otherwise at all noxious to humane Society and then also and there to Enact those penal Laws where at the same time the Lawmakers could not but have continually before their eyes all those beforemention'd Positions and Practises which they could not but judge to be indeed of the greatest Danger Insolence Pride Injustice Usurpation Tyranny and Cruelty imaginable even those very Positions and Practises which they knew to threaten themselves above others most particularly and which they saw themselves Ten thousand times more concern'd to persecute than any pure Religious Rites or Articles nay which they also knew to be such as even according to the judgment of the greater and sounder part of the Roman-Catholicks themselves abroad in other parts of the World did of their own nature require all the severity of Laws and all the anger of Men to prosecute them I am sure the Third Estate of the Roman Catholicks of France anno 1514 1â— did think so when they desired it should be made a fundamental Law of FRANCE to be kept and known by all men That the King being acknowledged Head in his Dominions holding his Crown and his Authority only from God there is no power on earth whatever Spiritual or Temporal that hath any right over his Kingdom either to depose our Kings or dispense with or absolve their Subjects from the fidelity and obedience which they owe to their Soveraign for any cause or pretence whatsoever That all his Subjects of what quality or condition soever shall keep this Law as holy true and agreeable to God's Word without any distinction equivocation or limitation whatsoever which shall be sworn and signed by all the Deputies of Estates and henceforward by all who have any Benefice or Office in the Kingdom before they enter upon such Benefice or Office and that all Tutors Masters Regents Doctors and Preachers shall teach and publish that the contrary Opinion viz. That it is lawful to kill and depose our Kings to rebel and rise up against them and shake off our Obedience to them upon any occasion whatever is impious detestable quite contrary to Truth and the establishment of the State of France which immediately depends upon God only That all Books teaching these false and wicked Opinions shall be held as seditious and damnable All Strangers who write and publish them shall be look'd upon as sworn enemies to the Crown and that all Subjects of His Majesty of what quality and condition soever who favour them shall be accounted as Rebels Violators of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and Traytors against the King c. And I am sure also That all the Parliaments and Universities of the same Kingdom did likewise think and believe so when at several times they proceeded with so much severity in their censures against so many inconsiderate Writers that maintain'd the Papal vain pretences of Authority to depose Kings and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them But to say nothing at present of the many several Arrests of the French Parliaments on this subject and speak only of their University Censures how smart these were in general the Universities of Paris (z) 1626 4. April and Caen (a) 7. May. and Rheims (b) 18. May. and Tholouze (c) 23. May. and Poitiers (d) 26. June and Valence (e) 14. July and Burdeaux (f) 16. July and Bourges (g) 25. November sufficiently tell us in their special Censures anno 1626. against the Jesuit Sanctarellus in particular i. e. against the Doctrine of such a power in the Pope asserted by him the said Sanctarellus in his Treatise of Heresie Schism Apostasie c. The first of them viz. the University of Paris finding in the said Book this Assertion 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 c. condemn'd it in formal words as new false erroneous contrary to the Law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative to the Soveraign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of Infidels and Heretical Princes disturbing the publick peace tending to the ruine of Kingdoms and Republicks diverting Subjects from the obedience due to their Soveraigns and precipitating them into faction rebellion sedition and even to commit Particides on the sacred Persons of their Princes And the other seven Universities were not much behind for they also every one condemn'd it as false erroneous contrary to the Word of God pernicious seditious and detestable XI That if any shall object those penal Statutes which may perhaps be thought by some to have all their quarrel and bend all their force and level all the rigor of their Sanctions against some harmless Doctrines and practises whether in themselves otherwise true or false good or bad I say against the meer spiritual meer sacramental rites of our Religious worship of God and our Belief of meer supernatural operations following as for example against our Doctrines of the Consecration and Transubstantiation and our practice withall of the adoration of the Host which this present Parliament at Westminster in their late Act against Popish Recusants may be thought by some to make the principal mark whereat all the arrows of disfavour must now be shot the answer is both consequential and clear viz. That the Law-makers perswading themselves 1. that the Roman Catholicks in general of these Kingdoms both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks had alwayes hitherto since the schism either out of ignorance and blind zeal or a mistaken interest or irrational fear refused or at least declined to disown by any sufficient publick instrument the foresaid Anti-catholick Positions and Practises which maintain the Popes pretences of all Supreme both Spiritual and Temporal Dominion Jurisdiction Authority Power Monarchy and Tyranny c 2. That their Missionaries i e. their Priests not only day and night labour to make new Proselytes but also to infuse into as many of them and of their other Penitents as they think fit all their own Principles of Equivocation and mental Reservation in swearing any Oath even of Allegiance or Supremacy to the King and forswearing any thing or doctrine whatsoever except only those Articles which by the indispensable condition of their communion they may not dissemble upon Oath 3. That the Tenet of Transubstantiation is one of those Articles therefore to discover by this however otherwise in it self a very harmless Criterium the mischief which they conceive to go along with it thorough the folly of Roman Catholicks in these Dominions they make it the test of discriminating the Loyally principled Protestant from the disloyal and dissembling Papist Which otherwise they would not have done if the Romanists themselves in general who are Subjects to our Gracious King had by any sufficient Test distinguished amongst themselves and thereby convinced the Parliament and all other Protestant people
under all the crimes thus falsly imputed to them it being their Adversaries principal design That the Irish whose Estates they enjoy should be reputed persons unfit and no way worthy any Title to your Majesties mercy That no wood comes amiss to make Arrows for their Destruction for as if the Roman Catholick Clergie whom they esteem most criminal were or ought to be a society so perfect as no evil no indiscreet person should be found amongst them they are all of them generally cryed down for any crime whether true or feigned which is imputed to one of them and as if no words could be spoken no Letter written but with the common consent of all of them the whole Clergie must suffer for that which is laid to the charge of any particular person amongst them We know what Odium all the Catholick Clergie lies under by reason of the Calumnies with which our Tenents in Religion and our Dependence upon the Popes Authority are aspersed And we humbly beg your Majesties pardon to vindicate both by the ensueing Protestation which we make in the sight of Heaven and in the presence of your Majesty sincerely and truly without equivocation or mental reservation We do acknowledge and confess your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supream Lord and rightfull Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other your Majesties Dominions And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as any other of your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or Sea of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope His Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from Him or his Sea against your Majesty or Royal Authority We will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to your Majesty And we openly disclaim and renounce all forreign Power be it either Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation or shall any way give us leave or license to raise tumults bear arms or offer any violence to your Majesties Person Royal Authority or to the State or Government Being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to your Majesty and to your Ministers all the Treasons made against your Majesty or Them which shall come to our hearing but also to lose our Lives in the defence of your Majesties Person and Royal Authority and to resist with our best endeavours all conspiracies and attempts against your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what forreign power or authority soever And further we profess that all absolute Princes and Supream Governours of what Religion soever they be are Gods Lieutenants on Earth and that obedience is due to them according to the laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all Civil and Temporal affairs And therefore we do here protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary And we do hold it impious and against the word of God to maintain that any private Subject may kill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince though of a different belief and Religion from his And we abhor and detest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked These being the Tenents of our Religion in point of loyalty and submission to your Majesties Commands and our Dependence of the Sea of Rome no way intrenching upon that perfect Obedience which by our Birth by all laws divine and humane we are bound to pay to your Majesty our natural and lawful Soveraign We humbly beg prostrate at your Majesties feet That you would 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 Fr. Oliver Dâ—arcy Bishop of Dromore Fr. George Dillon of S. Fran. Ord. Guardian of the Irish Franciscans at Paris Fr. Philip Roch of S. Fran. Ord. Reader Gen. of Divinity Fr. Anthony Gearnon of S. Fran. Ord. one of Her Majesties the Queen Mothers Chapl. Fr. Iohn Everard of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. Anthony Nash of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. William Lynch of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. Fr. Nicholas Sall of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Iames Cusack Doctor of Divinity Cornelius Fogorty Protonot Apost and Doctor of the Civil and Canon Law Daniel Dougan Divine Fr. Henry Gibbon of S. Aug. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. Redmund More of S. Dom. Ord. Conf. and Preac Bartholomew Bellew Dennis Fitz Ranna Bartholomew Flemming Fr. Redmund Caron of S. Fran. Ord. Reader jubilate of Divinity Fr. Simon Wafre of the same Order Reader of Divinity Fr. Iames Caverley of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. Iohn fitz Gerrald of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. Theobald Burk of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. Matthew Duff of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. Peter Geoghegan of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac Fr. Peter Walsh of S. Fran. Ord. Reader of Div. and Procurator of the Roman Catholick Clergy both Secular and Regular of Ireland This paper without any hands to it for the gentlemen that consulted of and drew it in this form did not then reflect on the necessariness of any subscription to it and if they had they saw the storm so great and furious raised suddenly against those men chiefly who should have subscribed it that it was impossible for them to meet even for any such or other end soever and yet the making of such address to His Majestie could not be delayed so as to send about to search for them where they could not be met with singly one by one but after too much time therefore I say this paper without any hands to it was delivered immediately to Father James Fitz Simons residing and hiding himself the best he could at Dublin to be sent together with the Proclamation of the Lords Justices and ordinances of Parliament and the forged letter of Mac Dermot the Priest and their own discoveries of the imposture to the above Father P. W. then at London as Procuratour of the Clergie to be presented by him to His Majestie and Lord Lieutenant and was accordingly sent and delivered him by the Earl of Fingale who had then some occasions of his own to goe for England Which the Procurator had no sooner received then after communicating all to some others of the Irish Clergy and Gentry then at London and press'd by them all to
excuse their great dependence from the Ordinaries and Secular Clergy as to their future admission to the respective Districts or Diocesses and their establishment for houses in the Countrey Besides that they were but a very few and inconsiderable in respect of others That however their judgment affection or extraction lead them yet this cause alone might be sufficient for their excuse not to subscribe without encouragment by example from the Ordinaries And yet it is very well known that several of them as likewise of the other more ancient Orders laboured earnestly and mightily that there should be no such encouragment or example at all from Ordinaries or any other Whereof the reason is very obvious Because the later any religious Institution is and the newer in any Catholick Countrey the greater dependence it must have and the more support it wants from Rome Which those three last Orders amongst us were so far from putting to any hazard to be lost by subscription that they would assure themselves of it more and more by the greatest opposition they could make in favour of all pretences for the holy See and thereby also be sure to continue their yearly pensions of Missionaries such of them I mean as are pensionaries upon the account of mission as several are 9. That above all the Jesuits yet more particularly found themselves concern'd on this particular account that so many great and famous Writers of their Society and by consequence the whole Society it self had been all along these fourscore years at least throughly engaged to maintain the contrary doctrine and practises 10. That on the other side the Secular Clergy pretended there was no signing for themselves before the Regulars concurr'd who as being commonly the best Divines and Preachers and many in number and changeable from County to County and from one Diocess and Province to another at their Superiours will and in most parts in greater esteem with the lay people then the Secular Clergy would if not concurring with them cast such an aspersion on them as would be able to render them infamous and contemptible amongst their own Parishioners upon account of so specious a pretence amongst ignorant people as the renouncing the Papal power and acknowledging the King to be Supream Head of the Church would amount unto For so many and very many too of both Secular and Regular Clergy gave out to the common sort against their own knowledge and conscience the Subscribers mean'd and did by that Remonstrance of 61. representing it as the same thing with the Oath of Supremacy which Roman Catholicks generally have refused this hundred years and therefore lay under so many incapacities and other penalties Nay some of those Clergy-men did not stick to say and swear too they would sooner take the Oath of Supremacy than subscribe that Remonstrance And yet it is very clear those Gentlemen understand neither or if they do either that certainly they are out as to both in their explications of them as far as from East to West For in the sense wherein the sons of the Protestant Churches of England and Ireland take the Oath of Supremacy they acknowledge no spiritual Supremacy purely such or any such spiritual Headship or supream Government-ship in the King in any causes or things what soever even temporal so far are they from acknowledging such in causes or things Ecclesiastical or Spiritual not even in those which are by extrinsecal denomination only called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual but only a Supream Politick Civil or Temporal Head-ship or Government-ship in all things whatsoever by the power of the material Sword and this of this Sword over all persons generally as well Church-men as others Which sense is very Catholick and owned in relation to their Kings and 〈…〉 temporal Governours by all Catholicks in France Spain Germany Poland Italy 〈◊〉 wheresoever in the world Nor do they intend to deny by the 〈◊〉 Oath in the negative â—â—me any power purely spiritual to the Pope or other even 〈◊〉 Prelate 〈◊〉 that power only which 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—ugnant to that supâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 temporal or politick Government-ship be not said to be such as indeed it cannot justly And on the other side it is plain the Remonstrance o◠〈…〉 not a word or clause either defectâ—â—◠〈◊〉 directly or by any kind of consequence importing the 〈◊〉 wherein the Roman Catholicke have refused â—â—therto the â—â—nd Oath of Supremacy 〈◊〉 this sense is no other than 〈…〉 by the universality of the words or signs 〈◊〉 the affirmative and negative 〈◊〉 the Roman Catholick Vulgar understands ever also a spiritual Privacy or Supremacy purely such to be attributed to the King and denied to the Pope and other Bishops in those Dominions albeit this sense be plainly repugnant to the very Confession of Faith in the 〈◊〉 articles of the Prâ—â—estâ—â—â— Church England and Ireland and to those others of Queen Elizabeth in her Injuctions authorized and owned even by Parliament Now it is no less manifest and out of all controversie amongst such as do but even lead singly over the Protestation of 61. that there us not a word in it 〈◊〉 â—biâ—â—ting any such to the King or denying it to the Pope or intending at all any such thing nor indeed any thing else but what is allowed and approved by the doctrine and practice of all the Catholick world abroad iâ— peradventure the present Roman Court not the Roman Church be not excepted and the few sticklers for it although against the sense and inclination of all the wise and moderate Popes even I mean too such as governed that See in these latter times But however this be or be not such was the pretence of many for not concurring by their subscriptions albeit they confess'd withal the Remonstrance very catholick in it self And for this pretence or the scandal raised against the Remonstrance of renouncing the Pope or importing the same with the Oath of Supremacy besides the malicious or wilful stumbling of some at one word in it not construed or taken with the words immediatly following restraining that word as all men of never so little reason or sense must allow it ought to be I know not but the reprinting of the single sheet of that Remonstrance at London by some of purpose to gain by selling it when all the first Edition was immediately bought and the reprinting of it with a false Title cryed and sold so up and down the Streets which false Title imported the renouncing of the Pope by the Popish Clergy of Ireland whether I say this occasioned not at first that aspersion amongst some ignorant people I know not though I am sure it could not amongst the Clergy on Layety either that read the paper it self or what was therein contained 11. That some also of the leading men had a special pick to it only because advanced by the Procurator by whose means they would not even desire the freest exercise of their Religion because he had been all
and grace and above all of his Holinesse's they were certain for their opposition to the Remonstrance as the Promoters of it should be certain of all kind of disfavour and so certain thereof that they could hardly ever expect any promotion or preferment in the Church or in their own Orders and that the Dissenters not only had that great advantage as to Church preferments and with the Distributers of such but no less certainly perswaded themselves to be equal in time at home even with the first Subscribers and even I say as to all protection and liberty from the King and State if they should be forced at last to subscribe such however compelled subscription sufficing the King of one side and excusing them on the other with the Pope and others beyond Seas and albeit the Procurator saw as clearly as consequently that the rest of the Romish Clergy throughout all other parts of the Countrey in the several Provinces received their punctual directions from those at Dublin some from one Order and some from another and others from the Parish-priests and accordingly guided themselves and therefore saw the necessity of prevailing first with those of Dublin notwithstanding and though he laboured much and often with every Order of them severally and Parish-Priests also yet he made it his chief work and for the reasons before given to perswade the Fathers of the Society Which alone was almost his only care for many weeks together XXV The progress and issue of all which was That by their own acknowledgment he cleared all the pretended conscientious scruples of those of them that treated with him That after this Father Iohn â—albot assured him that neither himself nor others of that Society who had past their last vows or fourth profession and consequently could not be ejected at the pleasure of the General or upon other less accounts then other Regulars would any longer delay their subscription then the Procurator had got the positive answer of their Superiour Father Shelton what ever his answer were And further that they would justifie by Letters to Rome and to their General and own publickly to him such their proceedings or subscription That having several times discoursed with the said Father Shelton and by Letter at last urged him to a resolution he before he would resolve sent these two or three Queries in â—â—iâ—ing to the Procurator desiring an answer to them in writing also Whether the Pope hath a perswasive and directive power over temporal Princes in temporal matters pro bono Ecclesiae And whether temporal Princes in such cases may lawfully obey him or are bound to obey him according to that of St. Bernard Converte gladium tuum in vaginam Tuus ergo ipse tuo forsitan nutu si non tua manu evaginandus Uterque ergo Ecclesiae spiritualis scilicet gladius materialis Sed is quidem pro Ecclesiâ ille vero ab Ecclesiâ exerendus est Ille Sacerdotis is militis manu sed sane ad nutum Sacerdotis XXVI That the Procurator answered this paper of Quaeries by another of Resolves And to the first Quaerie That not only the Pope but inferiour Bishops nay Ghostly Fathers have a perswasive and directive power of temporal Princes even in temporal matters and not only pro bono Ecclesiae but for the particular spiritual advantage of such Princes even such a perswasive or directive power as his Holiness and other Bishops Curats and Ghostly Fathers have respectively in temporal matters life death war peace estates inheritances c. of all Christians respectively subject to them for spiritual direction And therefore no such directive power of Princes in such matters even pro bono Ecclesiae as carries along with it a coercive power in the strict and proper sense of coercive but only a coercive power secundum quid that is by inflicting spiritual punishments and inflicting them only in a spiritual way or by spiritual means although it be confessed that sometimes or in some cases corporal punishments or temporal may be prescribed Yet inasmuch as these cannot be inflicted on the delinquent by the Church or which is the same thing that the Church hath no power from Christ to make use of corporal strength external force coaction or the material sword to execute on the Delinquent such punishments if himself do not freely consent therefore it is that we cannot allow even his Holiness as he is Vicar of Christ or Successor of St. Peter any coercive power properly or strictly such over any man much less in the temporal affairs of temporal Princes but only a coercive power by means or wayes that are purely spiritual that is by precepts and censures and these too only when they are ad edificationem non ad destructionem For it is manifest that although the particular Bishops of Diocesses have a perswasive and directive power of their respective temporal Diocesans what ever you say of Parish-priests and Ghostly Fathers in foro paenitentiae even I say in temporal things in that sense the Pope hath of the universal body of the faithful yet such particular Bishops cannot use external coaction force or the material sword by virtue I mean of their power from Christ or from the Church too as such to give any mans possessions and actually really transfer them to another although peradventure or in some contingency they may ex vi persuasiva and directiva even enjoyn any to a voluntary translation of all his rights as in case of necessary restitution In which case the Bishop notwithstanding would have as much power of coercion which would be necessary or essential to the directive as his Holiness And yet no coercive power simply such that is to force restitution by the material sword but secundum quid to wit by spiritual commands and prohibition or exclusion by such commands only from the Sacraments and from the Communion of the faithful Where indeed the directive and coercive power of the Church if you must needs use the word coercive so and attribute it to the Church doth and must end To the second Quaerie or the first part of the next disjunctive question the answer was affirmative whensoever Princes find not apparently oâ— clearly a contradiction in their commands perswasions or directions to the Commandements of God or Canons of the Church or find them evidently hazardous or destructive of their Kingdoms or People or of any other against the law of nature and reason or conscience And hence To the third Quaerie or second part of the complex or disjunctive question the Resolve was negative specially in all those excepted cases of a contradiction to the Commands of God or Canons of the Church or hazzards of their Crowns Kingdom or people or manifest wrong to any other against the law of nature and reason All which Princes are not bound to judge of according to the temporal interests or pretences of either his Holiness or other Bishop To
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
as Subject to that Metaphysical contingency nay more most of them then that of our Protestation Why then may it not be as lawful for us to practice herein notwithstanding such conditional and caprichious interrogatories We have this advantage of them that in our judgments and in the judgments of at least the incomparably far greater part even of the Catholick Church there is not only both extrinsecal and intrinsecal probability in that we promise and protest but even an absolute certainty as grounded on most clear Scriptures and traditions and that the contrary positions or tenets are so farr from having any intrinsick probability at all that they are manifest errors against the word of God whereas they on the other side practice daily in matters of greatest concern relying only on the bare saying or quotation of one or two Casuists and these too not seldom extravagant and superficial men for matter of knowledg in the most profound questions of Religion And it is further manifest by reason that were such Metaphysical contingencies or apprehensions of them of power to render any unlawfulness in our signing the said Protestation the very same contingencie must vitiat their opposing us even I say as to the question of expediency or necessity And all the expositions made by the Fathers on hard passages of Scriptures and all the Sentences or controverted conclusions of Catholick writers in the succession of all ages since the days of Peter Lombard have been and are still unlawful even as to the expediency of delivering or teaching them Which to assert would be in effect to bereave our selves of all charity and all modestie and all reason Nay all the Canons Definitions Anathematismes of so many ancient holy Christian Councels either Provincial or National as we find in the Tomes of Councels and which have been held some a thousand others 11. 12. 13. 1400. years agoe and some latter all reverenced and many of them canonized by the very Popes themselves must have been unlawful and not onely temerarious but even sinful scandalous and schismatical yea the profession of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ or an Oath or Protestation made to that purpose disclaiming in and renouncing all Doctrine and authority to the contrary that is in so much would be not onely unexpedient but even unlawful sinful scandalous schismatical before the first general Councel of Nice against Arrius or that other which was held at Constantinople against Macedonius yea that admonition of Paul Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed would be so too nay and that asseveration of our Saviour Christ himself in the Gospel was rash and false Si dixero quia non scio eum similis ero vobis mendax if this argument or interrogatory of our opposers be to any purpose or if their foolish impertinent discourses or private whispers ever since the 15. of Feb. last amongst our lay Gentry here signifie any thing to prove that we renounced or disclaimed in the Doctrine or Authority of a General Councel because we disclaim and renounce any at all as yet known to us which teaches or maintains any power Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal which may absolve us from our natural Allegiance to His Majestie or which may license us to rebell against him or to kill or murther the Anointed of God our Prince though of a different belief from ours Though which is observable our Protestation rigorusly taken as to this particular be onely against all such authority as is forreign and that that of a general Council truly such be known not to be properly forreign to any Christian Country And although the true meaning and purpose of it be onely against the Spiritual or Temporal pretended power of Popes alone But however this be or any thing heretofore said to these wild imaginations I would â—ain know whither it be not an undubitable Maxime in moral Philosophy and Divinity that our action is then lawful when it is against no law that is yet known or doubted to be either of God or man And expedient when in the judgment of wise men or in our own weighing all circumstances it is expected to conduce towards a good or just end we propose to our selves And whether the possibility of a future law or declaration against or inhibition of the like any more can vitiat actions qualified so which precede such laws Certainly as this last querie must be answered in the negative so the two former in the affirmative Now let any man that reads this passage and what I have given before it and for its illustration here in this present Book and Section let I say any such man of what affection soever so he be a man of reason be judge himself whether in this passage I do undervalue the authority of general Councils And I am sure there is no other passage in any other of all my writings where I say any thing to undervalue them And yet I must tell my adversaries that such Catholick Divines as hold the absolute fallibility of General Councils even I mean in point of Faith think they can say enough for themselves to prove that themselves do not therefore or indeed at all undervalue General Councils And enough also to prove that they justly charge their opposers with overvalueing General Councils As also to prove that themselves do still acknowledg a General Council truly such to be the onely Supream Tribunal in the Church And still acknowledg the Supream power of making Canons which concern either Faith or Discipline to be in this Council And still too acknowledg both external and internal acquiescence and obedience due from all persons even from the Pope himself to all their decrees in all Spiritual matters purely such whatsoever wherein an intollerable error against the Faith received is not evidently demonstrated And enough moreover to prove that to attribute more then this to General Councils howsoever truly such were indeed to overvalue them against truth and Tradition And finally enough also to prove it may be as daungerous an errour in religion or Faith to overvalue either Pope or Council as to undervalue them But whether such Catholick Divines as think so or think themselves can say enough for all and each of these particulars do think aright I am not concern'd at present no further then to tell my Adversaries they should rather dispute against them who give some kind of ground then charge me and falsely too being I give them no such ground at all nor any other of being charged with undervalueing General Councils XXXII Fourthly they would find their allegations false where they say that in the opinion of the Diffusive Church corporal punishments may be inflicted by a spiritual power I say that this is false if they mean as they do certainly and must speaking to the purpose by the word
Res ignorata Necesse Mihi tamen multo firmior ac tutior regula videtur esse ut ubi jus naturae certat cum jure positivo Ecclesiastico hoc illi cedat Fr. Petrus Valesius in Opero Theologico seu Responsionibus ad Quaesita Ministri Provincialis Respons ad Quaes Tertium XXXIII In so many instances they could find their Allegations to be false if they did but a little seriously consider them Now for their unconcluding ones I take in the first place their allegation of the Faithful's being whipped by the Church and commanded to undergoe austere pennances But to conclude hence that therefore a corporal punishment may be inflicted by virtue of a spiritual power so as this spiritual power be properly or truly coercive or inflictive and not directive onely or meerly of such corporal punishments whether the patient will or not or so that it is authorized by God or by it self in its own nature of a spiritual power to proceed in a meer compulsory way to the actual execution of such punishments or to use corporal force compulsion or coaction to inflict such on him that otherwise refuses to undergoe them is a strange way of argueing Every ghostly Father may in some cases enjoyn his penitent such punishments and by virtue of his meer spiritual power may do so but can inflict none either by himself or by an other if the penitent will be refractory And not onely the Pope not only the Bishop but every inferiour Priest may in foro confessionali enjoyn his penitent even how great soever otherwise even a King or Emperour what ever is judg'd necessary for his eternal Salvation and consequently in some cases a deposition of themselves even from their whole temporal estates Kingdoms or Empires as in that of tyrannical and manifest usurpation and of necessary restitution the true and legal heire surviving and known and possible to be admitted without subversion of the State or people much more where it may be availeable to the support of both Yet I hope the Author of this Querie and reasons for the affirmative will not say that every such ghostly Father can proceed to execution whether their penitents will or no or can by force of Arms or other corporal means devest them respectively of their ill-gotten goods estates Kingdoms Empires though only to put the lawfull proprietors in possession thereof And yet the power in every such Confessour to enjoyn such temporal restitutions dispositions or even depositions and deprivations respectively to be undergone and executed by the penitents themselves and by virtue also of such injunction cannot be denied to be both truly spiritual and very legal too in the nature of a spiritual power Therefore spiritual directions injunctions prescriptions or commands of corporal punishments or of disposing so or so of our temporal estates allowed of or granted to be proper to a spiritual power is a very unconcluding argument That a real execution either immediate or mediate by corporal compulsory means coaction or force belongs to the same power And yet it is granted still that the spiritual power considered as directive hath a proportionable coercive power to witt meerly spiritual annexed inseparably and therefore no other execution but by meer spiritual wayes or means that is by denying of communion in meer spiritual matters For it is a most certain Christian and Catholick maxime That the Church of Christ as such meerly hath neither territory nor sword understanding those which are properly such or the material carnal civil or temporal sword XXXIV In the next place who sees not the inconsequence of his example out of 1. Mac. 2 Mattathias the Priest under the dispensations of the old Testament killed the Jew that offered Sacrifice to Idols and took arms against Antiochus and is not reproved therefore but rather renowned Therefore now under the new Testament corporal and mortal punishments may be forcibly inflicted and rebellion raysed against a lawful Prince by vertue only of the spiritual power of Christian Priests How many gross mistakes in this application and conclusion The Testaments are different and so are the means of planting establishing propagating or observing them no less different The former had promises of temporal blessings the later of purely spiritual The former had by special warrant of the God of Hosts a carnal sword to maintain it the later a spiritual word only Besides it appears no where that Mattathias killed that Sacrificeing Jew or took arms against Antiochus by vertue of his religious Priestly function or that he did either but in a meer natural or civil capacity as a chief member of the temporal common-wealth of the Jews albeit his motive was mixed with religious considerations And if it did as certainly it does not we know the law whereby he was to govern himself in point of conscience was that of Moyses which as to the express letter did warrant both his killing the Idolatrous Jew and his rebelling against that heathen and Alien tyrannizing usurper Therefore to conclude hence That when there is an other Testament Law Priesthood of a quite other nature each and those old ones of Moyses quite abolished by an equal power with that authorized them that now under the new testament law and priesthood of Christ no more a God of Hosts but suffering Saviour and now under that Ghospel which directs it self to be planted preserved restored not by the sword but by the word not by fighting but by suffering which gives no temporal power but meerly spiritual nor contains any promises of earthly rewards but celestial alone therefore I say to conclude from that example of the Macchabees that now this spiritual power of Christian Priests can warrant killing and rebelling by its own proper authority is nothing less absurd then what the most unconcluding argument would conclude All which I doubt not the authors of this Querie and reasons for the affirmative would have had understood more easily if they had had reflected on them a little more coolely But their interest or passion or both shut all the avenues to a serious recollection or which is worse made then guilty of horrible not only dissimulation but opposition of such known truths in matter of conscience and Christian Faith and consequently of that sin against the Holy Ghost which shall neither be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come And if they had had understood or reflected so they needed not to have been driven to such a pitiful and shameful shift as to quote so falsely or imperfectly the Author of The More Ample Account's answer to that objection of the Macchabees warre Which answer yet how satisfactory soever in the judgment of others or unsatisfactory in theirs was not by me in that place or book to any such weak argument as they frame here on the Macchabaean warre not at all to invalidate their now pretence of a power in either Christian or Moysaycal Priest to kill and rebell
Green and Preston and last of all the most laborious and learned Latin Work In fol. of Father â—edmond Caron entituled Remonstrantia â—â—bernorum which is to be had in Dublin at Mr. Dancer the Booksellers in Castlestreet and which alone may serve for all the rest And then a Gods name such of them as pretend scruple in point of conscience if any of them do yet for I am perswaded certainly it is no more but a bare pretence and I know there are scarce any that alledge even such pretence or any thing at all of conscientiousness in the matter but meer temporal considerations let them determine as conscience not as worldly and mistaken interests shall direct them XXXVI Now to return whence I have so long digressed Soon after â—â—e said papers received and the former answered in writing as you have seen and the latter by word of mouth as you find here upon several occasions the Procurator being somewhat earnest with Father Shelton the then Superiour of the Society for his final resolution because some others of that very Society desired him to be so earnest alledging their own delayes was that only of knowing his resolution pro or con and promising they would themselves even in case of his denyal subscribe nevertheless immediatly Father Shelton having first convoked to Dublin from several parts such as he thought fit to consult with came at last to the Procurators Chamber and without further debate about the merits of the cause told him briefly and positively they would not subscribe that Form nor any other determining the main Question that is any disowning a power in the Pope to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their allegiance in temporal affairs because said he this was a matter of right controverted 'twixt two great Princes Yet they would frame one of their own and such as became them to subscribe Upon which he departed But the Gentleman that accompanied him one of his own Society Father Iohn Talbot who had often before treated of the same matter and promised his own concurrence with several others of his Order whatever the Superiour did told the Procurator in his ear as they were parting that Father Shelton had not rightly delivered the result of the rest But nevertheless being soon after demanded the performance of his own former and free promise excused himself also until he had seen or known it was expected by my Lord Lieutenant himself that they should subscribe of that their subscription was required or desired by his Grace and not by the Procurator only Wherein desiring further to be satisfied the said Superiour Father Shelton and with him two more of the Society Father Thomas Quin and Father Iohn Talbot being called upon waited on his Grace having first sent to the Procurator their own Form or that which they would subscribe even this you have here The Jesuits first Remonstrance Declaration or Protestation of Allegiance AS we do acknowledge King Charles the Second to be our true and lawful King and rightful Soveraign of Ireland and all His Majesties Dominions So we confess our selves to be in conscience obliged to obey His Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs and notwithstanding diversity of Religion in Him and us We protest we are and during life shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever and as either in Spain or France the Catholick Subjects are to their respective Kings and will be ready to detect and discover to His Majesty and to his Ministers whatsoever Treasons or Conspiracies shall come to our knowledge yea and expose if need be our lives in defence of his Majesties Person and Royal Authority and that by no Power on Earth whether Spiritual or Temporal we shall be moved to recede from any point of this our Allegiance and we further from our hearts detest for impious Doctrine and against the Rules of all Christianity to averr That any Subject can murther his Anointed King or Prince though of a different Faith and Religion and much more we abhorr as damnable the practice of that wicked assertion But being told by the Procurator it signified a meer nothing not even as much as a bare absolute or positive acknowledgment of the King to be King much less any thing of the cases controverted as that of the Popes pretended power to depose the King or even of his actual procedure to a deposition excommunication dispensation with or absolution of Subjects from their Allegiance whether he have such power or not they changed that their first Form and prepared this other which themselves delivered my Lord on the 4th of December 62. The Procurator being present and Father Quin speaking first as one formerly known to his Grace and one to that sign'd with seven other Catholick Divines of Dublin the lawfulness and tye upon Catholicks to resist the Irish Forces headed by the Nuncio when the Confederats rejected the peace of 46. and were drawn to besiege Dublin The tenor of their second form was this The Jesuits second Remonstrance Declaration or Protestation of Allegiance WE acknowledge His Majesty King Charles the Second to be our true and lawful King supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and all other His Majesties Dominions We acknowledge our selves bound in Conscience to obey his Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs and notwithstanding the diversity of Religion in Him and us we engage that during life we shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever and as either in Spain or France the Catholick Subjects are or ought to be to their respective Kings and shall be ready to expose if occasion shall require our lives in defence of His Majesties Person and Royal Authority and no power on earth shall move us to recede from any point of this our Allegiance We shall be ready to detect and discover to his Majesty and his Ministers whatsoever Treasons or Conspiracies against his said Majesty shall come to our knowledge We detest from our very hearts that impious doctrine which averreth that any Subject can murther his anointed King or Prince though of different judgment in religion and we abhorr the damnable practice of that wicked assertion Their answer was then from his Grace that he would consider of it next morning That if it came short of the printed one as to the substance or sense they could expect no benefit thereby That it was in vain to use any distinctions or reservations That when he thought fit to act in this matter as the Kings Lieutenant he should not repute any person worthy of his Majesties protection that would not acknowledge the Royal Power independant from any but God alone That notwithstanding Father Quin insisted so much on the loyalty of his own Order in the late controversies and wars of Ireland yet he could not forget how the chief person of them Father Robert Nugent was a great Mathematician at Killkea when
to concurr unto and obey Hereupon presently without further debate for none at all scrâ—â—◠〈◊〉 the catholickness or lawfulness such scruples having been sufficiently 〈◊〉 before clear'd amongst all persons of reason and conscience as many as were at that meeting and had not subscribed at London put their hands to a clean copy of that which was before signed by the Nobility and Gentry at London and others that could not be present then subscribed in their Chambers Both these and those in all were eight Lords and twenty three Esquires Collonels and Gentlemen The Earl of Clanrickard The Earl of Castle haven The Lord of Gormanstown The Lord of Slane The Lord of Athenry The Lord of Brittas The Lord of Galmâ—y Henry Barnawel now Lord of Kingsland Sir Andrew Aylmer Sir Thomas Esmond Sir Richard Barnawel Philip fitz Gerrald Nicholas Darcy Francis Barnawal Sir Henry O Neale Nicholas White George Barnawal Richard Beling W. Talbot Iohn Walsh Michael Dormer Iohn Bellew of Wellistown Patrick Netervil Robert Netervil Charles White Coll. Walter Butler Coll. Thomas Bagnel Gerrald fitz Symons Robert Devoreux Coll. Iames Walsh Edmond Walsh Gerrald Fennel And being joyned to the London Subscribers of the Irish Nobility and Gentry they make in aâ— one hundred and twenty one whereof one and twenty Earls Viscounts and Barons XLIV But these Noblemen not thinking they had by their own only subscriptions done enough in this matter unles they had invited the rest of the Peers and Gentry of their communion where-ever in the Countrey abroad throughout Ireland to the like loyal concurrence framed the ensuing Letter and signed two and thirty copies of it one for every County in the Kingdom to get all the hands of the rest of the Catholick Noblemen and Gentlemen where-ever to the said Remonstrance Sirs THe desires we have to serve our King Countrey and Religion in all just ways gives you the trouble of this Letter Which is to let you know That after serious deliberation finding our selves and together with us all others of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of this Kingdom as well as the Clergy of it obliged by all the rules of Reason and tyes of Conscience in the present conjuncture especially to concurr even by subscription to the late Remonstrance and Protestation presented Last Summer to his Majesty by such of our Irish Roman Catholick Noblemen and Gentlemen as were then at London and subscribed it there and received so graciously by Him We have therefore this last week given a beginning here at Dublin to that concurrence by our own manual Subscriptions also to the same Remonstrance prefixing to it a Petition to His Grace the Duke of Ormonde Lord Lieutenant for â—iâ—veighâ—ng our said Concurrence and representing it to His Majesty That reflecting on the unsignificancy of a few hands or subscriptions for attaining those great and good ends â—e drive at by this loyal and Religious Declaration we thought it concerned as further to invite by special Letters all the rest of the Nobility and Gentry of our Communion in the several Provinces and Counties of this Kingdom to the like Subscriptions to be transmitted to us hither without delay Whereunto we have found our selves the rather bound that we certainly know it is expected from us all by his Majesty and by the Lord Lieutenant and that his Grace doth wonder why the example of the first Subscribers at London hath not been here at home more readily and frequently followed hitherto by the rest who are no less concerned And that we know moreover that by the neglect or delay this twelve months past of a more general Concurrence to a duty so expedient and necessary we have let pass already fair opportunities to reap very many advantages by it That we hope the same prudential Christian Catholick and obvious reasons which perswaded us and such others as before us did give the first example from London will prevail with you no less Being they import as much as the clearing of our holy Religion from the scandal of the most unholy tenets or positions that can be taught written or practised the assuring his Majesty evermore of our loyal thoughts hearts and hands for Him in all contingencies whatsoever and the opening a door to our own liberty and ease hereafter from the rigorous laws and penalties under which our selves and our Predecessors before us in this Kingdom of Ireland as other our fellow Subjects of the Roman Communion in England and Scotland have sadly groaned these last hundred years That as we believe you will not think we would for even these very same ends how great and good soever nor for any other imaginable swerve in the least title from the true pure unfeigned profession of the Roman Catholick Faith nor from the reverence or obedience due unto his Holiness the Bishop of Rome or the Catholick Church in general so we believe also you will rest satisfied with the plain evidence of the very words genuine sense total contexture and final scope of this Protestation and of every entire clause thereof that nothing therein no part nor the whole of it denies 〈◊〉 indeed at all reflects on the spiritual jurisdiction authority or power of either Pope or Church or any power whatsoever which we you or any other Catholicks in the world are bound by any law divine or humane or by the maximes of our known and common Faith or by the condition of our Communion to assert own or acknowledge the whole tenour of it asserting only the supream temporal power in the Prince to be independent from any but God alone and the subjection and allegiance or the fidelity and obedience either active or passive due to Him in temporal affairs to be indispensable by any power on earth either temporal or spiritual That finally we do upon consideration of all the premisses and what else your own reasons may deduce thence and give further as additional arguments very earnestly desire and pray your unanimous cheerfull and speedy subscriptions to the said Remonstrance and Protestation which we have sent along with this Letter and by the hands of whom we have likewise prayed to call such of you together as he may conveniently or go about to your several dwellings for that end And if any chance to refuse the signing of it which we hope none will to bring us a true list and exact account of such together with the signatures of the rest that the multitude may not lye under prejudices for the failing of some Which being all we have to trouble you with at present commending you to God we bid you heartily farewell Dublin this 4th of March 1662. Your very loving friends and humble Servants Castlehaven Audley Clancartie Carlingford Mountgaret Bryttas Clanrickarde Fingall Tirconnell Galmoye Slane XLV And questionless if these copies had been sent then as was design'd there had been all the hands of the Nobility and Gentry in the Kingdome to the Remonstrance before
six months were over and the Clergie had been ashamed of their own obstinacy and no less confounded at their own scarce credible inconsiderancy But it pleased God to dispose affaires so that His Grace the Lord Lieutenant albeit otherwise very desirous to see these letters take effect as he was timely acquainted with the drawing and signing of them yet as they were ready to be dispatch'd to the several Counties and most of them too by Noblemen considering the dangerous plot then in hand amongst those disloyal Fanaticks who were to seize the Castle of Dublin and thinking prudently that if any papers whatsoever were carried about at that time by the Catholicks for getting hands or subscriptions those wicked plotters and their party would misinterpret them and pretend thereby a plott or some dangerous conspiracy a preparing amongst the Papists whereby to excuse the better themselves for meeting frequently in armed troups by day or night and considering moreover what influence the Irish Clergie had in the late warrs on the Layety of their communion yea notwithstanding any former Oath and that the same might be again unless the Clergie themselves had subscribed His Grace was pleased for these reasons to countermand for that time and suspend ever since the sending about of those letters expecting it might be done more seasonably when the Clergie had signed first and questionless too expecting the Clergie would sign as soon as their pretence of not dareing to meet by Representatives in a general Congregation were layed aside though it happen'd otherwise as will appear in the second Part of this first Treatise XLVI However the Catholick Gentry or old proprietours of the County of Wexford and few survivours of the Cittizens of that Town expected no such invitation by letters from the Noblemen but without any other then that they had gathered out of The More Ample Account and their own reason having framed for themselves a suitable both Petition to the Lord Lieutenant and preamble to His Majesty subscribed the Remonstrance with about two hundred hands for they wanted only three of that number and sent it His Grace by Mr. William Stafford of Lambstown who took great pains in this business Which Instrument of theirs I would not omit to insert here at length as an eternal monument of their honest loyal hearts however they have been abused in the late warrs by some of their spiritual leaders though perhaps that too more out of ignorance and blind zeal then any malice and whatever or how sad soever their condition above most other Counties be ever since as it was then when they signed so freely of themselves yea notwithstanding the contrary endeavours used by some Clergiemen especially two Fathers of the Society to disswade them Whether those Fathers behaved themselves so undiscreetly out of any disaffection to the King or rather out of mistaken Religion and prepossession by such foolish arguments as they had learned in their own Schools or by reading Bellarmine Suamz or such other by ass'd writers or whether by special command or direction of their Superiours I knew not To His Grace the Duke of Ormond Lord Lieutenant General an General Governour of Ireland The Humble Petition of the Subscribers MOst humbly sheweth that they come with the same alacrity and cheerfulness to present to your Grace the ensueing Remonstrance and Protestation which some of their fellow Subjects of the Nobility and Gentry of this Kingdom not long since humbly laid at His Majecties Feet Who was graciously pleased to accept thereof And they with the same zeal acknowledging themselves to be bound in the same duty and indispensable tyes of obedience to His Majesty His Heirs and Successors in all temporal matters do humbly beseech your Grace that this their most hearty concurrence to the same faithful Protestation and humble Remonstrance may be made the more acceptable by your Graces conveyance thereof to His Majesty And they shall pray c. To the Kings Most Excellent Majesty The faithful Protestation and humble Remonstrance of the Roman Catholick Gentry of the County of Ireland WHereas a considerable part of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of Ireland by the name of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of Ireland presented to your most Excellent Majesty a sincere Protestation and humble Remonstrance intituled the faithful Protestation and humble Remonstrance of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of Ireland for divers substantial and solid reasons in the said faithful Protestation and humble Remonstrance ingenuously and conscientiously expressed and set forth Now we the said Roman Catholick Gentry of the said County of Wexford whose names are hereunto subscribed being members of the said Roman Catholick Gentry of Ireland being bound in Conscience and duty to own the said faithful Protestation and humble Remonstrance as well as our Countreymen first subscribing thereunto for the motives in the said faithful Protestation and humble Remonstrance expressed and in imitation of our said Countreymen and to avoid all jealousies and misopinions which may be concieved of our selves and of our Religion and feareing least we may be thought to vary from the said first Subscribers in doctrine in Religion or Religious Tenets do sincerely and truly without Equivocation or mental reservation in the sight of God and in the presence of your Majesty Acknowledg and confess your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other your Majesties Dominions and therefore we acknowledg and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of sin to obey your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as any other of your Majesties Subjects and as the laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands and that notwithstanding any power or pretention of the Pope or Sea of Rome or any sentence or Declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessours or Successours or by any authority spiritual or temporal proceeding or derived from him or his Sea against your Majesty or Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the utmost of our abilities our faithful loyalty and true Allegiance to your Majesty And we openly disclaim and renounce all forraign power be it either Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal or us much as is may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise tumults bear Arms or offer any violence to your Majesties Person Royal Authority or to the State or Government being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to your Majesty or to your Ministers all the Treasons made against your Majesty or them which shall come to our hearing but also to loose our lives in the defence of your Majesties Person and Royal Authority and to resist with our best endeavours all conspiracies and attempts against
however apprehended by us to be so Now for the Lovaine Divines to say that to assert or acknowledge either of these two kinds of obedience or both as due by the law of God to the supream temporal Prince is as much as to deny the Popes or other Bishops or Priests either binding or loosing power which yet the Catholick Church never yet believed to be other then a purely spiritual power and to have no other then purely spiritual effects and a purely spiritual execution or means of execution and no corporal temporal or civil coercion or power of such coercion annexed if not that only which is added at some times and some places by the free pleasure of the supream civil Magistrate and by his proper Power and laws and is taken away again at his pleasure I say that for the Lovaine Divines to ground their Censure of sacriledge or unsincerity of Catholick Faith upon so unconsequent a supposition as if either such active or passive obedience or both together acknowledged by the Remonstrance did inferr the denyal of a binding or loosing power of the Church is to ground a very false and most injurious and erroneous Position upon a no less false and heretical supposition and is further to conclude them either bad Logicians or bad Theologians if not both For to object here that out of such active and passive obedience of Catholick Subjects notwithstanding the Popes excommunication to the contrary and out of their taking arms to defend their protestant King and his protestant Subjects as well as themselves in their lives and fortunes and out of his great power by Land and by Sea against the supposed invasion of a Catholick Army and from Catholick Princes the Pope himself being head of the Ligue must follow that if our King and his army prevail the Protestant Religion will be more and more established by him and perhaps too propagated into Catholick Countryes if he should make his Assailants a return by carrying the Warr back to their own doors or sending a formidable victorious Fleet of English Protestants to Civita Vecchia and consequently an apparant danger of destroying both Pope and Church and Religion at least amongst millions of people All which being evils of the first magnitude that whence they follow must be such I say that to object such conditional contingencies of extraordinary evils or possibilities to hinder an ordinary virtuous duty and of such evils too as have no connexion at all by nature or by design with such duty becomes very ill such Masters in Israel as the Doctors of Lovain For as it is an approved maxime in Divinity That evil is not to be done for any good that may thence arise though such good were foreseen to follow most certainly and without any kind of doubt so is it a no less approved maxime That duties enjoyned by the laws of God and man are not to be omitted and the quite contrary acted for fear of evils which by an extraordinary chance the malice or ignorance or other passion soever of other unjust men may thence derive and the anger of a just God may permit to be thence derived But if the Lovaine Doctors will deny the above active and passive obedience of Catholicks to be vertuous duties in the case and give no other reason then such as we have seen as indeed they do not for ought I saw or know and am very positive they cannot and if upon so weak a ground they have fram'd a Censure so erroneous and injurious both as they have most certainly then I have no more to say to this ground which is their second but that they have carryed themselves more prudentially in suppressing it so soon then conscientiously in alleadging it at any time LV. As for that alledged in the third place or as a third ground of the Censure I must confess I have not admiration enough to consider that men not only Doctors of Lovaine but Divines of a much inferiour degree whether of Lovaine or any other place esteemed either wise or honest should appear so weak or so malicious or both as to alledge it for a ground of any Censure at all and much more of one so severe Good God! Because the Remonstrance declares the Subscribers ready to discover any treason plot or conspiracy against his Majesties person c. that shall come to their hearing and yet not as much as promises that they will discover c. but only their being ready the Doctors of Lovaine must censure it as both sacrilegious and containing somewhat against the sincerity of Catholick Faith On precence forsooth that in relation to Confessors and Priests that hear confessions and subscrib'd or shall subscribe it it in some cases binds them to reveal secret sins heard only in the confessional seat and reveal such I mean without any licence from the penitent that confesseth such in that so holy secret and sacramental Consistory How much better had it become Doctors of Divinity and of so grave and judicious a Faculty as that of Lovaine should be to consider LVI 1. That all kind of Oathes of Allegiance or Fidelity in what form soever and to whom soever have alwayes either formally or virtually and for the most part even formally or in express words engaged the Swearer as indeed all such Oathes should to reveal all treasons plots conspiracies against the life estate or dignity of him to whom or for whom such Oathes were made And yet such expression was never interpreted in any age or Countrey by any Divines until of late by those byassed ill grounded Writers against the English Oath of Allegiance in King James's Statute to extend by any rational consequence to any kind of the least imaginable either direct or indirect breach of that which is now commonly called the Seal of Sacramental Confession Or which in effect is the same thing to extend to the revelation of the sin of such an individual penitent without his own leave as of such a penitent individually or determinatly or of him even as of one inderminatly of such or such a Society or body or corporation whatsoever nay or as of him too as of one of such a Countrey if I mean by such revelation how indeterminat soever as to the individual person yet sufficiently determinat as to the Society or Countrey any prejudice might arise to any such Corporation or Nation Suarez l 6. Defens Fidei Cathol contra Reg. Ang. de forma Iuram Fidel. cap. 3. though not to the individual person of the penitent For never yet amongst Christians where sacramental auricular confession is or was in use hath the knowledge had by the Confessor in that secret penitential Court been esteemed to fall under the general expression or notion of knowledge or of our knowledge as to any use to be made thereof out of the confessional Seat but what the penitent is expresly consenting unto Nor hath any Priest or Bishop whereof thousands upon
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
been delivered and declared unanimously by the Fathers therein from the beginning as of divine Faith or as the doctrine of Christ or of the Apostles as received from Christ or that the contrary is heretical c. Non enim sunt de fide sayes Bellarmine ubi supra disputationes quae praemittuntur neque rationes quae adduntur neque ea quae ad explicandum et illustrandum adferuntur sed tantum ipsa nuda Decreta et ea non omnia sed tontum quae proponuntur tamquam de fide Interdum enim concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile c Quando autem decretum proponatur tamquam de fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilij semper enim dicere solent se explicare fidem Catholicam vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt vel quod est communissimum dicunt anathema ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt Quando autem nihil borum dicunt non est certum rem esse de fide Whence it must follow evidently and even by an argument a majori ad minus that neither the words or epithets used even by the most general Council may be in their decrees of Discipline Reformation or manners nor the suppositions or praevious or concomitant bare opinions which occasion'd the use of such words or epithets in such decrees bind any at all to beleeve such words or epithets were rightly used or fitly applyed or that those opinions were well grounded or certain truths at all Whereof the reason too is no less evident and obvious To wit that the Fathers or Council had not examined or discussed this matter it was not at all their business to determine it nor did they determine it And that we know laws of Reformation and even the very most substantial parts of such Canons are grounded often on or do proceed from meer probable perswasions or such as onely seem probable nay sometimes from the meer pleasure of such law makers All which being uncontrovertedly true where is the strength of Bellarmines grand or second argument framed of such bare words or epithets did we grant his sense even in the whole latitude of it were that of these Popes and Councils Or how will he seek to establish a maxime of such consequence or of so much prejudice to all supream civil Governours and even to the peace of the world to all mankind it self and a maxime for so much or for what hath reference to the exemption of Clerks as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power so clearly as will be seen hereafter in some of the following Sections against express and clear passages of holy Scripture and against the universal Tradition for a 1000. years at least how will he I say have the confidence to endeavour the establishing of such a maxime upon so weak a foundation which every man can overthrow at pleasure or deny with reason to be a foundation at all for that or any other maxime as I mean asserted to be declared such in the positive law of God either in holy Scripture or in undoubted Tradition For the positive law of God appears not to us but by either of these two wayes of the written or unwritten word of God himself 4. And lastly that besides all said in these three answers to this second argument of Bellarmine if we please to examine further what the places alleadg'd import we shall find that whatever the private or peculiar but indiscussed opinion of these Popes or Councils was or was not concerning our present dispute of the exemption of Clerks and that by the positive law of God as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil or temporal coercive power nay or whatever such words as jus diuinum ordinatio Dei voluntas omnipotentis c. abstractedly taken may import yet the places alleadged or these words or epithets used in them by these Fathers must not by any means be thought therefore to have comprehended our present case or extended to it at all And the reason is 1. That all Divines and Canonists agree that all expressions words or epithets in any law whatsoever must be understood secundum subjectam materiam or must be expounded by and according as the matter which is in debate or is intended requires and further so as no errour inconvenience or mischief follow and yet the law and words thereof maintain'd still in a good sense and to some good use especially according to former wholesome laws 2. That the matter unto which there was any reference in these places or authorities quoted so by Bellarmine was either Ecclesiastical Immunity in the most generical sense abstracting from the several underkinds true or false or pretended onely of it or was it in a less generical sense taken for that of their persons but still abstracting for any thing appears out of these places quoted from that pretended species of exemption of Clerks as to their persons from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes especially when the crimes are high and so high too as they are subversive of the very State it self and are besides in meer temporal matters and no remedy at all from the spiritual superiours And in truth for what concerns the Council of Trent which as of greatest authority amongst us as being the very last celebrated of those we esteem general Councils Bellarmine places in the front 1. it is clear enough to any that will please to read the whole tenour of that twentieth chapter Ses. 25. de Reformatione which he quotes That that Council did even there so much abstract from this matter or so little intended it that on the contrary the Fathers much rather seem to speak onely there of the Ecclesiastical exemption of Clerks as to their persons from onely inferiour secular Judicatories or onely from the inferiour Courts Judges and Officers of Princes but not at all from the Princes themselves or from their supream civil power or that of their laws Which I am very much deceived if this entire passage whereof Bellarmine gives us but a few words do not sufficiently demonstrate Cupient sancta synodus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam in Christiano populo non solum restitui sed etiam perpetuo sartam tectam a quibuscumque impedimentis conservari praeter ea quae de Ecclesiasticis personis constituit saeculares quoque Principes officij sui admonendes esse censuit confidens eos ut Catholicos quos Deus sanctae fidei Ecclesiaeque protectres esse voluit jus suum Ecclesiae restitui non tantum esse concessuros sed etiam suâ— ditos suos omnes ad debitam erga Clerum Parcchos et superiores ordines reverentiam revecaturos neâ— permâ—ssuros ut officiales aut inferiores magistratus Ecclesiae et personarum Ecclesiastisarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu
virtually pretends thereto at least otherwise then by these few and weak places whereof he composes his foresaid second proof for this his fifth Proposition l. 1. de clericis c. xxviii Exemptio Clericorum in rebus politicis tum quoad personas tum quoad bona introducta est jure humano pariter divino But I will not charge him with pretending to any argument of Tradition by either such sayings or any other whatsoever of such late Councils either Provincial or General or of these three or four Popes he alledges there And yet for what other end he should produce them but that of abusing his ignorant Reader I know not verily For we may justly suppose that he and others with him have on the very contradictory question examined searched for and alledged as many places out of Scripture as any of these Councils or Popes could possibly and yet was himself so convinced that none of all these places or texts nor altogether did really amount to a positive law of God that notwithstanding his said so positive and so absolute assertion or fifth proposition for such a positive law of God he falls immediatly to his distinguishing observation of a divine precept properly such and of not being expresly in Scripture and of its being only deduced thence per quamdam similitudinem though an observation in express terms contrary to the very conclusion or to that very proposition for which he brought these two kinds of proofs one out of Scripture and the other out of these Councils and Popes So that if he intended not these Councils and Popes so alledged and so applied by him for to prove Tradition in the case and this he doth not pretend nor any from him wil so weak an argument it must be confes'd he produced them only to abuse the undiscerning Reader as the same in truth must be also confess'd of all his Scripture-places quoted in his first proof nay and of that very proposition of his and also of both parts of it for which he brought these two sorts of proofs LXV 2. For what concerns the law divine natural or which is the same thing in effect the law of nature or the law of Reason or a convincing or concluding evident principle or maxime or position or proposition or conclusion either which is necessary of natural reason to all which the Schoolmen give the name or title of the law divine natural because or forasmuch as at our creation imprinted in our souls by God himself the Author of nature but still without any supernatural infusion being the condition of a reasonable soul requires it even without any order to immortality for what I say concerns this law divine natural the case is clear enough also by the concession of Bellarmine himself l. de Cler. c. 29. where he treats it of purpose Though withal I confess he involve it so as to abuse his Reader with a third but very false degree of the laws of nature or law divine natural of purpose to impose on his credulity or facility or undiscerning judgment and work him to a perswasion that in some true sense the exemption of Clerks is de jure divino naturali even in the whole latitude of this exemption or as he before in the 28. chap. prop. 1 2 3. expounded and maintained it generally as to their lands goods persons or as from taxes and Judgments and Courts and as not from the inferiour Magistrates alone but from the very supream and in all even the most temporal causes whatsoever as well criminal as civil and from both the directive and coercive power of the laws or commands of the supream temporal Magistrate To the end of imposing so on his Reader it must be that this otherwise most eminent and learned Cardinal in the beginning of his 29. chapter immediatly after he had stated or demanded the question An exemptio Clericorum sit juris divim naturalis for he would have it now supposed that in the foregoing chapter he had proved this Exemption in his own and now said latitude of it had been 1. de jure humano civili 2. De jure humano Ecclesiastico 3. De jure divino positivo It must be I say to this end of imposing on his Reader that after all this and after putting this question also whether the exemption of Clerks be of the law divine natural he distinguisheth three several degrees of this law divine natural and then placeth his said exemption in the third of them And yet saw well enough this third degree of his own and of Driedo's and some few Canonists forgery was of so false allay that he dares not stand to it stiffely in a proper true sense of a law of nature or of a necessary principle position or conclusion of natural reason without the free and positive constitution acceptation or custom introduced onely and freely by men and therefore useth so many windings and labours so much to reconcile Authors but all in vain as to his main purpose and finally by his position there and proofs of it which follow so confounds that his own jus divinum naturale with jus gentium and confounds them so too in express words leaving thereby his inconsiderat Reader in a labyrinth and his judicious in a laughter at both his division position and proofs whether these proofs be intended for a jus gentium taken either in a strict and proper or in a large improper sense or whether intended for a jus divinum naturale even in that very improper abusive meaning or sense of our Cardinal Whereof that you good Reader whoever you be so you be a man of reason may be yourself a discretionary Judg for authoritative judgment neither you nor I can pretend Sure I do not this being proper onely to such powers as God hath placed over us either in the spiritual or in the temporal commonwealth in the Church or State I will give here briefly these three degrees of Dictats all and every of which Bellarmine would impose on us as natural precepts and comprehend under the name of jus divinum naturale the law divine natural The first and chiefest and most proper is sayes he of such Dictats which are so perspicuously imprinted in the hearts of men that with the sole light of reason without any discipline or art nay without any discourse of reason they must be judged by all to be just Such are some first principles As for example these Good is to be desired Evil to be shunned life to be preserved with meat and drink children to be educated for the propagation of human kind God to be worshipped not to do that to an other which you would not have done to your self The second degree is of those precepts sayes he again which are from such first principles deduced as the very proximat conclusions or as conclusions naturally flowing by a facile evident and necessary consequence and so too that no discipline no art
matters they should be subject to such Governours though in other matters which are spiritual these very same Governours be directed by them I am sure that however any do answer to this in point of reason he cannot make any good use of Bellarmines second argument here from his simile of the soul and body to answer it 3. For his third argument from the names or titles of Fathers and Sons Pastours or Sheepheards and Sheep we know very well that both scriptures and Fathers and sacred and prophane writers adorn also Kings and supream civil Magistrats with the same titles or names of Fathers and Pastours That as Bellarmine or others of his way understand a politick or temporal Father-hood and Pastour-ship by such denominations as given to the civil Magistrate so of all sides the same titles given to Churchmen must be understood onely of that Father-hood and Pastour-ship which is purely spiritual and consequently the titles of children or sheep given to all laymen as relating to such Fathers and such Pastours must import onely spiritual sheep and spiritual children or children onely and sheep onely in matters purely spiritual That as the King is properly Pater Patriae and Pastor Patriae in that sense which is proper to him so all persons whatsoever either civil or Ecclesiastical who acknowledg him their King and themselves his Subjects are in that same sense his children and his sheep That those words Fathers and Sons Pastors and sheep being Metaphorically or onely by a Metaphor applyed to both sorts of Rulers and ruled persons the temporal and spiritual the same words names or titles are as properly applyed or attributed in a politique sense or as designing or meaning a civil Father-hood Pastor-ship c. of government as they are to a meer spiritual That hence this learned Cardinal may see First his third argument very easily solved For if reason teach that children are bound to obey their parents c and the sheep to be directed by their Pastors and consequently neither Parents nor Pastors to be subject to but exempt from the power of their children and sheep reason also teacheth that although we admitted this without any distinction when the parents and children and Pastors and sheep are such not by a metaphor but by nature that is when they are natural parents natural children natural pastors and natural sheep yet when they are such onely by metaphor or by a metaphorical kind of speech that is onely by some kind of similitude as in our case on both sides then it must be granted of necessity that the children are onely bound to obey wherein they are children and the sheep to be directed onely wherein they are sheep and consequently the parents and pastors exempted from their such respective children and sheep onely wherein they are such parents and pastors and not in other cases or matters I say that reason teaches all this and even Bellarmine himself must confess all this or certainly confess that which he would more unwillingly and plainly too against his own very first position of the Immunity of Ecclesiasticks or their exemption I mean from the lay power in Ecclesiastical or spiritual matters For the supream lay Magistrats Kings and Emperours are the politick civil Fathers and pastors of all the Common-wealth and even of all their respective Subjects aswell Clerks as Layeicks and no less properly called Fathers and pastors then the Priests Bishops or Popes themselves are so called being that neither King or Pope are so indeed but in a certain sense though different sense each of them and both onely called so by a metaphor and by some kind of similitude and in some things onely to a natural Father and natural sheep-heard and being this similitude is at least as great apt and obvious to nature in the government of Princes as in that of Priests Secondly he may see it retorted thus For if metaphorical children be subject to their metaphorical parents in all things wherein the one are such parents and the other such children and if metaphorical sheep be subject to and are to be directed by their metaphorical pastors then must it follow that in all worldly or temporal affairs in all civil and criminal causes c. all Clerks Priests and Bishops are subject to and consequently not exempted from the supream civil politick worldly temporal Father and pastor of the Common-wealth For as they are still Cittizens and members of the Common-wealth notwithstanding their special function and as they are still subjects and acknowledg the temporal King that rules temporally the Common-wealth to be even their own King alwayes for so doth Bellarmine himself confess notwithstanding the plain contradiction so must it be consequent that they must alway too acknowledg themselves metaphorically or in all such temporal respects his children and his sheep Thirdly he may see in this metaphorical argument his assumption or antecedent partly false and partly unconcluding False where he sayes or supposes at least and must suppose if he will conclude any thing that natural children are generally bound to obey their natural parents in all things and at all times both during their being minors and after and that natural parents cannot be subject to their own natural children in any respect or at any time For the contrary is evident in the doctrine of all Divines and Lawyers and by the practice of all Countries and ages or that even I mean in all things otherwise onely indifferent natural children being once come to lawful years are not bound to obey their very natural parents not even in the state of their life of marrying or living single entring Religion or not taking to this or that trade dispensing so or so of goods acquired by their own industry and a thousand such like And that also the natural parents may be bound in some cases and some times to obey their own natural children and in such to be not exempt from but subject to them As for example in all matters relating to the publick when natural children are made publick Officers or Governours of Kingdoms Provinces or even of particular Towns or Citties c. Unconcluding where he assumes for a proof of his purpose That according to nature natural sheep must be directed and govern'd by their sheepheard in all cases not he by them in any case For albeit this be simply true without any kind of distinction yet it is therefore onely true so universally because such sheep are by nature meer natural Beasts without any reason at all without discourse in any case and their sheepheard in all cases a rational Creature and as to them at least capable of some knowledg discourse and foresight of what may be for their good or hurt Now to conclude hence that men of reason because they are said to be or are indeed metaphorical sheep in order to some other men and but so in some respects or cases onely though withal truly and properly metaphorical
once made nor consequently lawful ever after to convert it to prophane uses that is to any other uses but those intended by vow for the more especial service of God Whence further it must no less plainly appear that were that very same law of Leviticus binding Christians now under the new Testament no more can be concluded to Bellarmines purpose and as to our dispute concerning the exemption of Clergymen from the civil power but that which should as well restrain the Pope as the Prince Because no more but that neither temporal nor spiritual Magistrate could secularize Churchmen or Church-lands or Church-beasts once they had been consecrated Church men or Church-lands or Church-beasts Which yet neither Bellarmine himself nor even any of his Defenders will allow as indeed both reason and so many thousands and even daily un-reproved instances tell us it cannot be allowed So that our learned Cardinal alledgeth in this point a law which is no more a law at all to us that are Christians and yet a law which were it a law for us hath not one word to his purpose For who sees not the consistency of these two 1. A right or a power from God in the supream civil Magistrate to force consecrated persons to behave themselves as becomes such consecrated persons 2. No right or power from God in such Magistrate to prophane those consecrated persons or to apply them to any other calling or profession which is or must be inconsistent with the ends of their consecration And who sees not consequently the vain flourish of this Querie wherewith this eminent person concludes his fourth argument Quis autem dicere audeat jus esse profano homini en ea quae sancta sanctorum id est sanctissima dici meruerunt who dares be so bold as to say that a profane man hath right to those things which have deserved the name of holy of holies that is most holy And then adds as a final conclusion of all Qua ratione bona etiam temporalia Clericorum bona Dominica proprie dicuntur in can 4. Apostolico ideo tanquam Deo sacra jucisdictioni laicorum subjecta esse non possunt Upon which account sayes he temporal goods of Clergymen are in the fourth Apostolical Canon properly said to be Dominica or the Lords goods and therefore as being consecrated to God cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of Laymen But he needed not make this so vain flourish of a querie or corrollary following which himself could not but know to have been ten thousand times over and over answered by Catholick Divines and Catholick Bishops and even by some very learned and very holy Popes too who in all ages both acknowledged and asserted a right in Emperours Kings and other supream temporal or civil lay Magistrates to govern command and even force by the sword if necessary all in their Territories even the most eminently consecrated to do their several duties to God and to the Commonwealth and to all their neighbours respectively As likewise they acknowledged and asserted in the same supream civil Magistrate a right to provide by good wholsome laws and otherwise that the temporal goods of Churchmen should be rightly used by them and not abused at all against those holy ends for which only either Princes or People or both had questionless devoted such goods to God Therefore to answer his question directly and briefly I will my self be one of those who dare say that such profane men as these supream civil Magistrates are since Bellarmine must needs have all kind of Laicks how Christian soever esteemed profane men have such a right as I have here declared over such holy of holies or most holy persons and things And that his allegation not out of the fourth Apostolical Canon as he quotes it but out of the 40. were those Canons authentick or indubitable Canons of the Apostles as this learned man himself knew very well they are not makes very much less for his exemption of the Goods of Ecclesiasticks c. from such a right in such profane persons For as this Canon attributes not the title of res Dominicae to all the goods whatsoever possessed by Clerks being it doth not to the Bishops own proper goods but to those only which being in common to all the Church or as well to other Priests and Ministers as to the Bishop whereof the text it self which I give here is proof sint autem manifestae res propriae Episcopi si tamen habet proprias et manifestae Dominicae ut potestatem habeat de propriis moriens Episcopus ficut voluerit de relinquere c. so it is clear enough out of what is said hitherto that no more can be concluded out of this denomination precisely against such a supream right as I have now declared in the supream civil Magistrate then may be out of any other epithet or word signifying only a pious or godly use of such goods And therefore no such matter as Bellarmine concludes which is to be in all senses and to all purposes exempt from even the very supream jurisdiction of all kind of lay Princes Doth natural reason teach us any inconsistency 'twixt some right or some power in the lay Prince or Parliament in some cases to tax the lauds or goods of the Church and the being nevertheless of those very lands or goods still designed for pious and holy uses or that even such taxation made by such a lay supream power and the execution and use of it may it not be of absolute necessity to preserve both the State and Church and the very continuance of these goods or lands hereafter in the immediate possession and property and use of the very Church and Church-men And is it not clear that as the meer lay Subjects property in their own hands must not cease at all by their being subject to necessary contributions or taxes when the supream legislative power layes such taxes on them for the maintainance of the publick even so those goods or lands whichh are for some special ordinary use called Dominicae must not therefore cease to be Dominicae or in the property of the Church because they may according to natural reason be in certain cases lyable to the like taxes imposed by the same supream lay power and by virtue of a true right in this very supream lay power to impose by its own authority alone such taxes on Church-lands albeit the Church-men themselves should unreasonably deny their own consent nay hath not the practice of the Christian world for many ages under great and good and most religious Christian Princes shewed us that the lands of the Church were often taxed so by them and by virtue of their own proper authority alone without being once ever told by the Church that they did amiss therein or at all against the ends or use of Dominicae Did not St. Ambrose himself confess in the difference he had with the young Emperour
is Ecclesiastical Judges given them in such exempted causes both criminal and civil but given them so by the supream authority civil and proceeding in so much against them to a meer civil determination execution and coaction by vertue onely of the power derived from the civil laws and supream civil Magistrate and not by vertue of any spiritual power or other whatsoever derived from the Church as purely a Church Because the Church as such hath neither territory nor sword consequently no external criminal or civil Judicatory with any external or temporal power of coaction or coercion properly such but onely a spiritual power of meer spiritual censures which is but secundum quid or diminutively and improperly called coercion or coaction for what belongs to our purpose here But however this be or be not it is clear enough First that by no civil law of the Roman Emperours Clerks have been ever yet at any time exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat or from the supream civil coercive power of his laws Which I take to be so absolutely certain That Bellarmine himself for proof of his third Proposition which he hath cap. 28. l. 1. de Cler. in these general words Non possunt Clericiâ—a Judicâ— seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent had not the confidence to alleadg any other imperial or civil constitution but onely those of the Emperour Justinian's Novells 79. 83. and 123. where yet Bellarmine confesses this Emperour decreed no more but the exemption of Clerks and Monks from secular that is laye judicatories in civil causes onely and not in criminal Nay confesses that for criminal causes the same Justinian particularly and expresly decrees in these very Novels that Clergiemen be subject still to the lay or civil Pretors Jurisdiction with this caution only that judgment of death be not pronounced in the Pretors Court against a Clerk before he be degraded by the Bishop So that by the very concession and confession of Bellarmine himself it is not only clear enough that no civil constitution can be produced for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream lay power but also clear enough that no such can be pleaded for their exemption in such causes from all subordinate inferiour lay Courts being the Pretors Court was a subordinate one at least unto the Princes own supream Tribunal and being that Bellarmine having confessed this much of this law of Iustinians finds no other civil Institution for his purpose in criminal causes to alledge but flyes presently to his Ecclesiastical Institutions in that point saying that albeit the civil law did not so exempt Clerks in criminal causes from the civil Judicatories yet the Canons of the Church did as sayes he appears clearly out of the Epistle of Cains the Pope to Felix and out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and also out of the XI book of Gregory the Greats Register epist 54. ad Joannem Defensorem and saying further that the civil law must yield to the Canon Law cum possit summus Pontifex Imperatori praecipere in iis praesertim quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent whereas sayes he the supream Pontiff or Pope may command the Emperour especially in such things as concern the Church Where it is evident that Bellarmine confesses plainly there is no civil Institution or Law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the civil or lay Courts For the Reader is to take notice here that by the civil law in this matter no other civil law is understood but that only of Emperours From which indeed originally and only all the exemption of Clerks proceeded even in those Christian Countreys which have shaken off the yoke and even in those too which never yet were under that of the Imperial Power or Laws but have made themselves peculiar municipal laws Which yet albeit they be meerly and properly civil laws yet are they not the civil laws whereof Bellarmine treats and his other Associats contend as we are sure they give more exemption to Clerks either in criminal or civil causes then those of the Roman Emperour did But forasmuch as many of our Clerks are ignorant of that spring of their exemption whatever this exemption truly groundedly be as others are no less ungrateful for not acknowledging it I will oblige those and check these by laying here before their eyes the very first laws the several degrees of them whereby they came by the meer favour of the Roman Emperours to that exemption from Secular Courts which they have truly ever since enjoyed more or less in Christendome according as these laws were continued practised or even by other Princes not subject any more or at all to the Roman Emperours and Laws enacted a new or allowed of Therefore and that we may not erre hereafter in this point the Reader is to know that all these several priviledges liberties or exemptions either of persons lands or other goods which the Clergy hath now in Christian Kingdoms and States have not been granted at first by any one Emperour or at any one time The very first exemption ever yet granted to Clerks was that of Constantine the Great whereby after this good Emperour had formerly published his edicts of liberty for Christian Religon in general he particularly gave this priviledge by law to those of that religion were called Clerks that they should not be obnoxious to nominations or susceptions that is that if they were named or elected for any civil office of Magistracy or Wardship or of gathering of Taxes Tributes c. yet they should not be bound to undergo any such whereas before that law or priviledge Christian Clerks being named or elected were bound to undergo all such offices without any such excuse at all But eight years after this law so made the same Câ—nstantine made another whereby he gave a general exemption to such Clerks from all kind of civil offices l. 1. 2. Cod. Theod. de Episcop Cleric l. 16. wherein he gives the reason of this priviledge least sayes he Clerks sacrilego livâ—re quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur may out of the sacrilegious envy of some be called away or diverted from their divine imployments And indeed it is very observable against the ungrateful temerity of some Clerks who are loath to acknowledge the spring of their Immunity to be from the secular power that the same most Christian Prince calls those exemptions priviledges For so he calls them in express tearms Haereticorum factiâ—ne comperimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Clericos ita vexari ut nominationibus seu suceptionibus aliquibus quas publicus mos exposcit centra indulta sibi privilegia pregraventur we have found sayes he that by the faction of Hereticks the Clerks of the Catholick Church are so vexed that they are forced to submit to nominations and susceptions which publick use requires against the priviledges granted them In reference to and
probability how great soever so it retain still the true ond onely nature of probability and arrive not to evidence and consequently be no more that which is meer probability but a quite other thing can serve our adversaries to quarrel against my doctrine which maintains no exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat For if their arguments or reasons whatsoever be but probable or should I admit any of them to be probable how intrinsecally soever yet admitting them but as onely such and not convincing and further shewing clearly they are not convincing the consequence of my admitting them for such onely that is for even intrinsecally probable and no more must be also that the tenet grounded on them cannot be certain And therefore that by the common doctrine of Divines and Lawyers Princes cannot be deprived of their supream power over Clerks whereof they are and have been alwayes in possession Because upon or for an uncertain title or uncertain allegations and all reasons which are onely probable are uncertain as to us none may be justly thrown out of a long continued possession and a possession which was bona fide such and a possession too which in the case and according to reason must have at least the same or as much even intrinsick probability for it in point of natural reason as is pleaded against it from pretences of the like natural reason This being the nature of meer probability of reason if understood to be such to inforce by a necessary consequence the like probability of reason producible for the other side of the contradictory Which advertisement I premise for the less acute or less discerning Readers sake not that I do my self apprehend any such true intrinsick probability in the propositions or assumptions of any the above reasons of Soto or Victoria as inferring their intended consequence nor that I fear any other judicious uninteressed or unbyassed person will apprehend any such in them whereas on the contrary I doubt not my solutions or answers to them will no less clearly in the point also satisfie the Reader then my former to Bellarmine's Scriptures Laws and Canons have Therefore to pass by at this time what I could answer in general to all those arguments both of Soto and Victoria and to all other such of others if any other such be which is that learned men would in such a matter of so great weight and consequence and of such infinit prejudice to Princes and the State Politick universally expect a demonstration if not a pure Philasophical one of both Premisses and conclusion at least a Theological one and not such pittifull aequivocate Sillogismes or rather ill assuming and ill concluding Parologismes to which there are as many clear and convincing answers as there are propositions or even almost words And that it very ill becomes so great Clerks to lay so weak a foundation for so vast a fabrick as they would build thereon a power in the Pope to exempt all Clerks nay to exempt so many millions of men and women subjects and free them all from that subjection which they all owe to Kings by the laws of God and nature I say that to pass by now this general animadversion and To answer first in particular to Soto and to all the particulars of his argument I distinguish the Ecclesiastical power which he sayes to be per se that is of it self or of its own proper nature self sufficient and independent from the civil For if thereby Soto understand that the spiritual authority given to the Apostles and Church viz. that of preaching the word administring the sacraments interpreting of scriptures absolving from sins excluding contumacious sinners out of the Church receiving them again when they are penitent and of doing or discharging all such other functions which are purely spiritual and are sufficient for eternal salvation of mortals I confess that Ecclesiastical power so taken is per se of it self or of such its own nature sufficient to attain its own true proper ends that is to lead people to salvation or which is it I mean can without any help from the civil power lead unto this great end And consequently may enact such proportionable laws and sanctions as are necessary in circumstances to attain this self same happy end But withall I say that as it is one thing to say as it must in truth be said That Ecclesiastical power so taken and so sufficient for such end is in such respect independent from the civil power because the civil power can neither give it nor take it away and a quite other thing to say that the persons who have this Ecclesiastical power are not or may not or ought not to be in other respects dependent from the civil power and civil Magistrats so it is perspicuous That a law for the exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power and this law of exemption made also by the very Clerks themselves of themselves and by vertue onely of a pretended power in themselves and without any consent nay with manifest reluctance of the said civil supream power and Magistrat I say t is perspicuous that such a law of such exemption so made nay indeed or any way made either without or with the consent of the said supream civil Magistrat or even by either spiritual or temporal power or even by both powers together cannot be numbred amongst such other laws or sanctions as are necessary to lead unto or attain salvation For who ever yet doubted that Christians whatsoever Clergie and Layety can or could be saved notwithstanding that all Clergiemen were subject still to the civil jurisdiction of even the subordinate lay Judges and were in all politick or temporal matters or causes whatsoever both civil criminal or mixt of both convened in civil courts tryed by the common laws and received sentence from the lay Judges as formerly it hath sometimes been a long time been under not onely Heathen but very Christian Emperours Or whatever others answer how can Soto in particular say otherwise then that such a law or such exemption cannot be necessary For upon one side he teacheth as we have seen before that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino and on the other no man in the world and consequently nor Soto himself will deny nor can deny That all kind of things provisions laws c whatsoever accounted necessary for salvation must be confess'd to be de jure divino But forasmuch as Soto adds That the power Ecclesiastical may not only enact such laws as are necessary for its administration but such laws also as are congruent I would fain know of him what he means by congruent If laws so agreeable meet fitting or expedient for the due exercise or execution of the same true genuin pure Ecclesiastical Power that without such laws no such due exercise or execution may be of such power then indeed or understood in this sense he
sayes right and speaks truth for so much yet sayes no more by adding congruentes then he had before by the word necessariae But if by leges congruentes laws congruent he mean laws which many or most Churchmen conceive or perhaps others too esteem of as much conducing to the splendour of the Church and execution of her commands or of other former or after laws but not as necessary to either then without doubt or in such meaning of this word congruent the proposition universally taken is in it self absolutely or simply false Because neither Pope nor Church can on any such pretext make laws to the prejudice of the civil rights of others without their own consent albeit laws which may otherwise conduce very much to the splendour and majesty of the Church nay and also not seldom to the greater perfection of holiness amongst the people For as the spiritual power â— in its own kind ordained by God and obliged to provide carefully for the observance of all the laws of God so is the temporal power also in its own kind both ordained by the same God and likewise obliged to see a due observance of the same laws of God And as notwithstanding this equal tye on the temporal power you cannot conclude it may enact laws in meer and pure ecclesiastical or spiritual Church matters although beleeving at the same time nay knowing such matters and such laws in such matters to conduce very much not to the greatness only of it self in the nature of a temporal power and to a more effectual observance of its own proper laws but to the better observance also of the very known laws of God himself so neither can you conclude that for the like end the power Ecclesiastical may at pleasure enact laws in temporal or civil matters In the making of laws by either part there is no difference in that For though it be true the Power Ecclesiastical be not bound to obey the temporal when this commands any thing against the commands of God nay that in such case the spiritual power may substract all its own proper and purely spiritual commodities or benefits from the Temporal it is also true that in like manner the Temporal is not bound to obey the spiritual when by laws or edicts of the Pope or Church invaded in its own proper temporal rights nay and that if necessary it may deprive the Ecclesiastical of all temporal commodities during such invasion or until the errour be corrected effectually When therefore any law or rather canon Ecclesiastical entrenches on the temporal power though under pretext of a spiritual advantage as for example when it prescribes or circumscribes or lessens the temporal jurisdiction which by the law of God was allowed or when it prescribes in the point of politick affairs or civil customs or manner of living civilly such prescriptions must not be acknowledged as proceeding from the true spiritual power but onely from the pleasure and sanction of spiritual or Ecclesiastical persons not acting in so much by any kind of power in them Ecclesiastical or not Ecclesiastical other then a meer usurped power but acting so as the true temporal power the secular Princes and Magistrats may oppose and correct them whereas in temporal matters or in any matters purely civil which are not necessary to salvation at least where the civil rights acquired already to a third and acquired without any injustice are taken away without the consent of such third person or of the supream civil Magistrat and civil laws by which onely all civil rights are confirmed or infirmed given at first or changed after it is most certain the Church can do nothing oblige no man without the temporal powers concurrence Otherwise who sees not that if the power Ecclesiastical make a law for levelling estates amongst the Layety or a law commanding every secular person that hath any goods to bestow every year on the poor the one entire half of his profits nay actually the one entire half of his lands for pious uses who sees not I say but that such law must in conscience bind all men Nay and should it make an other law too for appointing holy devout Churchmen to be superintendents or Stewards under the Pope in every Parish to dispose of all the goods of laymen to more holy uses then the laymen themselves do at present But if neither Soto nor any other Divine or Canonist nor Bellarmine himself nor any sticklers for his opinions will have the confidence to attribute the power of making such laws to the Church notwithstanding that such laws if submitted unto duely executed might questionless be esteemed by some or many or most or all Churchmen and by most of other men also to be very congruent for the greater splendour of the Church and more holy perfect observation of the Gospel and if to the Church they will deny such a power and deny it on that account only which I have presently given how can they but consequently deny to the same Church a power of making laws for exempting all Clerks from Princes without the consent of Princes Is not this a law made in a temporal matter and a matter unnecessary to salvation Was not the temporal subjection of the persons of Clerks or their subjection to Princes in temporal matters a meer temporal duty which sometime at least they owed to Princes Was not the right Princes had to govern and punish them a meer temporal right Was it not formerly acquired and legally settled from the beginning in Princes How then could the Princes be deprived thereof without their own consent by any law of the Church Or if so why not also of their other temporal rights and of their other Subjects and of their Lands c Or could not the makers of such pretend motives of piety and of the greater glory of God and greater splendour of the Church of God for making them and for proving them to be congruent Nay do we not know they pretend such motives to assert the temporal Monarchy of the whole earth to the Pope as if having it de facto or de jure and even without any such laws Why therefore may not they proportionable motives for his making in every Kingdom Province County Barrony City Parish Village Lieutenants of his own Ecclesiastical Function and consequently motives of congruency to transferr all the very individual otherwise temporal or civil rights of lay-men to Churchmen and so further consequently exempt all kind of lay-men as well as Clergiemen from the Jurisdiction of meer lay Judge if not of such as the Pope himself alone would make Judges But forasmuch as Dominick Soto notwithstanding so much evidence against even the congruency of Ecclesiastical exemption from all kind of civil Power or rather against his ill consequences deduced from his congruency must also affirm such Exemption to be necessary let us consider his five mediums to prove this whereof the three
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
of a Lay Judg in such a cause of debt challenged on a Clerk should be tearmd heer damnable presumption and temerity Yet reason tels us that Boniface supposed a former law or priviledg exempting Clerks in such a cause the breaking of which law or priviledg most have been it which he calls heer damnable presumption and temerity But who made this law or gave this priviledg whether Emperours and other Kings or whether the Pope alone or even with other Bishops or also whether God himself immediately this canon of Boniface determines not at all And though Boniface therein commands the Ordinarie to proceed with Ecclesiastical censures against such Lay judges as would presume to give sentence in a cause of debt against a Clergieman yet so might Boniface have done nay and justly too have done if such a law of exemption had been formerly made by the supream civil power and onely by this power Because even in this case Clergiemen had acquired a civil right not to be proceeded against by such inferiour Lay judges And consequently the Bishops might use the censures of the Church for defence of it as they might for defence of any other civil right in either Clergie or Layety until the same supream civil power did repeal such law or transferre again such right For so long and no longer should this law of Boniface for excommunicating such Lay Judges by the ordinaries continue So that out of so many heads either joyntly or severally taken it appears this cap. seculares de foro competenti in 6. is no sufficient proof at all that ever any Pope hath as much as de facto exempted Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power though I confess it must have supposed them formerly exempted by some power in some civil causes from inferiour Lay Judges But what 's this to purpose 7. That for the later of these two canons or cap. Clericis de Immuniâ— Eceles in 6. though it cannot be denyed that Boniface flew so high therein excommunicating all Rectors Captains Powers Barons Counts Dukes Princes Kings Emperours c. who imposed on or exacted or even received from Churchmen or Churchlands or goods any kind of burdens tallies or collections and halfs tenths twentieths hundreths or any other portion or share whatsoever of their profits or revenues as likewise all Prelats and Ecclesiasticks whosoever both secular and Regular who should pay any such under what pretext soever without express permission from himself or other Bishop of Rome succeeding him though I say all this cannot be denyed to have been so notoriously done by Boniface that it was necessary to correct so great an extravagancy of his and correct it even in a general Council which soon after his death followed under Clement the V. at Vienna in France and to revoke it wholly as may be seen by Clementina Quoniani de Immunitate Ecclesiarum yet I say withal that Boniface decreed nothing in this very chapter Clericis that may be alleadged with any reason for Bellarmine's voluit that is nothing for a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of very meer temporal Princes nay nor for a power in either to exempt Clerks from such payments Not for the former power because he speaks onely here of such payment and such payments are very different from other causes criminal or civil also Nor for the later because albeit he proceed so vigorously against all such as would either exact or receive such payments how freely soever made otherwise or would submit or consent to such payments without his own express consent yet all this he did as supposing the lands and other goods of the Church and the Churchmen themselves before exempted from all such payments and yet determines not here nor else where it was by the power of either Pope or Church they were so before exempted And Boniface perswaded himself that by what power soever they had been so exempt or by what law soever divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical those of Emperours or Kings or those of Popes or other Bishops it was his own part to see an exact observance of such exemption and that he might to this end make use of his Ecclesiastical or spiritual censures And questionless had his supposition been true in the whole latitude of it concerning an exemption so general from all kind of tributs taxe c. in all contingencies whatsoever and by what power soever even the highest supream civil on earth laid on or received from Churchlands Goods or Persons he might observing due moderation command under meer and pure spiritual censures the due observance of such exemption though granted only by the meer temporal power and civil laws But this supposition was not right and he exceeded therefore and therefore too this Decree of his was totally annulled in the above Clementina Quoniam as I have said already 8. That for the Bull which is commonly called Bulla caenae as being yearly and with so great solemnity published and renewed at Rome on Maundy Thursday when the last Supper of our Lord is specially remembred whence it is that name of the Bull of the Supper is derived nothing at all can be concluded from it for any such voluit of Bellarmine For albeit amongst twenty special excommunications contained therein against several sorts of persons or delinquents there are at least four large ones with a huge variety of clauses particularly against so many sorts of infringers or presumed infringers of Ecclesiastical Exemption Immunity or as that Bull calls it Ecclesiastical Liberty videlicet XIV XV. XVI XVII XVIII Excommunication yet as the Pope assumes not pretends not in this Bull that himself thereby gives that liberty so he determines not therein who gave that liberty immunity or exemption to Churchmen whether God or Man And if man whether the Popes themselves or Church or whether not the Emperours and Kings As neither doth he there determine that in truth they had formerly from either God or Man or Pope or Prince or State or Church all those liberties or even any in particular of those liberties against the infringers of which he proceeds in that Bull with so great severity The Pope therefore only supposes that Churchmen had by some law or some fact of God or Man of Church or State or of the lay Princes and people these liberties But from which he sayes nothing in the Bull. Now we know that suppositions are no arguments of a determination in the case For so our own School-Divines and Bellarmine himself elsewhere de Concilior authoritat and truth it self do teach us whereof I have before given the reason Whence it appears evidently this Bulla caenae is to as little purpose alledged as any of those former papal canons for the Popes having been he that gave de facto Ecclesiastical Exemption from either supream or subordinate secular Judicatories in temporal matters whatsoever
only such causes as are meerly Ecclesiastical That Peter Martyr in cap. 13. ad Roman not only teaches the very same but further adds that Princes could not give Clerks the priviledge to be exempt from or not to be subject to the politick Magistrats because sayes Martyr this would be against the law of God and therefore that notwithstanding any concessions of Princes Clerks ought alwayes to be subject to the secular Magistrats And that Ioannes Brentius in Prologamâ—nis and Melanchthon in locis cap. de Magistrat subject Ecclesiasticks to the secular Tribunals even in matters and causes Ecclesiastical But who is so weak as to be frighted from any truth because maintained also or asserted by some lyars Or who knows not that all both Hereticks and Arch-hereticks too joyn with the most orthodox in many both Philosophical and Theological Natural and Moral Divine and Humane positions and even in very many of the most precise uncontroverted revelations of Christian Faith Must it be suspected to be a Christian Truth that Jesus Christ is the Messias promised that he is the Son of God that there are three persons in the Godhead that there are some Sacraments of the new Testament that Christ was born of a Virgin that he suffered for Mankind that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead c. must I say any of these be suspected not to say rejected because Melanchthon or Brentius or Martyr or even Calvin himself or Luther beleeve and maintain them against other Hereticks If therefore they or any other such as they taught also this truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from but subject to the supream civil coercive power of Princes which only is it I undertake here to maintain must Bellarmine therefore think to fright us from saying the same thing although we say it not at all because they did And yet I must further tell the Readers and Admirers of Bellarmine although my task here require it not 1. That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of a yet more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the di-drachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condemned nor censured at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters 2. That if Calvin pretend no more but that Clerks ought to be subject in politick matters to the supream temporal Magistrate and where the same temporal doth not exempt them insomuch he speaks not his own sense but the sense he was formerly taught in the Catholick Church which yet in so many other points he unhappily deserted Thirdly That although if Martyr be understood also of inferiour Magistrats as I doubt not much he ought to be his addition be absolutely and simply false yet if understood of the supream onely as perhaps others may understand him and of Clerks living still as Subjects under any such temporal power supream and acknowledging and owning it for such and themselves for Subjects Martyr was not out by saying in this Hypothesis that Princes could not in secular matters exempt Clerks from the secular Magistrat vz. from the supream secular Fourthly That although also if Brentius and Melanchthon understood by causes Ecclesiastical those which are purely and originally such and not those which by custome onely or concession of Princes or because onely permitted or delegated by Princes or their laws to the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Judges are now and have been a long time called Ecclesiastical vz. per denominationem extrinsecam by an extrinsick denomination from such Ecclesiastical Judges not by any intrinsick assumed from the nature of the causes which in themselves otherwise are meerly civil or temporal as for example usury adultery theft committed in Sacred places or of Sacred things c I say that although if not this latter kind of Ecclesiastical causes but the former be understood by Melanchthon and Brentius and if they further mean'd that Clerks are to acquiesce finally in the judgment or determination of the temporal Magistrat in all such pure Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes it must be confessed their doctrine or this meaning of it is very false and heretical yet if they understood onely the second sort of Ecclesiastical causes and by secular Magistrats intended onely the supream secular it must be also confess'd that in so much they spoke orthodoxly Besides that none may upon rational grounds deny to Kings and other supream temporal Governours a certain kind of external and temporal or politick and civil superintendency even of the very truest and purest Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes of the Church such as are those of believing this or that to have been revealed by God of Ministring the Sacraments in this or that manner and with convenient or decent rites c. Provided they do not use nor attempt to use immediately by themselves or even mediately by others and by vertue of their own proper authority other means or execution of such superintendency but such means and execution as are meerly temporal and corporal or such as are answerable to the civil power and sword Which kind of superintendency and supream civil coercive judicatory power annexed and I mean also annexed in order to such spiritual causes no man will deny to Kings that will consider it is onely from their supream coercive power the Ministers of justice derive authority to put any man to death for Apostacy Infidelity or Heresy in Faith or doctrine or Sacriledg in the administration of Sacraments For it is not the Bishop or Church that by any power Episcopal or Church power adjudgeth any Clerk to death for denying or renouncing Christianity or any Priest for poysoning his communicant at the Sacred Altar or with a Sacred or unsacred hoast but the King and State and their laws and power So that these onely are still the supream Judges for temporal and corporal and civil punishment or coercion whether by death or otherwise and let the cause be never so spiritual or let the crime be committed in matters or things never so purely strictly or solely Ecclesiastical And therefore if Brentius and Melanchthon intend no more but this by saying that Ecclesiasticks were not exempt but subject even in causes Ecclesiastical to the supream civil power they both meand and sayed in so much but what the Catholick Church had taught them As if they meand any more that is if they meand to say that Ecclesiasticks
against this instance I say moreover against Bellarmine and for Barclay that to conclude thence as our Cardinal would is nothing else but to conclude Sophistically And that Bellarmine himself were he alive again and being he is not that his defenders must acknowledge so much is very evident hence that Barclay's argument as mine here or his assuming this maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo as this very maxime in it self proceeds onely and is understood onely or certainly should be amongst Christian Divines of meer natural civil or politick rights or such as are not by that law of Christ expresly or tacitly but certainly however spiritualized or made properly and purely spiritual and supernatural by the proper signification of a Sacrament of the new law to which they are elevated by Christ himself who is questionless the onely Institutour of such Sacraments and who might rayse any otherwise natural thing whatsoever as he pleased to this Sacramental dignity spirituality and supernaturality both as to signification and effection too or production of what effects he had thereby designed Now who sees not or at least what Catholick Divine or Canonist sees not that Matrimony or the matrimonial contract ordained for every Christian that would choose that course of life however amongst Heathens it be onely a meer natural and civil contract yet as engaged in by a Christian it is raysed by the law of Christ himself to that purely spiritual and supernatural notion And therefore who sees not that Matrimony and all the rights acquired thereby being now it is in Christian Religion a true and proper Sacrament of that Religion and consequently a spiritual matter and of pure Ecclesiastical notion as such must be dispensed and ruled by and according to the peculiar law of Christ and his peculiar precepts for it given either by himself immediately or by his Apostles and appearing to us either in the written word or even in that which is called unwritten but universally in all ages and amongst all true believers received as such And who moreover sees not that not onely in that case of an unbelieving husband nor also in that other case which Bellarmine instances of Matrimony contracted onely by words or consent betwixt a believing both man and woman but not consummated which kind of Matrimony they call matrimonium ratum but also in other almost innumerable cases in this matter of matrimony the right of a Christian husband or wife is taken away or lost which yet would not have been lost to or taken away from a Jew or Infidel in the like case It was lawful for for a Jew or Infidel to marry his Uncle's or Aunt 's daughter By the common laws and canons of Christians this is now prohibited to Christians It was lawfull for them in many cases to give a Bill of Divorce In the self same cases this is unlawful for us even Christ himself and by his own express command or Declaration enjoyning as not to do so Behold how this maxime The law of Christ deprives none of his right is not to be understood of Sacramental and purely Ecclesiastical matters or of such wherein that very law made express or undoubted provision Therefore to speak yet further no less truly then precisely we must say that albeit the law of Christ deprive no man of his right in any case whatsoever yet this law by its own proper true genuine right and power by that of Christ himself who as the natural Son of God had all right and all power in himself as Lord of all ordered this particular matrimonial right so as to be of spiritual and Ecclesiastical notion amongst Christians and therefore to depend in many or most cases not of the temporal but of the spiritual power not of the state but of the Church What hath this to do with other meer civil natural or politick rights or such as have not been at all spiritualized or supernaturalized by their elevation to the nature of a Sacrament or otherwise nay concerning which there hath not been any express or tacit provision made in the law of Christ for their being of Ecclesiastical notion at all or subject to the power of the Church but rather the contrary most expresly To prove that such remain still untouch'd unaltered in Christian Princes notwithstanding their submission to the law of Christ and remaine the very same that they were in these self same Princes or in other before they were Christians or even in any other Princes still as yet Heathen that so commonly applauded and generally received maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure suo was insisted on by William Barclay and by his Son after him against Bellarmine in this matter of Ecclesiastical exemption as intending onely to prove thereby that Christ did not by his law alter or abolish the meer political rights of any Prince or Subject but left them still in their former state so farre from being abrogated that they were absolutely confirmed unto them as will appear evidently in my next Section they were and were so even by express decrees of that very law And that amongst those meer political rights that of a coercive power in Princes and in all temporal causes of and over all Clerks whatsoever living within their dominions is not one or that the exemption or subjection of Clerks in such matters hath been spiritualized or supernaturalized by the law of Christ or that in the same law there is any express or tacit provision or caution that Clerks should not be subject so to secular Princes I make no question the intelligent Reader understands by this time that Bellarmine hath said nothing yet here to move the least scruple to any rational man And therefore to proceed to the rest of his Instances the Reader is to observe 3. That what our learned Cardinal sayes heer of a natural Father's loosing his Fatherly power over his Son when this Son of his is created Bishop must be alike erroneous with that of his depriving the Prince of his Princely power of any persons when ordered Clerks For it his meaning be that Bishops are freed from that Fatherly power which is of divine right both natural and positive I say that sentence must be very Blasphemous because expresly against the known law of God and Nature Wherein to dispense no creation nor elevation to what dignity soever even Papal or Imperial no law of man nor power on earth spiritual or temporal or both together can be alledged But if his meaning be that a Bishop hoc ipso that he is made Bishop is freed from that fatherly command over him which meerly and only depends of the civil laws I say this very commanding power authority Jurisdiction or whatever you call it cannot be taken away or that the Father cannot be deprived of it without permission from the temporal Prince to whose care and will the keeping strictly to or dispencing in the civil laws is
committed according as the respective civil laws or customs of Kingdoms are and who may consequently according to the same laws deprive this or that private man of some civil right enjoyed by him formerly if he find it so expedient for the publick And I grant also what Bellarmine sayes of a power in the Pope to make a Metrapolitane or Archbishop of a simple Presbyter and consequently to subtract him from his former Ordinarie's Jurisdiction and of the like or unlike and even more absolute power in the King to give the creation of an Earl to a private inferiour person and place him in authority above another Earl to whom he was till then subject in many things and perhaps even generally subject also to all his commands But it is therefore I admit both because that not only this simple Presbyter and this private person but this Ordinary other Earl too are subject respectively to the Pope King and that by the civil laws the King may for the publick good and by the canons Ecclesiastical the Pope also may for the like publick regard so and so dispose of such persons no law of God or man being to the contrary Is this to conclude the exemption of Clergiemen from the power of Princes and against the will of Princes and against all laws both divine and humane and against all reason too and given more over by a man who could not exempt himself but was himself as subject as any other Clerk and consequently by a man who had no power at all over either Prince or Clerk in such matters Or is this to prove that the law of Christ doth exempt them or impower the Pope to exempt them in temporal things because forsooth they have a new spiritual creation which yet reason tells us and the Scripture teacheth to be and that it ought to be very consistent both in the creatour and created with their subjection in such temporal things to the proper Rulers of the same temporal things Bellarmine therefore seeing this first answer of his own could not sufficiently defend him against the reasonableness of that maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo not even for all his instances which I have now throughly canvassed as much as is necessary to my purpose found it his best way to have recourse to his Recognitions or last Editions of his great work of Controversies and particularly of his book de Cleric cap. 28.29 and 30. and briefly out of his said latter doctrine there to give a second answer to Barclay here cap. 34. con Barclaium which in effect must be also to that part of my second proposition or minor of this my first argument where also in effect I said That Infidel Princes during the time of their infidelity and before they became Christians had a coercive power in temporal things over all Christians whatsoever as well Clerks as Laicks or in all temporal civil and politick causes or which is that I mean'd and do mean had that power over Clerks not de facto only but even de jure Legis Christianae According to this second answer Bellarmine admits or at least sayes nothing to the first proposition or major of my above first argument but flatly denâ—es my second proposition or minor chiefly for the first part of it and sayes the law of God as well positive as natural exempted Clerks from all earthly secular Authority (a) Ad hoc respondeo Clericos non solo Privilegio Principum sed etiam decretis summorum Pontificum quod majusest divino jure exemptos fuisse antequam Principum privilegio eximerentur Bellae minuâ— contâ— Barel um cap. 34.1 from all meer worldly Principalities and Powers whether Christian or Heathen and exempted them so long before they had been in aftertimes exempted either by the laws of Emperours or canons of Bishops But yet further and most specially and particularly endeavours to mantain this second answer in his said 3â— chap. contra Barclaium for what concerns the Pope's own person or the exemption of the Pope himself what ever be said of other Clerks Priests or Bishops whatsoever For to William Barclaies argument pressing him thus or in this form besides whereas the Pope himself hath not obtained his own exemption or that of his own person only by other law title or right but by that of the bounty and beneficence of secular Princes for as our Adversaries confess he means Bellarmine in the first place and in his former editions which were those which only William Barclay saw the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to Heathen Princes as other Citizens were it is very absurd to say that he might free others from that subjection least otherwise it might be said to him Alios salvos fecit seipsum non potuit salvum facere I say that to this argument of Barclay Bellarmine answers cod cap. 34. contra Barclaium and answers also in these very tearms Respondeo Argumentum Barclaii duplicivitio laborat Nam antecedens habet falsum conâ—ecutionem viti sam Falsum imprimis est Pontificem non alio jure quam Principum largitate beneficio exemptionem suam nactum esse Qui enim Vicarium suum in terris eum constiâ—it is hâ—c ipso eum exemit ab omni potestate Principum terrae Sed etiamsi jure subjectus fuisset Regibus vel Imperatoribus Ethnicis non tamen sequeretur cum subjectium quoque esse debere Regibus vel Imperatoribus Christianis nisi ipsorum largitate beneficio eximeretur Nam cum sit ipse super omnem familiam constitutus Reges atque Imperatores ab eo in eamdem familiam coaptentur ut ab ipso regantur dirigantur certé nulla ratio patitur up ipse illis subjiciatur quibus jure divino praesidet It seems our great Cardinal was reduced to very great streights when he was forced to contradict himself so notoriously even for the matter to change his Faith and Religion if he would have as indeed he fain would have us to hold the exemption of Clerks and especially of the Prince or Chief of Clerks the Pope himself I mean to be a matter of Faith and Religion But however this be of his change or of his faith or of his religion or even sole opinion whether out of interest or out of conscience altered so strangely in his old age from that it was in the dayes of his stronger judgment when he had much less to by ass him and long before Sixtus the V. did threaten to burn his first Edition partly for opposing the direct power of the Canonists and even when first he appeared in the lists so gloriously bidding defiance to all hereticks of all ages in the world however I say this be or not be of his change that this second answer as relating first to the whole Clergy in general nay and to every individual of them of whatsoever eminency
excellency or dignity even the very supream of that Order is in it self unreasonable unevangelical and altogether groundless and unmantainable I referr thee first Good Reader to my foregoing LXIII LXIV LXV LXVI and LXVII Sections where as I have already in this very Section told you I have of purpose examined throughly and fully answered all Bellarmines arguments for his law divine either positive or natural alledged by him for the exemption of Clerks and secondly referr thee to the very next two or three Sections immediatly following this present but more especially to the first of them which in order is my LXIV of this first part of this first Treatise where I at large and of purpose and by positive arguments of Scriptures and Fathers demonstrate even the quite contrary of what Bellarmine sayes here of heathen Princes Besides that as I have also noted above my two next arguments of natural reason which you shall have immediatly in this present Section demonstrate the falsity of this last Answer as it relates to all Clerks in general Yet for as much as Bellarmine hath given us here a most particular or special exception of the Pope however the rest do for he thinks all may be in effect safe enough if the heal only he safe being that if the Pope himself alone be exempt by divine right or law de jure divino he may then by his own papal constitutions exempt all the rest of the Clergy whether Princes will or not I must give also here my animadvensions upon his reasons or those given by him for that special exceptions made or his Holiness and for his own answer to saying that Barclayes argument which I have reheâ—â—sed a little before had two faults viz a false Antecedent and a vitious or ill inferr'd Consequence that antecedent of Bâ—rclaye being That the Pope himself had not his own exemption 〈◊〉 that of his own person but from the meer liberaliâ—â— and favour of Princes because sayes Barclay as even our Adversaries confess the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to heathen Princes as other Citizens were and that consequent also being That therefore that is for the Popes having been subject by the law of God to heathen Princes before they were converted it must follow that he must also by the same law be subject to them when converted or which is the same thing to Christian Kings and Emperours I say that Bellarmine for his giving answer that the antecedent is false and consequent vitious alledges first for reason of the former That our Sauiour Christ had made the Pope his own Vicat on earth and that hoc ipso by making him such he exempted him from all power of earthly Princes And in the next place alledges for reason of the latter That whereas the Pope is by the same Lord and Saviour constituted over the whole family of beleevers and that Kings and Emperours are consequently incorporated by him to be directed and ruled by him certainly no reason suffers that he be subject to them over whom he is by divine right to preside But who sees not that as Barclay assumed that very Antecedent not only from Scripture Tradition and Reason as well appear in the next Section but from the common doctrine of all at least the best sort of even School Divines and which is more from Bellarmine himself for as yet our learned Cardinal had not set forth his Recognitions and Barclay could not have once suspected that Bellarmine would in his last days of old age have changed from that which till then he had publickly exposed to the world in his Controversie so that reason which Bellarmine alledges to prove it false must appear it self to be most unreasonable to wit that Christ had appointed the Pope his own Vicar and thereby exempted him from the power of Princes Indeed if Bellarmine could evidence that our Saviour had created the Pope his Vicar General and in all things and his own Vicar too as himself was the natural Son of God and second person of the Trinity and as God by pure nature not by communication or hypostastical union and not as a mortal man or as he appeared on earth before his Resurrection or if Bellarmine could evidence briefly that our Lord created the Pope his own Vicar as well in all kind of earthly powers and temporal matters whatsoever as in some kind of limited spiritual power and things then he might have truly said that Barclayes Antecedent is false and the contrary certain or that it is not from the favour of Princes the Pope hath what exemption he hath but from the law and power of God immediatly But nothing is more certain then that the Pope was not created such a Vicar General his power as that of the Universal Church being purely and only spiritual It is true Joan. 3.35 27.21 the Father gave Christ all things into his hands and the power of all flesh Pater dedit Christo omnia in manus potestatem omnis carnis But our Cardinal hath not yet proved that either Son or Father gave or ever yet committed so large a power to any one Vicar and the contrary is otherwise in it self very certain both by Scripture Tradition and Reason Our Saviour Jesus Christ therefore left by his law the temporal administration to the temporal civil or politick Magistrates as before and from the beginning it was by all laws to the great Pontiff he committed what was agreeable to a Pontiff only or to the prime Pontiff that is to be his Vicar in all pure spiritual administration and in such only too according to the holy canons of the Catholick Church And it is clear this Function or this Dignity how great soever it be doth no more exempt the Pope as Pope from temporal subjection that is from subjection in temporal matters to a meer lay or secular Prince or Magistrate then the most high supream and by God himself immediately ordained civil power of secular Princes Kings Emperours can or doth exempt them in spiritual matters from the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope or even of any other their own proper Patriarch or Bishop or even also of an inferiour Priest in the confessional seat or other administration of the Sacraments to them And who sees not that as that Consequent of Barclay follows manifestly and necessarily out of the Antecedent once admitted because that as I have already proved and as Barclay too alleadged Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo c even so it must follow and whether it follow or not it is clear enough in it self that Bellarmine's reason to the contrary or to shew this consequence to be vitious or ill inferr'd is a most pittifull unsignificant one indeed and as such by me very often answer'd already For how many times was it answered before that the Pope as Pope is by our Lord and Saviour appointed the chief Superintendent or
Steward of the family in spiritual things onely and onely enabled with spiritual power and with spiritual means also in the execution of such power And consequently that the Pope admits or introduceth Kings and Emperours into the Christian family that they may be govern'd or directed by him spiritually what hath this to do with or how doth it inferre the Pope's being exempted in temporal matters from those very Princes no more certainly then doth the King's or Emperour's being made chief temporal Superintendent by God himself of the Christian family or of those of his own Kingdom or Empire and no more then his admitting of or introducing of whom he please of all forraigners even Churchmen Priests and Bishops and let the Pope himself be one of them as it may well be into the temporal family of his Kingdom Empire or Court and Pallace that they may be govern'd and directed by him temporally civilly or politically in all matters belonging to him hath to do with or inferrs the same King 's or Emperour's being therefore exempt in spiritual matters from these Clergiemen over whom he superintends so or whom he so admits or introduces unto his own temporal family Kingdom or Court But sayes Bellarmine again the second time cap. 35. adversus Barclaium strugling yet to maintain his denyal of that first part of my said Minor in general as to all Clerks whatsoever or whosoever concerning that of the subjection of Christian Clerks to Infidel Princes there being two sentences or opinions as we have noted before neither of them favours Barclay The true sentence or doctrine is That Christian Clerks have been jure that is by the law of Christ or of God exempted from the power of Infidel Princes albeit they had been de facto subject to them And that he exempted them as his own proper Ministers who is truly said or called Apocap 1. in the first of St. Iohns Revelations Princeps Regum terrae the Prince of the Kings of the Earth Therefore according to this sentence that proposition of Barclay which is the said first part of my Minor is to be denied which he no where proves nor hath proved in this place but assumes as granted which yet indeed the more grave Writers do not grant such as are all those that mantain Ecclesiastical Exemption to be de jure divino And yet were that proposition granted that I mean of the subjection of Christian Clerks de jure legis Christianae to Infidel Princes Barclay would not could not therefore conclude for this consecution of his thence would be denied Ergo Clerks are de jure subject also to the judgment and power of beleeving or Christian Princes For all Catholick Writers as well Divines as Canonists deny this proposition which is the second amongst those of Barclay here And that consecution would be and is denied because the supream Pontiff that is the Pope hath absolutely exempted Clerks from the power of beleeving Princes who acknowledge his power but from the power of Infidel Princes who do not acknowledge his power he hath not so absolutely exempted them because he cannot force or punish these by ecclesiastical Censures Besides that consecution would also have been and is denied because the very Christian lay Princes themselves have so exempted Clerks from themselves as understanding how great the clerical dignity is Which Infidel Princes have not done as to whom that spiritual dignity was and is unknown Hitherto Bellarmine ubi supra cap. 35. How vain this reply is first as to his law diuine which he pretends I have already shewed at large in my former Sections where I handled his texts alledged out of that same law Divine will hereafter yet shew out of other clear texts to the quite contrary Vnless perhaps he means that that adorable title of Christ which he brings here Princeps Regum terrae and he might have added too Rex Regum Dominus Dominantium be an argument of such a law divine for the exemption of Clerks But no man would be so out of his right senses and I will not charge him with being so being these titles might be as properly alledged for any thing or law whatsoever he pleased to impose on Christ without any other kind of warrant As for the title of Ministers given to Clerks I have purposely said enough in my LXIII Section Leaving these titles therefore and all other such or not such let us demand of our learned Cardinal by what words in what place book or chapter hath this very Prince of the Kings of the Earth so exempted Clerks Give us Bellarmine one material word out of holy Scripture of Apostolical Tradition that proves Clerks to be more exempted by him so then other Christians even the meerest seeliest Laicks I have shewed abundantly shewed already you cannot And next how vain this reply is by his flat denial of that proposition and saying it was no where proved but assumed without proof my next following Section will yet shew as clear as the Sun because over and above all said already by me for the negative it proves of purpose in a positive way out of Scripture also the subjection of all Christian Clerks even de jure divino vel ipsius legis Christianae to all true supream lay Princes whether Infidels or Christians under whose or in whose dominions they live In the third place also how vainly he tells us that all those whom he calls graviores Scripâ—eres the more grave Writers to wit such as teach Ecclesiastical Exemption to be jure divina deny that proposition viz. that Christian Clerks were de jure subject to Infidel Princes For besides that I may and do on farr better grounds though at present it be needless to repeat them deny those to be the more grave Writers then he affirms or can affirm them to be so it is obvious to make him this reioynder that the material querie or dispute is not whether those Writers are so or no or even whether any besides himself or even also whether himself denied that proposition but whether it may be in sound reason or Christian Religion denied And what those arguments are that perswade it may be so denied And as I am sure that Bellarmine hath as yet not given as much as one likely argument to prove it may be so denied so I do averr the same of those others too whom he calls the more grave Divines Fourthly how vain his answer is by denying the consecution or consequent in case that Antecedent were granted that is by denying the subjection of Clerks to Christian Princes to follow their having been de jure divino subject to the same Princes before they were Christian how vain I say his answer is in this much appears out of the vain grounds he gives for it either in point of authority or in point of reason For the authority he pleads for denying this consecution is that if we beleeve him of
he could use means to compel the Princes themselves to exempt them so de jure Or is it to command Princes under the prescribed penalties that they should suffer Clerks to be and live de facto at liberty whom he himself had already or de jure set at liberty And if this be the Popes design in fulminating such censures then is it also plain that this very allegation destroyes that vain pretence of any material diversity or difference in the cases For that I may omit what I said a little before viz. that Christian Princes may be found I should rather say that all Christian Princes are de facto such who would be no more effectually compelled or moved to manumise de facto such vast numbers of Cittizens or Subjects then the very meerest Infidel Princes certainly this allegation reason or cause must be wholy conversant in matter of fact not in that of right because thereby it is not proved that the Pope might rather de jure exempt Clerks from the yoake of Christian Princes then of Ethnick but only that he might the more easily from and by Christian Princes get them de facto exempted whom himself had before de jure exempted which is nothing at all to the question As for the rest or that which Bellarmine alledgeth in the former words viz. these Clericos absolvte exemit a potestate principum fidelium qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt that the Pope hath absolutely exempted Clerks from the power of faithful Princes who acknowledge his power I have already above observed both falsity and fallacy therein Falsity because the Pope is no where read to have ever yet made canons for such exemption but only canons after and in pursuance of the exemption before granted by Emperors which is not not the exemption we dispute of here For the truth is that both Pope Church received vindicated what they could that ecclesiastical exemption was bestowed on them freely by Princes vindicated it as given to them by others but not as having had it formerly of their own either de facto or de jure Fallacy because that although Christian Princes acknowledge the Popes power yet they acknowledge this power as such to be no other then purely spiritual or in spiritual things only And by no means acknowledge such a power in him as may set loose free in all things from their own regal and temporal power such a great number of their people and this absolutely too as Bellarmine thought fit to express himself For so much hath our learned Cardinal himself granted in effect nay alledged l. 1. de Cleric cap 28. for the only proof of his second proposition there which is Nâ—n sunt exempti Clerici ab obligatione legum civilium quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio Clericali And so much in effect is granted by him in that other book of his which goes under the name of Franciscus Romulus where he sayes in Responsiâ—â—te ad praec capita Apologiae pag. 114. That Bishops ought to be subject in temporal matters tâ— Kings and Kings to Bishops in spiritual Episcopi Regibus in temporalibus relâ—us Reges Episcopis in spiritualibus subjecti esse debebunt Yet after such concessions and notwithstanding such affirmations and allegations when the same are urged against himself to some purpose by William Barclay he flyes presently to his vain distinctions and reserved sense how inconsistent soever with any kind of rational or material sense First he tells â—od c. 28. l. 1. de Cler. That although he said in his above second proposition that Clerks are not exempti from the obligation of the civil laws which are not contrary to the sacred canons or Clerical Office yet as he meaned only those politick laws which direct humane actions in temporal commerce as for example when the Prince or lay Magistrate ordaines a certain price of vendible things or commands that none go abroad with armes at night or without light or that none transport or export corn out of the Province and the like so his meaning was not that by such laws Clergiemen are bound â—verciâ—ely obligatione â—â—actina for these are his own words but only that they are bound by that kind of obligation which is called and is solely directive sâ—lum directiva are his own words also if peradventure the same civil laws be not approved by the Church And that if the canons of the Church had ordered or disposed of the very same temporal things that is had ordained or prescribed how men should demean or carry themselves in the self-same temporal occasions or matters Clerks would then be obliged to follow the disposition of the canons whatever it were even in such matters and not be obliged as much as directively to observe the civil law that is would not be obliged to or by the very directive part or virtue of the said civil law and not only not to or by the câ—ercive sanctions of it which prescribe punishment tunc or nunc legem civilem ne directive quidem observare tenerentur sayes he in plain terms Secondly he sayes l. contra Barclaium cap. 24. That although Clerks be Cittizens and a certain part of the politick State or Commonwealth this proves no more but that they are bound viâ—rationis by the force or vertue of reason but proves not they are bound vi legis by vertue of the civil law it self And sayes he had no other meaning that is mean'd no other kind of bond or obligation when or where he brought in his book of Clerks cap. 28. that argument of Clerks their being Cittizens or certain parts of the politick State to prove his above second proposition or that Clerks were not exempt from the obligation of the civil laws which are not repugnant to the sacred canons or clerical Office Thirdly he sayes cap. 15. lib. contra Barclaium that Franciscus Romulus in the above quoted place speaks only of that subjection de subjectione quam habebant Episcopi alii Clerici ad observandos leges politicâ—s c. which Bishops and other Clerks had on themselves to observe the politick laws and not to disturb the politick order setled by Kings even as sayes he the Popes Gelasius and Nicholas do teach the one in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor and the other also in his Epistle to the Emperour Michael both whom Franciscus Romulus hath quoted But hence sayes our Cardinal it follows not that a Bishop may be forced by the King to obey or may be punished by the King if he obey not whereas the King hath no power at all over Bishops or Clerks which is most manifestly read in the Councel of Constance Behold here the very quintessence of our most eminent Cardinals final Reasons or doctrine of his continâ—â—al aequivocations and reservations in this matter In effect therefore his answer to my second argument would be were he to answer it in form that he would
would be not to exempt them but in effect to make them to be no members at all As for that reason of diversity which Bellarmine hath given As it is unnecessary that all the Citizens pay tribute or that all bear arms to defend the Republick who sees not also that it argues no diversity no difference at all in the simile For in the natural body it is not necessary that all the members walke that all see that all hear c. But it is sufficient both in the natural body and in the civil that every member so attend perform that duty unto which it is ordained or applyed that all in common do still in the same body and under the same head what they are enjoyned or destined to Let Bellarmine therefore let his disciples abstain hereafter from such absurd Paradoxes What man of found reason hath ever yet in his own soul inwardly perswaded himself that a King may not de jure King it over that is govern by direction and coercion those of whom he is King nor a head the members of its own body But our Cardinal denye here that from the contrary position and practice any perturbations of the common-wealth should arise because that albeit the King may not coerce transgressing Clerks yet the Bishops may and will To this because I have said enough already I onely saâ— now that to assent this power of coercion of Clerks to Bishops for lay crimes or those committed in meer temporal or civil matters and deny it to King were nothing els in effect but to rayse Bishops from their Office Ministry Episcopal to the power and Dignity Royal of Kings and then consequently to make but meer Ciphers of the Kings themselves For I demand of Bellarmine or of his Schollars why were Kings instituted or to what end their power if it was not to govern the Republick to provide for the peace and safety of all the people of what condition or profession soever Lay or Ecclesiastick and to provide for the security and tranquility of all by punishing and rewarding indifferently according to the respective merits or demerits of every individual But our Cardinal snatches away from Kings this proper function of Kings and gives it to Bishops whereas it is notwithstanding certain that neither can the common-wealth be quiet if Clerks do violate the laws resign themselves over to sedition and yet may not be de jure therefore punished curbed or any way restrained by Kings For who sees not consequently that neither de jure can the King contain his Provinces in peace nor compel his people to live together within the bounds of honesty equity or justice And who sees not consequently also but that the very politick peace nay the very politick being of the common-wealth must depend of the will of the Bishops to whom onely the light of governing of licencing or restraining Clerks our good Cardinal will have to belong that by the severity of their Episcopal censures or other judgments they may as they will coerce the nocent and thereby and in so much pacifie the troubles of the Republick or as they please too permit all wickedness and all the most enormours horrid crimes of Sedition and Rebellion to extinguish quite the face and being of a Republick How farre more piously Christianly and rationally too had Bellarmine taught and writt that by the favour and priviledg given by Kings the Clergie are not subject to any other Judicatory but to one composed of Ecclesiastical judges yet so that as well those very Judges as the criminal Clerks be subject still to and not exempt from the supream Royal power of the King who gave subordinate power to those very Ecclesiastical Judicatories in temporal things nay and in spiritual too for what belongs to corporal or civil coercion and who as the supream temporal Prince may command prohibit and provide that no person of what condition or profession soever breake the peace of his Kingdom and who also may when there is just cause take cognizance of and judg as well what ever delinquent Clerks as the very Ecclesiastical judges of those Clerks To that of Hermannus the Colen Archbishop I will say that Bellarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that jeer wherewith a certain Boor pleasantly checked a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a country clown having first admired and said this pomp was very unlike that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and some of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreover he was a Duke and a Prince too the clown replied but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will become of the Bishop Even so doth Bellarmine write as that servant spoke that this Hermannus whom Charles the V. summon'd to appear was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And even so do I say and replye with the country swain when the Emperour judged this Prince of the Empire did he not I pray judge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he judged the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so For neither do I nor other Catholick Opposers of Bellarmine in this matter intend or mean or at least urge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subject to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Citizens and politick parts of the body Politick which kind of authority as Bellarmine confesses Charles the V. both acknowledg'd in and vindicated to the Emperour Of whose piety what Bellarmine adds is to no purpose For it is not denyed that it becomes good Princes to leave that is to commit the causes of Clerks how great and weighty or criminal soever to Ecclesiastical Judges if it stand with the safety or good hic nunc of the Commonwealth that such causes be discussed before such Judges And yet I must tell the Defenders of Bellarmine that if they please to consult the Continuator of Baronius the most reverend and most Catholick Bishop Henricus Spondenus ad an Christi 1545. they will find that upon complaint of the Catholick Clergy and University also of Colen to as well the Emperour Charles the V. as the Pope Pavl the III. against the said Archbishop as by the advice of Bueer introducing Heresie and licenceing the Preachers of it in that City and Diocess and that at their instance petitioning for help redress in that matter against the said Hermannus it was that the said Emperour Charles the V. did in the Diet of Wormes the said year and about the end of Iune by his Letters or Warrant signed and sealed summon the said Archbishop to appear before him within thirty dayes either by himself in his own proper person or by
arguments for it from the positive express law of God in holy Scripture might be rendred at last so farr unsignificant as not to conclude all men nor all affairs though otherwise temporal under it but on the contrary to exempt from it even the very most considerable part of men and affairs and a vast number too of both and consequently to lessen extreamly if they could not totally extinguish it as for any thing at least to be said for it from Scripture I must crave your pardon Reader if I be as prolix in this argument as in any or perhaps more then in any of the former or even in all three together being I am resolved to give long entire passages out of the doctrine of the most eminent of the holy Fathers and out of Ecclesiastical History too the practice of the Fathers to evict that sense of those Scripture passages which is so obvious of it self to have also been that all along handed to us by our said great fore-fathers and consequently that sense to be certain also by Tradition But first or before I come to the doctrine or which is the same thing to the exposition or sense of the Fathers or that which they delivered to us of those Scripture places in their own proper genuine and uncontroverted books I frame my fourth argument thus Whoever are expresly and clearly commanded by the mouth or pen of Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. to be subject to the higher Powers and are further told by the same Apostle and in the same place that there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God that therefore whoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall acquire damnation to themselves that earthly Princes are the Ministers of God that as the Ministers of God they bear the sword and not in vain and finally that for all these reasons every soul must needs be subject to these higher Powers I say that whoever are commanded so and told so are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently threin declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes But all Clergiemen whoever living within the Dominions of any supream secular Prince are commanded so and told so by Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. Ergo all Clergiemen whoever living within the Dominions of any supream secular Prince are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes The Major is evident because that as no man ever yet doubted of any of these passages of St. Paul in the said thirteenth Chapter to the Romans to be of holy Scripture and for so much to contain the very positive law of God that although it may be said also they for so much contain the very natural law of God so it can neither be denied honestly or christianly or even at all rationally that by Higher Powers c. in the text of Paul secular Princes only are understood being those Powers only are there understood who only bear the sword and to whom only tribute and custom is paid c. Nor can it be denied that by the text of Paul all souls are commanded to be subject in some things or some causes and therefore if not in spiritual certainly in temporal whereas all things or causes are either spiritual or temporal Nor besides can it be denied they are said here to be subject in such temporal causes only which are called meerly civil as civil are opposed to criminal because by the text they are subject even in such causes wherein use is to be made of the sword against malefactors and it is plain that such are also criminal and not civil only Nor finally and consequently can it be denied they are commanded here to be subject to the coercive part or virtue of the Princes temporal power whereas the directive as such only doth not cannot make use of the sword to punish evil doers The Minor also is evident because all Christians all men and women universally without exception or distinction of any state or profession or character are so commanded and so told and consequently Clerks being they are Christians and men For so doth the very interlineary Gloss understand it Omnis anima id est omnis homo sayes this Gloss potestatibus sublimiâ—ribus subdita sit And because the end of the precept could not be attained if all Clerks universally as well as Laicks were not so commanded and so told And because too the express doctrine and known practise of the holy Fathers for many ages after the Apostles time do teach us clearly expresly and particularly that in this text of Paul and others like it or of the same nature in the Bible all Clerks indistinctly are understood no less then Laicks As for the conclusion our Adversaries I am sure will not except against the necessity or evidence of it if the premisses be once granted or if they otherwise be in themselves true and certain To the premisses therefore to the Major and Minor it is that several frame several Answers some denying that for some part of it and others this for the whole but all of them equally spurning against truth and even rebelling against the light of their own consciences as those in Iob qui rebelles sunt lumini qui dicunt Deo recede a nobis scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus The first answer then is that by higher Powers in St. Pauls text those only are understood which are truly the higher to wit the powers Ecclesiastical or Spiritual For at least comparatively speaking these are the higher and temporal Powers the lower because the spiritual is of a more excellent nature as more directly tending to God then the temporal And consequently this answer sayes that by the Sword in the same text the material sword of Iron is not understood but the spiritual of Excommunication c. The old Authors of this answer albeit as old as St. Augustine himself for he refutes them as will be seen hereafter and other late readers and embracers of it though without sufficient patronage from its antiquity being there have been heresies confessed of all sides for heresies as old as the dayes of Austin and long before the dayes of Austin even in those of the very blessed Apostles must be obliged to deny the Major or that last part which is the only affirmation of it where I say that whoever are commanded sâ— and told so are by the positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes The second Answer is of a newer stamp indeed but of no lesser both absurdity and heresie in it self and contradiction also to the
very text and ends of that text or precept And it is in effect this that by higher powers both temporal and spiritual powers are understood respectively as to their own proper Subjects and that St. Pauls command being in such general terms as these Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit must by consequence be understood so as intending and only intending that all secular persons should be subject to those who are as to them higher powers viz. the secular Magistrate Prince King Emperour c. and that all Clergy persons also should be subject to their own respective higher powers that is to the Superiours Ecclesiastical as Bishops Archbishops c. and before all to the Pope who is above all A third answer is observed by some as yet more strange and absurd though Cardinal Bellarmines proper invention say they Who say they too not content with one single folly viz. that of the former second answer which he also with some other Divines of his way approveth and giveth would needs invent this indeed so rare so admired one That although St. Paul commands universally that all souls be subject to the higher powers yet he commands not they be all subject to the higher politick civil temporal or secular powers Quocirca sayes he lib. 1. de Translatione Imperii cap. 2. n. 7. antequam Principes politicos exaltare incipias super omnem animam ac proinde super ipsum etiam summum Pontificem de hoc enim potissima quaestio est demonstrandum tibi erit sublimiorem esse potestatem Principatus Politici quam Ecclesiastici But I for my part see nothing new in this answer of Bellarmine that is nothing materially different from the first erroneous old answer of those whom St. Austin oppugned and confuted in this matter as shall be seen presently or at least from that and the second both together For the only difference is 1. That Bellarmine would fain by this unreasonable distinction exempt at least the Pope from all secular power whatever would become of the rest of the Clergie And then he thought all was well enough as I have elsewhere noted 2. That he takes the word power in the abstract not in the concrete which yet the first answer did not As for the word higher or sublimioribus in the Latin text which he takes advantage of by taking it comparatively the first answer also took it so But however this be or whether this of Bellarmine be materially different or not from the former that is from the first or second or both answers together I am sure first that I have evidently confuted already all three out of the very obvious and clear text it self as you may see again and before in my proofs of the Major and Minor but more especially in that of the Major where any indifferent judicious and ingenious Reader cannot but confess that either there must be admitted not only one but manifold and most manifest contradictions and non-sense in that whole text or discourse of the blessed Apostle if any one of all these answers were true or certainly that those texts of Paul must not be understood literally Both which admissions are equally and confessedly of all sides false erroneous and heretical Only against that part of the first answer where it is said that by the sword in that text of St. Paul the spiritual of excommunication is to be understood and not the material of iron I am to add here that this too is plainly contradicted by the very text being hence it is clear that sword must be understood which is the proper sword of that Minister of God to whom tribute and custom were then paid Now it is no less clear these were not then paid to Christian Bishops Popes or Church but only to secular and even heathen Princes Secondly I am sure also that all those three Answers both joyntly and severally are no less confuted by the very only true primary and proper end of St. Pauls universal command in these words Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit and of the rest of the discourse following For this reason as even our late School Expositors as even Cornelius a Lapide himself though of the same Society with Bellarmine hath it on the said 13. to the Romans that I may not as yet alledge any thing out of the ancient holy Fathers out of Origen Chrisostom Augustine Anselme and others of them who handle directly and of purpose this very subject this reason I say which moved Paul to that general Edict proves manifestly 1. That by higher powers he only mean'd the secular civil or politick powers and consequently by the sword also mean'd no other but the material sword 2. That by omnis anima every soul he mean'd universally also the Faithful without any distinction of Laicks and Clerks or which is the same thing without any kind of exception of Clerks from the universal affection or distribution of the word omnis or word every For this reason was only was as the above Cornelius a Lapide well proves it was out of St. Augustine Psal 118. Clemens Alexandrinus l. 4. Stromatum That in the infancy of the Christian Church even in the very days of the Apostles Christ himself there was a rumour spread that by the Gospel or Doctrine and law of Christ as being a law of grace liberty humane Policies Kingdoms Republicks were quite everted as now amongst such Hereticks as pretend the liberty of the Gospel for with drawing themselves from all kind of humane power is taught That this rumour and calumny had its first origen from the sect of Iudas Galilaeus whereof you may read Acts 5. these Galilees teaching that it was not lawful for the Jews by the law of God or Moyses not even in case of death to pay tribute customes or any other duty to Cesar they being free-born by that law and Caesar deriving no right from it Whereof the Reader may satisfie himself more at large in Iosephus l. 18. Antiquit. 1. That Christ having been himself by descent a Galilaen and reputed one of that Countrey and St. Paul too having in particular preach'd and writ much of Christian liberty or liberty from the yoake of the law and pleasure of men in some other of his Sermons and Epistles though he mean'd a liberty only from the judicial and ceremonial part of the law of Moses and from the evil commands of men some of the beleevers themselves who were in themselves otherwise corrupt or ignorant were inclined to think themselves also free from humane policies and all the power of man That the whole Nation of the Jews were generally infected with that doctrine of Iudas Galilaeus even in those very dayes of Christ and the Apostles as consequently we read that in pursuance thereof they all generally rebelled against the Romans which occasioned the siege and final destruction of Ierusalem and of their whole Nation
under Titus and Vesâ—asâ—an some forty years after the death of Christ Now therefore that of danger that Christians might easily perswade themselves that they were all set free from the laws and power of men by the grace and liberty of the Gospel and that of the consequent danger also of too much scandal to be cast upon them as originally Gallicans and teaching Christian liberty which yet was not rightly understood by some and not of scandal only but of grievous persecutions from Gentil Princes against the religion in general and faith of Christ I say that these dangers fore-seen by the blessed Apostle and his desire of removing such dangers and obstructing also other consequent inconveniencies having been the only cause motive end of that general Edict of his omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit who sees not it was not to his purpose here as not to treat of the spiritual Superiority of Bishops or Pastors or of their spiritual sword or of the obedience or awe beleivers should stand in to either so neither to command or intend that Laicks onely should obey the Lay powers and Clerks the spiritual For if he had intended either those spiritual powers onely or that spiritual sword onely or if he had exempted any at all of the Christians especially so great and considerable a body of them as all their Apostles Evangelists Doctors Prophets Bishops Priests Deacons c. and as all these would prove in time to be who sees not that the secular heathen Princes would think themselves to have a most just cause to rage against them as everting all humane government and power We know and see daily that even Christian Princes even now a days nay even ever since the very first Christian Princes were nor even the most pious and godly of them did ever yet abide that as much as any one individual person how high and holy a Clerk soever should be in their Kingdom and not subject in temporals Therefore the very true primary and proper end of this general edict of Paul concludes against all and every of the above answers no less evidently then the letter or text it self in that whole discourse of Paul Thirdly and yet more particularly and singly as to Bellarmine's own so strange and new and proper invention as I have noted before that some take that answer to be which I have placed as a third answer but certainly his whether it be different or not I am no less certainly perswaded that all disinteressed judicious men will confess that both his reasons for it are convinced again by the very letter of the text or whole context of the Apostles discourse there not onely to be vain pittifull subtilities or rather childish unsignificant captions of words but also to inferre manifest contradiction in that very whole context For though Bellarmine above de Translat Imperij l. 1. c. 2. n. 7. after he had answered Illyricus that S. Paul said not Let every soul be subject to the politick powers but Let every soul be subject potestatibus sublimioribus to the more sublime or higher powers and after he had consequently told Illyricus that before he went about to exalt the politick powers above all souls and by consequence above the Pope himself of whom sayes Bellarmine the chief question is he ought to demonstrate first that the power of the politick Magistrate is more sublime then that of the Ecclesiastical although I say after this Bellarmine interrogates whether S. Paul himself did not openly subject all the faithfull not even the Magistrate excepted to the Bishops where he sayes Obedite prepositis vestris subiacete eis Ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri c. Heb. 13.17 And then produces Nazianzâ—n Ambrose Chrysostome and Bernard who all subject Princes to the Church yet I say withall it is plain enough he brings nothing here to purpose or to prove the reasonableness of or any kind of seeming colour in his answer but those two very bad childish arguments which he most unreasonably grounds on the word powers and on the word higher or words more sublime For no man disputes but grants that all the faithfull including the very Magistrate Prince King or Emperour are bound in spiritual matters purely such or as such to obey the spiritual Superiours of the Church clave non errante which is all can be derived or was intended by St. Paul in that passage to the Hebrews or by those Fathers So that so much of Bellarmines allegations here was impertinent What therefore he relyes upon as material is 1. that as he pretends the word potestatibus powers in that general edict of St. Paul may and ought to be understood in the abstract as Logicians speak vz. as importing onely the authority which Princes have and not the concrete of that power or not the Princes themselves as having that power or authority 2. that as he pretends also the word sublimioribus in that same general command of Paul was intended by Paul comparatively not positively and that comparison also intended by Paul to be betwixt the Ecclesiastical power as more sublime in its own nature and the secular as less sublime Behold his two and onely reasons for an answer so inconsistent not onely with that motive and end we have seen before the Apostle had but so contradictory also to the very letter and all kind too of any litteral sense in the letter For who sees not that by the very letter and litteral sense of that whole context it is evidently seen that St. Paul took the word potestatibus powers in the concrete or which is the same thing that by the word powers he mean'd the very secular Princes themselves who had that power which made them higher or sublimer then others For he sayes that whosoever resist that power acquire damnation to themselves And then presently for Princes are not a terrour of good works but of the evil And soon after will you sayes he not fear the power do well and you shall have praise And then immediatly For he is the Minister of God Whence if it be not evident that by the word powers the Apostle intends the Princes themselves and not their authority in the abstract but in the concrete as affecting and acting in and by the Princes or rather the Princes as acting by it I must confess I understand not how any thing at all can be proved out of any text For besides that the powers or the power in the abstract are not is not resisted or feared but in the concrete it is at least evident that Princes who are a terrour and the Minister of God are powers and power in the concrete And yet nothing is more evident nor can be out of any text then that those which are or that which is called the higher or more sublime powers in the first verse omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit are in the
3. v. called Princes and is in the 4 v. called the Minister of God Therefore it is plain enough and Bellarmine could not but know it well enough too that Paul by a figure of speech as is very usual took the abstract for the concrete sometimes in that discourse particularly in that word potestatibus in the first verse as all Expositors even his own Cornelius a Lapide confess Which manner of speech or of taking the abstract for the concrete even too his own Italians daily use when they call in Italian the chief Magistrate of a town il Podesta And who but sees that Bellarmine's second reason or subtility is alltogether as vain Where to give some but a very bad colour indeed to his own foresaid answer he would fain impose on his ignorant or simple Reader by the latin word sublimiribus in English more sublime and perswade him by this Grammatical argument of one word singly taken according onely to the latin version without regarding any other version or as much as what the whole context following in every version imported that the Apostle means here 1. to speak comparatively 2. that the comparison was also mean'd by him to be not betwixt the higher or sublimer temporal power and the lower temporal or which is the same thing in effect betwixt the secular Prince and his Subjects but betwixt the pure Ecclesiastical or spiritual power upon one side and the meer politick or civil on the other And that therefore it was the Apostle used this comparative expression by the word sublimioribus as intending onely by that general precept omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit to command all Christians to be subject to those powers which are more sublime in the nature of powers or in themselves then any other powers To destroy all which I need not say much For first the Greek Text and Syriack Version hath it not in the comparative but in the positive as may be seen also in Cornelius a Lapide on this place the Syriack reading as our translators have it potestatibus dignitate praeditis where t is in the positive and the Greek instead of potestatibus sublimioribus having potestatibus supereminentibus or precellentibus imported by the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is positive questionless as those two latin words supereminentibus precellentibus are and as Bellarmine could not but know all three both Greek and Latin are Now St. Paul is supposed to have writt in Greek his Epistle to the Romans which also Bellarmine knew as well as any And yet he would rather make use of the Latin word or strict Grammatical sense of that Latin comparative word that he might impose though he cannot on any unless peradventure on Grammar School boys Secondly were it certain or true or were it admitted the Apostle had used here a word that were comparative according to the Grammatical termination yet would is not follow he mean'd thereby any comparison at least to an other power and least of all to a power of a different kind but onely a bare relation and this in a pure positive sense to the Subjects Which manner of speech or of comparative words used to express a positive sense is ordinary in Latin as appears in the words Superior Major Senior c. These comparative words therefore in Paul's text higher or more sublime have a meer and pure positive sense importing as much as the indeed sublime the indeed high and great and mighty powers and coercive too which are often also by the holy Fathers called potestates principales the principal powers as if besides or without them there were no other powers For it was that true power indeed which is indeed coactive which is armed strikes with the true proper material sword not with an improper or metaphorical one that Paul mean'd as I have before demonstrated both out of the very letter of the text and out of the motive and scope of writing that letter or text And therefore also it must be that the Powers intended by Paul here were not intended by him to be compared to the Powers Ecclesiastical being these as they are not coactive at all if we speak properly and simply that is are not coactive by the material sword whereby only that which is the coaction is so they are quite of another kind and order and comparison is properly made betwixt things of one or the self same kind and order Thirdly if we admitted for disputes sake that Paul did both speak and mean comparatively nay and if we admitted also that he did both speak in and mean the abstract which is Bellarmines first ground and further consequently that Paul intended to signifie that the power Ecclesiastical is more sublime then the Temporal what then would follow Nay what would not follow as well against Bellarmine himself as Truth it self Certainly that Paul intended only to say or command That every soul should be subject to the power Ecclesiastical which is more sublime then the temporal or lay Power And consequently Paul had given that precept of or for the power Ecclesiastical only or only for obedience or subjection to this power Which yet to say or assert we have already seen to be directly and contradictorily as well against Bellarmine's own answer vz the third to my grand argument as against the text But to lay aside Bellarmines contradiction of himself I demand what may be as to the matter it self more foolishly said Is it indeed this more sublime power Ecclesiastical that carries the sword Are the Bishops those Princes who are a ferrour of evil doings Is it to Bishops that tributs are paid We therefore deny not the power Ecclesiastical to be in its own kind that is in a quite other kind more sublime in relation to or by reason of its immediate object but we deny there is any comparison at least to it made here by the Apostle And say we have already proved it was only of the Lay or Secular power which is indeed the supream in order to all matters temporal the Apostle speaks here that it is onely this Lay power he calls here the more sublime power And say moreover that although if both powers be compared together or one to the other in quodam analogo superiori potestatis in a certain superior analogical conception of power the Ecclesiastical be more sublime in the abstract yet in the concrete it is not so For though it be true the Prince as a Christian believer notwithstanding his power is subject to the Church even as to the good or evil use of his power if he do sin by abusing it so that every believing or Christian Soul universally speaking without any kind of exception of any person either Subject or Magistrat Prince King or Emperour is subject to the power Ecclesiastical is bound in spiritual things to obey the Governours Ecclesiastical yet is it also true on the contrary
that every man as man whoever he be whether Christian or Infidel whether Laick or Clerk whether Priest Bishop or Pope by reason of his humane nature and notwithstanding the power Ecclesiastical of such as have this power is subject to the lay or civil power in temporal matters And this is it which the Apostle mean'd And as he spoke to all the faithfull not excepting even the Magistrate when he subjected them all to Superiours Ecclesiastical Heb. cap. 13. so doth he speak to all even by adding the word omnis or every which he did not in the case of subjection to Ecclesiastical Superiors when he subjects them all not even the very Pope excepted to the more sublime powers which were and are the lay Princes For in temporals there is no power in the world not onely not more sublime but not so sublime as that of the temporal Princes within their own respective territories and in spirituals none more sublime nor as sublime as that of Pontiffs And as in order to spiritual things the supream civil power doth not exempt the Prince himself from the power Ecclesiastical in concreto that is from the persons having that power even so neither doth the power Ecclesiastical exempt the person or man that is Priest or Pontiff as he is a man from the secular power in concreto Nor doth it matter a pinn whether in abstractâ— and in a different kind the one power be more sublime that is more excellent our divine in its own nature of a meer power then the other For persons more excellently more divinely qualified then others may be and are daily seen to be in concreto subject to those others in some things by reason of some office those others beare or even of some inferiour calling or art wherein they may instruct the former those otherwise more excellently and more divinely qualified persons Having thus examined confuted and retorted more then sufficiently our learned Cardinal's evasion and his two grounds of his evasion from the letter and both obvious and necessary sense of the letter of St. Pauls so general and so strictly universal injunction to all Christians both Clerks and Laicks for obeying and being subject to the civil power and having no less confuted the other two answers also of others that is having both out of the very text of St. Paul and out also of the motives and scope of St. Paul confuted abundantly all the before given three answers of all the several Adversaries old or new it remains now that to those my two ways of both refutation and confirmation I add yet a third Which is that I promised of the sense of the holy Fathers on the very controverted points here concerning what was mean'd by St. Paul in this command omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit what those higher powers are what the sword he speaks of after what subjection and obedience wherein And from whom due or by what persons to be paid For if I shew by clear express texts of the holy Fathers also my doctrine here is evinced then I have discharged fully what I purposed and what I promised or undertook either in this present Section or in my LXII Section against the Divines of Lovaine Therefore I say Thirdly I am likewise as sure of this third way of refuting the foresaid three answers and proving my own purpose or confirming my above fourth grand argument even as to both premisses and every part of them as I have shewn already that I had reason to be of the two former ways vz. the text it self and rational sense of the law and the chief motive and end of the same law or of that whole context of Paul wherein it was written and delivered to us For to begin with St. Augustine although he be not the first or ancientest of the Fathers I quote or who according to the ages of Christianity treated first to our purpose of this matter for in that I do not tye my self here to a method as neither in giving together all places or passages of the same or other Fathers without interposition of those of some other it is plain enough that he is home enough in Psal 118. conc 31. where he discourseth thus Principes persequuti sunt me gratis Quid enim Christiani laeserant regna terrena ut principes persequutionem in eos excitarent sine causa quamvis eis Regnum salorum promiserit Rex eorum Quid inquam laeserant regna terrena Numquid eâ—rum Rex milites suos prohibuit impedire exhibere quae debentur Regibus terre Nâ—nne de hoc sibi calumniam molientibus Judeis ait Matthaei 22.20 Reddite Cesari quae Cesaris sunt Deo quae Dei sunt Nonne tributum de ore piscis etiam ipse persoluit Mat. 17.23 Nonne praecursor eius militibus regni bujus quod facere deberent pro aeterna salute quaerentibus non ait Cingulum soluite armi vâ—stra proijcite Râ—gein vestrum deserite ut possitis Domino militare sed ait Lucae 3.14 Neminem concussâ—ritis nulli calumniam feceritis sufficiat vibis stipendium vestrum Nonne unus militum ejus dilectissimus Comes ejus commilit nibus suis quâ—dammodo Christi Provincialibus dixit Rom. 13.1 Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subditae sit paulo post ait Reddite omnibus debita cui tributum c. Et 1. Timoth. 2.2 praecepit ut pro ipsis etiam Regibus oraret Ecclesia Quid ergo eos Christiani offenderunt Quod debitum non reddiderunt In quo Christiani non sunt terrenis Regibus obsequuti Ergo terreni Reges Christianos gratis persequuti sunt And again what the Babilonical captivity signified in former times the same Augustine tels in this manner l. de Catechis Rud. c. 21. saying Hoc autem totum figurate significat Ecclaesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus qui sunt cives Hierusalem caelestis servituram fuisse sub regibus hujus saeculi Dicit enim Apostolica doctrina ut omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit uâ—â—reddantur omnibus omnia cui tributum tributum cui vectigal vectigal caetera quae salvo Dei nostri cultu constitutionis humanae Principibus reddimus Quâ—nd ipse Dominus ut nobis bujus sanae doctrinae preberet exemplum pro capite hominis quâ—erat indutus tributum soluere non dedignatus est Do you see this text or this precept of Paul omnis anima c. and all that follows applyed by St. Augustine to earthly Princes Do you see in him those earthly Princes to be those higher or more sublime powers of Paul Do you not read here that all the Saints were to serve those earthly powers and to be subject to them according to that command of Paul Do you hold that Churchmen are not to be ranked amongst the Saints Nay rather perhaps will not our Adversaries account Ecclesiasticks onely to be the Saints and all others
Caesaris Caesari Deo quod Dei est hivero in vtroque in obedientes atque impij nec Deo reddunt amorem neque Regibus humanum timorem where you see that besides his conviction of them out of the very text of Paul he calls them imperitissimos inobedientes impios imitantes Pharisaeos most unskilfull disobedient impious and followers of the Pharisees who maintain that by the more sublime powers or by Princes in this text of Paul the Church Superiours are understood or the censure of excommunication by that sword whereof in the same text The difference therefore twixt those old dotards whom St. Augustine impugnes here and our new Bellarminians is onely that those unlearned disobedient impious and Pharisee like Adversaries of Austin expounded this Power and this sword in this text of Paul onely of the spiritual power and spiritual sword but our late Sophisters would have both the spiritual and temporal understood respectively that is each in order to a certain kind of people or the spiritual onely understood if the question be of Churchmen and the temporal onely then when lay persons are concernd By which distinction these excellent Interpreters would substract at least all Clerks whatsoever even such as onely have primam tonsuram if not all the faithfull universally from their subjection to worldly Princes And yet who sees not that Augustines arguments out of the very text of Paul equally convinceth both or as well these late Sophisters as those ancient dotards Against so many clear evidences of these holy Fathers Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome Ireneus c to be for us our opposers have nothing to alleadg but what one of them sayes Carmelita contra Fulg. that some other holy Fathers and particularly S. Anselme Symmachus and Bernard have besides the temporal understood also the power Ecclesiastical as comprehended by Paul under his more sublime powers And I confess these Fathers have so in some sense or to some purpose But withall I averre they are as wide as can be from having any where understood S. Paul in that general sense wherein our said Opposers would have him understood or to their purpose at all For these Fathers Anselme Symmachus and Bernard applye that command of Paul by way onely of proportion and as by an argument a minori as before we have seen Basil do to perswade obedience in spiritual things to the spiritual Rectors of the Church this being in effect their argument If Paul command that for the just and necessary ends of humane policy or government all men obey and be subject to the Princes of this world how mvch more should or ought the Faithfull be in spiritual matters obedient and subject to their spiritual Governours For so plainly doth Symmachus in Apolog. frame his argument speaking to the Emperour Anastasius Fortassis sayes he dicturus es scriptum esse omni potestati nos subditos esse de bere But doth he answer this objection by exempting himself from that general proposition or command for as much as it speaks of humane or civil powers or by placing himself onely under that other kind of power which is purely spiritual or Ecclesiastical nothing less For in humane or temporal things he acknowledges himself subject to the Emperour though in spiritual matters he also teaches that even the Emperour himself ought yet much more to be subject to the powers of the Church For thus he goes on and sayes Nos quidem potestates humanas suo loco suscipimus donec contra Deum suas erigunt voluntates Ceterum si omnis potestas a Deo est magis ergo quâ— rebus est praestituta divinis Defer Deo in nobis nos deferemus Deo in te And even so doth Anselme expound himself in epist ad Rom. c. 13. For when he said there omnis anima id est omnis homo sit humiliter subdita potestatibus vel saecularibus vel Ecclesiasticis sublimioribus se hoc est omnis homo sit subjectus superpositis sibi potestatibus presently he expounds himself as meaning that every Christian none at all excepted be first subject by reason of their temporals to the temporal powers and then also that by reason of their spirituals every one be subject in spiritual things to the spiritual or Ecclesiastical powers Cum enim sayes he constemus ex anima corpore quamdiu in hac vita temporali sumus etiam rebus temporalibus ad subsidium ejusdem vitae vt amur oportet nos ex ea parte quae ad hanc vitam pertinet subditos esse potestatibus id est res humanas cum aliquo honore administrantibus ex illa verò parte qua Deo credimus in regnum ejus vocamur non debemus subditi esse cuiquam homini idipsum in nobis evertere cupienti And so goes on further explicating how all Christians by reason of humane life ought to be subject to the Lay powers and pay them custome and tribute according to that of our Saviour Reddite quae sunt Caesari but not to be subject to them in matters of Faith or spiritual life but in these to the powers Ecclesiastical And so finally doth Bernard ep 183. ad Conradum Regem Romanorum Legi quippe sayes he omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit Quam tamen sententiam cupio vos omnimodis moneo custodire in exhibenda reverentia summae Apostolicae sedi Which is no more then to apply that command of Paul by an argument a minori as here If it be just or equitable that according to the praecept of Paul every one be in temporals obedient to the Lay powers how much more in spirituals ought the very Kings themselves revere the powers Ecclesiastical Which to have been the sense of Bernard in that epistle or passage of it may be evinced cleerly out of an other passage of an other epistle of his epis 4. ad Sâ—n nonsem Archiepiscopum where he writes thus Intelligitis quae dico cui hâ—norem hâ—norem omnis anima inquit potestatibus sublimioribuus subdita sit Si omnis vestra Quis vos excipit ab vniversalitate Si quis tentat excipere omatur decipere S. Bernard here indeed labours to perswade the Archbishop to a more plenary obedience to the See Apostolick and to perswade him to this argues thus a minori If by the law divine we be all commanded to be subject to even secular civil powers how much more are we by the same law commanded to be subject also to the spiritual powers In prosecution of which argument mind or sense of his he adds presently advising the Archbishop not to hearken to such as would perswade him to defend his own proper dignity against the Apostolical See Haec isti Christus aliter jussit gessiâ— Reddite ait quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo Quod ere lâ—â—â—utus est mâ—x
18. these Bishops had been precondemned in the Council I must again advertise the Reader that the Council never condemned any otherwise then by declaring him an Heretick and excommunicate or at most to be deprived of or deposed from his See That besides that pre-damnation especially to exile no where appears in Councils Nay that St. Hierom in Chron. ubi de Maximino Treuerensi not acknowledgeing these pre-damnations affirms expresly Constantinum quaesivisse ad paenam Athanasium that Constantine sought for Athanasius to punishment And certainly Felix the Aptungitan Bishop who was the Orderer that is the Consecrator of Cecilian about whom the great contest was was by the command or warrant of the same Constantine sent to his Proconsul in Affrick Helianus to be judged by him Augustinus post collat ep 33 ep 152. Opt. And Photinus condemned in the general Council of Sardica obtained new Judges from the very self same Constantine as Epiphan heres 71. tells The before often mentioned St. Athanasius was to the said pious and great Emperour Constantine accused as a homicide or of having murthered Arsenius And Constantine committed the cognizance hereof as we have toâ—ched before to Delmatiuâ—s the Censor of Antioch a meer lay Officer of the Empire that he might proceed therein as a Judge Delegat For verily so doth St. Athanasius himself in Apol. and for to defend his own innocency in that matter tell us And yet he doth not upbraid the Emperour nor at all object to him that his Majesty had herein usurped a power which he had not by the laws of God or canons of the Church or â—ules of natural reason over a Churchman From which objection he was so far as himself tells that his submission to Constantin's delegation in that and more to his own immediat imperial and personal cognizance in all such matters was ready and voluntary Behold hitherto Good Reader arguments enough of the practise to our main purpose of that very Constantine who notwithstanding all hitherto given is said to have said to the Bishops in the Nicene Council accusing one another to him Deus constituit vos sacerdotes potestatem dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis recte judicamur vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium Ruffin l. 1. c. 2. But but if it be true that Constantine said so at all as it is very true and certain that this saying whosoever's it be must either be expounded not rigorously or strictly according to the bare words but very benignly and gently or questionless must be rejected and condemned even by those who alledge it for themselves as appears at least out of the two later clauses viz. that Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari and that other Propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium yet I say if it be true that Constantine said so at all and even I say did say so also in any good sense whatsoever wherefore did not his following deeds agree with his words as much as in that very sense our Adversaries pretend Therefore if Constantine said any such thing or expressed himself in such words according to reason it must be said by us and by all whoever examine and weigh that expression or those bare words rightly that either he spoke them out of some excess of piety and reverence to the Bishops or certainly that for what concern'd the denying or not acknowledging a power in men to judge the Bishops and saying that they were reserved or rather desiring that they should be left to the judgment of God alone and in saying before that they received power from God to judge of himself the Emperour he must be understood to mean First that Priests had a spiritual power from God to judge even himself spiritually or in a spiritual way and by a meer kind of spiritual judgment or in relation only to his spirit to wit by declaring to him wherein he had sinned and by remitting or retaining his sins by their judicial absolution or censure in the confessional seat or penitential Court of conscience but not that they had a power external and temporal or coercive of him in his meer temporals or by any sentence at all transferring his temporal or civil rights or jurisdiction or able to bereave him of any such or obliging him to submit his said temporal rights to them Secondly That meer Lay-men could not judge of them in causes properly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual such as those of Faith and Heresie and religious rites are as to the questions of right Or if he mean'd any matter of pure fact especially of those are called lay crimes that then he understood nothing else by non potestis ab hominibus judicari but the same we do our selves commonly or in ordinary speech when we say we cannot do a thing this or that whatever it it be we have no mind to do or think not expedient to do We signifie therefore by such words not alwayes an absolute defect of either natural or legal power in us to do that we are desired but our own unwillingness to do it and our resolution not to do it for some unexpediency we conceive in doing it Constantine therefore cannot be concluded to have otherwise mean'd when he said to the Bishops and of their personal failings non potestis ab hominibus judicari but that it was so unexpedient to bring their private failings to the publick hearing of the world before the lay people by a judicial procedure that it should not be done nor would he suffer it especially in that conjuncture when a good repute of all and peace and charity amongst them all was so necessary to carry the matters of Faith in the Council against the growing heresie of Arrius For verily otherwise or if you take non potestis philosophically and rigourously or strictly as denying a natural or legal power and a power too either temporal or spiritual and take hominibus universally or even indistinctly for what this word of it self may import as not determined of it self nor by any other word here to lay-men more then to churchmen you must consequently fix that sense to these words of Constantine which neither Baronius himself nor Bellarmine will allow For so they will also signifie no legal canonical or spiritual power in the Pope himself nor even in a general Council of Bishops where the Pope himself presides to judge and censure condemn or punish not even in a spiritual way I mean the very most scandalous sailings of other Bishops And therefore thirdly Constantine must be understood where he sayes sed Dei sâ—lius judicium expectate that as he mean'd not thereby to deny a canonical power in a general Council of Bishops to censure and condemn other Bishops when their failings deserved it but only that he thought it more expedient as the case
their own civil power both executed and decreed such corporal or civil punishment and consequently who were the sole authoritative Judges of both Priests Bishops and Popes I mean as to inflict or not inflict such corporal or civil punishments on them be the crime whatsoever you please Lay or Ecclesiastical But if you would see yet some instance or some example in particular fact of the continued possession of that authority in Princes even after I mean the tenth century of Christian Religion was compleat You may reflect on Conradus the Emperour who in presence of Benedict the ninth Roman Pontiff of that name sharply arose against and roughly laid hands that is with his own hands seized on Heribertus Archbishop of Millan as guilty of treasonable practices against the Empire albeit this Heribeâ—t saved himself after by flight and in the presence too of the same Pope Benedict in his hearing and seeing all was done decreed banishment from their Sees against three other Bishops and effectually cast them to exile the Bishop of Cremona Vercellis and Placentia Hermannus in Chron. an 1037. and Baronius eod an tom 11. Where this great Annalist Baronius divines after his own manner that surely Conradus did not this or that without consulting first and obtaining the good leave of the Roman Pontiff dreaming so what the Historians of that age were ignorant of did wholy pass over in silence without question because there was no such consultation held with the Pope no such leave asked from him for it is not likely that if any such had been they had given us no kind of hint of it And so too this prophetical or conjectural Annalist gives us his own very vain imagination for a record where he sayes that a suddain pestilence followed to revenge this fact or this usurpation of Conradus But if Conradus with licence of the Pope proceeded so against these criminal Bishops wherefore doth Baronius invent this revenge of an usurpation that was not in the case if his dream be true So little is our great interpreter of God's judgments and scourges consistent or constant to himself And if any should say for him that he meaned not that God reveng'd by such a plague any usurpation of Conrade being the Pope gave his consent also but only mean'd that God thereby reveng'd some other injustice in the proceedings albeit authorized by the Imperial and Papal powers joyntly or both together then I say that such meaning or interpretation of Baronius were it infallibly true in such meaning is nothing to his purpose here or against mine at all as the judicious Reader may himself easily see without any further illustration or observation by me And you may also reflect on Henry King of the Romans afterwards Emperour and the second of this name who continuing and persevering in the possession of the right or authority of coercing and punishing Clergiemen in imitation of his Predecessors wel-nigh a thousand years deprived of his dignity Widgerus Archbishop of Ravenna nay and the Pope himself of his Papacy Gregory the Fifth of that name Hermannus in Chron. Of other Henry's Emperours of Rome I say nothing Because in their time and by the occasion of the too great abuse by Clergiemen of the reverence to and patience of Princes with the Roman See in particular and Ecclesiastical Order in general nay and peradventure also by the occasion of the neglect and sluggishness of the Princes themselves that I may not here enlarge on or give other most certainly true causes as likewise by occasion of the many great priviledges formerly granted by Emperours and other Kings to all Priests and Bishops albeit amongst all such priviledges there was never any such to them in general as an exemption in temporal matters from the supream civil power and moreover by occasion of some special priviledges granted to the Roman See alone and to the Bishops thereof and finally by occasion of the vast both spiritual and temporal Revenues which these Roman Pontiffs were in the dayes of the other Henries possessors of they I mean the Roman Pontiffs were then arrived to such a height of worldly greatness and strength that seeing the former and indeed formidable power of the Roman Empire divided and subdivided in to so many different unsubordinate Kingdoms and seeing themselves could hardly ever want some one or other Prince amongst all to embrace their Papal quarrel against any other either Prince King or Emperour and considering also the great ignorance or blind zeal of many then who as their affections lead them or as their Preachers told them in some or many Provinces of Europe took all the Dictates of Roman Pontiffs for so many infallible or divine oracles pursuant to the doctrine hereof also first invented soon after vented by Gregory the VII I say that by these occasions and by their own improvements of them the Popes were in the times of the other succeeding Henries come to such a height of glory and greatness that they dared resist as they did Kings and Emperours in what quarrels soever and particularly in this of the pretended exemption not of themselves only but of all Bishops of the world nay and of all Priests too nay and also of all other Clerks of whatsoever lower degree from all earthly power add in all criminal causes of what nature soever pretending that such persons as being dedicated to God had no other truly proper and supream Governour or Prince on earth but themselves alone the Popes of Rome And therefore being it was then or much about that time this controversie begun which I have disputed on hitherto I have resolved to bring no instances of other Princes or Bishops since that time or of that time but content my self with these of more antiquity as best sorting with my purpose which only is and was along in this Section to shew the former doctrine of the holy Fathers and their Exposition of St. Paul 13. Rom. confirmed by the practice and in so many particular instances of both Ecclesiastical Prelats and Christian Princes in the more ancient Ages of the Church and for so many ages together all along quite contrary to both the doctrine and practice of some few or many if you please Ecclesiasticks in the later and worser and in this by little and little degenerated ages of Christianity And yet I would have my Readers take notice that I could furnish them were it necessary with a cloud of witnesses and a cloud of such particular instances both in the very said time and after the very said time of even the self same other Henries also and even also all along in every age of these very latter and worser until this present wherein we live and in this present year of it 1667. and could furnish them with these witnesses and produce to them these other such particular instances in matter of fact of Bishops and of Princes and of Roman Catholick Princes too for such only
and therefore say also by consequence that he lay under some constraint and some necessity and some bond tye or obligation to pay that didrachma yet is it not consequent that I say he wanted that freedom or any such freedom which is simply such or lay under any constrrint or necessity which are simply such or even under any bond tye or obligation at least of justice simply such or which might oblige him under sin or the penalty of sin or by vertue of the tribute law it self to pay any tribute for the rest of my discourse most evidently shews I mean thereby no other constraint necessity or obligation but such as are secundum quid or diminutively such even such as Iohn the XXII himself allows even such as our Saviour himself means by saying ut non scandalizemus eos da c. and even such finally as arise only from the law of love and of that divine love which told him it was not fitting for him to give cause of scandal to the weak ones by his own refusal or denial or failer and which made him at last to give his life for them that took it from him And therefore also 't is not consequent that by any thing or word said in that passage of mine page 239 I joyn or concur with Marsilius or Jandunus in this first article of theirs not even as much as in the words much less in the sense of that article condemn'd by Pope Iohn the XXII Besides it is clear enough that for the defence of my thesis against Bellarmine's argument grounded by him on the texts of Matthew Mat. 17. Ergo liberi sunt filii and ut nâ—â— scandalizemus eos c. I needed not give as I did not give in my LXIII Section page 150 151 153. where I handled these words of our Saviour at large and of purpose any such answer but solved the argument fairly and clearly there without any such or as much as reflecting on any such answer that is on any such necessity or any such obligation of justice or obedience due arising from the tribute law or other command of presumed superiour Powers And it is no less clear that I was not in my 239. page nor am here now at present nor will be elsewhere any further concern'd for Marsilius or Jandunus then they held close to the general thesis only that is to the general doctrine only of the Catholick Church and that whereever they swerve from that I do from them and where that Church condemns them I also condemn them nay and that I am content likewise to condemn them where ever Iohn the XXII himself alone or in this Bull of his condemns them and yet hold still constantly to my thesis For and forasmuch as concerns their second complex article viz. Quod B. Petrus Apostolus non plus authoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerint nec aliorum Apostolorum fuit caput Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae nec aliquem Vicarium suum fecit 't is plain it concerns not our present controversie of the exemption of Clergiemen or that even of the very Apostles themselves or that even sayl also of S. Peter himselâ— from the temporal powers and in temporal matters For that Peter should have had that is actually and immediatly from Christ himself had more authority then the other Apostles had and that he should have been made or was actually made the head of them all and that Christ should have or had left some one Head to the Church and made left some one his own Vicar which is the contradictory of this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus argues nothing at all for the exemption from temporal Princes in temporal matters of as much as Peter himself or of him that had that greater authority or of that head or of that Vicar Because the doctrine of the Catholick Church teacheth us that that greater authority of Peter whatever it was and that Headship of his over the rest of the Apostles and that one Headship and one Vicarship under Christ in the Church and over the Church was meerly and purely spiritual and because not only that very doctrine but reason also and experience tells us that such greater authority spiritual and even such one Headship and one Vicarship spiritual consist well very with a lesser authority temporal in the same Head or Vicar and even with none such at all in Him and yet with another Headship and another Vicarship temporal in another person and with a full entire subjection in temporal matters to this other person or other head and other Vicar whose authority and power is only and purely temporal as on the other side the temporal Headship or temporal Vicarship consists very well with its own subjection in spiritual matters to that Headship and Vicarship which is only spiritual And more or other then what is here said Iohn the XXII arguments in his discourse against this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus do not conclude or indeed as much as pretend to being all his reasons here are only and wholly bent against a parity of power in the Apostles amongst themselves without any exception of Peter or preheminence given to him over them How strong or how weak his reasons are I need not care at least for the present being that for the present I allow all in general both his definitions and reasons in this Bull and in particular what he reasons and defines against this second Article as not as much as in the least touching me or my thesis of the subjection of all Clergiem whether Apostles or not Apostles and even of the very spiritual Prince of the Apostles Peter himself in temporal matters to the supream temporal respective Princes within whose dominions they live For likewise as for the third of those Articles or this Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam instituere destituere ac punire as the said Iohn the XXII relates it in the beginning of his Bull or this other form of it Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam corrigere punire ac instituere destituere 't is clear enough it may be allowed as I also do allow it to be false erroneous and heretical for one part and in one sense or even for both parts in a certain sense whatever is in the mean while thought of the other part or even of either in another different sense and yet my grand Thesis and all my doctrine hitherto even where it descends or rather ascends to the Pope himself be untouch'd by any such censure That one part I allow to be so is that which sayes it belongs to the Emperour to institute and destitute the Pope and the sense wherein I allow this part to be so or to be false erroneous and heretical is that whereby any should conceive that the Emperor could at any time and by his own proper imperial authority as such
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
great strictness in his own way I mean according to the judgment of the Prelats and Nobles of that Assembly at Paris But for a judgment also given of purpose on that whole controversie and given by a contemporary Historian a Catholick by religion a Monk by profession and writer of very good repute Gulielmus Neubrigensis and a judgment given by him of this matter even after Thomas had been both martyrized and canonized you have it in his third Book cap. 16. and in these words Sane cum plerique soleant in iis quos amant laudant affectu quidem propensiori sed prudentia parciori quicquid ab iis geritur approbaâ—e planè ego in viro illo venerabili ea quae ita ab ipso acta sunt ut nulla exinde proveniret utilitas sed feruor tantum accenderetur Regius ex quo tot mala post modum pullulasse noscuntur laudanda nequaquam censuerim licet ex laudabili zelo processerint sicut nec in Beatissimo Apostolorum Principe arcem jam Apostolicae perfectionis tenente quod geâ—tes suo exemplo Judaizare coegit in quo eum Doctor gentium reprehensibilem deciatat fuisse licet eum constat laudabili hoc pietate fecisse Third reason That he might possibly be imbued with the doctrine which was growing then of the exemption of Clergiemen either by divine immediate right of the positive or even natural law of God or by that which is pretended to be mediatly divine and immediatly canonical or humane from the Canons of the Church or at least from the bad or false interpretation of those Canons or by some prescription and will and power of those Popes who so mightily in his dayes and for almost a whole age before his dayes immediatly and continually contested with the very Emperours themselves and all other Bishops for both the spiritual and temporal soveraignty of the world and this too by a pretence of divine right And that we must not wonder that even on so great a Saint as Saint Thomas of Canterbury himself the authority of the first Apostolick See and the numbers of her admirers adorers and followers then in what quarrel soever and the specious pretence of piety in the cause and education in such principles or amongst such people should work a strong pre-possession of zeale as for the cause of God being it was reputed the cause of the Church however that according to the veritie of things or true laws divine or humane as in themselves nakedly or abstractedly it might peradventure not have either the cause of God or the cause of the Church Fourth reason and it is a confirmation that is a very probable argument though nor perhaps throughly or rigidly demonstrative of the truth of the Third That in the speech or words of St Thomas of Canterbury in the time of his banishment to his King Henry the Second at Chinun which Honeden ad an 1165. calls Verba Beati Thomae Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun we find this sentence of his Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere c. Wherein I am certain this holy Bishop was point blanck contrary to the sense of ten thousand other holy Bishops before him in the more primitive ages of the Church and contrary to plain Scripture and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for at least the ten first and best ages of Christianity Fift reason That it is not so clear in all respects that those sixteen heads of customs passed not legally and long before the Saints death into a just municipal law of the land or of England notwithstanding that St. Thomas denyed and even justly too denyed his own hand and seale or even justly also retracted his own former consent by oath yea and notwithstanding that it was meerly out of fear that the rest of the Bishop did at first consent or gave their own consent by oath likewise For it may be said first and said also upon very probable grounds out of the several ancient Catholick and even Ecclesiastick Historians who writ of purpose of those dayes and matters that they all freely after consented And secondly it may be said that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament having the consent royal whether one Bishop or moe peradventure or even all the Bishops dissent And thirdly yet iâ— may be said that all laws most commonly or at least too often may be called in question upon that ground of fear of the Prince Sixt and last reason That we must rather give any answer that involves not heresie or manifest errour in the Catholick Faith or natural reason obvious to every man then allow or justifie the particular actions or contests or doctrine of any one Bishop or Pope how great or holy soever otherwise or even of many such or of all their partakers in such against both holy Scriptures plain enough in the case and the holy Fathers generally for the ten first ages in their explications of such Scriptures and consequently against that universal Tradition which must of necessity be allowed Nihil enim innovandum sed quod traditum est observandum Behold here six reasons which taken at least altogether may justifie my giving the two last Answers or my adding them to the other two former As for the rest I leave it to the Readers choice which of all four he will fix on though I my self and for my own part and out of a greater reverence to the Saint himself and to the Pope that canonized him or to that Pope I mean in as much as he canonized him for a martyr in such a cause if he did so or intended so taking the name of martyr properly and strictly whereof what we read in our very Breviary of the cause for which the Pope sayes he suffered may perhaps give some occasion of scruple being it is there said of those Laws of Henry the Second and only said that they were leges utilitati ac dignitati Ordinis Ecclesiastici repugnantes but not said that they were laws against the laws of God though I say I could wish for these reasons that all my Readers did fix as I do my self rather on the first and second Answer then on the two last But on which soever of all four they six I am confident none may infer that they or I question Thomas of Canterbury's sanctity in this world either in his life or at his death or his glory in heaven after his death or question the Bull of of his canonization or question the holy practice of the Catholick Church in her veneration or invocation or finally question as much as those miracles which I suppose were sufficiently proved in the process form'd for his canonization or even those which as wrought after that time at his Tomb or elsewhere are alledg'd upon sufficient grounds if any such be so alledg'd Though I cannot here
receive in order to the Ceremonial or significative and whatever other additional complement of it from the Church For thus he discourseth a little before in the same speech at Chinun speaking to his King Nosse debetis vos Dei gratia Regem esse primò quia vos ipsum or ipsos regere debetis vitamque vestram optimis informare moribus ut vestri exemplo caeteri provocentur ad melius juxta illud sapientis Componitur orbis regis ad exemplum Secundariò alios demulcendâ— alios puniendo potestatis authoritate quam accepistis ab Ecclesia cum sacramento unctionis tum gladii officio quem gestatis ad malefactores Ecclesiae conterendos Injunguntur enim Reges in tribus locis in capite in pectore brachiis quod significat gloriam scientiam fortitudinem And thus also after he discourseth in that Letter to the Bishop of London and about the end of that Letter Sciat ergo intelligat te intimante Dominus meus to wit the King quod qui dominatur in regno hominum sed Angelorum duâ—ts sub se potestates ordinavit Principes Sacerdotes unam terrenam alteram spiritualem unam ministrantem alteram praeeminentem unam cui potentiam concessit alteram cui reverentiam exhiberi voluit Out of both which passages and not only jointly but severally taken and much more if jointly as they ought the more fully to undestand the Saints meaning I am very much deceived if it appear not sufficiently 1. That he acknowledges the Royal Power as such in Kings to be no less from God than the Sacerdotal in Priests 2. That to Kings he gave the Temporal power of this World and Carnal power of the material Sword To Priests a spiritual Authority and no more in order to the Temporal power and Carnal sword but a Mandat only from him to such as have that Power and Sword to revere those who onely have the Word 3. That where he intimates they received or do receive the Authority of power from the Church he declares plainly enough that he means no more by this phrase but that they received or do receive it Ceremoniously and significatively and in some-wise completively from the Church when they were or are anointed by Sacred Oyle by Her in three places in their Head Breast and Shoulders which sayes he signifies Glory Knowledge and Fortitude qualities necessary to a King and of right flowing from the power which he had antecedently to their unction but now signified both to the King himself and to others and signified by such unction that they ought to flow from it and qualities also not seldome by the prayers of the Church at that time impetrated from God to flow from it thenceforth more abundantly and conspicuously Or that if besides this ceremonious and significative reception of power from the Church he mean any other real reception it must be of another Authority than that which is essential and proper in all times and all places to the Supreme Civil or Politick Magistrate as such and must be onely of some kind of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical capacity power authority or enablement for some spiritual Functions either within the Church and in order to the very mystical Sacrifice or Preparatories or Antecedents or Concomitants of it or certainly without and over the Church and in relation to its proper Government Ecclesiastical and to its Benefices and Offices For such a double Authority given by the Church to Christian Emperours and Kings especially in and by or together with their Unction and Consecration at least as Church affairs stood a long time before that of St. Thomas of Canterbury and long after too he might have very well averr'd and rationally have objected to Henry the Second whereby to move him not to be so ungrateful to the Church which had so obliged him And such a double Authority given by her to them is apparent 1. In their Clerical Offices performed sometime within the very Churches and at the very Altars For so we find that Sigismund that good and zealous Emperour who was the chief Instrument for gathering the General Council of Constance to end the great Schism of Three Anti-Popes and assisted at it when it sate and the Pope John the XXIII celebrated the solemn Mass on Christmas day in the Cathedral of the City did serve at the high Altar clad in the Vest of a Deacon and doing the Office did read also and sing publickly the Gospel Exiit Edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur universus c. which was the Gospel of that Mass which the Pope then celebrated 2. In the Canonical and positive right of Patronage and Nomination of Church Officers and Beneficiaries as of Bishops Abbots Priors c. which they have and which at least many or most or they all had at least in most parts before the dayes of Thomas of Canterbury and had verily either from the express Donation made to them by the Church as that of naming the very Pope himself and all Archbishops and Bishops in the West made to Carolus Magnus and his Successors or by the tacite permission and approbation of the same Church partly for their Merits and partly for the bindring of Schisms amongst the Clergy or Lay-people or both which happen'd before in popular or Clerical or joint Elections or in such as were made by the Communities I say Canonical and positive Right or Patronage or Nomination c. because I confess That all Supreme Lawful Princes and States whatsoever as well Heretick as Catholick as well not Christian as Christian have a natural right of Patronage over the very Christian Church and a negative Suffrage in the Election of such Christian Church Officers as live within their Dominions forasmuch as the safety of their people may be concern'd in such that is have a right from the Law of Nature and a right essential to their Kingly Office not to suffer any Disturber of the publick Peace to be nominated or to enjoy any Church Livings or Church Office within their own Dominions And that such natural Right and negative Suffrage is not derived or given to them by the Church But the former double Authority is by or together with their Sacred Unction And that St. Thomas of Canterbury meant only this by the Authority which he sayes they received from the Church if indeed at all he meant any more by this saying of his than their receiving their politick Kingly power either significatively and completively as to the outward Ceremonies before the people or at most in some measure and degree and as to the perfect establishment of it instrumentally and by their mediation or at least by their making no opposition sufficiently appears First out of his manner of speaking or couching these words Secundario alios demulcendo alios puniendo potestatis authoritate quam accepistis ab Ecclesia tum gladii officio quem gestatis ad malefactores
Catholicks of those two Nations containing only such matter and to alledge as the cause or as a cause of such condemnation and censure and alledge it also in plain terms That it the said Instrument contain'd some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion What can I say be more rash false injurious and scandalous than to say so of such a matter if it be not so at all if there be no kind of true ground for saying that it is so And that it is not so at all or that the Remonstrance contains not either formally or virtually and consequentially as much as any one thing or part of a thing if such part may be repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion appears hence evidently That neither in its Acknowledgments Confessions Promises Disclaimings Renouncings Declarations Professions Protestations Abhorrencies Detestations nor in its final resignation in the Petitionary Address nor in any other clause or word if there be any other as indeed there is not but what belongs to these heads now repeated there is not as much as a syllable which by any kind of true either Grammatical or Theological or as much as seeming or likely construction imports any more in effect than first a bare Acknowledgment of the Supreme Temporal power of these Dominions of England Ireland Scotland c. and of all persons whatsoever Laymen or Clergymen living within them to be in our gracious Sovereign Charles the Second to have been in His lawful Predecessors and hereafter to be a so in His lawful Successors as likewise a bare acknowledgment of the like Supreme power under God to be in other Princes and Supreme Magistrates within their own respective Dominions And next an express or tacite promise to observe and obey and continue Loyal or Faithful in all Civil and Temporal matters to that self-same Supreme Temporal power of our gracious King yea notwithstanding any Doctrine to the contrary or even any Attempt by any other power whatsoever Temporal or Spiritual to force them or draw them from their Allegiance or Obedience to King Charles in meer Civil and Temporal Affairs For I have already and abundantly too demonstrated where I before Treated against the four grounds of the Louain Divines and more especially where I Treated against their fourth That it is so far from being against the sincere profession of Catholick Religion to assert or promise any such thing that it is on the contrary even revealed and declared positively and expresly and clearly by God himself in several places of Holy Scripture and yet more particularly in St. Paul's Epistle and by the mouth and pen of this great Apostle That all Supreme Temporal power is in the Supreme Temporal Princes and States over all their own respective Subjects as well Ecclesiasticks as Laicks And consequently that in all Temporal matters Allegiance and Faith and Obedience is due to such their power and ought to be paid and performed to them not only for fear of their Anger and Sword but for Conscience and fear of Damnation as St. Paul most expresly declares in formal words 13 ad Rom. And moreover that all this Doctrine hath been so as here delivered by universal Tradition for almost eleven entire Ages of Christian Religion all along till Gregory the Seventh usurped unto himself the Temporal power of the Empire as belonging to him by Divine Right All which being so as certainly it is so I frame thus my Argument Syllogistically against both the said Causes or Reasons supposed and expresly inserted in this second or short Censure of the Louain Faculty Theological as the only Reasons given therein wherefore they censure our Remonstrance and censure it so heavily and grievously or with such odious epithets as these unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. Whatsoever Vniversity or other Censure taxes judges or condemns any Remonstrance that contains only in effect or both in word and sense a bare Acknowledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal Natural Civil and Political power of the Sword as is hitherto said in the Supreme Lay Magistrate Prince or State and withall a promise only of such obedience as before is said in meer Civil and Temporal Affairs to that Power or that Magistrate according to the Laws of the Land I say that whatever Censure taxes judges or condemns such a Remonstrance to be utterly unlawful detestable and sacrilegious viz. upon account supposition or pretence That it contains a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make to them and that moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion Every such University or other Censure whatsoever I say must be rash against Prudence false against Truth injurious against Justice and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity But the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 61. 62. is such or is a University Censure of a Remonstrance that contains only in effect or both in word and sense a bare Acknowledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal Natural Civil and Political power c. and withall a promise only of such obedience c. and yet taxes judges and condemns such a Remonstrance to be unlawful c. viz. upon account supposition c. Ergo the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 1661. and 1662. must be rash against Prudence false against Truth injurious against Justice and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity And indeed the Major of this Syllogism ought at least among such Christian Divines as are men of Reason to be reputed of the nature of those Propositions which are called Propositiones per se notae if or as far as any such may be in Christian Philosophy or Divine Science of Christians For this tells us manifestly and evidently according to that evidence which Christian Religion is capable of That all such Censures as are against other at least Christian men and so great also and numerous a Body of other Christian men and are against them upon such an account only that is for maintaining such a power in the Supreme Civil Magistrate and such obedience due from the Subjects as are both revealed in the very written Word of God himself in holy Scripture and so constantly and universally delivered by Tradition and no less approved and confirmed even by pure natural Reason and so I mean revealed delivered approved and confirmed as I have already in my Disputes against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines proved that power and that obedience to have been I say that Christian Philosophy tells us manifestly and evidently that all such Censures must be so as I have said and even notoriously too rash false injurious and scandalous Rash against Prudence because heady foolishly bold and wholly inconsiderate against the Rules of that even humane Providence or of that right
do acknowledge and confess Him to be so So that their said oath formal or virtual if an oath at all immediately going before or premised to the Act of Recognition doth not fall upon the verity of Things as in themselves objectively or upon the conformity of their words or of their sentiments to the things Objects or Laws as in their true Nature but only on the conformity of their outward or verbal Acknowledgments Confessions Renunciations Promises Resolutions c. to their own inward thoughts and hearts Which I thought fit to Note here for their sake who pretend for a Reason of not subscribing that it is not just they should swear that which is controverted or may be controverted or that they should swear that which they cannot otherwise know but by probable Arguments or swear that either formally or virtually which is in debate twixt great Divines As for Example That the Pope cannot de jure dethrone or depose our King for this Position must be virtually supposed by the Subscribers of our Remonstrance For their sake I say it is I give this Advertisement here That there is no kind of oath formal or virtual in that Act of Recognition or in any Clause or Appendage of it and that the antecedent Proposition in the sight of Heaven or oath if it be an oath immediately going before it falls only on the conformity of their words to their mind that is signifies only That however the Things Objects Laws c. be in their own nature yet the Subscribers do sincerely and truly without equivocation or mental reservation acknowledge and confess renounce disclaim protest detest abhor c. so and so And yet I confess they cannot honestly or conscientiously do so or profess or subscribe so unless at the same time they persuade themselves of the absolute certainty or at least of the undoubted probability of all such Positions as are either formally contained in or virtually supposed by the said Act of Recognition or in or by all or any of the Clauses and Appendages of the same Act and unless they resolve also at the same time never to change their opinion in that or concomitant Resolution to be ever accordingly faithful to the King For otherwise by doing so or professing or subscribing so the Subscribers must be guilty before God of most grievous sins against both God and the King that is first of Perjury by calling Heaven to witness their sincere profession of that which either they do not believe or persuade themselves at all that they ought by any means to profess or if they persuade themselves that they ought or might without sin profess they do not resolve in their heart to perform what in word they promise at least virtually for the future and in the second place of Hypocrisie or of the most horrid odious scandalous and dangerous dissimulation and deception may be of the very King Himself and in a matter of highest concernment to His Majesty and all His People And I say yet that without such persuasion and resolution the Subscribers must be guilty of such enormous sins let the Protestation it self and in it self objectively taken be admitted by all sides to be in all respects the most Christian Catholick and Conscientious hath ever yet been framed Because that according to the Rule of the great Apostle Paul to the Romans chap. 14. vers 22. Omne autem quod non est ex fide peccatum est whatever is done or professed or promised contrary to the dictate of ones own inward conscience must be to him a sin be it otherwise in it self and according to the very Law of God himself the most holy action profession or promise can be Whereof to give here a further Reason is as needless as it is obvious to all knowing men That our inward practical dictate is and must be to us the measure and very next Rule of our Actions Dictamen practicum regula proxima humanorum actuum And that although our conforming our selves to it be not sufficient alwayes or at all times to render our Actions just as when it is not just in it self according to the objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves yet our varying from it in our Actions is abundantly sufficient to render our Actions unjust evil and vicious quia bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu Thirdly And consequently the Reader is to be Advertised That to save him the trouble of turning back to the beginning of this Book I give here word by word all that Act of Recognition otherwise called the Protestation of our Remonstrance and the Petition following it immediately concerning both which Recognition and Petition or some passages of both or either all the Controversie and Censure of Louain is For without any interjection presently after the last passage given before in my second Advertisement of the Remonstrance of what or of that odium the Irish Clergy lay under that Instrument thereof proceeds thus and begins continues and ends the Act of Recognition thus WE do acknowledge and confess Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supreme Lord and Rightful Sovereign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other Your Majesties Dominions And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal Affairs as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any Sentence or Declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against Your Majesty or Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our Abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty And we openly disclaim and renounce all Forreign Power be it either Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults bear Arms or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person Royal Authority or to the State or Government Being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to Your Majesty and to Your Ministers all the Treasons made against Your Majesty or Them which shall come to our hearing but also to lose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person and Royal Authority and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what Forreign Power or Authority soever And further we profess that all absolute Princes and Supreme Governors of what Religion soever they be are Gods Lieutenants on earth and that Obedience
is due to them according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all Civil and Temporal Affairs And therefore we do herâ— protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary And we do hold it â—â—â—ious and against the Word of God to maintain That any private Subject may â—ill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince though of a different Belief and â—â—ligion from his And we abhor and detest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked After which Act of Recognition and Appendages of it you have immediately in the same Instrument this Petitionary Address These being the Tenents of our Religion in point of Loyalty and Submission to Your Majesties Commands and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrenching upon that perfect Obedience which by our Birth by all Laws divine and humane we are bound to pay to Your Majesty our natural and lawful Sovereign we humbly beg prostrate at Your Majesties feet that you would 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 Having so given all I would have the Reader to take notice of here previously or before I come to an issue on the Point for proving my above Minor that is for proving that in our Remonstrance there is nothing at all contained but a bare acknowledgment confession c. of the Supreme Temporal power to be in the respective Lay Supreme or absolute Princes within their own Dominions and of obedience to be due to them in all Temporal affairs by all their own respective Subjects albeit I confess that for my present purpose of proving my said Minor I have not so dilated as I did in my second Advertisement but for that other end I there expressed for whether in the said Act of Recognition there be an Oath virtually or formally contain'd or not it matters not to my purpose of shewing or proving that no more nor ought else is therein contain'd or acknowledg'd but the meer Temporal Supreme power of the Prince in Temporal Affairs and obedience of the Subjects in the same Temporal Affairs Now therefore to demonstrate clearly that nothing else but such power and such obedience is therein acknowledged confessed c. nor by consequence any other disclaimed renounced abhorred detested or protested against but what doth not subsist with that power in the Prince and that obedience in the Subjects who sees not first that there are no more but Nine periods or clauses with perfect periods in the said Act of Recognition from the first word of it to the last immediately before the Petitionary Address And that in none at all of all these Nine either separately or jointly taken there is other power than such meer Temporal or Civil acknowledg'd in the King or in any other Temporal Prince or other Obedience Loyalty or Fidelity but such as is in Temporal things only acknowledg'd to be due from Subjects to their Prince And secondly or consequently too who sees not there is not in any of the said clauses either separately or jointly taken any other power disclaimed in or renounced or abhorred or detested or protested or declared against as being or as pretended to be in any other Pope or Prince or Church or People but that only which is inconsistent with His Majesties Supreme Temporal power only And that there is not any other obedience likewise declared against but that obedience only which is inconsistent with the obedience of Subjects in Temporal things to their own respective Supreme Temporal Princes For taking these Nine periods or clauses or parts of the said Act of Recognition and considering them first each apart separately what I say will be evident to any man that hath sense and reason The first period is in these words We do acknowledge and confess Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supreme Lord and rightful Sovereign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other Your Majesties Dominions Sure here is no word or words importing signifying or attributing to King Charles any power but that which His true and lawful Kingship Supreme Lordship and Rightful Sovereignty requires to be in him And therefore not any power but that which is meerly Temporal for his said Kingship Lordship and Sovereignty require no other 'T is true the Protestants or those of the Protestant Church of England who are not in communion with Rome or the Roman Bishop and who take that Oath they call the Oath of Supremacy do understand the Kings Royal power to extend it self to as well Spiritual as Temporal things and persons and consequently by the words Supreme Lord if in an Oath framed by themselves and for themselves or to be by themselves taken or subscribed might understand that themselves I say by such words and Oath would attribute to the King such a Supreme Lordship and consequently such a Supreme power as extended to as well Spiritual things and persons as to meer Temporal things Yet it is also true 1. That this hath nothing to do with the signification of the words Supreme Lord as used by Catholicks in a Remonstrance drawn by Catholicks and only for Catholicks to sign 2. That these words Supreme Lord especially as used to a secular Prince signifie not either by their proper native signification as imposed originally or used by knowing men nor by or in even the vulgar acception of them any other Supreme Lordship but that of a meer temporal worldly politick or Civil Supreme power of the Sword and not at all any spiritual of the Word or Sacraments of the Christian Religion 3. That the Sons of the Protestant Church of England however by their Oath of Supremacy they attribute to or acknowledge in the King a Supremacy that is a Supreme power over all or in all as well spiritual things and spiritual persons as in or over all temporal things and persons yet by that Supremacy or Supreme power they understand no spiritual power at all either of the Word Sacraments or Faith or of any other matter whatsoever but a meer Temporal Civil or Politick power of the material Sword And therefore it is plain That neither in the Catholick or Protestant meaning of the words of this first Period any other power is or may be understood but a meer Temporal power Supreme acknowledged in the King And therefore also it 's no less plain that by the said words or sense of them it cannot be said the Remonstrance or Subscribers of it do either formally or virtually or any way at all consequentially ascribe to the King any kind of spiritual Supremacy or Supremacy of spiritual power but of meer Temporal and Politick power or do at all as much as by any kind of rational consequence deny the pure spiritual
Supremacy of the Pope whatever this be which the Catholick Church allows him For a pure Supreme Temporal in one and a pure Supreme Spiritual in another and over the same persons and causes are very truly certainly and evidently consistent The second Period or Clause being this And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal Affairs as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands and consequently being only and wholly of the obedience due by Catholick Subjects to Hâ—s Majesty and being it doth in formal express words determine this obedience to all Civil and Temporal Affairs as you see it doth there can be therefore no dispute of this Period The third Period also containing only in effect an acknowledgment of their resolution to acknowledge evermore and perform their Loyalty and true Allegiance to the King notwithstanding any contradiction by or from the Pope or by or from any other deriving power from the Pope or See of Rome for the words are these And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against Your Majesty or Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our Abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty I say that being the third Period hath no other words or matter it 's very evident that the whole entire Subject of it is nought else but obedience in Temporals because the Loyalty and true Allegiance of Catholicks to their at least Protestant Prince can be no other but obedience and fidelity towards Him in all Temporal matters and because that by these words Our Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty neither His Majesty Himself nor other Protestant nor any indifferent and judicious Catholick ever yet understood nor indeed ought to understand any other Loyalty or Allegiance but that which is in meer Temporals Nor can it be said upon any rational ground that because the Remonstrants do here acknowledge That notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope c. or any sentence c. or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal c. it must follow That they either deny the true spiritual Authority of the Pope over any Christians or any part of the world or even his Temporal within his own temporal Territories or within those Territories I mean which are His uncontroverredly even also as to the temporal Government or that they are resolved or that they promise or declare that they will disobey or oppose any just sentence or declaration of his obliging themselves or any other Nothing less then either doth follow by any kind of consequence whereas indeed no more but that they are persuaded that the Pope hath neither any true Spiritual nor any true Temporal power from God or man to devest the King of his Temporals or to hinder them from being His loyal liege men in such Temporals and that if he pronounced any sentence or gave any command to the contrary though it were even by Excommunication such sentence and such command and even such Excommunication would be as to all effects and purposes null and void because against the Laws of God and man and nature and not proceeding from any true power he had from God or from the Church of God but only from a vain and false presumption of power or authority in the case and a clave errante from a Key errant or which is the same in effect at most and at best from such an abuse of his authority as invalidates and annulls his sentence in all respects whatsoever They do not therefore at all hereby or in this Clause as neither in any other not even as much as virtually or consequentially in any manner soever deny or oppose his true and pure spiritual power of judging or binding or that which truly and really is in him to judge and bind spiritually or in a spiritual manner both King and Subjects or to pronounce even Excommunication against either themselves or the King if or when there shall happen any just cause thereof But they only deny 1. That he hath no kind of Temporal power acquired either by divine or humane Right that reaches to the King or his Crown People or Dominions 2. That the spiritual power which he truly and really hath either from God immediately or from the Church and which the same Catholick Church acknowledges to be so in him or which the Subscribers admit to be in him can have no such effect by Excommunication or other sentence or means as is the bereaving the King of his Temporals or as is the hindering the Subjects to obey or making it lawful for them in point of Conscience and Religion not to perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to His Majesty And that this third Period or Clause or words or meaning of them import no more but this or that such Clause or Subscribers of it cannot be rationally said to deny or declare against any true power of the Pope or any true or just or legal or even as much as only valid sentence of his I shew evidently thus by two several examples of the like expression used in another matter For without denying or opposing the Popes true power or any true just or valid or binding sentence of his his Sons may declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against their natural Father or his Fatherly Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their natural duty and filial obedience to their said Father And without denying or opposing the Kings true power or any true just or even any valid or binding sentence of his the very Subscribers themselves may declare as I for my part do here declare and I am sure all the rest are ready to declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the King or of His Crown or Kingdom or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by His Majesty His Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from Him or His Kingdoms against their spiritual Father the Pope or his true Papal Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their Canonical fidelity and all that true obedience they are bound unto by
the Canons or Laws of the Catholick Church viz. fidelity and obedience in spiritual things and pure spiritual commands which are just or which are given according to the Canons clave non errante Now being that both these Declarations are lawful just and honest in point of Conscience because they are both warranted by the Laws of God and Reason and the latter without any diminution of the true Royal power or any opposition to His Majesties just Laws or Commands and the former also without prejudice to the true Papal power or just Papal commands and whereas the very self-same form of expression is observed in them which you have seen in the above third Clause of our Remonstrance it is plain by all consequence of Reason that for such expression that Clause or the Remonstrance for it may not justly be censured to signifie at all or even as much as by any kind of probable consequence how far fetch'd soever to signifie any thing against the Popes true power or against his just sentence declaration or determination whatsoever being indeed it declares for no other power in the King or faith or obedience in the Subjects to the King but for such as are at the same time consistent without any contradiction contrariety or opposition with acknowledging the true Papal power and obeying all just Papal commands or being it declares only for a Supreme temporal power in the King and for the obedience of His Subjects to Him in Temporal things neither of which nor both together oppose a pure and true Supreme spiritual power in the Pope above the same Subjects and King too nor their obedience to the just commands of the Pope in meer spiritual matters Fourth Period or Clause is in these words And we openly disclaim and renounce all Forreign power be it either Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults bear Arms or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person Royal Authority or to the State or Government In which Clause or words of it albeit the Clause and the words of our Remonstrance which above any other in it our Adversaries pretend to be the stumbling Block and Rock of Scandal to the more ignorant Readers yet even not only our said very Adversaries do confess but are forced by manifest Reason and Construction of those very words to confess that herein is neither Block nor Rock but to such as wilfully frame one to themselves nor as much as a virtual declaration for any other power in our King or obedience due by His Subjects but for the Supreme politick Civil or Temporal in Him in His own Kingdoms For no Forreign power Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal or other specificatively taken as Logicians speak but only reduplicatively taken is at all openly or not openly disclaimed or renounced in this Clause or words or sense thereof that is none at all simply or absolutely taken or taken without any modification or restriction is disclaimed or renounced but diminutively conditionally and modificatively taken or taken with that extreme modification and restriction imported by the words Inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation For who sees not that these additional words are meerly and purely reduplicative that is diminutive modificative restraining and limiting the sense of the former words Papal Princely Spiritual Temporal and confining it to that only of such Forreign power pretending or of such only as pretending to dispense with Subjects in their natural or bounden Duty of Allegiance and Subjection to their Prince And who sees not but that the two examples given a little before by me in my explanation of the former third Clause may as well be made use of here nay and many other such to justifie this expression too of this fourth Clause As for instance or example here If any should say and subscribe this Proposition We disclaim and renounce all either Forreign or even not Forreign power Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from the Obligation we have on us by the Law of God and Nature to honour our natural Parents to sanctifie the Lords day as we are bound by his Law to worship God alone with divine worship not to take his Name in vain not to Kill Steal commit Adultery nor hear false Witness nor covet our Neighbours Goods c. not to do I mean any such thing in any case wherein we are prohibited by the Law of God I say That if any should say so and subscribe this grand complex Proposition or any one single therein contained I am sure there is none of our Opposers but must notwithstanding confess That such Subscribers could not therefore be said to disclaim or renounce at all simply or absolutely or any way indeed the true either Papal or Royal power And why so marrie because they would say and truly say the words Inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend both diminish restrain limit and determine the signification of the former words Papal and Royal Power to another thing quite different from that which is truly such and determine it to that which is only such in a false imagination as the word pictus added to homo in this Oration or Complex homo pictus alters the signification of homo or signifies not a true man but a painted man only Besides who sees not that the words shall free discharge or absolve us from this Obligation or even these last two words this Obligation as in this fourth Clause import no other kind of Obligation but that of Allegiance and Loyalty as formerly mentionâ—d in Temporal or Civil Affairs for the word this must be Relative and the relation of it as in this clause and whole form can be to no other obedience but what is in meer Temporal and Civil Affairs being no other obedience is expresly or tacitly mention'd before as neither any where after And who sees not moreover That the following last words or part of this same fourth Period to wit these or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults bear Arms or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person Royal Authority or to the State or Government confirm all what I have said hitherto on this self-same whole fourth Period That is to say That they shew manifestly we disclaim not simply nor absolutely renounce thereby any other proper but only secundum quid or inasmuch as they are falsly pretended powers for such a wicked sinful end And yet shew manifestly we do not own or acknowledge other power in the King or State or other obedience due from our selves to either but that power in Temporals which is in all Kings and States over their own respective
people and that obedience also in Temporals which is in all other Subjects to their own respective Princes and States or an obedience which tyes them not to raise Tumults bear Arms c. against the Princes Person Royal Authority c Lastly Who sees not there was very much both expediency and necessity in these Kingdoms of England Ireland and Scotland but more especially in Ireland for Catholick Priests amongst such a world of Sectaries and under a Protestant King and State to make such a Remonstrance or one in such even formal words of disclaiming and renouncing in so much any Forreign power being the generality of Romish Priests in these Kingdoms or at least in Ireland have been these many Years and are as yet upon so many sufficient grounds suspected to own such a Forreign power both Papal and Princely Spiritual and Temporal as in their opinion at least may seem nay is able and may even justly pretend to free discharge and absolve them from all obligation of Loyalty even in the most Civil and Temporal Affairs whatsoever and give them leave and licence to raise Tumults bear Arms and offer violence to His Majesties Person Royal Authority and to the State and Government of both Ireland Scotland and England So that from first to last you see by this Discourse even the very grand Block of stumbling and chief Rock of scandal quite removed or rather see there hath never been any such at all in the Remonstrance being this fourth Clause or Period of it is free of any such and hath neither Block nor Rock in it self at all the Block and Rock being onely in false and even wilfully and maliciously false Representations of it by perverse Interpreters Fifth Period or Clause follows Being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to Your Majesty and to Your Ministers all the Treasons made against Your Majesty or them which shall come to our hearing but also to lose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person and Royal Authority and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what Forreign Power or Authority whatsoever But certainly here is nothing else Remonstrated but their being ready to perform their Duty in meer Civil or Temporal Affairs or which is the same thing I mean to perform a meer Civil and Temporal Duty and to perform it in a meer Civil way as all Subjects ought to their meer Civil or Temporal Prince To reveal Treason and defend the Kings Person Royal Authority and State even with the hazard of their Lives Are not both meer Civil and Temporal Duties As for that which some either too grosly stupid or too ridiculously malicious object 1. That Confessors who subscribe this Period or Clause of the Remonstrance declare they are ready and oblige themselves thereby to reveal in some case Sacramental Confessions and break the Sacred Seal of such Confessions made to them forasmuch as they say here They are ready to reveal all Treasons which shall come to their hearing And 2. That all sorts of Catholicks both Laymen and Clergymen subscribing this Clause bind themselves thereby to reveal that also which they cannot in Conscience reveal forasmuch as this Clause binds them to reveal all Treasons and we know 't is Treason by the Law at least in England 't is so to Reconcile any man to the Pope or to be Reconciled so to be made a Priest beyond the Seas by the Popes Authority and afterwards to return to the Kingdom of England as it is also Treason to deny that the King's Majesty of England is Supreme Governor in His Kingdom even in Ecclesiastical Causes and yet 't is plain they cannot nor ought not by any Law of Conscience as it stands not with the Laws of their Communion or Religion to reveal such matters To the first or that of Confessors I have already of purpose and at large answered in my LV Section where I Treated this Subject against the Third ground of the Louain Censure And to the Second or that of all Catholicks generally I say in brief here That Widdrington hath in his Theological Disputation Cap. 4. Sect. 3. upon the Oath of Allegiance most learnedly clearly and even diffusely answered this very Objection made in his time by some especially by Antonius Capellus Controvers 1. Cap. 2. pag. 30 seq against which or in answer to which the learned Widdrington or whoever was Author of those Works which go under his name in effect sayes That neither King James himself nor His Oath of Allegiance nor the Statute thereupon by the Clause of that Oath which tyes to the discovery of Treason did intend to bind or does indeed any way bind to the discovery of other Treason or Trayterous Conspiracy than that which is truly such by the Laws of God Nature and Nations even that which is truly such in all Catholick Nations against Catholick Princes but by no means to the discovery of such matters as are only of late by the peculiar Law of England called or made Treasons Treasonable or Trayterous Conspiracies and are not otherwise in their own nature against the natural Allegiance Truth Fidelity and Obedience of Subjects to their Prince And I say besides that neither any indifferent Catholick or even Protestant ever yet understood by the word Treason in such a Clause whereby Catholicks in an Oath or Declaration especially made by themselves oblige themselves to discover all Treasons any other kind of Treason but that which is such of it 's own nature or by all the Laws of God Nature and Nations or that which is such in all Catholick States and Kingdoms not that which is such by the positive Law of only this or that Kingdom or is only such by Laws made against even the very profession of the Roman Catholick Religion for such might be made Treasonable by an unjust Law of men were it left to the greater vote at least in some Contingencies and in some Countries And I say in the last place That words bind not against or besides the intention of such as speak or subscribe them not are by any Rule of Reason or Law to be construed so to bind whensoever the obvious and common sense of such words in all Nations or in the generality of Nations and Religions require no other intention but may subsist very well without any other intention and the Speakers and Subscribers of such words be thought to deal honestly and conscientiously and to be without fraud equivocation or mental reservation in such their speaking and subscribing Out of all which jointly taken with what I have said before on the other Clauses it is apparent enough That notwithstanding such capricious and foolish Objections the fifth Period contains no other than a promise or purpose of the Subscribers of being faithful in performing their natural Duty in Temporal matters without any kind
of obligation to reveal any thing or to stand by the Prince in any matter which is or may be against any spiritual Duty incumbent on them or against their Religion or Communion or against either Justice or Charity For certainly to reveal such Treason as is such by all the Laws of God and Man of Nature and Nations is a Temporal Duty and to defend the King's Person Royal Authority and State and Government under which we live and which are acknowledged by our selves to be Legal or not Usurped is no less a Temporal Duty or both I mean are Duties we owe to God and to the King and to the Laws and such Duties as are discharged in meer Temporal things and in a meer Temporal way too Sixth Period And further we profess That all Absolute Princes and Supreme Governors of what Religion soever they be are God's Lieutenants on Earth and that Obedience is due to them according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all Civil and Temporal Affairs That no other power is acknowledged here to be even in such Absolute Princes and Supreme Governors nor other obedience due to them by Subjects but in Civil and Temporal things there needs no further proof than what you see in the very express Letter of this self-same Period in the latter part or that of Obedience which also and by all consequence determines the former part of Power and consequently and most expresly determines both to Civil and Temporal Affairs As for the Title of Gods Lieutenants on Earth What Catholick can except against it on other ground but that of Ignorance or Malice or both Our great Nicholaus de Lyra of the Franciscan Order that most Famous and most Learned and also most Catholick Interpreter of the whole Scripture hath above 300 Years since in Sapient 6. called Emperors and Kings Vicarios Dei inâ—â—terra And Thomas of Aquin or whosoever under his name set out the work de Regim Princip l. 2. calls them so nay delivers this Maxim or Position of Kings and Princes Regem Principem toto conatu sayes he sollicitudine divino cultus incumbere teneri non solum quia homo sed etiam quia Dominus Rex est Dei vices gerit a quo maxime pendet St. Ambrose also well nigh a Thousand Years before Lyranus and Aquinas writ thus in Epist ad Roman c. 13. Sciant non se esse liberos sed sub potestate degere quae ex Deo est Principi enim suo qui vicem Dei agit sicut Deo subjiciuntur Nay and a Roman Pontiff Anastasius the Second but a few Ages after Ambrose's Ep. vii writ thus to Anastasius then Emperor of Rome Pectus Clementiae vestrae Sacrarium est publicae faelicitatis ut per instantiam vestram quam velut Vicarian Deus praesidere jussit in terris c. Seventh Period being purely Relative either only to the foresaid six or certainly to that and all the other foregoing Periods taking all together for it is in these words And therefore we do here protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary it is plain this Protestation must be Catholick and just if the Declaration maâ—e in that sixth Period and in the other several foregoing be such But I have now sufficiently demonstrated that all and each of these Declarations are such And 't is like no man will be so mad as to gather out of this Protestation in this seventh Period That the Subscribers protest simply absolutely abstractedly or specificatively against the Authority of any whosoever that declares or holds the contrary but only secundum quid or reduplicatively as holding the contrary not at all as holding declaring or commanding other just matters For the words to the contrary and what else goes before and follows after sufficently declare that Protestation to have only such reduplicative sense So that no other matter can be said to be in this Period or this Period to relate to other than to the Supreme Civil power of Princes in pure Temporal affairs and obedience of Subjects to them in the same Temporal affairs though I otherwise do my self and all the Subscribers also do confess passive obedience due to Princes from their Subjects even in all kinds too of pure spiritual affairs But what this passive is as also what active is I have before explicated and the judicious Reader cannot but easily understand what both are without any explication of mine Eighth Period And we do hold it impious and against the Word of God to maintain That any private Subject may kill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince though of a different belief and judgment from his Sure there is no professed Christian but Mariana Sanctarellus or some other few impious Scholars of theirs and those of Calvin's Crue who before lead the way or after followed them will quarrel with the Subscribers on this Period especially when the several determinations of the general Council of Constance relating to this matter are duly considered Nor even those in this more Pagan Philosophers of some Graecian Republick than Christian Divines of an establish'd Monarchy can justly say whatever they otherwise say the Subscribers attribute other or even relate to or suppose here in this Period any other power in the Prince than a pure Supreme Temporal or any other obedience in the Subject but in meer Civil or Temporal affairs For the corporal life or death of the Prince as of every other man is such Nor certainly upon any ground whatsoever can say at all the Subscribers attribute here any kind of spiritual power nay nor even a Temporal power in spiritual causes to Princes or consequently exact here from Subjects an active obedience in spiritual causes For if any did subscribe this other Proposition relating not to Princes but private Subjects We hold it impious and against the Word of God to maintain That any private Subject may kill or murther another private Subject though of a different Religion from his whatever Construction or Exposition this Proposition would or must be subject unto yet no man certainly could averr on any rational ground That the Subscribers of it attributed a spiritual power to every such private Subject whom he so exempts from being lawfully killed or murthered by another private Subject or that obedience were therefore in spiritual things due to him who could not be so murthered Ninth and last Period And we abhor and detest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked Which because it is Relative only to the eighth as the word thereof proves I need say no more than is already said on the said eighth immediately preceding And these Nine Periods which I have so given and considered apart being the onely Periods Clauses or parts of the said Act of Recognition and no other at all being therein nor as much as a word more who sees not but that the said Act considered even separately as to the several Clauses
and in that manner and with that either Grammatical Theological or any way rational Construction they can be so considered separately does in none of all contain ought else but a profession of the Supreme Temporal power in our King for His own Dominions and in other Supreme politick Magistrates or Princes for their own respective States or Principalities and of the obedience of Subjects in Civil and Temporal affairs to them also respectively but by no means a profession of any spiritual power either in our own King or in another Supreme Prince Temporal or Politick as such or of obedience due by Subjects to them in spiritual matters Certainly such as consider all I have said hitherto must be wilfully and maliciously blind if they pretend to see ought else in any of the said Periods even separately taken As for the Petitionary Address immediately following the said Nine Periods and closing up the whole Remonstrance and which only of all the controverted passages of the said Remonstrance remains yet unconsidered apart being in these and no other words These being the Tenents of our Religion in point of Loyalty and Submission to Your Majesties Commands and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrenching upon that perfect Obedience which by our Birth by all Laws divine and humane we are bound to pay to Your Majesty our natural and lawful Sovereign we humbly beg prostrate at Your Majesties feet that you would 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 Laws who sees not also out of what I have at large and of purpose discoursed thereupon that is upon the two last Lines thereof which only of this whole Petitionary Address were though unjustly taken by some as a ground of Dispute against the said Petitionary Address and therefore against the whole Remonstrance who sees not I say out of what I have at large and of purpose disputed in my lxi lxii and upon also the following Sections on the matter of Ecclesiastical Exemption in answer to and against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines That no word or syllable or any way the whole of the said Petitionary Address or two last Lines of it contains either formally virtually or consequentially an acknowledgment of other power in the Prince but that which is meerly Temporal or of other obedience due from his Catholick Subjects to him but in Civil and Temporal affairs And therefore I will not Repeat here what is so amply given already in the said Sections where the Reader may see it again if he please Now to consider the whole of the said Act of Recognition even also jointly taken with that Appendage of the Petitionary Address or which is it I mean here to consider all the parts thereof not separately but jointly or not apart each one by it self but altogether and every part as relating to each other and to what goes before and comes after who sees not but that being the Subscribers do most signally and in formal words and in two several places of the said Act of Recognition express their own obedience to the Prince onely in Civil and Temporal affairs and onely in such and no where in spiritual matters and being that in the said Petitionary Address as likewise in the Title and even very Body of the Remonstrance of their Grievances they profess still their own Religion and Communion to wit in spiritual matters to be Romish and in terms plain enough profess also their continual dependencâ— of the See of Rome videlicet in spiritual matters purely such who sees not I say but that consequently it must follow the said Remonstrance considered in this manner that is jointly or one part with another and with the necessary Relations to what goes before and comes after cannot be said by any judicious person to contain a profession of other power than that which is meerly Politick Civil or Temporal in the Prince or of other obedience as due from the Subject than that which is in meer Civil and Temporal affairs And certainly however the said Remonstrance be taken either jointly or separately we know 't is a Rule of both the Canon and Civil Law that to understand the full meaning and scope of any Clause apart or of any single Clause thereof the whole must be considered that is together with such Clause what goes before and what comes after must be jointly considered if there be any ambiguity or any pretended to be For so the Popes themselves determine where they Treat of the like or of the meaning or just interpretation of any Author or any Writing And so particularly and expresly Pope Nicholas the Third teaches Cap. Exiit de verb. signif in sexto in his learned and most ample declaration thereof the Rule of St. Francis Where to expound the meaning of the Saint in a certain passage of the said Rule this good Pope speaks thus Cum non sit verisimile ipsum factum verbum ab ipso semel cum quadam modificatione vel determinatione seu specificatione prolatum licet quasi succinctorie repetitum voluisse in sui repetitione data sibi per eum modificatione seu specificatione sine certa causa carere Et utriusque Juris argumenta nos doceant ea quae in medio ad finem atque principium ea quae in fine ad utrumque vel eorum alterum saepe referri Let the Reader now be Judge whether in this analitical way or that of resolving the Remonstrance into Propositions and considering all either separately or jointly as they should where any ambiguity is pretended I have not evidently proved what I undertook to prove by this way as indeed the only way to prove it That is let him be Judge whether I have not evidently proved the former part of that Minor of my grand Syllogism before made in this Section against the Louain Censure or which is the same thing let the Reader judge whether I have not proved that part of my said Minor which said That our Remonstrance contained only in effect or word and sense a bare acknowledgment only of such Supreme meer Temporal Civil Natural and Politick power of the Sword in the Prince and a promise onely of such obedience from us in meer Civil and Temporal things c. And let him also further be Judge whether now that both premises of the said Syllogism are more than abundantly evidenced as to all and each part of them I do not likewise most evidently conclude the Louain Censure to be rash against Prudence false against Truth injurious against Justice and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity Which was the Conclusion I before inferrâ—d out of the said premises But forasmuch as I have hitherto argued only
in general against the said Censure or on the account only or by occasion only of those two Suppositions or two Causes or Reasons expressed therein wherefore the Louain Doctors did so Censure our Remonstrance as you have seen or in formal words did declare it to be unlawful detestable sacrilegious and wherefore they did also virtually or consequentially as you have likewise seen before Censure and Declare it further to be Heretical or Schismatical or both and forasmuch as I find it at least no less behoveful to speak yet more directly and particularly against those very Essentials both formal and virtual or consequential of that Censure I form these following Arguments against all I. No Remonstrance Declaration Paper or Form of Allegiance to the Prince is unlawful or can be Censur'd to be unlawful which contains not some Clause or some Proposition against some Law divine or humane For therefore only any thing can be said to be unlawful forasmuch as it can be justly said to be against some such true and undoubted Law But that Remonstrance c. of ours contains no Clause or Proposition against any Law divine or humane Ergo 't is not unlawful nor can be Censur'd to be unlawful The Conclusion evidently follows out of the premises And the Minor which is the only Proposition wants proof you have already seen proved partly in this very Section and partly throughout those many other long and large Sections before wherein I have first proceeded in a negative way answering all the Laws alledg'd by either Bellarmine or any other for the Exemption of Clergymen from the Supreme Civil Coercive power of Lay Princes and next have also proceeded in a positive or affirmative way alledging on the contrary all those Laws divine and humane which you may see there for the subjection of even all kind of Clergymen to the said Supreme Civil power II. No Remonstrance can be justly Censur'd to be detestable but that which can be justly said to contain some Clause or some Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd for only that which is justly reputed such can be justly said to be detestable Ours contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd because it contains nothing against any Law divine or humane and the Remonstrance which contains no such thing contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable or worthy to be abhorr'd Ergo our Remonstrance cannot be justly Censur'd to be detestable III. No Remonstrance can be according to any true Theology Censur'd to be sacrilegious or the Subscribers of it declared to be tyed under the guilt of Sacriledge to refix or revoke their Subscriptions which contains not some Clause or some Proposition warranting Sacriledge either taken in the true proper and strict sense of this word Sacriledge or in that at least which is the improper and larger sense of it But ours is a Remonstrance which contains no such Clause or Proposition c. Ergo c. The conclusion follows evidently according to the rules of Logick and the Major is evident ex terminis to any that is not a Beetle-head The Minor which only of all the Propositions of this Syllogism requires proof I prove thus no less evidently Sacriledge properly and strictly taken and according to the Etymology of the word sayes Azorius Instit Moral l. 9. cap. 27. is the stealing of a Sacred thing Vnde Sacrilegi dicuntur sayes he speaking in this proper and strict sense qui res Sacras surripiunt aut qui rem non Sacram in loco tamen Sacro depositam aut commendatam furantur And Sacriledge in the improper and larger sense sayes the same Author and with him other Divines and Canonists as it is often also now or even more commonly taken is a sin whereby a Sacred thing is polluted or unworthily and impiously handled used or treated that is not with that honour veneration and respect which the Laws of God or man commands us under sin to use or treat Sacred things Appellatione autem rei sacrae sayes the same Azor accipitur ea quae sanctitatem aliquam habet aut Christi institutione aut Ecclesia consecratione unctione benedictione ut vocatur quae est precatio qua Ecclesiae Minister certis ritibus ceremoniis Ecclesiasticis adhibitis bona precatur rei quam sacrat Ea item quam Ecclesia ad sacros usus ministeria destinavit But who sees not that there is not in our said Remonstrance any proposition or clause or passage warranting either the stealth of any Sacred thing according to the first sense or in the latter the pollution violation injurious force done to irreverence or dishonour or any unworthy or impious usage handling or treating of any Sacred thing whatsoever Religion or Faith Sacrament or Sacramental Place Goods Lands Rite Ceremony c For what I have already said at large in this very present Section and what I have before Treated yet far more largely in so many other preceding Sections against the four grounds of the Louain Theological Faculty do without any possible contradiction which may as much as seem rational most evidently demonstrate That there is not in our said Remonstrance any such proposition clause or passage warranting c. First Because what is so said in both does most evidently demonstrate That in the Remonstrance there is no power attributed to the King nor obedience acknowledg'd or promised as due from the Subjects but meerly Temporal and Civil or rather in meer Temporal and Civil things and according to the Laws of God and Nature and Canons also of the Church nor any denied to the Pope or Church not even any I mean out of the Popes or Churches own peculiar temporal Territories but only such power and such obedience as are not spiritual or in spiritual things nay this very present Section besides other matters demonstrates also That there is nothing else in the Remonstrance Secondly and particularly because the attributing such Temporal power to the Prince and requiring or warranting such obedience in Temporal or Civil things from or in the Subjects cannot be Sacriledge in either sense nor the denying of the same Supreme Royal politick power in Temporal matters to the Church or Pope in other Territories than such as are acknowledged or indeed are their own peculiarly and independently as to the Supreme politick power can be any more Sacriledge in either sense For who sees not that here is no violation of any kind of Right due by any Law to either Sacred persons or other Sacred things whatsoever And who knows not it is confessedly true That Sacriledge in either sense must be a violation of some such Right Lastly Because I have most particularly and professedly demonstrated before these four things 1. In so many different long Sections That the Pope hath not either de facto or de jure any either divine or humane Right to the temporal or politick Supremacy of
England or Ireland in temporal things as indeed I confess our said Remonstrance denies him to have any such 2. That albeit our Remonstrance denies the Pope any kind of power to dispense in our temporal or civil Allegiance yet it no way therefore or even for any cause or in any other clause whatsoever denies the Pope that binding or loosing power which is proper to the Church or which is any way given the Pope either by Christ himself immediately or immediately by the Church 3. That albeit our Remonstrance also tye even the Priestly Subscribers to reveal all Treasons which come to their knowledge as to be perpetrated hereafter yet it touches not on nor binds to the breach of the Sacramental Seal of Confession 4. That should it as indeed it ought not be expounded so as to renounce all Ecclesiastical both liberty and immunity of Church persons and places wherein either is contrary to the Supreme politick power of Princes in temporal matters over all persons and places whatsoever within their own respective Dominions and inasmuch as such power is necessary for the preservation of the Commonwealth either spiritual or temporal and is own'd by the municipal Laws yet it would not therefore nor doth for any cause or in any clause whatsoever disclaim in or quit in any wise the true Ecclesiastical Liberty or true Ecclesiastical Immunity And these being all the specifical grounds of charging our Remonstrance with Sacriledge in either sense of the word it must be consequential that these being overthrown as they are already and most clearly and most diffusely too the Censure of Sacriledge must be also overthrown as having no subsistence but in these four grounds or in some one of them For to ground a Censure of Sacriledge on the bare naming or mentioning at all the special Title of the great Bishop or on the word Pope expressed in our Remonstrance or on the words We disclaim and renounce all Forreign Jurisdiction be it Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from our faithful Loyalty and due Allegiance or to ground it I say on those two former words disclaim renounce of this clause as not Reverential enough or less Reverential than other words expressing the same sense is the greatest vanity and folly and nonsence can be Because Sacriledge either properly or improperly strictly or largely taken must be a sin and therefore against some true binding Law divine or humane and therefore also must be a violation of some Right belonging to divine persons or things and belonging to them by some Law divine or humane positive or natural and consequently too must be an injurious breach of their priviledge or right by some such Law But herein or in these bare words and sense of them as explained by the other following words is no sin because no such violation or breach being there is no Law to the contrary in the case nay being all Laws divine and humane positive and natural are for those words and senses of them as explain'd by the other words following Besides there was either an absolute necessity or at least very much expediency to use those very words Pope renounce disclaim as I have shewed before Now doth it matter at all that other words might be found more Reverential For as magis minus non variant speciâ—m or do not make that which is Reverential in the positive to be Irreverential in the negative So I am sure no rational man will say that we are under the sin of Sacriledge or other whatsoever bound to use at least in a doctrinal declaration and speaking of a third person the most or even the more Reverential words or even also any words at all of Reverence so we use none of Irreverence being there is no Law binding us in such a case to use such words but only words expressing truly and plainly such meaning as is lawful for us to express Lastly who sees not but that we commit no Irreverence if speaking of the King as a third person we call him barely the King Nor also any Irreverence if upon a just occasion we should say that we disclaim and renounce his Royal power as certainly we do inasmuch as it might seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from that obligation which we have on us by the general Canons or consent of the whole Catholick Church or at least of the Occidental or Western part of it to acknowledge and obey them in meer spiritual things and according to the true undoubted Canons of the same Church and in that sense wherein the universal Church understands the same Canons Or if upon a just occasion and being required we should renounce and disclaim in the King or in His Royal power inasmuch as he or it might seem able or should pretend to the preaching of the Word Ministration of Sacraments or to that spiritual power of binding and loosing sinners or of shutting and opening the gates of Heaven or of the Church which Christ gave to his Apostles and by his Apostles to the same Church that is to the meer spiritual Rectors and other meer spiritual Ministers of it And as I am sure this expression could not be at least in such case Irreverential much less Sacrilegious against the Sacred person of the King or His Sacred power Royal or against His Sacred unction so neither could that of ours in our Remonstrance and in that case which was really ours be any way Irreverential much less Sacrilegious or any way at all sinful or unlawful IV. My fourth and last Argument and Syllogism is against the virtual affixion of Schism or Heresie or both to our said Remonstrance by the often mention'd Louain Theological Faculty and Censure And I frame it thus No Remonstrance is either Schismatical or Heretical and much less both which contains not some proposition or some clause either formally or virtually Schismatical or Heretical for if it be both as it must contain both so consequently it must contain either Our said Remonstrance is a Remonstrance which contains neither that is which contains no such proposition or clause c. Ergo c. And because the Major of this last Syllogism is evident and even per se nota ex terminis amongst Divines and all men of Reason who understand the terms and withall consider that I take here Schismatical and Heretical or Schism and Heresie in the proper sense of the words or as they import a special sin distinct from all other sorts of sins and consequently because it needs no further evidence it s own native light abundantly sufficing I proceed to the proof of the Minor And first as to the first branch of it which is that of our said Remonstrances not being Schismatical In the deduction of which proof I will make even St. Thomas of Aquin himself 2. 2. q. 39. ar 1. ad 2. and
Dispensation Absolution or any other pretence or cause shall alter or make us recede from the same Fourth Paper and it given the DUKE by James Dempsy late Vicar Apostolick of Dublin and Capitulary of Kildare April 1. and same Year also 1664. present Lord Dillon and Milo Power FOrasmuch as we cannot own any Authority whatsoever that may be pretended in any wayes neither Spiritual nor Temporal derogatory from the right Power and Authority of His now Majesty CHARLES the Second and His lawful Successors we do therefore engage our selves to expose our Lives if and as often as occasion shall require in defence of His Majesty and His lawful Successors their Persons Crown Authority and Dignity against any Prince Potentate or power Spiritual or Temporal whatsoever who shall by force of Arms or any other way invade any of His Majesties Rights or Authority or Dignity in any of His Dominions and particularly we shall oppose to the utmost of our power all Attempts whatsoever tending to the depriving of His Majesty of any of His Rights Kingdoms or Dominions or the lessning of His Dignity Right or Authority in the Government thereof A fifth Paper yet and far more formal and material too than any of those four was given the DUKE in the month of May the same Year and given his GRACE as from or to be Subscribed by the Clergy both Secular and Regular of the City and Diocess of Dublin as in order also to and with promise of their endeavors and hopes it should be Subscribed by all the rest of Ireland so his GRACE would prevail with His MAJESTY to accept of it and be content with it in lieu of that subscribed and presented at London in 1661. But forasmuch as this Paper was not sign'd by any as neither was any of those other four only Daly's excepted but in that form wherein it was given the DUKE was disown'd generally even by the very Dublin Clergy and no man at all of them would own it as to the most material passages I say no more of it nor will trouble the Reader with a Copy here Yet this much I will advertise the Reader That if he be taken with the first perusal of any of the said Papers or Formularies he may be pleased to suspend his judgment till he first read also not only my observations on the Franciscan Formulary which he shall find in the last Section of this First Part of the First Treatise but also the Second Part of this same First Treatise which Second Part is of bare matter of Fact in the general Congregation held in 66. and read moreover my Second and Third brief Treatises following which declare the meaning of the Remonstrance framed and exhibited by that Congregation and likewise the meaning of the three first Sorbon late Propositions as applyed subscribed and presented by them also and lastly read the fifteen Propositions of the Doctrine of Allegiance which follow immediately the Fourth Treatise in this same Book And then let him judge in Gods Name according to Reason and Conscience and circumstances too of the place and persons whether any such Formulary as you see here be sufficient as from such a Clergy LXXX ABout this time being June 1664. the chief opposers of the Remonstrance of 1661. were grown too too insolent and not insolent only but extremely injurious to those who had subscribed and constantly maintain'd it as both expedient and necessary To such insolency and injuries they were encouraged by several Accidents of the last six or seven Months 1. That when the DUKE was to send with a Guard of Horse a certain Churchman of their Religion and Combination Prisoner from Dublin to Carrigfergus and for an Example to the rest albeit he was not made Prisoner upon account of not subscribing his GRACE upon Letters from the QUEEN or others at Court in behalf of the said Churchman did not command him so away as was intended but permitted him to enjoy all freedom at Dublin 2. That much about the same time another certain person whom I will not here name and a Churchman too by his calling as a Gentleman by his birth and one moreover who not only had some interest in several persons of Quality at Court and a power to persuade them but was ingenious and inventive enough to find out new pretences for any intrigue upon and for a promise made to him by some other Irish Churchmen of Five hundred pounds for his pains wrought so at Court and by his specious pretences that having to this purpose gone thither from Ireland he procured a Letter from one of the Secretaries of State to his Grace the Duke of ORMOND LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland to suspend his farther prosecution of any endeavours for getting that Remonstrance of 1661. sign'd or pressing any other such on the Irish Clergy Albeit I confess the DUKE soon after receiving this Letter having replyed got it revoked again And that the Gentleman who procured it came so short of his expectations of the Five hundred pounds promised him that being return'd those who promised him that Sum finding all his endeavours were suddenly thwarted by a later Letter did not give him as much as Five pounds nor Five pence of it For so himself told me as he told me the particulars of his own Acting to procure the foresaid Letter but told me then only when he failed of the money and not before 3. That notwithstanding the Jesuites Dr. Daly and James Dempsy were sent for appeared and refused to sign that Remonstrance of 1661. or come home in other words to it yet they were dismissed again and both they and all other even the most violent opposers of it were as free or had as much liberty to exercise their Functions both in Countrey and City as any of the most Religious and most Affectionate Subscribers of it 4. That some of the Catholick Lawyers their own Countreymen and Friends assured them They could not by Law suffer either Banishment Imprisonment or other penalty for not subscribing it because it was a Declaration which was not yet Enacted by any Law and therefore they could not by any kind of penalty be forced to it 5. And lastly That my LORD LIEUTENANT was then forced to go for England and consequently none to look much after that business till his return besides that his return at any time in the former capacity was uncertain These five several Accidents of the last six or seven Months taken all together jointly with the general persuasion grounded on former experience that if any of the opposers of that Remonstrance of 1661. should peradventure on that pretence or other whatsoever warranted by the Laws chance to be restrain'd or imprison'd the rest abroad at liberty would get and send them for such their opposition and constancy or rather obstinacy therein sufficient contributions to maintain them in Prison and that too much better than if they were at liberty and cry them up
him either direct or indirect as they speak and that either spiritual or temporal or mixt depose all Kings whatsoever at least such as are Christians but above all such as are Hereticks or believers of Hereticks and may depose them at least casually as Innocent the Third speaks that is for sin or by occasion of their sin or may at least depose them for some kinds of horrid sins or lastly for evil Government or unfitness or uncapableness to govern as the foolish Assertion is of some late smattering Divines flattering Parasites of the great Pontiff For indeed although from the very first time I understood any thing of Theological positions relating to the Civil or Lay and Ecclesiastical or Church-powers which the more ancient Divines and many too of the very Scholasticks have excellently well distinguished as Gerson Almainus Occam and others it never once entered my Soul to repute the great Pontiff alone without a Council Oecumenical to be a competent Judge in this Controversie as I never since or before either believed Him to be infallible or unerrable but in such a General Synod only and only too in defining there with their concurrence Articles or matters of Faith yet even in his sole judgment as in that of the Primary Bishop and Universal Patriarch Doctor Father and spiritual Superiour of all Christians I have alwayes thought fit to acquiesce for the peace of the Church until a General Council be assembled I mean if or when he declares that his judgment as Pope not as a particular Doctor and further if it evidently appears not to contain an Error against the Christian Faith once and all along till then delivered and lastly if or when it is in matters purely belonging to that very Faith Wherewith notwithstanding is well consistent and compatible That I Religiously acknowledge his fulness of Apostolical power in spirituals and my own absolute subjection to Him in such as I do indeed and as I am specially bound to by the Rule of St. Francis I profess most devoutly acknowledge both This only follows out of what is before said That if from the appearance of Caron or Walsh at Bruxels your Lordship hoped for a Refixion of their Signatures you have invited them to no purpose Or you thought peradventure of some kind of modification or change of the said Form either as to the sense or to the words or both If to the sense you would without any peradventure lose both your oyle and pains Since it is very true and certain That hitherto no reason no motive proposed to those from whom we do expect the benefit of that Protestation could prevail with them to admit not even in the least any manner of variation in the sense for what concerns the substantial parts of a declaration and promise of fidelity indispensable by any mortal and of an acknowledgment of the Kings MAJESTIES power Supreme in Temporals to depend of God alone and of no other kind of power on earth Spiritual or Temporal or mixt of both whatsoever But if to the words the same sense in substance still retained they have already granted that Or lastly perhaps you thought of Treating with us of some other wayes or means whereby the Romish Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland may be restored to His MAJESTIES Favour notwithstanding that the foresaid Form be laid by for ever and not only that Form but all and every or any other Form Oath Protestation or Declaration whatsoever of Allegiance And truly I could with all my heart wish there might be any such Expedients proposed or such as would be grateful to His MAJESTY and prime Counsellors of State But that any such may or such as will suffice without a publick Declaration Protestation or Oath of fidelity for the future I do for my part wholly despair So deeply hath the remembrance of the Troubles raised amongst the Catholicks of Ireland against the King and Crown and Peace of that Countrey in the late Wars by the Lord Nuntio Rinuccini and by his too too zealous sticklers of the Irish Clergy fixed its Roots And so powerful to break open again and make the old sore fester anew your Lordships endeavours and contrivements for so they call here your Admonitions and Cautions and much more yet those of the most eminent Cardinal Francis Barberine in so many several Epistles of both to the Clergy Nobility and Gentry of Ireland on the subject of our Protestation have been Epistles sent to no other end say they but to alienate once more that Nation and Kingdom from the duty of Subjects For if this were not your design their demand is Why should you seek for knots in the smoothest bulrush Whatever your Lordships intention was or whichsoever of these three things you resolved to propose to Caron or Walsh or both had they appeared at Brussels I see not wherefore being they are stayed at London it may not be as well proposed unto them and by mutual Commerce of Letters treated as happily nay far more happily and speedily too I mean as to any reasonable point than if they had been at Brussels Wherefore by the wounds of the crucified God I beseech your Lordship may be pleased to deal fairly and candidly with us and with the rest of the Irish Clergy and write the single Proposition or Clause any one or more if perhaps more then one seem such to you or your Divines which may be said undoubtedly to be against faith or salvation or which may render the Subscribers guilty of Sacriledge as your Doctors of Louain have Censured the Form in general And that you may be pleased to fix on such Proposition or Propositions Clause or Clauses not by the Rule of any variable sentence of some Opiners but by that of the infallible sense of all Believers by that of the constant doctrine of the Church and by that of the divine persuasion of all People Kingdoms and Nations that are in communion with the Roman See and Bishop Which if your Lordship cannot do or if you cannot according to this Rule single out of that Form any one Proposition or Clause or more such that may be lyable to Censure let I beseech you the most holy Father permit a miserable people communicating with and obeying Him in spirituals redeem themselves by lawful and honest means from the severity of Laws which make them drag a life of hardship and slavery clear the suspition of disloyal principles and practices otherwise most justly conceived of them and wipe off as well as they can and wash away that blemish which renders even Catholick profession in it self very odious Nor verily can it be esteemed just much less pious and the Church ought to be very pious in governing That the most Holy Father should by Censures and Threats or such other means either by Letters or by Messengers compel or drive any people or persons at least who live without the bounds of his own proper temporal Jurisdiction
verbo complectar suppliciter significo Paternitati Vestrae Reverendissimae nolle Magistratum nostrum ullum admittere in Commissarium aut etiam Provincia Vicarium aut Ministrum Provincialem nisi talem qui fuerit Regi nostro ejusque Ministris gratus Ad satisfactionem alterius Partis nos hic congregati nominavimus duodecem personas ex solis Anglo-Hibernis supponentes quod unus vel alius esset positive gratus quo non obstante tandem resolutum est cum non sciremus quis foret positive gratus Gubernio neminem nominare Sed totum relinquere Prasentationi Curiae ne vel in minimo videamur velle Magistratum offendere Quare obnixe in Domino flexis genibus rogo Paternitatem vestram Reverendissimam quatenus quamprimum de tali ex Curia constiterit quod ipsum instituat in Commissarium seu Vicarium Provinciae ut Magistratui satisfiat tandem his litigiis finis imponatur videamusque semel Pacem in diebus nostris quod si aliquid interea superveniet a Reverendissimo Patre nostro Ministro Generali rogo quantocius securius mitti quia tunc etiam non parum temporis elabetur donec resciatur ex Curia an fuerit gratus qui mittendus est Quae omnia omni cum submissione offert rogat praesentat Paternitati vestrae Reverendissimae Reverendissime Pater Paternitatis vestrae Reverendissimae Servus Filius indignus Fr Antonius Docharty As for the Protestation or new Formulary of their own sent to me by that Diffinitory as you find it mention'd in their Letter to me you have it here following To the Kings most Excellent Majesty CHARLES II. The most humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment and Recognition of the Provincial Fathers of the Province Diffinitors and the rest of the Religious of the Order of St. Francis in Ireland WE do freely confess and declare in our Consciences Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supreme Lord and rightful Sovereign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other Your Majesties Dominions And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey Your Majesty in all civil and temporal Affairs as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects respectively and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands And that we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our Abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty and That notwithstanding any power on earth pretended to the contrary be it spiritual or temporal or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or pretended to be given or which hereafter shall be given or pretended to be given by any such power or by any authority spiritual or temporal proceeding or derived from any such pretended power against Your Majesties Rights or Royal Authority And we openly disavow and disclaim all Forreign power either spiritual or temporal inasmuch as it would or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults bear Arms or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person Royal Authority and Rights or to the State or Government being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to Your Majesty and to Your Ministers all the Treasons made against Your Majesty or them which shall come unto our hearing but also to expose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person Rights and Royal Authority as occasion will require and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what Forreign power or authority soever And further we profess That all absolute Christian Princes and Supreme Governours of what Religion soever they be are Gods Lieutenants on earth in their own Dominions and that obedience is due to them according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all civil and temporal Affairs And therefore we do here protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary And we do hold it impious and against the Word of God to maintain that any private Subject may kill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince though of a different Belief and Religion from his And we do abhor and detest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked Fr Antony Docharty Minister Provincial Ex parte Diffinitorii Fr James Cay Diffinitor Secretary of the Diffinitory O The place of the Seal In such very Form sealed with the great Seal of their Province and attested so as you see by the proper hand of their President and of their Secretary too in the name of the rest of that Diffinitory they sent me two original Duplicats of their said Protestation as of their own proper Remonstrance Acknowledgment and Recognition c. but without any either Preamble antecedent or Petition subsequent or other Complement or Address annexed besides those Letters to my self Another Paper also signed by them all was sent unto me by Father Gearnon from that meeting as all the other both Letters and Papers were by the Pacquet and Post For the truth is neither to him nor to any other of the more intelligent persons that were for the Remonstrance did any of all these either Letters or other Papers seem worthy of his toyle to come in person with them or even scarce to send them by the very Post However he did carefully send all those you have already seen and besides them this other protesting briefly in the word of Priests That none of them had by himself or other written any such matter as was contained in the Petition exhibited at Rome to the Cardinal Protector in the name or behalf of the Province of Ireland against Father Walsh Caron and rest of the Remonstrants Such was the effect in short of this other Paper as you shall see in their own words For having drawn a Copy of the said Petition upon one side of a Leaf and it as a true Copy authenticated by their Custos Custodum James Fitz-Simons their Provincial with his own hand on the other side of that same Leaf written in Latin as above and both himself and all the rest of the Diffinitory sign'd it as here now word by word Ego in verbo Sacerdotis protestor me nihil ex retroscriptis scripsisse aut scribi fecisse ad Eminentissimum D. Cardinalem Fr Antonius Docharty Minister Provincialis Idem ego testor Fr Petrus Gennor Diffinitor Fr Paulus Feranan Diffinitor idem testor Fr Antonius de Burgo Diffinitor idem testor Idem quod supra in verbo Sacerdotis protestor Fr Jacobus Caius Diffinitor Diffinitorii Secretarius But who sees not the equivocation or rather reservation and the cheat and insignificancy of this Paper 1. Because neither Thomas Makiernan nor Bonaventure O Mellaghlin two of the chief Anti-Remonstrant Fathers of the Diffinitory did sign it 2.
Remonstrance of 1661. And yet I must withall confess the said LORD LIEUTENANT Duke himself and of himself discovered enough by his own first reading and comparing of the same later with the former As 1. That it had nothing against either equivocation or mental reservation 2. That the Pope was not therein specified 3. That it also omitted the plain expression of the specifical cases of either Deposition or Excommunication 4. That nothing was therein acknowledging in particular the subjection of Clergymen either to the directive or coercive power of the Lay Magistrate 5. Many other changes of lesser note or not so obvious though otherwise very material But above all that of omitting to declare against equivocation and mental reservation and that also of not mentioning the Pope and moreover that of not descending expresly or particularly to the case of Excommunication made him esteem this new Franciscan Formulary a meer Cheat. For by the frequent discourses and disputes his Grace had been acquainted with for so many years since 1661. concerning such matters he perfectly understood what such variations and purposed omissions did import And how by no kind of general expressions the Roman Divines did understand such specifical cases as they would exempt for example that in odious matters the Pope is not according to their Rules or Scholastick distinctions understood to be comprehended by any kind of general expression not even by these words any authority or power on earth spiritual or temporal unless he be expresly and specifically design'd or noted by these other words Papal Pope or some such importing an express specifical particular and proper comprehension of the Roman Pontiff the same Rule also warranting them not to understand or comprehend the specifical sentence of Excommunication under the generical word sentence especially where on the contradictory question they both of set purpose omitted such specifical expressions and withall on the contradictory question refused to insert any word against either equivocation or mental reservation as indeed these Franciscan Fathers of the foresaid Diffinitory assembled in the Convent of Killihy to frame this Remonstrance of their own were known to have on the very contradictory question refused to insert any Besides these omissions his Grace considered several other things As 1. That the pretence of changing or varying from the first Remonstrance had been all along of every party for so many years no other than to express the matter substance or sense of it in more reverential terms or words more full of respect to the Pope and Holy See than they pretended the expressions of that first to be And yet amongst so many other Formularies offered either by the Dominicans or Jesuites or Secular Priests or Vicars General or now at last by the Franciscans not one of all was home in sense or substance as to the material points of assuring their fidelity to the King in such cases or contingencies whereof the doubt might be none of all I say near as home in that respect as the first was nor any of all composed of words more reverential And that therefore it appeared evidently all their quarrel against that Formulary was for the matter it contain'd i. e. for the faith and obedience it clearly promised in the controverted Cases but not at all for less reverential expressions of such matter 2. That were it certain the whole Franciscan Order in Ireland would be in such matters led by the example of their said Diffinitory whereof yet there was no certainty nay were it also certain that all the other both Regular Orders and Secular Clergy too of Ireland would in like manner be led by them to a concurrence to or subscription of their new Formulary whereof questionless there was much less certainty than of the former yea did it moreover appear evidently as it cannot by any argument that this new Form amounted fully home to the sense or substance of the First even in all things or as to all points or cases whatsoever yet there was no reason to value it or accept thereof as coming from a Clergy who had now for so many years with so much obstinacy contradiction clamour and reproach both resisted and aspersed the said First as unlawful in point of conscience to be subscrib'd and had I say both resisted and aspers'd it so upon this account onely that either it was not approved or was indeed positively reproved and condemned by the Court of Rome and by its Ministers or by their Letters as likewise at the desire of that Court censured by the Faculty Theological of Louain For so might this other new Formulary of theirs be condemned and censured at the instance of some of themselves if I mean it were found by those of Rome to signifie any thing against their own pretences for if it signified indeed no such thing who sees not but that as this is against the above Supposition so it must have been against all reason to value or accept such a Form as did not signifie much nay all that is material in the case against the vain pretences of Rome to the Kingdoms of Ireland or England And therefore on the same former account in such case they would either questionless retract their Subscriptions to this of their own new Module or certainly approve also of the First and Subscriptions to it even in plain express contradiction to all the Letters Decrees and Censures of Rome But had they been so resolved or resolved I mean for such approbation and for such standing by either Formulary in plain opposition to the Roman Decrees or Censures who sees not that they would not go so long about the Bush but presently subscribe that which they saw already and graciously too accepted by the KING and which withal themselves knew and confessed to contain no other evil or sin properly such against any Law of God or man but its lying under the Censure of Rome or displeasure of the Pope albeit the Divines of Louain onely to please Rome pretended I know not what Sacriledge c whence must follow That on the contrary they are prepared in mind to quit also even this new Formulary of their own how otherwise insignificant soever and quit it I say on the very first intimation from Rome against it 3. That from persons so prepared principled or resolved it was to no purpose to receive any kind of Formulary or Profession but such an one as plainly and expresly declared nay protested against such resolutions preparations and principles which this new Formulary did not For otherwise how could the KING assure Himself of their Fidelity I mean assure Himself by any Oath of theirs and with that assurance which an Oath could give Him Certainly while they had this reserve of quitting their Oath Subscription or Formulary whensoever the Court of Rome declared it unlawful in point of Conscience or of submitting calmly to such Declaration it was so far from being to purpose that it was meer
my self and other friends against all both Forreign Censures and Home Impostures I had in truth some regard of vindicating my self and all those persuaded by or associated with me either in signing or adhering to the foresaid Remonstrance and consequently too of vindicating even that Formulary it self from the no less malicious than both scandalous and false aspersion of unlawful detestable sacrilegious yea schismatical and heretical with which our Adversaries branded us And if I had not had that consideration in some degree of my self and Friends I had been as unsatisfied with my own heart as ever any of my Adversaries were with any of my Books For I think every honest man is bound in Conscience to defend himself and Friends especially his own and their good name wherein and as far as he justly may cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae And I am persuaded no man will be so rash or impudent as to reprove me for thinking so But withall I do protest in the presence of God it was not any such or other whatsoever private consideration or regard of my self or said Friends that was the chiefest or strongest motive I had to put Pen to Paper in any of the foresaid now hereafter following Treatises or in any other Treatise or Part or even addition of other Appendages to all the Treatises of this present Book but that more publick regard of the more common and universal good of the Irish Nation and Catholick Religion which I have signified before And so I perclose here at last this Second Part and consequently as to both Parts the whole First Treatise Which Treatise the necessary Theological Disputes against the four grounds of the Censure of Louain for an Hundred sheets together in the First Part have made so long albeit I confess the pure Historical Sections are even of themselves long enough But the next following Three Treatises will in some measure by their shortness compensate the former length For they are proportionably as short as may be and yet as long as their several Subjects require them to be having nothing Historical in them and but a strict and pure partly Theological and partly Rational Examination of the import and weight of those foremention'd three several Papers of the National Congregation and yet even that such an Examination too as in many or rather most material places doth suppose the reading of this First Treatise or of some things diffusely treated therein Which is the reason they needed not be longer than they are What I think will seem most wanting in them to the Readers ease must be That they have no Marginal nor any other sort of Remissions directing to the Sections or Pages of this First Treatise where some of the Publick Instruments or other matters related unto are given or handled at large But I could not help that being I was necessitated to write and print them before I had written a word of this And a diligent or curious Reader may quickly help himself at least by turning to the Table THE SECOND TREATISE CONTAINING Exceptions against the form or protestation of Allegiance subscribed and presented the 16. of June 1666. to His Grace the Duke of Ormonde Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of Ireland by such of the Irish Clergie of of the Roman Communion as convened at Dublin the 11th of the said month and year and dissolved the 25th thereof FIrst they varied in this form not only as to single words but to entire clauses and their sense in the most material parts from the former protestation subscribed by those others of the said Clergie and of the Nobility and Gentry at London in 61. And varied so of set purpose as openly appeared upon the contradictory question and debate for fourteen dayes together in their publick Assembly that they might be free from all tyes of duty faith obedience and acknowledgment or recognition of His Majesties power over them or their own obligation to obey him in all cases and contingencies wherein Bellarmine Suarez Santarellus Mariana or any other such later or former Writers maintain the lawfulness of the deposition of Kings by the Popes or peoples authority and the lawfulness also of the Rebellion of the people against Princes deposed so or excommunicated and denounced by the Prelats of the Church And that they should not be convinced to have disclaimed any wise either clearly and expresly or equivalently and by consequence in the general pretence of a power in the Pope or Church by divine immediate right spiritual or temporal or mixt of both either direct or indirect to depose all kind of Princes at least such as they account as Hereticks in the Christian Religion and to absolve their Subjects or declare them absolved from all kind of Allegiance at least in the extraordinary or even ordinary cases of such as they likewise account or esteem Apostacie Heresie Schisme or other tyrannical or sinful administration or either true or pretended oppression of the people nor convinced also to have disclaimed even in those other meerly humane titles or rights which the Popes have so often pretended and still do and which many or most of that Irish Clergie as likewise the present faculty of Lovaine Divines in their late censure of the former Remonstrance procured by the Agency and sollicitation of some of the said Irish Clergie and by the vehement interposition of the late Internuntio at Bruxels the Italian Abbot of Mount-Royal Hieronimus De Vecchiis do peculiarly and stiffely maintain to the Realmes of England and Ireland to wit those of donation submission feudatary title and forfeiture Or which are the same those argued from the either true or pretended Bull of Adrian the fourth to Henry the second concerning the Kingdom of Ireland and those likewise argued from the famed resignation of the Crowns or Soveraignties of both Kingdoms by King John to Innocent the Third or to his Legat Pandulphus at Dover and from the payment of Peter-pence Secondly And to come to the particulars of this change or variation and and I mean it in the material parts only And not to take any notice though it is fit there should be some of the changing the Epithet or Adjective Rightful first Line of the said former Protestation of 61. into that of undoubted in this of 66. for one may be an undoubted Soveraign De facto though not De jure rightful but an Usurper Or may be in fact or possession undoubted Soveraign though another should be in deed and so acknowledged as to right the true King and Soveraign Nor yet to take any notice of altering those other three words under pain of sin second Line of the said former printed Remonstrance into those in Conscience albeit the doctrine and practice of equivocation so common to and so mightily insisted upon amongst them and yet further the positive exceptions of some of their party even at London some four years since against those very words and
sense of them and moreover also their doctrine or perswasion of the exemption of Clergy-men in particular from the Secular or civil Power and Laws as will at large appear in the end of this discourse give just occasion to believe they do not mean any obligation under pain of sin by that theirs of conscience I say that not to take notice of these or of any more such of lesser moment or less appearing changes either in the words or sense I observe secondly the great and clear and most material change can be in four several Instances and this partly by a manifest and purposed omission and partly by equivocation First Instance That the former printed Remonstrance of 61. hath in clear express words Line the 2 3 and 4. a Declaration of a tye under pain of sin on the Catholick Subjects to be obedient in all civil and temporal things to his Majesty as much as the Laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom require at their hands For the words of the former as to this point are these And therefore we acknowledge our selves to be obliged under pain of sin to obey your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as any other of your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands This later hath of set purpose and to evade the acknowledgment of of any tye of conscience what ever they mean by conscience from the Laws of the Land or rules of Government hath I say changed that clause and formed it thus Consequently we confess our selves obliged in conscience to be as obedient to your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as any Subject ought to be to his Prince and as the Laws of God and nature require at our hands Declining so of purpose the Laws of the Land or the municipal and humane politick Laws whether those are called common or those are termed Statute-laws and all other rules of State-government by Proclamations or otherwise for the peace of the Country ordained by men whether ecclesiastical or civil And consequently declining the acknowledgment of any obligation of conscience on the Subscribers to this later form from such humane laws and rules For although according to the doctrine and conscience of the former Subscribers to the first Protestation or that of 61. the very laws of God and nature oblige them to be obedient to the King in all civil and temporal affairs even according to the humane laws and rules of Government of the Land albeit they had never expressed it in their Protestation which yet they did of purpose to avoid all jealousies of equivocation or mental reservation and to declare expresly against the ill grounded opinions or doctrines in that point of some late School-men and Writers of their Church whereof some vainly teach the civil Power and Laws cannot oblige any under pain of sin Others no less vainly that at least they cannot so oblige Clergy-men as being no way subject to the coercive part or power of them but at most and only ex aequo bono to their direction yet according to the publickly declared judgment and doctrine of these other Subscribers or the late Assembly subscribing this their own other form and according their judgment I say on the very point and contradiction of it they will have themselves so understood as that they conceive and believe that neither the laws of God or nature oblige them in conscience so to obey his Majesty either by an active or passive obedience in all civil or temporal affairs or to obey him as much as the laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at their hands but on the contrary speak and teach even many of them publickly and almost all universally in private that they do not oblige them in conscience to be so obedient which is the reason they found this change of this clause very material Second Instance is In the total change of the two next and most material clauses of all those contained in that former Protestation of 61. I mean those And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any authority spiritual or temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against your Majesty or your Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our abilities our faithful loyalty and true allegiance to your Majesty And we openly disclaim and renounce all forrain power be it either Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise tumults bear arms or offer any violence to your Majesties person Royal Authority or to the State or Government And this Instance further is in the clear omission not only of this passage in the next period of that Remonstrance of 61. line the 12. Be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what forrein power or authority whatsoever but also in the like wilfull omission of the two intire periods immediatly following viz. And further we profess that all absolute Princes and supream Governours of what religion soever they be are Gods Lieutenants on earth and that obedience is due to them according to the laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all civil and temporal affairs And therefore we do here protest against all doctrine and authority to the contrary All which four intire periods besides that part here likewise noted of a fifth the only material clauses or declarations not only of that Remonstrance of 61. but which might or may be of any other home to the purpose this Congregation of Dublin in 66. wittingly and willingly and purposely and obstinatly would and have accordingly omitted in their Protestation and would have it so notwithstanding so many convincing reasons given them publickly and privatly for six dayes together and notwithstanding that both the expedience and absolute necessity was so declared unto them why they should and ought by such express clauses renounce the doctrines whence their own so well known so late and so fatal practises of the generality of the Clergie of Ireland since 41. but more especially since the congregations of Waterford in 46. and Jamesstown in 50. did flow and so refused to insert them and as well for any part as the whole of them either in word or sense in their own form which they framed or fixed on of purpose to decline both the words and sense and as well the sense as words of those four several periods as likewise of any other material expressions in the Remonstrance of 61. and so I say fixed on this form which now they call their own because signed by them although not framed
they make in those words we promise c. be very specious at first sight reading or hearing to such as are not versed in their distinctions evasions equivocations mental reservations and curious abstractions by such general terms from many particular cases which they refused so plainly and boldly to comprehend by any words able or sufficient amongst understanding men to comprehend or express them yet is it not any whitt more specious or real or general or particular or any thing more satisfactory then that which Bellarmin or Suarez or Gretzer or Becan or Lessius Parsons or Fitzherbert who all writ against the oath of Allegiance or a jot more then even Sanctarel Mariana or any other of the very worst Authors that maintained the lawfulness of the deposition of Kings by Popes or by the people themselves could or would make or teach to be made even by the Irish Catholicks to Charles the Second and even I say to His Majestie in this very condition or case of theirs and his at present and teach I mean that promise to be so made and so also observed religiously without any kind of contradiction of their alwayes constant doctrine for the lawfulness of deposing Kings in certain cases and the unlawfulness for the people or any person to uphold them or obey or bear Allegiance or Faith to them after they are so deposed by the sentence of the Pope or people For all these writers and their Schollars confess that Subjects are bound by the very law of God to bear inviolable faith and true Allegeance to the Temporal Prince King or Majestie lawfully such and teach that a promise of such Faith or Allegiance is lawfull and binding But withall teach that after the sentence of deposition or deprivation the person to whom that promise was made hath no Majestie in him is no more King or Prince nor the people any more his Subjects And therefore no more faith nor Allegiance ought nor can be in them to him but on the contrary an obligation on them to take Arms against him and destroy him as an Usurper and Tyrant if he yield not himself calmely as devested lawfully of all power And consequently the speciousness of that promise imports no more all circumstances and contradictory publick debate well considered but that the subscribers promise they will bear inviolable faith and true Allegiance to Charles the Seconds Majestie until it appear by such means as they shall Judge lawful before God that Charles the Second is devested of Majestie by publick sentence or otherwise Nor doth the ensueing or second part of that promise any whit clear or secure it more albeit they make it in these other words And that no power on earth shall be able to withdarw us from our duty herein For to say nothing here-of what they themselves understand by these words power on earth and specially by the word power whether as well that Authority purely spiritual supernatural and divine and even the highest such that is in the Church of Christ on earth as any Temporal properly and purely such or whether only corporal or material and carnal compulsory force of men and Arms which they leave very doubtfull to such at least as know not they purposely omitted the adjective Spiritual which yet in so many other former Remonstrances and in some offred by the very Jesuits three years since was not omitted for to others that know they purposely omitted that word Spiritual it may seem more then probable they intended thereby or by these bare words power on Earth to equivocat and impose but to say nothing hereof at present nor of the liberty they left others that would subscribe or interpret to choose what meaning they listed to deceive and impose likewise it is manifest enough to such as understand them and saw their unreasonable obstinacy on the publick debate that consequently to their meaning in the first branch of their promise this second part is understood by them They promise indeed that no power on Earth shall be able to withdraw them from their duty herein to witt in bearing true Allegiance to His Majestie c. but when or if the case of deposition deprivation excommunication c. shall happen they will confess ingenuously that some spiritual or temporal authority on Earth may in that case make them receed and perhaps declare too against him that till then was in some sense their King but not in any wise break their promise here nor withdraw them from their duty in bearing Allegiance to His Majestie For it is their belief opinion sense and Doctrine that in such cases they will owe no Duty of Allegiance or faith to Charles the Second but will rather lye under a quite contrary duty and obligation and even a tye of conscience and under pain of sin and Excommunication when that case shall happen to prosecute him as a publick enemy an vsurper a Traytor and Tyrant The thing signified therefore say they by the words of their promise here subsisting no longer or being no more in such cases nor any possibility of it I mean of any more duty of Allegiance or faith to Charles being no more King they have for their parts kept and observed religiously what they promised if they kept it until such cases hapned Which is the reason they mend not the matter at all nor any way clear themselves herein by what next followes in the third place and in this other expression of theirs And that we will even to the loss of our blood if occasion requires assert your Majesties Rights against any that shall invade the same According to their opinion or that which they by no means can be drawn to dis-own there will be in such cases no more Majestie in Charles no more Kingly-power in him over them no more obligation or tye of conscience on them to obey him either actively or passively and consequently no more Rights of Majestie due or belonging to him And therefore no more obligation from this promise so expressed or made here on them to assert his Royal Rights things that have no being any more against any that shall invade the same These words shall be in such cases de Subjecto non Supponente as Logicians speake Neither is their further declaration immediately ensueing to any more purpose They make it thus We do further declare it is not our Doctrine that Subjects may be discharged absolved or freed from their obligation of performing their duty For to pass by at this time how unsignificant such a negative declaration must be specially when and where they industriously publish that the contrary Doctrine and in their sense of it and that which also they will say these words do bear is the Doctrine of Rome at least of the Court there and no less industriously impose on the very present Pope Alexander the 7th that his Holyness hath by the former and later Letters of Cardinal Francis Barbarin and of the two
those words our Supream Lord and further because of the genius and temper and so many several interests of the men that composed that Congregation and Interests also though in some or many respects divided yet all through pre-occupation ignorance and a perverse obstinacy conspiring together in the main of not speaking their conscience plainly either pro or con for these reasons I say this acknowledgment from them and in these words alone of the Kings Supremacy in Temporals or to speak more properly as I would fain to the purpose of the Kings temporal Supremacy or supream politick and civil Power with the Sword corporal or carnal if I may so speak over all persons subject to him and in all causes indifferently wherein corporal force or co-action is used is lyable to as many deceitful evasions and interpretations as any of the former in that recognition or of those that follow after in their confessions or promises And yet herein they need not find out any way that hath not been chalked before them by some of their sophistical Predecessors these sixty years It is but to pursue their steps and tell the people as several of their chief Speakers and Interpreters have already by clear expressions given sufficient cause to expect they will when they find it convenient that he is acknowledged Supream for the present but not so for the future That both for the present and future he may be acknowledged Supream but their meaning may be and is That he is and may be so de facto not de jure in fact only in actual possession and by force only not by right That he may be so by right also but by such right only as the laws of the Land can or do give him not by such right as the laws of the Church may much less by that right which the laws of God and nature have not given him in those contingencies above Finally as they leave themselves a latitude by the former answers notwithstanding this recognition of Supream in those bare words only or any thing else in this Remonstrance to maintain alwayes the saâ—rilegiousness of the Remonstrance of 61. I speak according to the Censure of the Lovaine Divines of that Remonstrance of 61. and even upon their grounds of humane right which the Popes pretend to the kingdoms of England and Ireland and which those Divines of Lovaine assert unto the See of Rome viz. Those of a pretended submission donation prescription feudatary title given and forfeiture made so they retain the like notwithstanding this acknowledgement here notwithstanding all said before and after To maintain no less stiffely when they shall think fit the other pretended but divine Supream both Temporal and Spiritual right of Popes as well to the Realms of England and Ireland as to all and over all at least Christian Kingdoms and Kings in the world For they will and may say according to their principles which they flatly denied to quit by any sufficient expression or indeed rather denied to meddle with at all or declare themselves in any manner on the point according to such I say they will plead when they shall think it may be done prudently That they do not here acknowledge the King their Supream Lord but in relation only to or in rank and order only of such Lords as are meerly temporal not by any means absolutely or without such relation not at all in relation to such Lords as have a power absolutely divine or supernatural and is composed by God himself both of temporal and spiritual natural and supernatural and is immediatly given by Him to them over the whole earth at least the parts of it that are Christian and also at least in some extraordinary cases Of the emergencie of which cases that they themselves alone I mean such Lords are Judges appointed by Him and that such Lords are the Popes only and certainly they will say And consequently that by no general acknowledgement of a meer temporal â—upremacy in a King by a Catholick it can be presumed he any way intended to relate to that divine spiritual supernatural extraordinary Attribute Power or Supremacy of the Popes even in temporal matters or intended any way to deny it For it is a maxim with Canonists that in a general expression is not to be understood that which the Expressor would not specifically grant were it demanded of him in specie much less that which being demanded of him specifically he of set purpose refuses to express it so though he write not under his hand that specifical demand or denial but passes both by I will say nothing at present of the relative or comparative form of this recognition which they choose rather then that positive and absolute one of the former Remonstrance of 61. Though I be sure that that of 61. being absolute and positive for it is worded thus We do acknowledge and confess your Majesty to be our true and lawful King supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other your Majesties Dominions puts us not to an inquiry after the manner or measure of the truth lawfulness rightfulness or supremacy of his Titles of his Kingship Lordship or Soveraignty over or to all his other Dominions or those are called his besides Ireland as this of the Congregation must them that please to understand it by the rules of Sophistry or Subtilty Whereby they gave cause to suspect they would have their own relative or comparative form understood by such as listed to understand or interpret it so when they found it could be done prudently For they would have their 's not to be positive at all but relative as you see in their own words which say only thus We acknowledge your Majesty to be our true and lawful King supream Lord and undoubted Soveraign as well of this Realm of Ireland as of all other your Majesties Dâ—minions Now the Querie is how well they acknowledge or would have others to acknowledge him True and lawful King supream Lord and undoubted Soveraign of all other his Majesties Dominions How well of Tangier Jamaica or France c And if his Majesties title to these or either of them be uncertain with them or by many or some of them not accounted good or just at all whether by this relative form they choose of purpose they declare or acknowledge his title to Ireland to be any better The liberty they leave themselves by their manner of expression here to have recourse for interpretation when they please to their logical Sophistry and make this acknowledgement sometimes and to some persons a modal Proposition at other times and to other persons a Proposition not modal but only de extremo modificato gives them the trouble to answer these Queries As in the impartial understanding Reader it and what is here said thereupon may work this perswasion That notwithstanding this their kind of owning and acknowledging his Majesty they are still
Pope to declare the King deposable by the people and command the people even under pain of Excommunication to depose him whose power is no longer then they continue it as they not God immediatly gave it him according to Bellarmines doctrine And even a power and authority in the Pope to declare him actually deposed or even by and through the very nature of his carriage or government to have already and now actually forfeited his right of raigning any longer and therefore now a Tyrant not only by administration but also by title And consequently to excite all even forrain Princes to invade him And finally to declare it lawful even for all those were his own very Subjects heretofore at any time thence forth even to kill him forceably if he yield not himself calmly to the slaughter They will say there is nothing against this declarative power in that Proposition or that first part of it not even quitting all their former explications of the several words or clauses thereof And they may say so truly As for the second part of the said first Proposition which second part they deliver in these other words yea we promise That we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in civil and temporal affairs although it may seem to contradict and they will questionless and to such as and when they find expedient say it doth contradict this gloss and explication of the former part yet upon occasion and to others to whom they may freely imbosome themselves and shall think it convenient they have readily at hand and in pursuance of the said former explication of the first part another of the same nature a fine pretty distinction abstraction exception equivocation reservation that sheweth in one word or two the unsignificancy of it against any more assurance to the King of them They will say first that by power either direct or indirect in the said second part may and ought to be understood a power natural temporal and properly humane or that which is by humane ways acquired not that which is properly and even autonomastically or by way of excellency called the supernatural spiritual celestial or Divine of the Pope as Vicar of Christ to whom and in relation to that autonomastical power as to Christ himself was said 〈◊〉 2. dabo tibi gentes in hereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam termines terrae and who may consequently and still in relation to that power say of himself as truly as even Christ himself hath before said of himself though after his resurrection Matth. â—â— 1â— not before data est mihi omnis potestas in Caelo et in terra and may say so of himself with ground sufficient in the Gospel of Christ where it was said to his predecessor Peter and consequently to him by Christ himself Pasce oves meas Jo. 21.17 And Quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in Caelo Matth. 16.19 Secondly they will say that if you will needs have by power either direct or indirect in this Second part understood even that spiritual power of Bellarmine or if you will needs have this promise of theirs so to be taken as obliging them to oppose the assertors of the said Bellarmins Doctrine or distinction of that spiritual power into direct and indirect and of his assertion that maintains the same spiritual power for deposing Kings indirectly though be by this quibble and in word only decline the odium of the direct power which yet in effect he maintains by the indirect and even in the whole latitude of the direct asserted formerly by others especially Canonists I say that if you will needs have these words of theirs in that second part any power either direct or indirect understood of that very Supream Supernatural Spiritual Celestial Divine power of the Pope they will grant it but with that other pretty and easie distinction of theirs which I have also before given in their explication of the former part of this very proposition They will say you must then understand their promise to oppose only such as shall assert a power either direct or indirect which is or may be said to be ordinary to witt a power in all times or all cases as they expound it but not such as will only assert a power extraordinary or such a spiritual Divine power at some certain times or in some extraordinary cases only to witt that very power which Innocent the Third calls Casual and gives to himself and other Popes over Kings in their civil and temporal affairs ratione peccati and that very power too which others give the Pope ratione Spiritualitatis annexae or in ordine ad Spiritualia And they will consequently and by this brief distinction consisting only of the two words ordinary and extraordinary save themselves from the shame of quitting wholy Bellarmins Doctrine or quitting it at all as to his divine pretences or as to his assertions of such a divine power in the Pope whatever they do for his other claim of Human right and in the case of England in some of his writings And will therefore as they may averr truely and confidently that Bellarmine himself was never yet surer to his main purpose by his quibble of direct and indirect than they are still in effect notwithstanding this very second part both to his assertion and distinction and then they appear to be so unto such as they please to declare themselves by this other Suttlety of their own distinction of his indirect power into ordinary and extraordinary I will pass over a third explication or gloss of some of those Gentlemen upon those very words any power either direct or indirect as I have past it over before in my observations on the former part of this proposition their distinction of a power in fact or execution and of a power of right or which ought to be admitted to execution but is hindred unlawfully Or which amounts to the same an habitual power and an actual a power in acta primo and a power in actu Secundo But this is not so fine or Suttle and withall it is more odious and dangerous because it as well maintains all those very human and meerly temporal and civil pretences of the Pope to the Kingdoms in particular of England and Ireland and Scotland too by donation submission prescription feudatary title forfeiture as those do which are tearmed his Divine or Spiritual and which are indeed no less to all the States and Kingdoms of the earth And therefore it is that Father N. N. and the rest in general of the most subttle and leading men of that Congregation who subscribed and expounded to others what the three propositions might import to their advantage or dis-advantage and who taught the several meanings distinctions abstractions exceptions equivocations and reservations that might be used at pleasure and without any prejudice to the main points
declaration and meaning to be always with this reserve that whatever this their second proposition or constant doctrine signifie or be intended or conceived by any to signifie or this their resolution so expressed never to recede from it yet all must be with perfect submission to the Pope and so that if it sufficiently appear the Pope hath already declared or shall at any time hereafter declare by Brief Bull or other letters against such doctrine as uncatholick or against such resolution as unsafe they will quit both for these causes I say there can be no rational indifferent person but will be convinced that out of this second proposition as from them there can acrue no more assurance to the King of their future fidelitie than out of the first and consequently than out of their Remonstrance alone without any such additional proposition or propositions That is as I have a little above said just none at all Nor will their third or last Proposition mend the matter They give it indeed as the two former in words specious enough to plain well-meaning men to the simple and ignorant Nay specious enough to very understanding persons but yet such persons only as are not acquainted with their explications borrowed from late School-men and particularly from Bellarmine against Barclay and from other impugners with him of the Oath of Allegiance against the most learned Father Green and Preston of St. Beâ—ns Order as well under Widringtons name at first in several works as their own at last in their Apology to Gregory the Fourteenth and against the rest of the Roman Clergy of England that so learnedly conscientiously modestly nay and patiently too maintain'd that oath in King James's dayes especially the Secular Clergy maâ—gre Cardinal Bellarmines Letter to the Arch-Priest Blackwel and maugre likewise all his other several books under his own or fictitious names and maugre also even that either true or pretended brief of Paul the Fifth in the year 1606. against the said Oath procured by Father Parsons upon the mis-representation and most false suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine and his seven or eight other fellow Divines to whom joyntly the examination of the said Oath of Allegiance was committed by the same holy Father Paul the Fifth and finally notwithstanding the best and worst endeavours of besides Lessius Gretzer Fitzherbert Becan Parsons himself and several others Franciscus Suarez the Spanish learned Jesuite at the instigation of the English Fathers of the same Society and in pursuance of the said Brief and for the unlawful advancement of his own great Masters no less unlawful interest This third Proposition therefore I say notwithstanding its words or tenor so specious at first to such as are not acquainted with the familiar explication or meaning of the chief proposers a meaning or explication learned from these late Sophisters that writ so ill and so erroneously too against King Iames's said Oath of Allegiance being reviewed being duly pondred as from them or as from those Congregational men will be found to be of as little weight as any of the two former and will be so found I mean as to the resolution justly expected from so venerable so grave and so withal justly suspected an Assembly But not to delay the Reader my longer I repeat again here that Proposition in it self barely or as they have given it in their own words We the undernamed do hereby declare that it is our doctrine that we Subjects oâ—e so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can either dispense with or free us of the same Now mark the Sophistry In the first place the reduplicative sense must be allowed in these two words We Subjects that is in as much or while we are Subjects Which will be no longer than it shall please the Pope not to denounce the King by name excommunicated or deprived of or deposed from his kingdoms by a judicial process or bull on pretence of his apostasie heresie schisme oppression of the Church or People against that which the Pope shall determine to be justice or faith Next the same reduplication must be allowed to fall on the word King And thirdly at the word power all the former distinctions of fact and of right of humane or temporal and divine or spiritual and of ordinary and extraordinary must be ushered in And in the last place from these general words under any pretext soever there must be alwaies understood an exception of those extraordinary cases or contingencies above so often repeated of destroying the Church or People tyrannically by endeavouring to make them Apostats Hereticks Schismaticks or by tyrannising over them even in their temporal or civil rights alone And the judgment hereof must be the Pope's only or the people's when they please to take it Nor will the Doctrine of the Apostles even in the cases of tyrannical heathen Emperours as of Nero and Domitian much less of the Fathers even in the cases of manifest notorious Apostats and Hereticks as of Iulian Constantius Valens Anastasius c. move the Divines of our congregation any whit at all They say with Bellarmine the Apostles and Fathers and other primitive Christians dissembled in this point because they had not strength enough of men and arms to oppose though besides that this answer is impious it be also most manifestly false in the case of Iulian the Apostat and of the succeeding Heretick Emperours Having thus with all sincerity considered all and every of their three Propositions both nakedly and abstractedly as they are in themselves and also as given by that Congregation and having layd open most sincerely too the meaning or sense these Divines or at least the chief and most leading of them have conceive or intend others should upon fit occasions understand by those Propositions and by their several clauses and words it only now remains that I briefly put in form my third Argument grounded on such abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations And I frame it thus Syllogistically because I have to deal with some caprichious Logicians or Sophisters No Propositions are sufficient in this age for giving assurance to the King of the future loyalty of a Roman Catholick people and as from such a Roman Catholick people too whom he hath already by experience and his Father before him found in several publick Instances manifestly disloyal and even perfidious in the highest nature could be but such Propositions as by clear express words from which there can be no exception or evasion and of which there can be no distinction according to the present School-divinity of Bellarmine or Suarez or such others descend to the specifical cases about which the controversie is if the Proposers be expresly desired by the King or the Lieutenant in his Name or by his Authority to descend so in their Remonstrance or Propositions to such cases and if they expresly and obstinatly too refuse to descend so or
vary about the many particulars to which his Royal Authority could extend it self and out of error attribute some such particulars to the Pope That besides notwithstanding our being right in our judgment or doctrine of the Kings supream power in Temporals and his independency in all kind of cases from any but God alone as to his said Temporals we might erre about the Temporals themselves and think many of them spirituals that are not such at all and consequently out of that error deny the Kings Authority where we should not That of this kind are all benefices Ecclesiastical as to the Lands and Revenues and all other earthly Goods any way belonging to the Church Nay and of this kind too the very bodies of ecclesiastical Persons how spiritual soever by denomination That we might also and out of errour notwithstanding our attributing sincerely the supream independent power to the King in all Temporals think or teach peradventure against the native liberties of the Irish Church such an unlimitted spiritual power in the Pope over the spiritual things or spiritual persons in this Kingdom as might be not only against the ancient spiritual Canons received in the said kingdom but against equity and reason and Religion too and very enormously also though indirectly or by consequence only but that an infallible one against the King and Kingdom even in their Temporals purely such As for example a power of election to all kind of benefices even Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Sees as well as Parochial Churches and to all these as well as those And a power of translation at his pleasure And a hundred others which may be read at large in Monsieur Pierre Pithou's great and most accurat work intituled Les Liberties de l'Eglise Gallicane and more briefly in Father Redmond Carons second Appendix to his Remonstrantia Hibernorum that last and most learned work of his and all without the Kings consent nay contrary to his express will and the fundamental Laws of the Land That it was therefore the Sorbon-Faculty who are men understand very well what is superfluous and what not and whether the matter of this fourth Proposition contained or not any thing different from the three former or from any other consisting of a general acknowledgment of their Kings most absolute independent Supremacy in Temporals it was I say therefore they would give immediatly after the three former this fourth as specifically declaring against those injuries might be otherwise done by the Pope to their Church Kingdom or King under pretence of such a spiritual power and right only which could not be said to be of its own nature either ordinarily or extraordinarily inconsistent with the supream absolute and independent power of their King in all contingencies whatsoever and yet per se would be unquestionably most injurious and grievous to them and per accidens might prove their utter bane and even as fatal to them as Bellarmine's indirect power in temporals which they protested against in their first proposition That Finally an ordinary person may understand it is one thing and much less to declare our indispensable Allegiance to the King and his independent power in all temporals and an other and much more to declare we understand that Allegiance so as we ought to hold it an incroachment on the Kings said temporal rights and authority and on the both temporal and spiritual rights also of his Catholick Subjects that the Pope should attempt in many or any particular within his Kingdoms to dispose for example sake of goods or persons though by title otherwise Ecclesiastical or Spiritual against the Canons by them received or which is the example of Sorbone to depose a Bishop within his Dominions against the said Canons And therefore it must be clear that by Subscribing the said fourth proposition duely applied mutatis nominibus the Congregation might very well and truly and rightly too have conceived they had said more than they had already or before by subscribing the former three Propositions and Remonstrance even in case I say their said Remonstrance and three Propositions had a full cleer and sufficient expression as from them to obviat all reservations abstractions distinctions equivocations c much more when it is apparent out of my two former Tracts there is no expression at all sufficient as from them to obviat such delusions So much for their first allegation or proof Though as I have before noted if it be intended a proof of the applicableness of their first general reason to the particular of this fourth Proposition it be no new medium but idem per idem and a petitio principij To their second which is that they admit not any power derogatory to His Majesties authority the answers are That I could wish 't were so indeed That they have given as yet no sufficient proof they do not if we understand what they here say as plain honest sincere men would understand these words That understanding by His Majestie 's authority what they do indeed which in effect is a very pittiful authority an authority at best and at most subordinat to that of the Pope Church and People when either please to declare against it in any of those extraordinary cases of Schisme Heresie Apostacie Tiranny c. and an authority also which even out of such cases hath no power to hinder the Pope's absolute disposition of all Ecclesiastical benefices and persons at his pleasure understanding I say this kind of authority their medium is new indeed but vain and inconclusive For how doth it follow we admit no power derogatory to such His Majesties authority Therefore we have already by saying so attributed to our Gracious King whatever the Sorbone Doctors in truth and reallity have to their own in this fourth proposition Or therefore we shall never approve any propositions contrary to His Majesties authority meaning such as it is indeed not such as by fiction curtayled nor approve any propositions contrary to the genuine liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in the same Kingdom as for example that the Pope can depose Bishops against the same Canons Or therefore our second general reason for not subscribing the three last Propositions is specifically applicable to the first of them being in order the fourth of the six Which reason was that we thought we had already sufficiently cleared all Scruples If any of these consequences follow then hath Aristotle failed much in his Topicks As for their third allegation to prove this applicableness and consequently their subscription to this fourth to be not necessary but Superfluous which allegation is in effect as I understand it that they had already more positively declared themselves for the Kings authority rights c. and they should add too or at least mean if they would alledge any thing here to purpose that they had so declared themselves also for the true or genuin liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in
of so many former abroad in other parts of Europe since Gregory the 7th so manifest in History force not a confession of all this from F. N. N or if the very nature of the positions in themselves and the judgment of all judicious and ingenuous men of the world prevail not with him to confess that a general decision and resolve of the Roman Catholick Clergy in Ireland as well against the Popes pretence of infallibility as against his other of a power for deposing the King and raising at pleasure his Subjects in rebellion and against both absolutely and positively be not one of the most rational wayes to hinder the disturbance of King and Countrey as from such Clergie-men and others of their Communion and Nation and if the denyal of such decision and resolve against either pretence especially against this of infallibility since it is plain that if the Pope be admitted infallible his deposing power must necessarily and instantly follow because already and manifoldly declared by several Popes if I say this denyal convince not the denyers and such denyers as the said Congregation in this Country and Conjuncture of a design or desire or pleasure or contentedness to leave still the roots or seeds of new disturbances of both King and Countrey in the hearts of their beleevers and if I say also F. N. N. himself will not upon more serious reflection acknowledge all this to be true and â—â—ident I am sure all other judicious and knowing men even such as are â—iâ—interested wholy in the quarrel and not his partisans will That finally what I have to say is That whosoever is designed by him to be per stringed in or by this last pretence of furthering this dispute to the disturbance of both King and country may answer F. N. N. what the Prophet Elias did Achab on the like occasion Non ego turbavi Israel sic 〈◊〉 demâ—â— Patris tui 3 Reg. 18.18 qui â—ereliquistis mandata Domini secuti estis Bealim And 〈◊〉 that nâ—â— such person alone who ever chiefly perhaps intended nor his few other associates only perstringed likewise by F. N. N. and congregation in this perclose of their Paper but the poor afflicted Church of Ireland generally as it compriseth all beleevers of both sorts and sexes Ecclesiastical and Lay-persons of the Roman Communion nay but the Catholick Church of Christ universally throughout the world hath cause enough already and will I fear have much more yet to say as well to him and the Congregation as to all such other preposterous defenders of her interests what Iacob said to Simeon and Levi Gen. 34.30 upon the sack of Sichem Turbastis me â—diosum fecistis me Chananaeis Pherezaeis habitatoribus terrae hujus And more I have not to say here on this subject of infallibility But leave the Reader that expects more on that question or this dispute in it self directly and as it abstracts from the present indirect consideration to turn over to the last Treatise of this Book Where he shall find more at large and directly to that purpose what I held not so proper for this place Though I confess it was the paper of those unreasonable reasons the answers to which I now conclude here that gave me the first occasion to add that sixth and last piece as upon the same occasion I have the fifth also immediately following this fourth Only I must add by way of good advice to F. N. N That if he or the Congregation or both or any for them will reply to these answers or to what I have before said in my second or third Treatise on their Remonstrance and three first Propositions or even in my first though a bare Narrative only and matter of notorious fact related and if they will have such reply to be home indeed it cannot be better so than by their signing the 15. following Propositions Which to that purpose I have my self drawn and had publickly debated for about a moneth together in another but more special Congregation of the most learned men of this Kingdom and their own Religion held even in that very house where the former sate and immediatly after they were dissolved The Fourteen PROPOSITIONS of F. P. W. Or the doctrine of Allegiance which the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland may with a safe Conscience and at this time ought in prudence to subscribe unanimously and freely as that onely which can secure His Majestie of them as much as hand or subscription can and that onely too which may answer the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion and by consequence of the toleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State 1. Prop. HIS Majestie CHARLES the Second King of England is true and lawful King Supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other His Majesties Dominions and all the Subjects or people as well Ecclesiastick as Lay of His Majesties said Kingdoms or Dominions are obliged under pain of sin to obey His Majestie in all Civil and Temporal affairs 2. His said Majestie hath none but God alone for Superiour or who hath any power over him Divine or Human Spiritual or Temporal Direct or indirect ordinary or extraordinary de facto or de jure in his temporal rights throughout all or any of his Kingdoms of England Ireland Scotland and other Dominions annexed to the Crown of England 3. Neither the Pope hath nor other Bishops of the Church joyntly or severally have any right or power or authority that is warrantable by the Catholick Faith or Church not even in case of Schisme Heresie or other Apostacy nor even in that of any private or publick oppression whatsoever to deprive depose or dethrone His said Majestie or to raise his Subjects whatsoever of His Majesties foresaid Kingdoms or Dominions in Warr Rebellion or Sedition against him or to dispense with them in or absolve them from the tye of their sworn Allegiance or from that of their otherwise natural or legal duty of obedient faithful Subjects to His Majestie whether they be sworn or not 4. Nor can any sentence of deprivation excommunication or other censure already given or hereafter to be given nor any kind of Declaration dispensation or even command whatsoever proceeding even from the Pope or other spiritual authority of the Church warrant His Subjects or any of them in conscience to rebel or to lessen any way His said Majesties said Supream Temporal and Royal rights in any of his said Kingdoms or Dominions or over any of his people 5. It is against the doctrine of the Apostles and practice of the primitive Church to pretend that there is a natural or inhere at right in the people themselves as Subjects or members of the civil common-wealth or of a civil Society to take arms against their Prince in their own vindication or by such means to redress their own either pretended or true grievances
propositions of this paper at large and with all clearness discharged our duty as to the three first of those fiâ— of Sorbon and that now remain only the three last 13. We declare further it is our unalterable resolution proceeding freely from the perswasion of a good Conscience and shall be ever with Gods grace First never to approve or practice according to any doctrine or positions which in particular or general assert any thing contrary to His Majesties Royal Rights or Prerogatives or those of his Crown annexed thereunto by such Laws of England or Ireland as were in force before the change under Henry the 8th And never consequently to approve of or practice by teaching or otherwise any doctrine or position that maintains any thing against the genuine liberties of the Irish Church of the Roman Communion as for example that the Pope can depose a Bishop against the Canons of the said Church Secondly not to maintain defend or teach that the Pope is above a General Council Thirdly also never to maintain defend or teach That the Pope alone under what consideration soever that is either of him as of a private person or Doctor or of him as of a publick Teacher and Superiour of the universal Church or as Pope is infallible in his definitions made without the consent approbation and reception of the said Church even we mean in his definitions made either in matters of discipline or in matters of faith whether by Briefs Bulls Decretal Epistles or otherwise 14. Lastly we declare it is our unalterable resolution and shall be alwayes by Gods grace That if the Pope should or shall peradventure be at any time hereafter perswaded by any persons or motives to declare in any wise out of a General Council or before the definition of a future General Council on the point or points against the doctrine of this or any other the above propositions in whole or in part or against our selves or any others for owning or subscribing them We though with all humble submission to his Holiness in other things or in all spiritual matters purely such wherein he hath power over us by spiritual commands according to the Canons received universally in the several Roman Catholick Churches of the world shall notwithstanding continue alwayes true and faithful to our Gracious King Charles the Second in all temporal things and contingencies whatsoever according to the true plain sincere and obvious meaning and doctrine of all and every the fourteen propositions of this paper and of every part or clause of them without any equivocation mental reservation or other evasion or distinction whatsoever and in particular without that kind of distinction which is made of a reduplicative and specificative sense wherein any such may be against the said obvious and sincere meaning and consequently vain and unconscionable in this matter QUERIES CONCERNING The LAWFULNESSE of the Present CESSATION AND OF THE CENSURES AGAINST ALL CONFEDERATES ADHERING unto it PROPOUNDED By the RIGHT HONOVRABLE the SUPREME COUNCIL to the most Reverend and most Illustrious DAVID Lord Bishop of OSSORY and unto other DIVINES WITH ANSWERS GIVEN and SIGNED by the said most Reverend PRELATE and DIVINES Printed at KILKENNY Anno 1648. And Re-printed Anno 1673. The Censure and Approbation of the most Illustrious and most Reverend Thomas Deasse Doctor of Divinity of the University of Paris and Lord Bishop of Meath I The undernamed having seriously perused and exactly examined the Answers made to the QUERIES by the Right Reverend Father in God David Lord Bishop of Ossory and by the Divines thereunto subscribing do esteem the same worthy to be published in Print to the view of the world as containing nothing either against God or against Caesar but rather as I conceive the Answerers in the first place do prove home and evidently convince the Excommunication and other Censures of the Lord Nuncio c. to have been groundless and void even of their own nature and before the Appeal and besides do manifestly convince that in case the Censures had not been such of their own nature yet the Appeal interposed suspends them wholly with their effects consequences and jurisdiction of the Judge or Judges c. And withal do solidly and learnedly vindicate from all blame the fidelity integrity and prudence of the Supreme Council in all their proceedings concerning the Cessation made with the Lord Baron of Inchiquin notwithstanding the daily increasing obloquies and calumnies of their malignant opposers In the second place the Answerers do sufficiently instruct the scrupulous and ignorant misled People exhorting them to continue in their obedience to Supreme Authority as they do in like manner confute and convince efficaciously the opposition of such obstinate and refractory persons as do presume to vilifie and tread under foot the Authority established in the Kingdom by the Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks And finally the Answerers dutifully and loyally do invite all true hearted Subjects to yield all due obedience to their Sovereign and to any other Supreme Civil Magistrate subordinate and representing the Sovereigns Supreme Authority according to the Law of God the Law of the Church and the Law of the Land Thomas Medensis Given at Kâ—lkenny Aug. 17. 1648. Another Approbation BY the perusal of this Treatise intituled Queries and Answers I am induced to concur with other eminent Surveyors thereof That it contains nothing contrary to approved Doctrine sound Faith or good Manners and therefore that behooveful use may be made thereof by such as love truth and sincerity 7. August 1648. Thomas Rothe Dean of St. Canie And Protonotary Apostolick c. Another Approbation HAving perused by Order of the Supreme Council the Queries propounded by the Supreme Council c. with Answers given them by the Right Reverend DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory and other Divines and being required to deliver my sense of this work I do signifie That I find moving in the said Queries of Answers against Catholick Religion good Life or Manners but much for their advancement and great lights for the discovery of Truth I find by evident proofs declared that the Council in this affair of Cessation Appeal interposed against and other proceedings had with the Lord â—uncio and his adherents 〈◊〉 themselves with a due resentment of the general destruction of the Kingdom and with is true and knowing zeal of Loyalty for the maintenance of the Catholick Religion Justice lawful Authority the lives estates and rights of the Confedâ—ranâ—s I find by uncontroulable reasons proved That the Confederates cannot without worldly ignomity and Divine indignation fâ—ll from the said Cessation while the condition are performed and time expired I find lastly hence and by other irrefragable arguments That all and every of the Censures pronounced either by the Nuncio or any else against the Council or other Confederates upon this ground of concluding or adhering to the Cessation are unreasonable unconscionable invalid void and against Divine and Humane Laws
the said Oath making any such declaration or persuasion of or concerning the said Oath shall be taken and deemed as perjured and accordingly for that offence punished And it is likewise ordered That if any particular man have heretofore delivered or uttered or hereafter shall deliver or utter any opinion contrary to this Declaration that such party or parties being discovered shall be severely punished And all Superiors of the Secular and Regular Clergy are to cause all those under their power and rule to take the said Oath of Association within Three months next ensuing and thereof make Certificate to this House or the Assembly being adjourned or dissolved into the Supreme Council The Names as well of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal now present as the Names of the Lords of the Catholick Confederacy now absent by reason of impediments together with the Names of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses now members of the General Assembly aforesaid Hugo Ardmachan Fr Tho Dublin Tho Arch. Cassell Tho Midensis David Episcop Ossorens Boetius Episcop Elphin Patr Episcop Waterford Lysmorens Joan Episcop Laonens Malachias Arch. Tuamens Guliel Episcop Corke Cloine Joan Episcop Clonfartensis Edm. Episcop Laghlin Emer Episcop Down Connor Castlehaven Audley Antrym Mountgarrett Gormanstown Fingall Nettervill Mau de Rupe Fermay Muskery Ikereyn Trimlestone Glanmaliera Slane Donboyne Arthure Jueagh Cahir Boy Upper Ossory Castle Connel Lowth Brittas Edmund Butler Robert Grace Robert Shee James Duffe James Couly Edward Comerford Theo Butler Peter Dobbyn George Greene. Pierce Butler Edmund Kealy Rich Lawless Nich Halliwood Geo Blackny Edward Dowd Andrew Pallice Tho Preston James Cusack Martin Scurlock George King Christo Veldon N Plunkett Rich Berford Lawrence Hamon Tho Darcy Lawrence Dowdall Alexander Warren Pat Beetagh Walter Cruice Pat Nettervill Rob Talbott Morice Fitz-gerrald John Allyn Gerrald Fitz-gerrald Edward Dungan Nich Wogan Nich Sutton John Stanly Barnaby Bealing John Bellew Pat Plunkett Rich Barnewall Tho Fleming Pat Brian Rich Nettervil Tho Esmond Mich Barnewall James Bath Gerald Talbott Teig O Connor Stephen Fallon Francis Ferraill Rich Ferraill Brian Birne or Brine James Butler Walt Bagnall Edward Wall Tho Fitz-gerrald James Stafford William Stafford Walter Lacy. James Forlong John Cheevers Nich Halliwood Rich Wadding James Lewis Hugh Rochford Paul Duffe Terence Coghlane John Carroll Hubert Fox Owen Molloy William Birmingham John Carroll Pierce Crosby Florence Fitz-Patrick Arthure Cheevers George Cheevers Roger Moore Pierce Fitz-gerrald Terence Doyne James Daniel John Power Pat Goagh Rob Lumbard John Walsh Pierce Sherlock Matth Hoare Tho Walsh John Linch Thorlogh O Briane John Hoare Edmund Fitz-gerrald Donogh O Callaghan Dermott Mac Charty Daniel O Swyllevan Teig Mac Carty Morice Fitz-gerrald David Power Cormuck Mac Carty Donogh Mac Carty Donnel O Leary Henry Slensby John Gould Dermott Mac Carty Callaghan Mac Cahir Charles Mac Carty Tho Henes Daniel O Donevan Garrett Fitz-Morice Florence Mac Carty Rich Butler Tho Butler Rich Haly. William Young John Walsh Geoffery Barron Gerald Fennell R. Everard Lewis Walsh John Lacy. Pierce Creagh Tho Arthure Nich Halye John Halye Daniel O Brian Dermot O Brian Turlogh O Brian Rob Linch Dermot O Shaghnussy Rich Martyn Geoffry Brown Dominick Bodkin John Garvy Christoph French Theob Bodkyn John Brown James Callon Theob Burk John Brown James Callon Theob Burk Ambrose Plunkett Pat Goagh James Butler John Wise John Cantwell Pierce Butler Pierce Rowth Daniel Higgin Connor O Callaghan Artoge O Neill Rich Belling George Commin James mac Collo mac Daniel George St. Leger David Power Tho Ryan Phelim O Neill Turlogh O Neill Dominick Fanning Philip Purcell James Fleming Lawrence Fleming Edmund Power Tho Coce Tho Wadding Mulmore mac Philip O Reilly Turlogh O Boyle Henry Barnawall Mulmore mac Edmond O Reilly Philip mac Mulmore O Reilly Turlogh O Neill Gerratt Talbott James Preston James Purcell Robert Harpole Pat Brian John Baggott James mac Donnell Patrick Darcy Printed at Waterford by Tho Burke Printer to the Confederate Catholicks of Ireland An Oath in pursuance of the Oath of Association taken by the LORDS and Gentlemen met at KILKENNY the 20th of June 1648. and by the Supreme Council directed to be taken by all the CONFEDERATE CATHOLICKS I A. B. do swear and protest before God and his Saints and Angels That I will to the utmost of my power observe the Oath of Association maintain the Authority of the Supreme Council and the Government established by the General Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks of this Kingdom notwithstanding the present Excommunication issued forth by the Lord Nuncio and four Bishops against the Concluders Maintainers and Adherents of and unto the Cessation concluded with the Lord Baron of Inchiquin and notwithstanding any other Excommunication to be issued upon the same ground against which Excommunication and for those who issued it I do appeal unto His Holiness as the indifferent Judge And I do further swear That to the hazard of my life I will suppress and oppose any person or party that shall stand in Arms in opposition of the said Association So help me God To prevent any scruple to be made upon the branch of the Oath by us of late directed to be administred viz. notwithstanding the present Excommunication issued forth by the Lord Nuncio and four Bishops against the Concluders Maintainers and Adherents of and unto the Cessation concluded with the Lord Baron of Inchiquin and notwithstanding any other Excommunication to be issued upon the same ground although we hold it unnecessary to make any further explanation of our intentions than the words of the said Oath contain yet for the satisfaction of all men and to the intent no way may be left to carp at our actions nor any excuse of refusing it unto such as may take exceptions thereunto We do hereby declare That by the general word Excommunication we intend no other Excommunication than such as have been or shall be issued or inflicted by the Lord Nuncio or by the Clergy of this Land or any of them for or touching the said Cessation or grounded thereupon during or pending our Appeal Kilkenny Castle the 27th of June 1648. Westmeath Fingall Mountgarrett Nettervil Lew Glanmaliry Galmoy Athenry Tremelstown Donboyne Vpper Ossory Lucas Dillon Robuck Lynch Richard Barnawell Tho Nugent Richard Everard Patrick Nettervill Luke Fitz-Gerrald Richard Belling Patrick Goagh John Walsh Patrick Brian Gerratt Fennell Jefferie Browne Robert Devereux George Commin James Cusack Lawrence Dowdall William Hoare Maurice Fitz-Gerrald Robert Shee Marcus Cheevers Michael Dormer Thomas Rancâ—or Francis Dormer Michael Bolan Robert Meade Pierce Creagh Thomas Henes Walter Walsh Richard Strange Peter Sherlock Edmund Bryan Thomas Cantwell Walter Archer Printed at KILKENNY in the year of our LORD GOD 1648. The Lord Nuncio 's Excommunication c. Anno 1648. Nos Joannes Baptista Rinuccinus Dei Apostolicae sedis Gratia Archiepiscopus Princeps Firmanus ac in Regno Hiberniae Nuncius Apostolicus extraordinarius Nos Episcopi ad effectum de quo
gathered to that purpose to some other service And so VVe bid you heartily farewell from Shanbuoly the 14th of June 1650. Your loving Friend ORMOND To Our very loving Friend the Mayor of the City of Lymrick These But neither that nor all VVe could do upon subsequent Treaties and Overtures moving from themselves could at all prevail with them no not Our offer of putting Our self into the City and running the fortune of it when Ireton was encamped before it But to return to the proceedings of the Bishops whose next action was a meeting at Jamestown of their own meer motion and power where whether they have not taken upon them somewhat beyond the regulation of their Clergy and spiritual affairs upon which perhaps it is thought they may so meet though stretched to the remotest possibility of strained consequence will appear by the acts of that clandestine Assembly at the very entrance whereunto a Letter signed by the Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam gave Us some doubt what kind of Congregation that would prove Their said Letter and Our Answer to it follows in these words viz. May it please Your Excellency THis Nation become of late the fable and reproach of the Christianity is brought to a sad condition Notwithstanding the frequent and laborious meetings and consultations of the Prelates we find jealousies and fears deep in the hearts of men thorns hard to take out We see most men contributing to the Enemy and rendring their persons and substance useful to his malice and destructive to Religion and the Kings interest This kind of men if not timely prevented will betray irremediably themselves and us We find no stock or substance ordered for maintaining the Souldier nor is there an Army any way considerable in the Kingdom to recover what is lost or defend what we hold So as humanely speaking if God will not be pleased for his mercies sake to take off from us the heavy judgments of his anger we are fair for losing Sacred Religion the Kings Authority and Ireland The four Archbishops to acquit their own Consciences in the eyes of God have resolved to meet at Jamestown about the sixth day of the next month and to bring along as many of the Suffragans as may repair thither with safety The end of this consultation is to do what in us lyeth for the amendment of all Errors and recovery of this afflicted People If Your Excellency shall think fit in Your wisdom to send one or more persons to make Proposals for the safety of the Nation we shall not want willingness to prepare good Answers nor will we despair of the blessing of God and of his powerful influence to be upon our sincere intentions in that place Even so we conclude remaining Your EXCELLENCIES Most humble Servants Fr Thomas Dublin Jo Archiepiscopus Tuamen 24th July 1650. For his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland AFter Our hearty Commendations VVe received yours of the 24th of July on the first of this Month and do with much grief acknowledge That this Nation is brought into a sad condition and that by such means as when it shall be known abroad and by story delivered to Posterity will indeed be thought a Fable For it will seem incredible That any Nation should so madly affect and violently pursue the wayes leading to their own destruction as this People will appear to have done and that after the certain ruine they were running into was evidently and frequently discovered unto those that in all times and upon all other occasions have had power to persuade or compel them to what ever they thought fit And it will be less credible when it shall be declared as with truth it will be that the temporal spiritual and eternal interest and safety even of those that had this power and that have been thus forewarned did consist in making use of it to reclaim the People and direct them into the wayes of preservation To be plain it cannot be denied but the disobedience VVe have met with which VVe at large declared unto many of you who with divers others of the Nobility and Gentry were assembled at Loghreogh in April last were the certain ready wayes to the destruction of this Nation as by Our Letter of the first of May to that Assembly VVe made apparent Ancient and late experience hath made evident what power those of your Function have had to draw the People of this Nation to what they thought fit VVhether your Lordships have been convinced That the obedience which VVe desired should be given to His Majesties authority in Us pursuant to the Articles of Peace was the way to preserve the Nation VVe know not or whether your Lordships have made use of all the means at other times and upon other occasions exercised by you to procure this necessary obedience VVe shall not now determine Sure VVe are That since the said Assembly not only Lymerick hath persisted in the disobedience it was then in and aggravated the same by several affronts since fixed upon the Kings authority but Galway hath been seduced into like disobedience For want of due compliance from those places but principally from Lymerick it hath been impossible for us to raise or employ an Army against the Rebels For to attempt it any where on the other side of the Shannon but near Lymerick and without the absolute Command of that City to secure it could be no other than the certain ruine of the design in the very beginning of it the Rebels power being such as to dissipate with ease the foundation that should be laid there And to have done it on this side the Shannon was impossible since the ground-work of the Army must be raised and supported from thence which whil'st it was in forming would have exhausted all the substance of these parts and not have effected the work For want of such an Army which with Gods assistance might certainly have been long since raised if Lymerick had obeyed Our Orders the Rebels have without any considerable resistance from abroad taken Clonmel Tecroghan and Catherlagh and reduced Waterford and Duncannon to great and We fear irrecoverable distress The loss of these places and the want of any visible power to protect them hath doubtlesly induced many to contribute their substance and personal assistance to the Rebels from which whether they might have been with-held by Church Censures We know not but have not heard of any such which issued against them And lastly for want of such an Army the Rebels have taken to themselves the Contribution which might considerably have assisted to support an Army and preserve the Kingdom If therefore the end of your Consultation at Jamestown be to acquit your Consciences in the eyes of God the amendment of all Errors and the recovery of this afflicted People as by the Letter giving Us notice of your meeting is professed We have endeavoured briefly to shew That the Spring of Our past losses and
defects and failings that can render a Man of Our condition and profession contemptible so it was in Our own defence necessary for Us to shew That this judgment was not given of Us by a grave Congregation of advised temperate and loyal persons but by factious rash violent and disloyal men assembled without Authority transported with Spleen Arrogance and Ambition taking advantage of the ill successes themselves are guilty of to declare things contrary to Truth and contrary to the sense and desire of many learned and pious men of their own profession that are born down and awed by their Tyranny the truth and justification of which judgment is disavowed by some who are mentioned in the Subscription as being obtruded on them by the major vote or done by their Procurators without their assent or knowledge To conclude We profess to the world That We have a high reverence to and esteem of the Character of Episcopacy even where We dissent from the Doctrine taught by those that bear it But if they shall lay aside the ingenuity the moderation the charity becoming their Function nay the humanity and civility becoming Men and that to Our personal defamation We conceive We may detect the faults of the persons and yet retain Our respect to the Function And so We bid you heartily farewel from Kilcolgan the second of December 1650. Your very loving Friend ORMOND For the Lords and Gentlemen assembled at Loghreogh These The General Assemblies Publick Act and Declaration dated at Loghreogh the 7th of December same year 1650. upon and some few dayes after receipt of the precedent Letter from the Marquess of ORMOND then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland WHereas the Archbishops and Bishops met at this Assembly have of their own free Accords for removing of Jealousies that any might apprehend of their proceedings Declared and Protested That by their Excommunication and Declaration at Jamestown in August last they had no other aim than the preservation of the Catholick Religion and People and did not purpose to make any Vsurpation on His Majesties Authority or on the Liberties of the People confessing it belongs not to their Jurisdiction so to do Vpon consideration of which their Declaration and Protestation and their professions to that purpose in this Assembly and of His EXCELLENCIES Letter dated the 16th of November last recommending unto us as the chief ends for which this Assembly was called the removing of all Divisions as the best way for our preservation We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Gentry met in this Assembly conceiving that there is no better foundation and ground for our Vnion than the holding to and obeying His Majesties Authority to which we owe and ought to pay all dutiful Obedience Do hereby Declare and protest That our Allegiance to His Majesty is so inherent in us that we cannot be withdrawn from the same nor is there any power or Authority in the Lords Spiritual or Temporal Gentry or People Clergy or Laity of the Kingdom that can alter change or take away His Majesties Authority we holding that to be the chief flower of the Crown and the support of the Peoples liberty Which We hereby Protest Declare and Avow and also do esteem the same essentially inviolably and justly due from us and the chiefest mean under God to uphold our union and preservation And do unanimously beseech His EXCELLENCY in His great affections to the advancement of His Majesties service and His hearty desires to this Nations preservation to which He hath relation of highest Concernments in Blood Alliance and Interest to leave that Authority with us in some person faithful to His Majesty and acceptable to the Nation To which person when made known unto us We will not only afford all due Obedience but will also offer and propose the best wayes and means that God will please to direct us to for preservation of His Majesties Rights and Peoples Interests and Liberties and for begetting ready Obedience in all places and persons to His Majesties Authority And we do further Declare That albeit after Droghedagh and all other places which were upon conclusion of the Peace in January 1648 in the enemies power in this Kingdom the Cities of Londonderry and Dublin onely excepted were in His EXCELLENCIES time of Government and Conduct thorough many hazards in His Person and loss in His Fortune reduced to His Majesties obedience God was pleased to bring us to the state and condition We are at present yet We are fully satisfied that His EXCELLENCY had faithful intentions and hearty affections to advance His Majesties interest and service in this Kingdom Logbreogh 7th Dec. 1650. By Command of the Assembly Richard Blake FINIS
the Tridentine Fathers but also quite contrary to those Doctrines and Practises which are manifestly recommended in the letter sense and whole design of the Gospel of Christ in the writings of his blessed Apostles in the Commentaries of their holy Successors in the belief and life of the Christian Church universally for the first Ten Ages thereof and moreover in the very clearest dictates of Nature it self whether Christianity be supposed or not IV. That of those quite other and quite contrary Doctrines in the most general terms without descending to particular applications of them to any one Kingdom or People c the grand Positions are as followeth viz. That by divine right and immediate institution of Christ the Bishop of Rome is Vniversal Monarch and Governour of the World even with sovereign independent both spiritual and temporal authority over all Churches Nations Empires Kingdoms States Principalities and over all persons Emperours Kings Princes Prelates Governours Priests and People both Orthodox and Heterodox Christian and Infidel and in all things and causes whatsoever as well Temporal and Civil as Ecclesiastical or Spiritual That He hath the absolute power of both Swords given Him That He is the Fountain of all Jurisdiction of either kind on Earth and that whoever derives not from Him hath none at all not even any the least Civil or Temporal Jurisdiction That He is the onely Supreme Judge of all Persons and Powers even collectively taken and in all manner of things divine and humane That all humane Creatures are bound under forfeiture of Eternal Salvation to be subject to Him i. e. to both His Swords That He is empowred with lawful Authority not only to Excommunicate but to deprive depose and dethrone both sententially and effectually all Princes Kings and Emperours to translate their Royal Rights and dispose of their Kingdoms to others when and how He shall think fit especially in case either of Apostasie or Heresie or Schism or breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or any publick oppression of the Church or People in their respective civil or religious Rights or even in case of any other enormous publick Sins nay in case of only unfitness to govern That to this purpose He hath full Authority and Plenitude of Apostolical Power to dispense with Subjects in and absolve them from all Oaths of Allegiance and from the antecedent tyes also of the Laws of God or man and to set them at full liberty nay to command them under Excommunication and what other Penalties He please to raise Arms against their so deposed or so excommunicated or otherwise ill-meriting Princes and to pursue them with Fire and Sword to death if they resist or continue their administration or their claim thereunto against His will That He hath likewise power to dispense not only in all Vows whatsoever made either immediately or mediately to God himself nor only as hath been now said in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to the King but in all other Oaths or Promises under Oath made even to any other man whatsoever the subject or thing sworn be That besides Oaths and Vows He can dispense in other matters also even against the Apostles against the Old Testament against the Four Evangelists and consequently against the Law of God That whoever kills any Prince deposed or excommunicated by Him or by others deriving power from Him kills not a lawful Prince but an usurping Tyrant a Tyrant at least by Title if not by Administration too and therefore cannot be said to murther the Anointed of God or even to kill his own Prince That whosoever out of pure zeal to the Roman-Church ventures himself and dyes in a War against such a Tyrant i.e. against such a deposed or excommunicated Prince dyes a true Martyr of Christ and his Soul flies to Heaven immediately That His Holiness may give and doth well to give plenary Indulgence of all their sins a culpa poena to all Subjects rebelling and fighting against their Princes when He approves of the War That antecedently to any special Judgment Declaration or declaratory Sentence pronounced by the Pope or any other subordinate Judge against any particular person Heresie does ipso jure both incapacitate to and deprive of the Crown and all other not only royal but real and personal Rights whatsoever That an Heretick possessor is a manifest Vsurper and a Tyrant also if the possession be a Kingdom State or Principality and therefore is ipso jure out-law'd and that all his People i. e. all his otherwise reputed Vassals Tenants or Subjects are likewise ipso jure absolved from all Oaths and all other tyes whatsoever of fidelity or obedience to him That he is truly and certainly and properly an Heretick who misbelieves calls in question or even doubts of any one definition of the Tridentine Council or of any one that is of meer Papal Constitution or of any one of those Articles profess'd in Pius Quartus 's Creed That not only the Pope but any Patriarch nay any inferiour Bishop acknowledging His Holiness may if need be both excommunicate and depose their own respective Princes Kings or Emperours and may also without their leave or knowledge reverse the Decrees of their Vice-Roys or Lieutenants and even censure depose from and restore again such Lieutenants to their former dignity and charge That all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever both Men and Women Secular and Regular Patriarchs Primaâ—s Archbishops Bishops Abbots Abbesses Priests Fryars Monks Nuâ—s to the very Porter or Portress of a Cloyster inclusively nay to the very Scullion of the Kitchin and all their Churches Houses Lands Revenues Goods and much more all their persons are exempt by the Law of Nature and Laws of Nations and those of God in Holy Scripture both Old and New Testament and those of men i. e. of Christian Emperours Councils and Popes in their respective Institutions and Canons and are indeed universally perpetually and irrevocably so exempt from all secular civil and temporal Authority on Earth whether of States or of Princes of Kings or of Emperours and from all their Laws and all their Commands that is from both the directive and coercive virtue of either or which is the same thing in effect from sin against God and from punishment by God or man for only transgressing them That consequently if any Church-man should murder his lawful and rightful King blow up the Parliament fire burn and lay waste all the Kingdom yet he could not be therefore guilty of Treason or truly called a Traytor against the King or against the Kingdom or People or Laws thereof no nor could justly be punish'd at all by the secular Magistrate or Laws of the Land without special permission from the Pope or those deriving Authority from Him That nevertheless all Clergy-men regular and secular in the World from the meanest either Accolits or Converts to the highest Generals of Orders and greatest Patriarchs of Nations inclusively may be out of all Kingdoms and even contrary to
amongst the same Protestants to perswade themselves that however in our neighbouring Catholick Kingdoms the Article of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of the Bishop of Rome's universal Monarchy or of his both spiritual and temporal supreme Jurisdiction do not walk hand in hand together yet amongst the generality of Roman Catholicks in these Nations it hath been otherwise continually these last hundred years and is at present whether in the mean time this proceed out of Ignorance or Interest or both XIII That thus at last the only true both original and continual causes on our side of all the severe Laws and of all the other grievous misfortunes and miseries past and present which we complain of and groan under as peculiar to the Professors of the Roman Catholick Religion in these Nation appearing to be and really being such as I have hitherto discoursed none can be so short sighted or so unapprehensive as not without further discourse to understand likewise the only Christian and proper efficacious remedy of all the said evils for what I mean concerns the future and our own endeavours and concurrence with God and man to help our selves For certainly nothing can be more obvious to reason than that since our own either formal or virtual express or tacit owning of so many uncatholick Positions and so many unchristian practises by our continual refusing to disown them or either of them in any sufficient manner or as we ought by any proper Test hath been of our side hitherto the only immediate cause of all our woes and especially of all those legal Sanctions which upon due reflection do without doubt render our best condition even at present anxious it must follow That the only proper true and efficacious remedy on our side also must be at last our own free and unanimous and hearty and conscientious disowning of all and every the said erroneous Positions and wicked practises even by such a publick full and clear Instrument or Declaration and Oath as may satisfie all Protestants of our utter Aversness and Enmity to all Rebellious Doctrines and Practises whatsoever especially to those which tend to the maintaining of any kind of temporal Dominion or Jurisdiction direct or indirect or even any spiritual Power or Authority which may have the effect of such temporal in the Pope or See of Rome over his Majesty or any of his Majesties Subjects or at all within the Realms of England Ireland or Scotland or within any of the other Dominions acknowledging his Majesty even in any case of contingency imaginable especially in case of either true or only pretended Apostacy Heresie Schism c. and such publick Instrument Declaration and Oath so full and clear even also against all equivocations and both mental and vocal evasions whatsoever to be in your name together with your Petition most humbly presented to the King and Parliament some time this present Session by your sufficient Representatives the Roman Catholick Lords or such of them as will be pleased to take these matters to heart XIV That when in such manner as you ought you have performed that duty which you have so long owed to God and the King to your Country and Religion to the Christian Church in general and all mankind and amongst them to your selves and your posterity after you and when you have thereby done your part to disarm all the anger of the Presses and to silence all the clamor of Pulpits and put an effectual stop to a thousand new Invectives and ten thousand more Sermons preparing to incense the Protestant people against you i. e. when by such a publick Instrument or solemn Declaration and Religious Oath of the generality of your Nobles Ecclesiasticks and Gentry you shall have quite rendred unsignificant their I know not which more affrighting or bewitching Theme quite destroyed their Common place and no less effectually than clearly answered their only grand Objection against your Liberty viz. That of The inconsistence of the safety of a Protestant Prince or State or Kingdom or People with Liberty in the same Dominions given to Roman-Catholick Subjects and consequently when by doing so you shall have done your selves all the greatest right you can think of viz. you shall have conform'd to the inward dictates of a good Conscience wiped off from your holy Religion the outward scandal of most wicked Principles yielded to victorious Truth wheresoever you behold her and which is and must be consequential when you shall have thus after a tedious contest of above a hundred years advanced on your side the first considerable step to meet half way the Right Reverend Prelates and other learned Teachers of the Church of England in order to a happy reconciliation at last of the remaining differences then may you confidently expect from their side also i. e. from his most Gracious Majesty and the great Wisdom and Piety of both Houses of Parliament all that ease relaxation indulgence peace kindness love which by any men dissenting yet in so many other points from the Religion established by Law can be in reason expected even a Repeal at least of all the Sanguinary and Mulctative Laws For to expect an equality in all priviledges with those that are of the Protestant Church until God be pleased to bring you nearer them or them to you than in a meer profession how real and cordial and universal or comprehensive soever of Allegiance to the King in Temporal or Civil Affairs only I say till that day come which we pray for it will I believe seem unreasonable to your selves to expect that equality with them which they were not to expect of you if you had the power in your hands and they were in your condition How can they in reason expect so much favour as they now shew us if they retain any memory of former times and consider the now prevailing Party amongst us and Papal Constitutions even at this present governing that Party at least in relation to such as are reputed Hereticks or Schismaticks by the Consistory at Rome XV. That of those Ecclesiasticks who as the English Opposers of the Oath of Allegiance or the Irish Persecutors of the Loyal Remonstrance shall endeavour to persuade your continuing alwayes Rigid Papalins maugre Heaven and Earth and to stifle any motion or thought of giving a Protestant Prince or Parliament any more satisfaction in the principal point either of Consistence or Inconsistence c than your selves or your Predecessors have given hitherto some of them are naturally averse to the Crown of England and would be so though it were as entirely devoted now to the See of Rome as it was at Dover when King â—ohn laid it there at the Legat's feet others are daily expectants of Mitres and Titles and Bulls and Dignities from that City of Fortune others have already taken the Formal or Ceremonial possession of their now most Illustrious and most Reverend Lordships and these also have already at their Consecration
clearest both Texts and Reasons imaginable Of all which manifold Authorities of Reason Gospel Humane Laws and Canons having had sufficient knowledge when I engaged in the Controversie and more when for so engaging and for that only I was so strangely prosecuted by Summons Censures c I thought that even my duty to you and the regard I was bound to have of your common interest required of me to make the best use I could of that knowledge in order to your publick good as well on the one hand to assert your and my both Native and Christian right against them that invaded it by those unlawful proceedings as also on the other hand to shew at least in one instance the untruness of that Proposition whereof depends and wherein lies the whole stress of the grand Objection against you which if I be not much deceived is in substance this viz. That for any Roman-Catholick Priest holding firmly to all and every the Articles of Faith undoubtedly believed or at least own'd as such amongst all Roman-Catholicks universally and observing all other duties required of him by the Canons received generally in the National Churches of that Religion it is impossible to be in all cases or contingencies whatsoever indispensably or unalterably obedient and faithful to a Protestant Prince or Kingdom or Government not even in so much as in all meer Civil or Temporal things onely according to the Laws of the Land especially if the Pope command him to the contrary under pain of Excommunication Now as I have behaved my self hitherto I am sure I have manifestly enough proved the untruth of that Proposition and by consequence for as much as pertains to me have really answer'd the grand Objection deducible from it And so have not a few other Irish Priests even all those who together with me suffered very much for many years in the former Cause of the Nunoio or in this latter of the Remonstrance or in both and have not as to either condemn'd or contradicted themselves hitherto by any unworthy submission though at last compellâ—d to silence and in other matters forced to desert me and to submit to their Adversaries Nor do I at all doubt but rather am certain there are this day within England above Five hundred Native Priests beside a great many more in Ireland however at present weathering out the storm so fully resolved for the future in their own persons and cases likewise to disprove that Proposition and to satisfie the Objection built thereon That if His MAJESTY and both Houses of PARLIAMENT may be graciously pleased to try them once with an Act of Grace after a hundred years punishment and to take off I say not any other Incapacity but onely that of living in their Native Countrey that when at home they have satisfied the State they may not be driven abroad to beg or starve and be there exposed to all the rage and violence of the Roman Court they will by a publick Instrument signed under all their hands declare as amply and clearly and heartily against all the foresaid new Doctrines and Practises and all other whatsoever groundless vain pretences of Rome as I have done or as that Act shall require and will be ready to renew that Assurance as oft as shall be required and even to expose their Lives if need be in defence of it notwithstanding any Declarations Precepts or Censures of the Pope to the contrary Third Appendage relating to the Sixth Querie That I know and cannot but mind you of what the Roman-Catholicks of these Kingdoms have lost even since the King 's most happy Restauration by not being advised by Church-men of honest principles in point of His Majesties independent Power and the Subjects indispensable Obedience to Him in all Civil or Temporal things according to the Laws of the Land They have lost three fair opportunities of being not only eased of all their pressures from the penal Statutes but rendred as happy as they could in reason desire or even wish under a Protestant King and Government The first opportunity was offered them in England in the year 1661 when it was earnestly and strongly moved in their behalf in the House of Lords to Repeal the Sanguinary Laws in the first place and a Hill was drawn up to that purpose The second and third were in Ireland the former in the year 1662 when a discontented Party of the Adventurers and Souldiers there had laid their design for surprizing the King's Castle at Dublin and the latter in the year 1666 when we were in the first War with Holland and near to it with France and the Irish National Congregation of the Roman-Catholick Clergy was by occasion of that War suffered to convene at Dublin in order to assure the King of their fidelity How happy the Roman-Catholicks in general might have been if they had taken time by the forelock in any of those three opportunities especially in the first may be easily understood And how unhappy their neglect or wilfulness hath proved to themselves I cannot but with grief of heart consider The rather because I was my self the onely man employed first to the Roman-Catholick Clergy both of England and Ireland on the foresaid occasions to prepare them against any obstruction from themselves of the favours intended towards them and that nothing else was required on the first occasion from those in England but their being ready to take the Oath of Allegiance onely as in the Statute 3 Jacobi His Majesty being then inclined to have dispens'd with them for the Oath of Supremacy nor in the second and third occasion was any thing required from those of Ireland more than their Signing the Loyal Remonstrance or Formulary which had been Sign'd before in the year 1661 by some of their own Ecclesiastical Brethren and so considerable number of their Nobility and Gentry For my own part I am morally certain that if those fair opportunities had not been slighted or if either the one or the other condition had been embraced you should not have seen in your dayes any such tryal of men for bearing office as that you complain of so much now a renouncing of the Doctrine or Tenet of Transubstantiation according to the late Act of the Parliament of England And I am no less certain that had you hearkned to the advice of any of those many virtuous learned Church-men amongst you who have as much true zeal according to knowledge even for the splendor of Catholick Religion and as much true reverence for and obedience to His Holiness as according to Reason or Christianity they can have and withall are truly well affected and rightly principled as to that faith and obedience which they and you all owe by the Laws of God and man to the Temporal Government you had neither slighted any of those good opportunities nor neglected to embrace either of those two most reasonable conditions Fourth Appendage but relating to all the Queries generally
on the other side or even calling for them by Summons or otherwise at any time before such prejudgment given or made This I say is it that both obliges and warrants me in all reason to except against them as incompetent Judges of me or my writings in that Cause i. e. to except against their individual persons but not against their Authority placed in other men of less interested or byass'd judgment Nor certainly will this Exception appear strange or ill-grounded to such as shall be pleased to turn over in this Book not only to the many divers Letters of Roman Cardinals and Bruxel Internuncio's written at several times and upon several occasions since the year 1661 to Ireland against the same Cause and me and the rest of the Remonstrants but also to the Louain Theological Faculty's Censure * Dated at Louain 1662 Dec. 29. against it i. e. against the Loyal Irish Remonstrance and Subscribers of iâ— I pass oâ—er wholly in silence at this time the Bull of Pope Alexander VII * Dated at Rome 1665 Aug. 27. in the former cause of the Appeal made anno 1648 to Innocent X by the then Supreme Council of the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ireland from those wicked Censures of Interdict and Excommunication fulminated that year and in that Kingdom against them and all other Irish joining with or obeying them in the Cessation of Arms concluded with the Royal Party of Protestants I say fulminated therefore against them by the Archbishop and Prince of Fermo Joannes Baptista Rinuccinus Nuncio there from the foresaid Innocent X. though a very partial inconsiderate Bull grounded falsely and given directly against all the more Loyal Irish Catholicks and given so of meer purpose to make them receive absolution in forma Ecclesiae consueta and consequently to do publick Pennance for having return'd but onely so nigh their obedience to the late King of ever blessed Memory as a meer or bare Cessation of Arms in order to the preservation of His Majesties interest when their own could not subsist without it in that Kingdom And these being the Six Appendages of so many Questions going before concerning my own constancy or inconstancy in Religion you are now at liberty to determine as to that matter what you think fit So having by this time inlarged my self I hope sufficiently enough for the information of some conviction of others and satisfaction of all ingenuous lovers of Truth having discharged my Conscience and spoken my Mind touching all the three Motives that induced me to this Dedicatory Preface to you it remains that howsoever or whatsoever you judge of me or my carriage or my writings I nevertheless continue my due regard to your Benefit and conclude this Discourse as it almost begun and for the matter proceeded all along with re-minding you most affectionately of your own and your Posterities and your Religions great Concern both in the Loyal Cause I contend for and in those happy ends at which I drive Therefore in the Apostles words Before God and our Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom by all the desires you have of your own and your Posterities living comfortably in this world as free-born Subjects in your Native Countrey and by all the hopes you have conceiv'd of enjoying that better Countrey with eternal life and rest in the world to come by all your zeal not only for the vindicating of your Religion from the scandal of Disloyalty Perjury Cruelty Inhumanity Tyranny c. both in Principles and Practices but of inviting also by taking away the grand Rock of scandal those of other Churches to save their Souls in the communion of yours or of the Roman-Catholick Church if indeed you believe there is no salvation for them otherwise and by all your godly wishes of a true understanding reconciliation union peace between all Churches professing the Name of Christ and more especially between His Majesties Protestant Subjects and your selves en fine by all that is Sacred and by all that is according to reason and grace desirable I conjure you that your selves mind as you ought that great Concern of your own and mind it both effectually and speedily without further delayes I beseech you as Christians and as Catholicks by the onely adorable name of the Holy Jesus whose Doctrine you should desire to follow above all things consider That his Kingdom was not of this world (a) John 18.36 That surely he gave neither to St. Peter himself nor to any other of his eleven or twelve Apostles separately nor even to all the same twelve or thirteen with Peter and Paul collectively taken any other sort of Kingdom or the Lieutenancy of any other Kingdom than what himself had in the dayes of his abode in flesh or as he was a mortal man before his Resurrection (b) See â—â—lâ—â—â—ius himself lib. 5. de Rom. Poâ—â—tiâ— c. 4 â—itt D. That the Keyes of Heaven and the Crowns of earthly Kingdoms import very different things That as his Father sent him (c) John 20.21 22 23. so he sent all the twelve with equal and with onely Commission to remit and retain sins viz. by his Power and by his Word and by his Sacraments but not to give or to take away Scepters or Crowns (d) Non eriâ—â—â— mortalia 〈◊〉 regna dat â—â—â—lestia by any means whatsoever That he commanded what is due to Caesar to be paid to Caesar as well as to God what is due to God (e) Matth. 22 23. That Paul the thirteenth Apostle and Vessel of Election in his Epistle to the Romans * Rom. 13.1 5. plainly declares That subjection to the supereminent secular powers which carry the Sword of Justice and receive Tributes is due from every Soul and that not onely out of fear of their Sword but for Conscience sake and for fear of hell and damnation it is due from every Soul among you even from those who are the most spiritual in profession even from those who are the most high in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Function Priests Monks Bishops Archbishops nay were they Apostles were they Evangelists were they Prophets whosoever they were as Chrysostom spake * Chrysostom Hom. 23. in Epist Paul on this Text Rom. 1â— Omnis anima c. near Thirteen hundred years since on this very Text of the Apostle and in effect with Chrysostom all the Holy Fathers of the Christian Church before and after him for a Thousand years from the Apostles time until Gregory VII That Exemption from and much more Dominion over the said Powers ate inconsistent with Subjection to them in the same Temporal matters That other Divine right of Dominion either direct or indirect His present Holiness of Rome cannot justly pretend than what He derives from Christ by or through St. Peter nor other Humane right to any Kingdom than what the free consent of the Princes People and Municipal Laws
in the Title of it before the Introduction and in the Argument of the whole immediately following that Introduction yet when I came to the Censure of Louain and to their four chief grounds c I found it expedient to give there at length what in substance was for the greatest part on several occasions and for the rest might on other the like occasions be unanswerably said against all and every of the said four grounds of that nevertheless ungrounded Louain Censure the rather that Father Caian neither in his Remonstrantia Hibernorum not in any other Book had lifted any of the said grounds in specie VI. Pursuing this incidental matter I dispute against those Louain Divines nay expresly also and purposely too against their Leaders the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine Baronius c from Sect. LII pag. 117. to Sect. LXXVIII pag. 487. First Part of the First Treatise that is throughout Fourstore and odd sheets consequently Which having done I return again to pure matter of Fact according to the principal design of the said First Treatise VII The searching throughly into the bottom of their Fourth Ground takes up Threescore and ten sheets of that long but necessary Insertion Which no man will admire it should who shall consider That by ruining that Fourth Ground onely which is the pretended Exemption of Clergymen from the Supreme Temporal or Secular and Civil both directive and coercive Power and consequently by proving the subjection even of all Clerks i. e. of all Ecclesiasticks Priests Monks Bishops Archbishops Primats Patriarchs and Popes nay of all Apostles Evangelists and Prophets c to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate to have been from the beginning de jure divino and never to have been after at any time altered or otherwise determined by any Laws of God or man I must without further trouble have both consequently and evidently ruin'd all and every the pretences of the Pope or Church to any Dominion Jurisdiction or Prefection whether direct or indirect over the Temporals of the Supreme Lay-Magistrate For natural reason shews every man That Subjection and Exemption how much more That Subjection and Prefection Jurisdiction Dominion in order to the same Temporal Magistrate and Temporal matters are incompatible in the same person or persons whatsoever Because they are such contrary Attributes as being affirm'd of any thing infer a manifest Contradiction v. g. To be subject and not to be subject at the same time and in the same respect to the self-same Temporal Powers And therefore by proving clearly no Exemption at all of any Ecclesiasticks whatsoever from the Supreme Civil either directive or coercive Power nay by proving consequentially and by no less clearly and positively evincing a total subjection of them to the said Power I must likewise of necessity evince that they can pretend no kind of Authority either direct or indirect in any case whatsoever to dethrone depose deprive suspend or lessen that same Power unless peradventure they can make Contradictories true VIII My purpose to pull up thus by the very root and overturn the sandy foundation of that so vain pretended Authority over the Temporals of Lay-Princes and States is it that made me unravel the whole matter of Ecclesiastical Immunity and dispute it so largely with all the exactness I could For I have therein proceeded first in a negative way answering all and every material Argument of Bellarmine yea and of others also to a tittle as well those in his Book de Clericis as those other in his latter Work against William Barclay and consequently as well those so unconsequentially derived by him either from the Laws of Nature or Laws of Nations or from the authority of Ethnick Historians or other Authors as those which he no less ungroundedly grounds partly on the divine and positive Laws of God in Holy Scriptures partly on the humane Laws of Christian Emperours in the Code of Theodosius or Institutions of Justinian partly on the Canons of either old or new Ecclesiastical Synods partly on the bare sayings of some ancient Fathers or even Popes in their own Cause and partly too on the bare Testimony or Authority of some of our Church-Annalists or Historians Next I have proceeded also on that Subject in a positive or affirmative way by proving manifestly and I think unanswerably too from all the same Topicks of the Laws of God and man of those of Nature and those of Nations of those of Holy Scriptures in the Old and New Testament and those not onely of Imperial Constitutions but Ecclesiastical Canons yea and meer Papal Canons too and from the judgment also of ancient Fathers in their Commentaries and the Testimony of other even Ecclesiastical Writers in their Histories and in the last place from and by the intrinsick Topick of pure natural and obvious Reason That never yet hath any such Exemption of Clerks i. e. Churchmen from the Supreme either directive or coercive Power of the Civil Magistrate had any being at all in rerum natura or any right to such being Nay I have shewed also by manifest Reason I think that neither at any time hereafter can Princes give such Exemption to Clerks their Subjects without either manifest contradiction in adjecto as Logicians speak or devesting themselves wholly and really of the name and authority of Kings or Princes over them IX If any except against my deriving of Arguments or alledging of Precedents from the Facts of Justinian the Emperour as you find I do Sect. LXXIII pag. 359. or shall out of ignorance or spleen follow the examples either of Baronius Spondanus and Alemannus or of Evagrius long before them so inconsiderately and falsely blasting the glorious memory of that most Christian most Catholick most pious and virtuous Prince as if he had been not only a violator of Ecclesiastical Immunity and an Usurper of the Sacerdotal Office in many respects but a Defender and Believer of manifest Heresie (a) Haeresis Apthartodocitarum sive Incorruptibilium vel Phantasiastarum viz. of that which believed or taught our Saviours flesh to have been alwayes incorruptible and as if he had therefore been eternally damn'd to Hell if any I say except or object thus against my alledging the Facts of Justinian it will be satisfaction enough at present to let him know 1. That Evagrius who is the first Author of this Relation and Invective against Justinian writ onely by hear-say of that matter as who both writ and ended his History long after Justinian's death viz. in the Twelfth year of Mauritius the Emperor * Justinian dyed an Chr. 565. The twelfth year of Mauritius was an Chr. 595. which was thirty years after Justinian's death 2. That the Christian World both East and West in those very dayes of Evagrius held a far other opinion of Justinian's Faith as may appear even out of Pope Agatho's Letter to the Emperours Constantinus Heraclius and Tiberius who Reigned both successively after Justinian and
Procurator and his maintaining or asserting The Diffusive Church onely to be Infallible proved false 69 c. Their fourth Allegation in the same manner proved false 76. Their other impertinent or unconcluding Allegations considered but more especially at large their example or precedent of Mattathias and the Maccabees against Antiochus 79 c. Their Latin Postscript considered 83. Three several Formularies of a profession of Allegiance made by them and a fourth offered 85 86 87. The Provincial and Diffinitory of the Franciscans dealt with at Multifernan by the Procurator to Sign the Remonstrance delay and why 69 90. They before with some others disclaimed the Remonstrance by a Publick Instrument and sent an Agent to Flanders to get it condemn'd 91. Nevertheless Father Antony O Docharty Provincial of the Franciscans gives privately under his hand to the Procurator a Paper of Permission for those of his Order to subscribe the Remonstrance and approves it himself in his Letter to the Duke of Ormond Lord Lieutenant 93. And yet he carried not himself in that matter of the Remonstrance or approbation of it either before or after in any wise candidly or sincerely much less constantly ib. Nobility and Gentry at Dublin Sign the Remonstrance and write to all the Counties of Ireland to invite them to a concurrence 95 96. The Lord Lieutenant countermands the sending about any of the many Duplicats of this Circular Letter and why 97. Gentry of the County of Wexford and Citizens of that Town Sign the Remonstrance Pag. 98 c. Censure and Condemnation of the Remonstrance by the Faculty of Divines at Louain 102. Letter of Father James de Riddere a Dutch-man and Commissary General over the Franciscan Order in the Provinces as well of the Low-Countries and some of those of Upper Germany as those of England Ireland Scotland Denmark to Father Redmund Caron Citing him and the rest of the Irish Franciscan Subscribers of the Remonstrance to appear at Rome or Bruxels 104. Father Caron's brief Reply from London 105. Father Walsh the Procurator's more diffuse Reply expostulating the case with the said Commissary at large out of the Canons and Reason 106. from thence to 115. The said Commissary General 's brief Answer to the Procurator 115. Act of a National Congregation of Forreign Franciscans but wherein nevertheless were present Representatives for the Franciscan Provinces of England and Ireland against the Irish Franciscan Subscribers of the Remonstrance and the same Act kept private 116. The four grounds of the Louain Censure 117. Answer to the first of them 118. To the second 119. To the third 124. To the fourth 143. and from thence to 436. Seal of Confession to a Priest in what cases and how far binding treated of at large from 124 to 142. Ecclesiastical Immunity or the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks from the Coercive Lawful and Christian Authority of the Supreme Civil Magistrate not to be proved either by Divine Law Positive 148. Or from the Divine Law Natural i. e. Law of Nature 163. Or from the Civil Law 182. Or from the Canon Law 195. That 't is in the power either of Pope or Church to grant such Exemption not probable by Reason 217. No such Exemption de facto made by any Pope 230. On the contrary That the Clergy is not exempted from the very coercive power of the Supreme Temporal even Lay-Magistrate proved first by Theological Arguments 243. Next by Holy Scripture 272. Then by the interpretation or sense of the same Holy Scripture as delivered by the Holy Fathers even Popes themselves in their Commentaries 300. In the fourth place by the practice as well of Holy Popes as of other Holy Fathers 314. In the fifth by the practice consequently of Christian Princes 345. Lastly by the very Canons even Papal of the Catholick Church 364. Remaining Objections answerâ—d 374. The Doctrine of Marsilius de Padua and Joannes de Janduno examined at large and compared c. 375. and from thence to 399 though this latter page be Printed falsely and 379 put instead of 399. The great Argument for the Exemption of Ecclesiastical persons c. derived from St. Thomas of Canterbury â—s opposition to King Henry II and from his Martyrdom c. treated at large from 399 to 436. The sixteen Customs or Laws opposed by that Holy man 407 408 409. The ancient municipal Laws of England concerning the punishment of Church-men for Murder Felony c viz. the Laws of the Saxon Danish and Norman Kings before Henry II or those of Inas Alured Ethelred Edgar Edmund Guthrun Ethelstan Canutus S. Edward William the Conqueror Henry I and King Stephen 414 415 416 417. Four several Answers to the foresaid grand Argument The First of them 418. Second 424. Third 430. Fourth Pag. 431. The Author relies or onely or principally on the two first Answers 431. St. Thomas of Canterbury why justly esteemed a Martyr 418 and from thence to 431. The heighth and amplitude of Exemption for Clerks i. e. Church-men in England formerly And it no less complain'd of 436. Contemporary Authors of good Repute condemn St. Thomas of Canterbury 433 434. St. Thomas of Canterbury vindicated from Treason 437. and from thence to 462. The LXXVII Section out of all the former Thirteen or Fourteen Sections upon or concerning Ecclesiastical Immunity infers the final conclusion of all and consequently and very particularly justifies the Irish Remonstrance of the year 1661 against the Louain Censure by four several Arguments or Syllogisms 463 and from thence to 487. Return to the relation of pure matter of Fact 488. Paper given by Gerrot Moor Esq to the Lord Lieutenant 489. A second Paper given by Patrick Daly Vicar-General of Ardmagh 490. A third Paper given by James Dempsy Vicar-Apostolical of Dublin and Capitulary of Kildare 492. Five Reasons why the Anti-remonstrants grew very insolent about June 1644. 493. A Proclamation issued by the Lord Deputy together with another accident allayes their Insolence 494. Two Letters the one from the Provincial the other from the Diffinitory of the Franciscans sitting at Multifernan to the Procurator 498. Their Letter to the Belgick Commissary General 499. The Procurator's Letter to the said Commissary 500. Cardinal Francis Barberin's Letter and Memorial therein inclosed to the said Commissary against the Procurator Father Caron and rest of the Franciscan Remonstrants with the same Commissaries Answer to the Cardinal 505 506. That Commissaries Letter answering Sir Patrick O Moledy 509. Internuncio de Vecchiis Conference with and verbal Message by Father Gearnon to Caron and Walsh 510. The Procurator's Conference at London with the said Belgick Apostolical Internuncius Hieronymus de Vecchiis 511. The same Internuncio 's Letter to Father Matthew Duff alias Lyons 513. His Letter also to Father Bonaventure O Bruodin 515. Observations on the Letters of de Vecchiis and other Roman-Ministers 516. The three Negative Articles of England with the Roman-Catholick Subscribers both Lay-men and Church-men 522 523. Doctor
sinful obedience to the will of others Because the Procurator had out of a particular regard of such honest men of their Society in Ireland as joyn'd with him formerly in the differences with the Nuntio and out of an esteem and affection also for their Society in it self as considered in its primitive foundation institution and observance and in its labours for the training up of youth laying aside the latter prejudices brought upon it by those inconsiderat works of some though too many of their chief writers because I say the Procurator had for those reasons ventur'd so fairly and earnestly both in his More Ample Account and in his private discourses lately and earnestly with some persons of highest rank in both Kingdoms to vindicate as much as in him lay the Irish Jesuits though not every individual of them from those aspersions the generality of that Order lyes under amongst Protestants at least in England and from such aspersions indeed against their practises and against their principles or doctrine not of deposition only but of equivocation mental reservation and of the lawfulness of changing opinions resolutions and practices too at pleasure according to their other maximes of extrinsick probability and in all matters whatsoever and because he had done so much herein that whereas before those great persons had no inclination at all to receive any kind of declaration of Allegiance or faithfulness from men of such principles as the foresaid printed Authors argue in their opinions the Society in general to be yet he prevailed so far with them as not to involve the Fathers in Ireland in the same esteem with such others of the same Order in some other Countries as had so justly deserved their blame and censure 9. To that other excuse common to the three late Orders as well Capuchins and Carmelits as Jesuits the answer was That the Princes or States permission of or connivence with them should more be regarded then that either of Ordinaries or pre-existent Regulars or of the Court of Rome it self And this they could not expect in reason if they they appeared not zealous of His Majesties lawful rights and prerogatives in all temporal matters and for the peace and safety of his People and Kingdoms at least if they shewed themselves perverse and peevish against either or against so lawful and necessary a duty as is a bare naked Remonstrance or Declaration of their loyal principles and affections where and when so justly expected from them by and to assure His Majesty of their better carriage hereafter then Himself or his Father of glorious memory had found in the late wars of their Countrey And if by their cheerful hearty concurrence to such demonstrations of duty they merited a better opinion hereafter to be had of them by His Majesty and great Ministers of State and such as would really deserve protection they needed not fear the opposition of others whatsoever whiles they behaved themselves as men of discretion and their profession should 10. To that Bugbear which those of the Secular Clergy alledged to excuse themselves it was said That they very well knew it was a meer pretence That the Shoo did not really pinch them there That albeit the Regulars were numerous and of esteem yet not of so great or prevalent as in such a matter or any at all which had reason for it and for the Secular Clergy could any way bear them down even in case the Regulars did not concur with them That they were the Pastors and Leaders of the Flock by power command and law of the Church and their authority and jurisdiction established by the Canons from the very beginning That the Regulars had no such authoritative commanding power nor subjection due unto them from the people but was voluntary in the internal Court of Conscience in foro paenitentiali or only in the private auricular confessional seat That besides it had no kind of colour but their example would be immediatly followed by all Regulars by some freely and heartily who were otherwise themselves our of judgment and affection too so principled and so affected and only expected their authority to back them by others out of shame and fear to see by any further opposition themselves reduced to a streight of giving other reasons then such as they could not own or maintain and of discovering so the true cause rebellious principles and affections and consequently of seeing themselves houted at by all sober and good people even of their own religion and communion And as for the false aspersion and scandal raised against that Remonstrance amongst some of the Commons as if it signified in effect as much as the Oath of Supremacy it was themselves suffered that of meer purpose to go oâ— and they might with one single declaration as easily disabuse all pâ—ssessed therewith as it was raised without any ground That no Church-man even the most malicious would before any understanding man own the raising or forwarding of it however it was known that some few of them in private corners did whisper it to the illiterate as I could name a certain Prior of the Dominicans Order Father Michael Fullam to have done most unconscientiously that I may say no more though chiefly of purpose to excuse by such diabolical forgeries their own opposition when upbraided therewith by good honest wel-meaning people as some few others of them had the impudence and I could instance Father W. L. of the Society and Father D. D. of the Franciscans for a long time to say and aver too that the King as being a Protestant should not be prayed for at all by Catholicks either publickly or privatly though some few others also and somwhat more warily though erroneously enough too and against plain Scriptures both in the Old and new Testament and the continued practice of the primitive Church distinguish'd the manner of praying for him and a long time held and indoctrinated others that he should not be prayed for so as to desire the temporal safety of his Crown or Person victory over his enemies or any prosperous earthly success unto him at all but his conversion only and repentance in this life and salvation in the next without any further addition That as this heretical doctrine was soon and quite beaten down by the contrary practice of the whole Clergy both Secular and Regular which now we see and hear at all Chappels and Altars so that calumny and scandal would throughout the Kingdom cease in one fortnight if they pleased to declare it such as they are bound in conscience truth and honesty to do 11. As for the pick of some to the Procurator whom they falsely suppose to be the Author of the Remonstrance though had he been so he would rather glory therein then be ashamed thereof or of the Declaration of loyalty inserted in that Remonstrance if not peradventure for being any way or in part defective or not home enough in some things
amongst all those 72. Canons pretended for any such opinion of those Fathers How graunting even this very Canon particularly assented too and enacted by those Fathers unanimously which yet cannot according to truth be graunted no more can follow hence but that this Canon and for as much as it contains any temporal punishment or penalty of confiscation deprivation forfeiture c of estate was made by the Pope not as Pope but as a temporal Prince and made so by him for the temporal patrimony of St. Peter and other territories of the Roman See and for other Kingdoms or States made such not by the Bishops or their authority but by the authority of other temporal Princes of Christendom who all assisted in that Council by themselves in person or by Embassadours How therefore and for many other reasons which may be seen at large in Widdringtons last Rejoynder chap. 9.10.11 c. that Canon comprehends not in word or sense at all any Supream or Soveraign Princes or States but inferiour Lords or inferiour Magistrates onely according to the Doctrine and maximes even of very many of the very best Canonists themselves How onely too it is at most but a Canon of Discipline not even for that part of it which was proper to Bishops or to the Spiritual power purely such and consequently as to its vertue depending even herein of reception by those concerned and of not being abrogated after by contrary use where it was once received in what ever sense it was received or if ever indeed in any place received How finally Cardinal Bellarmine himself moved questionless by the strength and cleerness of all or at least of many of these reasons given hitherto concerning either the nullity or insignificancy of this Canon or of the rest alleadged so vainly as Canons of the 4th Lateran Council in his great Works of controversie and Books therein de Romano Pontifice where he amassed together all his strength and all the Councils he then saw might be with any colour alleadged by him to prove the Popes pretence of power for deposing Princes or inflicting on them temporal punishments omitted notwithstanding any kind of mention of this Lateran Council or Canon so little did he value it then Nor had after at any time recourse thereunto before he saw himself baffled and beaten out of all his former arguments either of Scriptures Canons or other his pittiful congrueties of reason by Doctor William Barclay or Barclay the Father in his learned Work de Potestate Papae An et quatenus in Reges et Principes Seculares ius et imperium habeat And how then for saving his own credit all he could in his reply to the said William Barclay though dead long before this reply he thought fitt to impose on the world by this unsignificant if not plainly forged Canon of that Lateran Council as Lessius another of his own Society and some time a famous Professor of Divinity in their House at Lovain had done before him to render the English Oath of Allegiance that I mean which is in the Statute of King Iames odious and uncatholick upon this account But withal how this most eminent Cardinal was no less shamefully the second time foiled in all his allegations and arguments or in those of the said Reply and amongst the rest very notably in his allegation of this Council and Canon and foiled so I say by Iohn Barclay or Barclay the Sonn in his Pietas Ioannis Barclay or his Publicae pro Regibus ac Principibus et private pro Guilielmo Barclay Parente Vindiciae Adversus Roberti S. R. E. Cardinalis Bellarmini Tractatum de Potestate Summi Pontificis in rebus Temporalibus and particularly for what concerns this Council and this third Canon of it in his Examen in Prolegomena Rob. Bellar num 76. How for what concerns that other Council of Lyons there is not one word in History or in the Acts of that Council nay nor in the very Sentence or Bull of Innocentius the Fourth who there deposed Frederick that may warrant this part of their allegation or of their saying it is or was the opinion of that Council of Lyons How on the contrary the very title or beginning of the Bull it self of Deposition sufficiently insinuats the contrary where it is said only Sacro praesente not Sacro approbante Concilio That the Acts and History which may be read briefly in M. L. Baïl that Parisian Doctors late Sum of General Councils witness the suddain horrour and amazement of that Council when they heard so unexpectedly a sentence of Deposition pronounced first by the Pope himself that is by his own mouth and after immediatly a formal one read out of paper by his command That Albertus Stadensis (a) Papa in jam dicto Coâ—cilio scilicet in die S Jacobi contra Imperatorem excommunicationis sententiam renovavit eum ab Imperiali Culmine authoritate propria deposuit hanc depositionem per totam Ecclesiam promulgavit praecipiens sub interminatione excommunicationis ut nullus eum Imperatorem de cetero nominaret Albertus Stadensis in Chronico in his Chronicle ad annum 1245. most particularly and expresly tells this Sentence was pronounced not by the authority of the Council but by the only proper authority of Innocent alone That in case that Council of Lyons had approved of it as the truth is they did not yet nothing thence could be concluded for that Councils opinion of a power in the Pope or themselves or in the Church however taken purely as the Church to depose any other or any supream temporal Prince Because that Frederick as Innocent that very same fourth Pope of that name who deposed him so alledgeth in his Bull of Deposition That the said Frederick I say had bound himself by an Oath of Allegiance to him Innocent the 3d. formerly to wit when he had illegally usurped the Empire in pursuance of another sentence of Deposition given by the self same Innocent the Third against Otho the former Emperour And because the Empire is not Hereditary nor hath been for many ages And consequently may be such or might have been such in the dayes of the said Innocent the Fourth as might have admitted the Popes negative voice in the election and further too his provision in case of a Tyrant or Usurper But whether it was then so or no I am not concerned at all nor is our present Controversie concerned in it For in other Princes especially Soveraign and Hereditary the case is different As hath been well observed by the Author of the Latin Treatise which begins Rex Pacificus de Potestate Papae And for the Emperour how elective soever I am sure he hath Lawyers both Civilians and Canonists nay and great Divines too enough to defend his rights from any kind of subjection to the Pope in temporals as even Frederick himself had For sayes the foresaid Albertius Stadensis Quidam Principum cum
inflicted other then what ought to be understood by those other words directed prescribed enjoyned commanded or mean other means or wayes of execution than those are purely spiritual or ecclesiastical censures only Fifthly and lastly They would find their allegations false where they say that when any is excommunicated he is forbidden all civil commerce conversation with the Faithful this according to the doctrine of the diffusive Church For albeit the Casuists or Summists have this rule Os orare vale communio mensa negatur to be observed by the faithful towards excommunicated persons that are nominatim denunciati or declared by their own proper names and by the authority and special sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge to have fallen into the censure of excommunication and therefore to be shunn'd yet even those very Casuists and by the doctrine and practice of both Diffusive and Representative Church and even out of the very Canons of Pope Gregory the Seventh himself against his own former against all other former later censures of all other Ecclesiastical Canons or Judges whether Popes or not Popes have this special exception Vtile lex humile res ignorata necesse Which special Exception exempts from that general rule the Wife and Children and Servants and Subjects and all such as by a superiour law of God or Man are bound to obedience duty service or charity salutation reverence respect or even to any commerce or conversation meerly civil and so exempts them that nothing is more certain then that the Church as purely such hath no power from Iesus Christ or from the nature of Excommunication as it is purely Ecclesiastical much less as it is Evangelical or grounded in the Gospel not to exempt them For the Church's power of excommunication is no more no greater nor the nature or essence of this censure as from the Church no other then what can be derived from that passage Si Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi tanquam Ethnious publicanus Mat. 18. And it is plain that one may be treated as a Heathen or Publican by bare exclusion from a religious or sacred communion or from that which is only in such things paying him notwithstanding all both natural and civil observances enjoyned otherwise by the laws of God and man As we know the Synagogue of the Jews did pay to the Roman though heathen Governours and People and as we know they observed towards others even the very worst of Publicans So that other effects of excommunication or those annexed unto it by Papal Canons which disenable any to any kind of civil rights or take away any such or hinder any duty are meerly accidental meerly temporal not spiritual and consequently not binding at all out of the Popes own temporal Principality but in as much as and where they are approved of and received by the other temporal Princes States and Laws nor even binding in his own temporal Principality as proceeding from the Pope as Pope or as the Supream Bishop or as having any power from Christ or the Church as a Church but as enacted by him as a temporal Prince and by that meer temporal power the Emperours or People or both have conferr'd upon or continue or suffer in Him by tacit consent or connivence or submission or otherwise soever Of all which I have treated more at large in my Latin Theological Work of Answers c. Out of which though yet not published in print I give this Latin Animadversion as at present wanting time to translate it Alii effectus hujusce majoris excommunicationis partim sunt ex jure naturae ut quisque sibi à mâ—â—bidis caveat ne eundem morbum contrabat partim ex Scripturae monitis ac institutis cum talibus neque cibum suntere 1 Cor. 5.11 neque ave ei dixeritis 2. Ioh. 1.10 Vbi advertas licet haec non posse dici praeceptu vel Dei vel Apostolorum in stricto seu proprio sensu praeceptorum uti nimirum distinguuntur á consiliis seu uti praecepta dicuutur ad peccatum saltim quod mortale sit obligare imo vel equidem ad veniale Neque solum non esse â—alia praecepta obligationis praecisa nimirum circumstantia legis naturae in aliquibus casibus personis aliquibus sed ne quidem consilia perfectionis data omnibus singulis atque in quibuscunque eventibus indiscriminatim sed aliquibus tantum qui nempe non sunt ex alio capite seu lege Dei vel naturae alià s obligati ad recipiendum excommunicatos in domum cibumque cum illis manducandum salutemque apprecandam ejusmodi salutatione Et quo ad praeceptum res est clara primò quoad priorem locum qui ex Paulo est ut legenti caput illud totum manifestè patet Vitandi enim periculi scandali gratia corruptionisque a fermento malitiae ut v. 7 admonet Paulus v. 10. ac 11. non commisceri hominibus ejusmodi querum vetat ibi consortium Ergo ubi non est periculum scandali neque erit vetatio coâ—â—ortii Praeterea ex ipsa ratione Pauli data v. 10. quod nolit Christianis prohibitum commisceri cum fornicariis quos ibi vocat hujus mundi aut avaris aut rapacibus aut idolis servientibus manifestum est neque mentis ejus fuisse modò ubi regna integra sunt Christiana ac mundus penè prohibere commercium v. 11. cum iis aliis qui fratres nominantur id est Christiani similiter etiamsi fornicatores aut avari aut idolis servientes aut maledici aut ebriosi aut rapaces Ratio enim a Paulo data priori versu ac pro licentia ibidem concessa est Quoniam oporteret christianos ex mundo exire si nollent cum istis Ethnicis commisceri Atqui haec aeqnè nunc militat in mundo Christiano pro commercio cum aljis Christianis licito etsi hâ— alii sint ejusmodi vitiis inquinati Si enim non liceret cuiquam Christiano communicare cum alio qui frater nominatur estque nihilominus aut avarus aut rapax aut ebriosus aut maledicus primùm sanè foret necessum plantato jam Evangelio et refrigescente in omnibus penè etiam Catholicis charitate primâ exire de mundo Denique tota praxis ac doctrina Ecclesiae Catholicae virorumque timoratissimorum nâ—n patitur aliam Pauli interpretationem Ecquis enim putat modo illicitum peccatumve esse cibum sumere cum avaro Catholico aut ebriosa aut maledico c Et sanè perquam notum est post Extravagantem Martini Quinti in Concilio Constantiensi etiamsi constet ejusmodi vel pessimos quosque fratres in Excommunicationem expressam incidisse licere nihilominus iisdem communicare etiam in divinis antequam denuntientur nominatim a Judice Ecclesiastico nisi forte sint notorii Clericorum percussores Quod tamen non liceret per Concilium vel Pontificem
by the sole vertue of their Sacerdotal or spiritual power for I did not then as much as dream of any such foolish consequence but against the pretence of an inherent natural civil and supream power in the people themselves as a people or civil society whether Priests otherwise or no Priests or mixt of both A farre more takeing though at least now under the new testament a false and vain pretence also To that precedent of the Macchabees alleadg'd out of the old Testament to justifie this pretence of such an inherent natural not spiritual power in Christian Subjects to rebell against their lawful Prince on pretext of oppression either in their religious or civil rights or both I answered briefly thus Pag. 94. of The More Ample Account That neither the praised valour noble attempts victories and atchivemenâ—s of the Machabees can prejudice this doctrine Because that as in their dayes yet the wisdome of the celestial Father our Saviour Christ was not come to enlighten the world or to teach the Jewes in particular the perfect understanding of their own law or to give a more excellent one to all Nations of the Earth so they relied still on the first donation of Palestine made by God himself immediatly to Abraham for the children of Jacob and made againe unto them in the Law of Moâ—es and doubtless were perswaded that no violence or force or conquering armes of the Asian Kings could devest them of that title which God himself appearing visibly had invested them with Is there any word here of such uncivil and â—rreverent language as ignorance of their own 〈◊〉 charged by me on the Macchabees Or who knows not that such perfect understanding thereof as the holy Jesus caught the world after is quite an other thing then ignorance simply spoken or such ignorance of the litteral sense of their law which would have been at that time or in the dayes of the Macchabees or any time before or after from the first giving of their law till Jesus came accounted ignorance by the knowing doctors of the said law and consequently have rendred those Macchabees guilty of a sinful neglect and hainous transgression And who sees not I made out their plea of justification not at all from such ignorance nor even from an imperfect understanding but from the immediate donation of Palestine to them as to their Predecessors and Successors by God himself appearing so visibly and manifoldly and by the clear express letter also of his Law unto them And therefore that I had sufficiently ruined all the strength of the argument built on this example by rebellious Christian Subjects for their pretence of such inherent supream natural power being they can pretend no such visible appearance donation law of God to themselves or to their Predecessors or Successors but know all to be quite contrary But after all suppose I had not made so clear demonstrations against such pretence of a temporal civil or natural power in the people or that I had not given so clear and satisfactory solution to this argument for it what can be thence concluded for the supernatural and purely spiritual power of Christian Priests just a meer nothing So that those Gentlemen might have spared themselves and me some labour in this point and particularly both in this fling they had here at my doctrine in my More Ample Account and in all that follows to no purpose in their own paper of that other answer which they say some do give but I am sure I never gave nor found my self necessitated to give Yet I profess my thanks unto them in this one respect here That they have given the occasion to clear yet more abundantly and perhaps too more satisfactorily at least to some that of the Macchabees I mean as it is urged for the pretended inherent right of the people as a civil or temporal Society though not as a spiritual or not as a Christian Church but still as a people purely or naturally considered I did verily intend to add in that same little Book of mine and to that now mentioned passage for a second answer what I shall here But having had no time to review that passage then when the Printer came to it I am now heartily glad of this occasion that I may yet with-all evidence and clearness imaginable ruine this very strongest argument out of Scripture whereof some especially of our Opposers make so much use as of the most specious argument can be for that right of the people at least as of a people though not as a Christian Church You are therefore good Reader to understand that this Antiochus against whom Mattathias begin the warr and his Sons the Machabeans continued it nobly and fortunatly was not that Antiochus the Great King of Asia who in the year of the world 3742 and before Christ 222. and either by title of conquest or of a just war against Ptolomey Philopater and his Son called Ptolomey the Famous King of Egypt and Jewry and against Scopas General to this Ptolomey the Famous or by title of the free and voluntary submission of the Jews themselves to him or by both titles was their lawful King as also a good bountiful and very favourable King unto them as long as he lived after I say that that Antiochus against whom Mattathias took arms and encouraged the rest of his Countreymen to take arms was not this Great and so good Antiochus but another many years after who was surnamed Epiphanes though King likewise of Asia who only and by the reasonable practiâ—es or some few Iews surprized Ierusalem in the year of the world â—79â— and before Christ 168. years That the Jews since their first free and voluntary submission to Alexander the Great himself in person and in the year of the world 3630 and before Christ 334. and since the death soon after of the said Alexander the year before Christ 322. were upon the partition of the Macedonias conquest and Empire peaceably subject first to Ptolomaeus Lagus and then after to his Son Ptolomey Philadelphus who had the Bible translated by the 72. Interpreters and so forth in a continual series to the other Ptolomeys Kings of Egypt only the few years excepted wherein Antiochus the Great prevailed so as I have said against Ptolomey Philopater or his Son Ptolomey the Famous and until this Great Antiochus contracted aliance with this Ptolomey by the marriage of Cleopatra upon which they were on both sides at peace again and all things restored to to their former condition and the command of Ierusalem and the rest of Iewry as likewise of Celosyria Phaenicia and other bordering Countreys returned to the Ptolomeys and the tributes as in former time since Lagus gathered by and paid to their Officers who were the very Jews themselves so it is plain and manifest in History that matters continued so until the dayes of this Antiochus Epiphanes King of Asia or Syria of whom our present
your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what forraign power or authority soever And further we profess that all absolute Princes and supream Governours of what Religion soever they be are Gods Lieutenants on Earth and that obedience is due to them according to the laws of each Common-wealth respectively in all civil and temporal affairs And therefore we do here protest all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary And we do hold it impious and against the word of God to maintain that any private Subject may kill or murder the Annointed of God His Prince though of a different belief and Religion from his and we abhorr and detest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked These being the Tenets of our Religion in point of Loyalty and in submission to your Majesties Authority and our observance and veneration of or Communion with the Sea of Rome in matters purely spiritual no way intrenching on that perfect obedience which by our birth by the laws of God and man we are bound to pay to your Majesty our natural and lawful Soveraign _____ Prostrate at your Majesties Feet we humbly beg that all your Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects of Ireland who shall by subscription or consent concurr to this publick Protestation of Loyalty be protected from persecution for the profession or exercise of their Religion and all former Laws upon that account against them repealed Sir Thomas Esmond Nich. fitz Henry Garret Sutton Nicholas Stafford Iohn Keating Nicholas Maisterson Robert Devereux Peter Edmonds Iames Deverenx Richard Wadding William Roche Thomas Harper Nicholas Stapoll Iohn Doyle Pa. Doyle Philip Lewis George Iophinge Charles Kensly Philip Lamport Bar. fitz Henry Iohn Sutton Barnaby Connor Iohn Devereux of Dips Edward Maisterson Thomas Rosseter Richard Whitty Robert Busher Edward Hay Luke Turnor Anthony Hay Thomas fitz Henry Richard Cullen Iohn Lewis Stephen Synott George Chevers Mathew Chevers Baltazar Codd Ha. Hore Iesper Stafford Teigh Morcho Robert Stafford Iohn Stafford Walter Butler Hugh Cananogh of Bollinreddy Iohn Devereux Edward fitz Harrys William Furlong Richard Shortal Patrick Chevers Patrick Synot Iohn Prichans Barnaby Conor Iames Butler Martin Synot Robert Redmond Nicholas fitz Iohn Iohn Wadding Iames Nevil Iohn fitz Henry Iohn Morphy Philip Devereux Iohn Chevers Richard Wadding of Ballicogly Iohn Cod of Garrilough Owen Ferrall of Corrcannan Dennis Stafford of Balleconnor Mathew Hay Iames fitz Harry Richard Dake Thomas Chevers Marcus Synnot Iohn Nevel William Stafford Philip Roch Philip Stafford Morrish Morphy Morgan Cuillon Patrick Roch Richard Chevers Richard Conniâ— Patrick Codd Robert Codd Walter Codd Daniel Morcho Anthony Broders Iames Broders We the Roman Catholick Surviving Burgesses Proprietors and Freemen of the Town of Wexford as Members of the County of Wexford do subscribe hereunto as to the annexed Faithful Protestation humble Remonstrance of the Gentry of the said County owning the same and every clause sentence and word therein contained in the manner and form therein expressed and set forth being penned so by our unanimous consent and assent thereunto Nicholas fitz Henry Peter Esmond Thomas Chevers Nicholas Hay Andrew Esmond Iohn Keating William Hay Richard Lamport Iohn Codd William Synot William Hay Patrick Redmonds Iohn Connor Thomas Codd Toby Cavanagh Iohn Bolion Richard Vell Richard Hay Andrew Vitte Thomas Turnor Peter Colfer Luke Warrrant Richard Codd Iohn Walse Iohn Devereux Philip Devereux Richard Râ—â—â—ford Iames Barly Patrick Hughes Francis Rooâ— Richard Hay Nicholas Spaâ—on Philip Malqâ— Nicholas Reâ—neâ— Peter Nevel Lawrence 〈◊〉 Peter Lamporâ— Iames Purcell Martin Brian Iohn Hay Christopher Jordan Walter Nevil Iohn Hore Richard Green Richard Cogly Walter Codd Valentin Burn Iohn Wadding William Stafford Arthur Bryan Barnaby Turnor Walter Codd Edward Sutton Barlamy Hay Philip Rosseter Philip Walsh Philip Roch Patrick Morphy Thomas Codd Nicholas Whit Garalt Gavanim Patrick Money Walter Cogley Iohn Wadding Iohn Comrick Iohn Cogle Lawrence Devereux Iohn Codd Philip Brown Iohn Walsh Robert Hassan Edward Synot Richard Witte Robert Maxuell William Byrlin Iames Walsh Robert Rosseter Mortagh Morphy Iohn fitz Walter David Singon Thomas Coullum Dennys Stafford Richard Codd Peter Wadding Iames Lewis Iames Clooke Iames Synot Anthony Kearny Philip Morogh Stephen Stafford Luke Turnor Thomas Synor Iames Toole Iohn Mayler Philip Stafford Nicholas Stafford Alexander Maxell Richard Hay Iohn Rochford David White Dennis Edwards Morogh Donogh Iohn Chevers Nicholas Walsh William Brian Jasper Hay Am. Sutton Richard Synot Thomas Clook Christopher Deoran Nicholas Walsh Iohn Jeron XLVII It was now Easter and April or May or thereabouts in 61. for I do not exactly remember the month but I know 't was soon after the plot of that same year for surprising the Castle of Dublin was discovered openly when the Agent of the Anti-Remonstrants Father Iohn Brady was returned from Flanders and arrived at Dublin having before he came taken care or certainly others for him to send hether many copyes of the Lovain Censure I mean the short one or Censure of the Lovain Theological Faculty against the Remonstrance dated by them on St. Thomas of Canterbury's day Which day peradventure they fixed on of purpose as most proper for such a Censure being that holy renowned Prelate Thomas of Canterbury strove so much for that Ecclesiastical Immunity against Henry the Second and against those his Statutes agreed upon at Carlile and Clarendon even by all the Representatives of the English Catholick Clergie in those days and even by St. Thomas of Canterbury himself at both those places which some do think is given up by the Remonstrance as I note in an other place But forasmuch as I speake by way of some distinction of a short Censure the Reader is to observe That when this Lovain Theological Faculty had been wrought upon by the Authority and power of the then Internuncio at Bruxels Hier nimus de Vecchiis Abbot commendatary of Mons Regalis in Italy but at the instance and by the sollicitation and importunity of both the said Agent Father Brady and of some others of the Irish Priests as well secular as regular both Dominicans and Franciscans residing in their several Irish Colledges and Convents there to take the said Remonstrance of 61. into their consideration and censure it so as to render it not only odious but sacrilegious as farre as their Censure could and thereby fright to a refixion as they speake those had already subscribed and from any filture subscription all such as had not yet they culld out of the said Remonstrance certain clauses or single propositions therein formally or virtually implyed and according the stile of Vniversities considered such apart and censured them adding their reasons or grounds how unreasonable or groundless soever I say nothing at present why they had censured them So that this Censure of theiâ—s which was indeed their first original and genuine Censure in the whole contained 7 or 8 sheets or there abouts as those have seen and read
such be amongst the Subscribers can make themselves ready for the voyage before they can fit themselves with necessaries for so long a journey before they can get money to bear their charges and Passes to save them harmless the time will be wherein according to our constitutions the Commissary Visitor must go about the Province at home in Circuit And if so wherefore a journey so chargeable tedious and no less dangerous specially of so great a multitude and of persons too not convicted nor confessed nay of persons never once heard to speak or write for themselves never yet as much as once any way questioned either by messenger or by letter to this very day What I say further is That it would very well become your Paternity and the Minister General to consider seriously with your selves what your selves would do if your own condition or case in the Dominions of Spain Germany Franâ—e Poland Venice or other States and Principalities of Italy were like ours here If banishment proscription treason death it self the worst of evils and the vilest kind too of death were established by law where you live against the maintainers of the great Pontiffs pretended power either direct or indirect for deposing your own King and bereaving him of Crown and life together If you had now your selves groan'd for some ages under the yoke of severest laws against your Religion led the life of slaves in servitude and bondage if your Altars had been destroyed your Churches polluted your Holies contaminated your Goods confiscated and persons out-lawed And that now at last after so great and so long sufferings you saw a beam of light discovering some comfort some fair hopes of seeing in your own dayes under a pious King a cessation of your evils end of your persecutions restitution of your people liberty of religion intended for you and nothing else expected from you by a good lawful and merciful Prince your own natural Prince I mean but only that you would under your hands-writing renounce the late bloody horrid assertion of a Sermarine or Bellarmine Comitolus or a Suarezius a Gretzer Becan Lessius or any other such one or more Neotericks whether Divines or Canonists or both Assertions publickly and frequently condemned heretofore even by the most famous Universities Prelates Clergie and people of the greatest Catholick Nations of Europe and besides that you would only profess against assertions so strangely enormous pernicious and scandalous of such the foresaid few Divines or Canonists to be unalterably undispensably faithful in temporals to your own Monarch notwithstanding any attempts or machinations whatsoever of any person or power on earth even that of the great Pontiff to bereave your King of his temporal rights Scepter Crown or Life I say it would become your Paternitie and Minister General of the Order to consider with your selves coolely what you would think lawful to do in that case of your own what to determine as Christian Divines and what to declare promise and subscribe as faithful Subjects to your King Likewise to consider with your selves what then you would think of Caron Walsh or any others of your own Order that subscribed our above mentioned Form if I mean they in the now supposed case had the same power of or superiority over you which you indeed have over them and they used I say not abused it to estrange to alienate you and all other fellow Subjects from being so faithful to your King in his temporal Government to this end proceeded against troubled molested you with illegal summons and breach of Canons and did so too with the manifest prejudice of Catholick Religion and with the yet more special infamy hatred horrour of the Seraphick Institution amongst those are not of our Church Certainly prudent wise learned men men so zealous for Religion Faith and the service of God would alledge That there is no power given for destruction but for edification that we must rather obey God then any men whatsoever commanding against God Faith and Religion against the publick good or peace of a Catholick Nation so strangely of late and so many years together afflicted then men men too I say proceeding so either out of a certain blind obedience that sees not God or out of zeal that is not according to the knowledge of God or lastly and which is worst of all out of a sinful awe they stand in of other men who rule by power only domineering amongst the Clergie against the Prince of the Clergies precepts of Faith and examples of Life And what I finally say is That however your most reverend Paternities would carry your selves in the supposed case it concerns you in that wherein you are to be very careful and cautious that as the reverend Father Caron well adviseth in this matter or controversie if it be this indeed you intended in your Letter to the said Father your Paternities proceed religiously maturely and charitably or which is the same thing that without a just cause you proceed not to citations censures or any sentences whatsoever For when the sentence is either notoriously null by reason of an intollerable errour or through want of matter that is of a lawful cause or sin and this very sin to have a clear contumacy along with it or when the sentence is otherwise unjust by reason the substantial or essential form of judicial procedure such as the Canons and reason prescribe is not observed and much more when both that and this are manifest what fruit what effect can you hope thereof Certainly it appears out of the Canons and Doctors that a sentence of this nature obliges not Which you may see in cap. Venerabilibus Parag. potest quoque de sent Excom in 6. cap. per tuas Parag. nos igitur eod tit in Tâ—let l. i. c. 10. and Gandidus disquis 22. 24. dub 3. de Censur where he alledges Sâ—tus d. 22. q. 1. a. 2. and Suarez de Censur disp 6. sec 7 n. 52. averring moreover that when a censure is in this manner invalid or null in both Courts that is the internal of conscience and external of the Church its unnecessary to have an absolution as much as for caution as they speak With whom Henriques too l. 13. de Excommunicat cap. 15. Sayrus l. 1. de censur cap. 16. go along And as to the generality of the sentence all other Divines and Canonists Nay it appears out of that most learned and most holy Chancellor of the School of Paris Gerson de Excom consideratione 5tâ— tom 2. that a farr greater and more sinful contempt of the keyes of the Church is to be imputed to the Prelate or Ecclesiastical Judge so as is now said abusing his power then to the party censured if there be any comparison at all in the abuse Nay it further appears out of this most famous Divine that it may and is sometimes both meritorious in it self and honourable to the
Sir James Ware hath of an Irish King long before the English conquest whether the story be true or false to have gone to Rome out of devotion and layd down or offered up his Crown at St. Peters shrine Which if it had given a real title to the Pope or that See it must follow that the Bishop and See of Winchester hath as much great just certain and lawful to the Kingdoms of England Denmarke and all those others by inheritance or conquest belonging sometimes to Canutus For this devout King did no less there after he had checked the vain flattery of his Courtiers when upon a day sitting on the shore and the tyde coming in and they calling him Lord of Lands and Seas he commanding the floud not to advance and being not obeyed by the Waves but wett to some purpose presently and directly went to the Cathedral of Winchester and there offered up to God his Crown laying it on the high altar with resolution never more to put it on his head but acknowledg him the only Soveraign King of Sea and Land who commanded that little Wave to wet him And the only Original pretence of the Popes or See Apostolique's human right to England was the donation or submission of King Iohn to Innocent the thirds Legat at Dover Cardinal Pandulphus But who is so ignorant in Divinity as to pretend a right acquired by such a donation or submission were it absolutely certain as yet even Polidore Virgil himself seems to think it not to be forasmuch as he writes of it upon report onely Both law and reason tell us that a King cannot without consent of His Kingdom alien at the title thereof And Histories tell us that King Iohn who was an Usurper too for a long time at least made that donation or submission or whatever you call it directly against the Kingdom so farre he was from having the consent of his Peers people or Parliament That Henry the 3d. the Kingdom of England soon after the troubles were appeased expresly protested against it protested so even by their express Embassadour to that purpose the Archbishop of Canterbury even before in the presence of the General Councel of Lyons See Walsingame ad an 1245. and Harpsfield ad Sec. 14. c. 5. That so many laws made by all the three estates in Parliament under Edward the third and Richard the second which declare England to be an Empire and the King thereof to acknowledg no other on Earth above him but God alone did protest against it And the prescriptions of five entire ages confirm without all controule these protestations So that the Lovain Divines could not on coole and sober reflection but Judge this first ground either as to the first Original or continuance of it to be all composed of sand either as to England or Ireland or both For the same arguments are equally of force against that pretended gift of the Irish Monarch being that if we declined the likeness of it in all points or as to his intention of a reverential true acknowledgment of Gods power only or of a tye of himself and his Crown to be alwayes militant for the faith and confession of St. Peter or of a donary only of his bare Crown as to the materials of it not of the politick rights and power signified thereby to the Church of that holy Apostle or if we granted as we do not by any means That this Irish Monarch intended absolutely as much as in him to give up all the temporal Soveraignty of Ireland to that holy See yet whereas it appears not by any kind of Allegation History or Scroll that he was commission'd by the Provincial Kings or by the States of the Kingdom to do so such intention of his or such oblation donation or subjection as proceeding thence or made by him amounts to a meer nothing For no man gives that so as thereby to transferre a right which he is not empower'd by the laws to give As for the Bull or Bulls granted by Adrian the IV. to Henry the second for either the Lordship or Kingship for both were granted or at least are pretended to have been granted as may be seen in those copies extant in Baronius they are to no purpose at all in this matter Because if those we read in that great Annalist be true and not subreptitious or counter fit it is manifest out of the very tenour of them they are wholly grounded upon errour because the only ground alleadg'd in them for the Popes right to dispose of Ireland is That al Ilands on which the Sun of Justice that is Christian Religion did shine belonged to the See of Peter But whence this title came to the Ilands a lone more then to the continent nothing at all is pretended in those Bulls nor by any for them other then a meer forged imposture of donation by Constantine the great who yet is known to have never had the least footing in Ireland * As it is known that c. Constantinus d. 96. in Gratian. is not onely a meer Palea but speaks as well of the whole continent of Europe as of the Ilands For to pretend as a ground of them or of such donation or the right to make it Bellarmines indirect power in the Pope over the temporals of all Kings in ordine ad spiritualia besides that the restriction in the said Bulls to the Ilands alone and no extension to the Continent ruines this pretence or allegation it cannot be made use of by the Lovain Divines to justifie this first ground of their censure which is only meer humane right and that of Bellarmine is Divine as derived or pretended to be derived from Christ himself immediately But I confess the Lovain Divines were wary enough to decline this least they should bring on themselves a more dangerous censure from their own King and raise the power and just indignation of all Kings States and people even of their own communion to punish their temerity LIV. Nor can their next ground any whit more justifie their Censure The power of binding and loosing which the Catholick Churches of the Roman communion throughout the world acknowledge in the Pope or Church is that only which binds sinners in their sins or in just Ecclesiastical and meerly spiritual censures by denying them absolution from either clave non errante and that besides which enables them to lay binding commands or make binding laws Ecclesiastical and purely spiritual not against the laws of God and Canons of the Vniversal Church but conformable to both for the suppression of vice and furtherance of virtue And is that only which looseth sinners by absolving them in due circumstances from both sins and censures and further by dispensing with them sine prejudicio tertii in vowes or Oathes made to God alone or in other Obligations arising from the Canons of the Church only where a third person is not concern'd in point of
justice or such dispensation may be given without manifest injury to a third and besides where it is not repugnant to the law of God positive or natural And all this binding and loosing power in the Pope even in the whole Execution of it according to the Canons of the Vniversal Church and as farre as these Canons allow it as it is and will be religiously acknowledged and observed still by the Subscribers in all occasions so it is left wholly untouch'd unspoken of unmedled with but supposed still by the Remonstrance as a most Sacred Right not to be controverted much less denyed the Pope by any Catholick nor even to other Bishops of the Church for the portion belonging to them by the self same Canons But what hath this to do with the Lovain pretence of a power in the Pope to bind people by the Popes own peculiar laws Canons precepts or censures by Bulls or otherwise to do that which according to plain Scriptures practise of the primitive Church and Churches following for XI entire ages and according to the interpretation or sense delivered by Holy Fathers of those very Scriptures and according to the very first and clearest reflections also of natural reason must be vitious wicked and even most enormously wicked transgressions of those laws of God wherein neither Pope nor Vniversal Church have any power to dispense what to do with a pretended power in any to absolve from Subjection or command the Rebellion of Subjects against Soveraign Princes who are accountable to none for their temporals but to God Or what to do with binding or loosing to the prejudice and manifest injury not of one third person alone but of so many millions of third persons as there are people in a Kingdom or State This loosing is not of sin or of the penalties of sin but of virtue of Christian duties and divine injunctions Nor is such binding a binding to Holy righteousness but to Horrible depravedness And therefore both such binding and such loosing must be from no true power Divine or Humane from no Gospel of Jesus Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church nor from those Holy Keyes of knowledge or jurisdiction given St. Peter to open Heaven to penitents or shut it to impenitents nor from any Keyes at all but very false and errant Keyes if not right or true Keyes in this sense and to this purpose only that they set open the Gates of Hell first to receive all such unhappy Soules as make use of them and then to lock them in for ever Yet now that the Pope is and while he is or shall be continued a Soveraign temporal Prince in some part of Italy for the time hath been for many ages of Christianity even since Christian Religion was by law established when the Pope had no such not only Soveraign or supream but not even any inferiour subordinate temporal Princely power and may be so again for ought any man knows the Subscribers will freely grant the Lovain Divines That upon just grounds when truely such are or shall be the Pope may in the capacity of a temporal Prince but not of a Christian Bishop and may I say without any breach of the law of God declare and make Warr against the King of England always provided that he observe in all particulars what the law of God Nations and Nature require from him in the declaration or prosecution thereof And may do so with as much right as any other Soveraign Prince meerly temporal can but with no more certainly And further that the grounds of warr may possibly or in some extraordinary case be such on the Popes side as not only in the unerrable judgement of God but in the opinion of all men that shall know the grounds of both sides truely and sincerely stated the Warr may be just on the Popes side and unjust on the Kings The Subscribers do freely grant the Lovain Divines all this and all the advantages they can derive hence But what then must it follow that the subscribers have therefore sacrilegiously or against the sincerity of Catholick Religion declared in general or promised in their Remonstrance that they are ready to stand by the King and loose their lives in defence of his Person Rights or Crown or of his Kingdom State and people against all invaders whatsoever Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal c. forraign or domestick Or must this follow albeit we grant also the said promise or Declaration of standing so by the King to extend it self to or comprehend that very extraordinary case or contingency of our certain evident knowledg of the injustice of the Warr on the Kings side and clear Justice on the Popes Certainly neither the one nor other follows For albeit the case or supposition be rather metaphysically then morally possible that the generality of Subjects of either of the Princes or States in Warr together may evidently know or certainly assure themselves of the cleer Justice of the affailants fide at least so as to have no such kind of probability of any Justice on the defendants part and forasmuch as he is a Defendant yet admitting the case were morally possible who knows not that natural reason tells us and Divines and Lawyers teach that however the Prince both rashly and unjustly brings a Warr on himself and people yet both he and they are bound to hazard their lives each for others mutual defence that is for the defence of the Crown Kingdom State and Republick and for the lives liberties goods and fortunes of all that compose it though not for defence of any rashness or injustice So that although it be granted that both Prince and people are to quit all kind of unjust pretences yet their own natural defence or that of their goods lives and liberties as it comes not under that notion so it is unseparable from their taking armes in their own mutual defence in a meere defensive Warr or even that which happens after to be offensive before a good or Just peace can be obtained and is so I mean unseparable notwithstanding any injustice whatsoever done at first by Prince or people that brought the Warr upon themselves Be it therefore so that the Pope in such temporal capacity would make Warr on the King of England and be it granted for the present what otherwise in it self is very doubtful at least if not manifestly false That for the only unjust laws or only unjust execution of such or only other misgovernment or oppressions whatsoever of one King or Prince of his own proper natural undoubted Subjects without any injury done thereby to forraigners or any other forraign Kings Subjects or Prince or State such forraign Monarch or Common-wealth may justly declare and make Warr against him as for example the French or Spanish King and by the same reason the Pope also in his said temporal capacity against the King of England and be it clear and evident likewise that the
earthly Princes and in all criminal causes whatsoever LXIV And let the Reader be also himself Judge betwixt me and this most eminent Cardinal or his defenders the Divines of Lovaine of the strength or weakness of his second proof which is the only remaining of his arguments for a Position so temerarious I say so temerarious in as much as it exempts by any law whatsoever and specially by the positive law of God all Clerks from the supream civil coactive power of supream temporal Magistrates Princes or States and that too in meer temporal matters What I would therefore say further is 4. That the case is still clear enough on my side as to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture notwithstanding all or any of his allegations of Councils or Canons for himself in his said second proof and whereof only that proof consists I admit that the Council of Trent Ses 25 cap. 20. de Reformat speaks thus Eccelesia et personarum Ecclesiasticarum Immunitas Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus instituta est That the Council of Colen held a little before the Tridentine Synod speaks also thus par 9. c. 20. Immunitas Ecclesiastica vetustissima res est jure pariter divino et humano introducta quae in duobus potissimum sita est Primum ut Clerici eorumque possessiones à vectigalibus et tributis aliis que muneribus laicis libera sint Deinde ne rei criminis ad Ecclesiam confugientes inde extrahantur That the Council of Lateran held under Leo the X. and but a little too before that of Trent speaks further thus in the 9. Ses Cum a jure tam divino quam humani Laicis potestas nulla in Ecclesiasticas personas attributa sit innovamus omnes et singulas constitutiones c. That another of Lateran also under Innocent the III. hath this language cap. 43. Nimis de jure divino quidam Laici usurpare conantur viros Ecclesisiasticos nihil temporale obtinentes ab eis ad praestanda sibi fidelitatis juramenta compellunt That Boniface the VIII in cap. Quanquam de censibus in 6. speaks of Ecclesiastical Immunity as if it had been certainly granted to be of divine right That John the VIII also hath these words or expression can si Imperator dist 96. Non a legibus publicis non a potestatibus siculi sed a Pontificibus et sacerdotibus omnipotens Deus Christianae Religionis Clericos et sacerdotes voluit ordinari et discuti That Symmachus with his whole third Roman Synod long before John the VIII affirmed That solis sacerdotibus disponendi de rebus Ecclesiae indiscusse a Deo cura commissa est That finally Innocent the IV. though as Bellarmine himself confesses here not as Pope but as a particular Doctor in his Commentaries upon cap. 2. de majoritate et obedientia after he had taught that Clerks were by the Pope with the Emperours consent exempted from the Lay-power adds moreover that forasmuch as this kind of exemption seems not to be a plenary or full exemption therefore it must be said that Clerks have been exempted so by God himself I admit I say these Councils either Provincial or General as they are or as they are called such respectively and these Popes likewise have in the places quoted these expressions or this manner of speech where they have somewhat to enact or treat of concerning the exemption of Clerks and that consequently in these places they dog in general terms speak of that exemption in general so as to attribute it in part to Gods ordination as the Fathers of Trent or to the Divine right or law as those of Colen of both Laterans Boniface the VIII or to the will of God as Iohn the VIII and for what concerns to particular the disposing of the Goods of the Church Symmachus too in that his Roman Synod As for Innocent the IV. it matters not at all what he sayes on this subject in the place quoted being its confessed by Bellarmine himself that he writ these Commentaries before he was Pope and therefore in so much is but as another private Canonist of whom we are not bound to take notice where he brings no proof For we confess there is a number of such Canonists and some Divines too that without any ground in holy Scripture or Tradition hold with him in this point but whom therefore all other sound and great Divines who examine the matter throughly and strictly charge with errour both against express Scripture and Tradition But for these Councils either General or Provincial and for these Popes also who being Popes did speak so so all and every of whom we must observe that reverence due respectively to them the answers are 1. That none at all of these places or authorities alledged out of them are home enough to our present case or dispute of the exemption of Clergy-men by the positive law of God in holy Scripture from the supream civil co-active power of Kings or States Nor as much as one word hereof And therefore did we grant as we do not nor can by any means that these Councils or Popes intended by such expressions or by these or such other words Dei ordinatione jure divino omnipotens Deus voluit a Deo cura commissa est to signifie that such exemption of Clerks even in the whole height and latitude or sense of it in Bellarmines way had been ordained immediatly and expresly by God himself or by some express immediat positive law of his delivered unto us by Revelation and by the tenets of Catholick Faith to be by us believed yet should it not follow that therefore these Councils or Popes did signifie this positive law of God for it was or is in holy Scripture Because there may be positive laws of God come to us by Tradition though not a word of them in Scripture And because it is evident these authorities alledged have no distinction at all nor any intimation of Scripture 2. That being it is plain enough out of what is said before to Bellarmines arguments out of Scripture that these Councils or Popes could not pretend to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture and no less plain out of Bellarmine himself and others of his way that they could as little pretend to any such as delivered us by Tradition for himself doth not in all this matter as much as once pretend the least Tradition unless peradventure some body will misconster him or his second proof here and say he mean'd it as a proof of Tradition in the point which cannot be laid to his charge at all for he could not be so grosly overseen as to give us only such sayings of these late Councils of Trent Cullen Lateran or of these three Popes for a Catholick Tradition and we know very well and confess he makes other kind of arguments for any particular tenets being of Tradition arguments composed of
inconsideratione aliqua violent sed una cum ipsis Principibus debitam sacris summorum Pontificum et Conciliorum constitutionibus observ antiam praestent Decernit itaque c. 2. It is also clear enough these words ordinatione divina or the Councils saying that Ecclesiastical Immunity was constituted by divine ordination imports no more of necessity then that it was Gods good pleasure and special providence and care of the Church and Churchmen that disposed affairs so and moved the hearts of Princes and people to give such exemptions to the Church and Churchmen as they indeed have For so we say that by Gods ordination or divine ordination this or that is as it is Which yet argues no positive law of God nor any law at all of God for it to be as it is As for that of Colen besides that it is but a smale Provincial Synod never yet canonized by any general Synod nor even by any Pope and therefore in Bellarmine's own principles of no authority out of that Province not even were the Decree in a matter of Faith as it is not certainly it is manifest enough the Fathers there or in that ch par 9. quoted by him speake not a word pro or â—â—n of our present dispute or if they do any way indirectly or by consequence that all is against Bellarmine forasmuch as they determine Ecclesiastical Immunity to consist chiefly in two things The one that Clerks and their possessions are free of all imports tributs and other lay duties The other that criminals flying to Churches be not forced thence Now where is a word here of Clerks being exempt even from the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes and even the most haynous crimes imaginable and committed too in meer temporal things These Fathers of Colen did not as much as dream of any such matter At least no rational Divine is to judge or conclude out of their words or expression here that they did For the onely word here whence any such thing might be any way pretended are these aliisque maneribus laicis But who sees not there are other lay duties besides customs oâ— taxes from which by the civil constitutions of the Roman Emperours at first and after by that of other Kings who succeeded them Clerks are and have been exempted nay that their exemption from other lay duties was the first exemption they had and even that which above all other was most convenient they should have as for example from all civil offices of Collectors Bayliffs Constables from the Militia c. Why then should any Divine be so unreasonable as to derive from a position so general so proper and so true of those Fathers of Colen a conclusion so particular so improper and so false as Bellarmine doth in our present case As for those other words of this of Colen jure pariter divino humano I have already said what we must rationally think they understood by jus divinum though only applied here to other exemptions then that from the supream civil power For both the Lateran Councils I confess Bellarmine and some others with him give them both equally the name of General But I am sure withal that according to all truth the latter which he considers first or that under Leo the X. does not merit as much as the name of a General Council truly such nor even of an Occidental Council truly such and that Bellarmine himselâ— elsewhere confesses it is not esteemed as such by many great Catholicks and that moreover whatsoever he thinks the whole Gallican Church many others reject it as not esteeming it such for many reasons which I shall give hereafter in this book upon another occasion As I am sure also that all the Canons of discipline reported to be of the IV. Council of Lateran or of that under Innocent the Third which Bellarmine quotes here in the next place are doubtful though for the present it matters not much whether these Canons be or be not genuine or whether this which is called the great Council of Lateran Concilium Magnum Laterananse was or was not a general Council truly such or whether only a very great Occidental Council but not for all that a Council oecumenical or General properly and truly such of the universal Church As the same for the point of being truly oecumenical or General of the whole Church is disputed by some concerning the Tridentine Synod albeit now of greatest authority with us of all General Councils truly and unconvertedly such Neither doth it matter any more one jot whether the other Lateran under Leo the X. be admitted or not for a General Council truly such For albeit this latter in the IX Session and decreeing somewhat of Ecclesiastical Discipline sayes in general and by way of supposition that by divine and humane law there is no power attributed to Lay-men over Clerks c. and the former under Innocent cap. 24. say that some Laicks endeavour to usurp too much of divine right when they compel Church-men that receive no temporal benefit from them to swear Allegiance or take oathes of fidelity to them yet no understanding person no good Divine or Canonist may therefore conclude that certainly these Councils intended thereby to signifie as much as it to be their own bare opinion much less to declare it as the Catholick Faith which indeed is not pretended of them by Bellarmine himself or any other That Clerks are by a pâ—sitive law of God exempt even in all criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of temporal Princes And my reasons are 1. Because it is a maxime of both Divines and Canonists that priviledges and laws that speak of priviledges are stricti juris or strictae interpretationis when the priviledges are to the prejudice of any third's right as also when out of any other kind of more ample interpretation some either absurdity or falsity or any great inconvenience or any errour and gross mistake attributed to the laws or Law-makers or givers of such priviledge must follow 2. Because it is a maxime too very well known and granted that where a Law or Canon dwells in Generals only we must not understand particulars or such specialties as are not specially express'd and whereof there is or may be a grand controversie whether the power of the Canon-makers could reach unto them and which moreover are such that it is not likely the Law or Canon-makers would comprehend them if expresly thought upon and specially debated 3. Because it is manifest this position of Bellarmine concerning the exemption of Clergy-men in all criminal causes whatsoever c. is such a specialty and such a priviledge And therefore it must follow that whereas these Councils of Lateran do not in specifical express terms discend to it no Divine or Canonist may in reason conclude they mean'd it But on the contrary ought rather to expound them in any other probable and rational
it is ordinary with all kind of people to speak so of all things happened to themselves or others sin only excepted God will have it so or God hath ordained so And yet no man will be so foolish as to gather out of such expressions that people mean to say there was a positive law of God or law of his known to us for the doing or being of things so or so Otherwise what a numberless infinity of positive laws of God must we assert which the world never yet heard of and such as never any one of all have been yet in Scripture or Tradition For Symmachus finally that which is alledged out of him or his Roman Synod concerns not the present dispute and at most and at best signifies no more then the sense of that Provincial Council speaking to Symmachus and their sense too delivered only in an ordinary way of speech not in any Canon and even this very speech against only the pretence of the Praetorian Praefect of Odoacer to make a law yet without the consent of the Church-men or of the Bishops and other Priests though with a good intention for the preservation of the Church-lands and Revenues and Goods or to hinder any Sale or Mortage of them by the very Bishops of Rome it self even for what concern'd them or their own peculiar See in that City In this case it was the Fathers of that Council spoke thus after they had caused the Instrument or Law of the said Praetorian Praefect or of Basilius to be read by Hormisda the Deacon Licet secundum prosecutionem venetabilium fratrum nostrorum Laurentii Eulalii Cresconii Maximi vel Stephani nec apud nos incertum habetur hanc ipsam scripturam nullius esse momenti verum tamen etiamsi aliqua posset ratione subsistere modis omnibus in Sindali Conventu provida Beatudinis Vestrae sententia enervari conveniebat in irritum deduci ne in exemplum remaneret praesumendi quibuslibet Laicis quamvis religiosis vel pâ—tentibus in quacunque ciuitate quolibet modo aliquid decernere de Ecclesiasticis facultatibus quarum solis sacerdotibus disponendi indiscusse a Deo cura commissa decetur Where it is plain 1. That nothing is said or mean'd of the exemption of the persons of Church-men from the supream temporal power 2. That they neither signifie as much as their Goods or Lands to be exempt from that same power supream but only secundum subjectam materiam to be exempt so far from the subordinat Magistrate that no disposition could be made of the Church-lands or Goods or no provision either for the Church by such inferiour Magistrates how powerful or even religious and well meaning soever without the consent of the Bishops and Priests themselves 3. That much less do the Fathers of this Council signifie their lands or goods not to be subject to any publick taxes or which is it I mean do not signifie that God hath appointed their lands or goods should be exempt from all publick taxes tributes customs c. For the disposing of the Revenues or other goods of the Church to be indistinctly committed by God to Priests and that Priests should be notwithstanding lyable to publick contributions out of such Revenues or Goods for the publick necessities of the common-wealth are things very compatible in reason And here is nothing said by these Fathers to the contrary Besides we know that whatever may be said of that law so published by Basilius the Pretor or whether by the express command of Odoacer no man will deny that both the Pope and other Italian Bishops had reasons sufficient to move them not to regard it much as being made either by an Usurper or an enemy to the Emperour and who yet dared not take on himself the name of Emperour and moreover forasmuch as at that time that very same Usurper or Enemy Odoacer with whose authority it was made or published by Basilius was devested by Theodorick nay dead when the Fathers held that Synod and forasmuch too as in the same law that same Odâ—acer would have usurped also the election of the Pope to himself as Baronius and Spondanus have ad annum Christi 457. But however this be or be not it is evident here is not a sâ—llable for the exemption of Church-men or Clerks as to their persons and in criminal cause and that too by the positive law of God from the supream civil or coercive power And it is no less evident although my present purpose require not my animadaversion hereof That meer Lay-men Kings and Lords and Knights and Burgesses and Squires and Boores and even all masters of Families whatsoever in such contreys as have the laws of property might in a like or unlike controversie 'twixt themselves and the Clergy if the Clergy alone should attempt to make laws for disposing of their estates without their own consent might I say with very much right truth answer the Clergy as the Fathers did the Layety here or thus I mean mutatis mutandis verum tamen etiamsi aliqua c. provida Majestatis vestrae sententia eneruari conveniebat in iâ—ritum deduci ne in exemplum remaneret quibuslibet Ecclesiasticis c. aliquid decernere de laicis facultatibus quarum solis laicis disponendi indiscussè a Deâ— cura commissa dâ—cetur And yet none of them would be therefore constrained or necessitated in point of reason to prove or to suppose a positive law of God for their own exemption as much as to their goods from the Clergy The civil or municipal laws or customs of men and which indeed are those only that make meum and tuum in the world in such a case would be ground enough for them to say that God committed the disposing of their own estates to themselves alone and not to the Clergy To wit for as much as by his general or special providence he had such or such civil laws made and for as much as he commands generally in holy Scripture as natural reason also tells us we must observe all kind of humane Ordinances of the supream civil Power and States we live in which imply no sin Therefore Symmachus and his Council are as vainly alledged by Bellarmine for a positive law of God for the exemption of Clergymen c. as any of those other Popes or Councils And therefore too from first to last I conclude against this most eminent Cardinal that indeed there is not any such positive law of God at least in our case that is for the exemption of the persons of Clergymen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of supream temporal Princes no such positive I say as yet revealed unto us either by holy Scripture or by any Tradition For these arguments which I now have so answered are all he doth or can pretend for such a positive law of God from either albeit I confess he speaks not expresly of Tradition nor also
whatsoever civil and criminal and not from the inferiour laye Magistrats onely but from the very supream which of persons and in relation to the supream coercive power is that onely which is my present purpose to examine and oppose let us now see how well he maintains by his arguments what he so undertakes or asserts here and see whether any of the four proofs he frames or all together can perswade any man of reason that his said Exemption of Clergiemen is in any sense at all de jure positivo naturali of law divine natural or even as much as de jure Gentium of the law of nations Onely you are first to take notice that Bellarmine himself hath transiently discovered his own principal design or end in strugling so much for this title or name either of a law divine natural or law of nations nay of both and attributing both to that which might establish the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks in the height and latitude he asserts it for their lands goods Churches Houses Persons c. from all kind of laye power subordinate or supream That end I give in his own words and corrollaries which you may read in himself a little before his proofs c. 29. l. 1. de Cleric Rursus sequitur ut ea quae sunt de jure gentium quia sunt aliquo modo naturalia non possint a Principibus vel Magistratibus abrogari vel immutari contra autem quae sunt de jure civili quia sunt pâ—rro positiva sicut a Principe vel Magistratu constituuntur ita posse a Principe vel Magistratu abrogari And a little beneath where he though all in vain endeavours to reconcile Driedo and some Canonists to the Divines especially to Victoria and Sâ—to and to St. Thomas himself those asserting the Exemption to be of the law of nature or law divine natural and these that it is onely of positive human law Et ideo addunt sayes he meaning Victoria and Sâ—tus in hanc Exemptionem câ—nsensisse omnes gentes ac pretterea non posse mutari vel abrogari a Regibus et Principibus etiamsi omnes simul coniuncti eam abrogare conentur Where you see plainly his end is no other in pleading either a law divine natural or a law of nations for his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks but that his Reader might go away with this perswasion That in case either can have any colour out of his arguments then it must be further concluded that no power on earth can at any time hereafter pretend to change or lessen this Exemption And so the Pope alone must be for ever the onely absolute supream Monarch even in all temporals of all Clergiemen wherever in the world and even his temporal kingdom for goods lands houses persons must be at least on this account if all other pretences be overthrown diffused throughout all Kingdoms and States of the earth And France alone for example must acknowledge at least three hundred thousand French men and women though born within and never out of France to be with all their goods lands houses revenues persons properly and onely accountable to him even I mean still in all temporals as to their onely supream Lord and not accountable at all in any thing to him we call or who is truly the French King Lewis the XIIII All which must be concluded according to his design if his Reader can be once perswaded by his arguments that his Ecclesiastical Immunity is as much as de jure Gentium of the law of nations For he would have us believe him that a law of nations cannot be so purely positive but that it must be partly also natural or at least cannot be at all so positive or so from the consent or custom of men that any less number then that of all nations wherever and of all even the Subjects of all nations that is of all men both Princes and Subjects can in any particular Kingdom or State revoke or change it because forsooth his unevident unnecessary conclusions of the third degree are those whereof the laws of nations are framed and consequently those laws of nations are in so much or aliquo modo natural and that even such or aliquo modo natural institutions cannot be otherwise altered and his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks must be ranked amongst those institutions or laws of nations or amongst those dictats which are aliquo modo naturalia LXVI Having so considered his design let us now to his arguments whereby he pretends to prove his Assertion or that of his Ecclesiastical Exemption or Immunity even as to the persons of Clergiemen from the very supream civil power and even in all temporal matters and causes whatsoever civil or criminal to be aliquo modo de jure divino naturali and without any modus at all to be de jure Gentium or of the law of nations Four several arguments are formed by him to prove this Assertion Whereof the first argument thus It is the custom of all nations that Clerks be so exempted Therefore c. For sayes he what is every where descends from nature it self which is common to all And to prove this Antecedent he alleages That amongst the Hebrews the Levits were exempt from tributs out of the 30 of Exodus and 1. of Numbers That amongst the Egyptians under Pharao the Priests were exempt Gen. chap. 47. That the same exemption was enjoyed by the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes 1. Esdras 7. chap. That the same too as enjoyed by the Gentil Priests may be known out of Aristotle l. 2. Oceonom out of Caesar l. 6. de bello Gallico out of Plutarch in Gamillo and out of others And amongst Christians That the Emperour Constantine the Great no sooner was openly professed Christian then he incontinently as if nature her self had taught him declared the Priests exempt from the common duties of other Christians as appears out of his Epistle to Anulinus recorded by Eusebius l. X. Histor Eccles. c. 7. Wherein other Christian Emperours did imitate him But to this purpose Iustinians words are to be noted particularly l. Sancinius 2. Cod. de Sacrasanctis Ecclesiis For when he had in this law priviledg'd the Churches that is the publick places of prayer he added presently Cur enim non facimus discrimen inter res divinas humanas cur non competens praerogativa caelesti favori conservetur by which words sayes our learned Cardinal this Emperour signified that exemption not to be the pleasure of men or arbitrary but due and necessary Second argument thus or from some kind of similitude which we may conceive betwixt the Soul and Body of one side and the spiritual and temporal power on the other The soul or spirit is ordered so by nature in relation to the body or flesh that although she hinder not the actions of the body while or when they are regular yet if otherwise she curbs them and absolutely in all cases governs the flesh
and of allowing a competent prerogative to celestial favors that is to persons or places which by extrinsecal denomination are divine or which have that Celestial favor to be specially dedicated to the service of God But is there no other difference to be made no other prerogative to be given but an exemption so general from the supream civil power Besides our Cardinal himself confesses that Iustinian spake these words of the material Churches as he made that law for them onely not at all for the persons of Churchmen but as long as they were in those Churches albeit he made several other laws in favour of their persons also whether in or out of the most sacred Churches Of which last sort of laws more presently in the next Section So that any right collection either out of the former priviledg of Constantine or out of these later words of Iustinian signifies nothing at all to prove a custom amongst Christians forsuch exemption as Bellarmine would have amongst them as flowing from nature 2. For his second argument or similitude who sees not that as Divines and Philosophers too confess as the argument which is à simili is the very worst and most unconcluding sort of argument if it run not upon all four as they speak so this here of this great Cardinal is very lame in that respect For the difference is so wide and so great 'twixt both that we know evidently and by daily experience that the body can act nothing at all not as to natural sensation or vegetation but as a meer dead trunk a carkass without the soul nor act any thing at all rationally or freely without the direction of that superiour portion of the soul which is by some called the spirit and we know no less evidently that the lay civil Magistrate both supream and subordinat can act both rationally freely and honestly too without nay and often also against the direction of those we call the meer spiritual Magistrates or of any kind of ecclesiastical persons That the one may be and hath not seldom been without the other that is the former without the latter and yet compleat and perfect as to its own proper functions And the latter may erre and hath often err'd involving it self in politick matters out of its own sphere when the former did not But we see the natural body cannot as much as be without the soul So that for Bellarmine to assume this simile is to argue from a very lame similitude and expect this ordinary answer to the like similitudo non currit quattuor pedibus Besides I must advertise the Reader that he abuses him again by taking it in the abstract of one side Whereas if it did or could signifie any thing he should have taken it in the concrete of both sides that is made the simile 'twixt the soul and body of one side and the lay Magistrate or lay Judges and the spiritual persons of Clerks or Ecclesiastical Superiours on the other and not have assumed on this side the civil power and spiritual power only in the abstract For it is very well known these as such act not at all either of them And moreover that this argument or simile did it prove any thing as we have seen it doth not proves not only the exemption of Clergy-men from all lay-lay-power and in all causes and matters whatsoever nor a co-ordination only in temporal matters but also and in all imaginable even the most worldly matters of any kind a super-ordination or an absolute dominion of Church-men over all the lay-persons even the most supream Monarchs on Earth To which purpose although Bellarmine presses this very same argument elsewhere dei Roman Pontif. l. 5. cap. 6. however against his other main purpose which is to give the Pope alone a power to dethrone Kings and this simile would give this very power to every Diocesan Bishop nay to the inferiour Ghostly Fathers or Parish-priests of every King yet no man I hope will be any more so foolish as to believe him or be perswaded by so lame a simile having both evidence of Reason Scripture and Tradition to the contrary as will appear hereafter in some of the following Sections on this very point we now handle Lastly I must advertise the Reader that he is not to be amused with a greater excellency of the spiritual power in it self or in its own nature or even in the end for which it was given this end being wholy supernatural such as must be that which is to a life of grace in this world and of glory in the next and which the meer lay civil or temporal power as such only hath not nor can pretend The greater excellency of one calling or profession cannot warrant the professors of it to subject to their own commands all or any other persons that profess a calling of less excellency as may be seen by daily experience in all the several professions or trades in the world Nor is it consequent by any discourse of natural reason that because one sort of men are of greater dignity as to their callings they cannot be subjected in many things or matters by the King to the command of others who are otherwise of much inferiour dignity or perhaps of none at all Nay we see daily and by ten thousand practices that Lords Marquesses Dukes must in many things obey and receive commands from very poor mean persons of no kind of titles otherwise but that of their present office and that too of the very meanest offices not seldom And must it be against natural reason that because the King of all Kings the Lord of life and death of all creatures hath out of his mercy and for the eternal ends of his mercy to all people given a certain ministery or even dignity the greatest that can be to some sort of men and this also for the service of other men in a certain calling which belongs to their spirits or souls onely they might not have been or they have not actually been subjected to other men though not so dignified in that special ministery and subjected I mean to such in other matters onely which concern their natural and civil being onely as a civil society of men living in this world We see by a thousand experiences daily that many who are very fit for one sort of command or calling are very unfit for the other And we know that the spiritual function alone to be discharged well requires the whole man And we know also that spiritual men or Clerks must notwithstanding their Clerk-ship remain always men that is involved by a thousand occasions in affairs which belong directly and properly to the temporal government of things belonging to the body alone Must it be against natural reason that God should not have exempted them in such matters from the Governours that are proper for such matters Or must it not be rather according to natural reason that in such
with marrying Theophanes Augusta or the widdow Empress notwithstanding his own former legitimate wife was still alive and no other cause to divorce from her and that besides he had received her or the said Theophanes's Son as a Godfather out of the Sacred Font and with too much liberty given to his army to oppress against all right and reason as well the Layety as the Clergie indulging them whatever they fancied and without any punishment and with robbing the very Churches of their donaries and with laying grievous excessive tributs on both Churchmen and Layemen against the law and with assuming to himself entirely the elections of Bishops and taking to himself also all the spoils of the dead Bishops and finally with endeavouring to have all the Souldiers killed under him in his warr against the Sarracens to be accounted and invoked as martyrs Do not the Greek Historians charge this Nicephorus with all these particulars and not with that law onely And if so as questionless it is so how could Basilius Porphyrogenitus or Bellarmine or we out of either perswade our selves with any certitude it was for a bare law revoking some former priviledges of the Clergie in case I say that law was such that Empire suffered in after days and not rather for some of those other undoubted exorbitancies against undoubted either divine or humane laws or suffered not for that law in it self but for the evil end or evil execution or use of it For a law may be good in it self and yet the intention of the law maker and his use of it very wicked And after all whether it was so or no what proof I beseech you is that bare saving conjecture opinion or judgement of Porphyrogenitus That Bellarmines pretended Exemption of Clerks in all both civil and criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil power hath been established either by the law divine natural or by the law of Nations That saying of Basilius Porphyrogenitus doth not touch this matter at all So that from first to last I dare conclude That for such Exemption and by such law of Nature and Nations Bellarmine hath not brought as much as any one argument which may seem to have the least colour of even probability itself nay nor even of that very worst sort of probability or that which our late Schoolmen call extrinsick onely Which himself did know so well that after having laboured so much to impose on us such exemption by such laws in a whole chapter yet in the chapter immediately following which is his 30. chap. l. 1. de Cleric he dares not give this doctrine of his own any better title or any better assurance not even for the being of it as much as by the divine positive law but onely the title or assurance of a bare probability of consequence And which further yet he knew so well that as he never once thought of the least Exemption of Clerks either as to their goods or as to their persons in politick or temporal affairs criminal or civil causes from any civil power whatsoever supream or not supream not even from the most inferiour civil Courts or Judges or of any kind of Exemption at all established for them in temporal matters by any law divine either natural or positive that I say as he never thought of any such Exemption by such laws in all or any the former editions of his Controversies or not until the very last edition of them by his own commands so it must be confessed he was in this point a very great changling to wit after he had seen all his other arguments out of human law or out of the civil and Canon law for his exorbitant exemption answered home by Doctor William Barclay in his accurate though little book de Potestate Papae particularly in the 15. and 32. chapters of the said book For in those former editions himself taught in express tearms against the Canonists Exemptionem Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona jure humano introductam esse non divino That the exemption of Clerks in politick matters as well concerning their persons as their goods was introduced by humane law not by divine Nay also as Barclay well notes de Potestate Papae c. 15. made it his business to wit in those former editions besides which the foresaid Barclay the Father knew of none to prove the truth hereof by three several sorts of arguments 1. by that of Paul Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit according to St. Chrysostome's exposition and understanding of it to be a command as well for Clerks as for Laycks 2. by other testimonies of holy Fathers in the point 3. because sayes he nullum prâ—ferri potest Dei verbum quo ista exemptio confirmetur there cannot be any word of God alleadg'd for this exemption From which doctrine he was so farre in his last edition that seeing he was left no other argument undissolved no other way unblocked for maintayning or carrying on his Exemption or that of Clerks in his exorbitant latitude of it and yet would not yield to victorious Truth he would needs in his old age trouble himself and others with a new invention or pretension rather nay rather too a meer aequivocation in effect of not onely a positive law divine per quandam similitudinem but even of a natural law divine and further confound the law of nature with that of nations and yet in the end of all pretend no more cap. 30. in solutione primae objectionis but a meer probability of consequence for his positive law of God nor for his natural but such a third degree c 29. as by his own explication of the third degree is no kind of degree at all of any true law of nature Whether this be not to abuse both Clerks and Layicks Princes and Subjects the State and Church being the controversy is of so high concern to all for the peace of the world I leave the indifferent Reader to judge For I have done my part and proceed now to shew by the solution of his other arguments LXVIII That for what concerns human laws too either civil or Ecclesiastical the case is also clear enough of my side both against him and our late Doctors of Lovaine That by neither law Clerks have ever yet been exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power nay nor in any kind of meer temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil from that supream civil power were it necessary for my present purpose to add this as it is not Though I confess they have been exempted and very justly too by several both imperial and other municipal and Royal laws from inferiour civil Judicatories in many civil causes and in some Countries by the peculiar municipal laws of such Countries exempted also in some criminal causes in prima instantia from the inferiour subordinate civil Judges and other Judges that
godliness piety zeal what they believed to be their own proper goods how much more would they have abstained from usurping on those of the Church and to which they had known themselves to have no kind of right Secondly forasmuch as depends of the testimony or authority of the civil Law it self it is clear enough that Clergiemen have not only been originally or sometime but have continued alwayes or at all times since the very first of christianity are at present stil subject to the supream civil Power therefore not exempt from it For being it appears by these laws that Clergiemen were so first indistinctly in all kind of politick matters subject or not exempt in any either from the supream civil or subordinate civil and being further that none of these laws nor altogether exempt them but in some politick things or some such causes from the subordinat only and in none at all from the supream in any such cause and being moreover that it was from and by virtue of or by a power derived from those very civil laws and consequently from the supream civil Magistrate Prince Emperour that Ecclesiastical Judges were so appointed for other Clerks in any civil or criminal cause whatsoever or in those we call meer lay crimes it must follow that forasmuch as concerns the testimony of those civil laws which Bellarmine quotes here Clerks are still subject to the supream civil power though not in some cases or not even in very many cases to the subordinat civil but in such have other Judges that is Ecclesiastical ones appointed them by the same laws For by the testimony of these laws they are not exempt wherein they were not exempted by those very laws And those laws do not exempt them in any case at all from the Legislator Himself or from the supream civil power nor even from the subordinate indistinctly and universally in all cases but in some only Thirdly it is clear enough also by the testimony authority and warranty of these civil Laws and forasmuch I say as depends of such warranty if joyn'd together with the allowed doctrine of all christian both Lawyers and Divines generally that in such Christian Kingdoms as never have been govern'd by those laws of Roman Emperours or which in after-times did legally shake off the yoke both of the Empire and imperial laws generally and are govern'd only by municipal laws of their own Clerks are not exempt at all in politick matters from either supream or subordinate lay Courts or Judges no further then such municipal peculiar civil laws do exempt them And being that in no such Countrey at all for any thing we know yet or is alledged yet by Bellarmine or by our Divines of Lovaine Clerks are not exempt by such laws from the supream civil power and being at least that whatever may be imagined of some one or other Countrey with or without ground we know certainly there is no such law in England or Ireland nor hath yet ever been it is no less clear that Clerks are not at all exempt in England or Ireland in politick matters from the supream civil power of the Prince or of his Laws forasmuch I say still as depends of the testimony of the civil laws or even of the doctrine of either Christian Lawyers or Catholick Divines Which doctrine is that laws of men when meer laws of men and in politick matters depend not only of public tiâ—â—â— but also of legal reception and hereof also that they be not abrogated again by a contrary establishment or by a general opposition abrogation or disuse in any particular Kingdom or State especially if such as have the supream civil Legislative Power approve of or concurr to such abrogation or disuse Fourthly and Lastly and as a corrollary out of all it is perspicuous that as the very civil laws of Roman Emperours and such other municipal laws of other Christian Princes giving such or some certain and special exemptions and other priviledges to Clergiemen and giving them freely and out of devotion only for the greater decency and reverence of the Church do convince any rational person that secular Princes are still continually as they have been originally Superiours in temporal power to the Clergy even to all Priests and Bishops whatsoever living within their Dominions so they also convince that not even the great Priest and Bishop the very chief and spiritual Prince both of all Priests and of all Bishops too the Pope himself not even this so Oecumenical Vicar of Christ in all spiritual matters throughout the whole earth can be truly said to be at present upon any other account exempted from secular Powers in temporal matters but on this only that he also himself is now as he hath been for some ages though not from the beginning a temporal or secular Prince too and that now he represents a double Person that of the Successor of St. Peter at Rome which undoubtedly he hath from Christ and from the Church purely taken as a Church and that also of a secular Prince with independent secular civil or temporal power which latter he hath no less undoubtedly and even only and solely from the meer devotion benevolence bounty and gift of other Princes and people even I mean of meer lay Princes People But to the end learned men shall not say I take advantage of Bellarmine's not having so throughly examined this matter in his great work of Controversies nor even in his very last edition of that work which yet is the edition I have hitherto answered and shall not object at any time that Bellarmine sifted yet more narrowly the question of the civil laws in a latter book of his when he was in his old age forced to it by Doctor William Barelay's answers and solutions of all the Church-canons whereon chiefly or rather indeed only Bellarmine relyed till then as we have seen and we shall further see yet in the next Section for his so general exemption of Clergiemen from even the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes whatsoever least I say any should object this I will give at large and in Bellarmines own words but Englished all that he replies in that his very last piece on this subject we have now in hand of the civil laws against the same William Barclay and my own rejoynder also though in effect and for the most part made before I confess by another that is by Iohn Barclay the Son in his Pietas and to justifie the quarrel of his then dead Father LXIX Bellarmine therefore seeing by the said William Barclay's work De Potestate Papae in Temporalibus against him that all his former pretences of what law soever civil or ecclesiastical for the exemption of Clergiemen from the supream civil Power could not perswade any judicious Reader of that book of William Barclay regards no more what he had granted before in his great Works of Controversies and even in the very
last edition and after so many recognitions l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. but retracts that and puts on a new face and amasses together all his reading ever since that Edition and all his veteran strength and wit to prove that not only by other arguments but also by the very civil laws of Roman Emperours all Clergiemen are wholly and generally exempt and in all causes both civil and criminal from all even the very supreamest civil coercive power on earth even from that of those very Emperours who made those laws To the fourth proposition sayes he Tractatu de Potestate Papae in rebus temporalibus cap. 35. which was that no writer hath recorded to posterity that Princes have exempted Clerks from their own power but only from the power of inferiour Magistrates I answer that whoever sayes so doth seem either to have read nothing or to have purposed to abuse his Reader For Ruffians writen l. 10. Hist c. 2. That Constantine the Emperour pronounced in express words It was not lawful for him to judge Priests but rather to be judged by them Whereby he declared openly enough that Priests were exempted not only from the power of inferiour Judges but also from that of the very supream To which declaration that law of the same Constantine which is the seventh in Theedosius's Code de Episcopis Clericis is consentaneous where it is said that the Readers of the holy Bible and the Sub-deacons and other Clerks qui per injuriaâ— Hereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt who by the injustice of Hereticks are called to Court shall be absolved and henceforth as in the East shall not be called to Courts minime ad curias devocentur sed immunitate plenissima petiantur but enjoy a most plenary freedom So he Whence being it is clear enough that he absolutely prohibits that Clerks be called to Courts and will have them to enjoy a most plenary freedom and that he excepts nothing at all it must be also manifest his mind was that neither shall they be called upon to the very Princes own supream Courts for it would not be a most plenary exemption if they were obnoxious as much as to the very principal Power it self Such an other is that law of Theodosius and Valentinian Cod. Theodos. l. ultima de Episc Clericis where we read thus Clerks whom without any distinction the unhappy presumer commanded to be lead to the secular Judges we reserve to Episcopal Audience For it is not lawful that Ministers of divine duties be subjected to they pleasure of temporal powers In which law where nothing is excepted all things do seem to be comprehended unless peradventure the Princes power may not be said to be temporal And even Iustinian himself in his 83. Novella so often quoted by our Adversaries as if therein Clerks did not seem to be exempted in criminal causes from the secular Court hath these words That he must be first degraded from his sacerdotal dignity by the Bishop and so be put under the punishment of the law Where we see Clerks as long as they remain Clerks not to be under the power of the laws but onely after they are by the Bishop deprived of their Clerical honour and therefore while they remain Clerks to be not onely exempt from the power of inferiour judges but even from the very laws of Princes for what belongs to coaction And this is it which the Council of Constance did say in the 31. Session That laymen have no jurisdiction or power on Clerks And certainly under the name of Laicks it comprehends even supream Princes whereas these are Laicks Finally that I may pass over many other arguments the Emperour Frederick the second speaks generally in his first constitution where he sayes We also enact that none presume to draw any Ecclesiastical person to a secular judgment either in a criminal or civil question against the imperial constitutions and canonical sanctions So much there But by secular judgment are not onely understood the judgments of inferiour judges but also those of the supream whereas all are equally secular And we see it so observed indeed where the reverence of sacred canons bears the sway Behold here good Reader the very last essaye of a dying cause Our great Cardinal having been unwilling but to say somewhat however himself so knowing a man as we must presume he was could not but know he said nothing at all in all this discourse to perswade any other even but meanly knowing or judicious Adversary That any Roman Emperour did ever yet by any of these laws or other whatsoever exempt or intend to exempt or that otherwise they or any els understood Clerks to be exempt by any other law from their own supream imperial power in temporal matters either criminal or civil though I dispute not at present of civil causes but onely of criminal For 1. who sees not That were the testimony of Ruffinus's being home in any point a convincing argument yet this which is here alleadged is not in any wise to the point or question Ruffinus tells indeed that Constantine said it was not lawful for himself to judge the Priests but tells not that Constantine ever said himself had exempted them so from himself or that they were so by any law of man Albeit therefore Constantine said so to the Bishops of the first general Council of Nice yet is it plain enough out of the very series of that History in Ruffine when they offered 〈◊〉 petitions to him one against an other that as this was said by an ordinary manner of speech onely and by way of complement so the words must not be taken strictly or scrupulously at all but onely as extolling the dignity of Bishops and as intending to deterre them from litigiousness and chieftly 〈…〉 purpose to free himself from the trouble of judging their hateful differences That this was the mind of Constantine appears by these manifold and manifest arguments 1. That for that his saying he gave this reason that Bishops were Gods and received power from God to judge of him de nobis qâ—â—que pudicandi But neither can relate to human constitutions Nor even to those are divine least otherwise it must follow that Constantine farre better understood the law of God when he so refused to judge the Bishops then those very Bishops themselves who in that holy Oecumenical Synod of Nice did repaire and complain to him as to their Soveraign Judg as may be seen in that very History of Ruffinus 2. That otherwise no Clerks Priests Bishops themselves can be Judges of other Clerks sed ille solus de quo scriptum est Deus stetit in Synagoga Deorum in mediò autem Deos dijudicat For so said Constantine to the Bishops on that occasion and consequently if you take his words strictly or scrupulously he said that Clerks were not onely exempted from his own tribunal or that of Princes but from that of Pontiffs
there by Theodâ—sius and Valentinian signifie no more but an unlawfulness of or by their own human civil Emperial laws and where or in such cases onely as by these laws it was unlawful to subject Ecclesiasticks to the judgment of temporal powers And that these other words temporalium pâ—testatum arbitri as there and as per materiam subjectam restrained have relation solely to and onely import or signifie such temporal powers as all inferiour Magistrats are but in no wise the supream of the Emperours themselves Being so that those Emperours themselves Theodosius and Valentinian by this or any other law nor any other Emperour before them had ever granted such a priviledg to any Clerk or Church as to be wholy exempt from their own proper supream civil and imperial power Nay how farre Clerks were under the Empire of this very Valentinian from such an imaginary priviledg or Exemption from the supream imperial power may be learned out of his welfth law eod tit Novel Valentiniani De Episcopali Judicio diversorum saepe cansatio est Ne ulterius quaerela procedat necesse est praesenti lege sanari Itaque cum inter Clericos jurgium vertitur ipsis litigatoribus convenit habeat Episcapus licentiam judicaâ—di praeeunte tamen uinculo compromissi Quod laicis si consentiant authoritas nostra permittit Aliter eos Iudices esse non patimur nifi â—â—â—â—tas juâ—gantium interposita sicut dictum est conditione praecedat Quoniam constat Episcopos praesbyteâ—os fâ—rum legibus non habere nec de aliis causis secundum Arcadii Honorii Divalia constituta quae Theodosianum Corpus ostendit praeter Religionem posse cognoscere Si ambo ejusdem officii litigatores nolint vel alteruter agant publicis legibus jure communi Sin vero Petitor laicus seu in civili seu criminali causa cujuslibet loci Clericum adversarium suum si id magis eligat per authoritatem legitimam in publico judicio respondere compellat Quam formam etiam circa Episcoporum personam observari oportere censemus c. Where it is plain this Emperour acknowledges no judicial power in Bishops not even over their own very Clerks at variance amongst themselves either in criminal or civil causes nor as much as permits licences or suffers any such judicial power in the Bishop over Clerks but onely when it shall please the Clerks themselves to fix on him and besides shall make a compromise to stand to his judgment quâ—niam constat Episcopos Praesbyteros forum legibus non habere c because sayes that law sayes Valentinian who made that law it is manifest that by the laws Bishops and Priests have no judicatory nor according to the divine constitutions of Arcadius and Honrius can take cognizance of any other causes but of those of Religion And therefore decrees that if the parties at variance being both of the same profession refuse Episcopal audience that is the Bishops judgment or if either of them refuse it they are in such case to try their quarrel by the publick and common laws And further decrees that if the Plantiff being a lay person whatever the cause be against a Clerk civil or criminal shall rather choose this way of publick judgment acccording to the laws that then such Clerk be forced by lawful authority to answer And yet further particularly decrees the same form or method to be observed concerning the persons of Bishops To this law of Valentinian may be added an other long after of those other no less Orthodox Emperours Leo and Anthemius L. omnes 33. c. de Episc Cleric omnes qui ubique sunt vel posthae fuerint Orthodoxae Fidei sacerdotes Clerici cujus cumque gradus fint Monachi quoque in causis civilibus ex nullius penitus majoris minorisve sententia Iudicis commonitoria ad extranea judicia pertrahantur aut Provinciam aut locum aut Regionem quam habitant exire cagantur nullus eorum Ecclesias vel Monasteria propria quae Religionis intuitu habitant relinquere miserabili necessitate jubeatur sed apud suos Iudices ordinarios id est Provinciarum Rectores in quibus locis degunt Ecâ—lesiarum ministeriis obsecundent omniumque contra se agentium excipiant actiones Let not any whoever at present are or hereafter shall be Priests of the Orthodox Faith or Clerks of whatever degree or even Monks be at the pleasure or by a monitory sentence of any greater or lesser Iudg drawn to forraign Iudicatories or forced out of the Province place or Region where they dwell Let none of them be commanded by miserable necessity to relinquish the Churches or Monasteries which for Religions sake they inhabit but in such places as they inhabit in the Ministery of Churches let them before their own ordinary Iudges that is the Rectours of Provinces receive the actions of all such as act against them See Clerks of all degrees whatsoever not subjected to Emperours onely but to the Rectors of Provinces who also are in this law said to be their ordinary Iudges Now whereas the priviledges of Clerks are not read to have been any way lessened or recalled by any laws of former pious Emperours from the times of Theodosius and Valentinian until that of this very Leo and Anthemius but rather by little and little daily enlarged by new indulgences or exemptions given to the Church and notwithstanding such daily enlargement the Rectors of the Provinces were yet under the same Leo and Anthemius the ordinary Iudges of Clerks it is sufficiently evicted that those words before in the foresaid law of Theodosius and Valentinian fas enim non est ut divini muneris Ministri temporalium potestatum subdantur arbitrio were spoke or writ in that same sense we have said already whereas I say the Emperors then held it fas or lawful for themselves to encrease the priviledges of Clerks and also at their own pleasure or when they held it fit to leave them to the common law And who sees not further yet that Bellarmine concludes out of Iustinians 83. Novel quite contrary to the express letter of that very Novel Iustinian there expresly orders That as to such Clerks as should be convened in criminal causes at Constantinople where himself lived and the Imperial Court was then the Iudges there should determine the matter but as to other Clerks that lived in the Provinces abroad the President or Judges of those Provinces Si de criminibus conveniantur siquidem civilibus that is if the crimes of Clerks were civil or lay crimes crimina laica and not pure crimes of Religion or Faith hic quidem nempe Constantinopâ—li competentes Iudices in Provinciis autem earum praesides sive Iudices How then may Bellarmine conclude out of this Novel that Politick or lay and meerly civil even subordinate Judges such as questionless the Presidents and Judges of Provinces were under Iustinian could not Judge Clerks in
an ordinance in such general or rather indefinit terms for the exemption of Clerks in a criminal question from the civil-Judicatory or being it is but a command or law That none should presume to call or draw an Ecclesiastical person in a criminal question or even civil to a secular judgment against the Imperial Constitutions and Canonical Functions and whereas there was never yet any Imperial Constitution or Canonical Sanction either made before his time or in his time or after his time that exempted Clergymen in either of both sorts of questions civil or criminal from the supream civil and absolute power of the Emperour themselves or of other Kings that acknowledge neither Emperour nor Pope nor any other above themselves in their temporal government who sees not that out of this Constitution of Frederick nothing can be concluded for such exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power but only from that of subordinat inferiour and ordinary civil or secular Judicatories Besides we know Fredericks laws were only for those few Cities or Provinces that remain'd in his time which was about the year of Christ one thousand two hundred and twenty and therefore could not pretend nor did pretend to prescribe laws to other Kingdoms or Kings for the exemption of Clerks either in civil or criminal causes or even to the inferiour Iudicatories of other Kings And that we know also that that law of Frederick was not imitated by the like in other Principalities not subject to him not imitated I say generally as to the exemption of Clerks in all either civil or criminal causes whatsoever from the very subordinat inferiour civil Iudicatories nor even in prima instantia So that I must conclude that Bellarmine was put to a very narrow strait for an imperial or civil law wh◠〈◊〉 pitch't on this of Frederick which was not known nor as much as 〈◊〉 of in other parts of even Europe it self as owning no subjection to Frederick And yet a law not to the purpose were it of the same authority those Imperial Constitutions were when the Orient and the Occident South and North as far as the Roman Empire was ever spread at any time or even in great Constantins days were under one Lord. An imperial or civil law in those days or of such others for some ages after which wâ—e received in the wide christian world consequently generally retained might have been to purpose if it had clearly expresly on particularly enacted any thing to our present purpose But conceived in such terms as this of Frederick coâ—lâ— not be to such purpose For it is one thing to be exempted from the subjection due to Emperours or Kings and another to be exempted a forâ— secuilâ—i from a secâ—â—â—â— Iudicatory The Emperours had under themselves and established by themselves and by their own civil laws two sorts of Iudicatories The one termâ—â—â—g meer civil or meer secular Iudicatory where peculars onely or meer â—ay men were Judges And the other termed 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Iudicatory where Ecclesiastical Persons only or persons depâ—â—â—â— by them were Iudgeâ— whatever the cause or question was civil or criâ—â—nal temporal or spiritual or mixt of both And both had their power which as coercive or a 〈…〉 with any coerciâ—â—â— from the Emperours and from their civil law 〈◊〉 So that the Emperours exempting any from the secular Iudicatory 〈…〉 leave or put such under the subordinat pâ—â—er of the Ecclesiastical Judges deputed by the same Emperours or by their laws Which they might have done in favour of meer lay men 〈◊〉 some lay-men and in some or many or all case whatsoever made had it been their Imperial pleasure as often they did by instances grant Epise 〈◊〉 And entiam to meer lay men and in meer lay crimes or lay causes 〈◊〉 civil and criminal at leaâ— in civil Would Bellarmine conclude therefore that those were exempted or should be in such a case and by the Emperours themselves or their laws exempted from their own supream civil coercive power in criminal causes or indeed in any whatsoever Or must it follow that because by the law of England a Lord for example 〈◊〉 be condemned or tryed in a criminal cause but by his Peers that therefore in England a Lord is exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the King himself Or that it is not by a power derived from the King thâ—â— Peer 〈…〉 condemn or free another Peer Or even that by the supream power of the King which formerly established such a law of priviledge for Peers the same law may not be justly again or upon just grounds repealed and a contrary law made in Parliament if at any time it were found by manifest experience that the Peers did manifestly and manifoldly and even to the ruine of the King and Kingdom and against the very primary intention of all priviledges and laws make use of or rather abuse such a former law or former priviledge Or finally and consequently that whatever priviledge of exemption though only from Inferiour lay Judges was so granted as before to Clerks by the supream civil power of Emperours Kings and other States was such that in case of manifest and manifold abuse even to the ruine of the publick and without any hope of amendment it could not be revoked again or moderated by another law and equal power to that which gave it before Therefore from first to last I think it is now clear enough that by the civil law no Clerks are exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of such temporal Princes or States under whom they live LXIX That neither by the Canons of the Church I am now to prove Wherein I find so little difficulty that notwithstanding the general errour so wide spread or supposed amongst as well Divines as Canonists to the contrary but introduced at first and continued after out of some passages of Councils very ill understood considered or examined I dare say boldly that not onely none of all those Councils or Canons of Councils alledged for such exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power but not even any of them alledged for their exemption from as much as the subordinat civil power of inferiour Judicatories hath any such matter at all Though my purpose here be not other then to prove this truth for what concerns the supream power only To which purpose I affirm that no where in any Council is it found that the Fathers attributed such authority to themselves as by their own sole power to exempt Clerks from lay Tribunals â— or which is the same thing to deprive secular Judges or Magistrates of power empire command judgment coercion or Iurisdiction over Clerks or which also imports the very same to prohibit the secular Judges not to take cognizance of or give sentence in the causes either civil or criminal of Clerks brought unto their tribunals or finally and it is still in effect the same
not to summon Clerks to their tribunals and judge their causes whensoever such causes were meerly temporal and not properly or strictly spiritual or of a purely spiritual nature And I affirm also that before Iustinians Empire which was from the year of Christ 527. wherein it was begun to the year 565. wherein he dyed no Council nor canon of Council did ever as much as declare or even as much as only suppose that Clerks were by any other authority or by that I mean'd of the very Emperours themselves exempted generally from lay tribunals not even I mean still from those of inferiour Judges And O God of Truth how can any knowing Divine any conscientious Historian Canonist or Civilian be so preoccupated as not to acknowledge or so blind as not to see it cannot be any way probable that the Fathers of those primitive and purer ages should attribute any such power to themselves as by their own proper authority to exempt others or even themselves from that subjection to which as well themselves as all other Clerks were antecedently bound by the positive law of God himself as not only St. Augustine teaches in his exposition of the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul to the Romans but all other Fathers generally who treat of this subject or expound that chapter But to clear this matter throughly we must observe Those ancient Fathers with whom Ecclesiastical Discipline whereof now there is so great neglect did sincerely and severely nourish used their utmost endeavours that Ecclesiasticks should not onely by their doctrine instruct the people but also by their probity of manners and innocency of carriage in all things And therefore admonish'd all Clerks nay enjoyned them in their own conciliary Canons and sometimes also under heavy Ecclesiastical Sanctions or Censures That none of them should presume to convene or charge an other Clerk in any cause either criminal or civil before a secular judge but either by the intervention of friends should compose all their own differences or certainly if they would not or could not do so that they should at least suffer all to be determined by Episcopal Iudgment acquiescing therein And both advised and ordained so in imitation of St. Paul himself and for the very self-same reason or certainly not unlike to it this great Apostle had when writing to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 6. and forbidding them to sue one an other before heathen Iudges he gave therein a rule to all Christians generally for that time as well Laicks as Clerks Which reason appropriated to our present purpose of Clerks onely is That if or when it should happen that Clerks should fall out of human frailty into such imperfections or sins as other men are subject to and yet are scandalized at mightily when committed by Clergie-men they might be with farre more secrecy and much less scandal corrected by their own proper Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Superiours and consequently that such deviations of Clergiemen should not come to the knowledge of the vulgar which commonly judges of the doctrine by the life or conversation of the Doctors and is apt enough upon such occasions to laugh and scorn the persons themselves and not seldome too their very sacred function it self Besides that Clergiemen who by their calling should be in a very special manner above others careful to cherish peace and concord and be themselves by word and deed paterns of charity and patience to others should not by their own example or by their own sueing of others or of one an other in the secular and publick Courts rather shew the way to contention and strife then lead to christian peace and patience Whereby as it may be easily understood the Fathers did not by such admonitions or by such decrees lessen or intend to lessen as indeed they could not if any of them would and certainly none of them have willed so to lessen the proper civil power of the secular Iudges to heare and determine the temporal either civil or criminal causes of Clerks when brought to their tribunals and brought so either by the free access of the Clerks themselves or by their constrained or commanded appearance when called or summoned by the same Iudges For to have done so or intended so would have been to take from Princes and Magistrats that right and authority which the law of Christ doth not permit any admonitions or any decrees of the Fathers not even in or by their most solemn Councils whatsoever to take from the said Princes or Magistrats The Fathers therefore by such decrees did partly forbid that Clerks should not sue one an other and partly too that neither should they sue a meer layman before a secular Iudg. For this also of not sueing laymen some Canons have And the Fathers by those decrees ordained Episcopal punishments against all Clerks that would not observe those decrees And this is all that may be gathered out of any or all the Canons of Councils alleadged by our adversaries Now who sees not that all this might be justly and lawfully ordained by the spiritual Fathers of the Church by their Ecclesiastical Councils and Canons without any the least diminution of the former civil power of the lay Iudges over Clerks For so a good natural Father in the civil commonwealth that hath many children may command them all and also forbid them under a private domestick punishment nay even under that of disinheriting them that they contend not or sue one an other before a publick Judg about any quarrel amongst themselves but leave all such differences to himself their Father or to the private domestick judgment of their other Bretheren And may command this without any prejudice at all to the publick authority of the publick or legal Judges And therefore so too may the spiritual Fathers of the Church command those who are in a special manner and by a special tye and calling their spiritual children such as all Clerks are and may command them too under such punishments or penalties as are proper to their said spiritual Fatherhood not to the one an other or even any at all before a secular Judg. And yet by no means thereby lessen or intend to lessen the power of such Judges over Clerks or their causes whensoever convened or brought either by election or coaction before them but onely to abridgâ— the Clerks themselves of their former liberty of going so freely unto them as they used to do Which any rational person may easily judg not to be an Exemption of Clerks from secular Judges but a provident course to keep them in better order and as well as may be to avoid scandal And that my bare assertion may not be given for this my interpretation I thought it worth my labour to set down here and at length distinctly those very Decrees of Councils which Bellarmine l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. Prop. 3. pleads against us though he gives there some few words onely of some of them and
Pontifice suo ad judicia publica pertrahant Proinde statuimus ut hoc de caetero non praesumatur Si quis hoc praesumpserit facere causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus Out of both these Councils that is out of that eight canon of that first Matisconensian Council and this 13. canon of the third Toletan our learned Cardinal endeavours again to impose on his unlearned Readers But not so much in his great work of controversies l. 1. de Cler. c. 28. where he onely or at least commonly cited the bare chapters and not as much as the material words of Councils so farre he was from composing arguments but in that other book he writ long after against D. W. Barclay and in defence of his foresaid Controversies and particularly of what he taught therein or in his often quoted first book de Cleric c. 28. It is therefore in this reply of his which he also entitles as Barclay did his own book against him De potestate Papae in Temporalibus and it is in the 24. chapter of it and after so many other arguments weak enough as I have already shewn them to be framed and replyes made against William Barclay on pretence of those other councils and in behalf of his own allegation of them it is I say in this little and last beloved piece of his old age he argues thus interrogatively or Socratically out of both these last Councils Si Laici Magistratus c. If sayes he Lay Magistrats were legal Judges of Clergiemen by what right law or title could the above Matisconensian Council decree that all causes of clerks should be determined in the presence of the Bishop or Presbiter or Archdeacon And how could this Toletan Council also with so great asperity of words tearm it praesumption and unlawful attempts in Clergiemen to have recourse to secular Iudicatories And how lastly would this same Council dare to rescind or annull the sentence of the secular Judg and besides to excommunicate the Clerk that procured such sentence or sued any other Clerk in a secular Court or Iudicatory For so much do these words import Causam perdat a communione efficiatur extraneus let him loose his cause and be made a stranger to communion But the answer is facile enough and clear 1. That neither of both Councils or canons determins any thing against the secular Judge himself or against his having still a power of Iurisdiction to judg the causes of Clerks when called or come before him but onely prohibits Clerks themselves to have recourse of themselves or freely of themselves to sue one an other in secular Courts as hath been said before to the canon of Carthage And for prohibiting such voluntary recourse of Clerks that these Fathers of Matiscon and Toledo had respectively the same rights or authority which those of Carthage or even those of Chalcedon had even that very same which St. Paul had when he either commanded or advised his Corinthians not to sue one an other before Heathen judges c. And therefore that these Councils do rather confirm then any way infirm the jurisdiction at that time yet of lay Judges 2. That Bellarmine is much out of the way in thinking if ever he thought so indeed that by these words causam perdat the Fathers of Toledo rescind or annul the sentence of the secular judg by their own proper Episcopal or spiritual authority For and for what belong'd and was necessary to such rescission or annullation strictly taken the Fathers in making this canon as likewise in making any other such or that would or should require a politick civil power properly such in the canon-makers derived their authority from King Recaredus himself at whose command this third Council of Toledo was called and therefore sate in it himself and made the first speech to open it and several speeches after and finally confirmed it with his own subscription in these words Flavius Recaredus Rex hanc deliberationem quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo confirmans subscripsi Having also before his said subscription premised this declaration or admonition to all concern'd Praecedente autem diligenti cauta deliberatione sive quae ad fidem conveniunt sue quae ad morum correctionem respiciunt sensus maruritate intelligentiae gravitate constant esse digesta Nostra proinde authoritas hoc omnibus hominibus ad regnum nostrum pertinentibus jubet ut si qua definita sunt in hoc Concilio acto in urbe Toletana anno Regni nostri faeliciter quarto nulli contemnere liceat nullus praeterire praesumat For so it hath been usual that where the civil and Ecclesiastical power agree well together in making laws each or both do make such use of one an others authority that as to the words the Church sometimes doth seem to speak as having civil jurisdiction and the Politick or secular civil power also to make such laws as are of Ecclesiastical Notion Neither indeed doing so or seeming so by vertue of its own proper innate authority but by that borrowed from the other or as being certain of the others approbation and ratihabition Which was the cause that Recaredus the foresaid King of Spain though a meer layman ordained in his confirmation of this Toletan Council in his own name too that if any person Concilii observator esse noluerit superba fronte majorum statutis repugnans si Episcopus Praesbiter Diaconus aut Clericus fuerit ab omni Concilio excommunicationi subjaceat What is the power of excommunication in a lay Kings hands Or did Recaredus the very first Catholick King after those Arian Gothish Kings of Spain a King so truly Catholick and pious as he is confessed to have been did he usurp the rights and proper powers of the Church and even in that very Edict unto which the Fathers of this Toletan Council did themselves subscribe themselves Nothing less What he did in this respect or by such words was by consent of the Fathers nor in so much did he assume peradventure as much the person of a law maker as of a publisher of that law which in this particular of excommunication was onely made by the Fathers Though withal I confess that a secular Prince may by his own proper supream and even still meer civil power make a law commanding or enjoyning the Bishops to excommunicate in certain cases and a law besides ordaining some temporal punishment for such as without any just cause or against the known canons of the Church should excommunicate For to say so we are not onely warranted by natural reason or consideration of the proper office of the supream civil Magistrate which consists in taking care that all degrees either civil or Ecclesiastical under his charge do justly and religiously discharge themselves but also by the canon De illicita 24. q. 3. taken out of a Paris Council where the Fathers speak thus De illicita excommunicatione Lex
Iustiniani Imperatoris Catholici quam probat servat Catholica Ecclesia constitutione c. XXIV cap. eccl 1. decrevit ut nemo Episcopus nemo praesbiter excommunicet aliquem antequam causa probetur c. In which law of Iustinian it is also very observable that he prescribes meer ecclesiastical punishments to be undergone by the transgressors of it Is autem qui non legittime excommunicaverit in tantum abstineat a sacra communione tempus quantum majori sacerdoti visum fuerit c. On the other side it hath been often seen that the Fathers themselves assembled in Councils made ordinances or canons in matters belonging properly to the politick administration as to wit being certain the Prince would by his own proper authority approve of such canons and consequently give them that force which the onely spiritual power could not or as knowing that by the civil laws or customs of countries such matters ought to be observed but wanted nevertheless for their more conscientious and careful observance the admonition of the Fathers and the severity also of Ecclesiastical censures threatned against the infringers Which to have been so indeed may truly and clearly appear even out of this very Council of Toledo where annuente consentiente Rege some politick canons were made by the Fathers and may appear also out of that former of Matiscon wherein the 14 canon is Vt Iudaeis a caena Domini usque ad primum diem pâ—st Pascha secundum edictum bonae Recordationis Domini Childeberti Regis per plateas aut fâ—rum quasi insultationis causa deambulandi licentia denegetur 3. That if we did absolutely grant without reserve that by the royal authority of King Guntramnus in this first Council of Matisconum and of King Recaredus in that of Toledo the jurisdiction of subordinate inferiour lay Judges over Clerks had been totally extinct in the respective Kingdoms of those two Kings yet nothing hence for the exemption of Clerks from the very supream royal power in it self and in all cases or causes Nor any thing to prove such exemption from inferiour tribunals whatever it was to have proceeded from any power of the Church or even from any temporal power of Kings before Iustinians time and Novels in favour of Clergiemen for both these Councils were held after Iustinians Raign 4. And lastly that Bellarmine was not wary enough in alleadging that first Council of Matisconum For besides that what he alleadgeth out of it hath not as much as any seeming argument for his purpose but that simple Quere which every novice could answer he hath moreover given his Readers occasion to tell him that of all Councils he should ever beware to touch on this of Matisconum being the seventh canon of it is so clear and express against his pretence of divine right or divine law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Magistrate or indeed rather of any law at all even meerly humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for their exemption in all crimes or in all those which are in the canons stiled lay crimes crimina laica that murther theft and witchcraft are by name excepted by this very Council and in the seventh canon from any such priviledge of Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption from the lay Judges however the criminal be a Clerk as may appear to any that is not wilfully blind out of this VII canon it self being as to the tenor of it word by word at leingth what I give here Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque judex absque causa criminali id est homicidis furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum fuerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur So at that time the Fathers of this Matisconensâ—â—â— Council thought it not against any law divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical to acknowledg the jurisdiction of even inferiour Judges over Clerks accused of or as much as accused of murder theft or witchcraft and consequently nor to leave them in such causes to the punishment prescribed by the law And what think you then would these Fathers have any more priviledged such Clerks as should perchance be found guilty of or charg'd with sedition rebellion hostility or any other undenyable treason against the King State or People Or did these Fathers think you harbour at any time the least thought of a priviledge from God or Church or Prince or people to Clergiemen guilty of moveing subjects to take arms against the King himself and his laws And these being all the Councils alleadged by the learned Cardinal in his controversies de Cleric l. 1. c. 28. and those other Councils after added by him in his foresaid other last peculiar little book de potestate Papae in temporalibus against William Barclay undoubtedly because upon after thoughts he found the former in his controversies not convincing at all as no more will you those his additional ones being also already and at large both in my general Answers to them all together and in my particular answers to each a part cleared by me abundantly in my LXIV and LXIX Section where the Reader may turn to them back again if he please for those additional Councils are no other then Lateranense magnum sub Innoc. III. cap. 43. Constantiense Sess 31. Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X. finally the Council of Trent Sess 25. c. 20. de Reformat All which I have though upon another occasion considered in my said former LXIV LXIX Section therefore to perclose this present Section I find my self obliged onely further to take notice of what the Cardinal sayes nay indeed gives for the second main proof of his third Proposition l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. which third Proposition is as I have before noted in general tearms this Non possunt Cerici a judice seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent For after the Cardinal had briefly quoted the Councils of Chalcedon Agatha Carthage Toledo and Matisconum and of these five Councils had framed his first argument for that his so general third Proposition and then for a second argument pretended first the constitutions of Emperours Novel 79. 83. and 123. but immediatly after acknowledging these Imperial constitutions did not reach the exemption of Clerks at least in criminal causes from some even Inferiour or subordinate lay judges but expresly subjects them still in such causes to the Praetors and Presidents he at last for a second proof of his said Proposition to wit as it relates to criminal causes relyes wholly and onely on the authority of the canon law and for canon law in the point brings no other proof then a general and bare allegation of three Popes Caius Marcellinus and S. Gregory the Great without as much as giving us their words but telling us
other annexed not only necessary but holy but Apostolical and Evangelical Truths which the ignorance or interest of so many late Schoolmen hath so much obscured I would as an humble Son of the Church and as a concern'd member of that most sacred body of Churchmen with all due respect admonish them not to be ungrateful to their so great so good and true and proper benefactors the secular Princes who only were they indeed that bestowed on them originally continue still what ever true exemptions they have how great soever as without question they are very great and I from my heart wish they may be greater so as not abused but all used to the glory of God and the more holy exercise of their sacred function For being it appears evidently out of what I have hitherto said since I begun this particular of exemption and shall yet farther out of what follows till I end it that secular Princes were and are the only true Donors Patrons Defenders and Protectors of the said exemptions liberties and other worldly priviledges and that the canons of the Church in such matters had no subsistence but in the former laws or good pleasure of Princes certainly it must follow that the Clergie is everlastingly bound to acknowledge the Princes as such and with all gratitude all hearty submission reverence and obedience to acknowledge their supream temporal power and Lordship even over themselves as well as over the Layety and even also as continuing still over both the very same it was in the beginning over both and never to deny from whence or whom they had their freedom or that it was from the secular Princes they had and have it still Which yet some do attributing their whole Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty as they call it to the canons that is to the constitutions of Popes and Councils Then which indeed nothing more ungrateful can proceed from ungrateful hearts being it is so clear and perspicuous to any that will not willingly shut his eyes at least to all men of learning such as Clergymen especially Bishops and Priests ought to be That it is not from the Pontiffs but from the Princes nor from the canons but from the laws the Clergy have received all the temporal exemption they have whatever it is they truly have Which to be so certainly true that it could not otherwise be or that not only it is not the Pontiffs or Canons or any power of the Church that hath de facto given such exemption to Churchmen as they have but also that de jure no Pontiff or Pontiffs not even the very Prince of Pontiffs himself the Pope of Rome nay nor even the universal Church it self as properly and purely the Church could by any proper Pontifical Sacerdotal or Church-power or any whatsoever without the consent of the secular Princes and supream civil power give and grant this very exemption which the Clergy enjoys in some cases or many or most or even all cases whatsoever as you please to think or say from only the subordinate inferiour Judges will the more evidently yet appear out of what I am to say further now LXIX For by this time having throughly declared all Bellarmines arguments grounded by him on either holy Scriptures imperial Constitutions or Church-canons no more remains now of my particular proofs or grounds for my defiance to the Doctors of Lovaine above LXII Section but that I clear also the arguments pretended only from natural or Theological reason for the expediency and necessity of such exemption or of such a power in the Pope or Church to grant such exemption of Clergymen from the very supream civil power even in all kind of temporal causes whatsoever and even without nay against the will of secular Princes Wherein truly however over and over again considered by me I find so little difficulty that I dare again repeat here that very last passage of my defiance LXII Section which was and is That I defied those of Lovaine or any other Divines or Canonists in the world to shew as much as one convincing or even probable argument of natural reason to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergymen from the cognisance and coercion of the supream civil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or live at least as reputed Citizens or Subjects But now to draw near my said particular grounds or reasons of this last part of my general defiance in the above LXII Section I believe the Reader will be perswaded I shall give sufficient if I produce here all the very choicest natural or Theological reasons which all the very best Divines and Canonists of Bellarmines way have yet alledg'd where of set purpose they handle this subject and if withal I give them every one such clear solutions as will leave no place for any material reply And I suppose still that Bellarmine hath for his own sake fixed on the very best Divines and Canononists of his way where he gives a list of such of both professions as maintain this power in the Pope It is not in his great Works of Controversie or any edition of them or of his books there de Clericis but in his foresaid latter little book de potestatae temporali Papae in temporalibus cap. 34. that he gives a list of those he found most to his purpose even of those very Divines and Canonists who as he himself there both rightly and materially notes maintain Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not de jure divino but de jure positive humano For that all such other Divines or such other Canonists as maintain on the other side that Ecclesiastical Exemption is de jure divino do and must consequently hold that even the Pope hath either such a power to exempt Clerks so or at least hath a power to declare them so antecedently exempted by God himself no man doubteth and Navarre expresly teacheth cap. Novit de Judiciis notab 6. n. 30. But that the very same of the Popes power is taught also by the former who hold the exemption of Clerks not to be de jure divino is manifest sayes Bellarmine ubi supra out of Franciscus Victoria Relect. de Potestate Eccles q. 6. prop. 5. Dominicus Soto in 4. dist 25. q. 5. art 2. Martinus Ledesma in Quartum parte 2. q. 20. art 4. Dominicus Bannes in 2. 2. q. 67. art 1. and Didacus Covarruvias pract quaest cap. 31. conclus 3. 4. And it is not unworthy our observation to note the very words of Dominicus Sotus and Did. Covarruvias's assertion hereof in the places now quoted Papa potuit sayes Dominicus conclus 6. inconsultis Principibus debuit Clericos ab eorum exactionibus foro excipere cui quidem exemptioni Principes contravenire nequeunt And sayes Covarruvias conclusione 4. Quamvis exemptio Clericorum a jurisdictione secularium jure tantum humano sit introducta Princeps tamen secularis
ut cumque summus sit non poterit huic immunitati aut exemptioni propriis legibus propriaque authoritate derogare So farr the learned Cardinal hath helped us on in this matter by giving us to our hand the authors and places quoted albeit only to shew against William Barclay that himself was not single in asserting such a power to the Pope But for these natural reasons or theological if you please to call them so which to solve is my business at present he hath left his Reader to seek Which makes me say that he hath not at all removed the cause of Barclay's admiration as he ought to have done Barclay admired that so learned and so judicious a man as Cardinal Bellarmine should maintain that the Pope could exempt the Subjects of Kings from all subjection to Kings and this without any consent from the Kings themselves adding as a further cause of his admiration how it was confess'd that before such exemption by the Pope those very persons so exempted by him or attempted to be so exempted to wit the whole Ecclesiastical Order of Clerks and even as well Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs and the very Pope himself as other the most inferiour Clerks were all of them primitively originally and even by the very law of God subject to the secular Princes in all politick or civil and temporal matters and yet as a further cause adding also that the law of Christ submitted unto in Baptisme deprives no man of the temporal rights he had before baptisme and consequently deprived not for example Constantine the Great when baptized of the lawful power he had before he was baptized over the Christian Clergy Now that Bellarmine should go about to disswade Barclay from his admiration because forsooth he quotes five School-men that is four Divines and one Canonist who taught the same thing and produces only the bare words of the Assertion of two of them on the point but no reason at all of theirs or of any others or of his own for such assertion may seem to men of reason a strange way of perswading another man and master too of much reason As if Barclay should cease therefore any whit the less to admire so gross an errour in Bellarmine that some others also had fallen into the same errour before or after or together with him Nay if Bellarmine had not preposterously fixed on those very men for his companions or patrons who contradict themselves so necessarily that is at least virtually and consequentially in this matter or if he had only fixed on such Divines and Canonists who speak consequently however ungroundedly of the exemption of Clergymen as of divine right which I confess the generality of Canonists do then peradventure he might have seemed to have alledged somewhat though indeed very little to allay Barclays wonderment For truly those he alledges betray themselves and his cause manifestly whereas they hold also manifestly and at the same time that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino Which being once granted who sees not the main difficulties which lye so in their way as not possible to be removed for asserting a power in the Pope to make laws for that exemption independently of Princes Who sees not that the Pope cannot make or impose what laws he please to bereave either Prince or People of their temporal rights or of what part soever of such rights he thinks expedient or convenient And who sees not otherwise that he alone must de jure be ot least may de jure make himself to be the sole supream Prince on earth in all temporal things at least amongst Christians And therefore consequently who sees not that being the Pope is not so nor can be so nor can lessen the Princes temporal authority over his own Subjects where-ever the law of God doth not lessen it and what I say of the Pope I say too of the whole Church who sees not consequently therefore I say that neither Pope nor Council nor other authority of the Church if any other be imaginable can or could so exempt Clerks from the power of Princes being that before such exemption all Clerks were subject to Princes and by the laws of God and nature subject to them But for as much as it appears undoubtedly that Bellarmine was one that did not or at least would not see these either Antecedents or Consequents being he sayes in plain terms and in his own name also de Potestate Papae in temporalibus supra cap. 38. That whether the supream temporal Princes themselves have or have not or could or could not exempt ecclesiastical while in their Dominion from their own supream temporal power potuit tamen voluit summus Pontifex istos eximere aut jure divino exemptos declarare yet the supream Pontiff could exempt them so and hath exempted them so or at least could declare and hath declared them antecedently exempted so by divine right that is by God himself in holy Scripture or at least in his revealed word either written or unwritten Neque possunt Principes etiam supremi hanc exemptionem impedire That neither can the Princes even supream hinder this exemption and That all this is the common doctrine of the Divines and Canonists cui hactenus non nisi Heretiei restiterunt which none hetherto but heretick's have resisted and forasmuch also as not onely Franciscus Victoria Dominicus Soto Martinus Ledesma Dominicus Bannes and Didacus Covarruvias above particularly quoted but even the generality of Canonists and late School Divine Writers seem to be of the number of those that with Bellarmine did not or would see the same Antecedents and consequents and lastly forasmuch as we have already solved all they could say for their contrary assertions either out of Scripture or out of the laws and canons nay and out of not onely some other extrinsick authorities of other authors Philosophers and Historians I mean for what concerns matter of fact or the point of Clergiemens having been already exempted so by any whomsoever but also all the arguments grounded on or pretended from natural reason or which Bellarmine framed above for his law of Nature or Nations for the Clergie's being already so exempted now therefore to fall to that which onely is the proper subject of this present Section let us consider those other arguments pretended to be of natural reason or even of Theological reason if you please to call it so as it may perhaps be justly called because suppoâ—eing some principle of Faith which we find in other Authors as in Dominicus Soto and in Franciscus Victoria for the being of such a power in the Pope or Church or in either or in both together as purely such or as purely acting by a true proper certain or undoubted power of the Church as the Church or as a Church onely For thus it is they must state the question and that they do questionless suppose it stated Though I confess
withal that if they had stated or supposed it otherwise as they do not or if we did suppose even all the civil or temporal power in the world conferr'd by the world it self on the great Pontiff or on the Church or Churchmen to make what laws he or they pleased in all civil things and for all mortal men and by themselves to govern the world as the onely supream civil Governours yet my judgment would be still that even in such a case according to natural reason there could be no power at all in the Pope or Church as indeed none is at present nor can be at any time in the Princes or people themselves or both or even together with the Church to exempt Churchmen from the supream civil Magistrat in whose Dominions they live And yet in the case which is now in being of the Popes being at present the supream civil Magistrat in Rome and in the whole temporal Patrimony of St. Peter in some tracts of Italy for so at least he is in effect or by actual possession of the rights of such a supream civil Magistrat he cannot by any argument of natural reason exempt the Clergie of those tracts from his own said supream civil power of them unless he at the same time devest himself wholly of that very same supream civil power and quit it absolutely to some other Whereof more hereafter in the following Sections where it will appear that the exemption of Clerks from the supream power of Kings under whom they live and whom they acknowledg to be also their own Kings implyes a most plain and manifest contradiction In the mean time let us now to the onely arguments remaining those natural or Theological reasons of the other side for such a power in the Pope or Church These reasons such as they be I find to be in all seven or eight six whereof are fram'd by Dominicus Soto and the other two by Franciscus Victoria Albeit five of those fix are onely to prove the said exemption as to the persons of Clergiemen but the rest to prove it not onely as to their persons but as to their goods also And besides these eight reasons I see no other in these or other Authors of their way nor indeed any thing els not even in Covarâ—â—vias himself but some few authorities of other Canonists which are not worth the while nor at all proper to repeat heer being such as they neither belong to reason nor have on other account any power of perswasion The first general reason of Dominicus Soto proveing this exemption as well necessary as congruous and both as to the goods and as to the persons of Clergiemen Ecclesiastical power sayes he is per se that is of it self or by its own nature sufficient and independent from the civil power Therefore it may of it self make all such laws as are either necessary or convenient for its own administration quae suae administrationi sunt necessariae vel congruentes But the law of exemption of Clerks both as to their goods and persons from all kind of Secular Magistrats even the very most supream is either necessary or at least very congruent that is to say is at least convenient or agreeable or meet or fitting or expedient for Church administration Now to prove this assumption first as to the persons or to prove it to be even necessary That the persons of Churchmen should be so exempt Soto gives four specifical reasons as immediately after he gives also a fifth to prove it necessary as to their very goods The first specifical reason or medium of Soto to prove it necessary as to their persons For sayes he whereas the Ministers of the Church are constituted according to divine law it must seem in the next degree of proximity to the said law divine that they may not be called upon or commanded by the secular Judges Second specifical reason as to the persons It may happen that amongst Ecclesiastical causes whereof lay â—en cannot be Judges some civil matters do intervene And therefore if Clergiemens persons were not exempt from all kind of secular Iudicatories they must be in such cases perplexed not knowing which tribunal to obey when called upon by both Ecclesiastical and secular Third specifical reason of Soto as to the persons It would not be decent nor have any decorum that the Ministers of Churches who are Pastours of even those very Judges themselves nay and of Kings too should be as criminals or guilty persons called upon by those Iudges or bound to appear as such before them Fourth specifical reason of Soto as to the persons Whereas the civil power and Ecclesiastical are in their own natures wholly distinct or different it is necessary that as each hath its own proper Ministers so the Ministers of each have their own proper Superiours Hitherto this learned Schoolman as to the persons But as to the goods of Clergiemen his onely reason is which is in order the sixth of those reasons That whereas tributes and customs are paid to Kings in lieu of or as a recompence for the labours they undergoe in ruleing the Commonwealth and whereas Clerks undergoe no less in discharge of their own duty or towards the maintenance of the Church it seems but a due recompensation that their goods be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Seventh reason but given by Franciscus Victoria to prove the necessity of a power in the Church to exempt both goods and persons The Ecclesiastical Republick is perfect in it self and sufficient in it self Therefore it hath power to make such laws as are convenient for the administration of the Church And therefore also if the exemption of Clerks from the civil power even supream be convenient for such administration it hath power to enact such exemption by law Eight and last reason and it is of the same Franciscus Victoria but as to the persons onely The Pope may by his own proper authority choose fix on or design and actually appoint and iustice to Ecclesiastical Ministers notwithstanding any contradiction of the civil power Therefore he may also â—â—on the same ground or for the some reason exempt those Ecclesiastical Ministers from the secular power And these are all the arguments grounded on reason or which as grounded purely or chiefly on reason the common principles of Faith or of the existence of a Christian Church being once admitted ouâ— adversaries bring But whether any of all be sufficiently convincing or whether any of all be as much as probable I mean intrinsecally probable the indifferent judicious Reader is to give his judgment when I have done my devoire in answering For I remember what I have undertaken Section LXII to shew not onely that no convincing argument of natural reason can be produced but not even as much as any probable argument of such reason meaning still by probable that which is intrinsecally such Though I do withall advertise here That no even intrinsick
what power he determined it I would I say advertise here such of my Readers that not only not Bellarmine himself but no other whom I could hitherto meet or read hath brought us yet any proof even of this very latter part of his said confident assertion for his voluit that is I mean for as much aâ— any one Popes having by his own papal Power or pretence of such power de facto already whether right or wrong exempted so all Clergiemen from the supream temporal Magistrats in all civil and criminal causes whatsoever or as much as declared them exempted so by any law of God and for any Popes having done or willed so expresly or clearly and indubitably on the very question either by decretal Epistle or by Bull or other Constitution whatsoever defining the case and commanding all Christians or Catholick Churches to believe this Exemption in Bellarmines latitude as given so nay or even as granted by any power or law whatsoever ecclesiastical or civil That Bellarmine hath brought no such proof the matter is clear enough being he alledgeth no more to this purpose for either part but those sayings or decrees of Cajus Marcelline Gregory the Great Symmachus Iohn the VIII and both the Innocents all and every of which I have already answered as they occurr'd in their proper places and shewed that none of them is home enough to this purpose Beside that I have proved some of them either suppositicious or corrupt and others to no purpose at all either this we have here or that for which they were brought there where I treated them And that no other Doctors Canonists or Divines of Bellarmine's way have better arguments for his said voluit or that imported by it any one may perswade himself that please to read them where they of purpose treat the matter of Ecclesiastical liberty and yet more especially where they dispute of the several Excommunications in Bulla caenae pronounced at Rome yearly and with so much solemnity by the Popes against all infringers whatsoever even Princes Kings and Emperours of the said Ecclesiastical liberty Wherein yet the Reader will find no other of any Pope's having so by himself and by his own power exempted Clerks or having declared them so exempted by the law of God but either some of those I have already answered or some other as little pertinent if not far yet more impertinent some of them then some of these I have already given Ioannes Azorius's Martinus Bonacina's collections of such arguments or canons of Popes alledged by them and others to this purpose may serve to judge by of all For I have diligently observed all the chapters of the canon law whereunto they remit us for proof that by the canon law Clerks are so exempted Azor hath them in his fifth book of his moral Institutions cap. 12. And Bonacina who was a professed Canonist a Doctor V. I. as well as of Divinity and who seeks no other rule of truth or justice in any matter but some kind of meer papal determination hath also quoted them in several parts of his moral Theology as de Legibus d. 1. q. 1. pu 6. n. 29. and in oct decalog praeceptum and de Restit disp 2. q. 9. pu 2. and de contrac d. 4. q. 2. pu 1. Parag. 1. finally Bullae caenae d. 1. q. 19. pu 2. And yet besides those texts I have treated already I find no other but cap. non minus de Immunitate Ecclesiae cap. Adversus cod tit cap. Clericis de Immunîtate Ecclesiarum in Sexto cap. Ecclesia sanctae mariae de constitutionibus and cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto But none of all these canons have any such matter at all as a clear express and formal nay or as much as a virtual diffinition of the Popes in the point or as to the case of the persons of Clerks being so exempted by the Pope himself or being so declared by him to have been formerly exempted by the law of God from all even supream civil power in all cases or even in any temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil For besides that some of these canons are not sole and meeâ— papal canons out of General Councils also or of Councils at least reputed General and consequently no proofs of the Popes having by his own sole authority willed so or exempted so the Clerks or declared them formerly exempted so by the law of God it is clear enough 1. That cap. Non minus de Immunitate Ecelesia which is taken out of the nineteenth Chapter of the third General Council of Laterâ—n held under Alexander the Third Pope of that name and Frederick the Second Emperour and as such inserted by Gregory the Ninth into his Decretals speaks only against such particular Consuls and Rectors of Cities as contrary to both the civil laws and customs received amongst Christians oppressed the Church-lands and Church-men by laying more grievous taxes on them then Pharaoh did on the Children of Israel and besides did wholy evacuat the jurisdiction of Bishops and only decrees by this canon as by a canon of Discipline for such only it was that such oppressors should be excommunicated Where you see there is not a word to our purpose For who doubts but the Fathers of this Lateran Council or even the Pope alone might justly complain of and decree against such oppressors notwithstanding the perfect entire subjection of all both Clerks and Bishops in all criminal causes and even of the Church-lands too in other matters to the supream civil Power They might have excommunicated such Consuls and Rectors for oppressing only the Laicks against the civil laws and customs or otherwise against justice 2. That cap. Adversus eod tit which is also not a meer or only papal Constitution but according to the Decretals of another General Council that is of the Fourth of Lateran under Innocent the Third and the 46. constitution of those of this Council if indeed the printed Acts or Canons of this Council be true ones or be the canons of this Council or if indeed this Council made any canons at all and how ever it be is but as the former a canon of Discipline only That I say this cap. Adversus as inserted by Gregory the Ninth in his Decretals and under the above title de Immunitam Ecclesiarum l. 3. tit 49. declares no more but that the said Fourth Lateran Council prohibited likewise the particular Consuls and Rectors of Citties as the former did not to oppress the Church or Church persons with tallies collections and other exactions And besides this nothing else from the Pope himself but that neither should the Churchmen themselves of themselvs freely consent to any taxes imposed or desired by such consuls rectors without the Roman Pontiffs leave and that if any constitutions were made or sentences given to the contrary all should be void Where you see nothing yet is said to our
purpose Nothing but against oppressive taxes contrary to law and former customs and taxes too imposed by the Consuls only and Rectors of particular Cities Nothing in specie against even any such oppressive taxe tallies exactions collections laid or made by an absolute order law or constitution of the supream civil power or of Kings Emperours States who certainly are not understood by the names of Consuls and Rectors of Cities And however this of taxes of Clerks be nothing at all for the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the supream civil power in all other civil and criminal causes whatsoever which only is it we dispute of here Nothing besides but what was convenient for the Government of the people within the Popes own temporal Patrimony for which only the additions of Gregory were unless it pleased other Countreys and of themselves to receive his said additions Finally nothing but what the Pope Innocent might as justly have decreed in case he believed certainly that Clerks had their exemption whatever it be from the sole civil power as if he had believed they had it only from the Church or from himself or some other of his Predecessors in the See of Rome 3. For although cap. Ecclesia sanctae Mariae de constitutionibus be a meer papal constitution of Innocent the Third only and hath indeed an expression which imports some such thing as the exemption of Churches and of the persons too of Churchmen from the power of Laicks yet forasmuch as this expression is not specifical or not in specie relating to or comprising the very supream lay power it self but so generical only as these words which are the words there concerning this matter Nos attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super Ecclesiis personis Ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa potestas and consequently forasmuch as these words may have a very true and rational sense notwithstanding the subjection still of the persons of Clerkes to the supream lay power because the civil laws or customs which prevailed at that time under Innocent the Third or which is the same thing because the Emperours themselves had given or permitted under themselves to the Church and Churchmen proper Ecclesiastical Judges for all their own both civil and criminal causes how ever still subordinat Judges in such causes to the Emperours and the same must be said of other Kings who had granted the like Ecclesiastical Judges and moreover forasmuch as this canon or chapter of Innocent is only a decision of a particular controversie in matter of a possession controverted betwixt a certain Church called here the Church of S. Mary and a certain Convent termed likewise in this canon the Convent of St. Sylvester which possession was adjudged by a certain lay judge called Senator against the said Convent without previous confession conviction or examination of the same Convent and those words above or meaning of them no part of that which was intended or decided by the Pope in this canon but assumed only and that also transiently as in part importing his reason or motive to remand that possession back to the said Convent and that we know the reasons motives or suppositions expressed in a sentence or canon are not therefore defined by the Pronouncer of the sentence or maker of the canon and further yet because those words neither distinguish nor determine by what authority or law that is whether by divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical authority or law it was so enacted that lay-men could have no power in the causes of Church-lands or Church-men and because too they say nothing at all of any Pope's having made such a law whether by a true or only pretended power as did incapacitat all kind of Laicks even the very supream civil Magistrate himself or indeed as much as the very subordinate inferiour lay Judges from having any judicial authority over Churchmen finally because those words of themselves take away no such authority from Laicks but only at most signifie the not being of such authority attributed to Laicks whatever those Laicks were and by what means soever it came to pass not to be attributed to them therefore it is plain enough this canon Ecclesia sanctae Mariae is to no purpose alledged for Bellarmin's voluit that is for the matter of Fact of any Pope's having done so or having exempted so by his own Power all Clerks from the jurisdiction of even supream lay Princes or even of having declared them so exempted by the law of God himself 4. That albeit also cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto and cap. Clericis de Immunitate Ecclesiar be two meer Papal canons as made by the sole authority of Boniface the VIII and although it be confessed this Pope did challenge all the both spiritual temporal power on earth in Church and State to himself alone as likewise consequently to his Predecessours and Successours in the See of Rome which his extravagant Vnam sanctam De Majoritate obedientia and his other proceedings against a King of France besides the later of these two canons here quoted the said cap. Clericis can prove abundantly yet I dare confidently averre that neither of these canons of his however otherwise too too exorbitant at least the later of them comes home enough to prove that any Pope hath de facto by his own meer Papal authority exempted Clerks in all civil and criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of Lay Princes or hath de facto as much as declared or defined that Clerks have been so or are so exempted by the law of God in such causes from the said supream power of temporal Princes That for the former canon seculares de foro competenti the case is clear enough out of the very words and whole tenour of it Which being but short I give here altogether not omitting one word Seenlares judices qui licet ipsis nulla competat jurisdicto in hac parte personas Ecclesiasticas ad soluendum debita super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur litterae vel probationes aliae indueuntur damnabili praesumptione compellunt a temeritate hujusmodi per locorum Ordinarios censura Ecclesiastica decerninus compescendos where you see first there is not one word directly or indirectly of criminal causes but only of a civil in matter of debt Nor secondly any specifical comprehension no nor any comprehension at all of Kings States or Princes but onely of those inferiour persons whose peculiar office it is to be judge twixt party and party Nor thirdly is there any word here declaring by whose law or authority that is whether by that of the Pope or that of the Church c. it came to pass that these very inferiour Lay Judges have no jurisdiction in hac parte in a civil cause of debt challenged on a Clerk or declaring how it came to pass that the proceeding judgment or determination
that exemption be indeed or truly amounts to I pass over the little value many Countries of the Pope's even very strict communion and both many great and Catholick and Classick Authors too even very great sticklers for the Papacy it self as de jure divino have for this Bull or obligation of it yea notwithstanding all the solemnity used at Rome every year in renewing it How yet they will not receive nor publish it nor suffer it to be published amongst themselves nor hold themselves obliged at all by the publication of it either at Rome or in other places Whereof as enough may be seen in Suarez and Salas de Legibus where they treat of this subject so that was a notable instance which happen'd at Brussels in Albert and Isabels Principality over the Low Countreys resigned to them for ever by the King of Spain Philip the Second when the Nuncio Apostolick there at that time an Italian Archbishop thought he had met with such a conjuncture as therein he might introduce that Bull and therefore caused it to be affixed to the gates of the great Church of St. Gudula yet by commands from the Council of Brabant and Archbishop of Mechlin it was presently torn and pulled down quia non accessit placitum Principis and therefore too any further publication or observation of it prohibited ever since Which relation I had my self from the reverend Fathers de Young and Derkennis two famous professors of Divinity in the Colledge of the Jesuits at Lovaine when I studied in that University But whether this be so or no or whether the great number of those very famous Catholick Divines quoted by Suarez and Salas and by others too who maintain stiffely that Bulla caenae obliges no man in any Diocess out of the temporal Patrimony of the Roman Bishop as neither any other Bull of the Pope at least in matters of Discipline where not legally both published and received by the particular Churches Bishops Princes Clergy and People whether I say that great number of Divines be well grounded or no in maintaining so the invalidity of this Bull of the Supper without a special publication and reception in every particular Diocess neither the one viz. of that relation of the Fathers nor the other to wit of these Divines matters one pinn For I have shewed already that whether so or no whether without such particular publication and reception obliging or not obliging according to its tenour it hath not one word or clause to prove Bellarmin's voluit if by voluit he understand what he ought to our present purpose that is if the Pope's having actually or de facto as much as in him exempted Clerks by a Decretal Epistle Bull or Brief or other Declaration whatsoever sufficient for such purpose as much as according to the doctrine of the very Roman Divines and exempted them too even from the very supream civil power it self of temporal Princes or States For I confess that if any will understand by Bellarmine's voluit a meer inclination affection or good will of Popes to do so if they had found it feasible or according to the rules of prudence to do so that is if they feared not to loose all by doing so it may be granted and ought to be granted that within this last five hundred years many Popes have been spirited so whereof that conroversie in particular of Paul the V. with the Venetians in the year 1606. is for that one Pope a very notable instance But withal it must be granted on the other side that either this is not it which Bellarmine intended by his voluit or at least that he intended nothing to even his own purpose For such a will signifies nothing because not executed The contests therefore of several Popes with several Princes or States about jurisdiction as relating to Clerks argues no more but that such Popes did suppose or at least would have others believe they did suppose Clerks already or by some former law of God or Man or by humane custom in some places left in all causes whatsoever to the Court Ecclesiastical But argues not that any of themselves or other former or latter Popes whosoever did so exempt or attempted to exempt them so And for their suppositions or euen admonitions and comminations of censures nay or actual and manifold censures fulminated in such controversies against their opposers it is apparent in Ecclesiastical History they were little regarded by Princes or States or by other particular Churches of the papal communion or by their Divines Whereof also besides the State of Venice and several other Kingdoms and Principalities we have a most singular argument in the proceedings of Philip the Second that most religious and Catholick King of Spain when after the Usurpation of the Crown of Portugal by Anthony the Bastard Prior of Crati who by the faction and countenance chiefly of the Churchmen of Portugal got himself crown'd he reduced and subdued Portugal to himself as the more lawful Heir of that Kingdom For Spondanus ad Annum Christi 1581. tells how this great Catholick King expresly refused to extend to the religious of Portugal his Act of general Indemnity which in the general Assembly of Estates held by himself at Lisbone the said year he granted all those other Portugueses had opposed his title or the Duke of Alva his General or who had submitted to the said Anthony Nay excluded positively in the same Act and from the benefit of it all the Regulars or Monks of Portugal and besides them none at all but the said Prior Anthony himself the Bastard Usurper illegitimate Sou to Prince Lodovicus Franciscus Portugallus Count Vimiosi Iohn his brother Bishop of Guardia fifty other principal ring-leaders of Anthonie's faction And tells moreover that notwithstanding the general discontent arising from such exclusion or exception and notwithstanding all the frequent expostulations and supplications to his Catholick Majesty to mitigate this rigour he could never be wrought upon until at least two thousand Priests and Monks had by several kinds of violent deaths in several places partly within Portugal it self and partly abroad in the Islands of Azoras been destroyed in the prosecution of the warr against the relicks of Anthoni's Faction whereof also many were said to have been privatly dispatch'd It is true indeed that Thuanus L. 74. quoted by Spondanus ad annum Christi 1583. relates how it was rumour'd that Philip by his Embassadours at Rome obtained a Bull wherein the Pope pardoned him the killing of two thousand persons consecrated to God by a sacred and religious life But it is also true that neither Spondanus himself though a very precise religious Catholick Bishop and a great defender of all just laws of Popes and priviledges of the Clergy nor any other Historian or Writer I have yet seen reprehends nor tells that any other Divine or Clerk or even the Pope himself did reprehend King Philip as having violated
Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption by such his proceedings What therefore might be the cause of his desiring or accepting such a Bull if the story of it be true we may easily conteive to be of one side King Philips inexorable rigour I will not say cruelty first in excluding so many thousand religious and sacred men from all pardon and grace and next in pursuing and destroying them as irreconciliable enemies when he might have made them very tractable Subjects and on the other the Popes pretence of even the temporal Soveraignty or supream Lordship of the Country and Kingdom of Portugal as having been made tributary to the Church of Rome by Alphonsus the first Duke and King thereof according to Baronius ad annum Christi 1144. and the proceedings after of several Popes against some Kings of Portugal upon that ground by excommunicating and deposing some instituting others in their place and by exacting of them yearly at first agreed upon under Lucius the II. four ounces of Gold and after that four Marks of Gold under Alexander the IV. as an acknowledgement of his being the supream Lord of it or of its being held in Fee from the Bishops of Rome King Philip therefore to establish himself against the titles of so many other pretendents to that Crown thought it the safest way when he had done his work to make all sure with the Pope for after-times and get himself acknowledged King of Portugal even by him who pretended to be supream Lord of the Fee Though otherwise it be apparent also in Baronius that the Kings of Portugal did acknowledge so much dependence from the Kings of Castile as being bound to appear at their Court when called upon and give them three hundred Souldiers to serve against the Moors amounts unto But this could be no prejudice to a former independent and supream right of Popes to Portugal if there was any such especially whereas the same Barnius makes Castile it self feudatary to nay all Spain (a) Baron ad an Christiâ—â—â— â—01 〈◊〉 1703 the property of the of See Rome as likewise he doth in several places of his Annals all the Kingdoms of Christendome not even France (b) ad an 702. it self excepted And therefore nothing can be concluded from King Philips admission of this Bull but either his remorse of having abused that power God gave him over those religious men or used it in so much more like a Tyrant then a King unless peradventure he perswaded himself upon evident grounds they would never be true to him or his wariness in seeming so the more observant of the Pope in all things according to the maximes of Campanella while he drove at the universal Monarchy But however this be or not its plain enough out of his so publick refusal in the face of the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile and in that publick Assembly of all the Estates amongst which the Ecclesiastical was the chief and out of his so long and severe prosecution and persecution of those Monks for three whole years till he destroyed them all and out also of the silence even by the Ecclesiasticks themselves of that argument of exemption when the occasion to alledge it was the greatest might be offered at any time and finally out of his receiving continually the most holy Sacraments of the Church all that time without any reprehension or objection made to him by the Church of so publick and so scandalous and so bloody and sacrilegious violation of her pretended nearest and dearest laws I say it is plain enough out of all that whatever the story be of that Bull or whatever the true or pretended motives of King Philip to accept of it neither his own Subjects of Spain or Portugal Clerks or Laicks nor those of other Churches or Kingdoms either Princes or people nor even the Prelats or Pope himself that was then did any way so regard the suppositions or even admonitions comminations nay or even actual censures of other Popes in their Bulla caenae or otherwise as to think perswade themselves that a true obliging canon or law either of God or Man of the State or Church or even as much as of the Pope himself could be concluded thence for any real or true exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power in criminal causes And so I have done with Bellarmines voluit As for his other saying above That hitherto only Hereticks have contradicted this kind of Exemption even this so extraordinary and extravagant exemption of all Clerks in all temporal causes whatsoever civil or criminal from the supream civil and coercive power I remit the Reader to the next following Section saving one where he shall see a farr other sort of Doctors then Hereticks to contradict it even Austins and Hieroms and Chrysostoms and Gregories nay the whole Catholick Church in all ages until these later and worser times wherein the contest was raised first and again renewed by some few Popes and their Partizans against the supream temporal power of Emperours Kings and States Only you are to take notice here Good Reader That 't is but too too familiar with our great Cardinal to make Hereticks only the opposers of such private or particular but false opinions or doctrines of his own as he would impose as the doctrines of the Catholick Church on his undiscerning Readers as on the other side to make the most notorious Arch-hereticks to be the patrons of such other doctrines as himself opposes and would fright his Readers from how well and clearly soever grounded in Scriptures Fathers Councils Reason Which is the very true genuine cause wherefore he gives us where he treats of such questions so exact a list of those chief and most notorious Hereticks who held against him on the point and gives them also in the very beginning of his chapter or controversie whatever it be As in this of Ecclesiastical Exemption besides what I have quoted now out of his book against Barclay cap. 35. he tells us l. de Cleric c. 28. First in general that very many Hereticks contend that all Clerks of what soever degree are de jure â—â—vin by the law of God or by the same law ought to be subject to the secular power both in paying tributes and in judicial proceedings or causes Secondly that Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno though Catholick Lawyers to Lodâ—uick of Bauer the Emperour but esteemed Hereticks by Bellarmine because some tenets of theirs were condemned by Iohn the XXII Pope of that name taught that not even our Sauiour himself was free from tribute and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the didrachme or tribute money he did not freely without any obligation to do so but necessarily that is to satisfie the obligation he had on him to do so Thirdly that Iâ—hn Calvin l. 4. Institut c. 11. Parag. 15. teaches that all Clerks ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of secular Magistrats excepting
were bound to stand or conform always or in all causes Ecclesiastical or even in any at all purely such to the sole decision made by the secular power of what was to be believed in point of Divine Faith or of what was to be acted in point of a good conscience they erre most grossely in this as they did in so many other tenets in other matters And yet all sides must confess that in such causes or in such manner Ecclesiasticks are no more exempt from the civil power then meer laymen For both equally have the same Doctors and Judges of their Faith and of their conscientious or lawful actings in relation to the laws of God or Christianity as both have the same supream civil Judges of temporal corporal and civil coercion LXXI Behold Reader in these eight last Sections which are from LXIII to LXX both inclusively taken the particular proofs or particular reasons of the Procurator's defiance to the Divines of Lovaine by his first general reason for his second answer given LXII Section to the fourth ground of the Lovaine censure For albeit as he noted before in that LXII Section he needed not have given that second answer to the said fourth ground of the Lovaine Divines the first answer which he created at length in the LXI Section immediately foregoing having sufficiently destroyed this fourth pretence of the Lovanians to witt their charging the Remonstrance of 61. and consequently all Clergiemen subscribers of it with renouncing or disclayming in Ecclesiastical exemption yet he would ex superabundanti give that very second answer you have seen in the said LXII Section videlicet That granting the Remonstrance had c. even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity on exemption of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream civil or temporal coercive power of the Prince or Magistrat provided still it did not declare as verely it does not against that which is indeed the real true and well grounded exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour civil Judicatories according to the respective civil laws or customs of several Kingdoms and as farre as the respective laws or customs do allow such exemption from such inferiour Judicatories yet neither the Divines of Lovaine nor any other could justly censure it therefore And the Procuratour would also give this second answer of meer purpose to dilate himself at large and at full on this subject of Ecclesiastical exemption and to ravel the whole intrigue of such tenets and arguments in this matter which have so often occasion so much trouble confusion in Christendom Which was the reason too that of meer sett purpose also he gave those two general reasons in the above LXII for this second answer of which two general reasons the first was that he defied those of Lovaine or any other Divine or Canonist in the world to shew any law divine either positive or natural or any law humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for such exemption or which is the same thing to shew any one text of holy Scripture or any one tenet of Apostolical tradition or any canon at all of the Catholick Church or even as much as any kind of passage out of the civil laws of Emperours nay as much as any one convinting or even probable argument of natural reason to prove power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream evil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or literal at least reputed Citizens or Subjects And the self-same purpose of ravelling that whole intrigue was the cause he spent so much time and took so much paâ—â—â—â—â—ther too in eight long Sections to descend to and give so many particular proofs of the reasonableness of this defiance by answering for fully and clearly as he thinks he did all sorts of arguments hetherto alleadged by Bellarmine or any other against that second answer or against the subjection of Clerks to the supream civil coercive power of Princes or which is the same thing alleadged for the exemption of Clerks from this power But forasmuch as the Procuratour not onely so defied the Divines of Lovaine by that his first general reason for his second answer to their fourth ground but also by his second general reason for the same second answer confidently said writ LXII Section that on the contrary he durst undertake against the Divines of Lovaine to prove there is no such exemption nor can be and with much evidence to prove this even by clear express texts of holy Scripture in that sense the holy Fathers generally understood such texts even for a whole thousand of years I therefore now proceed to those particular proofs also of this second part or of this so confident undertaking whereby the Procuratour in his discourses of that Remonstrance more directly assumed when occasion required the person of an Assailant as in the former he did that chiefly of a Defendant And because these particular proofs or reasons given by him for this second part and the confutations of Bellarmine's replyes to some of them for some also there are which either Bellarmine saw not or if he saw them did neither well or ill replye unto will take up some few sheets more I will observe the same method I have hetherto in answering Bellarmine's arguments for his own assertions that is will treat them in several Sections apart for the Readers more easy finding and understanding what I would be at For my next Section which is in order the LXXII shall give my first three arguments whereof two are out of Bellarmine's own concessions as I shew also by further argument that in point of either Theological or Philosophical reason such concessions and even as inferring my conclusions must be made by him and all other men that will speak according to natural reason or Christian Religion And the third argument I take to be a general maxime granted by all Statists Canonists Philosophers Divines nay by all men on earth though Bellarmine hath not a word of it but tranfiently answering it as ridiculously My LXXIII Section gives at large the fourth argument which is purely Theological and is that grounded on the 13. to the Romans according to the general and unanimous exposition of that passage by the holy Fathers until the age of Gregory the Seventh My LXXIV immediatly following shall give some instances of their practices according to this their doctrine and some canons too of Popes and Councils And my LXXV some few remaining objections and answers to them But my LXXVI and last of all on this subject of Ecclesiastical Exemption or as relating to it or to the fourth ground of the Lovaine Censure shall inferr my finall conclusion out of all that is out of these next following five and out of the former eight Sections shall withal consider the meaning of the word Sacriledge of these
other to be repugnant to a sincere profession of the Catholick Faith For the Censure of Lovaine sayes our Remonstrance contains somewhat repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Faith and consequently sayes too the Subscribers are bound under pain or guilt of sacriledge to refix their Subscriptions And shall further conclude not only out of these last XIII Sections treating particularly of Ecclesiastical Exemption nor only out of the LXI Section immediatly going before them all shewing that Remonstrance disclaims not quits not renounceth not nor as much as touches upon Ecclesiastical Exemption but also out of those other eight yet more precedent Sections from LIII to LX. both incusively taken which dispute against the three first grounds of the said Lovaine Censure I say that my LXXVI following Section shall further conclude finally and generally against this Censure of sacriledge and of containing any thing against the sincere profession of the Catholick Faith And then I will return immediatly to matter of Fact which I have so long interrupted by these intervening disputes and will in a few Sections more three or four at most end this first part which the necessity of relating such material disputes have made so prolix LXXII Therefore to begin and give in this present LXXII Section those my first three arguments to prove with much evidence as I have undertaken that no Clergiemen whatsoever living within the Dominions of any supream temporal Prince or State are exempt from but subject to the same Prince's or State 's supream civil coercive power in all meer civil temporal or politick matters and causes whatsoever My first of them is briefly formed thus Whatever natural and meer civil temporal jurisdiction or politick power authority or dominion was in any supream temporal Prince as for example in Constantine the Great over any Christians whatsoever Laicks or Clerks before he became Christian by baptisme in re vel in vâ—to or by a perfect entire submission to the laws of Christianity the same natural and meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority and dominion over all the same Christians Laicks and Clerks remained in him after he was so become Christian unless he did expresly and of his own accord devest himself of it and excepting the case wherein the law of Christ hath some formal or virtual caution or provision for the exemption of some of those Christians from that power if any such case be Behold the major of this my first argument Whereof yet the further proof is Quia lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo Because the law of Christ or true profession of Christianity deprives no man of his right or dominion nor consequently of his natural or of his meer temporal civil or politick jurisdiction power authority or dominion whatsoever at least unless in such case only or in relation to such persons only who are so exempted by special provision in this very law if any such case or persons be Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat calestia is in this point the profession of the Catholick Church as may be read in the sacred Hymne Hostes Herodes impie which is part of the publick divine Office of the same Church in the Breviary on the Feast of the Epiphany And Homo quis me constituit Iudicem aut divisorem super vos was the answer of the holy Iesus himself to the man that would have had him command one brother to share the inheritance with another Luke 12.24 And to Pilate also more clearly yet Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo Si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum ministri mei utique decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis nunc autem regnum meum non est-hinc Ioan. 18.36 And Nonne manens munebat tibi venumdatum in tua erat potestate was the argument of St. Peter to reprove Ananias for his lye and hypocrisie in seeming to have offered at the feet of the Apostles for the common stock the whole price for which he sold a piece of ground of his own Actor 5.4 Out of all which 't is manifest enough that even for what depends of Scripture we must admit this reason I gave for my proposition or this maxime and concession also of even Bellarmine himself and of others of his way Quia lex Christi neminem privat sure dominioque suo as I have expounded it in English and both modified determined the genetical notion of right to that which is meerly temporal and this temporal again with that particular exception But that quieting all advantage from those Scriptures right reason it self even supposing still all the uncontroverted or certain truths of Christian Religion concludes the necessity of admitting this maxime lex Christi nominem privat jure dominioque suo as I have given it I demand of the denyers or distinguishers of it otherwise First whether Christianity leaves any pure temporal right of any beleever untoucht or unaltered or unalterable in any case or whether it leaves the Subjects or the Kings property in any of their respective goods lands houses unchangable undiminishable without their own consent And being no Divine or Canonist in the world can be so impudent or so ignorant as to answer these queries negatively because it is as clear as the Sun that all both the essence and necessary appendages of Christianity that is of Christs Kingdom or law and all the blessings and rewards and also the very true proper genuine and only ends of it which are the grace of God in this life and the glory of God in the next acquired by poor mortals being purely spiritual have no inconsistency at all with the temporal civil or politick rights continuing and remaining still not only unchang'd but also unchangeable in the beleevers without their own free consent for changing or depriving themselves of such rights I demand secondly wherefore the law of Christ is said by any or how can it upon rational grounds be said by any Divine or Canonist not to alter change deprive or touch any one or moe sorts or kinds of temporal rights and yet to alter change or deprive or have the power to deprive the beleevers of some other sorts or kinds or even of any one such at all unless there be an express caution or provision in the very law it self of Christ that this particular civil right or property may be transferred from the former proprietours and no other but this And being it is evident enough this last querie cannot be answered but by confessing that there can be no rational ground for saying so and being that to this day neither Bellarmine nor any other could shew or produce any passage of the law of Christ wherein there is any such caution or provision that is to say any other but that only one in the case of a misbeleeving husband it is also evident enough that right reason it self without any help from
Scripture teacheth the truth of that maxime as I have taken it Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo For if there be a latitude or liberty once given to mince these temporal rights without an express or certain warrant in that law it self of Christ it must be consequent that according to the caprichiousness or wilfulness of any either ignorant or interessed person the beleevers may be deprived now of one and then of another and at last of all kinds of civil rights under pretext forsooth of their submitting all to the pleasure of the Church by their profession of Christianity being that without such express warrant caution or provision there can be no reason given why of one more then of another or even why of one more then of all Having thus laid and demonstrated my first proposition or major of this my first argument I assume this other proposition for my minor But there was a natural or meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority or dominion which amounted to a coercive power in all temporal causes in every supream temporal Prince for example in Constantine the Great over all Christians whatsoever Laicks or Clerks living within his or their dominions before he or they became Christian in re vel in voto or by a perfect entire submission to the laws of Christianity and there is no such formal or virtual caution or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks and after his or their such entire submission neither he nor they did expresly or tacitly and equivalently of their own accord devest themselves of or quit that power not even I mean in order to any Clerks whatsoever so living still within his or their dominions Ergo The same natural and meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority and dominion which amounts to a coercive power in all temporal causes over the same Christians whatsoever Laicks and Clerks living within his or their dominions remained in them and him after he or they were so become Christians The conclusion follows evidently the premisses being once admitted And of the premisses the minor only remains to be proved Which yet although having three parts into the first of Clerks to have been subject in politick matters to the supream coercive power of heathen Princes appears already and sufficiently demonstrated in my former Sections where I solved all the arguments of Bellarmine to the contrary from the laws divine either positive or natural and from the laws of Nations too and shall yet more positively and abundantly appear out of my very next immediatly following LXIII and LXIV Sections where by authorities of Scriptures and expositions of those very Scripture places by holy Fathers and by examples or practice according to such expositions I treat this matter and prove this first part of this Minor at large Nay and shall appear too most positively and abundantly out of my second and third arguments of reason either Theological or Natural either ad hominem or not ad hominem but abstracting from all concessions ab homine which follow in this very present Section And therefore to save my self the trouble of too much repetition I remit the Reader to those other Sections and arguments the rather that Bellarmine himself never scrupled in his first editions of his controversies nor ever until he saw himself in his old age beaten from all his other retreats by the writings of other Catholick Divines Canonists against him and consequently the rather that this matter of this first part of my foresaid Minor is now so little controverted that scarce any can be found of such impudence as to deny it notwithstanding Bellarmine's illgrounded chang◠or opposition in his old age whereof more presently And as to the second part of no such formal or virtual caution or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks the very self same Sections which demonstrate the first part do also this But for the third or last part of this Minor which was that after their conversion to Christianity Princes did not quit or devest themselves of this supream coercive power of or over Clerks c I need not say more here or elswhere then I have before in answering Bellarmine's arguments out of the civil laws of Emperours Section LX. And nothing els but alleadg the known general and continual challenge of all Christian supream civil Magistrats Emperours Kings Princes and States to this very day of that supream coercive power of Clerks in all politick matters and their actual practice accordingly at their pleasure and when occasion requireth Notwithstanding all this evidence Bellarmine strugles like a bird in a cage For though he had not this argument framed against him dilated upon at full as I have heer but onely pressed by that bare maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo objected to him by William Barclay he answers thus contra Barclaium cap. XXXIIII It is true sayes he the law of Christ deprives no man of his right and dominion proprié perise quasi hoo ipsum intendat nisi aliquis culpa sua privari mereatur properly and intentionally or that of it self or of its own nature it deprives no man so as intending to deprive him so if not in case of demerit when a man through his own fault deserves to be deprived of his right or dominion Yet when it raises laymen to a higher order such as that is of Clerks we must not wonder that consequently it deprives Princes of the right or dominion they had over such men whiles in a condition much inferiour Nor are there examples wanting in other things as well prophane as sacred 1◠The King rayses a private man till then subject to an Earl and rayses him I say to a Principality It must be confess'd this Earl is consequently deprived of his Lordship or dominion which till then he had over this man nay perhaps further even subjected consequently to this very man whose Lord he was so late The Pope rayses an ordinary or simple Priest to a Metropolitane a Priest subject otherwise to a Suffragan Bishop and by such creation without any injury to this Bishop or Suffragan places consequently such a Priest in a Metropolitical power of command over even the very Ordinary under whom he was immediately before A unbelieving heathen or infidel husband had the right of a her band to and dominion over his infidel wife she is converted to the Christian Faith he remaining still an unbeliever And the law of Christ doth without injury deprive him of all right evermore too that woman if she please Even so by a marriage done or contracted by words of the present time a Christian husband acquires a right to such a Christian wife and yet if she before consummation please to ascend to or embrace a higher and holier state of life or that of a Votress in a Cloyster within the tearm of
all Catholick Writers as well Divines as Canonists But surely either he was not in earnest or he did not esteem any of the holy Fathers or holy Expositors of Scripture for a thousand years nor any other of those most celebrious and Catholick Authors even Scholasticks even eminent men and even within all along down the very last five centuries of Christianity since the Schools begun to have been Divines Then which to esteem or say nothing could be esteemed nothing could be said more untruly or injuriously as will appear out of my allegations in my next Section of at least those indeed the most eminent nay the only indeed eminent Divines for matter of authority and belief to be given their sayings without further examination or expectation of their reasons And the reasons which he gives and which you have presently seen above being only these two viz. that the Pope absolutely exempted Clerks from Christian Princes but not absolutely from Heathen Princes and that the Princes themselves exempted the Clerks from themselves are both of them demonstrated already by me to be without any sufficient ground even in the very papal canons or Imperial Constitutions whatsoever the first in my LXXI Section and the second in my LXVIII LXIX Section and by consequence proved to be manifestly false though I speak it with all reverence to the dignity and person also of Cardinal Bellarmine Besides I must tell our learned Cardinal that I have also ruined already all those arguments framed by his grauest Writers to prove as much as a power in the Pope to exempt Clerks So that suppose he did flatter himself or impose on others that some one Pope or other or even many or all of them together or one after another had set forth Bulls of such Exemption without the consent of Princes all would signifie a meer nothing to prove that consecution of Barclaye to be no right consecution unless Bellarmine did first prove by better Arguments that the fact of Popes or their decisions must be concluding arguments of their power from Christ to do so or to determine so or so Which I am sure Bellarmine himself hath never yet proved and therefore and for many other reasons yet farr more pregnant am very certain that none else will or can at any time hereafter prove And what I say and have said and proved before of Popes to have no such power the very self same I shall in this very Section and other following arguments therein sufficiently prove of Princes that is that Princes have no power invested in them to exempt the Clerks of their own dominions and such Clerks I mean as acknowledge themselves Subjects or indeed remain so and acknowledge too those Princes to remain still their Princes Kings or Soveraigns that I say such Princes and all Soveraign and Christian Princes are such as all Clerks of their own Dominions are such too have no power invested in them to exempt such Clerks from their own supream earthly lay or secular power in temporal causes Whence also must be consequent that Bellarmine to no purpose alledged against Barclaye's consecution suppose he did truly alledge it that Christian Princes exempted Clerks c. And yet it is certain still he did not truly but for the matter it self falsely pretend this exemption to be given by any Princes Fiftly and lastly how vain that reason is which besides that of Infidel Princes not acknowledging the papal Power and Christian Princes acknowledging it he gives for a further cause why the Pope exempted Clergiemen from the power of Christian Princes but not from the power of the Heathen But to consider the more clearly and throughly how vain not only that reason but his whole answer is in this particular of Heathen Princes and the difference he puts in the case let us repeat his own whole Latin Text of this matter Quoniam sayes he summus Pontifex Clericos absolute exemit a potestate Principum fidelium qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt a potestate autem Principum Infidelium qui ejus potestatem non agnoscunt non ita absolute exemit cum eos censuris Ecclesiasticis coercere non possit A most vain discourse truly in the whole For if all other Clerks were subject to Christian Princes before the Pope exempted them as this second answer must suppose certainly so must even the Popes themselves have been For who I beseech you exempted the Pope himself that he might after exempt others And have not I shewed a little above the vanity of Bellarmine's reasons which he brings to prove that He who is Prince of the Kings of the earth Apocap 1. exempted so the Pope Nor is that diversity which our learned Cardinal puts 'twixt Heathen Princes and Christian any one whit to the purpose or such as you may thence conclude that on the Clerks living in their Dominions or under the one more then on those Clerks living under the other the Pope may bestow the priviledge of such exemption that is any exemption de jure or by right and law not in fact only For and for what belongs to the Popes right or power from Christ if he could de jure by that right or power exempt from Christian Princes Clerks otherwise subject to such Christian Princes he should also the Christian Clerks living in the Dominions of Heathen Princes But sayes Bellarmine there is a diversity a difference in the cases And what is that Quod Papa censuris Ecclesiasticis Principes infideles coercere non potuerit fideles potuerit that the Pope sayes he might not use towards infidel Princes the coercion of censures he means Interdict and Excommunication towards Christian Princes he might An immaterial diversity in earnest a difference to no purpose at all For if Bellarmine's intention be to give this difference for what concerns the fact of exempting effectually it might very well be that Christian Princes though loaden with censures from the Pope though devoted by him to eternal maledictions would no more de facto set Clergiemen free from their own cognizance punishment c. then meer Infidel Princes against whom the Pope could not make use of his Ecclesiastical Censures But if Bellarmine gives this diversity or difference in relation to the pretended right or power from Christ in the Pope for to attempt or endeavour to exempt Clerks then must the reason be yet farr more absurd as if the Pope could not de jure exempt Clerks if he could not by his censures effectually break the rebellious contumacy of Princes For I demand to what purpose would the Pope have fulminated censures in the case Is it that he would command Princes under the penalties expressed that the Princes themselves should de jure exempt Clerks from themselves that is from their own regal Jurisdiction both subordinate and supream If this only be what is intended Ergo 't is not intended that the Pope himself could by himself de jure exempt Clerks but only that
in plain tearms deny the Major to wit for the last part of it and for the former distinguish the word Cittizens parts members and again the word Subject For he would say that albeit whoever are Cittizens or parts and members and not the civil or politik heads of the civil or politick common-wealth Empire Kingdom Principality as such or as a civil and politick society are subject to and not exempt from the politick head power and laws which is the first part of the Major yet he would deny that which follows as the second part of the same proposition to wit this nor consequently from the supream coercive power of it And he would in the former part distinguish and say that indeed whoever are Cittizens parts members c. are subject either coercively or directively or both and that lay Cittizens or lay parts or members are both ways subject in all temporal matters but Ecclesiastical members not otherwise but directively and by no means coercively and that such members I mean Ecclesiastical are then onely as much as directively subject when the canons of the Church do not order the same temporal things Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo For what els do you see in the writings of this great Clerk but a perpetual change from one doctrine to an other in this matter and some other such of the Pope and Clergie as of the King also and Layety one doctrine while he was young an other when he was grown old and in his old age it self so many distinctions and evasions or rather confusions and contradictions that we know not where to and him or what to learn from him He would have the Clergie as politick parts or members of the politick common-wealth to be called Subjects to Kings whom he confesses to be the Politick Heads and he would have Kings to be called their Kings too and not onely called Kings in relation to lay subjects and he alleadges and truly too alleadges that Clergiemen as well as laymen pray for them as for their own Kings and we know it must be confessed by him they are so prayed for being the very publick Liturgy in the mass book hath that publick prayer which all Priests and Bishops too mast say and sing publickly at the altar of God wherein they say and pray for the King as their own King Et pro Rege nostro c. nay and he confesses too there in really an obligation whereby they are bound and really a subjection which they owe to Kings and yet after all he renders doth the names unsignificant and things inconsistent For I beseech you how can the King be a King that is a supream politick head and Governour to the Clerks of his Dominions or how can these they be politick Cittizens parts members of his Kingdom or bound to him or be his subjects that is be under him as such if he have no power of and over them or to command them or tye them by laws and precepts or if he have not as much as a directive power to command them or if they be not bound by as much as a directive obligation that is by an obligation arising or proceeding from the directive virtue of the command given or layed upon them To be a King of or over any or to be such a Head or such a Governour of any implyes essentially a power to command him or them over whom he is such and a passive tye of obedience in or obligation on him or them who are subjects or truly or in any proper sense named subjects And yet Bellarmine sayes in effect and gives it for his final Resolution though in contradiction to himself elsewhere nay and every where that in order to Clerks there is no such power in the King in any case not even in the very meerest temporal whatsoever nor any such obligation or tye on Clerks For he sayes as you have seen a little before that Clerks are not bound to obey their Kings meer civil laws in meer temporal matters whensoever the canons of the Church order the same matters and sayes too they are not bound as much as by the directive virtue of such laws and therefore sayes they are not bound at all being there is no tye can be but either coercive or directive and consequently must say though again in contradiction to himself the King is not King at all of Clerks nor Clerks subjects at all to the King For as the case hath already been in many even meer civil or temporal things that the canons or commands of the Pope for both are the same and the same too with these of the Church as to Bellarmines purpose have been even contrary to the civil laws of Kings and to their civil commands so the case may soon be and very well be that is whenever the Pope shall please that the canons be contrary in all such things How then can the essence or essential nature of Kingship or of Prefection and Subjection 'twixt the King and the Clerks of his dominions be And for the case that is at present wherein some temporal dispositions or a disposition in some temporal matters is left to the civil laws of Kings or left I mean as yet untouch'd by Papal constitutions who sees not plainly but that according to the above other final doctrine and subtle distinction of Bellarmine I mean his viâ—rationis and vi legis there is not even in such things or in order to the civil laws or civil commands of the King any obligation at all on Clerks to the King or to his even such commands or laws nor consequently any power of Kingship in him even in such things or by such laws over Clerks and as even now at present the case is For he tels you plainly that Clerks are not vi legis sed vi rationis bound not even as much as directively bound by virtue of such law but onely by virtue of reason And yet here also he contradicts again both himself and reason too Being that if they be bound by the virtue of reason to observe such a civil law of the Kings that is by that of natural reason or of a practical dictate of such reason for I can understand nothing els by his vis rationis which tells them they are bound in the case to observe such a law then must it be that they are bound also vi legis or by the at least directive virtue of the law it self For it is plain that no otherwise do we conclude or gather or perswade our selves that Laymen are bound either by the directive or coercive part of such law or that indeed any humane law at all even Ecclesiastical or perhaps too any law that most immediately divine obligeth us obligeth any Laicks or Clerks vi legis but onely hence that natural reason or a practical dictat of our understanding even that light of Gods countenance or that which God himself hath imprinted on
this following now as a distinct one and as in order my third And I frame it thus Whatever natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all and every person or persons whatsoever of the politick Commonwealth as such may be necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth as such and consequently in the supream politick Head of it as such whether this Head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy But the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole Ergo the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth and consequently in the supream politick Head of it whether this head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy The Major besides that it is proved already by and in the prosecution of my former argument where I alledged that maxime or principle allowed by all men and which in reason must be so allowed by all men viz. That every well or rightly establish'd civil Commonwealth must by the law of nature have in it self as such and consequently in its politick Head as such too that natural or civil authority over all the parts and members which may sufficiently enable the whole to attain the proper natural and civil ends of the whole and of all such parts as parts both joyntly and severally these ends being the civil peace quiet justice and comfortable secure living of all together I say the Major besides its being already proved so is further proved by this other maxime which even Suarez himself l. 3. de Primatu sum Pontif. c. 1. n. 4. allows and alledgeth for certain and for evident in natural reason Quod humana natura non possit esse destituta remediis ad suam conservationem necessariis That humane nature cannot be destitute of sufficient right and authority to do those things which are necessary for its own preservation in a peaceable and just way of living Now it is clear enough that the civil direction and civil coercion of all persons whatsoever living within the Dominions of the Commonwealth while they live there is necessary for its preservation And the Major is further also proved by a third maxime or principle which Morl. hath in Empor jur 1. p. tit 2. de legibus num 20. vers .. Quia cum regnum To wit this Cui regnum conceditur necessario omnia censentur concessa sine quibus regnum gubernari non potest To whom a Kingdom is given all things that is to say all right and authority which are necessary for the well governing of it are supposed to be given And yet who sees not this principle could not be true if that Major also were not true For whatever is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the Commonwealth is also necessary for the wel-governing of it As for the Minor I have abundantly proved it also before in the prosecution of my second argument And of the conclusion to follow the premisses necessarily there is no man will doubt It remains therefore that for an appendix of these arguments grounded on pure natural reason for the subjection of Clergiemen to or which is the same thing against their exemption from the supream civil coercive power in temporal causes to conclude this Section I shew by natural reason also that the very temporal Princes themselves how otherwise supream soever could not cannot by any law right authority or power given them by God or Man exempt from themselves that is from their own supream civil and even coercive power the Clergiemen of their own Dominions whiles I mean such Clergiemen remain of or in their Dominions and acknowledge themselves or indeed be inferiours and subjects to the same Princes or otherwise that these Princes be either acknowledged by them or otherwise truly and legally be their natural or proper legal Princes But for as much as Bellarmine hath in the often quoted 35. chap. l. contra Barclaium as being mightily startled by this position roused himself again and laid about him no less mightily to ruine it then he had to ruine that other which denied the Pope himself any such power of exempting Clerks from the same temporal Princes I will to avoid here some labour of repetition first give our learned Cardinals arguments against it and then consequently my own proofs for it in the solution of those arguments Ad quintam propofitionem sayes he quae erat non potuisse Principes supremos eximere Clericos a sua Regia potestate respondemus id manifestè falsum esse Nam etiamsi non possit summus Princeps c. To the fift proposition sayes Bellarmine which was that supream Princes could not exempt Clerks from their own Royal power I answer that it is manifestly false For albeit the supream Prince may not exempt all that live in his Kingdom from his own power unless he resign his Principality yet he may exempt some part of his people from some part of his power or even from all parts of his power and at the same time be both truly said and remain still a Prince For it is proper to a supream Prince to exact tribute from the people subject to him as the Apostle teaches Rom. 13. For it is therefore sayes he you pay tributes for they are the Ministers of God serving unto this purpose And yet the King may free such as he please from tributs For it is said 1. of Kings or of Samuel cap. 17. whoever shall kill the Philisthine the King shall enrich him with great riches and shall make his Father's house free from tributes in Israel Even so if some great King do free some one Citty amidst his Kingdom or bestow it absolutely on some body it will not be therefore consequent that he may not be said to be King of his whole Kingdom especially if he still protect and defend that Citty and that the Cittizens thereof do freely observe the laws of his Kingdom So therefore too might Kings exempt from their own Royal power the Clerks living in their Kingdom and yet be said to be and truly be kings not onely of Laicks but also of Clerks who freely observe their politick laws and who being Actors referre or deferre the causes they have with Laicks to their Royal tribunals and acquiesce to their judgment or sentence in such causes And because
maximes of other concessions of Bellarmine himself and partly of pure and clear dictats of natural reason and such as reduce all Adversaries to plain contradiction not onely of their own concessions but of the very notions of Superiority and Inferiority Prefection and Subjection Obedience and Government nay and of the very ends and essence of a commonwealth nay and also of the very nature of Relatives and Correlatives which require that both be at least together understood or neither be as a Father cannot be understood without a Son be also understood LXXIII My fourth grand argument shall take up this whole Section because it is my grand argument indeed as that on which as a Christian I relye more then upon any other however seeming otherwise the clearest demonstration may be in natural reason or the most convincing proof from either Theological maximes of Schools or other concessions of Adversaries For this fourth is wholly and purely grounded on the revealed word of God himself in holy Scripture taken in that sense the holy Fathers delivered it unanimously from hand to hand all along down at least eleven ages of Christianity until the days of Gregory the Seventh Then which it is very sure there can be no surer argument in Christianity for theory or practise of any tenet Therefore upon this ground also I confidently affirm that Clergiemen are by the very positive law of God so farre from being exempt from supream secular Princes in whose Dominions they live that they are universally and absolutely subject to them that is even to their coercive power in all temporal matters To prove which assertion I shall not make any use of either of the Barclayes the Father or Son as I have sometimes made some use of them hetherto nay often too in some or perhaps in most of the former Sections which treat of Ecclesiastical exemption although not in all nor even in any for all parts But I will take an other method and from my own reading elswhere treat this argument at leingth as likewise what shall be given in the following two or three Sections more which end this whole dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity pretended to be quitted and renounced by the Remonstrance of 61. or at least by the Clergiemen subscribers of it And yet I will neither to prove my assertion make use of that no less true then common doctrine of France and of all other the very best Divines and Catholick Churches vz. That earthly Principalities are immediately instituted by God himself and the supream civil power of Kings as immediately from him as from the sole efficient cause and from the people onely even when they elect their Kings tamquam a conditione sine qua non and no less immediately from him then the spiritual power of Popes can or is by any said to be Nor will I for the same end insist upon that command of our Saviour in St. Matthew 22.21 Reddite quae sum Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo or on that precept of St. Paul to Titus 3.1 Admone illos Principibus potestatibus subditos esse or on that other of Peter 1. Pet. 2.13 Subjecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum sive Regi quasi praecellenti sive Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis or finally on the 8. verse of Judas in his general Epistle where he recounts it amongst the most enormous crimes of some wicked persons that they despise Dominion And I will as little insist on what is repeated concerning this in the Apostolical Constitutions l. 4. cap. 12. lib. 7. cap. 17. whoever was Author of the said Constitutions As also I will pass by for this time without insisting on That supream earthly Princes are within their own Principalities and in all earthly or temporal things the very onely true and proper Vicars of God even by as true at least and well grounded title as the very Popes themselves are said to be the Vicars of God or Christ in all heavenly or purely spiritual matters throughout all Principalities and States of the Earth Albebeit there is no man of reason but sees that this very true title of supream temporal Princes would be enough to evict my purpose However because I would take the shortest way Therefore what I insist upon solely now is that of St. Paul in his epistle to the very Romans themselves Rom. 13.1 Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let every soul be subject to the more sublime powers And besides what I insist upon is the whole discourse following of the same Apostle in the same chapter along consequently to the eight verse if not further For sayes he giving the reason of his former precept in the former words let every soul be subject c. there is no power but of God The powers that be are ordained by or of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation For Rulers are not a terror of good works but to the evil Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise for the same For he is the Minister of God to thee for good for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil Wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake For for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Render therefore to all their dues tribute to whom tribute custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour Owe no man any thing but c. And finally what I insist upon is the necessary sense of these very passages of St. Paul and of the like or to the same purpose and is that very sense I mean as delivered to us in the doctrine and practice of the most holy and most eminent Fathers of Christianity all along as I have said before until the enemy of man oversowed tares among the wheat in the dayes and Popedom of Gregory the VII And yet without any peradventure those very Scripture-passages alone that is the very and only letter of them would be sufficient to perswade the general power of Princes over all men both Laicks and Clerks without further help or addition of the sense and practice of holy Fathers if some late Divines or Schoolmen were not far more pervicacious then became either Christians or even any sort of rational men not to speak at all of Christian Divines Which is the cause that being this sort of men that is some late Scholasticks among whom Cardinal Bellarmine is at least one of the chief have strangely endeavoured to distort the said Scripture passages as rudely to the end they might deprive all even the most Christian and Catholick Princes of this power or that the
to be worldlings Do you heare Austin confessing himself bound by the humane constitutions of Princes Do you observe how he sayes that Christ himself gave us example to be subject to Princes see you whether in that word Nobis us Saint Austine includes Ecclesiasticks If he did not then Christ gave not to all an example of this subjection for I expect this impiety also to be held by our Adversaries Are not all Ecclesiasticks commilitones Pauli the fellow souldiers of Paul And yet we have now heard Austin say that Paul gave that command omnis anima c to all his own fellow souldiers And Iraeneus before him writes thus lib. 1. cap. 24. Non Diabolus determinavit hujus saeculi regna sed Deus Regis enim cor in manu Dei Et per Salomonem ait Per me reges regnant Et Paulus hoc ipsum ait omnibus potestatibus sublimioribus subjecti estote And Tertullian de Idolat cap. 25. Quod attinet ad honores Regum vel Imperatorum satis praescriptum habermus in omni obsequio esse nos oportere secundum Apostoli praeceptum subditos Magistratibus principibus And hence or consequently the very Interlinear Glosse omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit id est saecularibus bonis vel malis in hoc quod sublimes id est in mundanis And Chrysostom long before this Glossatour's days in specie and most particularly and expresly comprehending in these words omnis homo or in these every Soul comprehending I say expresly all and every of the Priests and Monks nay and all and every of the very Apostles Evangelists Prophets and all whomever else you please how excellent or divine soever hom 2â— in Epist ad Roman Sed eas Paulus mâ—vet rationes quae potestatibus ex debito obedire jubent ostendens quod ista imperentur omnibus Sacerdotibus Monachis non solum saecularibus Id quod statim in ipso exordio declarat cum dicit omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit etiámsi Apostolus sis etiamsi Evangelista si Propheta sive quisquis tandem fueris Neque enim pietatem subvertit iâ—ta subjectio Exclude you now the Churchmen from that universal proposition of Paul if you be wiser if a better Christian if more knowing what was delivered by tradition of the sense of Paul then Chrysostome Understand you other powers then the meer lay powers by potestatibus sublimioribus if you be more knowing herein then the same Chrisostome Glosse Tertullian Ireneus Austin who all as you have seen expound this text these words of it of the secular power onely But let us here Chrisostome again hom 6. in ep 1. ad Timoth. Vt quietam tranquillam degamus vitam Ac si dicat In illorum regum salute securitas nostra consistit Quemadmodum in Epistola ad Romanos cum eos hortaretur obedire Principibus ait Non propter necessitatem sed propter conscientiam Deus enim pro utilitate communi hujusmodi principatus instituit Quam igitur absurdum est cum illi idcirco militent arma circumferant ut nos in tranquillitate atqueâ—tio simus nos pro periclitantibus ac nostri causa labores subeuntibus preces effundere detrectemus Non igitur assentandi gratia hujusmodi mandatum dedit verùm justitiae seruavit leges Nisi enim illi servarentur atque inter bella hostes prosperè agerent necessario nostra omnia turbis tumultibusque plena essent Nam sive militare opus fuisset ac per nosmet eadem subire pericula concisis illis sive sugere vagosque per orbem terrarum ferri Sunt enim hujusmodi veluti obices quidam hostibus oppositi per quos nos in pace servemur Where besides our present purpose evicted in his explication or rather application of that text of Paul and his proofs too given for the natural both equity and necessity of such precept for being subject to the temporal Princes he particularly obviats that other answer of some That Paul indeed is clear enough in commanding all sorts of persons both Lay and Ecclesiastical none at all excepted to be subject to and obey the temporal Magistrats but yet must be so understood as to have commanded so out of humane policy complacency with and flattery of Princes or so that his command should onely be temporary a timeserving command that is until the Christian Church had gott streingth enough of men and arms to make good their own freedom priviledges the exemption of their Clergiemen and laymen too in many cases or what other quarrel soever they found to be just This answer I confess I have not given before to my own grand argument or to the texts of Paul whereon that argument is grounded And yet I might have given that is placed it in the third or fourth or last place of all as the readiest to overthrow all I said or could say or any body else could say out of Scripture not onely for this present or any controverted point but also for the most uncontroverted or certainly confessed by all sides to be of Christian Religion But I purposely abstained before from relating it for two reasons The first was that it is not peculiar to this of the exemption of Clergiemen or which is that I mean that it not onely overthrows any deduction from Paul for that of Clergiemen as commanded by him to be subject to the Higher powers or the temporal Princes but also for that of any Christian Laymen Which is more then our present Adversaries will have the confidence to own at least more then they pretend in handling our present controversy And yet I must tell my Reader that as great a Divine as Catholick as Bellarmine himself makes use of this answer though elsewhere that is where he is pressed with the doctrine practice of the primitive Christians in point of subjection obedience to Infidel Princes who persecuted them and where it is demanded wherefore the Pope's did not absolve Christians then from their Allegiance if there was or be any such power in Popes either direct or indirect to absolve the Vassals of any Prince in such cases as those of endeavouring to destroy all Faith and all true Religion c where also this very command of Paul we treat of here is brought against his position of the Pope's power to absolve all Christian Subjects from their obedience in such cases And my second reason for not ranking this answer amongst the rest was that it is in it self so impious and blasphemous too as that must be which leaves us no certain rule in Scripture at least in the new Testament either in the writings of the Apostles or Evangelists nor even in any of the Gospels of Christ himself whereby to govern our selves at least in point of Justice one to another For it may be answered still according to this answer that the Apostles or Evangelists
opere implere curavit Câ—nditor Caesaris Caesari non cunctatus est reddere censum Exemplum enim dedit vobis ut vos ita faciatis Quom dâ—verò Dei sacerdâ—tibus debitam negaret reverentiam qui hanc saecularibus quâ—que potestatibus exhibere curavit Perro vos si Caesaris Successori id est Regi seduli in suis curis consilijs negotijs exercitibusque adestis indignum erit vâ—bis cuiâ—uma Christi Vicaâ—io taliter exhibere qualiter ab antiquo inter Ecclesias ordinatum est Therefore it is cleer enough that Bernard expounds not Paul here of the powers Ecclesiastical but onely applyes that command of Paul a fortier as we say to the same Ecclesiastical powers or to that in particular of the See Apostolick Where yet it is worthy our observation though it be not to my present purpose how he seems to insinuate very much by his qualiter ab antiquo inter Ecclesias ordinatum est against the more common doctrine of our School-Divines concerning the powers of the See Apostolick over other Sees or Bishops For Bernard speaks here of it in the very same or like language to that of the Fathers of Chalcedon in their 27. canon attributing wholly the Papal jurisdiction and priviledges as such to the pleasure and institution of the Fathers not to that which is immediately de jure divinâ— as our Schools now do commonly teach But herein I will not interpoâ—â— being it is no part of my present purpose What I conclude is that neither Bernard himself is any more for the exposition of our Adversaries then Symmachus or Anselme And the same I say of all others of the Ancients if any other be who seem to include also the powers Ecclesiastical in those more sublime poweâ—s of Paul because the very self same explication must be that of their seâ—â—e or mind being there was none of them all but taught where they had occasion that all souls even every one vniversally none at all excepted were subject in temporal things to the temporal Princes placed oâ—eâ— the Nations where they lived according to that precept of Paul omnis anima c. To which purpose let us yet further see what Origen teaches on that place of Paul in epist ad Râ—manos l. 9. in cap. 13. where explicating that place of the subjection due to higher powers he writes thus Ordinat quidem per haec Paulus Ecclesiam Dei ut nihil adversi Principibus potestatibus saeculi gerens per quietem tranquillitatem vitae opus justitiae pietatis exerceat Si enim ponamus verbi gratia credentes Christo Potestatibus saeculi non esse subjectos tributa non reddere nec vectigalia pensitare nulli timorem nulli honorem deferre nonne per haec Rectorum ac Principum merito in semetipsos arma converterent persequutores quidem suos excusabiles semetipsos verò culpabiles redderent Non enim jam fidei sed contumaciae causa impugnari viderentur esse eis quidem causa mortis meritum verò mortis indignum Where this great and most ancient Doctor not onely teaches that by Paul's more sublime powers onely the secular lay or civil powers are understood but gives also the necessary causes of the observance of that general precept of Paul And yet before Origen Ignatius in his seaventh Epistle most prudently admonish'd the Christians of Antioch to be subject to the very gentil Idolatrous Caesar of his own time and yet he was the immediate successour of Peter in Antioch Caesari subjecti estote sayes he in ijs in quibus subdi nullam animae periculum est Principes nolite irritare ut exacerbentur ne ansam detis eis qui illam contra nos quaerunt But let us here again S. Augustine the third time from whom to a word S. Anselme derived his exposition Augustin's text which I quote now is in lib. exposit quarumd proposit ex epist ad Romanos Quod autem ait sayes he omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit non enim est potestas nisi a Deo rectissime admonet ne quis ex eo quod a Domino suo in libertatem vocatus est factus Christianus extollatur in superbiam non arbitretur in hujus vitae itenere servandum esse ordinem suum ut potestatibus sublimioribus quibus pro tempore rerum temporalium gubernatio tradita est existimet non esse se subdendum Cum enim constemus ex anima corpore quamdiu in hac vita temporali sumus etiam rebus temporalibus ad subsidium degendae hujus vitae vtamur oportet nos ex ea parte quae ad hanc vitam pertinet subditos esse potestatibus id est hominibus res humanas cum aliquo honore administrantibus Ex illa vero parte quae credimus Deo in regnum ejus vocamus non nos oportet esse subditos cuiquam homini idipsum in nobis evertere cupienti quod Deus ad vitam aeternam donare dignatus est Si quis ergo putat quoniam Christianus est non sibi esse vectigal reddendum aut tributum aut non esse exhibendum honorem debitum eis qui haec curant Potestatibus in magno errore versatur Item si quis putat se esse subdendum ut etiam in sua fide habere potestatem eum qui temporalibus administrandis aliqua sublimitate praecellit in majorem errorem labitur Sed modus iste servandus est quem Dominus ipse praescribit ut reddamus Caesari quae Caesaris sunt Deo quae Dei sunt Hetherto S. Augustine Where nothing can be more evident then that he expounds those powers in S. Paul Rom. 13.1 onely of the lay or civil powers and that he exempts no Christian at all from being subject to them and that moreover he declares them to be in a great errour who teach otherwise and further that his reason proves which is our being composed for one part of us of a body that needs bodily helps during our being in this world equally concludes for the extension of S. Pauls command to and the comprehension of Clergiemen under it as well as of the meerest laymen and finally that he distinguisheth plainly wherein we ought to be subject to them and wherein we ought not that is to be subject in all things which are not of concern to our eternal salvation whether they were commanded by them or not but in such as are not to be And in other places that is in Epist 164. cont epist Parm. l. 1. cap. 7. the same Augustine and out of the same text of the Apostle proves that the secular Princes to wit the Roman Emperours who then were ex officio proprio by vertue of their own proper imperial civil or worldly power and office proceeded against the Donatist Bishops and proceeded against them too by the laws and corporal punishment and coercion nay and that also when the cause was
determinatly provided it should remain no longer and is of that nature too that it may be easily destroyed by humane power it self vz. by destroying its foundation or ground which is certainly known to depend also of humane laws For 1. that private person formerly subject to the Earl made so now a Prince lyes no more under any such bond of subjection to the Earl being all subjection of him is destroyed as to the same Earl because the bond or subjection under which he was formerly to him wholly depended of the pleasure or will of the supream Prince King or Emperour being it was by a power delegated from the said Supream c the said Earl formerly commanded the said privat subject this delegation was revoked when such private man was by the King made a Prince for though a Prince still inferiour subordinate to the King himself that made him such yet alwayes equal at least sometimes even in a commanding power of jurisdiction superiour to the very same Earl This person therefore so formerly subject to this Earl was onely tanquam privatus as a private and as such a private person formerly subject to the same Earl Now the King removes takes away or destroyes by the Principality given that former privateness or that quality of being any more a private man which quality with the Kings delegation was the onely ground of his former subjection to the Earl 2. Even so is the former subjection of that simple ordinary Priest wholly destroyed when he is no more such or a simple ordinary or private person or Priest 3. And even so too is the subjection of the said wives destroyed by the destruction of the matrimonial contract which was it that founded or grounded their former subjection 4. And lastly so is the filial subjection to his Father taken away by the Sons Episcopacy I mean that filia subjection which is legâ—ly nor 〈…〉 this kind 〈…〉 subjection is taken away by the humane laws of emancipation And Princeâ— or States supream who are the Lord of legal things 〈…〉 Episcopacy have the power of 〈…〉 So much 〈◊〉 that subjection which was or might have bee◠〈◊〉 to have been 〈…〉 in those cases of Bellarmine But for the subjection whereof 〈◊〉 us 〈◊〉 froâ—â—â—â— person 〈◊〉 temporal things and at all times whatsoever to the stâ—p 〈…〉 under whom such persons live we have sheâ—â—â— already 〈◊〉 it 〈…〉 vino and that the foundation or ground of liâ—◠〈…〉 consequently that it cannot be destroyed if that very humane and is 〈…〉 founds that subjection be not wholly destroyed in him who pretend 〈◊〉 to be subject to the Prince or at least if God himself do not expresly exempt him being it was God himself alone that subjected him If the 〈◊〉 by ordering one with the orders of Priesthood might consequently destroy humane nature in that person so ordered or make that such person should not be any more a man as the King destroyes the quality of a private person in him whom he creates a Prince and makes him that he is no longer a private man and as he destroyes the legal tye of a Son to his Father and as humane laws also not onely canonical but civil and municipal as we see by custome and experience destroy in many cases the contract of Matrimony because all these may be easily destroyed by men being they depend of the will of men or humane lawâ—â— the examples would be to some purpose Nay I add that the King may exempt a private person from his former subjection to an Earl and subject him hereafter immediately and onely to his own Royal cognizance though such person remain still a private person not even chang his habitation For being the King is the supream or Soveraign Prince who hath for Subjects both that Earl himself and the same Earls subjects as t is supposed in the case he may if he please at least upon just ground deprive the Earl of that delegated power which he had from him over that private person And so might God for who denyes it exempt Clerks without destroying humane nature in them But that he hath done so we have no warrant no argument yet to convince us And we have seen so many cleer arguments to convince us that he hath not and those too several of them from the very rights of natural reason And I hope by this time the Reader is satisfied that our Adversaries answers to the passages quoted out of the Fathers and for the sense of the Fathers to be that I maintain or to any thing else I asserted hether too are but meer pittifull unsignificant evasions And consequently that even by the doctrine of the Holy-Fathers that general precept of Paul Omnis â—â—ima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Rom. 13.1 must hold alwayes in all temporal things and as to all Christian Clerks whatsoever as well as to Laicks Certainly very Catholick Classick and famous Doctors as Occam and Almainus de Eccles. Laica potestate q. 2. c. 7. maintain and with reason too that if the Emperours servant were made Pope forasmuch as belongs to divine right or law and abstracting from the laws of men or from those humane rights acquired or lost by the same laws of men that Pope however true Pope would notwithstanding remain still the Emperour's servant until the Emperour had freely discharg'd him or otherwise untill his tearm were ended if he was first bound for any time Whence also as formerly in the last Section from other arguments you may conclude how unreasonable our great Cardinal is where he sayes without any proof Diaâ—â— qui Papam in terris Vicarium suum constituit hoc ipso cum exemisse ab omni potestate Princepum terrâ—â— For this is said gratis being that by the Papacy humane nature or the being or essence and properties of a mortal man are not destroyed in or taken away from the Pope and that God hath no where declared he exempted him Nay being also the quite contrary appears out of the very letter and necessary litteral sense of holy Scripture especially Rom. 13. in the general precept to all souls and Mat. 7.17 concerning the very persons of the Apostles but more particularly of Peter as also the person of Christ himself as he was a mortal man and further appears out of the motive and end of that general precept of God in St. Paul and lastly appears out of the cleer sense of the Fathers the very words they speak and the arguments they make use of Etiamsi Apostolaâ—sis si Evangelista si Propheta sive quicumque tandem es Non enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio is the expression of Chrisostome as you have seen before And the words and arguments of the rest you have seen also before to the same purpose in this very Section Where though I have not given all the Fathers through all Ages it was not because I could not give them all as many
they were shut up they were beaten they were racked burn'd killed tormented and yet they were multiplied They knew no other fight for safety but to contemne safety for safety Besides these let all other Fathers nay all Historians both sacred and profane both Christian and Heathen of those dayes that are extant speak their knowledg of this matter Let the raignes of Constantius Valens and even Julian the Apostat speak theirs And verily Mr. Prinn or Mr. Goodwin either or any else how industrious soever to except against the Rhetorick of Tertullian will find themselves mâ—te as to any colour against the number of Christians and ability according humane wayes of strength to carry on a design would their conscience permit them to entertain any against these persecuting Emperors Nor can it be denied that in their dayes the Catholicks and Christian Subjects had the greatest provocations and best opportunities could be thought on to carry it The orient and the occident the Nobility army Prelates and people were all Catholicks if you except a very few which in comparison made no number â—hen first Constance would have and really endeavoured with all his Authority to establish Arrianisme They were so for the matter when Valens thundered And upon Iulians entry on the Empire the world at least whereever the Roman Eagles spread their wings was altogether Christian unless peradventure you bring in competition a small inconsiderable number of Iewes and Pagans who had no command no force Yet we know they all suffered patiently with armes across all that which the fury of those heretick Emperours or the malicious cunning of even that Idolatrous Apostat could inflict on them and suffered the foundations to be laid again of Salomons temple to restore Judaisme and all the rites of Numa and sacrifices of heathen Gods to be reestablished rather then they would draw a sword against the Soveraign power Their Bishops and Clergie were more divinely principled then to infuse other maximes or lead them to any other practice then that which they read in the Apostles and Evangelists and which all the Christians ever since their dayes recommended to them by their lives and by their deaths Now to my before said purpose in this present Section or to that of my onely intended particular Instances here of some Bishops Patriarchs Popes and Princes after the first 300. years those Ages of the ten general persecutions wherein questionless all Christians almost every where had occasion and provocation enough to practice whatever they thought was lawfull for them to practise Of which particular Instances The first Instance shall be that of S. Athanasius one of the Fathers of the very first general Council was ever held soon after Patriarch of Alexandria I must confess I have already given this in my former Section but in latin onely and not so directly to my purpose there as to that of this present Section And therefore I repeat it here in English out of his Apology to the Emperour Constantius I have by no means resisted the commands of your Piety Farr be that from me For I am not hee that will resist as much as the City Questor and not onely not the Emperour Truly I prepared my self for going away For of this matter too Montanus is conscious that upon receiving your letters if he had vouchafed to write I had presently departed and by my promptitude in obeying had forerun your commandement For I am not so mad as to have thought such commands were to be contradicted Out of the Decree of your Majesty I studied to know your will But neither did I then receive what by right I postulated and yet now at this present I am not accused of any other cause For I have not resisted the Decree of your Piety Nor will I endeavour to enter Alexandria as long as it shall not by your Piety be lawfull for me And yet the matter in agitation here was the unjust exile of this great and holy Catholick Patriarch Athanasius and his just restitution to his own See as I noted before And yet he acknowledges that himself had been mad if he had not obeyed an Arrian that is a manifest Heretick Emperour by a bare decree or letter onely exiling him from his own proper Episcopal See And declares moreover plainly that he would never as much as endeavour to return to his said See without the same Emperours command or licence to return So conformable was his practise to the doctrine of all the holy Fathers as the doctrine of the Apostle in that precept Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit The second Instance is of Eusebius Bishop of Samâ—sata that most holy and most laudable man of whom Theodoret Hyst l. 4. c. 15. tells and writes in these very words Cum edictum Imperatorium quo jubebatur in Thraciam proficisci c. When sayes Theodoret the Imperial Edict whereby he was commanded to go to banishment in Thracia was brought to him I think it very necessary to be known to such as are yet ignorant how he carried himself For the Messenger that brought this Edict arrived at twylight Whom Eusebius commanded to be silent and to conceal the cause of his coming For sayes he if the people educated in studies of piety shall understand of it they will drawn you in the river and I must answer for your death Having said this and according to custome done his office in the ministery of evening prayers then when sleep scizeth all men this good old man having trusted his secret to onely one servant departs the City His servant follows bringing onely a pillow and a book with him But when he came to the banks of the river for Euphrates runs by the walls of the City having entered a ship he bids the watermen steer directly to Zeugma where he arrives by morning Samosata is all in plaints and tears For his departure being discovered by means of that Servant's giving some necessary directions to some frends and who went in his company and what books were carried for him all the Cittizens universally lamented themselves as now being Orphanlike bereaved of their Father and Pastour Therefore in multitudes and vessels pursueing and searching for him up and down the river they overtake him at last And when first they mett and saw their desired Pastor nothing was to be heard or seen but plaints and sighs and a huge power of tears whereby to perswade him to remain with them and not suffer his sheep to be delivered to Wolves But when they could not perswade and had heard him reciting the precept of the Apostle wherein we are perspicuâ—â—sly enjoyned to obey the Magistrats and Powers some offer him Gold sâ—me Silver others Garments and others Servants being he was departing to a strange country and so farre distant from theirs But he having received some few things from such as were more intimately familiar with him and after he had by doctrine and by
indeed a tye of conscience Though I confess withall it be not altogether improbable that Mauritius about the latter end of his raign was not so acceptable to Gregory For Gregory as greatly joyed writes to Phocas l. 11. indic 6. ep 43. immediat Successor to Mauritius That the yoake of sadness being now removed the Church was come to the dayes of liberty and that in the latter times of Mauritius he kept no Agents in the Imperial Couâ—t because the Ministers of the Roman Church with fear declined and fled from those burdensome and sharper times And writing to Leontia the Empress ibid. ep 44. he gives God thankes that such heavy burdens of so long a tract of time were removed from his shoulders and that now under Phocas he underwent a light easy yoak and such as he was willing to bear and that till now the Church of Peter was layed for in wait or ambushments And yet I say also here that Gregory writing thus to a most impious cruel Parricide oâ— his very own supream Lieg Lord and of his wife children altogether and both to a trayterous rebellious Vsurper of his Crown such as all Histories acknowledg Phocas to have been and praysing and soothing him so as peradventure carrying himself popularly at first and remitting or forgiving to Gregory some of those regalities or of those imperial duties which Mauritius as lawfull Prince found himself have no cause to remit but which Usurping Tyrants do commonly remit and see cause enough to remit to such as at first or last can make opposition to them it cannot be denyed that herein Gregory was surprized with somewhat humane And therefore we must not wonder if perhap if I say at any time though in a different or unlike matter the same Gregory lying under those ordinary weaknesses of men and not seldome of the very best or holiest men expressed some little passion against Mauritius himself without contradiction of any side or person the lawfull Emperour and expressed himself so because Mauritius in defence and for neâ—essary preservation of the Imperial rights looked narrowly to the Bishops kept them to their duty and the very chief Pontiff himself the Roman Patriarch in due subjection to the Empire Be it therefore so and this is a second Answer to Baronius here let us grant those complaints of Gregory were against Mauritius let them be against whomsoever Baronius will of all those Emperours lived in the dayes of Gregory yet whereas they are onely against the either true or pretended Simony of such Emperour as I have shewed before and may be seen at large in the Authors and places quoted by me and whereas they neither contain nor hint any thing as if such Emperour had hindered the Sacerdotal jurisdiction or vsurped or encroached upon it it is also plain enough that all this labour of Barâ—nius is in vain For in the election or confirmation of the Bishop of Rome the Emperours of those times would and did exercise their own Imperial authority That Gregory took extreamly to heart And these Emperours exacted money for such election or confirmation But this seem'd alltogether intollerable to this good Pope as in his opinion implicitly containing or involving the very first heresy sprung up in the Church that I mean which from Simon Magus is called the Simoniacal heresy And this was the very greatest nay all the cause Mauritius gave to the complaints of Gregory And this was the grand nay and sole and whole Simoniacal excess of that Emperour whoever he was of whom Gregory so complains as is manifest out of those very expressions which are most ardent in Gregory where nothing is read of any vsurped or tyrannical dominion over either the Priesthood it self or the Priests Nor was this unknown to Baronius himself For speaking of those Emperours whom those complaints of Gregory might have touch'd thus he sayes Tom. 8. an 590. nu 6. Hac parte tantùm damnandi quòd confirmationem electi in Romanum Pontificem sibi vindicarent Imò adde ita vindicarent ut ex ipsa electione confirmatione pecuniam etiam aliquam vellent acccipere But let us here this learned Annalist making a little further progress Ibid. tom 8. an 593. n. 18. Quibus imprimis sayes he vides sanctum Gregorium definire non solum non esse subditam Regibus aliquo modo Ecclesiam verumetiam firmiter asseverare non habendum esse Mauritium inter Imperatores dum adversus Dei Sacerdotes Regiam potestatem exercet What do you say Baronius Is this indeed your candour will you amuse and abuse your Readers so That the Church as such purely is not subject to secular Princes is very certain but as certain also that Churchmen as men or as parts of the civil common-wealth are in all humane things subject to the Politick Head of the same civil commonwealth And no less certain too that such Politick Heads Kings or Princes have even by the very law of nature a special peculiar and royal but still political interest and right in the election and confirmations of Bishops within their own dominions though it be not hence consequent that they have a power over the Church as a Church or that the Church as a Church is subject to them Nay it is certain and clear enough to any disinteressed and learned person that for the temporalties annexed to a Bishoprick the Prince may at the election or confirmation of the Bishop and may without any kind of Simony require exact and receive such a sum of money as by the written laws or custome is or ought to be paid though it be confessed those laws or customes would be damnable which should set Bishopricks or any Churchlings to sale or should exact even from such as are worthily and canonically elected and confirmed such a sum as in reason should be too grievous a burden to the Church or hinderance to the service of God there unless peradventure the manifest necessities of the Republick either Ecclesiastical or civil or both did require otherwise Now whether or how grievous or how contrary to law or how much hindering the service of God or not that exaction was whereof Gregory complains I know not But I am sure of this that Gregory never said nor dreamed that that Emperour of whom he complains should not be esteemed an Emperour upon this account that he exercised royal power towards over or against the Priests of God but upon this other that he destroyed rather then governd the Empire Therefore Gregory observed some defects in that Emperour as to or concerning the very temporal regiment of his Empire But what this defect was let others enquire as also whether Gregory said well or no that for any such or other defect whatsoever he should not be esteemed Emperour For neither belongs to my purpose here That which is more directly to my purpose is to observe what follows in Baronius Rursum sayes he ejusdem Gregorij sententia reddi
of theirs to have been delivered by him most constantly and firmely and from the very bottome of his Soule Let Baronius teach or shew us that Gregory hath any where complained of any unlawfull oppression of himself or of other Priests by the Emperour that is of the Usurpation of rule power jurisdiction authority or dominion over the Clergie let Baronius shew this to the end it may from such complaint appear that Gregory did not speak from his heart or his own inward sense when he said that priests were granted and committed by God himself to the Emperours dominion but that by such words he mean'd onely that God permitted the Priests to be under him c I say let Baronius shew any such place in Gregory and we shall most willingly admit of his interpretation Let Bellarmine shew that any where Gregory comylains in particular of Mauritius as tyrannically or violently oppressing him or Usurping either spiritual or temporal jurisdiction or authority over him or as hindering him in any respect to execute his Episcopal office and we will then beleeve it appears out of Gregory himself that he obeyed and professes himself to have obeyed Mauritius constrainedly not freely and that he obeyed him onely de facto but not de jure But I am sure that hethertoo neither of both hath brought any thing to help these interpretations of theirs Indeed Gregory complained that the Emperour Iustinus held the Roman Church under Symoniacal oppression but that any Prince was injurious to his own person by Usurping jurisdiction over him he never said Nor must we wonder he should not whereas he knew well enough that he was himself not onely to expect his own confirmation being elected Pope from the Emperour Mauritius but also hoped that he might decline the great burthen of the Pontificat by Mauritius's refusal to confirme his election Besides long after he was admitted and confirmed by Mauritius he sayes openly and expresly that he paid to Mauritius what he ought and acknowledges and confesses that he ought him obedience where certainly no violence no coaction appears but a duty of obedience de jure The words of Gregory expressing this much you have l. 1. indic 11. epist 63 Vtrobique ergo quae debui exolui qui imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minime â—acui And there too he confesses himself subject to the command of the Emperour juffâ—oni Imperatoris subjectum Therefore it 's plain enough that Bellarmine's Glosse of Gregory is not to be admitted being it is so contrary to Gregory's words Baronius likewise brings indeed Gregory's complaints against Mauritius though without sufficient ground as if Mauritius had through Symony kept the Roman Church under oppression But that Mauritius had been at any time injurious to the person of Gregory or those of other Priests or that Mauritius had ever hindered him or them from exercising duely their Episcopal or Sacerdotal functions he had not a word to bring And yet we on the other side can produce most clear and manifest passages wherein and not a complaining but as affirming nor as upbraiding but as praising first that after he may the better object ingratitude Gregory l. 2. Ind. 11. ep 61. assuming the person of Christ reasons with Mauritius recounting particularly the mighty favours he had done and benefits bestowed upon him Ego te de Notasio Comitem Exeubitorum de Comite Excubitorum Caesarem de Cesare Imperatorem nec solum hoc sed Patrem feci Sacerdotes meos tuae manuâ— commisi in a meo servitio milites tuos subtrahis Behold the ingratitude after so many benefits And consider that as he is minded as of a benefit conferr'd upon him that of a Notary he was made a Count and of a Count made Caesar and Emperour so among the same benefits he is minded by Christ or by Gregory in the person of Christ that to his hands he had committed his own Priests All which doubtless import not represent not to us a bare permission of God but the good will and pleasure of God even that very will in God which Divines call voluntatem beneplaciti for they are all equally recounted as benefits and favours of God In the same stile and manner doth Gregory in his epistle to Theodorus commemorat the divine benefits of God to Mauritius and amongst others doth recount this of dominion over Priests that he may the better taxe his ingratitude Valde autem mihi durum videtur sayes he ibid. ep 64. ut ab ejus servitio milites suos abstrahat qui ei omnia tribuit dominari eum non solum militibus sed etiam sacerdotibus câ—ncessit Where I cannot but admire the confidence of our new interpreters that for concedere they give us permittere in the latin tongue and make us beleeve that a concession or grant of dominion over Priests made by God himself and made by him intending it as a special savour and benefit must be understood to be a bare permission onely or an effect onely of the permissive will of God and there too where it is in the same forme or stile recounted as the dominion over the Souldiers and the whole Empire is Who to witt God gave him to witt Mauritius all not permissively questionless but freely and willingly and granted him to have dominion over not the Souldiers onely but also over the Priests Had Mauritius dominion over the Souldiers by a just and lawfull title Or had he dominion over them not out of or by a bare permission onely of God but out of and by that which is truly and properly the concession or grant of God It must be too great folly to answer negatively And therefore if Gregory be a competent witness Mauritius by a lawfull and just title that is by the true and proper concession of God and not by his bare permission onely had dominion over the Priests also Which to have been the sence of Gregory we need neither Logick nor Theology but Grammar onely to teach us As we are also taught by this other passage of the same Gregory speaking to Mauritius l. 4. ep 15. Sacerdotibus non ex terrena potestate Dominus noster citius indignetur sed excellenti consideratiâ—ne propter cum cujus servi sunt eis ita dominetur ut etiam debitam reverentiam impendat Where you see again that Gregory acknowledges in Mauritius dominion as to Priests to witt as they are men and parts of the civil commonwealth for as they are Priests that is consecrated by holy orders he desires for his sake to whom they are consecrated that Mauritius shew them that reverence becometh Which passage of Gregory whether it may for that of dominion be restrained to the legislative power onely or onely import that Mauritius might oblige Priests by his bare civil laws and in such matters onely too however temporal wherein the Church makes no contrary laws and yet not oblige them but secundum
aequum bonum as they shall think fit to an external confirmity and by the directive virtue and part onely of such laws but by no means to or by the sanctions or coercive part as Bellarmine holds and whether Gregory's entreating Mauritius to shew due reverance to the Priests of God import as much as that the Priests should not ought not to be punished by the Emperour when they transgressed for so too Bellarmine sayes that Gregory may be interpreted I leave to the discerning Reader As also whether dominari imports nought else but legibus obligare and whether reverentiam exhibere import the same with or as much as non â—â—â—ire Finally whether Cardinal Bellarmine not being content with these absurd Glosses but adding moreover that it is not to be wondred at Si Gregorius ita loquatur â—t iugum tyrannicum Mauritij si auferre non poterat mitigare saltem moderari nâ—gretur if Gregory speaks with so great submission to mitigate and moderate the tyrannical yoak of Mauritius being he could not wholly rid himself of it whether I say Bellarmine saying so taxe not Gregory with dissimulation and yet gives not any probable reason wherefore Gregory should so strangely dissemble For certainly for such a man as Gregory was to dissemble so or speak so in such a matter against his conscience was not to mitigate or moderate but to nourish and encrease tyranny and encrease it also to the greatest prejudice could be against the Vniversal Church if what Bellarmine and Baronius would faine defend as their main scope were true that is if it were true that Priests are by the law of God exempt from all secular even Imperial power And yet I must say now and this is an other but shorter and clearer Answer both to Baronius and Bellarmine and as to the place alleadged out of St. Gregory's commentaries that as St. Gregory intended not nor could make any strict or proper comparison twixt that Christian Emperour he means in his commentaries on the penitential Psalms and Nero and Dioclesian but onely for example's sake to instance who were though not all in the same degree and might be called or said to be portae Inferi against the Church as having persecuted her every one of them more or less such as was sayes he Nero and Dioclesian and he that now persecutes to wit each of them in his own kind Nero in his and Dioclesian in his and in some degree or measure he too that by or through Symoniacal avarice was thought by Gregory to vex and trouble the Church and as that comparison made by Gregory how proper or strict soever it may be taken to be and though it were intended of Mauritius himself doth nothing advantage Baronius or Bellarmine is no way material being as I have said already there is no specialty in it or in the whole complaint of the oppression of Priests in particular but onely of the Church in general so it is manifest enough that if they cannot produce some passage out of Gregory where he teaches that Priests onely for their being Priests were not bound in meer temporal matters to obey the just commands of Nero and Dioclesian though otherwise or in other matters as in those of true Religion cruel persecutors or that Priests for onely being Priests were not by the text of Paul ad Roman 13. subject in temporal matters to those very persecuting sublimer powers they say nothing at all out of Gregory to decline this sense I have given to be the true proper genuine sense of Gregory in his often quoted epistles to Mauritius and Theodorus for the subjection of all Churchmen nay even too of the Pope himself or of Gregory himself to Mauritius or to any other Emperour And I am sure they can alleadg no such place out of Gregory 'T is true that Gregory hath super Psal 5. Paenitent vers Tota die exprobrabant mihi inimici mei this passage before quoted Coneitavit enim sayes he speaking of the Devil adversus Ecclesiam non solum innumerabilem populi multitudinem verum etiam regiam si fas est dicere potestatem nulla enim ratio sinit ut inter Reges habeatur qui destruit potius quam regat imperiam c. Where as you see after telling how the Devil had excited against the Church of God not onely a numberless number of people but also the royal power if it be lawfull to call it such he adds immediately For sayes he no reason permits that he be esteemed amongst Kings who rather destroyes then governs the Empire I say 't is true that Gregory hath this passage But I say also it is no less true that heer is not a word to Baronius's or Bellarmine's purpose in our present dispute For laying aside that themselves are bound in their own principles to interpret these words beningly and with a graine of salt as the phrase is in Schools and to say that Gregory's meaning was not that before a legal sentence of deposition by sufficient authority that Emperour whoever he was retayn'd not still de jure all his imperial power notwithstanding any ill-government or any kind of destruction which S. Gregory did or could without an Hyperbole charge upon him properly and truely nor consequently was that it was not in strictness of speech and in reality of things lawfull to call his power the true Royall Imperial power nor was that in the same strictness and reality no reason suffered him to be esteemed or accounted a King or Emperour but was onely such meaning as they have who when they have a great disesteem for one and for some actions of his very much below a man use commonly to say That he is no man and by consequence that Gregory must not be understood here as speaking Philosophically or Grammatically but Rhetorically or as meaning onely that he was a very bad very unjust King as to the use of his Kingship in some thing albeit still a true King as to the authority of a King and to the use too in all other things wherein he govern'd according to the laws or to reason I say that laying aside this interpretation or exposition of Gregory's meaning which themselves Baronius and Bellarmine are even in their own principles bound to give and yet could have no place if Gregory's words here be taken rigorously or in a strict grammatical sense it is manifest enough that here is not one word take it in what sense you please Philosophical and Grammatical or Theological or Rhetorical that signifies he was no King for having challeng'd vsurped or executed a Royal power jurisdiction or authority over and against Preists in meer temporal things or for having punish'd such Priests as were highly and enormously delinquent against the laws in such temporal things So that from first to last nothing can be more evident than that our good Cardinals have lost all their pains in commenting on this passage of Gregory's Commentarie's
or in bringing these words to expound those other of Gregory in his foresaid two epistles to Mauritius and Theodorus To return therefore to those most true and proper words again of these two epistles of Gregory I say now that if you add to them the fact of Gregory whereof also before that is his actual and effectual obedience to Mauritius in promulging that law albeit Gregory thought it an unjust law and if you add also his notable profession of obedience and subjection in these tearms Ego quidem jussiâ—ni subjectus c and I say that if you take alltogether I see â—â—â—t how it is possible that you may doubt hereafter of Gregory's sense in this matter but be absolutely and firmely perswaded it was Gregory's doctrine that all Christians universally both Layety and Clergie not even the very great Pontiff himself or the Bishop of Rome excepted are bound in conscience and according to S. Paul's command to be most humbly obedient in all civil affairs to the sublimer powers of King Emperours or other supream politick States within their respective dominions And I say also that I do not see how any professing the law of Christ much less any Priest can have the confidence to say that Gregory's acknowledgement of his due subjection or submission and obedience to Mauritius hath any thing of a dejected Soul any thing flaccid or weak or any thing at all unworthy of the Apostolical vigour as Barenius very little piously excusing the expressions of Gregory speaks For even this great Annalist himself could not but know it was the perpetual custome of the Church in its spiritual Rectors and before the later and worser times of the too much worldly greatness and ambitious designes of some of them to treat with all humility and greatest submission could be with earthly Princes Kings and Emperours and to treat so with them even when they were evil and wicked Princes as Christ himself did and his Apostles did and as even very many of the most holy Pontiffs of Rome did before too much avarice and ambition seized some others that succeeded in that holy See of Peter and in many other particular Sees too parts and persons of the vniversal Church Which indeed is it and nothing else made Baronius give here his animadversions of fear on these epistles of Gregory least any pious Reader should cast down his brows eo quòd abjectè nimis visus sit tibi loquutus S. Gregorius But certainly the vigour Apostolical the nerves and strength which are truly Pontifical or Episcopal do not consist in vain worldly and proud ambition or desire of dominion or imprudent stiffness hardness or obstinacy against Princes and for any matters that are temporal but in the preaching of the Gospel in the propogation of the Faith and in sowing the seed of the word of God although it were certain that for doing so the Apostolical man or Bishop should be an object of scorn and a subject too of pain Ibant Apostoli gaudentes a conspectu Concilij quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine Jesu contumeliam pati Act. 5.21 Therefore Gregory is rather very much to be praised herein that in his own very Episcopal Patriarchal or Papal person which you please not in any comical or scenical he speaks to the Emperour withall respect and modesty For albeit he sayes in the beginning of his epistle to Mauritius that he writes not as a Bishop but as a private man this he sayes to the end he may the more easily prepare and obtain the benevolence of Mauritius with whom in a private quality he was long before both personally acquainted and in that quality held an especiall friendship when as yet neither Mauritius himself was other then a private man Besides he writes in this manner that he might give no cause of indignation or of supposition that he mean'd for the matter in agitation to deal with him as a Bishop or Pastour with his sheep or to correct or rebuke him with authority And therefore least Mauritius should think that which was to follow by way of reprehension of that law in it self proceeded from Gregory as pretending to have an authoritative power though onely episcopal to reprehend him and alter it but that he should rather take what followed in good and friendly part it was therefore I say Gregory protests in the very beginning of his letter that he writes not as a Bishop but as a friend to a friend Which is not to personat or assume an other person as in a scene according to the most vain conception of Baronius whom the due modesty and subjection of Gregory so contrary to that of our days did beyond measure gall Yet I would have the Reader observe that Gregory might justly as or when occasion required admonish and rebuke more severely the very Emperour himself and that he had from God authority to do so For I do constantly profess that even all Kings and Emperours no less then all other men are as faithfull men or as Christian believers subject to the spiritual correction of the Church where it is necessary or expedient And yet Gregory chose rather onely to insinuat the iniquity of that law as he conceaved it and this with the greatest modesty could be then to rebuke Mauritius with any kind of severity However Baronius cannot abide that Gregory should have obeyed the Emperour in the promulgation of that law albeit that at the same time or before he had so insinuated the iniquity of it What doth he invent to rid himself out of this labyrinth He makes Gregory not the censor onely but the corrector also and amender of this very law and so that Gregory gave thereby arguments enough of his sacerdotal vigour Pontifical authority and power too over the very Empire it self Dum accedens sayes Baronius tom 8. an 593. nu 21. censor arbiter constitutionis Imperatoriae admovens ad sacram quam vocabant tabulam stylum edicti illius quaedam addidit jungent ac minuens pro arbitrio ut ad rectam Catholicae Ecclesiae normam disciplinam aptaret nihilque penitus in eo quod Ecclesiasticae officeret libertati sacris canonibus contradiceret praetermittens intactum posteris egregium relinquens exemplum quicquid leges sanciendo delirant Imperatores ac Reges a Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificibus esse pretinus emendandum corrigendum sicque ab ipsis favendum eorum votis ut eos errantes cum mansuetudine ut vidimus Gregorium fecisse corrigant Pontificia potestate quod perperam factum nossent Apostolica censura castigent seque exhibeant eorum Magistros Doctores correctores juxta illud divinum oraculam Hier. 1. 10. non illi tantum Prophetae pronunciatum sed omnibus qui pro Deo ad populum divina legatione funguntur Constitui te hodie super gentes super regna ut euellas destruas disperdas dissipes edifices
of the communication of the Church and even of that of his own subiects in spiritual things or which is the same thing might have declared him to be thenceforth or until he did hear the Church no better then a Heathen or a Publican and that all the rest of the faithfull should hold him for such until he submitted But it is plain enough that neither Publican or Heathen as such or for being such were by any law deposed from their principalities or deprived of any other temporal rights especially when our Saviour gave that rule being the Roman Emperours their under Governours and Garrisons in Ierusalem and Iury and the Collectors of their publick taxes there were heathens and publicans and held as such by the Jews and by the Apostles and consequently excommunicated evangelically or excluded from their religious rites and yet were not held by either Jews or Christians at least not by the Christians to have forfeited any temporal dominion over them or other right amongst them And it is plain enough for any thing may be known out of this chapter Novit ille de Major obed that Innocent prescribes no more therein for his said Legats or himself but to proceed to an Evangelical censure against that King of France in which censure that as we have now seen of deposition from or deprivation of his Crown or of that see of Poitiers is not involv'd Wherefore then do the said Irish Divines relye on this canon to their said purpose And yet withall I confess that because I know Innocent was elsewhere of their opinion or seem'd at least so cap. per Venerabilem Qui filij sint legittimi and that moreover he certainly practised according to such opinion and practised also as highly almost according to it as any Pope and more frequently then any sate in St. Peters chayre and that he scarce left one King of his time in all Europe but he vexed and shaked by his sentences either of formal deposition or of that which in his doctrine was virtual for the matter although not such according to sound doctrine by excommunication I mean which was praeliminary to the other and which he as many other Popes would have to have other effects then the Gospel annexed to it and that Henricus Spondanus that Catholick Bishop Continuator of the Annals of Baronius is in the long life of the said Innocent a witness beyond exception in this matter of the too too many menaces and actual thunders too of this good Pope against all and singular the said very supream Princes of Europe though in effect he held none supream not even in temporals at least in some cases but himself alone and because it is manifest that however this matter be of his opinion or practise of a power in himself direct or indirect or casual as he phrases it cap. per Venerabilem Qui filij sint legittimi for deposing Princes what he held concerning the exemption of all Ecclesiastick persons at least all Priests appears without contradiction or controule in that epistle of his to the Constantinopolitan Emperour in the foresaid cap. Sollicitae benignitatis de Major obed and because that exemption might be without the other pretension and finally because our present maine purpose requires onely to instance the change in the doctrine or practise of Exemption therefore it is I have thought fit to instance here and annex Innocent immediately after Pope Nicholas though in the mean time I omit Gregory the VII and some others with him whose Histories are so famous especially because this Innocent gives the very same corrupt interpretation of St. Peter's epistle which Nicholas gave before him And yet also I confess there may be very much observed on and very much said against that fine artifice that misterious hook of Innocent which you may discover plainly under that subtle distinction of his in the above cap. Novit ille de Major Obed. Non enim intendimus judicare de feudo c sed decernere de delicto cujus ad nos â—pertinet sine dubitatione censura quam in quemlibet exercere possumus debemus A misterious hook indeed whereby if once swallowed all the meerest temporal causes in all Christian Kingdoms and States in the world nay and I mean too in all kind of trades handecrafts or other callings whatsoever must of necessity be decided in the external consistories of the Pope and of his Legats whensoever it shall please his Holiness to erect such Courts either at home in his own country or abroad in all other Countries for his Legats For it is clear enough there are sins whereof for example the Marchant and the Taylor the Lawyer and the Clerk the Councellour and the Client the Statesman and the Souldier the Baker Brewer Shoomaker c may be accused or sins of them or of each of them and at least pretended injustices of the particular laws rules customes of every kind of secular Corporation which may be denounced evangelically to the Pope or to his Legats And therefore it is also clear that by this subtle interpretation made by Innocent of Evangelical correction or of the power of the Church and of the Pope by vertue of it he may were it true hook into his own proper Ecclesiastical consistories all the temporal causes in the world and consequently render all the lay judicatories in the world unsignificant evacuat them all every one among Christians especially if his other text in cap. Per Venerubilem Qui filij sint legittimi were admitted as a rule where he sayes Verum â—â—man in alâ—s Regionibus non solum in Ecclesiae Patriâ—â—nio super quo plenam temporalium gerimus potestatem certis causis inspectio temporalem jâ—â—isdictionem casualiter exercemus and further also consequently might without much difficulty make himself de jure and de facto the sole supream Prince indeed both spiritual and temporal among Christians But forasmuch as it is not my business here to examine this matter any further then to shew the change or difference of opinions and practises betwixt some of the later Popes and the former as to that of acknowledging and yielding obedience or not to the supream lay Princes I proceed and anâ—â—â— to Nicholas and Innocent the â—â—ird Boniface the VIII And I am sure if I had annexed also Innocent the Fourth in particular many others with him whom I do not mention at all I should not do it impertinently But to avoyd too much prolixity I content my self at this present with Boniface the Eight With him above others I end this comparison that it may be rendred the more conspicuous Paul the Apostle said Rom. 13.7 Cui tributum tributum cui vectigal vectigal The succeeding Fathers taught by word and confirmed by deed what Christ himself had taught also by word Matth. 22.21 viz. that what was Cesar's should be paid to Cesar and what he moreover confirmed by deed that is by actual payment
of the didrachma and for his own very person Matth. 17.27 But this Boniface exalting himself in so much that is in temporal power above earthly Princes and States farre more then nay quite contrary to that which our Lord and Saviour Christ is read to have done himself in mortal flesh at any time or by any Instance had the confidence to attempt the bereaving even the very highest supream temporal Princes of those rights and of those duties which by the very law of God himself were theirs and were to be paid unto them unless peradventure themselves had voluntarily devested themselves of such rights or freely remitted such duties in this or that contingency I have before Section LXI though upon an others occasion and to other purpose quoted the Canon which is in cap. Clericiâ— de Immun Ecclesiaâ— in 6. wherein and whereby Boniface made this bold attempt as particularly or specifically excommunicating and by an excommunication too reserved for absolution to the Pope himself nisi in articulo mortis all Officials Rectors Captains Magistrats Barons Counts Dukes Princes and even all Kings and Emperours and generally all others of whatever praeeminency condition or estate who should upon any kind of occasion title or pretext whatsoever impose any tallies taxes collections or any tenths twentieths or hundreths upon any Church persons Churchlands or Church-revenues or who should exact or even receave any such without special licence of the Apostolick See and moreover excommunicating all orders and degrees of the very Churchmen themselves who should as much as promise to pay or consent to the payment of any such impositions or even promise or consent to pay or give any kind of money or quantity or portion of money to such Princes States Lords Officials c under any other title as that of a charitable subsidy or help-money or that of loane-money or that also of gift-money without the authority or licence of the said Apostolick See But this too excessive boldness of Boniface was both acknowledg'd and corrected by Clement the V. and by the General Council of Vienna In which Council the said Clement presiding that canon of Boniface with all the several branches or declarations of it was totally expung'd and abolished as appears by Clementina Quoniam de Immun Ecclesiaâ— But whether that Decree of Boniface was principally made by him in hatred of Phillip King of France as whom Boniface could not or would suffer to bestow the Ecclesiastical benefices of France at his own pleasure on such as he would and impose also or receave from the Churchmen or Church-revenues of France such moneyes as he wanted for the carrying on of his warr in Flanders whether so or no I say it matters not For he made it and made it generally even for all Kings Emperours c. Indeed the Gloss in Extravag Quod olim de Immunit Ecclesiarum sayes it was for the former cause he made that constitution as also that out of it orta fuerunt multa scandala Vnde Clemens Papa in Clement Quoniam de Immunit Ecclesiar voluit quod antiqna Iura servarentur non alla Constitutio But we know out of Ecclesiastical History the first original and whole procedure and by what degrees Boniface came at last to that extravagancy as to write also to that very Phillip that he held them all for Hereticks who did not acknowledg the Papal supremacy in the Kingdome of France and in all temporals as well as in spirituals Which great exorbitancy as well of the said canon as of all the precedent concountant and subsequent proceedings of Boniface occasion'd so much trouble to the vniversal Church as we know the translation of the Papacy it self to France and the frequent long scandalous and pernicious schysmes betwixt Anti popes which enâ—â—ed thereupon amounted unto For so it naturally and commonly happens that while the spiritual Prelats of the Church do according to the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church with all Christian humility obey the temporal Princes in temporal matters the Church it self and these Prelats in her enjoy Halcyon dayes peace and rest and tranquillity as that when and as often as the same Prelats replenish'd with the spirit of this world lift up their horns against Princes pushing at their temporals there is nothing to be seen but scandal and trouble and woe and calamity both in Church and State And so I have ended my comparison 'twixt the more ancient holy Popes and some of their later successors in the matter of subjection and obedience as due or not due from all Clergiemen and consequently from the very Popes themselves in temporal things to supream lay Princes I mean forasmuch as can appear out of the law of God and I mean too where Church-men themselves are not by humane right the supream temporal Princes And consequently do not mean at all by this or any other dispute or passage in this whole book to assert the subjection of Popes as they are at present though not at best but by humane right onely supposed by some or perhaps most writers to be absolute in their own temporal Patrimony and Principality that I mean of some Citties and territories of Italy and to be wholly exempt even in all kind of temporals from the Imperial power As neither do I on the other side mean to assert their such exemption or any in all kind of cases and temporals from the Emperour but abstract wholly from both the one and the other as not concerning my purpose Which purpose as I have often declared is onely and solely to oppose the exemption of all or any Churchmen in the world even of the very Pope himself from lay temporal Princes in temporal matters upon any such account as that of Sacerdotal Episcopal Papal or even Apostolical Order and my particular purpose in this present Section being to prove their subjection to lay Princes by the examples or practise of as well Popes as other Bishops nay and of most Christian Princes too in the more ancient and more holy Ages of the Church Now who sees not it is very wide from this purpose to dispute whether any Churchman any Bishop Arch-bishop Patriarch or Pope hath upon some other account been at any time or be at present exempt from all earthly powers of other Princes that is whether upon account of meer humane right given them by the Emperours or people as that acquired by donation prescription submission a just or lawfull conquest or by sale and emption c Or to dispute whether the investiture or election of the German Emperours to the title and rights of the Empire of Rome and King of the Romans or whether also the entry of their Embassadours to Rome with a naked sword in their hands or carried before them which the Embassadours of other Princes have not nor do challenge whether I say these very ceremonies be sufficient or no to hinder the Pope to be absolutely or independently
supream temporal Prince in any of the Citties or territories which he either actually possesses or challengeth to himself as such an absolute or supream independent temporal Prince To enquire into any such intrigue is not material nor any part of my purpose And all I say of it because I mention'd it accidentally is that if the Pope be not so I could heartily wish he were so provided all Popes made that good use of it and onely that good use which some blessed Popes have For I am farre enough for envying the Apostolical See or even present Roman or Papal Court any even worldly greatness which may be to the glory of God and general good of Christian people was verily such even worldly greatness not onely of the Popes of Rome but of other Bishops and of other Priests too may be without any peradventure if regulated and applyed well And I am also farre enough from perswading my self that no Christian Priest can be found who may for natural parts and gifts of God be among Christians and if it please the Christians themselves such an other as Hermes Trismegistâ—s was among Heathens a great Priest great Prophet and great King withall Nay I confess that many Clergiemen have many excellencies and advantages for government above most Laymen Yet I say withall that if in elective Kingdoms or States they were by the people put at the Helme of supream temporal government or if in hereditary Kingdoms any of them came by succession to it their being Priests Bishops or even Popes would not could not enlarge their temporal power in any kind of respect nor give them any more temporal exemption as from any pure law of God or Christian Religion then they had before they were Priests c. It is not therefore against any power Ecclesiastical or even Papal as such I dispute here but onely against the unwarrantable extension of such and as onely such by those two most eminent writers Cardinal Baronius and Cardinal Bellarmine Yet I will say this much for Cardinal Bellarmine albeit shewing 〈◊〉 this also his contradiction of himself that in his great work of controversies de Concil Eccles l. 1. 〈◊〉 13. I know lot how but by the too great power of truth he confesses in very express worth that even the very Popes themselves have been subject and even too subjected themselves in temporal affairs to the Emperours and consequently that their Pontifical or Papal office or dignity did not exempt them from subjection to the lay supream power For considering there how the foâ—â— first general Councils of the vniversal Church had been convoked by the Emperours and fearing least such convocation might prejudice that authority which he ascribes to the great Pontiff and consequently bringing four causes or reasons why the Popes then were necessitated to make use of the power Imperial as he sayes for the convocation of those four first general Councils he delivers thâ—â— his fourth Reason Quarta ratio est sayes he quia to tempore Poâ—â—tyex eâ—si in spirituâ—libus essex caput omnium etiam Imperatorum tamen in temporalibus subâ—â—citbus se Imperatoribus ideo non peterat invito Imperatore aliquid agere cum tantum â—â—bâ—isset petere ab Imperatore auxilium ad convocandum Synodum vel ut permitteret Synodum convocari tamen quia Dominum suum temporalem cum agnoscebal supplicabat ut jubereâ— Synodum convoâ—â—i At post illa tempora ista omnes causae mutata sunt Nam neo illa lex viget he means that old Imperial constitution which prohibited all Colleges and frequent or numerous Assemblies without the Emperours licence to prevent seditions designs Vide l. 1. ff de Collegiis illicitis l. Conventicula ff de Episcopis Clericis noc Imperatores in â—oto orbe dominantur nec sumptibus publicis fiunt Concilia nec sunt Gentiles qui impedire possint Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus cum etiam ipse in suis Provinoiis sit Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij id quod divina providentia factum est ut Pontifex libere manus suum exequi possit So Bellarmine cleerly and expresly to a word Therefore by this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself the Pope hath no freedom no exemption at all in temporal matters from the civil power of the Emperour by virtue I mean of his Pontificat or Papal office But hath all his exemption in such matters by vertue onely of the supream temporal Principality which he acquired after as Bellarmine's sayes and which he possesses yet And consequently Bellarmine confesses also that this temporal Principality being removed or lost as by a just conquest and many other legal wayes it may be the Pope will be no more exempt in temporals from the Emperour or King of Rome but subject to him wholly in such Which is that onely I contend all along in this dispute of the Pope And therefore it must also follow evidently out of this doctrine and confession of Bellarmine himself that all other Priests Bishops and Clerks whatsoever even Cardâ—nals who have no supream earthly power and Principality of their own must be throughly and entirely subject in temporal matters to those supream lay Princes in whose dominions they live and whom they acknowledge to be their own very true Soveraign Lords Which is that moreover which I contend for in all the Sections of this whole and long dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity against the Divines of Lovain And I am extremely deceaved if Bellarmine yeeld it not fairely and freely in this place however he coyned a new faith for himself after in his old age and in his little books against Barclay Widdrington and some others But forasmuch as nothing more confirmes the rightfull power and authority of Kings in all humane things over also their subjects even all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever then the most ancient custome and perpetual practise in the Christian Catholick Church this very Church her self not onely not resisting but consenting also and approving such custome and practise therefore it is that to those particular Instances already given of such practise or matter of fact in the persons of those two most holy Bishops Athanasius and Eusebius and in the persons also of those other two and not onely most holy but even the very Head Bishops of the whole Earth in their own time as being the great Pontiffs then of the Roman See to witt Gregory and Constantine I must now moreover add those other particular Instances in such matter of fact which I promised of Princes Wherein if I be somewhat prolix in bringing not a few examples down along throughout almost all ages of Christianity from the days of Constantine the great and first Christian Emperour the profit will yours good Reader and the labour mine For you may cull out and pause on such as you find the most illustrious the rest you may read over cursority on pass by
solum ad mundi regimen sed maxime ad Ecclesiae praesidiuâ— esse collatum At most therefore what is in this matter granted to the Church is that Ecclesiasticks be not by Princes proceeded against coercively to punishment if their transgression be onely or meerly Ecclesiastical and the punishment be corporal I say be not so and in such case punished corporally unless or until the Church do her own duty first by depositions or censures or both Except you always still such extraordinary cases wherein the Superiours of the Church should or would themselves also peradventure be too refractory or too contumacious against reason as guilty of the same crimes or for any causes whatsoever countenancing or favouring the criminal Clerks and therefore refusing to proceed at all or at least onely against them For when a degraded Clerk is given over to the secular Court he is not delivered so by the Church to the secular Magistrats as if the Church did mean or intend these Magistrats should proceed by vertue of a power derived from her or be the Ministers or executioners of her own sentence which if capital she hath no power no authority at all from God or man to pronounce or decree as if any other way it be purely civil or forcible at all corporally for example to corporal restraint or imprisonment she hath for so much all her power from man and from the civil laws onely but he is given over so by the Church as meaning and intending onely that such a criminal Clerk be thenceforward under the ordinary power of even the inferiour lay Magistrats and Judges and by such delivery or giving over signifying unto them that they may now proceed if they please and think fit either to absolve or condemn him For even Caelestinus III. himself a Pope of the later times confesses c. Non ab homine de judic that Ecclesiastical punishment is of a quite other nature then that which is lay and that the Church hath no kind of power or authority to inflict such punishments as are in their own nature lay punishments or which is the same thing that she hath no power no authority at all of her self as a Church to inflict any punishment but purely Ecclesiastical but suspension deposition excommunication the lesser and greater and finally degradation when the criminal Clerk is delivered over or left under the secular power let the crimes of such a Clerk be ever so great and ever too such pure lay crimes even perjury theft and murder c and even heightned also by incorrigibleness A nobis fuit ex parte tua quaesitum sayes the above Caelestine utrum liceat Regi vel alicut seculari personae judicare Clericos cujuscumque ordinis sive in furto sive homicidio vel periurio seu quibus cumque fuerint criminibus deprehensi Consultationi tuae taliter respondentus quod si Clericus in quocumque ordine constitutus in furto vel homicidio vel periurio seu alio crimine fuerit deprehensus legittime atque convictus ab Ecclesiastico Iudice deponendus est Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit excommunicari debet deinde contumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri postmedum verò si in profundum malorum veniens contempserit cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat ne possit esse ultra perditio plurimorâ—m per secularem comprimendus est potestatem ita quod ei deputetur exilium vel alia legittima paena Where you are to observe singularly as to our present purpose of distinction betwixt Ecclesiastical and secular punishment and of no power at all in the Church to inflict corporal secular civil or lay punishments what Caelestinus sayes in these words Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat As you are also to note that he answers not directly or rather indeed not at all to the main question whether the King or other secular powers could punish Clerks guilty of or manifestly deprehended in perjury theft or murder but declines that of the authority of Kings or of other secular powers acting of themselveâ— in such cases without relation to the desires of the Church that they should act so and onely prescribes to the Ecclesiastical superiours how they themselves are to proceed by degrees aâ— becomes them against such criminal Clerks For otherwise it hath been seen before and in the very laws of Iustinian submitted unto by the Church that in such criminal causes the civil Praetors proceeded immediately against Churchmen though execution of the sentence was suspended until degradation was by the Bishop And it hath been seen that in a very auncient Council of Bishops long before this Calestine the first of Matisconum I mean the cases of theft murder and malefice were still expresly and particularly supposed or rather declared to have no Ecclesiastical exemption but to be still under the cognizance of even the inferiour lay judges And reason it self and the necessary preservation of both State and Church tell us that Caelestine's answer here cannot be otherwise understood in all the formalities of it and as relateing to the power supream of Kings who acknowledg none but God above them in temporals and who recieve not or incorporat not by their own proper power and into their own civil law this canon of Caelestine in any other sense or any other Church canon at all either like or unlike to it exempting Clerks in such crimes and in the first Instance from their supream legal cognizance or even from that of their subordinat ordinary secular and lay judges For I confess that in such Kingdoms or temporal States if any such be wherein the Princes or people or civil Governours and civil laws or customs have recieved such Ecclesiastical canons for the exemption of Clerks in such crimes until such Ecclesiastical formalities had preceeded it is fitting they be obserued and ought to be observed while the civil laws which onely gave them force or a binding virtue remain unrepealed and if the litteral observation of them strike not at the very being or at least peaceable and well being of the Commonwealth But observed so that is by virtue of the civil reception and incorporation of them into the civil laws and by the civil power they make nothing at all against my main purpose or against that of those other canons I alledg for the power of Kings from God to punish delinquent Clergiemen with civil and corporal punishments where and when they shall upon rational grounds judg it necessary and expedient for the publick good of either Church or State and where and when it is not against the laws of the land that they punish them so either by themselves immediately or by their subordinat lay judges either extraordinary or ordinary The Bishops of Affrick acknowledging this power in temporal Princes write in this manner and stile to the Emperour Vt novellae praesumptionis scandalum quod adversus fidem nostram attentatum
est auferatur fratremque nostrum Paulum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae Episcopum Regali authoritate vt nobiscum id est cum omni generalitate orthodoxé sapere debeat coarctare degnemini Concil Lateran consult 2. sub Martino 1. they desire the Emperour that by his legal authority and by corporal coercion he force him who not onely was a Priest not onely a Bishop but in the highest degree of the Hierarchy ordained by humane constitution or by the canons of the Church even the very Patriarch of Constantinople For a ninth canon that which is in the Ninth Council of Toledo cap. 1. may very well and properly serve where the Fathers acknowledging this supream coercive power of Clerks in Princes ordain thus against Clerks that defraud the community or the Church of the oblations intended in common for the Church Vt si sacerdotem seu ministrum aliquid ex collatis rebus praeviderint defraudare aut commonitionis honestae conventione compescant aut Episcopo vel Iudici corrigenda denuntient Quod si talia Episcopus agere tentet Metropolitano ejus haec insinuare procurent Si autem Metropolitanus talia gerat Regis haec auribus intimare non differant Where you see this ancient Council of Spanish and very orthodox Bishops ordaining that the excesses of Ecclesiastical persons of Priests Bishops and Metrapolitanes be in the last place or when no remedy is applyed by the Bishops or Metropolitanes themselves complained of to the King to be questionless by him and by his regal authority corrected and coerced Tenth and last of those canons I pitch upon and restraine my self unto here is a canon of the Synod of Ravenna convoked by Iohn the ninth Pope of that name about the nine hundredth year of Christ For in this Council Lambertus the Emperour being himself there in person and at some variance with that Pope who who was likewise present in his own person amongst his Capitula or heads which he proposed to the Council and as to be admitted by the Pope and Council proposed in the first place of all this Si quis Romanus cujuscumque sit ordinis sive de clero sive de Senatu seu de quocumque ordine gratis ad nostram Imperialem Majestatem venire voluerit aut necessitate compulsus ad nos voluerit proclamare nullus ei contradicere praesumat Donec liceat Imperatoriae Potestati eorum causas aut personas aut per Missos nostros deliberare Which capitulum was assented unto and ratified by the Fathers and made a conciliary Act and therefore too a Canon of that Council and all this done so solemnly and even in the sight and with the approbation also and consent of the very Roman Pontiff himself there in person present to the end it might appear to the world that after the more directly spiritual or purely Ecclesiastical Canons had been ended by the Fathers the Emperour would by this particular Canon of another nature have it declared that he preserved still entire his own right of judging the very Clergy of Rome it self as an Emperour and in all matters whatsoever belonging to his imperial cognizance and consequently still preserved intire his own imperial coercive power of criminal Clerks or that of punishing them civilly corporally if or when their delinquencies or crimes or the preventing of such crimes for the future in others required such punishments To conclude this Section of Canons I must give some few and brief advertisements to the Reader concerning them and my purpose in alledging them 1. That I alledge them not as causes or as grounds or springs of such authority in secular Princes but only as testimonies of the sense of the Fathers who made them and for those ages wherein they were made that there was by and from a superiour power such a previous original proper essential independent right in supream secular Princes and that for the more certain more demonstrative proofs of such a right in Princes I relye not somuch on any express Canons of either Popes or Councils as upon those plain texts of holy Scripture and those other so plain and so express of all the holy Fathers generally who in their other writings that are not Papal or conciliary Canons commented upon the same Scriptures and besides these two arguments of Scripture and Tradition which I have before given at length in three Sections for I make that of my Instances of practise part of the argument of Tradition that I do also very much relye upon those other evidences of natural reason which you may turn to Sect. LXXII 2. That although for these Canons which are only Papal that is those which are made or issued by the sole authority of one or more Popes without a Council I pretend them not to be of equal authority with such as had the consent of a Council nor hold those meer Papal Canons or any other in Gratian to be properly and strictly the Canons of the Church being these are such as were made at first or approved at last by a general Council or otherwise introduced by universal consent or custome albeit others too may be Canons for the occidental Church apart or apart for the oriental yet as to my present purpose meer Papal Canons may be justly presumed to be most sufficient testimonies because against the Popes themselves or against the present exemption of Popes by divine right and their pretended power also by any right whatsoever to exempt others I mean still out of their own dominions or those wherein they are themselves at present supream temporal Princes 3. That in my interpretations of those Canons or in my conclusions derived or intended from them I do not tye my self either to Gratian whom I confess to have seen many or most or perhaps all of them or to any of his Glossatours if indeed Gratian himself how otherwise great and earnest soever a Hiero Monarchist or Zealot for and assertor of the Roman and Papal Hieromonarchy interpret conclude or say any thing at all point blanck either directly or indirectly or consequentially or virtually against my interpretations or conclusions here out of these Canons or against my assertions all along of the supream royal coercive power of criminal Clerks For truly he may be very well understood without any such meaning xi q. 1. where he had most occasion to deliver himself as of purpose treating there of the proper Judicatory of Clerks Because that forasmuch as of this matter he treats only according to the Canons of the Church and priviledges given by Emperours and that I have shewed and proved already elsewhere in my LXIX Section â—e brings neither an Imperial constitution nor allowed Church canon nor as much as any true or certain though meer Papal Canon which maâ—y be home enough against my assertion of such an absolute independent supream coercive power in Kings and that also in his last Paragraph which begins thus as even his former doth
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
the said supream power or understood in or by any priviledge of exemption unless it be so expresly specifically or determinatly said by clear words in such priviledge and lastly I have before demonstrated that no such priviledge or any with such words nor any canon or even any other testimony for such a priviledge or such words hath ever yet been alledg'd by any of all our Adversaries LXXVI The few remaining Objections are now to be considered and solved according to my promise and method prescribed to my self in my LXXI Section I call them remaining not that I left any of Bellarmine's arguments unanswered or unresolved where I treated against them of purpose in eight long Sections viz. from my LXIII to my LXX Section both inclusively taken but that I met elsewhere with these objections I am to examine here now or that they occurred to my self and that I have not yet of purpose cleared or sifted them in particular and that they are indeed the only which I conceive to remain as yet so of purpose particularly unresolved albeit I doubt not they are in general or by the general grounds I have laid and proved already in so many former passages and by the general solutions and reasons I have given against Bellarmines arguments sufficiently resolved However that I may leave no place at all for cavil I descend to these also in particular Whereof there are four in all The first is composed of three several Scripture Texts of St. Paul himself For this great Apostle sayes expresly 1 Cor. 10.6 that he himself had a present power to take revenge of or to punish all disobedience In promptu habentes sayes he ulcisci inobedientiam And 1. Cor. 4.21 he puts the question thus to the Corinthians Quid vultis in vïrga veniam ad vos what will you have me come in or with a rod to you And 1. Timoth 5.19 he commands Timothy that against a Presbyter he shall not receive any accusation that hath less then two or three witnesses to make it good Accusationem adversus presbyterum nolï recipere nisi sub duobus aut tribus testibus And several more such peradventure may be added Out of all which the inference must be if any at all be made against me to purpose how unjustly or ungroundedly soever that herein St. Paul contradicts himself and his own command to all souls Rom. 13. or certainly that I have all along hitherto affixed that sense to this command of Paul omnis anima c. Rom. 13. which Paul never had But the answer is very facile and solution obvious viz. that all these three texts and other such in Paul or other Apostle Evangelist or Prophet if any such other places be of him or of any of them are certainly and onely understood of the Ecclesiastical or Spiritual power of Paul and of other Church Superiours and only of meer Ecclesiastical purely such both judgments and punishments denounced or pronounced by vertue of that spiritual power In which manner and by which power it was that Paul without any doubt could deliver and did deliver some disobedient scandalous and exorbitant sinners to Sathan 1. Corinth 5.5 Now that this answer is unquestionably well grounded nor ought to be at all contradicted I need not repeat again what I have so at large produced before out of the holy Fathers generally acknowledging no other power in the Church but purely spiritual not even in the very Apostles themselves who founded the Church And as little do I need repeat those other texts of Paul Rom. 13. or what I said before upon them which is that they can have no kind of sense at all but meer contradictory nonsense if Paul did not mean by them certainly that the very Church and Church Superiours were not exempt in temporal matters from the secular Princes but subject to them in all such even as to civil coercion by the material sword and consequently if he did not mean that the Church as such had no civil corporal or temporal coercive power properly such but only and meerly spiritual or that of Ecclesiastical Censures only properly and strictly such Yet I will not upon this new occasion forbear to mind thee good Reader once more of that canon of Caelestinus III. cap. cum non ab homine de judiciis Which I have given also at large in my last Section immediatly before this present and which onely is enough to justifie in all points my solution here of this first remaining objection Caelestine there expresly declares that the â—hurch hath no power at all not even over the meerest Clerk but that which is purely spiritual by meer Church censures of suspension deposition excommunication degradation and that after pronounceing such censures she hath no more to do but to implore the secular civil power Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat sayes the said Caelestine Which being so who sees not the vanity of this first remaining objection Or who sees not that such a spiritual power in Paul Timothy and other Church Superiours can very well stand with their own subjection and with the subjection also of all their flock whether disobedient or obedient to the civil power of the civil Magistrat in all things and in such manner as is proper to the same civil Magistrat or finally who sees not but that one may have a power to punish with one certain kind of punishment and not with an other The second remaining objection is of S. Ambrose or of his having proceeded judicially and authoritatively to condemn or free a certain Virgin votress accused of whoredom and of his having renewed the judgment of this fact upon an appeal to him and even renewed it against a former judgment pronounced by Syagrius Bishop of Verona Ambrosius l. 1. ep 64. But the answer is as easy and obvious to this also and is that Ambrose sate in judgment on this crime not as intending or pretending to punish it with any civil corporal punishment nor as pretending any Church power properly such to pronounce any sentence obliging to such punishments but as intending onely a meer Ecclesiastical Episcopal and spiritual cognizance and in order onely to a meer spiritual punishment correction and amendment of the accused if she had been found guilty of the crime that is in order onely to a spiritual ejection and spiritual excommunication of her out of the Church until she had by fruitfull and exemplar repentance merited to be readmitted again into the Church Which appears hence also that Ambrose when he had heard all throughly absolved this Virgin as unjustly accused and excommunicated her accusers The third remaining objection is that this doctrine of a supream coercive power in supream temporal Princes to punish criminal Bishops Priests and other Clergiemen is and was the doctrine of Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno both of them condemned as hereticks and this doctrine of theirs condemn'd likewise as an
and Burgundy and exercised also that self same Vicariat office without any regard of the former Bulls of this Pope excommunicating deposing and depriving this Lewis for we know very well that in the Countries obeying that Emperour himself there was not nor could be any such material publication much less reception of any thing or Bull for such a part at least as struck though indirectly at the prerogatives and rights Imperial I mean such as were truly such as we know it is a maxime amongst Civilians and Canonists that laws are then laws indeed quando moribus utentium comprobantur when they are approved by reception and submission to them and yet we know withal that for such approbation or reception of and submission to all and singular the definitions of this Bull so little can be said albeit enough may be for some of them and yet not for any of them as in this Bull as it is apparant the Bull it self or the tenor of it hath been for some ages unknown and even unknown to and unseen by the very most learned and most curious at least until about some fifty or threescore years since it was by meer chance lighted on in Biblotheca Cottâ—niana Sr. Robert Cottons Library finally passing by altogether in silence as not material what Villanius an Italian Author of this Popes time and St. Antoninus too the holy Archbishop of Florence after him and others after both report of the election of this very Iohn to the Papacy or how it was himself alone being called before his Papacy Iacobus de Ossa Episcopus Cardinalis Portuensis that chose himself to be Pope viz. the Colledge of Cardinals being at variance long and compromising at last and fixing on and electing him blindly whoever he should be that were or would be elected by him alone whereupon he chose himself as likewise and as not very material passing over wholly in silence what Ciacconius relates of his breach of oath made to Neopoleon Ursinus the Archdeacon who was one of the Conclave and was author to the rest of the Cardinals to leave the whole election to him Iacobus de Ossa then but after Iohn the XXII for this oath was that he would never mount either horse or mule but to go to Rome whence his Predecessors Clement the V. had in a manner removed the Papal See by living all his life-time in France where alâ—o this Iohn or this Iames de Ossa was chosen to be Pope and yet he never once attempted to go to Rome though he lived a long and healthy life after in his Papacy and therefore the said Neapoleon would never come at him as much as once more in his life nor even after his death as much as go to his funeral ceremonies not even notwithstanding that to appease or to win him from his rigid resolution this Pope had promoted two of his Family and created them Cardinals at two several promotions Iohn Cajetanus Vrsinus and Matthew Vrsinus I say that passing by at present all the both general and specifical and particular advantages I might any way take either of the doctrine of the fallibility of Popes in general or of the fallibility of Iohn the XXII Bulls in particular or of this singular Bull of his as to some part of it at least in the sense of some Divines against Marsilius and Iandunus or of any thing else hitherto alledg'd in this last Paragraph nay supposing or granting all and each animadversion had been not only immaterial but false and which is consequent admitting the certainty of the legalâ— both emanation and publication and general reception too of this Bulâ— throughout all Christendome and of every branch of it and that even Iohn the XXII himself had either been himself alone infallible in all his Definitions of any matter to be of Catholick Faith and consequently of the matter of this Bull or at least had been so fortunate as to have defined nothing so by himself for such but what was formerly or concomitantly acknowledged to be such and even acknowledged so by the universal Church of the infallibility of which Church in matters of Faith no Catholick doubts yet I say again that granting all this My direct and positive answer to the above fourth remaining objection is very clear and very full and satisfactory viz. That although without any peradventure my doctrine hitherto all along in this Tract of a supream civil coercive power in supream temporal Princes to punish criminal Bishops Priests and other Clergiemen whatsoever dwelling and offending within their dominions is or was part of the doctrine taught as well by Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno as by thousands of the very best Roman Catholicks both in their time and before and after their time yet it is no part of that doctrine or of those articles of Marsilius or Jandunus which is properly called theirs or which as theirs John the XXII condemned or as much as touch'd at all and therefore that the objection for so much of it as is to purpose is absolutely false Which to evict no less manifestly we need no other proof then what is obvious to every judicious man by comparing together my doctrine hitherto and the above five articles which Iohn the XXII himself relates as the only proper doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus against which he takes exception and pronounces condemnation For the first of those articles is that that which is read of Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew that he paid tribute to Cesar when he commanded the stater taken out of the fishes mouth to be given to the Collectors he commanded and did so non condescensivè liberalitate suae pietatis sed necessitate coactus not out of his condescension liberality and piety but as constrained by necessity But it is evident enough the doctrine of a supream coercive power of all Clerks in temporal Princes needs not involves not the support of any such article as this first concerning Christ whatever the sense of Marsilius or Iandunus therein was good or bad false or true for the doctrine of such power in Princes speaks only of it in relation to Clerks who are only men by nature not of Christ who was both God and man by nature even as to all the perfections and power of as well the divine as humane nature Be it therefore so that Marsilius and Iandunus mean'd heretically in this first article of theirs that is mean'd to say that Christ paid tribute not only or solely to avoid scandal but also as bound by his own condition and by the sole virtue of that tribute law in it self and as abstracting wholy from all cases of scandal and be it so as it was so that Iohn the XXII rightly condemn'd this heretical sense or even be it so that he justly condemned that first article as bearing this sense and rightly judg'd it to beare this very sense and no other good sense at all what hath
this to do or wherein doth this condemnation or judgment reflect on the doctrine which teacheth not of Christ but of the Disciples of Christ and only teacheth that all men who are only men and not Gods or that all mortal and sinful men whether Laymen or Clergiemen who are members of any commonwealth and not the heads thereof do lye under a proper and strict obligation not only of charity for the avoiding of scandal but of justice also to be humbly subject in criminal causes to the supream coercive power of the supream politick head Nay and under an obligation of justice also even to pay him tribute if he himself exempt them not from tribute I mean were it necessary for me to urge that of tribute as it is not And only teacheth moreover that such obligation of Justice ariseth from the very law divine it self both natural and positive or which is the same thing is evidently commanded by reason and by revelation by plain Scripture and Catholick Tradition by the doctrine and practice of the Christian Bishops themselves and of even their very best Christian Princes and people all along from the beginning of Christianity until this present day Certainly there is no man so blind as not to see that that first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or condemnation of it hath nothing to do with this doctrine Nor yet so blind as not to see that my elucidation of this doctrine all along or any where in this Tract hath nothing to do with that first Article taken I mean in that sense wherein as I have declared already and in no other the said Iohn the XXII condemn'd it I confess I have before that is in the 239. page of this first Part by occasion too of speaking somewhat against Bellarmine concerning the doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus or that part of their doctrine which is in this first article said That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether to free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of yet a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condem'd nor censur'd at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters I have said so there I confess But what then or doth it follow that by such answer to Bellarmine I maintain this first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or that I fall under the condemnation of this first article nothing less This first article is as the Pope himself relates it in these words and only in these words Illud quod de Christo legitur in Evangelio B. Matthei quod ipse soluit tributum Caesari quando staterem sumptum ex ore piscis illis qui petebant didrachma jussit dari hoc fecit non condescensive liberalitate suae pietatis sed necessitate coactus And the condemnation of this article or the sense wherein this article was condemned is that which imposes a constraint of necessity on our Saviour for paying the didrachma and which denyes that he paid it not condescensively that is not out of his meer condescension and out of the liberality of his piety Now who sees not first that I do not by any means deny it was out of his meer condescension to the infirmities of weak men and of his liberality and piety that our Saviour commanded the didrachma to be paid nay who sees not that I do rather expresly enough say it was meerly out of his liberality piety and condescension he commanded it to be paid so for himself Do not I say most expresly or at least insinuat most sufficiently that he paid it only to avoid scandal and that he was bound by no other law to pay it but by the law of love and charity or which is the same thing and to repeat here again my own former determinate words that as the fulfiller of the old law and Prophets and as the giver of a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And secondly and indeed consequently who sees not that in that discourse of mine or whole passage quoted above out of my 239. page I have not a word importing any constraint of necessity or any either constraint or necessity for in effect they are both the same or import the same thing taking these words properly or absolutely and simply that is without any dimunitive adjection addition restriction or taking them not any way at all for that which is secundum quid tale as they ought not to be taken but for that which is simpliciter tale as they ought to be taken where other words or the subject restrains them not For to aver such constraint or such necessity incumbent on our Saviour in paying the didrachma were as much as to aver that either he had an inward constraint or necessity on his will or soul for want of that inward essential indifferency which makes the will and soul free in it self inwardly to volitions and nollitions or had an outward compulsion or coaction of his executive faculty for want of outward means as for example twelve legions of Angels at his command to free him from the power of those that would force him to payment whether he would or no if he had denyed it or certainly had the constraint or necessity of an obligation or tye of justice and obedience on him arising from the tribute law it self obliging him as other men under the guilt of sin and other penalties of such law to pay tribute Which last kind of necessity is that which the arguments of Iohn the XXII against the first article of Marsilius do seem to fasten upon it and condemns in it and the whole article for seeming to say that out of such necessity our Saviour paid the didrachma But whether so or no I am not concern'd because I remove all three kinds of necessity from our Saviour and all other kinds too of necessity if there be any other simply such For though I say in the beginning of the said passage page 239. that our Saviour himself by his own non scandalizemus eos Mat 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free c but that he was bound c and consequently say that our Saviour wanted some kind of freedom
either give the spiritual power of the Papacy or take it away from any or should conceive that after the Church had legally revoked that power she once or twice gave Emperours to chose or elect for ever all Popes nay and all other Bishops too of the Western Church yet the Emperour could institute the Pope And the sense also wherein I condemn that Article for both parts is that which any should conceive or express by saying in other significant words that both the spiritual institution and spiritual destitution and the spiritual correction and spiritual punition of the Pope or the punition of him by spiritual wayes or in a spiritual manner or at all by the spiritual sword belongs to the Emperour as such or as only Emperour without any delegation or commission from the Church And the sense moreover wherein I condemn that Article as at least false is that whereby any might conceive that not only before the Popes were legally invested in those temporal principalities which they now enjoy and did enjoy or at least pretended to enjoy as supream temporal Princes in the time or a little before and after the time of Ioannes XXII but also after they were and are legally invested and possessed of a supream temporal independent Soveraignty if I mean they be so re vera at all which is not my business here to determine did I know well how to determine it it belong'd or belongs to the Emperour to give as much as the sole Temporals of the Papacy or take them away from the Pope or as much as to correct or punish him in any other though meer temporal civil or corporal way of coercion by the civil or material sword Now 't is clear enough that neither my Thesis in general concerning the subjection of all Clergiemen whatsoever to their own respective civil Princes nor my particular deduction from it concerning the very Popes themselves and their subjection likewise to the Roman Emperors before these Roman Emperours were legally devested of the real Soveraingty of Rome are touch't by the condemnation of either part or both parts together in any such sense of them or of either of them as I have given hitherto And it is no less clear to me that the reasons of Iohn the XXII against this third Article drives at no condemnation of it in any other sense For amongst these reasons one is the forged donation of Constantine the Great cap. Constantinus dist 96. And another is composed of a plain denyal or plainly false exposition of cap. Adrianus xxii Dist xliii and cap. In Synod ead Distinc and of a posterior revocation by the Popes themselves of the priviledge granted to Emperours in those Canons nay and of a renunciation made of that priviledge by later Emperours also So that if we gather the sense wherein Iohn the XXII censured this third Article even for either of both parts joyntly or severally as we may and ought to gather it from the reasons which he alledges against it we must evidently conclude his censure to have related only to those times wherein the Pope pretended the very temporal and legal supream independent authority or Soveraignty of the City of Rome and of some other Principalities and to those times also which preceded such priviledge given to the Emperours or followed the revocation and renunciation of such priviledge not to the time during which it held But it is apparent enough that my doctrine concerning the Popes subjection to the supream civil coercive power of the Roman Emperours had relation to those other times only wherein the Popes without any peradventure most expresly confessed themselves and to those moreover wherein they should so according to the truth of things confess themselves to be de facto and de jure subject in all temporals to the Roman Emperours And therefore is is likewise apparent enough that I am no way concern'd in this Article of Marsilius and Iandunus or in the condemnation of it Much less am I concern'd how false or how true the Popes allegations or how weak and unconcluding his reasons are which he makes against it and which are the only motives as he pretends of his definitions against it for the very chief Assertors and Defenders of the infallibility of pure Papal Definitions in matters of Faith confess that the reasons alledged by Popes in their definitive Busts are no part of the definition it self nor as such have any kind of infallibility not tye any oâ—her to approve of them further then their own proper native evidence works the understanding to an assent And yet withal as I said before so I now say again that Iohn the XXII's reasons against this third Article of Marsilius and Iandunus prove sufficiently that the doctrine of a supream civil coercive power as warranted by the law divine both natural and positive to be in Emperours or lawful Kings of Rome to coerce judge and punish the very Pope himself in criminal causes when the Pope was no supream temporal Prince or when or if at any time hereafter he shall cease to be such or if even at present he be not such and that he live within such Emperour 's or Kings dominions for this is it and all it I say in the exposition of my general Thesis in relation to the Pope is no way concern'd in the condemnation pronounced by the same Iohn the XXII against the same third Article because not in the sense wherein his said reasons prove he condemn'd this Article But forasmuch as it may be of some good use to the Reader not onely for a more full understanding of what I treat here but in other parts of this work to see at leingth both that no less famous then forged canon or chapter Constantinus dist 96 noted with a Palea in Gratian himself and those other true canons or true Chapters Hadrianus and In Synodo dist LXIII for as true and undoubted these two are by all men quoted and accounted I will not loose this occasion to give so here all three consequently If you think your labour lost in perusing them and you will not if you be not extreamly uncurious you may skip over them to my observations on the 4. and 5. article of Morfilius Ex Gratiano distinct XCVI cap. Constantinus Constantinus Imperator quarta die sui baptismi privilegium Romanae Ecclesiae Pontifici contulit ut in toto orbe Romano Sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant sicut judices Regem In eo privilegio ita inter caetera legitur Utile judicavimus unà cum omnibus Satrapis nostris universo Senatu optimatibusque meis etiam cuncto populo Romanae gloriae imperio subiacenti ut sicut beatus Petrus in terris vicarius filii dei esse videtur constitutus ita Pontifices qui ipsius Principis Apostolorum gerunt vices principatus potestatem amplius quam terrena imperialis nostrae Serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur concessam
Synodum cum Hadriano Papa in Patriarchio Lateranensi in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris quae Synodus celebrata est à CLIII Episcopis religiosis Abbatibus Hadrianus autem Papa cum universa Synodo tradiderunt Carolo jus potestatem eligendi Pontificem ordinandi Apostolicam sedem dignitatem quoque patriciatus eis concesserunt In super Archiepiscopos Episcopos per singulas provincias ab eo investituram accipere diffinivit ut nisi à Rege laudetur investiatur Episcopus à nemine consecretur quicumque contra hoc decretum ageret anathematis vinculo eum innodavit nisi resipisceret bona ejus publicari praecepit Item Leo Papa ut habetur distinct 63. cap. In Synodo In Synodo Congregata Romae in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris Ad exemplum B. Hadriani Apostolicae sedis antistitis qui domino Carolo victoriosissimo regi Francorum Longobardorum Patriciatus dignitatem ac ordinationem Apostolicae sedis investituram Episcoporum concessit ego quoque Leo Episcopus servus servorum Dei cum toto clero ac Romano populo constituimus confirmanus et corroboramus et per nostram apostolicam auctoritatem concedimus atque largimur domino Othoni primo regi Tentonicorum ejusque Successoribus hujus regni Italiae in perpetuum facultatem eligendi Successorem atque summae sedis Apostolicae Pontificem ordinandi ac per hoc Archiepiscopos seu Episcopos ut ipsi ab eo investituram accipiant et consecrationem unde debent exceptis his quos Imperator Pontificibus et Archiepiscopis concessit et ut nemo deinceps cujusque dignitatis vel religiositatis eligendi vel patricium vel Pontificem summae sedis Apostolicae aut quemcumque Episcopum ordinandi habeat facultatem absque consensu ipsius Imperatoris quod tamen fiat absque omni pecunia et ut ipse sic Patricius et Rex Quod si à clero et populo quis eligatur Episcopus nisi à supradicto Rege laudetur et investiatur non consecretur Si quis contra hanc regulam et Apostolicam autoritatem aliquid molietur hunc excommunicationi subiacere decernimus et nisi resipuer it irrevocabili exilio puniri vel ultimis suppliciis affici Now to consider the fourth Article of Marfilius and Iandunus viz. this Omnes sarcerdotes sive sit Papa five Archiepiscopus sive sacerdos simplex sunt ex institutione Christi authoritatis jurisdictionis aequalis quod autem unus plus alio habeat hoc est secundum quod Imperator concedit uni vel alii plus minus sicut concessit alicui sic potest illud etiam revocare albeit I confess this Article and as to all the several parts of it be most justly censurable as false and erroneous in these tearms wherein this Pope Iohn the XXII relates it for whether Christ himself immediatly from his own mouth instituted this diversity of degrees amongst Priests that one should be a simple Priest only another should be an Episcopal Priest a third an Archbishop a fourth a Primat a fifth a Patriarch and the sixt the chief of all Patriarchs whom we now call the Pope or whether Christ did not so immediatly by his own mouth institute any such or other kind of diversity of degrees inferiour and superiour among Priests but only mediatly by the mouths or decrees of his Apostles or even only by the mouths decrees or mutual consent of the Priests them selves who immediatly or mediatly after the dayes of the Apostles did govern the several Churches yet it is plain that by the institution of Christ they are not after such decree made who ever made it of equal authority or jurisdiction because it is plain that for any thing we read Christ our Lord made no such particular institution or such particular provision for parity or equality of jurisdiction amongst them not even I mean in case the diversity of degrees were made by the Priests themselves and not by Christ himself immediatly as it is too plain that if the immediat institution of this diversity of decrees be attributed to him the immediat institution also of a disparity or inequality of jurisdiction amongst them must be likewise attributed to him and therefore the first part of this fourth Article which sayes the contrary and if it do say the contrary must be most justly censurable as false and erroneous and as renewing the old Heresie of Aerius and as deriving or handing it down to Calvin and his godly gang of Presbyterians because we know that by the general and even immediat institution of Christ himself the first Apostolical Priests and all their lawful successors in the priestly function both immediat and mediate until the consummation of the world were and are and shall be impowered to govern the Church and make laws of discipline for the better government of it and consequently to make laws for the diversity of degrees of inferiours and superiours and by consequence also for a disparity and inequality of jurisdiction and because we know he said immediatly by his own mouth Qui vos audit me audit and Quaecunque alligaveritis super terram erunt alligata in coelo and immediatly by the mouth of his Apostle Obedite Praepositis vestris subiacete eis ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri and therefore also the second part of this same fourth Article for as much as it sayes that That one Priest hath more authority or jurisdiction purely spiritual then another Priest it is meerly and only from the imperial power as such that gives more to one and less to another of such spiritual power if this be it it sayes is no less justly censurable as false erroneous and heretical as is consequently the third and last part for the supposition it also involves of such a spiritual power greater and lesser given so by the Emperour to this and that Priest albeit I say my judgment of this fourth Article and of all the several parts of it be such and consequently be in all respects conformable to the censure of Iohn the XXII of it in this Bull yet I say withal what every one sees in this Article or condemnation of it there is not a word in it reflecting either directly or indirectly or at all touching the doctrine of a supream civil coercive power in secular Princes to judge the criminal causes and punish by secular means the crimes of all Clerks whatsoever living within their Dominions or such Clerks as are not themselves also for the time supream temporal Princes as well as Clerks Priests Bishops Archbishops Primats Patriarchs or Popes For the disparity or inequality of spiritual authority and jurisdiction betwixt them and the several degrees of superiority and inferiority in such spiritual power by whomsoever immediatly instituted hinders not their parity and equality of temporal subjection to the secular Prince and to his coercive power in temporal matters
miraculous power as that of Peter and Paul by prophecy and prayer in some other or in many other godly persons of the Church even such a miraculous power as may impetrat or may foretell the most corporal and deadly punishment on this or that wicked sinner But what hath this to do with that which is the coactive power of the Church this miraculous power may be in the most inferiour person of the Church in him that hath no kind of Church office or Church power at all and that coactive power is only in some chief Officers of the Church this is extraordinary and miraculous that ordinary and requiring no miracle this very contingent and for sometimes only and tyed to no certain sort of persons that absolutely and perpetually constant for all and in one certain degree of persons And therefore I may conclude again that no such corporal coaction nor any such coactive power of such corporal coaction is concluded or may be concluded by the second or last sort of Iohn the XXII's arguments as that is which is denyed by me or by any other Christian to be alwayes proper to and necessarily resident in the Church or as that is which is properly truly and simply called the coactive power of the Church And therefore also I may conclude further that the definition of Iohn the XXII against the fift and last Article of Marsilius and Iandunus concerns not my foresaid doctrine or my foresaid explications answers or digressions where I say that the Church of Christ as such purely hath neither temporal territory nor carnal or material sword or say the same thing in these other words that the Church as a Church hath no secular corporal or carnal power from Christ but from worldly Princes and States only to punish either corporally or civilly or that none at all from Christ to punish for example by imprisonment banishment death or by confiscation or deprivation of his temporal goods or rights or by any other corporal force or means can inflict any other kind of punishment against the criminal's own consent but that all her power as from Christ is purely spiritual and the means of executing such power must also be purely spiritual whether in the mean time the power it self or execution of it be miraculous or not miraculous and whether also the things prescrib'd or enjoyn'd be in their own nature purely spiritual or not For I confess the Church even as a pure Church only may and may by her own proper ordinary and perpetually constant Church power both prescribe and enjoyn or command strictly many things which are otherwise in their own nature purely civil temporal and corporal and that such commands oblige the spirit of man under sin when they are laid clave non errante that is when the laws of God or man or nature do otherwise require the performance of the same things either as a pure satisfaction to the vindicative justice of God for the fin committed or as a pure reparation or restitution to another man of his goods unjustly detained or as a remedy to prevent sin and that therefore the Church even as a pure Church may in some cases enjoyn also even corporal fastings watchings disciplines hair-cloathes pilgrimages c. and not only a real restitution of temporal goods illgotten or ill detained Nay and I alwayes confess that for whatsoever she can justly prescribe by her directive power spiritual she hath also an answerable coactive power spiritual even also in relation to such corporal injunctions or afflictions though she have not from Christ any corporal means allowed her of her own to force due obedience to such her either directive or coactive power but only in ordinary and to her Superiours only the spiritual means of pure Ecclesiastical or pure spiritual censures or of such as are no way civil censures and in extraordinary amongst her Prophets and wonder-working Saints the spiritual means of pure prayer and prophesie All which I am sure can be very true and infallible notwithstanding I allow this definition of Iohn the XXII against the fift Article of Marsilius and Iandunus to be absolutely true and infallible even this very definition It is false erroneous and heretical that the whole Church joyn'd together cannot punish by a coactive punishment even the most wicked person unless the Emperour grant them power to do so or punish that person so For the bare grammatical words of this definition as it lyes in it self or as they I mean the two words punitione coactiva lye in it and the theological sense too of them given by Iohn the XXII himself in other words in his Bull if this sense of those or these may be gathered from his arguments as and as I have noted before it must be in all reason admit very well of my construction being coactive punition whether in its own nature it be properly corporal or properly and only spiritual is a moral genus not only to that coactive punition which is properly and purely spiritual and to that which is properly and strictly corporal but to that also which is inflicted by means that are purely spiritual and to that which is not inflicted or put in execution by such means but by meer humane civil or corporal means and force and being the rule is generally allowed that such definitions and words in them are stricti juris and consequently not to be extended beyond that which the most ordinary strict signification of them and the materia subjecta and no prejudice to a third and in a word which a good sense requires quia odia sunt restringenda as the rule of the very canon law in Sexto is Yet if notwithstanding all this or all said hitherto upon this fift Article of Marsilius and Iandunus any will be still so unreasonably contentious as to fix rather a contrary sense that is a bad sense to the definition of Iohn the XXII against it I cannot help that otherwise then to oppose to Iohn the XXII and to such bad sense affixed to him the clear and good sense of another Pope even of Celestinus III. in the very canon law too cap. Non ab homine de Judiciis quoted by me at length in my former Section or in my LXXV Section and to oppose also the clear and good sense of even a general Council and that a late one too as being held after the dayes of Iohn the XXII I mean the Council of Constance where the Fathers Sess 15. speak thus Attento quod Ecclesia Dei non habet ultra quod agere valeat judicio seculari relinquere ipsum Curiae seculari relinquendum fore decernit which they speak in the case of Ioannes Huss after they had excommunicated and degraded him and lastly to oppose the very essential constitution of the Christian Church and of her Ecclesiastical Superiours as such And yet I must advertise my Readers that the very contrary bad sense of
Leges quas Edovardus tertius utendas dederat in pristinum usum revocat quae tamen sensim absoluerunt Normaâ—â—s pro commâ—do Principis ad incommodum Anglorum leges a Gulielmo primo conditas constantissime usurpantibus And again about the end of his life Tulit initio sui Principatus aliquot leges quas nec ipse nec Reges qui secuti sunt hine servaruaâ— However those I have given were his laws not repealed after by himself in Parment for he began Parliaments in England or otherwise by any publick Instrument declared as a law to the people albeit I deny not but those 16. heads controverted after twixt Thomas of Canterbury and King Henry the Second were first conceived in writing by this very Henry the first but never as a law published by him To all which I will add those further laws yet which were to our purpose also made by King Stephen Henry the First 's immediat or next Successour in two several Parliaments one at Oxford and t'other at London in that of Oxford abolishing quite that kind of tribute or assessment which other Kings had formerly often exacted from every hyde or acre of ground and promising too that neither Episcopacies nor other Ecclesiastical Benefices or Sacerdotal Prefectships should be kept vacant as much as for any the least time and in this of London or Westminster enacting for the Clergy's sake because they had liberally contributed for the warr in hand that whoever should strike any Churchman in holy orders or should without licence from the Court Ecclesiastical or Bishops lay hands upon or seize any criminal Clergymen whatever his crime were should be held excommunicat impious and accursed and should not be restored at all to the communion of the Church or absolved but by the Roman Pontiff onely Of which laws of King Stephen albeit there be no Parliament Records preserved of them as neither indeed are of all or any of those held before King John's days Polydore Virgil tels us expresly and particularly in his 12. book of Histories and life of the said Stephen For these are his words concerning the first Stephanus autem ex sententia summum consecutus imperium Oxonium proficiscitur atque ibi Principum conventum facit quo in Conventu inter caetera ut suorum animos sibi devinciret illud tributi genus quod alij Reges per singula jugera terrae saepe exigere a populo solebant prorsus sustulit atque promisit se curaturum ut deinceps Episcopatus aliae Prefecturae sacerdotales ne puncto quidem temporis vacarent c. And concerning the second these Interea Rex Londinum venit ubi celebrem Principum ac Antistitum conventum peregit in quo talia verba fecit Cum Principes fidelissimi c His dictis cuncti praesidium salutis ac libertatis defendendae se laturos pollicentur At Episcopi cum suis sacerdotibus quia pugnare fas non est pecuniam conferre promittunt quibus ut aliquid gratiae referretur in eodem Conventu constitutum est ut quicumque deinceps sacris initiatos percuterent aut alicujus criminis reos Episcoporum injussu caperent impii importunique haberentur nec ab aliquo praeterquam a Romano Pontifice in piorum caetum restitui possent quemadmodum jure Pontificio iampridem sancitum esset sed apud Anglos ante id tempus minus servatum And so I have given at large whatever I would have the Reader observe in this Seventh place of the proper civil or municipal laws of England before Henry the seconds time concerning our purpose especially the exemption of criminal Clerks even in case of murder from the lay Judges Eightly and in the last place you are to observe but onely out of this present book of my own which you you read now that is out of all said by me formerly in so many Sections from that place where I first began to dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity what my doctrine is against which the objection is made for and to come to the answering of which I have premised so long a discourse in so many observations And you are to observe well that my said doctrine is no other in effect but what I now repeat heer briefly viz. 1. That neither by the law divine positive or natural nor by the canons of the Catholick Church which are properly those are and are called Canones universalis Ecclesiae nor even by those other canons which are more properly and onely stiled Papal Canons Clergiemen living within the dominions of any Supream lay or secular Prince are exempt in criminal and temporal causes from his supream civil even coercive power 2. That not onely they are not so already exempted by any such law of God or man but also that they cannot be hereafter by any pure law of man not even of Pope or Council exempted from the said supream civil even coercive power without the consent of the Princes themselves 3. That neither can the supream secular Princes themselves grant any such exemption to Clerks living still within their dominions and remaining Subjects to them because this implyes a plain contradiction or to any Clerks at all but to such as are at the same time wholly set free from all kind of subjection or acknowledgment of their Principalities 4. That on the other side both by the natural and positive law of God and especially by the 13 of the Romans by the letter and meaning and scope or end of that whole text of St. Paul there all Christian Clerks not even the Popes not even the Apostles themselves exempted are subject in temporal matters and criminal causes even to the coercive power of the supream secular Magistrat 5. That by the doctrine also of the holy Fathers generally until Gregory the VII and by their exposition or understanding of that text of Paul all Churchmen whatsoever were and are so in the dominions of the respective supream temporal Princes whom these Clerks own to be their own legal Princes 6. That by the practise also of so many Christian Bishops Popes and Princes they were and are so 7. That even by the testimony of clear even Papal canons they were and are so that by no argument hithertoo alleadged out of reason scripture tradition Fathers Councils Papal Canons Histories by any of our adversaries the contrary is as much as any way convincingly deduced 9. And finally and in a word that all their true exemptions from either inferiour or supream secular judicatories in any temporal or criminal cause whatsoever as to the coercive punishment of them by the civil power force and sword is originally from and wholly still depending of the supream civil power In all which or in any discourse or clause said thereupon by me you are also to observe that I never said or say or intend to say that Clerks have not a true right to those exemptions from lay judicatories which the
municipal or civil laws of the land wherein they live or the approved customs thereof do give them until the same exemptions be legally repealed by an equal authority to that which gave them nor said nor do say nor intend to say but it is as lawfull for them to maintayn in all just and legal ways their own such immunities as it is for lay subjects in such ways to maintayn their own against the encroachments or usurpations of the Princes themselves or of their Ministers and consequently did not say nor do nor intend to say that they are bound to obey the pleasure of the Prince by subjecting themselves to his lay Judges in such criminal causes or any other wherein the law of the land doth free and exempt them from such judges But say and averre still the quite contrary of all these three sayings because the sublimer civil power which is in the law of the land for them in such case doth warrant them from transgressing in so much that Praecept of Paul 13. to the Romans Those eight observations being so premised and considered it will now be easy enough for me to answer fully and satisfactorily the before given fourth and last of all the remaining objections viz that so specious grand objection built as t is pretended on the contrary judgment or opinion c. of S. Thomas of Canterbury and it will be as easy for my Reader to understand that my answers which I now give are full and satisfactory Therefore My first answer is in general by denying positively plainly and flatly that there is any as much as the least truth in the pretence or supposition or in that I mean which pretends or supposeth that St. Thomas of Canterbury was of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine or to any part or proposion of my doctrine hitherto of the subjection of Clergiemen to the supream coercive power of secular Princes in criminal causes or which pretends or supposeth that because he was so of a contrary opinion in theory or practice or both to any part of my said doctrine he opposed his King fell into his disfavour was exiled by him at first suffered death at last was accounted a Martyr canonized as such and invoked too ever since by the universal Church All which and every particular of which I deny both positively and plainly and flatly Neither do I doubt at all but that in my several observations hitherto taken altogether or if the seven first out of History be compared exactly to or taken together with what is given in my eight and last out of this very book of the particular heads of my doctrine in it concerning ecclesiastical exemption I have given sufficient proofs that I do upon very good very justifyable and unanswerable grounds deny so positively plainly and flatly this whole pretence or supposition and every part thereof For I have shewed what the immediat cause of his death or why he was so cruelly murthered was and that this was no other but for having answered that he would not absolve the excommunicated Bishops unless they had first promised to make satsfaction for the injury done by them to his Church or at least abide or submit to the judgment of the Pope in that case and that his Clerks who came with him from beyond the Seas should not take any oath but such an oath as were just And I have shewed also what the intermediat cause the grand long contest indeed 'twixt him and his King was and that this was no other but of the 16. Heads of customes of Henry the First or of his Grandfather as Henry the Second called them avitas which heads also I have given at length And the judicious Reader may himself clearly see that amongst all those causes or occasions either immediate or intermediat final or original proximate or remote there is nothing at all concerns or which may well or ill be said to concern our dispute or my doctrince but only the second head of those 16. customes as they were called and that of the Saints not delivering up to the secular justice the two criminal Clerks or the Priest and Chanon And the Reader also may clearly see that my doctrine no where teacheth formally or virtually or consequentially any thing contrary to what St. Thomas did either practice or must have held in theory as to either his not assenting to that second Head as neither indeed to any other of all the 16. or as to his not delivering up to secular justice those criminal Clerks For any rational man may very well understand that St. Thomas of Canterbury might without any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety to himself or to these two actions of his nay indeed or to any other opposition made by him to Henry the Second might I say have held or have been at the same time of the very self same judgment or opinion with me hitherto concerning the exemption or subjection of Clergiemen or which is the same thing that he might at the same time have held even positively formally and expresly that by no law of God or Nature or Nations or of the Catholick Church or of Roman Emperours or Pontiffs Clergiemen were or are exempted from the supream civil even coercive power in criminal causes but on the contrary that by Reason Scripture Tradition of the Fathers practice of both Fathers and Princes and even also by the very Canons of as well Popes as Councils they were and are subject to the supream civil coercive power nay and to the subordinate civil or lay inferiour Judges also in all criminal causes whatsoever as far as the civil or municipal laws of the land do subject them or wherein the said temporal or municipal laws of the land exempt them not from the coercion of lay Courts I say that any rational man may very well understand how St. Thomas might have held all this and yet at the same time and without any change in his judgment or opinion or any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety have practised justly conscientiously and holily all that he did in opposition to Henry the Second and particularly that of not delivering up to secular justice the two criminal Clerks and that also of not assenting to the second head of those 16. which were pretended by by the said Henry to be his Grandfathers customes St. Thomas of Canterbury had the very municipal and politick laws of the land or of England for himself in both these Instances as indeed he had them for himself in all other particulars wherein he opposed that King albeit his own proper undoubted Soveraign And that he had them so for himself in all his differences and particularly in these two I have clearly shewed and proved at length in my former seventh observation wherein the Reader may see that by the municipal laws of England still in being or in force as not legally repealed by a contrary law not even till after
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
own King sent Embassadors both to Lewis of France and to the Pope to accuse him and pray them especially the King of France not to harbour him at all and partly also to be recommended by them or either of them to some pious refuge where he might serve God in a retired life and in safety from the power of his own incensed King and might not want necessary sustenance being he had nothing left him of his own to live upon Was there or could there be any treason in this He represented the quarrel so and those 16 Heads or customes controverted 'twixt his King and himself so that the Pope and Cardinals with one voyce condemnd them and consequently his King for contriving and forcing them on him and on the rest of England for municipal Laws and Customes But so did Henry also by his own Letters and Embassadours to the same Pope and Cardinals endeavour to get those Customes approved and Thomas in the same manner indirectly condemned for opposing them And as such application to the Pope and Cardinals by the Kings of England at that time was not unlawful not even I mean by the very Laws of England so neither was it as much as by the same Laws unlawful much less treasonable for the Archbishop of Canterbury to declare his Conscience before the Pope and in matter of such or other whatsoever pretended or intruded or forced Laws or Customes whatsoever or either treasonable or unlawful for him to be with the Pope and his Cardinals the cause or primary Instrument of such a condemnation as is proper to the Pope and Cardinals by a meer spiritual sentence or judgment or reprobation or not allowance for as much as belong'd to them or as their such opinion or sentence was desired of such Laws Besides we know that Histories make no mention at all of any Brief or Bull or other authentick Declaration set out by that Pope of his Cardinals or by any other Pope either procured by Thomas or not procured by him against those pretended Customes or against that King for them only and meerly Moreover we know it is no treason for any Bishop Subject to any Prince whatsoever to declare his own Conscience against whatsoever Laws which are desired by the Prince to be establisht for Laws and received especially when the Bishop sees there were no former Laws of the Land obliging him under pain of treason not to oppose such other Laws or Customes or pretended Customes as the Prince would establish for Laws Nay it is plain there could be nor can be in any Common-wealth or Kingdome such former Laws so obliging Bishops or indeed any other Subjects because such would be against the Law of God and Nature and would oblige men to consent to the making even of the most wicked and impious Laws imaginable or at least would oblige those who are in Parliament concern'd to oppose wicked Laws not to oppose them 5. He took a Legatine power from the Pope over England and the Kings person too even in the time of his exile or proscription We find no proscription of him but a voluntary yet for himself necessary exile though we find Edicts and Sanctions against those in England who would receive any Mandats from him or even from the Pope in his cause during that time of his exile And we know it was neither treasonable nor otherwise unlawful by any even Law of England at that time for an English Bishop especially the Archbishop of Canterbury to receive a Legatine power from the Pope over England The Archbishops of Canterbury were both before St. Thomas and after him some of them Legati nati and others Legati dati and other Bishops too in England were sometimes Legati dati and both those and these sometimes at the Kings desire made or with his knowledge and consent and sometimes also without the Kings previous knowledge or desire at all The Laws indeed of Provisors or Premunire obstructed the Custome of procuring or receiving such Legatine Commissions without the Kings permission and approbation But these Laws were made long after i. e. in the Reigns of Edward the Third and Richard the Second We know also the Legatine power was not of its own nature but in meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or in such as the Law and Customes of the Land then did allow it to be and to be without any derogation to the Kings Majesty or Peoples safety And that if at any time otherwise exercised it was the fault of the Legat and neglect of the Prince to suffer such exercise For so the very ordinary Episcopal power of even inferiour English Bishops might be abused by the Bishops Yet the Law did allow their power though not the abuse of it Nor was it treasonable nor otherwise unlawful not even by the laws of England then that a Commission of meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power and cognizance extending to the Kings own very Person should be received without his consent nay or against his consent from Rome however perhaps it might be imprudential in a subject to receive it so For the very ordinary power of a Bishop where-ever the King resides in his Diocess extends so also to the Kings own Person that laying aside some particular priviledge or exemption given by a superiour Church-power to the King from the spiritual cognizance or jurisdiction of such a Bishop he may if just cause be proceed spiritually against the King himself by name and so proceed that in case of necessity and expediency he may either interdict him from the Church or even also excommunicate him Evangelically that is declare him separated from the spiritual Communion of all the Faithful and may do all this without any treason at all For a pure Evangelical excommunication or such I mean as is grounded in the Gospel whatever be said of Papal excommunication or of excommunication taken with all its rigour extention or effects according to some Papal Canons or Constitutions entrenches not upon the temporal rights of any nor separates any from such civil Communion of the faithful as the same faithful or any or some of them are otherwise bound by the law of God or man or nature to pay to another And consequently pronounced by a Bishop against his Kings own Person by name cannot be any way a diminution of Royal Majesty being this requires not to be exempt from the power or even effect of such an excommunication which hath no temporal effect nor bereaves of any temporal power at all nor consequently can by any just law amongst Christians be made treasonable not even in an Ordinary Bishop who is the Ordinary of the Diocess and hath not his Episcopal power restrained by any Cannon or any command of a superiour Bishop But whether it can or no I am sure there was no Law then in England making it treason in a Bishop as I have stated the case much less in a Canterbury Archbishop Legat. 6. He
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
credit given to this ungodly suggestion or of any kind of proceedings after in pursuance thereof by the same young King against Thomas That the ground or colour of this suggestion was no other but that Thomas held those Bishops for excommunicated who did use Pontificals contrary to the Popes command and custom of the Church and of England also in the Consecration of the said young King and use them so in the Diocess of another Bishop without his Licence That no man is so blind or was then so blind as to hold that the young Kings being King depended of his being Consecrated at all by any Bishops whether excommunicated or not excommunicated And therefore that albeit I grant as I do verily grant That St. Thomas had been guilty of Actual Treason if he had sought in any wise or at any time against the Law of the Land to depose either of both Kings the young or old the Father or the Son yet nothing material is alledged to prove that ever he did so Besides I answer That on the other side there are so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and in Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter to have been whereas no kind of proof hath been or hath been offer'd That I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of St. Thomas of Canterbury First Argument His wonderful austere holy devout life with so perfect a contempt of all that was pleasant gay or glorious in the world immediately upon his Election and ever after to the hour of his death and this life so devoted wholly to God attested even by the confession of Parker himself but seen particularly and exactly in all the contemporary Writers of the Saints own time as Hoveden and others whom I have before quoted Second Argument His having lived the most retired contemplative life could be in three several Monasteries in Flanders and France even all the time of his Exile first in St. Bertins at St. Omers in Flanders next at Pontiniacum in France and lastly in the Abby of St. Columb in another part of France when and after he was forc'd from Pontiniacum by the Threats of Henry the Second to the Abbot of this place to banish out of the Dominions of England all the Monks of his Order if he did any longer entertain or relieve Thomas In which Abby of St. Columb he for the four whole last years of his Banishment and until his Return to England led that life which merited as he was in prayer and after he was reconciled to his King to hear a voyce from Heaven saying to him Surge velociter abi in sedem tuam glorificabis Ecclesiam meam sanguine tuo tu gloriaberis in me Hoveden ad An. 1170. Third Argument That notwithstanding Henry the Second had Legates favourable enough to him and a Pope also yet neither before them nor in his Letters or Messages to the Pope himself he ever did for so many years of the Saints Banishment or after his Return during the Saints life as much as once insist upon any Treasonable practice of his against himself or Son or Crown or Kingdom nor even as much as once lightly charge him with any for ought appears out of History and that Histories tell how when the former Legates once lightly objected his raising the King of France c. whoever put that into their mouths The Saint answered so clearly and convincingly That there was not a word of proof or even as much as reply against him Fourth Argument That not even after the Saints death not even then when all Christendom with horrour and amazement looked upon and cryed against Henry the Second as a most impious Murtherer and execrable Tyrant thinking the Saint was murthered by his command or consent not even then when he was therefore taken for an excommunicated person and the worst of those excommunicated against whom as Actors any way or Authors of the Saints death Pope Alexander so formidably Thundered Curses and Anathems from Rome and this too at the passionate instance of both the King and Clergy of France That I say not even then or at any time after nor then when at his own earnest solicitation special entraordinary Legates came along from Rome to hear him plead his own excuse or what he could alledge for himself to extenuate the horrour of his guilt he or his Son did or the Bishops of their way did or any other for them or either of them did as much as once pretend any Treason or any other Misdemeanor at all of the Saint whereby as much as to extenuate the heinousness and hideousness of the Murther committed on him but only made it their work to justifie themselves by Oath That they never consented to nor as much as suspected his death upon any account whatsoever Fifth Argument That Henry the Second himself so great a King as he was and so passionately bent against the Saint in his life-time did for having been only unknown to himself or without design the occasion of the Saints death undergo such Pennance and perform'd it so devoutly and unfeignedly invocating the Saint at his shrine that 't is not any way probable the Saint was ever guilty of the least Treason or that the King ever entertained any such Thought of the Saint For what rational man much less so Royal and interested a person would have in such manner invoked a Traytor Sixth Argument That God shewed by so many prodigious signs and wonders incontinently and continually after the Saints death wrought above all the power of nature That he was no Traytor Amongst which though I do not rank those extraordinary temporal blessings poured from Heaven upon this penitent King and on that very day wherein he ended so devoutly his Pilgrimage and his Fasts and Watch and other corporal Afflictions endured first by coming in a penitent Weed and Bare-foot for Three whole Miles that is from the place where he first saw the Church of Canterbury where the Martyr was Enterr'd leaving the very print of his steps all bloody behind him the keen stones cutting his tender feet so that much blood ran from them all along continually and next in the Church of Canterbury by receiving there and on his naked shoulders so many sharp lashes of Disciplines as they call them from the hands of all the Bishops Priests and Monks present yet being those extraordinary temporal blessings were so signal as the overthrow of the whole Scottish power on that day and as the taking also of their King prisoner on that very same day too by his Armies in the North of England I cannot say but the Catholick Writers of that Time had Reason to attribute even these earthly favours of God to the Kings so exemplary and satisfactory Humiliation and to the Saints benign propitious and powerful intercession with God for
Kings Absolution by the Cardinals having this Title Charta Absolutionis Domini Regis and beginning thus Henrico Dei gratia illustri Regi Anglorum Albertus tituli sancti Laurentii in Lucinia Theodinus tituli sancti Vitalis Presbyteri Cardinales Apostolicae Sedis Legati salutem in eo qui dat salutem Regibus Ne in dubium veniant quae geruntur c. And so proceeds to signifie his said Purgation and their own Absolution given to him upon the fame conditions Now I demand Whether there be any kind of likelihood that so knowing and so great a King as Henry the Second was then for he had Conquered Ireland that very year and thence it was that he Sail'd immediately to Normandy of purpose to purge himself and be absolved so as soon as he heard those Legates were come thither from Rome And he had the whole Sea-side of France and far in to the Land all along to Navarre in Spain under his dominion and in actual possession and had Scotland also Tributary though it was Two years after before he took the King of Scots should have made so wonderful a submission and in such words and received Absolution on such terms if he could have alledg'd any thing or matter of Treason against Thomas of Canterbury And that he also performâ—d all and more than all this for appeasing God's wrath against himself for having only given without further design the unfortunate occasion of the Saint's death we have seen already and in part before in his extraordinary Pilgrimage to and Humiliation at the Saint's Monument And we may in part also gather hence That by actual instance he quitted the requiring of that Oath of the Clergy for the observation of the sixteen customs For so doth Matthew Parker himself confess in express terms and in his life of Richard a Monk of St. Benedicts Order Prior of the Monastery of Dover who was the next succeeded Thomas Becket in the Archbishoprick and Primacy of Canterbury and in a Legatine power Apostolick also being fix'd upon by this very King Henry the Second to succeed so and confirm'd and consecrated so by the same often mentioned Pope Alexander the Third at Anagnia in Italy Et paulo post sayes Parker Archiepiscopus Primas Romanae Sedis Legatus cum Pallio in Angliam rediit Hic electus Regi fidelitatem juravit salvo ordine suo nulla prorsus facta mentione de prioribus regni consuetudinibus observandis Behold eight several Arguments which if at least taken all together and especially if they be also taken together with all I have said before in this second Appendix to answer such Objections as my self framed against my self I must confess I cannot for my own part but judge them to be so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter as Treason possible to have been truly charged at any time on St. Thomas of Canterbury that I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of him And so I conclude this second Appendix against the unweigh'd Relation and very inconsiderate Censure of Parker and much more yet against the barbarous and impious judgment of those Judges who under Henry the VIII above Three hundred years after the death of the Martyr condemn'd him for a Traytor repeating here again what I said before against the grand Atheistical Counsellor of the said King Henry the VIII in this matter who ever he was That it was neither Treason nor even any other less or real and certain misdemeanor he saw or he read in the life or death of Thomas of Canterbury put him on so execrable an Enterprize Sed avaritia illa quae caâ—tivavit discipulum comitem Christi captivavit militem custodem Sepulchri as St. Austin said of Judas who betrayed Christ and of the Souldiery that kept the Sepulchre of Christ And so also I conclude whatever I intended to say principally or incidentally against the tacite Objection of the Divines of Louain of this glorious Martyrs Contests with Henry the Second and of his opinion or judgment in such Contests in relation to the Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Exemption from the supreme civil coercive power of temporal Princes or to my own Doctrine which I am sure is the Catholick Doctrine and whatever else I intended to say principally or occasionally of the sanctity of his life and glory of his martyrdom and of the consistency of both with some humane invincible errors of his side speaking according to the objective verity or being of things in themselves as we see that other great and undoubted Saints and even the very Princes of the Apostles have fallen into such humane errors without prejudice to the sanctity of their lives or glory of their martyrdoms that Peter erred so out of zeal to gain both Jewes and Gentiles in Judaizing among the Jews c. and who reprehended him in that did no less himself err so in another occasion in making himself a Nazarâ—te and in circumcising Timothy so much against his own Doctrine there Si circumcidamini Christus vobis nihil proderit and elsewhere And finally whatever I intended to say directly and of purpose to shew that indeed St. Thomas of Canterbury did not in any part of all his Contests with Henry the Second as much as err so that is not err at all as much as inculpably or invincibly or at all against the very objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves And yet I must tell my Reader that if Augustinus the first Archbishop of Canterbury had contested so or Reginaldus Polus the last Catholick in that See or many others after Austin for some Ages and before Cardinal Pool in other Ages intervening 'twixt his and that wherein Thomas Becket was Archbishop of that same See I could not justifie any of them for contesting so but plainly condemn them Because in their Times the municipal Laws of the Land were quite contrary in many points as they are at this day and have been so as to the punishment of criminal Clergymen in cases of Treason Murther Felony c. a long time and perhaps several Ages in England as well in those immediately after Henry the Second's dayes and notwithstanding the conditions of his Purgation Absolution and Satisfaction and then almost uninterruptedly till the change and after the change by Henry the VIII until this present as in those before the dayes of that Christian King of the Saxons who ever he was that first gave Clergymen those priviledges of Exemption in Criminal Causes from Lay Judicatories which I quoted before and proved to have not been repealed at any time after until Henry the Second's Reign And because they were the municipal Laws of the Land which only could warrant the grand Contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury at least in relation to the exemption of Criminal Clerks
c. and such other heads wherein he had not the Laws of God or nature positively and clearly for himself in the point And so finally I put a final period to this very long Section and to all those Objections which I called remaining for the reason given in the beginning of this same LXXVI Section LXXVII OUT of which whole last Section as likewise out of the other three or four immediately going before it and which proceed in a positive or affirmative way to prove by invincible Arguments the subjection of all Clergymen whatsoever de jure divino abstracting from humane civil Laws to the Supreme Civil Magistrate in all meer Temporal Causes even those which are Criminal and out also of those other eight or nine Sections immediately going before these five last which proceed in a negative way of denying rationally and solving most clearly all whatever hath been objected to the contrary or hath been said for the exemption of Clergymen as much as in Criminal causes either de jure divino or de jure humano Ecclesiastico or even by any other Law of man or that which is called Civil from the Supreme Civil Coercive power of Temporal even meer Lay Princes within their own respective Dominions out of all these and those Sections I say in all Thirteen or Fourteen or thereabouts which Treat of this Subject of Ecclesiastical either exemption or subjection and Treat of it by occasion and directly too against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines for censuring our often mention'd Remonstrance now in this present Section and according to my promise in my LXXI Section and to my purpose also all along in so long and continual a Discourse of Ecclesiastical exemption from my LX Section to this present LXXVI I am to infer my final Conclusion I mean the Procurator's second answer to this same fourth ground of the Louain Divines For that very second answer which you read before in my LXII and in the very beginning too of that same LXXII Section is the final conclusion of all as being it for the inferring of which and the well and sure grounding of which to the satisfaction of all judicious persons I have taken so much pains in so long a Discourse even this very answer which I now repeat here viz. That granting our said Remonstrance had either in its perclose the Petitionary address or in some other part even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption of the persons of Clergymen from the Supreme Civil or Temporal Coercive power of the Prince or Magistrate provided still it did not declare as verily it does not against that which is indeed the real true and well-grounded exemption of Clergymen from inferiour civil Judicatories according to the respective civil Laws or Customs of several Kingdoms and as far as the respective Laws or Customs do allow such exemption from such inferior Judicatories yet neither the Divines of Louain nor any other could justly censure it therefore even this I say is that final Conclusion I would and do and I think most clearly and necessarily too infer out of my whole Discourse of Ecclesiastical Exemption in so many long Sections from the very beginning of it Sect. lxiii And so at last I have ended all my Answers not only to the fourth ground of the Louain Divines but even to all their four and consequently also to all their at least chief grounds universally if the Agent Father John Brady who procured as well their long Censure which they still conceal from us as brought with him their short one hath told the Truth in this matter For being we could not hitherto by any art or means get a sight of their said first and long Censure wherein they give their grounds it is upon his credit and relation of so many particular grounds as being their onely at least chief grounds and his relation also that he remembred no more such nor other at all which they had and upon the credit likewise and relation of the very Reverend and Learned Father Brian Barry who saw and read and considered attentively the whole tenour of that very first Original and long Censure as who had been then himself at Louain when it was done and been there then chief Superiour of the Irish Franciscan Colledges both of Louain and Prague It is I say upon the Credit or Account of these Two Gentlemen both of them Religious persons of St. Francis's Order and Credit also of the relation they themselves gave my self in this matter that I have disputed hitherto against the said four as against the onely at least chief grounds of the said Louain Vniversity And yet I must confess That whether I had known or not known certainly that the Divines of Louain did specifie these for their own grounds I had nevertheless when occasion was offered to treat of their Censure both alledged these very grounds for it and cleared these self-same grounds as I have done because I knew and know the Divines of Louain could pretend no other especially being they declined the alledging or pretending for it any divine immediate right or rather ungrounded pretence of such right as Bellarmine is for in the Pope to dispose either directly or indirectly of the Temporal power of all at least Christian Princes and being they declined this of purpose for that reason I gave in the very perclose of my liii Section viz. least if they had given it as the ground or as any part of the grounds of their Censure against our Remonstrance and against that indispensable Obedience we acknowledge therein due to our King They should bring on themselves a more dangerous Censure of their own King and raise the power and just indignation of all Kings States and People even of their own communion to punish their temerity For who sees not that on the same ground they would or might challenge a power to the Pope to depose when it listed him all even the most Christian and Catholick Kings in the world as well as any Hereticks or Heathens Or who understands not how easily this may be demonstrated in their principles who challenge such a jus divinum to the Popes And yet also I must give my Reader this Advertisement here That in my Disputes against those very grounds whereon as is said the Divines of Louain insisted without pretending any such jus divinum over the Temporals of Kings and insisted partly at least for that reason I now gave But whether they had any other reason more divine or conscientious I know not I hope they had though having such they would very inconsequently proceed to their Censure That I say in my Disputes hitherto against those very four grounds I mean where I particularly though briefly Sect. liv dispute against the second viz. That of the Popes binding and loosing power divine as made a ground of their Censure and
where in the last place I dispute from Sect. lxi to this present lxxvi so clearly and prolixly against their fourth I have subverted by a most evident consequence all the very Fundamentals and not only the Superstructures of such a jus divinum in the Pope and not in the Pope only but in the universal Church as a Church which is yet far more than to subvert it in the Pope to depose Kings from their meer Temporal power And that whatever may be thought of my Disputes Sect. liv against their said second pretence of the binding and loosing power c. That is whether or no I have long and largely enough treated that matter in that place to clear all kind of Objections might be made in order to such a jus divinum in Pope or Church though I acknowledge none could be made with any reason yet I am sure if there was any such defect there I have elsewhere abundantly in effect compensated it in my prolix Disputes for sixteen Sections viz. from lxi to lxxvi against their fourth ground Where by so many unanswerable Arguments especially in Sect. lxxii and lxxiii I demonstrate the subjection de jure divino of all Clergymen whatsoever or whosoever and of the very Apostles themselves and by consequence of both Pope and universal Church as a pure Church to the Supreme Temporal power in Temporal matters For if de jure divino they were all both Pope and Church as such subjected entirely as at least to passive obedience in all Temporal matters to the Temporal powers respectively in the several Kingdoms or States Politick whether Christian or not Christian Catholick or not Catholick must it not follow evidently That there is no power de jure divino in either Pope or Church as purely such to depose Temporal Princes from their Temporal power Surely the inferiour wherein he is inferiour hath not power over his Superiour And if the very first glimmers of natural Reason doth not evidence this I know not what natural Reason is And if also the Arguments I have given Treating against the said fourth ground at large for the Affirmative that is for the subjection of Pope and Church as such in meer Temporals to the Supreme Temporal power of earthly and Lay Princes when and where the Princes are Lay-men or if the Solutions I have likewise given so at large to the Arguments for the contrary where I proceeded in a negative way denying the positions of Bellarmine if I say both my said Arguments and Answers be not clear and strong enough in the principles of both Reason and Christianity to maintain and prove all along That my very main purpose of a jus divinum to be for the subjection of both Pope and Church as such in meer Temporal matters to the Supreme Temporal Princes or States in the respective Kingdoms or Common-wealths of the world I confess my own ignorance of what is Reason or Christianity in any such or other matter soever Having so put a final period to all my Answers to the said four grounds of the Louain Censure of our Remonstrance what more according to my further promise or purpose in my lxxi Section must be the Subject of this present Section is first what ought to be consequent some brief reflections on the Censure it self and next the Conclusion which naturally must follow such reflections Concerning the former and seeing the Censure is in these words as you also may see by reading it over again Sect. xlvii or in page 102. of this same first Treatise and first part Quamvis Serenissimo c. quia tamen supradicta formula complectitur amplioris obedientiae promissionem quam possint Principes Seculares a Subditis suis Catholicis exigere an t Subditi ipsis praestare nonnulla insuper continet sincerae professioni Catholicae religionis repugnantia idcirco pro illicita prorsus ac detestabili habenda est Quapropter quicumque praefatam professionis formulam nondum signarunt cohibere se a signatura obligantur sub sacrilegii reatu quicumque autem signarunt refigere signaturas obstringuntur sub consimili reatu incauta namque definitio salubriter dissolvenda est nec ea dissolutio reputanda est praevaricatio sed temeritatis emendatio Ita post maturam deliberationem c. In English thus Albeit to the most Serene King of Britain and Ireland c. Yet forasmuch as the foresaid Form involves a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make unto them and that moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion therefore it must be held for wholly unlawful and detestable Which is the Reason That who ever have not yet subscribed the foresaid Form are under guilt of Sacriledge obliged to hold themselves from subscribing and that such as have already signed are bound under the same guilt to Revoke their signatures for an unwary definition must be wholsomely dissolved nor must such a dissolution be accounted any prevarication but an amendment of Rashness Thus have we after mature and frequent deliberation determined and decided at Louain c. Seeing I say the Censure is in this tenour now repeated and that although if we separate the precise or strict essentials only of this Censure from both the antecedent Suppositions and consequent Inferences altogether express'd as you see in those few lines we shall find the said precise and strict essentials of it to consist in these words only It must be held for wholly unlawful and detestable Yet forasmuch as the Faculty Theological of Louain who delivered their judgment so in this their short and second form of Censure would have us regard the whole tenour of their Paper or as well the premises which they suppose and express and the consequences which they infer as the said bare essentials of their absolute position Therefore you are to consider first That if we take altogether what they judge of it either formally or virtually and consequentially they judge our Remonstrance to be unlawful detestable sacrilegious and further yet to be either Heretical or Schismatical or both And that they judge it to be such for two Reasons which albeit they express yet they do not as much as attempt to prove but only suppose here The one is because it contains a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can require from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make unto them And the other is because moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Religion And truly that they judge it formally to be unlawful detestable and sacrilegious we see their own formal expressions for so much being that besides their formal adjectives unlawful and detestable as to the adjective or epithet sacrilegious we find it in their own formal substantive word Sacriledge where they judge that such as have already sign'd are bound under
Reason which should govern or direct their particular Actions as well in order to themselves as to others and should foresee what might be objected False against Truth because so manifestly against both the Divine revealed Truths of Christian Religion and against those evidences also of natural Reason given by me before against the fourth ground of the same Louain Divines Injurious against Justice because against the most considerable right can be of all Princes States and People and even of the Clergy too if considered aright And in the highest degree may be Scandalous against Charity because in the highest degree may be harming the name and same of their Christian Catholick Neighbours and of so vast a multitude of them and because also not only of endangering in the highest degree inasmuch as in them lay even the very Temporal safety of so great a number of all the poor Catholicks in the British Monarchy and the peace of the King of Englands Dominions but further yet of raising against and casting and continuing on the Roman Religion it self in general or wheresoever professed the greatest hatred and blackness and hideousness and horrour may be and because too consequently of continuing still the chief cause of the grand Schism in Europe by keeping still that Block of stumbling and Rock of Scandal in the way of all Sects whatsoever which above any other hinders them from thinking of a Return to their Mother Church whereby to save their Souls in the Unity and Truth of the Catholick Church Than which I am sure nothing can be either more highly or more properly and strictly scandalous As for the Minor of the Syllogism being the last part of it which sayes that the second or short Censure of Louain judges our Remonstrance to be unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. is so manifest that it cannot be disputed since you read it so in that very Censure it self the former part only which sayes also and where it sayes That our Remonstrance contains only in effect word and sense an Acknowledgment only of a meer Supreme Temporal power in the Supreme Politick Magistrate and a promise of Obedience and Fidelity in meer Temporal things to the same Power and Magistrate remains to be made here no less manifest and to be made so manifest by analysing resolving and taking in pieces the whole frame of the Act of Recognition and all the Appendages of it whereof the dispute is or may be whether it contains any things besides such Temporal power in the Magistrate and such Obedience and Faith in Temporal things in the Subjects or by considering every clause of it one after another apart and the relations of one to another and to the whole and of the whole to each For there can be no other way to demonstrate this former part of the Minor And this is an easie way ad oculum and will save the Reader some labour of turning to the 7 8 and 9 pages where the whole Remonstrance is wherein that Act of Recognition and those other Appendages of it are inserted Yet before I come to an issue on this point the Reader is to be Advertised First That in that publick Instrument which hath these six or seven years past occasioned so many Differences or Disputes or rather renewed them having for Title The humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland it which in this distinction of words and proper strict sense of them as distinct is and ought to be understood by the word Remonstrance as in this Title so distinguish'd is not that which is at all controverted For that which is so understood is only the Representation of their then present sad and deplorable condition or of such grievances persecution suspition calumnies and odium under which for their Religion they lay then amongst their Protestant Fellow Subjects in Ireland Secondly That that which is and ought to be understood by the word Acknowledgment properly and strickly taken as in this Title signifying somewhat distinct from the meaning of the former word Remonstrance is no other than that which in the same Title is imported also by the word Protestation with this only difference That the whole Act of Recognition with all its Clauses and Appendages may be and is properly and truly an acknowledgment and confession both of the Supreme civil or Temporal power and of that obedience as above And that the very same whole Act of Recognition or Acknowledgment is in the Title called a Protestation partly because the Remonstrants or Subscribers do about the end of the same Act of Recognition formally or in formal express words Protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary of that which they acknowledge confess c. in that very Act of Recognition and partly too because that having done in the former part of that publick Instrument with the Representation of their Grievances in general then and immediately before they begin their said Recognition they speak thus We know what odium all the Catholick Clergy lies under by reason of the Calumnies with which our Tenents in Religion and our dependance upon the Popes Authority are aspersed and we humbly beg 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 and partly also because by the word Protestation any publick Testimony whether it be by an Oath or not may be truly and properly understood And therefore I confess ingenuously that within the whole Act of Recognition separately taken from the rest of that Instrument there is no Protestation at all understanding by the word Protestation that kind of Testimony which is by oath For indeed there is no oath at all either formal or virtual in the whole Act so taken separately or in any Clause or Appendage of it so taken And yet I confess too that is or may well be understood to be either a formal or at least a virtual oath which is in the passage immediately antecedent or going before that Act. But this oath imports no more then that the Remonstrants or Subscribers do so antecedently swear or protest in the sight of Heaven that they do sincerely and truly without equivocation or mental reservation acknowledge confess disclaim renounce declare promise profess protest hold abhor and detest whatever they acknowledge confess c. in their following Declaration or said Act of Recognition And therefore by no meâ—â— imports that they swear their Acknowledgment Confession Renunciation c. are made conformably to the objective truth of Things or Laws in themselves For Example They swear not nor protest at all in the sight of Heaven That our Sovereign King Charles the Second is Lawful and Rightful King Supreme Lord c. or I mean that He is so according to the verity of Things and Laws in themselves but only that they
such Authorities as are truly unanswerable nor to such Reasons as are truly demonstrative no not then when they had not a word to reply not even the most learned and most resolute of them I mean and I mean them also too when sate together in the most general Congregation of their Representatives Behold the cause wherefore several of the more leading and more intriguing of them and long before the said general Congregation was held finding upon one side an absolute necessity on themselves to offer at least some kind of Remonstrance of their Loyalty that they might not seem to disown their being Subjects and on the other intending not to come home to the Contents of that of 1661. so Censured by the Divines of Louain and by the several Letters of the Internuncio of Flanders and of Cardinal Francis Bellarmine most earnestly and manifoldly attempted and this too by the mediation of several persons of Quality and Honour both Lords and Ladies of their own Religion and some too of the Protestant to persuade his Grace my LORD LIEUTENANT to be content with and accept of such a Remonstrance as they would frame for themselves being as they pretended they desired this favour not to decline the substance of Father Walshe's Remonstrance as they call'd it but to give it in their own Language for the Reasons elsewhere already given in this Book And behold the cause also why though his GRACE did as often condescend to their desire in that behalf as they made it by others or even by themselves yet having to that purpose received several Papers from them besides those given before as from the Dominicans and Jesuites and no two of all agreeing fully either in words or substance much less any of all coming home in all parts to the substance of that of 1661. which by all means they declined his GRACE considering also they were but particular persons or particular Orders at most and such as could not undertake for other persons and Orders of the Irish Clergy to concur with them in these Forms offered by them how short soever of that know Formulary which was still a Bugbear to them all indifferently answered every of them They came short of their pretended offers That he clearly saw it was not against the words only but against both words and substance or sense of Father Walshe's Remonstrance they excepted And that being this substance or sense to the full and in all parts of it was necessary from them he could not but expect their Subscription to that very Remonstrance which His MAJESTY had already and so graciously accepted of as being sign'd so freely and affectionately presented by a considerable number both of the Irish Clergy and of the Irish Nobility and Gentry because although perhaps some of them intended in some measure to come near the substance or sense of that His MAJESTY so received yet there must be some mystery still in varying from it besides that there would be no end in giving way to such variety and that none of those who perhaps meant well in other words could or would engage the rest should approve of what they offered in such words much less subscribe to it The Papers so offered and presented to His GRACE besides those other you have seen already of the Dominicans pag. 56. and of the Jesuites pag. 84 85 and 86. are these following A Paper given or delivered to the DUKE by Colonel Gerrot Moore 27 March 1664. as said he the substance of that which the Romish Clergy were ready to Subscribe and Declare But I say it appear'd after in their general Congregation of 1666. at Dublin as you may see in the Second Part of this First Treatise and in the Second and Third Treatise of this Book they were far enough from being ready to Subscribe or Declare any such Thing or Paper how even short soever or not home enough to the point I Engage my self to expose my life if occasion shall require in Defence of His Majesties Person and Royal Authority against any Prince Person or Power Spiritual or Temporal Forreign or Domestick that shall invade or disturb even by Sedition or Rebellion His Majesties Rights Person Authority or Government and hereunto I engage my self to be truly faithful notwithstanding any sentence of Deposition Excommunication Censure Declaration Absolution or Dispensation whatsoever I likewise abhor and detest from my very Soul the Position fathered without any just grounds upon Roman Catholicks That Faith is not to be kept with a People of a different judgment in Religion from them Another Paper or form of a Latin Declaration or Protestation offered by Patrick Daly Doctor of the Civil and Canon Law Vicar General of Armagh and Judge Delegate of the Province of Armagh to be Subscribed by himself as given also by himself to the LORD LIEUTENANT on the 7th of April 1664. the Earl of Clancarty and Lord Birmingham being present GEntem illam nimis barbaram imo a lege naturae omnino alienam esse oportet quae non Reges a Deo sibi impositos amant vereantur revereantur qui Regium nomen Majestatem ut rem augustam plane divinam non secundum ipsum Deum in temporalibus amplectendum esse censeant colendum Hybernis igitur omnibus incumbit sed iis praecipue qui Altari inserviunt aliorum instructionem susceperint manifestare quo quantoque gaudio auspicantissimam Serenissimi nostri Monarchae maugurationem ejusque reditum ad capescendum Majorem Imperium concelebrent Hinc ego ut alios omnes decet faelicissimo nostro Principi qui has Gentes prae aliis suam Hyberniam ex faucibus crudelium Tyrannorum quorum sub immani jugo hactenus gemuere eripuit cur non fausta omnia prospeta voveam cum longe a Christiana pietate absit aliter vel facere vel sentire At cum audierim apud multos suspiciorem suboriri viros nonnullos nostri ordinis in hoc Regno esse qui intestinas Seditiones moliri imo vires externas ad Rebellandum contra Sacram Regis Majestatem afcistere conentur aspirent celare nec possum nec debeo qua observantia quo amore animi finceritate in inctissimi mei Regis obedientiam prosperitatem rerar quomodoque ad id fideliter praestandum vel Sacramento paratus sum me addicere Itaque sincere sine omni aequivocatione fuco aut mentis reservatione Sanctissime in me recipio in verbo Sacerdotis affirmo Serenissimum Regem nostrum Carolum secundum vero legitimo haereditario jure huic Regno Hiberniae aliis omnibus suis Regnis ditionibus dominari meque in omnibus temporalibus civilibus illi fidelissime merito obtemperaturum nullamque sub Coelo esse potestatem quae me ab hoc Sacramento fidelitatis plus quam Subditos meae functionis Principum Germaniae Hispaniae aut aliarum Nacionum per universum Christianum
other ARTICLES proposed to the Catholicks of England whereunto it was required they should subscribe their negative Answers whereby it might be understood they profess that there is nothing contained in these three Articles which doth necessarily belong to the Catholick Faith and Religion insomuch that they may and will abjure if it be thought needful the practice and execution of them all I. THat the Pope or Church hath power to absolve any person or persons from their obedience to the Civil and Political Government established or to be established in this Nation in Civil and Political Affairs II. That by the Command or Dispensation of the Pope or Church it if lawful to kill destroy or do any injury to any person or persons living within the Kings Dominions because that such a person or persons are accused condemned censured or excommunicated for Error Schism or Heresie III. That it is lawful in it self or by dispensation from the Pope to break promise or oath made to any of the aforesaid persons under pretence that they are Hereticks Fifty English Catholick Gentlemen have subscribed Negative answers to these three Articles upon certain conditions secretly agreed upon for the good and free exercise of the Catholick Religion they being assured by divers Priests both Seculars and Regulars under their Hand-writings that it was lawful for them so to do Which since a Congregation in Rome hath ordained and decreed was not nor is not lawful Whereupon a Priest writeth out of England to his friend a Doctor of Divinity of Paris and sends him a Copy of this Congregational Decree earnestly desiring him that he will let him freely know his sentiment and opinion in this business Which Doctors answer to the question here followeth Most dear Brother in Christ HAving seriously considered the three Articles you sent me with their little Preface which you say contains in brief the substance of what was intended both by the proposers and your selves I cannot refuse neither in charity nor friendship to give you my opinion concerning your Subscription thereunto Yet being unwilling you should relie upon my private and particular judgment in a matter of such moment I have consulted with several great and learned men of our Nation but especially some of the most ancient and learned Doctors of Divinity of our Faculty here whose constant sentiments are that not only in their Opinion your Act is lawful just and true but that it is also the general and universal belief of all the learned and judicious men of this Kingdom So that I see not upon what grounds you need fear or apprehend the Censures which the Decree of the Congregation in Rome pretends you have incurred Were your Kingdom or State setled and that your liberty depended only upon your giving assurance of your fidelity I should easily procure you such sovereign Antidotes against your timorous apprehensions and such publick Declarations of your duty in this kind as that none but either weakly scrupulous or busily factious would be any whit moved at the interessed proceedings of the Court of Rome Methinks you should not be ignorant how such Decrees of those Congregations are slighted and rejected in the Supreme Courts of this Kingdom by the most learned and most vertuous Secular Judges of the Christian world Even those who bear the most dutiful Respect to his Holiness as well Seculars as Regulars will openly profess That the Cabals and Interests of the Court of Rome are now so generally known that the Decrees of their Congregations are scarcely taken notice of out of the Popes Territories We had not many months ago such a Decree sent hither from Rome to the Pope's Nuncio against a late Book called Les grandeurs de L'eglise Romaine which because the Popes Nuncio would have published and dispersed throughout the Kingdom having obtained licence from the King to it The Kings Advocate General Mr. Talon a man worthy of his place made a learned Speech in open Parliament without any relation or interest to the Doctrine of the Book against the admittance of such Decrees wherein he remarked very well the different nature and quality of these Congregational Decrees which were never received nor acknowledged as legal and authentical in France from th Bulls of his Holiness as Head of the Church And this Speech was immediately confirmed an ratified by a judgment given by this renowned Senate and so the publication of the Decree was hindered and suppressed There was likewise in the year 1625. a seditious Book written by one Garasse a Jesuite but bearing no name entituled Admonitio ad Regem secretly dispersed up and down in this City which was condemned by a general Synod of the Clergy of this Kingdom then assembled in this Town wherein the indispensable duty and obedience of Catholick Subjects to an heretical and even to a persecuting King or State was particularly declared and avouched You may see the words themselves pag. 12. Quare id ipsum c. Given at Paris in the general Assembly of the Clergy the 13th of Decemb. 1625. Whereupon one Sanctarellus an Italian Jesuite was caused to write a Book in approbation of the Pope's temporal authority to depose Kings and Princes and to absolve their Subjects from their obedience which was presently censured by our Faculty of Divinity and the affirmative Doctrine of your first Article which is your chief difficulty and other such like Positions were improved and condemned as new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God c. Given in the Sorbon the 1st of April 1626. Hereupon four of the most famous Jesuites of France then residing Superiours in their Colledges here were sent to the Parliament and being demanded their Opinions in this point they confirmed and ratified this Censure under their hands professing farther That they did and would consent and adhere to what the Sorbon had or should declare in this or any other matter of Doctrine I could send you the particulars of these and many such like proceedings here being partly in Print partly upon publick Record but I conceive it needless at least for the present However the Court of Rome's pretensions to Secular and Temporal power over Kings and Commonwealths are now grown out of date nor was it ever authorized but by the execution of it The Origine of the Pope's authority in Temporal Affairs is well enough known The great piety and respect to the See of Rome of divers ancient Emperors Kings and Princes have made them receive their Crowns and Diadems from his Sacred hands and cast their Swords and Scepters at his Saintly feet Others have made use of the Pope's swaying power to settle themselves in their usurped Monarchies and Princedoms Not any versed in Ecclesiastical History but knows the particulars of these Truths But to come back to your Decree I perceive that the Authors of it looking only upon tht Negative answers to the bare Articles without the Preface or separated Instrument whereunto you Priests
opposite opinion of errour and so convince it that neither Walsh or other Subscribers or Divines who would otherwise except against it could have left them any thing of moment which in their own conscience they judged unsolved In which case nevertheless not to assent would be unlawful not for such Brief or Bull consider'd precisely of it self or in its own nature but because the truth is rendered manifest and the mind convincâ—t by arguments unavoidable which 't is evident are not necessarily requisite in such Letters These things are said according to the sense of those who are Patrons of the Papal Infallibility For otherwise we might recur to other Authors no less Catholick and truly Learned who in this or the like Controversie would without more ado openly reject all definitions of the Pope whatsoever made without the consent of a general Council though declared by Bull directed to all the faithful of Christ in whatever part of the world and who nevertheless were are and in that case too would be most dutiful observant sons of the Bishops of the Roman See as united by the holy band of Religion and the strict tye of whatever other Ecclesiastical communion But because what is said above is abundantly sufficient to answer the objection drawn from the judgment of his Holiness whether only pretended or true makes now no matter as far as it concerns our present case that is the coincidence or identity to use the School terms of some Propositions in our Protestation with those which some mistakingly would have condemnâ—d by Paul the V. in the Allegiance Oath of King James it is not for the present necessary to have any recourse to them Now for what relates to a like conformity suppos'd in the judgment alledged of our Holy Father Alexander betwixt some Propositions of our Protestation with others said to be condemned by Innocent X. of happy memory namely the three Negatives signed as is said by some Fifty English Catholicks of Quality to Cromwel to obtain some liberty for those of the Roman Catholick Faith the answer is much easier partly from what has already been said and partly from what will presently be alledged For Innocent did not publish that judgment of his by any Bull or Brief either to the Catholicks of England or any other so much as one particular man anywhere as far as has been heard to this day so much as by rumour But if any Decree were either made or projected of that matter in a Consistory of Cardinals with the assistance or by the command of Innocent and afterwards sent to Bruxels or Paris to the Nuncio's as there is a report of its being sent to the Nuncio of Paris nothing has been heard more of its publication but remainâ—d suppressed according to that report in the hands of that Nuncio Now whether it were so or no is no great matter nothing to purpose since according to Divines generally and Canonists too such Decrees fram'd in that manner and no otherwise declared do not force consent nor reach faith nor oblige any of the faithful to submission at least out of the Popes temporal State no not in a Controversie of far less moment as where there is no question of faith but only and it may be a just reformation of manners And yet 't were much more proper to attribute the care of such a reformation to the Pope alone I mean without the intervention of a general Council than of declaring the truths of Faith by an infallible judgment and definition such as it were unlawful for any man in any case to contradict Besides 't is a plain case that Cromwel was an Usurper a Traytor and a Tyrant all manner of wayes both in administration and title according to the twofold acception or sense of that word found generally amongst Divines and particularly in Suarez against the King of England And therefore that wise Pope might neither imprudently nor unjustly condemn such Propositions in that conjuncture of things or looking upon the immediate though extrinsecal end then in view namely of observing fidelity to a Tyrant Although we are to judge quite otherwise and according to the common doctrine of Orthodox Divines it be lawful to judge so in case He had not respect to that end but minded only the intrinsecal or even extrinsecal end which is limited by the Law or took the Propositions bare in themselves and abstracting from all bad ends Wherefore it does not appear to the Church of Christ nay to any particular men nor ever did authentically and legitimately that those negative Propositions were any way either by word or writing condemn'd by Innocent the X at least by him as Pope and speaking ex Cathedra Wherefore my Lord since there is no other condemnation of Innocent or Paul the V. to which his Holiness Pope Alexander could relate than those here mentioned and your Lordship objects nothing else and since those old arguments so often brought by Bellarmine Suarez Lessius c. as well under their own as borrowed names from some places and facts of former Popes though in their own cause and some appearances if they be appearances of Councils and scrap't together from false Reason and the Authority whether of some later Doctors or the ancient and holy Scriptures have by other famous men of the Church of Rome long since been weakned answered overthrown there remains to Walsh the same liberty of expostulating which devout men and men no less learned than holy have by their example in all Ages so often taught May your Lordship therefore cease to persecute Caron or Walsh May his Eminence Cardinal Barberin cease May you both cease and I beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ who will judge both you and me at his terrible judgment Cease I say both of you to seduce the Clergy and People of Ireland You have laboured now these three years to corrupt them both You have endeavoured to tear again in pieces a Kingdom every way miserable You have bestirred your selves to your power to replant a most pernicious Errour but onely amongst either simple or mercenary people onely in one corner of the world with those of discretion and honesty you prevail not a jot In all Europe besides in Italy it self next the very temporal Patrimony of St. Peter which now for some Ages has been annex't to the Popedom onely by Humane not Ecclesiastical or Divine Right that is by the gift of Princes or favour of the People you lose your labour For the mask is now taken off and if I may conjecture of future things will be taken off more and more every day Which your Lordship himself if I be not deceived knows to be so true that you cannot be ignorant that in the rest of the world I mean those parts of it which are in the Catholick communion of the Roman Church this your or our question of the Popes pretended right over the Temporals of Kings whatever name it go
the Lay-people of the same extraction to any design of such nature than a whole Hundred if not than a Thousand of the other could or can Which being well enough known to the Roman Court is it indeed and no other consideration at all of justice or equity in the case hath made that Court as sometimes informer dayes when the carrying on of their designs requir'd it so lately again since the year 1668. seemingly for some part and only for the present occasion and necessity decline Ferral's advice in that one point of such a National distinction so universally taken or observed without any discretion But to leave this digression how useful soever and come to a conclusion of all I would be at to answer the first Querie proposed in the beginning of this Section you are now in the last place to observe what did and must have followed or been annexed to so many other causes or so many other previous influential and effectual both dispositions and predeterminations viz. 13. That while those Loyal Irish Ecclesiasticks who in the grand Controversie with the Nuncio declared and stood firmly against him were every day more and more wasting and decaying at home since the coming in of Owen O Neill â—s Party about the end of the year 1649. but much more also abroad since they had been forc'd to Forreign Countries on the other side the Nuncio Party both Regular and Secular not only at home for the generality of them preserved themselves from the undistinguishing Sword of the Parliament Souldiery by retiring still into the fastnesses of the Countrey Boggs and Woods and Mountains in their own quarters when the former as being most of them Natives and Inhabitants of the Cities Corporations and other the more civilized Champion Countries seized first by the Parliament could not or would not do so but abroad in other Countries recruited mightily as having all the Superiours of their Faction and all the Irish Monasteries and Seminaries in their possession and all the authority and power of the Court of Rome to favour them and recruited so mightily I say by a young Frye of their own inclinations received into the Monasteries Colledges and Seminaries bred and brought up throughly paced in their Principles than ordered Priests Professors Confessors Preachers c. and after that besides very many of the old ones their masters sent home as so many Apostles into Ireland one after another as soon as there seem'd any quiet or harbour for them there even many of them before the King had been restored but in far greater numbers immediately after His Restauration Behold Reader in Thirteen several Heads and most of them complex and all mark'd or distinguish'd by so many arithmetical numbers in the margin a final full and satisfactory Answer to the former of the two Queries you have in the beginning of this incidental or occasional Section that former being in effect this How it came to pass that so many Irish Ecclesiasticks of the Roman Communion both appeared and prevail'd so as they did against the Pope â—s Nuncio in Ireland and all his Party and Censures in the year 1648. and yet now for so many years after His Majesties happy Restauration of so great a Body as at least 2000 Irish Ecclesiasticks at home in Ireland Sixty nine onely have been found to appear professing openly as much as in Temporals their due Allegiance to His Majesty by Signing the Loyal Irish Remonstrance presented to His Majesty in the year 1661 For although I have of purpose and to avoid too much prolixity omitted many things more which might have been truly and materially said in answer yet I am sure I have said enough here to inform any rational indifferent person how or by what means that which is demanded or enquir'd after came to pass on either side and how so great a change of the Irish Clergy happen'd in Fourteen years from 1648. to 1662. for in this year 1662. the grand opposition which continues ever since against the Remonstrance begun And have given enough of the true motives occasions causes and degrees of that change And further yet have said enough to persuade any indifferent man that the whole of those very motives occasions means causes and degrees of either side may be reduced to or referr'd as springing from one of these two more general causes 1. The Civil Magistrates Authority Power Sword being careful and vigorous and executive in supporting and protecting those Ecclesiasticks that stood firmly for it against the usurpations and encroachments of Rome and likewise in prosecuting and punishing all other Ecclesiasticks who being meer dependents of and Emissaries from the Roman Court were manifestly known to undermine the Civil Power and Magistracy 2. The same Temporal Magistrates or Governours being grown careless or remiss therein or having not force or strength enough left to execute and having at last through Gods unsearchable pleasure or permission been utterly disabled ruined and come to be no more if not in title only the Magistrate or Governour The former is sufficiently grounded in what you have before from number the 1. to number the 6. And albeit the latter even as to all Parts be also in the following numbers or paragraphs abundantly shewn yet I think it not amiss to give more particularly yet of the First Part and perhaps Second too thereof the very first original and manifest proof whence all the rest followed which I my self as having been singularly concern'd have observed when it was but yet under deliberation It is and was the weakness of our Temporal Government in yielding in the year 1648. to Owen O Neill and Bishop of Clogher's demand as the first preliminary Article of their Treaty with the Marquess of Ormond then His Majesties Lieutenant of Ireland That all who had opposed the Nuncio's Censures or in their behalf the Twelve Roman-Catholick Commissioners of Peace should humbly Petition the Pope for a general Absolution from the said Censures Indeed Ferral sayes in his Book to the Congregation de propaganda it was absolutely the very first of the Articles concluded then by Owen O Neill's Party without mentioning whether it was only preliminary or otherwise This much I know That when after the fatal breach at Rathmines and taking of Droghedagh by storm and the revolt of the Sea Ports in Munster and the march to and storm and surprizal of Wexford by Cromwel and consequently after Owen O Neill's further application to the Parliament of England had been rejected and the Cessation with him notwithstanding his service to them had expired that when I say in this conjuncture the Lord Lieutenant then Marquess of Ormond had sent the Bishop of Ferns and Sir Nicholas Plunket as Commissioners to offer Conditions to and treat and conclude with Owen O Neill and the Army and Party till then siding with him these two Commissioners writ back to Kilkenny and either to his Excellency or to the rest of those called
to acknowledge Charles the Second to be within his own Dominions either King at all or Supream Lord in Temporals independently from the Pope or to teach maintain assert or believe that his Roman Catholick Subjects are notwithstanding any Papal Power or pretence and notwithstanding any sentence either of excommunication or deposition from such Papal Power bound under pain of Sin as much as any Protestants to obey his Majesty in all Civil and Temporal affairs according to or as far as the Laws of the Land require obedience from them in such Temporal matters For this Doctrine or acknowledgment of the Remonstrance and only this in substance is all the danger and is only it also that made Caron Walsh and other Subscribers to lye under the infamous title of false Brethren And truly that nothing else or more in effect is in the Protestation or Remonstrance which so strangly allarum'd them at Rome you see demonstrated particularly and diffusely Part. 1. Sect. LXXVII from Pag. 462. to Pag. 487. That very Section which concludes the whole discourse against the Divines of Louain 8. That it is no less pleasant i. e. ridiculous to see the same Cardinal further tell the Irish he was commanded by his Holiness to admonish them seriously not to confound civil obedience with that other due to the Apostolick See and by civil obedience he means that which is or shall be paid in Civil or Temporal things to the King Now is not this a very wise admonition or rather pretty cheat of confounding words where the Cardinal dares not speak his mind plainly or sincerely at all Did ever Caron Walsh or other of the Subscribers or could they indeed by the Remonstrance intend to confound both obediences or that which is universally due in all Temporal or Civil affairs to the King according to the Laws and that which is to the Pope only in some Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters according to the Canons Nay doth not the Remonstrance profess only the former to the King leaving and that expresly too the latter as due to the Pope And were not therefore the Irish or the Remonstrants they that of one side perfectly distinguished those obediences but the Cardinal and his Associats they of the other that horribly confounded the Spiritual with the Civil Nay that made the Spiritual swallow up at one gulp the whole Civil that would have no kind of obedience at all not even in meer temporals or Civil things paid our King by us and consequently have him to be no King by our good will if not precarious and dependent for his Crown from the Pope otherwise why the Remonstrance so dangerous so pernicious so damnable so adverse to Catholick Faith so destructive to Eternal Salvation It only acknowledges Civil obedience due to him and consequently his Kingship only in Temporals If such bare acknowledgment be so wicked and uncatholick at Rome then it must be such also to say that Charles the Second is in any true sense at all our King But we must pardon the Cardinals phrasing his mind being he dared not speak all out plainly or clearly and must give him leave rather to speak meer nonsense all along now or at least nothing but false and ridiculous suppositions and even as such known to himself For I beseech what else doth the second part of his admonition here to the Irish import or signifie what this I mean neve in vestrum induet animum patiamini Regi partre non posse qui Romano Pontifici morem gerit As if Caron Walsh or any others had at any time or upon any account whatsoever or at least on some endeavoured to perswade the Irish they could not be obedient to the King while they acknowledge any veneration of dependence from or obedience to the Pope in such Spiritual matters as properly belong to his Holiness according to the Canons Then which supposition nothing can be more false Indeed it is very true and evident also that none can be truly or really faithful to the King who pays that obedience to the Roman Pontiff which Cardinal Barberin means here but not sufficiently expresses if not to his own Cabal by his morem gerit As for his reason or assertion added in these other words Cum immo nihil ad Regum Authoritatem firmandam magis conferat quam in subditis fidele erga Pontificiam Auctoritatem obsequium it is no less evidently fals then we manifestly know out of History That such faithful obsequiousness to the Popes as he means hath but too too often armed the Subjects against their even both Christian and Catholick Princes Kings Emperours nay the very Sons against their Loyal Fathers and again others against these very Sons though crowned with Imperial Diadems And for his two Queries immediatly following viz. these Et sane quae Lex Monarchico Regimini adeo favet quam Catholica Quae justam Regibus subjectionem precipit adeo arcte quam illa quae obedire Praepositis suis aperte jubet Certainly nothing could be more either fallaciously or impertinently demanded to his purpose The true Catholick i. e. Christian Law equally favours all kinds of lawful Governments where ever lawfully introduced and established whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And the Gospel of Christ delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul equally commands obedience to the Supream Civil Power without any distinction of the Power placed in one man or in many for the Apostles speak sometimes in the singular number and at other times in the plural Nay in the very place the Cardinal here alludes unto out of Paul which is Obedite praepofitis vestris subiacete eis Ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri is in the Plural And yet who sees not withal how impertinently this place is alluded unto here by the Cardinal Heb. 13.17 as making any jot for obedience to the meer Lay or Civil Power being the Praepositi spoken of in it by Paul are onely the meer Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Officers or Ministers Besides would not the Cardinal change his application if he were to speak on the present Subject to the State either of Venice or Genua or other Common-wealths in Italy And yet after all I confess that his pretended but very false Religion or Law Catholick I mean that of his Congregation and Court as to the controverted point favours more indeed only his Monarchical Government and his indeed only Independent Monarch both Spititual and temporal on Earth the great Roman Pontiff under whom in his Doctrine all other Princes and States are but petty precarious Vicars and favours that more I say then any other Law But can or ought therefore such a Mystery impose on us to perswade any against Caron or Walsh or their fellow-Subscribers or the Instrument it self which they Subscribed nay can it indeed lull a sleep Supream Temporal Princes or States 9. That hence appears I might with much reason
but many of their Superiours amongst them had also discountenanced nay to their power even vexed and persecuted such of their underlings who had signed it and moreover had understood all the other practices of their Agents beyond Seas how I say notwithstanding all this the said Lord Lieutenant had hitherto and for their sakes who signâ—d most patiently expected an amendment of such errours in the rest and in the mean time extended even to the most ungrateful of the Dissentors and opposers all those very favours of Indulgence and connivance of Publick exercise of Religion which the Subscribers enjoy And how the Procurator himself had no way lessened his Zeal to endeavour by all means he could the continuance of those favours even to the very most ungrateful and malicious of his Adversaries in the grand contest Sixth reflected on the great variety of pretences which the dissenting both Superiours and Inferiours pleaded for so many years to excuse their non-concurrence and amongst or rather above all other excuses their desire and expectation of Licence for a National Assembly to consult of the equity of the demand See those either pretences or true cause Tract 1. Part. 1. Sect. 9. from Page 21. to Pag. 27. Where you find the Sixteenth of them to be this of a National Congregation desired Seventh was wholly taken up in the Merits of the main matter in controversie or the only chief end of their meeting viz. the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof And here the Procurator shewâ—d and at large dilated upon the Lawfulness and Orthodoxness of it in point of Conscience and both Christian and Catholick Religion even I mean as to those very causes of the said Remonstrance which was the Rock of Scandal because denying and renouncing all and every the branches and appendages of the pretended Papal Authority either by Divine or Human Right to depose the King c. or dispence with or declare against the Allegiance of Subjects or by Excommunication or otherwise to raise them to a Rebellion against His Majesty c. His Arguments against any such Papal Power and consequently for the said Lawfulness and Orthodoxness he derived evidently 1. From so many plain Declarations and express commands of Holy Scripture 2. From the unanimous consent of Holy Fathers interpreting those passages of Holy Scripture so and not otherwise for a whole Thousand years until Gregory the VII's Pontificat 3. From the Practice also as well as Theory of the Christian Church Universally for those ten whole centuries of years and consequently even from true Catholick Tradition 4. From the general opposition made even in all European Nations Kingdoms States Schools Universities and National Churches to the contrary positions even also in every age since the said Gregorie's days until this very present 5. Particularly from the known Assertions of the Gallican Church and Decisions too of the eight present Universities of France all unanimously condemning those self same contrary positions as impious wicked against the Word of God Heretical and more singularly yet from the six late Declarations of Sorbon May 8. 1663. Not to mention how Cardinal Perron by his fine circumventing speech in the general Assembly of the Three Estates of that Kingdom after the Murder of Henry Le Grand only endeavour'd these Positions should not be declared in formal Words Heretical 6. From the Practice of the Parliaments of Paris and Sicilian Monarchy too 7. From the Statuts of Provisors and Praemunire made so many Hundred years since by the Roman-Catholick Kings and Parliaments of England and Ireland even all the Lords Spiritual assenting especially those Statutes under Edward the III. and Richard the II. which declare the Crown of those Kingdoms to be Imperial and subject to none but God only 8. From the eminency and multitude of most learned Roman Catholick Writers even Scholasticks who all along these 600 years have in every Age expresly condemned and even both specifically and abundantly confuted those vain and wicked pretences set on foot first by Hildebrand 9. From the pitiful silliness unsignificancy and absurdity of all Bellarmin's Arguments for the other side arguments proving either nothing at all or certainly that which neither himself nor any not even of his very beloved Popes themselves would allow 10. And Lastly from the clearness of Natural Reason also in the cases and that I mean too whether the Revelations of Christianity be presupposed or no. From all such Topicks of convincing Reason and Authority I mean as well Divine as Human the Procurator deduced his own arguments for the above Lawfulness and Orthodoxness viz. of the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof notwithstanding any Bugbear of Roman Letters or Louain Censures to the contrary The eighth advanced hence to the consequential both expediency and necessity of their unanimous cheerful Subscription without further delay or regret being there was no other way or means to redeem themselves or their Church or to satisfie or appease the King or his Protestant People for what had been so publickly and vehemently acted in former times partly by them or at least many of them and partly by the rest of the Irish Clergy represented by them and acted even all along either in or immediatly after the very first Rebellion of the Irish Nation in October 1641. and in the unhappy Congregation of Waterford Anno 1641 against the first Peace and further in the year 1648 against the Cessation with Inchiquin and for the Censures of the Nuncio Lastly in the year 1650. and most unhappy Congregation of Jamestown against the second Peace no other way truly in the first place but of humble Submissive Penitential Petition begging pardon for so many former grievous Errors against all Laws Divine and Human. Nor indeed any other in the next place to allay the just suspicions and jealousies of their future demeanour but that of a sincere hearty Loyal Recognition of His Majesties Supream Temporal Independent Power Protestation of Obedience and Fidelity according to the Laws of the Land in all Temporal matters and all contingencies whatsoever and Renunciation also of all pretended Powers and false Doctrines to the contrary The Ninth was the conclusion of all in wishes and Prayers beseeching the Fathers by all that should be dear or Sacred to them to consider That nothing was desired or expected from them in either point but what certainly was more consonant to pure Christianity i. e. to the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ and therefore doubtless more holy than the contrary was or could possibly be 2. The sad fate which had perpetually and universally attended all Rebellions of those of their Religion however at so many several times and places entred into either in England Ireland or Scotland since the first separation under Henry the Eighth 3. Whether wise men ought not even in point of Prudence not only bid at last an eternal adieu to such both Principles and Practices as proved at all times and in all Countries
S. Augustin Lector of Moral Divinity Definitor and Prior of Dublin John Talbot of the Society of Jesus Fr John Warren Discalceat Carmelit Fr Matthew Nangle Carmelit Discalceat F. Henry Burgate Divine of the Order of Preachers F. Christopher Bath Divine of the Order of Preachers Fr John Welden Cappuccin Divine Fr James Dowdal Divine Cappuccin Nicolaus Netterville Sâ—c Jesu Doctor Theologus Fr Christopher Dillon of the Order of S. August Lector Jubilate and Prior of the Convent of Dunnemore By Command Nicolas Redmond Secretary The Second Instrument or that of the Three first Sorbon Propositions or Declarations applied c. and delivered also at the same time with their Remonstrance to His Grace by the aforesaid two Bishops as from the Congregation though subscribed but by three hands only at this time and without other Preaâ—ble or Title prefâ—â—ed to it than as here followeth viz. Certain Propositions of the Roman Catholick Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland conformable to the Doctrine of Sorbon and several Parliaments of France in the year 1663. I. WE do hereby declare That it is not our Doctrine that the Pope hath any Authority in Temporal affairs over our Sovereign Lord King Charles the Second yea we promise that we shall still oppose them that will assert any Power either direct or indirect over him in Civil and Temporal affairs II. That it is our Doctrine That our Gracious King Charles the Second is so absolute and independent that he acknowledgeth not not hath in Civil and Temporal affairs any Power above him under God and that to be our constant Doctrine from which we shall never decline III. That it is our Doctrine That we Subjects owe such Natural and just Obedience unto our King that no Power under any pretext soever can either dispence with us or free us thereof Edmund Archbishop of Ardmagh and Primat of all Ireland Andrew Bishop of Kilfinuragh Chairman Nicholas Redmond Secretary XVII The next day being Sunday the Fathers rested But on Monday being the Eighth of their Meeting and Eighteenth of the Month they sate again and received the LORD LIEUTENANT's third and last Message by the same Catholick Gentleman Mr. Belings who brought the second and as the two former had been read it to them out of a Paper word by word as here the Title only excepted The LORD LIEUTENANTS Third Message to the Congregation June 16. 1666. THat on the 16. instant I received from two of the Romish Clergy now met in this City one Parchment directed to His Majesty and signed by divers of the said Clergy one Paper signed by three of them Intituled Certain Propositions c. and a Petition directed unto me in the name of them all not signed by any of them I think fit to let them understand That I observe that together with the Propositions of Sorbon sent and signed by them as aforesaid there are three material Propositions omitted which might as well be appropriated to His Majesty and this Kingdom as the other three are as also that the same number or Persons have not Subseribed to the said Proposition as to the Parchment Instrument Mr. Belings being departed the Procurator stood up and spake to the main purpose of this last Message from His Grace shewing at large by manifold and evident arguments That the other three of the Sorbon Declarations which they had omitted to Sign were both as material to the purpose and not only might but ought as well be appropriated to His Majesty and Kingdom of Ireland as the first Three were These three last or three controverted Propositions being the Fourth Fifth and Sixth of Sorbon you have already had pag. 660 c. and again pag. 663. where you may also peruse all the Six As for those reasons or arguments urged then by me to demonstrate how both material expedient and even necessary the Subscription of the same Fourth Fifth and Sixth Propositions must have been mutatis mutandis because the Fourth following Treatise of this Book hath diffusely them i. e. the same arguments pag. 43. 44. pag. 46 47. c. pag. 57 58 c. and must of necessity have them as the chief Subject handled there of purpose viz. in answer to the Reasons given to the contrary in a paper presented from the Congregation to the Lord Lieutenant therefore I refer the Reader for so much to that Fourth Treatise which indeed was Printed before the First And consequently what I am to give here now in relation to such matter is only to let the Reader know in short That on this Subject of those three last of the Six Sorbon Declarations the Chair-man viz. the Bishop of Kilfinuragh though having so lately come from France after living there so long and throughly acquainted with the positions and Maxims of the Gallican Church discovered himself but too too manifestly to be not a little if not extreamly disaffected to the then English Government of Ireland by his earnest opposition to my own face there of all or any of these three last Sorbon Declarations to be applyed to the Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland Charles the Second and to that Congregation or Romish Clergy of Ireland and so to be signed by them That and which I much more wonder at even Father Nicholas Nettervil who first of all the Committee the day before and on his very knees to me offered all the Six Declarations should be signed even he himself both as confidently and vehemently now and even also to my own face opposed the signing of any one of those three last That neither he nor the Chairman were contented with their bare dissent but made Speeches and gave reasons too all they could to disswade the rest of the Fathers from signing c. That when the approbation or Declaration of Sorbon as well for those Three last as for the former Three was objected They not only answered the disparity of the cases or applications to be very great viz. Forasmuch as 1. The French King was Rex Christianissimus 2. And he maintained the Roman-Catholick Clergy of France both in their respective Spiritual jurisdictions and temporal Possessions too 3. And all was otherwise in order to the application of the said Propositions they were pressed unto but even with as much either boldness or rashness as if the said French Kings Forces had been actually then ready and even at that very nick of time resolved to Transport for and Invade Ireland were not shye to magnifie and cry him up so before all the Fathers that every one understood plainly what they meand i. e. whom they intended of the other side to lessen and cry down That therefore the Procurator both strongly and clearly shewed the unsignificancy of these answers and whatever other reasons they alledged for excusing themselves from signing even those three last of the Sorbon Declarations applyed as they ought to be nay shewed most evidently that for those very causes they alledged
Princes and Interests Kilfinuragh conscious to himself how highly he had deserved this reproof returns not a word in answer but very much dejected quits his Chair and coming towards me only says that he was content to leave it since I would have it so I who never thought of any such matter or to presume to bid him leave his Place answered That because he had already done his worst even all the mischief he could have design'd by sitting in that Chair he should for my part sit therein as he pleased or the Fathers continued their present Congregation And that I had no other end in expostulating with his Lordship so plainly and publickly too than that I might in such matters both discharge my own Conscience to God and man and have as many witnesses also of such performance of my duty as there were Members present in this National Assembly Which contest between the Chairman and me being over not to mention here what more besides I told and freely then did speak to all the Fathers in general a clean copy was produced again of the Three first Sorbon Declarations applyed c to be signed and accordingly was then sign'd even as I my self did then also think by every individual Member of the Congregation in order to be presented to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant because the former Copy presented to Him together with their Remonstrance had been sign'd only by three of their hands viz the Primat's Chairman's and Secretaries and because that even His Grace had in his last message to them taken notice how all the same hands which had subscribed their Parchment Roll of Recognition were not put unto their Paper of three Propositions c delivered at the same time And this was all wherein this National Irish Council would comply with His Grace And yet in this very matter how unconsiderable soever they all would not nor did comply For on a later and better scrutiny that is by comparing more exactly all the hands or names subscribed to their parchment Roll of Recognition with all those subscribed to this other Instrument of Three Propositions I find nine of the former number wanting in this viz 1. Andrew Bishop of Kilfinuragh the Chairman 2. John O Hart Provincial of the Dominicans 3. Andrew Sall the Provincial or Superiour of all the Jesuits in Ireland 4. Nicholas Nettervil the Jesuit Doctor of Divinity 5. Bernardinus Barry the Franciscan Reader Jubilat of Divinity 6. John Brady of the same Order and Professor too of Divinity he that formerly was Agent in procuring the Censure of the Louain Faculty Theological against the first Remonstrance or that of the year 1661. 7. Christopher Dillon the Augustinian Professor Jubilat of Divinity 8. John Welden Cappuccin 9. James Dowdal Cappuccin 'T is true that the first of these Nine viz. Kilfinuragh was one of the three that signd the former Copy of the three first Sorbon Propositions delivered together with the Parchment Roll to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant But so was the Primat and so also was the Secretary and yet those two are found subscribed to this second Paper of the same Propositions Now whether out of change of judgment or design Kilfinuragh subscribed not the same Second Paper as well as they I know not However supposing the best of him yet we find without any peradventure the other eight not complying so much as in this inconsiderable particular Amongst which eight or nine as you please I must singularly taken otice how Father Nicholas Nettervil the Jesuit Doctor of Divinity is one yea notwithstanding that he himself as I have said before was the very first who as the mouth of the Committee sent to perswade me offered even to my self That the whole Congregation would sign all the Six Declarations yea also notwithstanding that after his return from France and Flanders whether the Congregation being dissolved he went in the year 1667 to Ireland even himself told me that he had been persecuted and mortified by his own Order viz. the Jesuits in France and even to the loss or deprivation of his Divinity Chair at Amiens where he had taught in the Colledge of the Society punished for having concurred with the Congregation at Dublin to the signature of those Declarations of Sorbon although more singularly for having approved in that Assembly the Sixth Declarations which Sixth is only against the Popes Infallibility and that he was forced after to go to Brussels of purpose to satisfie in these matters the then Internuncio now Cardinal Rospigliosi But as you have seen already he deserved rather to be rewarded by the Roman Court for having jugled so as he did nay contrary to his own offer and promise fallen off presently and both opposed stifly the signing of the Three last and not concurred at all with those who signed the Three former albeit I must confess I my self thought otherwise a long time of him for what concerns these Three But on a more exact scrutiny and review of the names subscribed I found at last my own errour in that Which I have thought fit to remark here singularly because I would ingenuously confess my own mistake elsewhere in this Book Tract 3. pag. 29. where I relate this Gentlemans Subscription to the aforesaid Three former Propositions of Sorbon because when I writ and Printed that Third Treatise for I did both write and Print it before this First Treatise yet in hand I never once suspected at all but those who had signed the Parchment Roll of Recognition did also the other Paper of the Three First Sorbon Propositions and I had both seen and read his name to that Parchment Roll as you also your self may see in the Printed Copy thereof which you have already page But in this other now following though an exact Copy of the very Original Paper of those Three former Propositions which was on the 22 day of June generally signed by the Congregation and consequently of all the hands or names subscribed thereunto I am sure you will not find any Father Nicolas Nettervil The Paper of the Three first of the Six Declarations of Sorbon as applyed c. which was and as it was generally by the Congregation i. e. by all those hands indeed wherewith it was subscribed on the 22 of June 1663. Certain Propositions of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland being the same of the Faculty of Sorbon and other Universities and received by most Parliaments of France in the year 1663. I. WE the undernamed 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 yea we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any Power either direct or indirect over Him in Civil or Temporal Affairs II. That it is our Doctrine That our gracious King Charles the Second is so Absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in Civil and
in defence of that Formulary and Subscription thereof according to the best and clearest dictates of his inward Conscience without having ever at any time since entertained the least thought of fear doubt or scruple of any errour sin or unlawfulness either in doing so or in not retracting what he had so done If not sayes he only in or as to some sharp words or not so respectful expressions against my Superiour the Pope if peradventure and wheresoever in my Writings or Books any such words or expressions are or by others may be apprehended to be For such unnecessary circumstantials of words any way savouring of passion I beg God heartily forgiveness But for other matters whatsoever that belong necessarily to the substance of the Doctrine I never had nor can have any remorse of Conscience because I believe it to be the Doctrine of our Saviour Christ by whose blessed merits I hope to be saved and before whose Tribunal I am now to appear And then in the fourth and last place converting himself to me and desiring me to sit by him on the Bed-side and I acordingly sitting there he further declared his Conscience to be That I was bound in Conscience to prosecute still even after his death that matter and continue that defence or advancement of that Doctrine which in his life-time I had for so many years and notwithstanding so much contradiction maintain'd So much truly of that learned modest pious man and so much I mean and such testimony given by himself at Deaths door of his own conscientiousness all along in that quarrel for which my Lord of Ferns great Roman termed him Apostate I can declare with as much assurance and confidence as any thing of my self And were it to purpose the like I could relate of another both learned person and illustrious Prelate too viz. Thomas Dese quondam Bishop of Meath and a Doctor of Paris who likewise in former times i. e. in the unhappy War-time had been no less engaged with me in the great Controversie against the Nuncio Rinuccini and all his Partizans and Censures of Interdict and Excommunication which great Controversie because it all was concerning the independency of the Supreme Temporal power as such from the Church in meer Temporal maâ—ters must consequently in effect have been the same with this other about the Remonstrance Of that excellent Bishop so much persecuted for several years by the rest of his contemporary Irish Bishops for not approving the Rebellion of the year 1641 as lawful in point of Conscience I could relate how when I had of purpose come to visit his Lordship on his death-bed in the Town of Galway and Colledge or House of the Jesuites there and then this was if I remember well when the Parliament Forces were of one side blocking up that Town and however I am sure it was much about the year 1650 or 1651. his Lordship taking me by the hand before all those were present declared in like manner his Conscience as Father Caron did many years after For although his Lordships every individual word then as to the bare literal sound I cannot at this distance of time exactly remember yet I am certain he spake the sense of these words Father Walsh I am heartily glad to see you before I dye that you may hear the Declaration of a dying man as you had his approbation when he was more like to live For I now declare That I have purely out of the internal sentiments of my Soul approved at large under my hand your Book of Queries That were it to be done again I would do it because I learned no other Doctrine from the Catholick Church on the subject of that Book but what is therein clearly asserted And therefore that especially as to that matter I now depart in peace of Conscience to appear at the great Tribunal where nevertheless I hope for mercy not for any justice of my own but through the merits of our common Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ This death-bed Declaration of this Learned man and constantly vertuous Prelate I could alledge with as great assurance as I could Father Carons were it to purpose to alledge either in this place against the foresaid great Roman who termed Me and Caron Apostates And yet I think it may be to some purpose if I tell him as I do now That the death-bed judgment of even only two such learned pious men so delivered to my self had more weight and strength to confirm me in my own former resolutions than the reviling terms of Two thousand even the very greatest Romans written or spoken by them in the dayes or time of their corporal health and worldly pomp and on the subject in controversie betwixt us could shall or ought to have for deterring me from or at all weakning me in the profession and defence of the Christian Doctrine I have learned from my youth and learn'd from the Catholick Church I mean on that same subject However and because I know or at least may rationally think such Romans and others too who have reviled me and Caron in such manner by terming us Apostates meant certainly to charge us with that which is properly commonly or usually imported amongst the vulgar by the abstract Apostacy taken in an infamous sense and some certain respect or species thereof and that nevertheless they only or at least principally and fixedly intend to charge us not in the first or second but third respect before given or third degree or rather indeed properly third species of Apostacy i. e. from the Regular Institute of St. Francis c. as likewise that so high a charge against us they ground solely upon our not appearing beyond Seas when summon'd by the Belgick Commissary General c. as if we had by such non-appearance yea notwithstanding any reason to the contrary forfeited and fallen utterly from that Regular Obedience whereunto by solemn Vow we tyed our selves and consequently turn'd Apostates ab Ordine Regulari or ab Instituto Religioso Divi Francisci and yet not only because this is not the proper place to handle that matter but also because the whole Third Part of my Latin Work intituled Hibernica c and my late printed Letter also in Latin ad Haroldum or to Father Harold are written chiefly to clear us from any sinful disobedience or contumacy in the case and by consequence from such Apostacy for without such disobedience or contumacy it is clear that such Apostacy as grounded only on sinful disobedience must of necessity vanish and further yet because I have some eight years since in my second long Letter to the Bruxel-Internuncio Hieronymus de Vecchiis which Letter may be seen Translated into English in this very Book Treat 1. Part. I. pag. 538. and from thence to pag. 555. sufficiently treated of the very subject therefore I will not give my self any further new and needless trouble on that same point again in this place but
determining at all whether the King or his inferior Courts or Judges may or may not justly and by their own proper supream or subordinat civil authority and expresly against the Popes decrees proceed against such criminals according to the present municipal lawes of the land nor determining whether such Ecclesiastick criminals may in conscience where they may or can choose subject themselves in such cases as wherein by the Canons of the Roman Church they are exempt from the power and punishment of the secular Magistrat and his lawes unless or until they be delivered over to him by the Church albeit the subscribers of that Remonstrance of 61. were then are now and will so continue principled in conscience and doctrine that by the lawes of God no Canons of the Church may exempt any Church-men of what rank or degree soever no more then they can meer Lay-men from either the directive or coercive supream temporal power of such Kings as have not any other superior in their temporals but God alone nor against their wills or lawes from their courts or subordinat Judges though it be most conformable to the law of God and nature that Princes should for the reverence of the sacred function exempt them generally from the power of inferior or subordinat judicatures and leave them to be punished by their own Ecclesiastical superiors if not in such cases or contingencies as they shall find their said Ecclesiastical superiors to be unwilling or unfitting or to be involved themselves in the same crimes or the chief Patrons of them But however this be in truth and whatever the subscribers of 61. think or think not of this matter and whether the foresaid two lines which finally conclude their said sequel petition and resignation imply formally or virtually or any way at all such renunciation of Ecclesiastical immunity or implye it not in any kind of manner yet for as much as upon many occasions great use has been made as I have said before of the above objections though as often cleerly and throughly solved as made against the Remonstrance of 61. and that in this other of 66. the contrivers and promoters of it have intirely omitted that passage both as to the words and sense and I mean that sense which they themselves conceive or certainly would have others conceive of purpose to render that passage and by and for it the whole foresaid Remonstrance of 61. odious and scandalous and for as much also as from persons so principled in that point of Clergie mens exemption there can be no assurance to the King by general words and notions or by such too too general acknowledgements protestations declarations and promises of any real true and significant subjection intended or promised by them but such only as leaves them alwayes at liberty that is free from the supream temporal Coercive power of the King and his laws and leaves them not so much as under an inward obligation of sin to conform outwardly or submit as much as to the direction or directive part virtue or power of any kind of Temporal or civil Magistrat or laws but only under such an unsignificant obligation as these words ex aequo et bono import and for as much further as until they declare sufficiently that is cleerly expresly and particularly against this dangerous false and scandalous doctrine it must in reason be to no purpose for them to offer or for His Majestie to receive any kind of Protestation of Allegiance from them therefore I found this alteration and omission of the said two lines nothing equivalent as to that sense how injuriously or invidiously soever conceived by them being in their own Remonstrance given in lieu thereof I say I found that change a most material exception and if not a greater at least as great as any of all the former Leaving to the judicious Reader to be considered soberly and coolely what according to such doctrine of the exemption or immunity of Clergy-men signifies any word acknowledgment protestation declaration or promise as from such Clergy-men in their Remonstrance even in case there had been no other Exception to it What those words which are their very first beginning of it We your Majesties Subjects the Roman Catholtck Clergy of Ireland c Or whether from such men so principled in this matter these words must be construed or understood to import any more then that they profess themselves verbally not really equivocally not univocally Subjects Or do not they withal and at the same time perswade themselves and stiffely maintain that however in word they complement yet in deed they are not Subjects either in soul or body not even in any kind of case to any civil or temporal power or law on earth as barely such Or doth the Kings Majesty pretend his own to be other then barely and only such that is temporal and civil And so I conclude all my four Instances Which especially the second and fourth or this last I confess might be comprized in a fewer Lines But I chose this method of purpose to make the weaker sort of capacities to understand at large the causes of dissatisfaction my Lord Lieutenant and Council have in this Remonstrance of the foresaid late Assembly how specious soever it may appear at first reading to such as are not throughly acquainted with the intrigues And now to those Instances and Exceptions will only add in brief two Observations more Which especially the first of them confirm evidently enough to any indifferent man that is not a fool how little how weak and frail and false the assurance is the King can derive from such a Remonstrance of such men and in such a country and time as this First Observation That upon the sole account of their express refusal on the contradictory publick debate in the Assembly to petition his Majesty as you have seen at large in the Narrative whlch goes before the Exceptions for pardon of those crimes or offences chargable on them as committed by them or any of them or any else of the Irish Clergie by reason or occasion of the first Insurrection 23. Octob. in 41. or of the after conjunction of the rest of the Irish Catholicks the same or following year in a social war with the first Insurrectors or by reason or occasion in particular of the Clergies general Congregation at Waterford under the Nuncios Authority and their Declaration therein and those other actings afterwards in pursuance thereof in the next general Assembly of the three Estates in Kilkenny against the peace of 46. or of the total breach and publick rejection of it in all parts of the Kingdom or by reason or occasion also of the Declarations of the Bishops at Jamesstown against the second Peace or that which followed in 48. and of the consequent breaches thereof by so many other persons and parties and in so many other Provinces and Counties of the Kingdom I say that upon the sole account of
proper to Him or indeed by any word or words sufficiently as from them comprehending Him Third Exception That by their form of Recognition in this Remonstrance they do not positively or absolutely but at most and at best relatively conditionally and modally acknowledge Charles the Second to be their true and lawful King supream Lord and undoubted Soveraign of Ireland Fourth Exception That neither according to this relative conditional or modal recognition of this Remonstrance it acknowledges Charles the Second to be rightful King of Ireland which yet the former did but this latter not leaving so the Subscribers elbow-room to play fast and loose with their distinctions and say they so acknowledge Him King of Ireland de facto only or only at most by that presumptive right which is from humane Laws in force not by that which is the true right only and is only derived from the Laws of God or Nature or Canons of the Church Fifth Exception That by the title of supream Lord in this Remonstrance as from that Congregation must not be understood a Supremacy of Lordship not subordinat in Temporals to the pretended both temporal and spiritual supream Lord of the whole Earth or at least of the whole Christian Earth Nor which is the same thing a Supremacy of independence in Temporals at least in all cases from any but God alone But only such a a Supremacy in Temporals as ordinarily excludes Subordination in power to or dependence in such from any of his own People or even from altogether in most cases and in ordinary cases also from the Pope or Church though not from the Church Pope or People in some extraordinary contingencies Sixth Exception That consequently the profession of their being His Majesties Subjects made here by the Congregation signifies no more but a subjection answerable to such a Lordship and such a Kingship And yet further such subjection as obliges them not to acknowledge themselves thereby or by the Laws of God or canons of the Church bound under pain of sin to obey Him or by such laws or canons bound under any pain to obey Him as much as other Subjects ought or as much as the Laws of the Land or humane rules of Government in this Kingdom require at their hands Seventh Exception That as from them it doth not bind them not to acknowledge and assert alwayes what they or any of them at any time hitherto have contended for or do contend or at least pretend that they contend for even at this present their divine or celestial their extraordinary and casual as well positive as negative supream temporal power or pretended power of the Pope over in or to the kingdoms of Ireland England c. as well as over all other Kingdoms Empires States and as well and as truly and properly over their Temporals as over Spirituals at least ratione peccati or in ordine ad spiritualia Eighth Exception That as from them it does not sufficiently exclude dis-acknowledge or disown the Popes even meer humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right by Donation Submission Prescription Peter-peace Feudatary title given or Forfeiture made c. to the temporal Supremacy or supream temporal King-ship Lord-ship or supream power of Goverment ship of England Ireland c. in some cases as being in such cases legally devolved to him and by him to be disposed of at his pleasure to whom he will Ninth Exception That as from them it no way binds them or any else to disown the Popes pretended lawful power either divine or humane for dethroning deposing or depriving the King or binds them any way to dis-allow of the pretended just and lawful execution if any should happen of such power or pretended power by Excommunication and actual denunciation of such Censure and of all the penalties annexed by Papal constitutions or by other sentence or declaration or by any other means whatsoever Nor as from them binds them or any other not to obey the Pope in such matters and disobey the King Nay nor both to disown him as a King and fight against him as a Tyrant and as a Tyrant too as well by title as by administration according to the doctrine of Suarez Def. Fidei Cath. L. 6. C. 4. de formâ Juram Tenth Exception That as from them and pursuant to their meaning by the title or word Supream it professes not against that other seditious doctrine of a pretended natural and inherent right or power in the people themselves not as a Church of Christ but as a natural temporal politick and civil society of men to dethrone or depose the King by virtue thereof when or if they shall on rational grounds or grounds seeming such to themselves judge it necessary for their own preservation or doing themselves right where they think themselves oppressed and the complaints are general A power indeed were it true as the Authors of this doctrine pretend it to be the only supream or that is only and simply and properly such or at least is more truly and properly such then that attributed by this Remonstrance to the King though not according to Bellarmine and those of his way to be compared at all to that of the Pope which alwaies must be the superlatively supream over all Eleventh Exception That as from them it binds them not nor any other not to approve of the practice of that wicked maxime which avers it lawful in some case for Subjects to murther or to kill not only their Prince of a different Religion from theirs but even their Prince of the same true Catholick Religion with them Twelfth Exception That as from them it doth not bind them to acknowledge the Kings either Coercive or directive power of themselves Or That they or any other Clergy-men are bound under pain of sin to submit by a passive obedience to the coercion or by an active obedience conform to the direction of any meer Lay Magistrate or Prince how supream or rightful soever or of his Laws not even in things otherwise indifferent or not prohibited by the Laws of God nor even in things not prohibited by the Canons of the Church if not peradventure to such Lay-Princes only and such laws of theirs if there be indeed any such as are particularly and specially priviledged by the Pope And consequently does not bind them to condemn or disown that most wickedly dangerous Aphorisme attributed to Emanuel Sa in some of his Editions but certainly necessarily and evidently derived from Bellarmine and Suarez c. That in relation to any meer Lay-Prince or King or State Clergy-men cannot be said in any case whatsoever to be guilty of high Treason or of that horrid crime of Laesae Majestatis or of defying denying or lessening Majesty Thirteenth Exception That in case the Pope should declare this Remonstrance of theirs to be uncatholick or unlawful or any way unsafe in point of conscience as to those very small inconsiderable acknowledgments or promises
that We know what Innocent the Tenth and his Congregation have decreed against the three Negative propositions of the Catholicks of England We know moreover the brief of Paul the Fifth against the Oath of Allegiance Finally we know many other decrees and Canons made by several former Popes against all kind of Oathes and obligations of Allegiance to Schismaticks Hereticks or excommunicated Princes and even I say to all such as they deem such whether they be such or no indeed I could add that we know also what the Doctrine or Maximes of the Court of Rome is in particular concerning Clergie-mens exemption from the secular power and how they hold it unlawful for such men to Swear any Allegiance contrary to their own Canons or their own interpretation of the Canons And yet the Congregation would make the world believe they have by those their three additional propositions supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance But let fooles and ignorant persons believe them I am sure no wise man acquainted with the business will No nor would be induced to think that although they had come throughly home in express words as they did not at all nor any way neer and came home so as to all particulars and to the very points both in their Remonstrance and propositions added yet that only denying at the same time and with so little reason and so much passion preoccupation and obstinacy to sign those other three of Sorbon applyed to His Majesty and themselves in the case would be argument enough to evict even from themselves a confession of this certain truth that they were obstinatly resolved to give no real assurance to His Majesty of their future obedience or faith to him either by their Remonstrance or propositions or both or any other sufficient manner and that accordingly they gave none The third argument is ab intrinseco properly or from and grounded on the significancy or rather unsignificancy of the very propositions in themselves as such and without relation to the two former arguments which are though otherwise convincing enough derived from and grounded on circumstances more extrinsecal It is from the bare words and sense or meaning the leading persons or chief Divines of the congregation have conceive or would or intend only to express by these words It is from and on their distinctions of and specifical exceptions from the too too great generality of what the words may to some import though not to others And in a word it is further derived from and grounded on their abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations in these very three propositions no less then in their Remonstrance Albeit they would impose on such as they thought fit and whilst they thought it fit that by these additional propositions they supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance as at the same time they would let others know and shew them cleerly too they signified nothing at all as to the points controverted that is signified nothing or brought no obligation on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free by force of Arms to maintain any quarrel or cause against him Which to evince I will here again repeat the propositions or declarations as they are subscribed by them 1. Wee the undernamed 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 yea we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in civil and temporal affairs 2. That it is our Doctrin that our Gracious King Charles the Second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil or temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be our constant Doctrine from which we shall never recede 3. That it is our Doctrine that we Subjects owe so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can ever dispense with or free us of the same Now to pass by that Negative manner of expression in the former part of their first proposition and how unsignificant such must be from them who sees not their obvious equivocation in these words It is not our Doctrine on such as they list they will thereby impose and to others they tell that it is not indeed their Doctrine but the Doctrine of so many great and holy Pontiffs of the See of Rome and very expresly too and in many instances these five or six hundred years the Doctrine of Gregories the Seventh and Ninth and of Pascehals and Urbans and Innocents and of Boniface the Eight even in that publick extravagant Vnam Sanctam inserted in the body of the Canon law and of Sixtus's and Pius's yea and of Alexander the Seventh that now governs that See the Doctrine of all their Courts for so many ages and of so many Bishops Cardinals and other Prelats and Doctors of Nuncius's Internuncius's and other Ministers and messengers of Popes that in several Countries and in several occasions taught and maintained it by word and writing amongst whom as Bellarmine and Baronius and Peron and Lessius and Becan and Gretzer Fitzherbert Weston and Parsons have in their own dayes after those Seventy two other writers whom Bellarmine quotes against Barclay some sixty years agoe been very eminent so in ours and very lately nay and continually too any time these four years past Cardinal Francis Barberine at Rome and the two immediatly succeeding Internuncius's at Bruxels De Vecohys and Rospigliosi and the Divines of Lovayn have shewed themselves no less vehement by censuring as much as in them the protestation of 61. of the Catholick Bishop of Dromore of Fa. Peter Walsh and other Irish Divines and after them of others the Nobility and Gentry of that Nation So that our Gentlemen of the Congregation of 66. will by this gloss or explication of their word Our where they say it is not our Doctrine or by that equivocation or distinction elude at pleasure this Declaration as to any honest meaning They will say they have declared it is not our Doctrine that is It is not a Doctrine whereof we are the Authors or it is not a Doctrine proper particular and peculiar to us alone or which only we do teach or maintain or which we have broached or set on foot And will say nevertheless nay rather the more that for as much as it is the Doctrine of so many great men nay and of so many great and Holy Bishops of Rome at least these full six hundred years and that expresly and clearly too even in their very Canons it is consequently the Doctrine of the Church for they account the Pope and Church the same thing And therefore must not be disavowed or opposed by the faithful when there is occasion to follow or practice it So that they will say that in one sense they may
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
in question it was I say to avoid the grossness and odiousness and the danger withal of the consequences of that third explication or gloss in this second part they chose rather to have their more ordinary recourse to the two former and yet more plausibly to the second than first And indeed the said Father N. N. who as I have told in my Narrative was the chief man at first to offer to my self and draw the Congregation to a Subscription of them though not for any real end that might be to assure the King of their Loyaltie but for that only in my Narrative expressed and for no other besides but for a meer blindation and though after his first heat and upon a more serious reflection he was the chief man also to keep them back from subscribing the last three of those six of Sorbon I say the said wel-spoken Father when I dealed with him freely and to make himself to my self in plain tearms declare his own distinctions and evasions when I asked him familiarly how could he that was so great a stickler for Bellarmine and so great an opposer of the Remonstrance of 61. where it was against Bellarmine how could he holding still to that stickling and opposition subscribe that clause or second part of the first proposition so plainly or seemingly against Bellarmin's Doctrine of the indirect power Or how consequently would he choose rather to subscribe those propositions of Sorbon applyed to our King than the said Remonstrance of 61 or would he indeed by the promise in the first proposition to oppose the assertors of even the indirect power have it understood that he promised so in case of Excommunication Deposition Deprivation issued or pronounced by the Pope for the crimes of Apostacy Heresie Schisme tyrannical administration publick oppression of the people c when I put these queries to the said Reverend and both eloquent and learned Gentleman of the Society his answer was plain and positive That as the propositions reached not descended not expressed not such cases so the Congregation would not subscribe them as comprehending any such himself would not the words imported no such meaning And therefore he excepted alwayes those cases And questionless his meaning was as I know his principles are that the Pope alone is the only Judge of those cases that is can determine whether and when the King is or shall be guilty of Apostacy Heresie Schisme tyrannical administration publick oppression of the people or finally of any other hainous crime which may merit Excommunication or Denunciation and what is consequent deprivation deposition c. And yet notwithstanding all this Father N. N. would subscribe and hath subscribed that he shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over the King in civil and temporal affairs And yet maintains as all the rest do this subscription is not any way prejudicial to that explication of his and of theirs all in general The fourth and last explication of this second part of the said first proposition is both of the learned and unlearned of those Gentlemen of the Congregation and of their adherents or beleivers That indeed the promise must be understood with this tacit condition virtually implyed or supposed to be implyed in or annexed to all kind of lawful promises provided it appear not to us hereafter that the Pope hath already declared or shall at any time henceforth declare this our promise to be unlawful unconscionable or against the safety of our Soules or which is the same thing to be of a matter unlawful of it self to be promised or of a thing which either in it self or by consequence is against the sinceritie of Catholick Faith and Religion For say they it must be supposed alwayes and by all men that we will submit and conform to such a declaration being we have on the contradictory question expresly refused to disown the Popes infallibility Behold here four several expositions given by themselves that is by their chiefest Divines of each of both parts of this first proposition Expositions questionless even each or every of them able to evict from any man this confession that for neither of both parts nor both together this first proposition adds any thing to their Remonstrance or gives the King in the cases doubted any more assurance of their Loyaltie than their unsignificant acknowledgments declarations promises engagements oathes in the said Remonstrance do That is even just nothing at all No kind of obligation thereby on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free to maintain by force of Arms any quarrel or cause against his Majestie And for as much as their next which is their second proposition in order is liable to the very self same or the like expositions to the very self same exceptions reservations equivocations and even distinctions of the reduplicative and specificative sense and that it hath not a word able or significant enough I mean in this age and amongst Sophisters to obstruct these evasions learn'd at last in the later and worser ages of the Church from a few deceiptful or deceived Schoolmen and for as much as Father N. N. and the other chief Divines of the Congregation those interpreters of their mind and sense do in very deed and self same way and no other to whom and where and when they think fit expound the second also and for as much as though they declare positively in this second It is their doctrine that our gracious King Charles the second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil and temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be their constant doctrine from which they shall never recede yet they understand first those three words our gracious King and every of them in a reduplicative sense only not in the specificative that is while he is suffered to be King and is theirs and gracious withal unto them or until he be deprived or deposed by the Popes sentence or otherwise or even cease to be any more truly our King by the very nature of his pretended misgovernment and secondly understand by that clause nor hath in civil and temporal affairs any power above him under God I say they understand in that clause by the word power an ordinary power only not that extraordinary power which as before they still reserved to the Pope in those extraordinary cases of Apostacie Heresie c. and when they please too a power meerly and solely temporal such as never is the ordinary power which they attribute the Pope over Kings and thirdly tell us on those other words under God that the power of the Pope is the same which God hath and fourthly where in the end of the said proposition they declare that to witt the former parts of the same proposition to be their constant doctrine from which they shall never recede expound their
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
this Kingdom and in that particular too that the Pope could not depose Bishops in Ireland against the same Canons for that their third allegation I say it appears already out of all hiterto said to be even as to both branches of this fourth proposition or in relation to the said branches more than positively more than abundantly false especially if we understand by the Kings authority rights c. what honest men without Sophistry understand For if we do not the allegation must be to no purpose though it should relate only to the first branch as appears manifestly out of what is before said to their first and second allegation And for the second branch or part of the said fourth proposition they have not as much as any kind of colour to say that in their Remonstrance or three first Propositions they have as much as glanced at it Which the Reader may see with his own eyes and of himself without any further proof of mine conclude evidently by comparing together this fourth Proposition and their said three former Propositions and Remonstrance What ground then had they for this third Sophistical allegation of a more positiveness I confess that notwithstanding I have read and read again ten times over and over their said Remonstrance and three Propositions signed by them and compared both to this fourth I see none at all but that very vnsignificant and sorry one which is by a little inconsiderable change of the first Proposition which the Congregation was absolutly necessitated unto if they would not be convinced by every Soul that knew their former actions of a manifest untruth and lye For the first Proposition of Sorbone declaring in the second part that the said Faculty had always or at all times thitherto resisted or opposed even such as attributed to the Pope as much as an indirect authority or an indirect authority alone over the temporals of the most Christian King it is manifest our Congregation could not imitate Sorbone as to that part or I mean for what concerned the time past or could not have said as those of that Faculty did in these words immo semper obstitisse Pacultatem eriant ijs qui indirectam tantummodo voluerunt esse illum authoritatem Which was the reason that forced them to change the Precerpâ—â— perfect tense of the infinitive moode which tense the Sorbonists did and justy could make use of as they framed that first Proposition and change it to the future tense of the Indicative moode and put it into this form we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in Civil and temporal affairs Now what more positiveness hath this of the future tense argued I would fain know of any man And other argument than this sorry though necessary change I see none if not peradventure the words natural and just added to obedience in the third Proposition Epithets not made use of here by Sorbone be not thought by Father N. N. to be arguments of more positiveness But if he do and shew himself herein less than a Sophister every understanding man can tell him presently that where Sorbone sayes and declares in the said third Proposition their doctrine to be quod Subditi fidem et obedientiam Regi Chriâ—â—tae nissim it a debent ut ab ijs nullo praetextu dispensari possint it was needless to add those or any other Epithets to that faith and obedience which they profess there to be so due from his own Subjects to the most Christian King that under no pretext soever they may be dispensed with therein For certainly every man knowes there is no faith or obedience due from them to him but natural and just as neither can be from us to our own King So that albeit those Epithets be good yet they and nothing to the French proposition much less more positiveness in the declaration And whither the word faith which the Sorboniâ—â— have in this their third Proposition and yet is omitted in the same by our Congregation whither purposely or not I know not certainly do argue a less positiveness of less â—ye or obligation I leave it to others to determine Having done with their second Paragraph we are now come to their third Which I give likewise at length and in then own words As to the 5th they mean the 5th Sorbone Proposition as here in terminis that it is noe the doctrine of the Faculty but applied to the Congregation That it is not our doctrine that the Pope is above the general Couneâ— We thought it likewise not material to our affaire to talke of a School-question of Divinity controverted in all Catholick Vniversities of the world whether the Pope be above general Councils or no whether he can annul the Acts of a general Council or no dissolve the general Council or whither contrary-wise the Council can depose the Pope c. Secondly we conceive it not onely impertinent but dangerous in its consequence and unseasonable to talke of a question which without any profit either to the King or his Subjects may breed jealousy between the King and his Subjects or may give the least overture to such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late sad experience hath taught us Where I observe two Specifical reasons and no more given by them for the applicableness to their present purpose here of their above first general pretence The first is that whether the Pope be above a general Council or no is disputed in all Catholick Vniversities The second that their subscription to the fifth Proposition of Paris or to their resolve on this question would give others to understand it must consequently follow it is not their doctrine that the King is above the Parliament It seems they were put to very narrow shifts when they stuffed their Paper with such weak arguments But the illness of the cause afforded them no better and their resolution not to subscibe having been so unalterable as it was they must have pretended the most specious they could not certainly out of any hope to render by such pretences their obstinacie excusable with any judicious knowing men much less to impose on the Lord Lieutenant for whose immediat satisfaction they would have others believe these reasons and arguments were so digested but for a quite other design which was to abuse the multitude or vulgar by pretences of reasons and arguments whereof the common People could not understand the weakness whom therefore I have thought paines-worthy to disabuse by these following answers And first to their first argument which sayeth it is disputed in all Catholick Vniversities whether the Pope be above a general Council or not and therefore concludes the immaterialness and impertinency of their subscription to that 5th of Paris or to this It is not our doctrine that the Pope is above a general Council it is answered That those of
all ignorance malice and other preoccupation whatsoever nay and from their subscription too the Fathers will find it a very hard taske to shew I say not impertinency for this I am sure they can not after what is said before with any colour insist on any longer but any such danger in the consequence of this Proposition It is not our doctrine that the Pope is above a general Council or of this simply The Pope is not above a general Council or of this other as simple which yet is the same in effect A general Council is above the Pope That such Divines of either Greek or Latin Church either Catholick or not as affirm the Papacie or Papal authority as such or as allowed either by those Canons which in opposition to others or by way of excellency are commonly stiled Canones Vniversalis Ecclesiae or as approved even by those other Canons which are properly and onely Papal Canons and are those of the Western-Church whether all or how many of them received generally in the Western-Church or not it matters not at this time that such Divines I say of either Church Greek or Latin as affirm this Papal authority over all other Churches in the world to be onely at the utmost and immediatly such by ecclesiastical and human institution of the Church not by any of Christ otherwise then by his approbation and ratification above in Heaven of what the Church long after his Ascension had here on earth ordained will find no kind of difficulty to shew the inconsequence of the Parliament's being above the King if a general Council be above the Pope First Because the power of a general Council truely such representing the Catholick diffusive Church is by all sides confessed to be originally and immediatly de jure divino or by the immediat institution of Iesus Christ himself whether in that passage of the Gospel dic Ecclesiae or in some other Secondly Because this power is unalterable undiminishable unsubjectable even by the Council it self to any other without a new revealed command from God himself which hath not been hitherto And therefore and out of that very passage of Mathew Dic Ecclesiae must be above the Pope being the Pope can not deny himself to be one of the faithful brethren and being all faithful brethren without exception of any are commanded by Christ himself in that passage of Mathew to be under pain of Excommunication obedient to the sentence of the Church in case they be accused or charged with any guilt before it Thirdly Because on the other side the power of Parliaments is by them not onely denied to be originally or immediatly either jure divino or humano over all persons whatsoever of the respective hereditary Kingdoms if we include the Prince amongst such persons but as such denied also to have been as much as in after times introduced by any allowance or Custom approved either by God or man Prince or people themselves Fourthly Because the very same divines assert constantly the power of supream or soveraign temporal Princes or Kings at least hereditary such as our King is and of which consequently the present dispute is to be jure divino or to be given them from God himself immediatly not from or by the people Or if these divines or any of them allow it has been originally and immediatly from the people at first even as from an efficient cause yet withal maintain that the people also did originally and immediatly so transferr the whole supream power from themselves even in all contingencies whatsoever that it must be ever after irrevocable by them Alleaging for proof that the Scriptures are so clear for the Subjection and obedience of the people even to had tyrannical Kings and not for fear alone but for conscience And further alleaging that there is no tribunal of the people and consequently there is no Parliament appointed by the law of God as neither by the laws of man or nature not even in the most extraordinary cases against their Prince or against any other offending besides that erected by the Princes power Whereunto certainly he never subjects himself so as to give the people or Parliament a supream power above his ownself or a power of superiority or jurisdiction over himself and coercion of himself though he some times bind himself and limit in some cases his own power but by his own power and will alone not by any inherent in the people And who sees not in this doctrine the great and cleer and evident inconsequence of this argument The Pope is not above a general Council Therefore the King is 〈◊〉 above his Parliament Or therefore whoever subscribes that antecedent gives an overture to those late horrid disputes Would not these divines rationally say upon their own grounds this were not to argue à simili but à dissimili Would not they tell you presently what the six hundred Catholick Bishops convened in the 4th general Council that of Calcedon I mean declared in their 27th Canon albeit some great and even holy Bishops of Rome complained of it grieviously that it was the Fathers that gave the priviledges to the Bishop of ancient Rome and that it was therefore they gave such priviledges to him because ancient Rome was then the Seat of the Empire That by consequence the Papacie and power thereof as such must be acknowledged to be as instituted by the Church onely at first so till the last to be dependent subordinate and under the power of the same Church because this power of the Church is for ever unchangeable while the world continues as having been given to it by Christ himself when upon earth And therefore the Pope cannot be above but under a general Council being it is either of all sides confessed the whole power of the Church is in a general Council truely such of it must be so at least in their grounds whether any els confess or oppose it And would not they further tell you the case is quite contrary in that of King and Parliament That first there is no such thing by divine immediate institution or by that of Christ or God immediatly as a Parliament or a power thereof That neither by the mediat institution of God that is by the laws of man there is any such thing or power at least in hereditary Kingdoms which may stand in opposition to the power of Kings Nor any at all in or without such opposition but what they derive originally immediatly and solely from the pleasure of Kings at least and as I mean still in hereditary Kingdoms That secondly or in the next place the power of Kings at least hereditary Soveraign and Supream is immediatly originally and onely from God himself Or if at first any way from the people yet so from them that after their institution translation and submission hoc ipso they must be so absolute and independent that they do not acknowledge nor any way have
my Lord Lieutenant would challenge the Congregation or Clergie and mind them of their said publick Remonstrance declarations oathes and ingagements and with this very passage I consider now and consequently require obedience in those very cases defined so by the Pope Father N. N. and his associats needed not according to their principles be put to any streight for answer but presently and consequently to his and their said principles and proceedings all along even in that very Congregation and notwithstanding this very present intimation declaration reason resolution or evasion rather and illusion but call it what you please would confess they said indeed amongst other things in their paper of reasons that they should not hold the Popes infallibility if he did define any thing against the obedience they owe to their Prince but nevertheless would say withal they declared not what obedience is due when or wherein Or that any obedience is due when the Prince is at least nominatim declared an Heretick or excommunicat by the Pope Much less when he is by the Pope or by the people or by the sentence of either deposed or as much as suspended from administration for his ill government And since it is manifest if they will not contradict their own principles and proceedings all along which yet they have refused to do that such would be their exposition in such a case of this passage here in their paper of reasons what prudent knowing man in the world sees not they say nothing at all by this imposture against that which they do and must intend to speak against thereby if they intend any thing consequently nothing against the necessariness nothing for the unnecessariness of subscribing the 6th proposition or declaration against the Popes infallibility nothing to our purpose here against even a limited infallibility in him or against his infallibility as relating to their obedience due to the Prince and I mean also that obedience onely which is payed the Prince in temporal things alone or in such due unto him but so due notwithstanding as the Prince himself and his laws for such temporal things and all honest people too understand it due without abstraction exception restriction distinction equivocation or mental reservation for this inconsequence is cleer and manifest out of the very tearms We let all prudent men know that we should not hold the Popes infallibility if he should define any thing against the obedience we owe to our Prince in some cases or some things before he be by the Pope declared nominatim an Heretick an Excommunicat a Tirant an Usurper c or before he be either by Pope or people or by the sentence of either deposed or suspended Therefore its needless or not to the present purpose here that we disown or subscribe against his infallibility when or if he defines and as much as he defines it to be of Catholick faith that in such other cases as those of Apostacie Heresie Schisme Tyranny Usurpation Excommunication deposition suspension we owe in temporal things no obedience to such a Prince And yet this is all that Father N. N. sayes and means here if he say and mean truely so much as I am inclined to perswade my self he doth though I know withal he may be yet questioned for his meaning in these words our Prince as likewise what he really intends by the word should where he sayes we should not hold c. Thirdly That it implyes again a manifest contradiction to hold the Pope infallible in defining all matters controverted whither they be of the Catholick faith or no and yet not to hold his infallibility in defining this question whether Subjects in our condition and of our communion under such a Prince be bound to obey him in temporal things in such and such cases For this very question is mightily controverted even by Catholick Divines on both sides and hath been ever since Gregorie the 7th Fourthly That if Father N. N. his meaning here be grounded on these two suppositions first That by the law of God there is some obedience we owe to our Prince secondly That it is impossible the Pope should define any thing against the law of God and if Father N. N. will say consequently It was therefore the Congregation might have declared they should not hold the Pope's infallibility if he did define c. because they held it absolutly impossible the Pope would so define or define any thing against the obedience they owe their Prince and withal held it lawful for themselves in case of one impossibility supposed by others to resolve themselves conditionally on another as impossible as that quia ex vno impossibili sequitur aliud yet Father N. N. will find himself in this way too contradict his own and the Congregations principles videlicet such principles as he and they follow taken out of Bellarmine and other authors of his way as well in point of the doctrine of the Popes infallibility in general as of his power in particular not onely to depose Princes in such and such cases but to exempt all Clergie-men from owing any obedience at all or in any kind of case to any other Prince but himself alone And therefore further N. N. must not be thought to have said any thing here to any real purpose until he and the Congregation plainly renounce those principles which yet they have not For as in those principles or maxims the former supposition is false at least as relating to the Congregation or to any Clergie-men so it will be answered that granting the second yet according to the doctrine of the Popes infallibility both he and the Congregation and all others too must acquiesce in the Popes exposition or declaration of the law of God and beleive hereafter though against their own former dictates that this or that whatever it be is not against the law of God when or if the Pope declares it is not As according to their further doctrine of the Popes power of the Keyes for binding and loosing or of dispensing they must also believe that in case the Pope himself had declared that before his exemption or dispensation they owed obedience to the temporal Prince in some cases according to the law of God yet if his Holyness once exempt their persons as he hath already or dispense with them or with their obedience in those very cases wherein we now supposed he had formerly declared them bound by the law of God to obedience as he pretends he may nay and often too hath already in the like they owe no further any For so the Glossator avowed by the Rota Romana sayes that the Pope may dispense against the Apostle against the old Testament against the 4. Evangelist's against the law of God Gloss in canon lector dist 39. et in cap. Proposuit de concess Prebend in canon a nobis in verb. Exemptis de decimis And so sayes Bellarmine lib. 4. de Roman Pontifice cap. 5. that
religious or civil or both and by all right reason it is to be condemned in all temporal Kingdoms or Common-wealth where the civil laws of the land declare and provide against it as Treason or Rebellion 6. We hold it uncatholick false and scandalous doctrine which teacheth that Apostacy Schisme Heresie or any kind of sin or sins how grievous soever or any Excommunication or other Ecclesiastical censures of the Church of Christ how ever denounced can or do of their own nature as they abstract from the civil power and laws of the civil Magistrate or of the respective Kingdoms and Sâ—ates deprive any person whatsoever Prince or Subject of any of their temporal rights or Dominions or warrant any other to take away their life or any way annoy them in their persons or goods 7. We hold it manifestly impious unchristian and against the word of God to averr that a King lawfully such by title may upon any pretence whatsoever even of Schisme or Heresie or also of tirannical administration either in civil or religious matters or both be murthered or killed by any of his Subjects even in case the Pope alone or joyntly with other spiritual or temporal superiours of the Church should licence or pretend to licence it either by a publick or private or pretended sentence of Excommunication Deposition or Deprivation 8. The doctrine which teacheth that a King lawfully such by title and possession is no more King after he is deprived or deposed by the Popes sentence upon any pretence whatsoever and consequently teacheth by a vain and wicked distinction that who killeth him after such sentence killeth not a King but a private man or a publick and tirannical Usurper is false dangerous and intollerable amongst Christians 9. Notwithstanding the allegations of some for the general exemption of Clergie men by divine or human laws or both from the secular power We hold that all both Secular and Regular Clergie men whatsoever born and residing within any of His Majesties Dominions are by the law of God subject to His Majesties supream temporal both directive and coercive power as to that of their onely supream temporal Lord on earth from which none can justly pretend any exemption either divine or human other than what by the allowance favour and indulgence of the supream Magistrate and laws of the land are in force and use however they may have a right to be exempted in some cases from the temporal jurisdiction of inferiour Judicatures 10. Subjects professing declaring or subscribing any conscientious Oath Instrument Form or paper of their Allegiance and fidelity to their Prince in temporal affairs cannot in conscience make use of the doctrine of equivocation whereby they may be said to have a reserved sense in their words or mind not obvious or not conceived generally by others that intend no deceit 11. Nor can they in conscience then or at any time after make use of that other new doctrine of some Casuists or Probablists as they are called which teacheth the lawfulness of changing opinions and practices thence consequent at pleasure or as oft as you will even in matters of conscience and which teacheth consequently the lawfulness of following the opinion of others in those you judge less safe and less probable and following them even against your own fixed judgement and practising accordingly For to extend this doctrine of such Casuists that least the cases of either publick or private contracts much more or much less or any way at all â—o that of a publick or even private profession of allegiance to the Prince were nothing else but to teach perjury deceit and perfidiousness and to take away all faith and truth and safety from the world even from all kind of society of men Wherefore notwithstanding any controversie about the lawfullness of any form professing allegiance to the Prince and notwithstanding some peradventure may be who may say and even upon probable grounds either extrinsecal or even intrinsecal the said form to be unlawful that is unconscionable yet if it be not evidently such but on the contrary probably lawful it must ever hind him that taketh sweareth or subscribeth to it so that he may not at any time ever made in practice follow the contrary opinion notwithstanding any multitude or authority of its Patrons less than that of the Catholick Church 12. After mature perusal examination and discussion of the Remonstrance or Protestation of Loyalty subscribed in ouâ— at London by the Catholick Bishop of Dromore Father Peter Walsts and other Divines and by the Catholick Irish Nobility and Gentry then likewise there as also by others after both of the Clergy and Lavity here at 〈◊〉 in Ireland We find and we declare this to be our opinion judgment and conscience That notwithstanding the censure of those few Divines of the Lovaine-Faculty a censure some three years since and very imprudently too by the Agency Solicitation and Importunity of some of our Countrey-men procured and notwithstanding the Letters now of late or even those formerly sent to this Nation as from and in the name of Cardinal Francis Barbaâ—â—â— from Rome or those others from Bruxels and from the two succeeding Interâ—â—â—iuâ—'s there Hieronimus de Vâ—cchiis and Iacobus Rosâ—â—gliâ—sâ— and notwithstanding any other allegations whatsoever against the said Remonstrance or Protestation yet there is nothing in the said humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition that may justly be repâ—ted against the Catholick Faith nothing that may not be owned and subscribed with a safe conscience by every good Catholick Subject and consequently nothing that under the guilt of sacriledge or other sin ought or can at any time hereafter be disowned by such as have already or shall hereafter subscribe that Instrument And we further declare it to be our opinion judgment and conscience That for many reasons and specially for that of avoiding the imputation and scandal of our Adversaries that the Roman Catholick Tenets are inconsistent with the loyalty of Subjects due unto Protestant Kings and consequently of a disloyal inconstancy to be brought on themselves and the Catholick Religion they are bound under the heavy guilt of a sacrilegious breach of that Protestation not only not to revoke at any time for fear favour or any other respect their subscriptions but also not to decline in any wise in whole or in part the doctrine of that Protestation or the practice of it in relation to His Majesty according to the true sincere and plain meaning of the words without any kind of equivocation abstraction exception distinction or mental reservation And to the end it may appear to all the world we neither have nor will nor can have any kind of reserve we thought fit to declare our selves fully even on all the six late propositions of Sorbon as applyable to his Majesty of Great Brittain and Ireland our gracious King and to his Subjects And therefore and being we have already in the eight first
think the adhering to such Agreements were a sin Landorpius 1598. And though at the commencement of the Peace 'twixt Matthias Caesar and the Protestants there was some opposition at first made by Melinus the Nuncio Apostolick and by the Bishop of Vienna yet publish'd they no Excommunication nor other Censures which notwithstanding they should if none could in Conscience adhere to a Peace giving so much power and liberty to Protestants Whereas therefore the Supreme Council and Confederate Catholicks have in a miserable condition articled more honourably and securely for the Faith even in a Cessation than Caesars and Monarchs who commanded Mines of Gold and had vast Armies at their beck have done concluding either Cessations or Peace and whereas great utility arising thence to the Catholick cause besides the extream necessity of the affairs of the Kingdom pressed your Honours to it either of which to wit profit or necessity is sufficient to make conscionable a Cessation Peace or League with Hereticks as the Lord Nuncio himself admitteth in some of his Letters to your Lordships and no man of Learning hath ever yet denied nor can deny with reason and whereas likewise the Articles contain nothing evil of its own nature or present circumstances but rather much to the advancement of Religion and Virtue how can the said Cessation for the whole or any part be against Religion unless peradventure we admit a truth of contradictories in point of Cessation and Religion How in it any just ground for Excommunication since this ground is not but where sin is and these Articles are so far from being sinful as no Confederate Catholick can reject the Cessation without mortal sin both that of disobedience against the Supreme Civil power in a civil business of so great weight and of perjury against his Oath which binds him to obey their orders nay nor these who embraced it can without a third mortal sin which is that of breach of fidelity even with Sectaries in a matter of moment and where the object implies no evil Shall they then be excommunicated for not committing so many mortal sins for practising the acts of virtues opposite It is an untollerable Errour to think it Neither do they weaken these our grounds who object the Declaration made by the Lord Nuncio and Congregation against the Cessation and before it was concluded as though it were unlawful after that Declaration which before was conscionable for who sees not but the said Declaration as is manifest in the words of it did presuppose unlawfulness in the nature of that agreement which was then to be made and that therefore it was issued to admonish the people and divert them from it which was in it self thought evil not evil by reason of any protestation or manifestation made thereof by the Clergy who certainly by no means would confess it was their own Declaration that made it unlawful Whence further is consequent That since we have proved it implieth no evil in it self or before the Declaration issued so it cannot by vertue of the Declaration Besides this Declaration was no command and therefore in case the Prelates had a just ground for it could not make that unlawful which before was lawful Moreover it shall appear in our answer to the next Querie That the Cessation concluded was not the same against which the Declaration issued and consequently could not be made unlawful by it Neither likewise is it worth the regarding what is unreasonably objected of two Counties given by the Council and by vertue of this Cessation to Inchiquin namely Waterford and Kierry It is manifest to all Ireland there was nothing left him but far less by two whole Counties than he commanded or had under contribution before this agreement was made For the Confederates have gotten from him the Counties of Limerick and Tipperary both which were wholly over-run at his pleasure and contributed lower Ormond only excepted The Second Querie answered THat by what we hitherto said is proved That your Honours for disannulling the said monitory Excommunication and Interdict needed not at least in foro poli to have made any appeal since they were altogether groundless and hence not only unjust but also invalid even of their own nature and in themselves before any appeal Which briefly may be declared out of the two plain Errors contained in the sentence of these Censures and in the proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and Delegates as we humbly conceive and with reverence to their Lordships One is that in the sentence of Excommunication and Interdict there is relation to the former Articles against which the Declaration was made at first but were after mended with better in their place as we have already touched and yet as if the Cessation had been concluded on such rejected Articles the Censures proceed against it Which is an Error in the substance of the matter prohibited or commanded And consequently disannulling it if there had been no other cause forasmuch as it might be said to concern the Cessation actually now in being The second is an Error properly called intollerable though not juris but facti not patenter expressus according to the phrase of the Law in words but too too evident in effect and in that which the sentence both commands and prohibits which by the consent of Canons (z) c. Venerabilibus §. potest quoque de sentent excom in 6. cap. Per tuas §. Nos igitur ext cod tit Tol. l. 1. c. x. Candidus disq 22. a. 24. de Cens dub 3. ubi citat Sotum in 4. d. 12. q. 1. a. 2. Sua. in tom 5. de Cen disp 4. sect 7. n. 32. Ubi etiam habet quod quando Censura est sic nulla in utroque foro now est necessarjuin petere absolutionem ad cautciam hic etium Heniq l. 13. de excom c. 15. Sayrus l. 1. de Cens cap. 16 c. and Doctors renders the sentence of no force yea in case it were only an intollerable Error of fact specially when it enjoins the commission of sin 'T is That the said Sentence and Censures prohibit in effect and against the Laws of God Fidelity in lawful Promises Religion in Sacred Oaths and Obedience to the Supreme Civil power in matters concerning the Temporal government and of their own nature and by all right depending of Civil Jurisdiction and in which as we have sufficiently manifested in the first Querie no sin is implied That likewise they commanded breach of Faith Perjury and Disobedience yea we may boldly say it as we wofully feel it Sedition and Rebellion against the Kingdom and Confederacy Whence it is manifestly consequent that the Censures were invalid even before the Appeal But in case we admitted these Censures to have been valid until the Appeal or that they would be valid and binding after the ninth day which was the last of the dayes given for admonishment and deliberation if within the term prefixed by the
and for his own Names sake will deliver us Deus Eliae the God of wonders and miracles erit etiam nunc apud Hibernos if our Faith prove strong and our actions sound and sincere We will conclude with St. Paul that Ocean of Wisdom and Doctor of Nations Si Deus pro nobis quis contra nos Quis accusabit adversus electos Dei Deus qui justificat quis est qui condemnat Quis ergo nos separabit a charitate Christi Tribulatio an angustia an fames an nuditas an periculum persecutio an gladius sed in his omnibus superamus propter eum qui dilexit nos Let nothing separate you from the burning charity of Christ and God will ever preserve protect and bless you SIGNED Nicolaus Fernensis Procurator Dubliniensis Fr Antonius Cloanmacnoisensis Walterus Clonfertensis Procurator Laghlinensis Fr Arthurus Dunensis Connorensis Procurator Dromorensis Carolus Kelly S. T. D. Decanus Tuamensis Fr Bernardus Egan Procurator R. admodum P. Provincialis Fratrum Minorum Fr Ricardus O Kelly Procurator Vicarii Generalii Kildariensis Prior Rathbran Ordinis Praedicatorum Lucas Plunket S.T.D. Protonot Apostol Rector Collegii de Kilecu Exercitus Lageniae Capellanus Major Hugo Ardmaghanus Joannes Archiepiscopus Tuamensis Joannes Rapotensis Eugenius Kilmorensis Franciscus Aladensis Fr Gulielmus de Burgo Provincialis Ordinis Praedicatorum Jacobus Abbas de Conga Commissarius Generalis Can. Reg. S. Augustin Walterus Enos S. T. D. Protonotarius Apost Thesaurar Fernensis Procurator Ecclesiae Collegiatae Galviensis Thadaeus Eganus S. T. D. Praepositus Tuamensis Joannes Doulaeus Juris Doctor Abbas de Cilmanagh unus ex Procuratoribus Capitali Cleri Tuamensis And we the undernamed sitting at Galway with the Committee authorized by the Congregation held at Jamestown the 6th of Aug. currentis do concur with the above Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates and Dignitaries in the above Declaration and withal do now make firm the same as an Act of our own by our several Subscriptions this 23d of August 1650. Fr Terentius Imolacensis Jacobus Fallonus Vicarius Apostolicus Accadensis Thomas Casselensis Joannes Laonensis Edmundus Lymericensis Robertus Corcagiensis Cloanensis ANSWER This Conclusion of their Declaration is a general recapitulation of the miseries and desolation fallen upon the Kingdom and People in Tragical and passionate expressions endeavouring to infuse into them a belief that all those Afflictions are thorough Our means fallen upon them whereas We suppose We have made it evident That next to the good pleasure of God to chastise the Nation the reason thereof may most reasonably be attributed to the Sedition Disloyalty Pride Covetousness and Ambition to Rule of these Declarers whom VVe challenge to instance whom VVe have born down that would have fought for them or whom cherished or advanced that would or did betray them And where they say That some are inclining to submit to those they call the Parliament persuading themselves that there can be no safety under Our Government attended by fate and disaster as they express themselves more like Heathen Poets than Christian Bishops and Churchmen it is known to some there That to Our certain knowledge divers persons and places of consideration would have submitted to the Enemy if We had gone rather than live under the Tyranny and confusion of the Government projected by these Declarers which was the principal reason of Our stay as will We fear be too evidently verified when We are gone unless that Assembly prevent it by more prudent temperate and solid determinations than these men are capable of giving or receiving Next they say That for prevention of those evils and that the Kingdom should not be utterly lost to His Majesty and His Catholick Subjects they found themselves bound in Conscience to declare against the continuance of His Majesties Authority in Vs and accordingly in their own Name and in the Name of the rest of the Catholicks of the Kingdom they do declare against the continuance of His Majesties Authority in Vs having by Our misgovernment and ill conduct of the Army and breach of Publick Faith rendred Our Self uncapable of continuing that great Trust any longer To which We answer That to prevent the loss of the Kingdom to His Majesty they take the Kingdom to themselves and without so much as making any address to Him or pretending to have received any direction or Commission from Him they declare to the People that they are no longer obliged to obey any Orders or Commands of the person by Commission authorized from him but until a General Assembly may conveniently be called or until upon application to His Majesty he settle the same elsewhere to observe the form of Government the said Congregation shall prescribe Whereby is to be observed That as they take it upon them when they please and in the highest Temporal affairs in the world to declare the sense of the People without their consent a thing that We have never read or heard was ever till now pretended to by King Pope or Clergy so they evidently assume the power of dissolving and erecting the Temporal Government of the Kingdom And this they say they found themselves bound in Conscience to do Which being a pretence inscrutable and at all times readily to be taken up can only be answered by the Laws of the Land that will not allow the excuse of Conscience for taking a Purse on the Highway or to come home to this matter for Acts of High Treason For the Clause viz. or until upon application to His Majesty he settle the same elsewhere it is inserted with purpose to abuse the People with a belief of their Loyalty when they have first incited them to Rebellion Touching the complaint they say will make against Vs to His Mejesty it should in reason and justice have preceded their Declaration And if either His Majesty had refused them hearing and justice or if We had not submitted to His determination there had been some colour for their proceeding as they did In the last part of their Conclusion they prepare the People with an Apology of the desperate state the Kingdom is left in by Us to bear the more patiently the utter loss of it under the Government they would set up and with a touch indeed of Episcopal counsel to amend their lives and depend upon Gods providence and protection they dismiss them Wherein what example they have given them We leave to the judgment of God the Searcher of hearts and the impartial Judge of the thoughts and actions of men In the Order attested by the Bishop of Clonfert for publication of the Excommunication which publication was made at Laghreogh the 15th of September it is expressed that the Order given to the Committee of Bishops at Galway by the Congregation at Jamestown was That in case VVe would not depart the Kingdom upon their advice and depute the Kings Authority with persons of Trust or that We denied to depart
undoubted Rights of the Crown to Altercation Which can be no way lawful especially to Subjects Nevertheless I did not altogether as yet despair having withall at that very time and place received the said Lord Chancellor's command for calling to him my Lord Aubigny who should from him know His MAJESTIES final resolution Which was the reason I fostered still some little kind of hopes for three or four dayes longer But all in vain For notwithstanding any reasons my Lord Aubigny gave the Chancellor declared unto him in His MAJESTIES Name we should not stir Then which tydings indeed I scarce resented any thing in all my life with more sadness as having had most ardent inclinations even my self alone yea without a particular invitation by Letter or safe conduct to go and kiss your Lordships hands at Brussels and satisfie to my power the Superiours in Belgia and the Doctors too of the Theological Faculty at Louain as to that Form which is called ours For as I had fixedly resolved to yield what in me did lie to any thing might be rationally offered for the peace of my Brethren and Countreymen and Clergy and People of Ireland much more for that of the Universal Church of the Roman Communion and not only for preserving but promoting yet more and more that Reverence and Obedience which is due in spirituals throughout the whole earth to the great and most blessed Pontiff so I had also firmly determined not to shun nor decline any meeting or conference either private or publick of the most Learned especially of those of Louaâ—n And yet I doubt not those Louanians have without any just cause without any well-grounded reason without any end that is divine but meerly humahe too too rashly Censured that Form Otherwise wherefore should they be ashamed of their judgment given Wherefore apprehend so much it should be exposed to publick view Or why should they fear to let us that are above all others concerned or to let any other indeed for us have a sight of even as much as any one Copy of their original Censure For there is a report nor a report only but an asseveration of eye-witnesses that that original Censure is scarce contained in Seven Eight or Nine sheets of paper or thereabouts and that according to the manner of University Censures therein single Propositions of the Formulary are noted and Reasons given whether probable or not I now dispute not of the Censure of each Nor is it less known that the other secondary short Censure of Louain which is dispersed abroad contains in the whole but a few lines only singles not out any one or more Propositions gives no Reason at all probable or improbable Nay That Dr. Synnick answered lately the said Father Gearnon at his being at Louain and praying to see the true original first and long Censure answer'd him I say in these words only We have sent it to Rome it pleased the Pope he reserves it for his own time O worthy Academicks O excellent Divines O men born to Flattery and Servitude And O truth of mortal Wights and immortal Spirits whither art thou exil'd A very few Doctors of our Age and of one City alone to determine against the torrent of other Doctors of the whole Earth and of all Ages of Christianity and give no Reason openly for doing so and not to determine only so but to divide but rend in parts the Church as much as in them lies disturb the peace of Nations and Kingdoms asperse the Faith and make odious the Communion and Religion of the Roman See and Bishop But hereof another time At present whereas neither Caron nor Walsh can go to Brussels it will be fit to consider what is to be done to that end which your Lordship designed if even both had together appeared there For I will not question but your Lordship proposed to your self the peace or quiet of Catholick Religion and as well the liberty or free exercise thereof in the British Empire or Dominions of our King as in all other respects the comfort of Catholicks and what besides must necessarily follow a more ample and more obsequious veneration of the great Pontiff But I understand not what you might pretend to for attaining these matters if Father Caron and Walsh appeared at Brussels which you may not by exchange of Letters to and fro from them Although and I speak it in the word of a Christian and of a Priest and of a Professor too of the Seraphical Order and by consequence of a most devout observer of His Holiness and speak it moreover in the presence of omnipresent and omniscient God I have for my own part desired most passionately to go my self to Brussels laying alide all kind of delayes and humane respects whatsoever But however this be as to that now in hand Either you thought of our Refixing or Retracting our Subscriptions forsooth because according to the supercilious Louanians Censure pronounced by them as from the tripos of Apollo we are bound under the guilt of Sacriledge to Refix as they speak Which yet I scarce think could be hoped for by your Lordship or indeed by any other I mean until we be first convinced either 1. By manifest Arguments such I mean as are evident or such as can have no probable Answer That our Form implies either Heresie or Schism or some other sin Or 2. By some decree or determination of a lawful general and future Council For in those Councils past already it 's plain there is not as much as one word against us as neither in the Books of Holy Scriptures or Volumes of Holy Fathers or Tradition called Oral whatever is to the contrary babled by Bellarmine Becan Suarez Lessius Gretzer c. whose Writings altogether which Treat of this Subject no less than those of their opposers I have perused most attentively as likewise the Writings of those others who preceded them some Ages and whose too too erronious footsteps they all along followed Durand Bertrand c. 3. At least by some decree or decision and that future likewise of some Roman Pontiff for to this day there is none produced to any purpose by our Adversaries none I say of all that ever yet emaned from any Bishop of the Roman See and such decree or decision made in or by a clear authentick undeniable and unanswerable declarative Bull directed to all Christians wherever diffused throughout the World or at least to some Nation or people albeit this later kind of Bull I mean to a particular Nation or people is not sufficient according to the doctrine of Divines not even I say of those very Divines who attribute Infallibility to the Pope alone without a Council in his declaration of Faith and yet such Bull decree or decision precisely determining the point as of Christian Catholick Faith received from the Apostles and so to be necessarily believed viz. That the Roman Pontiff may by vertue of a power in