discourse But that such a pure speculative judgment of such a power in actu primo in the Church doth not infer a practical judgment prompting so or any other judgment practical or speculative of the lawfulness of such execution in actu secundo of such a power we have also Theological reason and Humane Experience Theological Reason which approves that Maxim of both Civilians and Canonists and of natural Reason too where the Plea is not clear against the Defendant who is in possession Melior est conditio possidentis And which tells us also Quod ubi partium jura sunt obscura favendum sit Reo magis quam Actori And tells us moreover That none is by a probable Title only to be deprived of that which he holds by as probable a Title Have not Kings at least as probable a Title for their own civil and temporal Power to be even originally independent from the Church as the Church or any Churchman Divine Civilian or Canonist hath ever yet alledged That it is dependent from the Church either in the first Institution or after Conservation of it Or is it possible That any knowing man or at least such a great and excellently and Divinely knowing Church Prelate and Lawyer as Thomas of Canterbury was suppose him never so much prepossessed with the opinion or practice of the Roman Court then growing or already grown over-mightily should but know and confess this
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
and Religious did subscribe which was purposely made to secure the Lay-Gentlemen that supposing they might enjoy the freedom of their Religion they might lawfully renounce the practice of these Articles which makes the case far different both to the one and the other they conceived you intended to deny and destroy the probability of that Opinion which they think it necessary for their ends to maintain And therefore to keep their hold and conserve their pretended right they framed this Decree in hugger mugger and kept it private Their chief motive is acknowledged in the Decree it self Least it should be said hereafter that his Holiness did approve or connive at the Subscription to such Articles as were prejudicial to his Pontificial greatness The same was also expresly intimated to the Popes Nuncio here it being signified unto him there should be no legal publication of it no more then there had been at Rome nor consequently sure did they intend it should oblige Nay even they themselves would esteem him a very Fool that would lose his Estate or venture his Life for the maintenance of this Opinion or Decree Your Negative Answers to these Articles are to be understood according to your and the Proposers intentions that is to renounce the practice of them and profess them to be no part of your Faith and Religion which I believe the very Court of Rome doth not pretend witness Cardinal Peron who after he had often averred in his Oration to the Nobles of France in the year 1615. that the Doctrine of the Pope's power to depose Heretical Kings and absolve their Subjects from their obedience was only Problematical And in particular That the Catholicks of England were obliged to obey King James then reigning In his other Oration to the third Sâ—â—te who urged and pressed to have the contrary Doctrine received as a fundamental Law of the Kingdom and as holy true and conformable to the Word of God having used all possible Arguments to dissuade them from this design and learnedly labouring to shew a greater probability for the affirmative part He concludes towards the end of his Speech That the Pope doth tolerate and suffer the contrary Opinion to be held so it be only maintained as Problematical in matter of Faith that is saith he so it be not proposed as necessary to Faith nor the Opposite declared as contrary to the Word of God impious and detestable Besides this Decree is given against the Negative Subscribers to unpublished Articles without any information or knowledge of the original Instrument whereunto you Priests did subscribe nay without calling any of you to Account but only in the Air against the Negative Subscription supposed to be done they know not where nor how contrary to the ordinary forms of our Law avd Justice But every man who hath negotiated in the Court of Rome can tell you That these Congregational Decrees are generally made by a few Cardinals and Prelates who to speak modestly little know upon what grounds and principles the abstruse Sequels of Faith are to be resolved They say in this They have consulted Divines that is perhaps some few Forreign Regulars whose Interests lie wholly in that Court depending immediately of it and exempted by his Holiness from the ordinary and divine Hierarchical Government of the Church who knowing nothing of the Affairs nor of the Circumstance of the Question were not like to deliver any other Opinion than what their great Patrons would have them I wish with all my heart That with the loss of my blood I could blot out the belief of all experienced men that nothing but Interest and Faction are prevalent in the Court of Rome It is now in every mans mouth that understands the Affairs of the World that they seek their own ends not the publick good Finally I remark that they chiefly direct their Decree to the Superiours of their exempted Emissaries no mention made of the Bishop or Clergy who are the only lawful and Canonical publishers with the permission and consent of the State or Civil Magistrates of any true authentical spiritual Command Truly if such a Decree had been sent hither and so illegally proclaimed it would have been presently condemned to be burnt by the hands of the Hangman In a word I see nothing capable to beget a Scruple nor that ought to hinder any Catholick from Subscribing to the Articles as you have done Nor shall I easily persuade my self that any wise and experienced man will shrink from so just an Act. If your State King or Parliament will suffer and tolerate you to live quietly under them which I wonder such able men should boggle at I shall quickly provide and help you with such advice from the most learned and most vertuous Divines of Europe as will make your Ecclesiastical Government an example to all other States and Kingdoms your Neighbours And still conserving all due Respect and spiritual Obedience to the See of Rome you shall free your selves from all unnecessary and unfit dependance of the Roman Court wherein I shall furnish you with the resolutions of such Questions as will open the eyes of all your unexperienced and tender conscienced Countrey-men who have not had perhaps the means to discern and distinguish their due and unnecessary obedience from a superfluous and unjust obsequiousness And which shall withall make appear to all the Christian World the now well near Fourscore years hard and unfatherly dealing of the Court of Rome over the poor persecuted and distressed Catholicks of England Let it therefore be your constant endeavour to give the King State or Parliament full satisfaction and assurance of your fidelity to the Civil and Political government of your Kingdom whatsoever it shall be which may most certainly stand with the integrity of your Religion and Consciences For the rest fear nothing trust to the justice of your Cause which you may assuredly believe will not want support For my particular according to my poor Ability you shall ever find me Your most loving Brother in Christ And obedient Servant T.H. From Paris this 2d of April 1648. By which two several Papers the written and the printed the Reader may understand fully what he shall find hereafter answered by me in the year 1664. to the foresaid Internuncio de Vecchiis concerning his Allegation or pretence of Innocent the X's having condemned these Negatives and consequently our Remonstrance as for one part thereof coincident with or virtually contain'd in them Fourth and last Observation is concerning that signal crafty admonition which the same de Vecchiis gave as you have before seen to Father Bruodin in these words Signanter ut sic refutetuâ— illud Jura nentum ne tamen Regii Ministri ansam accipiant in Catholicos saeviendi eosque tamquam Regia Dominationi quia ab Ecclesia defecerit infestos puniendi If I be not much mistaken de Vecchiis would have the Anti-Remonstrants use all kind of other false Arguments to
under spiritual temporal or mixt of both is not so much disputed amongst learned men as that other far different question drawn especially from the 27th Canon of the great Council of Chalcedon as also from some others of his purely spiritual or at least Ecclesiastical power which has no respect at all to Temporals either directly or indirectly whether this power be truly by Divine right immediately over all the faithful through the whole world or onely by Humane and Ecclesiastical right or else from both at least in that latitude to which they commonly extend it that is over all the faithful everywhere none exempted either in any district of any of the other Patriarchs or in any cause With which most difficult question though I have no intention ever to meddle as however I am fully resolved to follow in this point the common doctrine and to stand unmoveably fixt to the decision of General Councils nevertheless because all men are not of the same mind that is do not judge or understand every way alike many things which may be alledged on both sides nor have the same inclinations or that forward strong and constant affection to his Holiness and the See of Rome which I have notwithstanding the injuries which I cannot deny many and as many as since the beginning of the last War in Ireland took part with the King have suffered with me I thought fit to intreat your Lordship and do with all earnestness beseech you that you will let the Subscribers live in peace not move them to impatience or anger nor reject them from Ecclesiastical charges without other demerit than this pretended one of Subscription and that you will not put a bar to the publick good of undoubted Religion for the maintenance of an assertion so far at least doubtful that in the judgment of many and those Catholick Writers and even entire Universities it deserves the name not so much as of an Opinion but of Error and Heresie and also yet so doubtful that the reason is plain why 't is call'd Heresie Understand my Lord material Heresie as they call it For I conceive no Orthodox Censurers and least of all I ever thought of charging formal Heresie upon the Pope or Church of old Rome or its particular Diocese so much as in this matter controverted betwixt us formal Heresie not being found without obstinacy against the Faith of the Universal Church undoubtedly known But as for material Heresie many orthodox learned and pious men have not doubted to fix it openly upon the Patrons of your opinion mov'd by this amongst other reasons namely that Heresie is no less in excess of than recess from the due mean in points to be believed or that 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith that is assert preach teach impose upon the Faithful to be believed as necessary to salvation or as revealed by God taught by the Apostles preserved by perpetual succession in the Church and as a part of the depositum delivered by Fathers in every age of Christian Religion to their Children That of whose necessity revelation and tradition there is no undoubted and certain evidence but opinion at most or likelihood and this only to somefew of the Faithful the rest which make a greater or as great or at least a considerable part of the Catholick Church denying disclaiming condemning abjuring it I say that according to those Doctors 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith in such manner as it is to substract from it i. e. as it is to deny any thing to be of Catholick Faith of which nevertheless t is truly undoubtedly certainly universally evident that it was revealed by Christ and deposited by the Apostles as much as any other Article of Faith Now who does not see that these who teach that Assertion of the Popes right over the Temporals of Princes as a point of Catholick Faith without the belief of which or with the witting denial of which none can be saved or entirely profess the Christian Catholick Faith relie upon Arguments at best but probable and grounding only opinion against the greater or equal or indeed the far greater remaining part of the Catholick Church which in all ages of Christianity have denied and still persevere to deny disclaim abjure that Position as impious and contrary to the doctrine received by Tradition and without difficulty solve such Arguments which they look upon as Spiders webs as ridiculous Sophisms as Trifles and pure Toyes And indeed some orthodox Doctors moved by this discourse not to mention other Reasons fear not to brand your Position with the note of Heresie But if your Lordship desire my own opinion in the case I must confess ingenuously I see not why it is not as much truly an intollerable error to assert in Popes Bishops Priests or any of the Clergy or even Laity a power to be believed as of divine Catholick Faith which does not certainly and evidently appear from the Rule of Faith that is either from Scripture or Tradition or both as it is to deny a power which does so appear * * See Bellarmine himself de Conc. l. 4. c. 4. where he teaches Errorem esse intollerabilem proponere aliquid credendum tamquam articulum fidei de quo non constet an sit verum vel falsum At last my Lord I conclude this long Letter and yet I neither repent my labour nor ask pardon for my prolixity since it no way more concerns Walsh to write Truth than it does an Internuncio to read it And if your Lordship be of the same judgment it will be well if otherwise I must bear it with patience Let it suffice me to have done what became an honest man videlicet to have refuted slanders reproaches revilings to have proved Caron and Walsh were causelesly term'd by your Lordship either Schismaticks or Apostates or which is less yet any way disobedient causelesly by contempt men of dirt causelesly also raisers of I know not what troubles to the Church of God lastly that without cause it was said to Gearnon's face he had better have been in his grave than subscribed Let it suffice to have defended the freedom of expostulating in a cause most just to have shewn it reasonable and answered those things which with most apparence are alledged to the contrary Lastly let it suffice that for a conclusion I have made you a hearty Prayer and a Petition no less earnest adding at the end and for a complement of the whole discourse that reason of so urgent a Petition which swayes with those Divines who censure with freedom your doctrine Neither have I more to add but onely my wishes that for the future the Internuncio's of Bruxels may be more men of heavenly spirit at least when they have to do with men of earthly dirt Which humbly saluting your Lordship and kissing your hands with all due respect and affection truly and from his soul wishes My LORD
free to disown and disacknowledge him at such times and to such persons as they shall think good or expedient And so I conclude this my second and long Instance The third Instance briefly is in their voluntary and purposed omission and even upon the contradictory question both privatly and publickly so often made to them about this omission of the immediate preamble that in the Remonstrance of 61. goes before the Protestation therein inserted We know what odium all the Catholick Clergie lies under by reason of the calumnies with which our tenets in religion and our dependence upon the Popes Authority are aspersed And we humbly begg your Majesties pardon to vindicate both by the ensuing Protestation which we make in the sight of Heaven and in the presence of your Majesty sincerely and truly without equivocation or mental reservation Their omission I say of this preamble as to the last words without equivocation or mental reservation or of any other words in lieu thereof that might signifie or import so much Which voluntary purposed omission of theirs at least in so much contradiction of it and in the present circumstances evidently confirms the reasonableness of all the several exceptions made hitherto all along this Paper And that they did omit these words or any equivalent of set purpose to reserve unto themselves a liberty of equivocation and mental reservation in all and every the several clauses of theirs just as those Fathers of the Franciscan Order in their meeting at Killiby 1665. and in their framing there another though fan better Remonstrance that which they sent under the great Seal of their Province to my Lord Lieutenant then at London expresly refused to insert therein any word at all against equivocation or mental reservation nor could by any reasons be induced to insert such as those that were present with them do testifie In imitation or pursuance of which omission and refusal of the said Franciscans and for the same ends proposed by them unto themselves this General Congregation of these Representatives of the whole Irish Clergie both Secular and Regular hath done the like here Which being so I would faine know of themselves again as it hath been several times already demanded of them publickly in their said meeting but never answered to what purpose is their Protestation or what assurance of their fidelity can the King derive from thence Fourth and last instance is in their omission likewise of the sequel or of the final petitionary address and resignation in the Remonstrance of 61. and I mean their omission of the last passage only or of the two last lines which contained the foresaid resignation But that I may be the better understood in this matter I must give first the genuine words and whole tenor of that sequel petition and resignation which the Remonstrants of 61. made thus These being the tenents of our Religion in point of loyalty and submission to your Majesties commands and our dependence of the See of Rome no way intrenching upon that perfect obedience which by our birth by all lawes divine and humane we are bound to pay to your Majestie our natural and lawful Soveraign we humbly begg prostrat at your Majesties feet That you be pleased to protect us from the severe persecution we suffer meerly for our profession in Religion leaving those that are or hereafter shall be guilty of other crimes and there have been such in all times as well by their pens as by their actions to the punishment prescribed by the law Now it is to be observed that one of the very first and greatest exceptions by several Priests and Church-men of Ireland against that Remonstrance then was That in these two last lines was contained though not so clearly and expresly yet virtually or implicitly a resignation or renunciation of Ecclesiastical Immunitie or which is the same thing a subjection of Priests and Bishops and other Clergie-men and this by their own free offer to the punishment of secular Courts and Magistrats and even to the punishment of such Courts and Magistrats as are not of their own Religion That such resignation is unlawful or sinful against the lawes of God and holy Church That by these lawes of the Church nay and according to the opinion or Doctrine of great Divines of the Roman Communion by the very lawes of God Clergie-men are exempt from the secular power lawes tribunals as at least to any Coercion or punishment to be inflicted on them by such That Clergie-men are not obliged to own any other subjection to the civil lawes courts power Magistrat or Prince but that of a meer passive direction not of coaction or coercion at all That by the directive part or virtue of the civil law they are not bound in conscience or under pain of sin but only ex aequo et bono That finally being the civil lawes and power cannot bind them in conscience under pain of sin but where the lawes of God positive or natural or the Canons of the Church joyntly bind them and for as much only and solely as such lawes of God or Canons of the Church bind them and being these Canons of the Church or Papal constitutions do not only not bind them for they do not seem once to reflect on the lawes of God as they are sufficiently declared in holy Scripture and positive in binding them to subject themselves to Kings or their lawes at least as to the coercive power of such but expresly bind them to the contrary and excommunicat them if they subject themselves so or at least their persons what ever be said of lands or goods which in all cases are by the said constitutions wholy exempt until after degradation they be freely delivered over by the Ecclesiastical Judge to the secular power and being moreover that it is an act of such transcendent virtue to oppose the secular power intrenching on at least these personal immunities or exemption of Clergie-men that St. Thomas of Canterbury was therefore canonized a martyr and hath been these 400. years by the Catholick Church publickly invoked as such with God in glory it must follow consequently out of all here said that the said resigning perclose of that Remonstrance of 61. must have been sinful and scandalous All which objections having been made use of by many these 4. years past upon several occasions though without sufficient ground in the foresaid passage words or any proper meaning of them conceivable by unbyassed Readers for to such I am sure those words can import no more than a resolution in the subscribers not to interpose for any of their Country and Communion that should happen thenceforth to be punishable by the lawes for other crimes then such only as by the letter of the law are accompted or presumed crimes for professing and serving God according to the belief rites and manner of worship used throughout the world amongst Catholicks that communicat with the See of Rome not
which they make or intend to make there if any at all indeed they make or intend together with so many quibbles and fallacies yet this Remonstrance at least as from them does no way bind them after such declaration of the Pope to hold as much as to such however inconsiderable acknowledgements or promises Fourteenth Exception That further yet as from them and without relation to any such matter declared by the Pope it leaves them alwayes at liberty upon another account not to hold to their said however inconsiderable acknowledgments and promises Videlicet upon account of their maximes of extrinsick probability or of their perswasion of the lawfulness of changeing opinions and of practising too according to the contrary opinion of others and consequently of practising against all their acknowledgments ownings Declarations promises and oaths in this their own Remonstrance according to the doctrine of such Catholick Authors as maintain all oathes of Allegiance made to a Heretick Prince to be rendred absolutely void by the very Canons of the Roman Church in corpore Juris Canonici Fifteenth Exception That finally as from them it leaves them still at liberty to say they framed and subscribed it according to the very largest rules of equivocation and mental reservation and with as many and as fine abstractions exceptions constructions restrictions and distinctions too especially that of the specificative and reduplicative sense as any the most refined Authors and most conversant in such matters Canonists or Casuists or School-divines could furnish them with in time of need And these being the most obvious material Exceptions against this Remonstrance of 66. the Reader may judge of their reasonableness or unreasonableness as he please if he hath already or when he shall have read through not only the former part of this Second Treatise but both the first and second part of the first Treatise of this Book To which if he add the reading also of all the other four he may without any question judge the better of these Exceptions whether they be well grounded or not THE THIRD TREATISE CONTAINING The three propositions of Sorbon considered as they are by this Dublin Congregation applyed to His Majestie of Great Britain and themselves And what they signifie as to any further or clearer assurance of their fidelity to the King in the cases controverted HAving given in my Narrative the occasion upon which and the persons by whom after a long dispute these propositions with the other three of the six late of Sorbon were first offered to be assented to and signed in a distinct or different instrument or paper from that of their Remonstrance and how after those very persons hindered the signing of the other or last three and further in my exceptions to instances against and observations upon that Remonstrance of theirs upon their wording of and meaning by and in the several passages or clauses all along having noted their voluntary and contradictory omissions of what was necessary and what was both expected and demanded from them on the particular points and noted their abstractions reservations exceptions equivocations illusive expositions and yet no less if not more destructive constructions I need not say much here to shew the unsignificancy of the said three propositions I mean as to the publick end for which these Assembly subscribers would impose on others or flatter themselves they were subscribed by them For it will be obvious and easie to any understanding man that shall first read those fore-going small Tracts of mine to see evidently there can be no more assurance of the present or future faith of those Congregational subscribers or from their subscriptions to the said three additional propositions than was besorâ— intended by them in or could be from their sole Remonstrance taken according or in that sense of theirs which I have so declared at large I confess that in the state primitive or in that of the innocency of Christians these alone peradventure might have been sufficient to that end Nay and at this very present are very significant as proceeding from and applyed by the Sorbon-faculty and Gallican Church to their own most Christian King and themselves To wit amongst a People and in a Country where no other doctrine is taught or believed or as much as scarce thought upon if not by a very few privâ—tly in corners but that which they have learned from the express Canons of their own ancient Councils and of that particularly of Paris well-nigh a thousand years since in pursuance of the Tradition of their yet more ancient Fathers all along to the Apostles of Christ and Christ himself That kingly power is immedietly from God alone as from the primary and only efficient cause and no way depending of the Church or People Where the practice was so frequent when occasion was offered to resist the usurpations and incroachments of Popes on the Jurisdiction Royal and to oppose and contemn their Sentences of Deposition Deprivation Excommunication and other attempts whatsoever of the See of Rome against their Kings Parliaments or People Where Pithou's most Catholick and voluminous Books of the natural and genuine liberties of the Gallican Church and so many other great Catholick Writers on that subject are extant and frequent and conversant with them daily Where finally that King in their opinion is both their own and really most Christian and themselves of the same Religion with him and by him all their interests both religious and civil spiritual and temporal in the greatest latitude and height they can desire maintained exactly I confess that from such men of such principles in such a Country and to such a Prince these three Propositions barely as they are worded might peradventue do well enough But to conclude hence or that because the French King was pleased or satisfied with them so as coming from and presented to himself by Sorbon His Majesty of Great Britain our Gracious King must be or should be in our present case and on the points controverted amongst us pleased or satisfied with the self same resolutions or propositions aâ—d in the self same words only the application changed without any further addition explanation or descent to particulars and so pleased with them as coming from us were a very great fallacie and very great folly The cases are different in all particulars And therefore it must be consequent in reason that more particulars may and should be required and in other words that is in words expresly and sufficiently declaring as well against all equivocations and other evasions as particularly to the particular points in our own case The design having been as it is and must be yet to get us to resolve and declare satisfactorily and our own Interest and that of our Religion too especially as now in Ireland leading us thereunto But alas the private Interests of some very few men of that Congregation blew durst in the eyes of all the rest so as they
truely declare it is not their or it is not our Doctrine though in an other sense they cannot nor intended so to do And for to justifie this declaration distinction or equivocation they will according to the principles of equivocating Divines readily make use of that passage or words of our Saviour in the Gospel mea doctrina non est mea sed ejus qui mifit me Patris And yet when they shall find it for their advantage they will no less readily acknowledge that their intention also was to declare by those words that what follows is not the doctrine of even those very Doctors or Popes nor consequently of the Church And yet will acknowledge too this much without any prejudice to their own opinion or judgment in the points controverted and without holding themselves obliged by this Declaration understood as it ought or may not to practice accordingly For all they say in this first part of that first Proposition is We the under-named do hereby declare that it is not our doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second They will here presently when they please and shall think fit have recourse to the several meanings of the word Authority And without any necessity of using the distinction which yet is obvious enough and frequent with them of authority in fact and authority of right they will say although not with the Doctors of Lovaine in their censure of the Remonstrance of 61. that they declare it is not the doctrine of the Romae Church that the Pope hath any authority which is purely or meerly temporal or even humane at all or by humane right ways or title acquired over the King in his temporal Affairs And that neither hath he any Divine or Spiritual which is ordinary over him in such or which at his pleasure may at all times and in all cases dispose of the Kings Temporals And after this or notwithstanding any thing here declared they will say with Bellarmine that all the most supream right or authority challenged by Popes to depose Princes and dispose of their Temporals is entire and safe enough For this grand Authority indeed they have or challenge thereunto universally is not in the rank of temporals nor in the order of humane Authorities but in that of wholy spiritual and purely divine and supernatural Is not ordinary but extraordinary or as Innocent the 3d. speaks casual only that is in some particular great and extraordinary cases or emergencies and this too ratione peccati alone as the same Innocent further saith And consequently they will say that by any such general though negative Declaration or by a Declaration in such general words only or against any Authority in general to be in the Pope this very specifical this extraordinary casual spiritual celestial divine Authority in such great unusual contingencies must never be thought to be declared against according to the maxime of Lawyers and Law before given in my Exceptions to their Remonstrance For which saying they will further yield this reason That without any such specifical meaning intended their said Declaration or Proposition may be useful to shut out of doors the Popes humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right said to have been acquired and by the present Faculty of Lovaine maintained to continue still in force to these Kingdoms by donation submission prescription feudatary title and forfeiture And that such Declaration or one against such humane pretences in particular to his Majesties Kingdoms of England or Ireland nay and Scotland too was enough to be expected from them by his Majesty without putting them to the stress of resolving on that other supereminent divine pretence and which really is to all other at least christian Kingdoms in the world or all those of other Kings and in such extraordinary cases as well as to his Majestie 's They have yet in store a third explication equivocation distinction but as fallacious as if not more than any of these two already given And I call it a third way of evasion though as to the first part of it and as to the matter in it self of that first part however the words be different it varyes not or but very little from what is already said in effect It does in indeed in the second Part as will be seen They will as occasion requires or they find it expedient say nothing of the first on the words our doctrine nor of the second on the words authority in temporal affairs But when they come to Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will instantly tell you as Logicians or Sophisters of their specificative and reduplicative sense And that these words bear it And that the cause it self and the conjuncture of circumstances make their recourse to this kind of distinction very lawful They will therefore when they please to proceed a third way allow it is not the doctrine not even of the Catholick Church that the Pope hath any authority not even spiritual or divine in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will I say allow this Proposition or this part of that first complex Proposition but allow it only in sensu reduplicative in the reduplicative sense or as the reduplication falls on these last words Our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second In the specificative they will deny it and withal deny it was their meaning what ever the Sorbonists meaned by the like to their own King to declare at any time or by that Proposition that the Pope had not some authority in temporal affairs over our King considered as a Criminal or Sinner though in such not any over him considered only as our Soveraign Lord and King Charles the Second They will further say that while the Pope himself or people or both joyntly suffer or tollerat Charles the Second as King the Pope hath no authority in temporal affairs over him But yet when he finds it convenient and necessary in any of those great extraordinary emergencies not to tollerat him any longer he may by his divine authority in such cases depose and deprive him of all his temporals together and transfer the right of them to another and this by way of Jurisdiction over his person as a criminal and sinner not over his person as a King not criminal or sinful They will further say and though I meaned it hitherto as the second part of this third way yet it may be also and is a fourth way of explication or evasion that allowing it not to be the doctrine of the Church that the Pope hath any Authority of Jurisdiction Power or Superiority properly such in temporal affairs over the King considered either in the reduplicative or specificative sense and allowing too that themselves intended to declare so much by the said former part of their first Proposition yet the last refuge is alwayes open A Power and Authority in the
their future fidelitie hereafter in the cases or contingencies wherein they are suspected I leave the indifferent reader to be judge I know what their answer will be to these two last Objections They will say the Propositions of Sorbon had no such exception against equivocation no censure of the contrary positions But the reply is no less obvious and shews the answer in both parts unsatisfactory Because the disparity is as great as the divinity and doctrine and loyalty of that famous Colledge nay and of all the Gallican Church is known to be such that their Propositions as from them and to their King or people needed no such additional exception or censure at such time as they gave those very Propositions in the year 1663. So many books lately before written by the Divines of that Faculty and Church and by the Curats of Rouen and Paris against the whole mass of casuistical opinions amongst which that of equivocations in such cases at least as ours as likewise the other of extrinsecal probability maâ—ch in the first rank and their general horror of such vile Sophistrie and withal the settledness of the generality of the French Nation both Ecclesiasticks and Lay-men in the true honest and obvious meaning of the said Propositions as comprising without further addition or specification those very cases which our congregational Divines would by their distinctions and reservations except alwayes and yet further the very penalties enacted in the rules of Sorbon and other French Universities against any that would maintain the positions of Bellarmine or the doctrine of a power in the Pope for deposing Kings all these four arguments I say to speak no more shew there was no need that the Sorbonists in the said Propositions to their own King should expresly or any other way than by the bare Propositions in themselves protest they declared them sincerely without equivocation or mental reservation And so many former no less known heavy and home censures not only of Sorbon and Paris but of all other Universities in France against that very doctrine of any power whatsoever and consequently against that which is called by new names direct or indirect ordinary or extraordinary and casual or supernatural spiritual celestial divine c. in the Pope for deposing Kings evict this confession likewise That there was no need Sorbon should to those their own propositions in the year 1663. add any new censure at all of the contrary doctrine To all which and as well concerning that of equivocation as this of censure may be added that the Sorbon-Facultie's purpose in determining and presenting the foresaid six propositions to the French King on the eighth of May 63. was only to wipe off the false aspersion which some had lately and groundlesly cast upon them as if they had held the contrary in terminis Which to have been their chief purpose may be seen by that Title of theirs prefixed to the same six propositions Declaratio Facultatis Sorbonicae contra quasdam propositiones falso impositas eidem Facultati Now who sees not that to this end it was sufficient to give the contrary or contradictory propositions without any kind of addition or explication And who sees not that our case or that of our said Congregation of Dublin of the Irish Roman Catholick Clergy was wholy different in all particulars both the doctrine and practice contrary to the plain sincere and obvious meaning of the said six propositions conceived by men that are no Sophisters hath been and is with all truth and justice grounded on sad long and manifold experiences as withal the doctrine and practice of equivocation and mental reservation charged on the generality that is on the far greater part for number of the said Irish Clergy and their Representatives And neither of them have ever yet except only those few Subscribers of the Remonstrance of 61. for ought appears either in this age or any former since the debates arose first by Books Declarations Propositions or otherwise under their hands or names any way censured that pernicious doctrine or practices following it of the Pope's power or pretence of power for deposing Kings c. as neither the doctrine of equivocation or mental reservation in such cases as ours or in any other soever But to shew what only now remains that Sorbon had that all the rest of the Catholick Universities of the Gallican Church and kingdom had lately before and both sufficiently and smartly too censured the positions contrary to the foresaid three or that of any power or pretence of power in the Pope to deprive or depose Kings raise their Subjects or the people otherwise subject in rebellion against them I will give here out of very many others those censures only of the said Faculty of Sorbon fourth of April 1626. and of the whole University of Paris the 20th of April the same year against the said uncatholick doctrines And further only add the prosecution of the same censure by the other seven Universities of France the same year too All which the late Author of the Quaeries on the Oath of Allegiance hath rendred in English and prepared to my hand as extracted out of a Book lately before printed at Paris Entituled A Collection of divers Acts Censures and Decrees as well of the Vniversity as of the faculty of Theology at Paris The Title of that of Paris and consequently of that of Sorbon therein is A Decree of the Vniversity of Paris made by the Rector Deans Proctors and Bachelors of the said Vniversity in a General Assembly had on the 20th of April 1626. at the Matutines And then immediatly follows the Decree it self in these words to a tittle It having been represented by the Rector that the sacred Faculty of Theologie moved as well by their ardent zeal and fidelity towards the Church His most Christian Majesty and his Kingdoms as also by the true and perfect love which they bear to right and justice and following therein the illustrious examples left by their Predecessors in like cases upon mature examination af a certain Latin Book Entituled A Treatise of Heresie Schisme Apostasie c. and of the Popes power in order to the punishment of those crimes printed at Rome 1625. had in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Heresie found these propositions That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresie and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them and that this custom has been alwaies practised in the Church c. and thereupon had by a publick just and legal sentence on the 4th of April censured these propositions of that pernicious Book and condemned the doctrine therein contained as new false erroneous contrary to the law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schisme derogative to the soveraign authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of
and scandalously taught nay taught farr worse than ever Bellarmine did in that Howse or Colledge of the Society the chiefest of all that moved Sorbone at that time and juncture in 1663. was indeed as all the rest without any kind of inclination to or even the least immaginable approbation of Iansenisme But certainly was the removing out of their Kings brest in that suspicious conjuncture all kind of jealousie of a doctrine which being not disclaimed by them at that very time might render all their five former declarations or propositions wholy unsignificaâ—t as to any assurance of them to their King when it should please the Pope That be the immedâ—â—t or mediat occasion or both in part or in the whole too what Father N. N. sayes or at least by his invidious and no less truely impertinent unprofitable and odious digression to those disputes of the Iansenists and Anti-Iansenists would insinuat or impose on the reader be it that very debate betwixt them on the quaestio facti as he speaks whither the propositions condemned as heresie by the Pope be condemned in the true sense and meaning of the Iansenists or no whether in the book of Iansenius or no or be it also either in part or in the whole that contest of the Iansenists for the first way that is for the fallibility of the Pope declaring any matter as of faith without a general Council and be it this contest or allegation of theirs was onely to vindicate themselves from the censure and be it moreover that there was no other occasion moved the Faculty of Sorbone to this sixth declaration or proposition granting all and giving thereby to Father N. N. all the advantage he can desire I am content to joyn issue with him and leave it to all prudent men to judge whether hence must follow that the doctrine of the Popes infallibility as in it self and of it self abstractedly considered without any relation to Iansenisme or any other error or as considered by us does not touch our scope or that none can declare against the same thing but for the same cause that another doth I am sure all prudent men that withal are sufficiently knowing for I suppose it is onely to such Father N. N. appeals will confess that as there is often a vast difference betwixt the occasion and the thing occasioned so that which is occasioned may touch an other controversie although the occasion do not That whatever the occasions be of the declarations of Councils or Vniversities in doctrinal points yet the declarations must be always understood generally or indefinitly as the words are and without any limitation or restriction to particulars or to such occasions especially when and where such particulars or such occasions are not mentioned at all either concomitantly subsequently or precedently in the same or other instrument of such declarations as none are in this 6th or any of the other five precedent declarations of Sorbone or in the Instrument of them but such occasion onely as make them general That for the reasons above given neither the same cause nor the same end which the Iansenists had in asserting the Popes fallibility or declaring against his infallibility can be presumed of Sorbone and the rest of the Vniversities of France declaring against the same infallibility nor that limitation or restriction of their meaning to the case of Iansenisme alone That it has been always and must have been very often the practice even of general Councils to assert Christian â—aiths in a good cause and for a good end which truths even manifest notorious obstinat and condemned Hereticks had formerly and as stiffly maintained whether the cause or end they had therein was good or evil and that thereof are late examples enough in the very Council of Trent which defined many Catholick verities against Iohn Calvin and other Sectaries although Martin Luther had earnestly before and at the same time asserted the same truths and against the very self same other Sectaries And therefore it can be no prejudice to a declaration against the doctrine of the Popes pretended infallibility that the Iansenists had done the same already not even I say were it confessed of all hands the Iansenists were manifest notorious and convicted Hereticks That now and to come up closer yet to Father N. N. in the main debate I am content that either with or without any supposition at all or admittance or grant of any occasion either mediat or immediat or of any thing else but what the matter according truth bears along with and in or of it self only to leave that very main debate or quaerie to all prudent men to judge whether the Universities of France saying as Father N. N. here confesses of them and not of Sorbon only or whether they declaring publickly to the world in plain words That it is not their doctrine that the Pope without the consent of the Church is infallible whether I say this touched our scope or no But withal that as I have put the quaerie in Father N. N. his own words and in his own sense and as near his purpose too as himself could possibly frame it so I desire all such prudent men to consider that our scope is to assure his Majesty of the hearts and hands of all the Roman Catholicks of Ireland both Clergy and Laylty in all dangerous contingencies whatsoever but more especially in those wherein the Pope would peradventure concern himself on the account or pretence of Religion and in pursuance of such pretence though really for other ends declare against the lawfulness of the congregations Remonstrance or Oath of Allegiance or any other such former or latter of Allegiance though in temporal things alone and against the three first Propositions or any other in pursuance thereof signed by the said congregation or by any others for his Majesties greater assurance of their loyalty in temporal things only That whoever maintains the Popes infallibility where and when declaring by his papal Authority and without a General Council any doctrine sentence opinion proposition declaration acknowledgment engagement oath or promise to be unlawful or to be against the Catholick Faith or salvation of Souls or who refuseth in such a case as the congregation did refuse to disown that infallibility must be consequently resolved or at least must be supposed to be resolved to conform himself in practice when ever the occasion is offered to whatever Declarations of that nature shall at any time issue from his Holyness And consequently resolved to retract at his pleasure any form or any subscription to any form of Remonstrance Declaration or other writing whatsoever obliging them to be true liege-people to the King in temporal things only That it is no new thing with the Popes by their own immediat authority and with their Ministers on pretence of their authority whether truly granted or not granted to declare so against forms of Oathes Remonstrances or Declarations of Allegiance
the doctrine or Theses of those that maintained the same pretended infallibility of the Pope to be not onely matter of Religion and faith that is to be fide divina believed but also to be so believed to extend it self to all kind of matters questions disputes or controversies of or concerning what is delivered in the Depositum of faith and what is not or concerning what is lawful and what is not even as much as the undoubted infallibility of the Catholick Church either representative or diffusive can be any way extended to such And consequently could not but know the doctrine of infallibility in all such matters disputes or controversies must of necessity regard or concern this very particular matter dispute and controversy of the obedience due or not due by Subjects in all cases or in such and such special ones to their King or to him that is reputed King being it is one of the particulars included in that Vniversal Thirdly That although it be confessed the said infallibility either pretended or true for it matters not which for our purpose now as falling upon any other matter distinct from that obedience we owe our Prince doth not per se directly and immediately regard or concern that obedience yet mediately indirectly and per accidens it may and even directly often us and the Prince himself nay and the quiet and peace too of his Kingdoms For besides the general concernment of salvation or of having or not having errors in Christian Religion obtruded on us at the Popes pleasure or fancy or out of his ignorance as it may happen or of that of his few Roman Divines only when he defines without a General Council what ever the matter be there are very many particulars wherein Popes may usurp and have usurped already a power of definition which against the universal Canons and Reason and Justice too incroach on the rights both of Prince Clergy and other Catholick People or Subjects though such particulars do not immediatly directly or per se regard this particular question of our Allegiance to the Prince in temporals or though notwithstanding such definitions we were suffered still to acknowledge and obey him as our supream Lord in meeâ— temporals without any definition against that how ever with many disturbances withal on spiritual pretences tending often though per accidens only to the both temporal and spiritual ruine of both Prince Clergy and people Whereof sufficient and manifold instances may be given out of those we call the Liberties of the Gallican Church and such as are common also to other national Churches especially in the matter of Investitures Nominations Presentations Collations Resignations Unions Translations and of Legats and Nuncius's c. That as I have said before to this of impertinency the Sorbon Divines or University or Clergy or Archbishop of Paris in 63. were not of our Congregations judgment in this point or of Father N. N's but perswaded that the Popes pretended infallibility even I say as matter of Faith and Religion and even I say too as not particularly or only relating to their Allegiance concerned notwithstanding both their Prince and themselves and that obedience too for they declared against it in general And so might and ought both Father N. N. and our Congregation but that they would seem more wise and less sincere than Sorbon and the University Clergy and Archbishop of Paris In the third place I must answer his pretence of odium where he sayes in Congregations name We are loath forreign Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a question c. That he imposeth mightily and injuriously on forrein Catholick Nations That there is not one such in all Europe and of the rest you may judge by Europe where this question is odious at all in the negative resolve to all indeed it is in the affirmative or in the assertion of such an infallibility in the Pope as matter of faith and religion unquestionably though to all also very indifferent for both sides as it is only disputed scholastically speculatively or problematically without intending it as matter of faith and religion in the affirmative or of any further design either by the affirmative or negative than of opposing truth to error and certainty of divine belief to the uncertainty of humane opinion or collection though seemingly or probably deduced out of Scripture-places or some others of great esteem amongst us That neither some few Divines at Rome nor that whole City or Clergy therein if all were of that opinion of the Popes infallibility as matter of faith and religion not even taking along with them the most blessed Pope himself the Cardinals and whole Court do make one little Nation no nor if you further aggregate unto them all those other few Divines and few I call such comparatively or in relation to all Catholick Divines of the contrary side who in several other Countreys of Europe either privately or publickly in their Schools or Writings maintain either dogmatically or problematically that assertion of the Popes infallibility or maintain it any way at all either as matter of religion and faith or as matter only of meer uncertain but yet probable opinion That by their own confession the Universities of France and these are eight in all have concurred in the negative which denyes any such infallibility to the Pope and by consequence this question as to the negative answer must not be odious in that Country That whatever France or the Gallican Church maintains in relation to faith and religion is not odious nor can be in any other Catholick Nation of Christendome because they are all of the same faith religion and communion with France and the Gallican Church That the controversie of the Venetians in 1606. with Paulus V. and all the consequents of it show manifestly that all the Catholick Countreys subject to that Commonwealth reject the Popes infallibility and hold it not odious to determine against it That for the German Hungar and Polish Nation the General Councils of Constance and Basil which for a very great part consisted of them and their general esteem and veneration to this day of those Councils and amongst other Canons made by those Councils of that particularly which altogether subjects the Pope to a General Council sufficiently prove this question and resolution of it in the negative cannot be odious to them as neither to any other Nation that maintains the Supremacy of a General Council above the Pope which all Catholick Nations and people do generally with the said Council For it must be an infallible consequence that if a General Council be above the Pope the infallibility cannot be in the Pope alone without a General Council That for Spain and other Kingdoms subject to it in the dayes of Philip the Second it may be seen out of his Edict published and observed by them against the eleventh tome of Baronius concerning the Monarchy and I mean
further in pursuance of such promise and intention when they begun again and after my Lords return by an express Paper and Messenger to them taking notice of the three last not signed as yet and exspecting these also to be signed when I say they notwithstanding begun again to demur the second time and fall off their former intention and thereupon were given to understand His Grace had sent to them to dissolve they looking upon one another in a great confusion and trouble expressed even in their countenances desired me instantly and earnestly to go and prevail with my Lord that they might have a little more time to consider And that herein too I prevailed for them and got them time enough as much as themselves desired to that purpose albeit they made such unfortunate use of it So that from first to last there was nothing done by me underhand to further that dispute as nothing but what I ought to have done and what themselves expected I should and gave me the occasion themselves and for their own sake to do 5. That the foresaid Catholick virtuous and grave Gentleman sent them upon this occasion by his Grace and only to read them his Message for it was given him in writing by my Lord although after his reading that his Message publickly to them all-together he spoke of himself moreover at the same time and place not as from my Lord which he declared likewise what he thought fit briefly substantially and catholickly to perswade them not to lose the fair opportunity then present to do themselues and all others of their Communion and Countrey much right and good withal and therefore not to demur any longer on this matter of the three last propositions but subscribe these also yet all this and what more he said to perswade them was so far from being under-hand as it was before them all-together sitting in their Assembly And that more than this he did not to further this dispute 6. That if none of such I mean the said Gentleman and Father P. W. and their own special Committee or such others of the Congregation as spoke in their house on this subject or the whole Congregation themselves all together be not those few Iansenists I know none in all this Kingdom nor ever as much as heard of any one single Jansenist amongst us nor of any one as much as suspected for such only one single Chaplain to a Lady of great virtue and quality excepted and so far only too excepted that I heard some say whether with ground or not I know not he seems to have been bred with or devoted to those are now by some called Iansenists although not maintaining the doctrine imputed to Iansenius 7. That for the said Catholick vertuous and grave lay gentleman of quality who delivered the said message and spoke so as I have before said publickly what he thought reasonable to perswade them in this matter although peradventure and I say peradventure because I do but onely guess or suspect he may be the marke aimed at amongst those few Iansenists because forsooth he had been known to Father N. N. abroad in France and in the time of his exile to have been conversant with or friended by one of those are now called Iansenists though one of his own Country and Religion otherwise I am sure notwithstanding that he is no Iansenist nor ever yet hath been nor with Gods grace will at any time hereafter understanding that by a Iansenist which ought to be and is understood by such as speake either properly or truely an adhearer to or a better of the doctrine of the five Propositions condemned and in that sense they are condemned by the Roman Catholick Church not that is not understood at all but most falsly and injuriously too a man that onely hath a good opinion of and esteem for those many excellencies laying a side the quarrel of thos five condemned Propositions he sees or hath seen to be in all or most or some of those are now abusively called Iansenists and onely called so because they speake reverently of the person of Iansenius and write severely against many wicked Aphorismes of some Casuistes albeit at the same time they conform absolutely and submit humbly to all declarations even proceeding from the Pope alone against the doctrine imputed either by Popes or others to Iansenius 8. That for their own special Committee or such of them as in that Committee or in their house spoake publickly and most cleerly and positively and urgently too and tooke great pains herein that is to perswade their subscriptions to the three last as to the three first and by consequence and not by consequence onely but without any consequence expresly and determinately also to the very last of all the six Propositions or that of the Popes not being infallible without the consent of the Church or a general Council these were in the first place Fa. Iohn Talbot of the very society one of those two Divines that together with their Superiour sate as chosen members and Divines for the said Society of Jesuits in that Congregation and surely therefore not of those few Iansenists his own Colleague Father N. N. aimes or glances at And in the next place Angel Goulding a Spanish Doctor of Divinity known to be estranged as farr as from East to West from all kind of Iansenisine properly or truely such and therefore also not of those few Iansenists And that for any other of their house that spoke in that buisiness to be of those few Iansenists though it should more concern Father N. N. and his purpose to clear them yet I must confess ingenously that I never heard as much as any of them as neither indeed any of all their whole Congregation at any time suspected of being a Iansenist 9. That for what concerns or may in the opinion or suspition of any concern my self in this point or as peradventure aimed at or reflected upon by Father N. N. in this place or in his if not perhaps some few Iansenists albeit his under-hand immediately following and construed together with those few seems enough to manifest I cannot rationally be thought to be any way perstringed in this passage since all I did in the matter was what I noted before so farr from under-hand that he and the rest did think it rather too much over board and that besides I must confess I have no ground to think he aimes at me yet because I pressed that matter or this dispute most of any when once himself and Congregation had given first the cause of pressing it so and that I know not whom els he meaned if indeed he meaned any at all as I confess also I suspect he doth not but onely makes this part of his colour to abuse ignorant or undiscerning people and perswade them the better of the reasonableness of the Congregations dissent I thought fit to speake herein too what is truth as I
shall answer God and such truth also as leaves him nothing to reply nor any thing at all to justifie this although conditional yet no less injurious than suspicious reflection if intended so by him or construed so by any other For although I had the honour of some little personal acquaintance in my youth with that most illustrious and most Reverend Person Iansenius himself at Lovain about some 29 years past when he was first assumed from being a Doctor of that Vniversity to the Bishoprick of Ipres being as yet but Elect onely in which quality he was pleased to honour my Philosophical publick disputes there with his presence in St. Anthony of Padua's Colledge having to that end first presented his Lordship with my Theses and Dedication to himself and although I had been soon after studying my Divinitie in the same Colledge throughly acquainted with those opinions now called Iansenisme De gratia Sufficiente et efficaâ—i c however this was by accident onely and in the writings onely too of that same Colledge and in the School dictates as they are called of that other very Reverend and learned man Father John Barnewel a little before publick professor of Divinity there and a while after Provincial of the Franciscans in Ireland Uncle to the present Lord of Trimle-stown which he defended publickly and in print though not ad mentem Scoti but Sti. Augustini and in that very Colledge some years before Iansenius was ever known or thought to write of that Subject and which also the same Father Barnewell did by the advice of that other most Reverend and learned Father of the same Order the founder of thâ— Colledge by his mediation with the Spanish Court that great Augustinianâ— Florentius Conrius he that writt de Statu parvulorum then titulary Arch-Bishop of Tuam in Ireland living in that Colledge the greatest Augustinian of the age and by whom Iansenius was indoctrinated first in those principles as they say and although moreover just when I had ended my course of Divinity in that School I was one of the very first though by meer accident onely too that ever saw and read that worke so famous now called Augustinus Iansenij for I read it in albis before it was bound and as it came from the Lovain-press about the year as I take it 1640. and although further I was curious enough to understand all the intrigues of those opinions both then and after they came soon after to publick debate in Rome and as often too ever since as I heard the great contest for or against them under the three Popes Vrban Innocent and Alexander and as farr or as much as I could heare of at so great distance or know the said contests yet I declare conscientiously before God and man 1. That I was never from the first day to this present any further concerned for Iansenius or all or any of his or the said opinions or against him or them either for the Anti-Iansenians than every or any other the most indifferent Roman Catholick in the world should be or was Nor any further at all than to know what was or might be said on both sides without any further inward prejudices of or to either than what I did or should understand the Catholick Church did or would entertain 2. That nevertheless I have always been for my own private interiour sentitiments inclined more to follow the way of sufficient grace even before any determination of Vrban Innocent or Alexander though without condemning in my own private judgement the contrary 3. That for external conformity or submission I have been alwayes resolved and am at this present as I should be in such perplexed abstruse controversies where there is no evidence on either side to acquiese in the determination of the great Pontiff unless peradventure and until a general Council truely such declare the contrary to whose determination as in all other matters of Catholick faith being bound to submit both inwardly and outwardly so in this I must and ought and will by the grace of God if ever any such Council happen to be held in our days 4. That for those Iansenists who have submitted externally to the determinations of those three great Pontiffs for what concerns the point of doctrine and are further absolutely resolved to submit both externally and internally in such and all other points or matters of Faith to the final definitions of a general Council truely such and for ought I understand all those are called Iansenists have submitted so and are so resolved I hold not them to be Hereticks at all whether those opinions attributed to Iansenius or them be Heresies or no that is onely material Heresies or no according to the phrase of the School Because to be a Heretick inwardly inward pertinacie in the judgement or will against the known faith of the Catholick Church is required and obstinacy against the sole determination of the Pope not knowing it to be withal the Church's is not sufficient as to be outwardly such outward pertinacy in words or demeanour 5. That although or if these Iansenists have been already condemned of Heresie by three Popes that is if those opinions of theirs be condemned or declared by so many Popes to be Heresies which yet implyes no declaration of the Iansenists to be or against them as Hereticks no more than did St. Cyprians doctrine of rebaptisation though declared an Heresie in it self conclude him to be an Heretick yet consequently to the Catholick doctrine of the fallibility of Popes in all kind of matters even in those of Divine belief and even those too properly and purely such we are not upon that sole account of being condemned or declared so by these Popes alone or together with their Congregation of Divines or Prelates at Rome or any other of that particular City or Diocess obliged either inwardly or outwardly to beleive them therefore infallibly such that is infallibly to beleive those opinions to be Herâ—â—es in themselves materially nor upon any other account also for what relates to extrinsecal authority besides holy Scripture evident in the points at least evident according the general and unanimous interpretation of holy Fathers but that of knowing them to be reputed and beleeved infallibly such by the Catholick or universal Church or declared such by a general Council its lawful supream Representative Which notwithstanding warrants not those Iansenists not any other to oppose or contradict those declarations of those three Popes at least in the point of doctrine and in the senâ—e the declarations were made until a general Council be convened but leaves them for their infallible directour in point of a Divine belief to another cruely certain and infallible rule indeed the declaration or consent of the Catholick Church however that be certainly and infallibly known by a general Council or otherwise 6. And lastly That I never had nor have this day nor will hereafter with Gods grace any other