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
Roman-Catholicks the 17th day of January 1648 and in the 24th year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord CHARLES by the Grace of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland c. ORMONDE The DECLARATION intituled thus A Declaration Of the Archbishops and other Prelates and Dignitaries of the Secular and Regular Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland AGAINST The continuance of His MAJESTIES Authority in the person of the Marquess of ORMOND Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the misgovernment of the Subject the ill Conduct of His MAJESTIES Army and the violation of the Articles of Peace Dated at Jamestown in the Convent of the Fryers Minors August 12. 1650. THE Catholick People of Ireland in the year 1641. forced to take up Arms for the defence of Holy Religion their Lives and Liberties the Parliament of England having taken a resolution to extinguish the Catholick Faith and pluck up the Nation root and branch a powerful Army being prepared and designed to execute their black rage and cruel intention made a Peace and published the same the 17th of January 1648 with James Lord Marquess of Ormond Commissioner to that effect from His Majesty or from His Royal Queen and Son Prince of Wales now CHARLES II. hereby manifesting their Loyal thoughts to Royal Authority This Peace or Pacification being consented to by the Confederate Catholicks when His Majesty was in restraint and neither He nor His Queen or Prince of Wales in condition to send any supply or relief to them when also the said Confederate Catholicks could have agreed with the Parliament of England upon as good or better conditions for Religion and the Lives Liberties and Estates of the People than were obtained by the above Pacification and thereby freed themselves from the danger of any Invasion or War to be made upon them by the Power of England where notwithstanding the Pacification with His Majesty they were to dispute and fight with their and his Enemies in the Three Kingdoms Let the World judge if this be not an undeniable Argument of Loyalty This Peace being so concluded the Catholick Confederates ran sincerely and chearfully under His MAJESTIES Authority in the person of the said Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland plentifully providing vast sums of Monies well nigh half a Million of English pounds besides several Magazines of Corn with a fair Train of Artillery great quantity of Powder Match Ammunition with other Materials for War After his Excellency the said Lord Lieutenant frustrating the expectation the Nation had of his Fidelity Gallantry and Ability became the Author of almost losing the whole Kingdom to God King and Natives which he began by violating the Peace in many parts thereof as may be clearly evidenced and made good to the World I. FIrst The foresaid Catholicks having furnished his Excellency with the aforesaid Sum of Money which was sufficient to make up the Army of Fifteen thousand Foot and Two thousand five hundred Horse agreed upon by the Peace for the preservation of the Catholick Religion our Sovereigns interest and the Nation his Excellency gave Patents of Colonels and other Commanders over and above the party under the Lord Baron of Inchiquin to Protestants and upon them consumed the substance of the Kingdom who most of them afterwards betrayed or deserted us II. That the Holds and Ports of Munster as Cork Youghal Kingsale c. were put in the hands of faithless men of the Lord of Inchiquin's Party that betrayed these places to the Enemy to the utter endangering of the KING's interest in the whole Kingdom This good service they did His MAJESTY after soaking up the sweet and substance of His Catholick Subjects of Munster where it is remarkable That upon making the Peace his Excellency would no way allow His Loyal Catholick Subjects of Cork Youghal Kingsale and other Garrisons to return to their own Homes or Houses III. Catholick Commanders instanced by the Commissioners of Trust according to the Pacification and hereupon by his Excellencies Commission receiving their Commands in the Army as Colonel Patrick Purcel Major General of the Army and Colonel Peirce Fitz-Gerald alias Mr. Thomas Commissary of the Horse were removed without the consent of the said Commissioners and by no demerit of the Gentlemen and the said places that of Major General given to Daniel O Neil Esq a Protestant and that of Commissary of the Horse to Sir William Vaughan Knight and after the said Sir William â—s death to Sir Thomas Armstrong Knight both Protestants IV. A Judicature and legal way of administring Justice promised by the Articles of Peace was not performed but all process and proceedings done by Paper Petitions and thereby private Clerks and other corrupt Ministers inrich't the Subject ruined and no Justice done V. The Navigation the great support of Ireland quite beaten down his Excellency disheartning the Adventurers Undertakers and Owners as Captain Antonio and others favouring Hollanders and other Aliens by reversing of Judgments legally given and definitively concluded before his Commissioners Authority By which depressing of Maritime affairs and not providing for an orderly and good Tribunal of Admiralty we have hardly a Bottom left to transmit a Letter to His Majesty or any other Prince VI. The Church of Cloine in our possession at the time of making the Peace violently taken from us by the Lord of Inchiquin contrary to the Articles of Peace no Justice nor redress was made upon Application or Complaint VII That Oblations Book monies Interments and other Obventions in the Counties of Cork Waterford and Kerry were taken from the Catholick Priests and Pastors by the Ministers without any redress or restitution VIII That the Catholick Subjects of Munster lived in slavery under the Presidency of the Lord of Inchiquin these being their Judges that before were their Enemies and none of the Catholick Nobility or Gentry admitted to be of the Tribunal IX The Conduct of the Army was improvident and unfortunate Nothing hapned in Christianity more shameful than the disaster at Rathmines near Dublin where his Excellency as it seemed to ancient Travellers and men of experience who viewed all kept rather a Mart of Wares a Tribunal of Pleadings or a great Inne of Play Drinking and Pleasure than a well ordered Camp of Souldiers Droghedagh unrelieved was lost by storm with much bloodshed and the loss of the flower of Leinster Wexford lost much by the unskilfulness of a Governour a young man vain and unadvised Ross given up and that by his Excellencies order without any dispute by Colonel Luke Taffe having within near upon 2500 Souldiers desirous to fight After that the Enemy make a Bridge over the River of Ross a wonder to all men and understood by no man without any let or interruption our Forces being within Seven or eight Miles to the place where 200 Musqueteers at Rossberkine being timely ordered had interrupted this stupendious Bridge and made the Enemy weary of the Town Carrig being betrayed by the
all that should feed help or adhere to Us are set down in their Declaration * See before page 65. in the former Appendix of Instruments where you have this Declaration at length both Preamble and Fifteen Articles thereof entirely and consequently without interposition of any other matter After which also you have there pag. 70. the Excommunication before mentioned of the 12th of August intituled A Declaration of the Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates and Dignitaries of the Regular and Secular Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland against the continuance of His Majesties authority in the Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the misgovernment of the Subject and the ill conduct of His Majesties Army and the violation of the Articles of Peace at Jamestown in the Convent of the Friers Minors the 12th of August 1650. That in this Title they assume unto themselves a power to declare against the continuance of His Majesties authority where he hath placed it needs no further proof than the reading of it But whence they derive their pretence to this power We find not any where expressed nor by whom they are constituted Judges of the misgovernment of the People the ill conduct of His Majesties Army or of the violation of the Articles of Peace For the misgovernment of the People and ill conduct of His Majesties Army We acknowledge no earthly competent Judge of Us but His Majesty and the established Laws And for the violation of the Articles of Peace by the consent even of all those Bishops unless there be gotten amongst them some that opposed the Peace and joined with those that assisted the English Rebels as long as they could give them hire the trust of looking to the observance of the Articles of Peace was reposed by the General Assembly with whom the Peace was concluded in Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Dr. Gerald Fennel Esquires as appears by the said Articles Whereby we suppose it is clear That as the Bishops have arrogated to themselves an unwarranted power to declare against the continuance of His Majesties authority where he hath placed it and to be Our Judges in the government of the People and conduct of the Army wherein VVe doubt whether their skill be answerable to their desire to try it so have they as unwarrantably taken upon them to judge what is or is not a violation of the Articles of Peace and in all they have endeavoured to invade and usurp both upon King and People bereaving the one of Royalty and the other of Freedom Now supposing they were the Monarchs they would be let the grounds of their Excommunication set forth in all that VVe have seen be duly examined and it will be found that their sentence is most unjust So that as their Tribunal is usurped their Judgment is erroneous VVe begin with the Preamble of the Declaration in these words Preamble of the Declaration THE Catholick People of Ireland in the year 1641. forced to take up Arms for the defence of Holy Religion their Lives and Liberties the Parliament of England having taken a resolution to extinguish the Catholick Faith and pluck up the Nation root and branch a powerful Army being prepared and designed to execute their black rage and cruel intention made a Peace and published the same 17th Jan. 1648 with James Lord Marquess of Ormond Commissioner to that effect from His Majesty or from His Royal Queen and Son Prince of Wales now Charles the Second thereby manifesting their Loyal thoughts to Royal Authority This Peace or Pacification being consented to by the Confederate Catholicks when His Majesty was in restraint and neither He or His Queen or the Prince of Wales in condition to send any supplies or relief to them when also the said Confederate Catholicks could have agreed with the Parliament of England upon as good or better conditions for Religion and the Lives Liberties and Estates of the People than were by the above Pacification obtained and thereby free themselves from the danger of any Invasion or War to be made upon them by the power of England where notwithstanding the Pacification with His Majesty they were to dispute and fight with their and His Enemies in the Three Kingdoms Let the world â—udge if this be not an undeniable argument of Loyalty The Peace being so concluded the Catholick Confederates came sincerely and chearfully under His Majesties authority in the person of the said Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland plentifully providing vast Sums of monies well nigh half a Million of English pounds besides several Magazines of Corn with a fair Train of Artillery great quantity of Powder Match Ammunition with other materials for War After His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant frustrating the expectation the Nation had of his Fidelity Gallantry and Ability became the Author of almost losing the whole Kingdom to God King and Nation Which he began by violating the Peace in many parts thereof as may be clearly evidenced and made good to the world ANSWER Concerning their motives of taking up Arms in the year 1641 We shall say nothing But since they begin so high with their Narrative as the year 1641 it will not be amiss to mind them That betwixt that and the year 1648 there was by Authority from His Majesty and Our Ministration several Cessations and at length a Peace concluded with the Confederate Roman-Catholicks in the year 1646 which Peace was shamefully and perfidiously violated by the instigation and contrivement of most part of these Archbishops Bishops Prelates and others of the Secular and Regular Clergy and that not in slight and strained particulars such as We are now charged with by them but by coming with Two powerful Armies before the City of Dublin upon no provocation from Us unless they esteemed the continuance of a Cessation for about Three years with them and the bringing them a Peace to their own doors such a provocation as deserved their bending their united power against Us leaving other parts that neither had nor would have Peace or Cessation with them unmolested and at liberty to waste their quarters whil'st they devoured Ours and sought Our ruine This as a particular blotting their name and memory with the everlasting infamy of Perfidy Ingratitude and undeniable Disloyalty they have reason to leap over in their Preamble least they should awaken the Curses of those multitudes of People who being seduced into so horrid a violation of Publick Faith by their impious allurements and hellish Excommunications are thereby become desolate Widows helpless Orphans and miserable Exiles from the place of their birth and sustenance True it is That His late Majesty and His now Majesty then Prince of Wales overcoming
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
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
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
have been drawn into the same errour whose protestation and subscriptions he doth in like manner condemn according to the above form and this to deliver the consciences of Catholicks from the fraud and errour wherewith they are circumvented Yet The Most Holy Lord by no means intends hereby to avert the Catholicks from observing that fidelity to their most Serene King sincerely and from their Soules which may accompany and adorn the Religion due to the supream King of Kings nay He doth rather admonish and exhort that in that fidelity they enlighten other Subjects by their example as people that walk in light amidst darkness And these truly are what The Most Holy Lord commanded to be written to me of this whole business The same your Reverence may communicate to all your own that they may be rendered certain of the truth of this matter and undoubted mind of His Holyness In fine to your Sacrifices I commend my self from Bruxels 21. July 1662. most studious in the Lord Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal. The Reader may take notice here that in such copies of this letter as came authenticated by Claudius Agretti Secretary to the above Internuncius there was a title prefixed and that title was this Censura â—mi Domini Nostri Alexandri VII nec non et Eminentissimorum Cardinalium et Theologorum congregatorum circa Protestationem R. P. Fratris Petri Valesii After this or together with it comes an other letter of the 8. of the same month and year to the Nobility and Gentry of Ireland from Rome and from a person of farre greater authority and no less eminency then Cardinal Francis Barberin which he writes in the name of the whole Congregation de propaganda or as President thereof against the same Remonstrance and subscription of it Whereof albeit I could never see the original yet certain I am the copy which I give here is a true one and that letter not forged at all because the Cardinal himself owned it to the Provincial of the Franciscans of England Father la Croix being in the general Chapter of the said Order at Rome 1664. Although his Eminency who was there and then President of the said Chapter as Protectour of that Order and by special Commission from his Holyness would not have the Irish Franciscans who subscribed the Remonstrance proceeded against therefore as the same Father la Croix told my self nor would at all have that matter debated against them or spoke of there That letter endorsed thus To the Noble-men of Ireland you have here Ad Praestantes Viros Hiberniae Praestantes Viri Si ullo unquam tempore is qui vos vnicè diligit Sanctissimus omnium Fidelium Parens aerumnosum rerum vestrarum statum doluit hoc potissimum dolet quo vobis non modò ab exteris timendum esse cernit verùm etiam a domesticis nec non ab ipsis Fratribus cavendum Panditur siquidem malum non ab Aquilone tantùm verùm etiam unde spirare debuerat aura spiritus Sancti ventus nunc perflat vrens Erroris Magistri fiunt qui se veritatis discipulos asserunt utque fidelitatem Regi ostentent fidem corrumpunt Illud vero praecipue mirum accidit eos edidisse Protestationem iis conceptam verbis quibus solùm fidem Catholicam violarent nec quicquam in terris assequerentur quod ipsa integra fidelitate obtinere non possent Quis enim audeat inficias ire a Catholica Fide debitam non foveri in Principes obedientiam cùm ex Evangelico Praecepto quae Caesaris Caesarâ— et quae Dei sunt Deo per-aequè reddere teneantur Cùm ergo fidem profitentur consona non loquuntur Sed quam excusationem praetexere possunt illi qui cum sic subscripserunt non nullis propositionibus Principi fidelitatem testantibus olim a sede Apostolica Damnatis bonam fidem aut inculpatam ignorantiam causari non possunt Quis pudor Ecclesiastici ordinis eos cernere erroris Antesignanos per quos caeteri erant erudiendi Sanctissimi Pontificis anxit animum sal infatuatum effudisse fatuitatem atque eos qui praelucere debuerant tenebras induxisse Qui ergo a subscriptionum ejusmodi contagione se immunes servarunt caveant omninò ne in foveom a caecis ductoribus trohantur sanemque doctrinam sustineant Qui stat videat ne cadat Qui verò infaliciter prolapsi sunt impigre emergere satagant et iidem nosse sciant ac tenere quod Pater aequè Sanctissimus ac amantissimus monendo porrigit dexteram Conjuncti denique omnes in pacis vinculo eum Regi morem gerant quem ingenua fides docet Ego interim totius Congregationis negotiis vestris Prapositae nomine cuncto vobis prospera adprecor simulque hortor ut quam in fidei candore tuendo exhibuistis fortissimi pectoris constantiam eandem teneatis sciatisque Catholicos omnes Hibernos a Sanctissimo Domino nostro in Visceribus Jesu Christi amari eundemque summo vestrum omnium salutis ac tranquilliatis desiderio teneri extoto eorde et charitate in Domino Datum Rome die 8. Julii 1662. Addictissimus Franciscus Barberinus Noble Sirs If ever at any time He who most intirely loves you The Most Holy Father of all the faithful hath grieved for the afflicted condition of your affairs now is the time that most of all he is grieved wherein he sees you are not only to fear from those abroad but even be on your guard from your very Domesticks nay from your very Brethren For the evil is approaching not from the North only but even even thence a burning winde blowes whence the gentle breathings of the holy Ghost should have come They are made Masters of errour who give themselves for disciples of truth and to shew their fidelity to the King they destroy Faith In which procedure of theirs that is chiefly to be admired that they published a Protestation in such terms whereby they may be said to have only violated the Catholick Faith and gained nothing on earth which they might not have obtained that very Faith remaining entire For who dares deny that by the Catholick Faith due obedience unto Princes is cherished whereas by Evangelical precept every man is bound to yeeld to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods when therefore they study to render themselves faithful to the King they prevail herein least of all when they speake nothing agreeable to that Faith they profess But what excuse can they pretend who when to testifie their Allegiance to the Prince they have subscribed their names to some propositions condemned heretofore by the Apostolick Sea cannot alleadge for themselves either a good conscience or inculpable ignorance in doing so What shame is it to the Ecclesiastical Order to behold them the Leaders into Errour by whom others should have been instructed Verily it hath vexed the Soul of the most Holy Pontiff to consider the unsavoury salt to have
nation should highly rejoyce the miraculous Restauration of Charles the Second their natural King their only deliverer from the hard and intollerable durance and tyranny which they so many years have suffered in his absence under the suppressions of an Vsurped power and the Irish Clergie doth hold themselves by double obligation so to do first by the tye of natural subjection to their most gracious and lawful Prince secondly that they may vindicate themselves from the innumerable calumnies and lyes whereby they are misrepresented unto the King and his Ministers most falsely suggested to them that they intend to raise rebellion and tumults Wherefore we the whole body of the Dominican Friers unanimously that it may appear to the world with what sincerity of mind and purity of intension we are inclined to our Soveraign Charles the Second following the steps of our predecessors and fully satisfied in our conscience first do render most hearty thanks unto the King of Kings for the miraculous Restauration of His Sacred Majesty to His hereditarie Kingdoms and will ever pray that the same divine power and providence that established Him in his own right may give him long time happily to raign and govern And for manifestation of our fidelity to Him we do protest before God Angels and Men without any equivocation or mental Reservation our Soveraign Charles the Second to be the true and lawful King and Supream Lord of Ireland and therefore that we are in conscience and under pain of Highly offending God to obey our said Soveraign in all civil and temporal affairs no less then any of our function to their respective Princes in Europe And do further more protest that we know no external power that can absolve us from this Religious obligation no more than other Subjects of the like function with us from the like obligation in Spain France or Germany or any elswhere Finally we execrate abjure and renounce that not Catholick pernicious doctrine That any Subject may Kill or Murthen his King by himself or any other though differing with him in Religion nay we protest the contrary saying that all Subjects are bound to manifest all rebellious and machinations against their Kings person His Kingdom at State to the King or his Magistrate which we do hereby promise to do And this protestation of our fidelity we the aforesaid body of the Order of St. Dominick in Ireland do freely offer to His most meek and clement Majesty and prostrate under His Sacred â—ee we pray he may be pleased to accept this our protestation and to defend and deliver us frâ—â— the oppression of our persecutors for our profession is to fear and follow him who in the Gospel commands to give unto God his due and to Cesar his and we will always pray for His Royal Majesty his Queen and the blessing of a happy posterity Dated the 15th of October 1662. F. Iohn Hart Provincial F. Lawrence Kelly Diffinitor F. I. Burgate Deffinitor F. Eugius Coigly Diffinitor F. Richard Maddin Diffinitor F. Dionisius a Hanreghan F. Constant de Annunciatione Kyeffe F. William Bourke F. Cornelius Googhegan F. Felix Conuer F. Patrick Dulehanty F. Thomas Philbin F. Ioanner Baptista Bern F. Geâ—ot de martiribus Ferral F. Michael Fulam F. Goruldfitz Gerrald F. Abtonius Kenogan F. Clement Berae F. Batricius Doyre F. Charles Dermoâ—â— F. Dominick Fedrall F. Daniel Nolanus F. William O Meran F. Iohn Tyny F. Tadeus mac Donâ—ogh XVIII As concerning the Letter which this Dominican Provincial Father Iohn O Hart sent then by the same bearer and of the same date to the Procuratour although it was civil enough and a complement of thanks for minding his Order of their duty and further desires both of recommending them and their cause to His Grace and of hearing from him more often all particulars yet was it withal positive enough in declaring they could not or would not do more in that business than what they had now by their letter to the Duke and Remonstrance enclosed therein Nor indeed was it ever at any time before or after to this day expected by the Procuratour they would heartily or freely do any more because he knew very well in what hands the Government of that Order was or who were Provincials Definitors and Local Priors of their Province then and for many years puff and how unanimous they were all in the Nuncio's time and for him and his quarrel and ever since for the Censures and against any kind of peace with the Royal party only four or five excepted who yet had not the courage to mutter against the rest if not in private cornes Father Marke Rochford Oliver Darey Ioseph Langton Peter Nangle and because he know they gloried particularly and mightily in their however unfortunate unity therein having suffered no division amongst themselves but runn altogether one way for ought appeared so little did they consider that unity in evil is a curse from God and because he further knew certainly how they were touch'd to the very quick and took it to heart extreamly that any at all of theirs though but three only Father Scurlog Reynolds and Scully to whom since is added Father Clemens Birne had subscribed the Remonstrance and consequently saw themselves now in some degree begun to be divided In which judgment of them in general that it may be seen the Procuratour was not deceived but their violence made known to the end it may find some check hereafter I must not pass over in silence how they left no stone unremoved to vex the patience of those three or four subscribers and force them to a recantation exclaiming against them every where discountenancing them in every thing even against the rules not of their own Order only but of the common Canons of the Church and Christian charity also threatning to deprive them of active and passive voice in all elections and by actual instances thwarting in such Father Scurlog and Reynolds making one man of purpose to decline and vex them Priour of three Convents together at one time against the very Papal Canons cap. Vnum Abbatim 21. q. 1. ex Concilio Agathensi c. 57. Nay denying not licence only or a dispensation or indulgence to Reynolds in case of sickness to eat flesh but even an absolution of his sins on St. Dominicks eve because and only because he would not retract as it was in plain tearms told himself then and even by him that so denyed it his own local Prior in the City of Dublin And yet with more uncivil and barbarous usage to a Priest and from the chief Superiour Provincial in his visitation boxing an other on the face on that account only For they never did nor could taxe him nor any of those few other subscribers with any other kind of misdemeanour Finally removeing all such Friars to other Convents from being under the direction or command of Father Clement Prior of Newtown in Vlster of purpose or because he
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
the Nuntio came to besiege Dublin That he covld not understand why they declined a subscriptien to the Remonstrance signed presented to and received already at London by his Majesty whereas themselves now confess'd for they did so in his own presence it was very lawful and Catholick and could not be even as much as a venial sin for any to sign it That finally notwithstanding all he would not advise such wise men as they were what they had to do but knew what himself was to do which was to observe his own Masters directions And if they thought fitter to observe another Master that is him they called their General and is at Rome still to command or direct them what he please from the Pope they were to look to that and run the hazzard Wherefore and forasmuch too as within a few dayes more they understood by several wayes that his Grace having seriously considered of that second Form of theirs declared it in many points unsatisfactory they form'd yet a third adding somewhat more to the former but abstracting still both from any expression comprehending in terminis the Pope and from any likewise that might engage them not to decline the question or position of Right or that which asserts a power in the Pope or Church in some cases to depose the King and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance being obstinately resolved to declare and engage only against matters of fact and this too with as many exceptions equivocations abstractions distinctions reservations as the words of this third Form would bear and the Divinity of their Casuists would allow The Jesuits third Remonstrance Declaration or Protestation of Allegiance WE the undernamed do acknowledge his Majesty King Charles the Second to be our true and lawful King supream Lord and right 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 our selves that during life we shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever And we engage our selves to expose our Lives if occasion shall require in defence of his Majesties Person and royal Authority and that no sentence of deposition excommunication or any other censure whatsoever shall mâ—ve us to recede from any point of this our engagement of Allegiance and Duty We engage our selves to detect and discover to his Majesty and his Ministers whatsoever Treasons and Conspiracies against his Majesty or Governours shall come to our knowledge We detest from our hearts that impious doctrine which averreth that any Subject can murther or kill his anointed King or Prince though of a different judgement in Religion and we abhorr the damnable practice of that wicked assertion All which we swear religiously to observe according to the common and usual signification of the words without equivocation or mental reservation So help us God This third Form they offered and delivered my Lord by some friend of theirs within a few dayes after they had given the second by themselves But they found here also that his Grace understood English as well as themselves and that it was for some other purpose then that of a bare change or complement of words they strove so mightily to decline the printed Form of 61. being they would not in so many changes come near the material sense thereof notwithstanding they laboured so much to perswade others they never had any exception against the sense but against the words only as not being reverential enough because forsooth the Pope though only by this highest title of his office or dignity was express'd therein and because of the words disclaim and renounce which yet signified only as there a disclaim or renunciation of that ill grounded pretence of power in his Holiness to depose the King or licence his Subjects to take arms against Him But this exception against such words was found at last not to be The Exception but a real one indeed against the sense in whatever terms express'd XXXII The Fathers having found all their three several changes to no purpose one of them whom the Procurator esteemed still very much came to him and offered to change the fourth time their Form and express in particular the Pope so they were not required to meddle with the question of right But the Procurator answered they went too long already about the bush That if they mean'd really and conscientiously and sufficiently too as to the form of words to declare and oblige themselves as to matter of fact or in all contingencies whatsoever and notwithstanding any sentence of deposition deprivation suspension or excommunication against the King or his Liege-people and notwithstanding any other declaration whatsoever or dispensation with or absolution of the said people from their allegiance upon what pretext soever civil or religions temporal or spiritual to continue alwaies true and loyal Subjects to him who is now their King to Charles the Second and to his lawful Heirs and Successors they should not scruple neither in point of conscience or worldly interest to disclaim and renounce in plain express terms any such pretended power in the Pope That for what belong'd to conscience nothing was clearer then that they had the same warrant to renounce the power which they had to renounce obedience to it in all kind of contingencies whatsoever because it is impossible there should be a power in the Pope to command them and they in no case bound to take notice of or obey it For as it is a maxime that Frustra est potentia quae non reduciter ad actum so it is another maxime that Frustra est potentia mandandi si non sit obligatio parendi There can be no act of a commanding power but vain if there be no case wherein it is to be obeyed That for matter of interest or worldly regard of favour or disfavour they might be sure it would be the same thing at Rome to renounce that power and to renounce all obedience to it for ever nay the latter a farr greater guilt before God and man if the Romans or others understood the Fathers scrupled at the former and swallowed the latter because the latter without a persuasion of the former cannot be less then folly or sacriledge whether the swearers intend to perform or not That Bellarmine himself their own great Patron tells them so much in his Writings against Widdrington where he disputes against the Oath of Allegiance and proves enough to this purpose though very little to his own but however concludes truly that 't is impossible a man should swear without sacriledge that notwithstanding any excommunication or other sentence from the Pope against the King or his people he would alwayes continue a loyal Subject to the King in opposition to the Popes commands and yet not be perswaded at the same time the Pope
it with their own eyes and on the place the said Agent and Father Brian Barny told my self That when Iohn Synnick an Irish man of the County of Corke and both a Doctor of Divinity and famous and leading in that Vniversity of Lovain forasmuch as he had been their Agent at Rome in Vrban the VIII Pontificat and for the booke or 5 propositions fathered on Iansenius and because of his other printed works his Goliathismus and Saulus exrex c. that when I say this Doctor Synnick whether partly or only and wholly to recover himself at Rome by this means I leave others to judge had wrought and got this first original Censure perfected and signed by those few other Doctors of the Theological Faculty for all that Lovain Faculty consists nor as Sorbone and Navarre in Paris of a great but of a very small number and then carried it himself to the foresaid Internuntio at Bruxels the Internuncio indeed received it with much pleasure but told him withal it was not so much to his present purpose as a short one against the Remonstrance in general without descending to any particular clause part or proposition and without giving any reason at all That the Doctor replyed such not to be the stile or custom of Vniversities but the contrary because they had no power of authority but only of reason to lead others That nevertheless the Internuncio prevailed to get an other short one published in the name of the said Faculty and suppressed that first long Original I mean suppressed it so as that from that time until this day the Subscribers nor any for them could ever have a sight or as much as any extract of it if there was ever any such extract as I doubt there was not For Father Anthony Gearnon having gone of purpose from London to that Vniversity and earnestly entreated the said Doctor Synnick to let him have at least a sight of it could have no other answer but this Misimus Romam placuit Pontifici reservat in sua tempora It seems the Internuncio and Roman Divines apprehended the Reasons were to weak and the Faculty would loose its credit if they were published But I am sure they had done much better if they had never published either the one or the other since they must lye for ever under the reproach of both until they can solidly vindicate themselves by answering that learned worke of Father Carons Remonstrantia Hibernorum written against them and some Tramontans upon this occasion It is therefore this second short Censure of Lovain published or dispersed in written copye only for it was never printed otherwise then in that worke of Father Carons I give here being the former long one lyes dormant at Rome and dares not expose it self to publick view albeit we had from some that saw it in agitation the prime material heads But in a matter of such consequence I think not fit to build upon any relation but that I have in black and white Which is the reason I give only this second short one so as I have said dispersed in all corners of this Kingdom under the name of the Lovaine Theological Faculties Censure against our Remonstrance The Latin copy which is the language of that University is this Formula professionis obedientiae fidelitatis sub nomine Cleri Romano Catholici Nationis Hibernicae Serenissimo Regi Magnae Britanniae Hiberniae per quosdam de eodem Clero nuper oblata subscripta Agnoscimus confitemur c. Judicium Facultatis Theologicae Lovaniensis super eadem Formula postulatum à membris quibusdam primariis Cleri Hiberniae aliisque in dignitate constitutis QVamvis Serenissimo Magnae Britanniae atque Hiberniae Regi á Catholicis ditionum suarum incolis fidelitas obedientia debeatur quam Catholicis olim ipsius Praedecessoribus subditi sui itidem Catholici de jure debuerunt ac juxta Christianae disciplinae praescriptum impendere consueverant quamque caeteris Regibus ac Principibus similiter Catholicis sui respective Vassalli vel olim debuerunt vel etiamnum debent Quia tamen supradicta Formula complectitur ampliâ—ris obedientiae promissionem quam possint Principes saeculares à subditis suis Catholicis exigere aut subditi ipsis praestare non nulla in super continet sincerae professi ni Catholieae Religionis repugnantia idcirco pro illicita prorsus ac detestabili habenda est Qua propter quicumque praefatam professionis Formulam nondum signarunt cohibere se à signatura obligantur sub Sacrilegii reatu quicumque autem signarunt refigere signaturas obstringuntur sub consimili rearu incauta namque definitio salubriter dissolvenda est nec ea dissolutio reputanda est praevaricatio sed temeritatis emendatio Ita post maturam deliberationem aliqueties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plena Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die 29. Decembris gloriosi Pentificis Thomae Cantuarensis Angliae quondam Primatis martirio consecrata Anno Dominicae Incarnationis 1662. Sequebatur Decanus Facultas Theologica Academiae Lovaniensis inferius Demandato Dominorum meorum Decani Sacrae Facultatis erat signatura Georgius Lipsius sacrae Facultatis Theologicae Bedellus Notarias Juratus But the English of it this The Judgment given by the Lovaine Theological Faculty upon the Form of the Protestation or profession of Obedience and Fidelity presented to His Majesty of Great Brittain as from or in the behalf of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland and subscribed by some of the same Clergy The said Form beginning thus We acknowledge and confess c. Whereupon the said Theological Faculty being desired by some primary members of the same Irish Clergy and by others placed in Ecclesiastical Dignity to deliver their sense give it as followeth ALbeit the same fidelity and obedience be due unto the most Serene King of Brittain and Ireland from the Catholick Inhabitants of his Dominions which to his Catholick Predecessors hath been anciently due by right from their Catholick Subjects also and which according to the rule of Christian Discipline they were accustomed to observe and which unto all other Catholick Kings and Princes hath either been formerly or is at this present due from their respective Vassals yet forasmuch as the foresaid Form involves a promise of a more ample obedience then 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 whosoever have not yet subscribed the foresaid Form are under the 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
to following ages the true â—â—â—se of the Gospel without contradiction from any in this matter Nor do I alledge those others which indeed are very many out of the clear light of nature it self the known principles or articles of Catholick Truths manifestly revealed in the Gospel being once supposed For I have resolved to abstain in this letter from treating of the principal controversie What I say now is That such of our Institution as have subscribed the foresaid Remonstrance are ready according to their rule and regular vowes according to the Statutes also of our Order nay and if your most reverend Paternity please not only according to the substantial course prescribed in the Canons of the Roman Church for judicial proceedings but even according to the nicest puntillioes formalities and rigour too of them to obey that is to answer and give account or the reason or cause of our engagement or other proceedings even in this very principal matter of our said Protestation and that not only to the most blessed Father Alexander the Seventh chief Pastor of the Universal Church but also to the Minister General of the Friars Minors and his Commissary too of the Belgick Nation your most reverend Paternity provided only that you proceed not against us by violence subreption pre-occupation or any other injurious manner but in a regular lawful way according to the Canons What I say also is That neither your most reverend Paternity nor the Minister General may according to those Canons of the Roman Church in any manner summon so great a multitude of old sickly or indigent persons from a Countrey so farr distant as Ireland to undertake so long so dangerous a journey for so many hundred leagues by sea and land to appear at Rome or Bruxels and this I say whether the King countermand them or not But with more confidence I say it where or when it is manifest That not only the King forbids them positively but the very law of the Land expresly a law in force in England from the very dayes of St. Anselme when we find it enacted in the raign of William Rufus a Roman Catholick King of England about five hundred years since Which law soon after enacted also in this Kingdom of Ireland so many other after-laws of the following Catholick Princes Edward the third Richard the Second made likewise in for both Kingdoms which laws go by name of Provision or Praemuniri as your Paternity may likewise read in the same Italian of Vrbinum Polidore Virgil in his life of Edward the Third have so extended guarded fenced with so many additions of rigour and penalties that justly it is feared as Polydore sayes like that of death whereas besides manifold other punishments one is that the transgressor lose all his Goods if he have any and withal suffer all the evils of perpetual imprisonment That your Paternity cannot according to the Canons give any such kind of summons or citations I averr Whereas the Canons are in the very letter of them clearly against you and that besides the Church is according to the ordinary maxime a Pious Mother and consequently that even according to the general assertion of modern Divines and Canonists Her commands oblige none to undergo such grievous inconveniences or any manifest hazzard of them nor oblige even Regulars notwithstanding any vows whatsoever made by them if peradventure you except not the Jesuits Discalceat Carmelits or such if any such be either these or any others as vowed by a fourth kind of solemn vow or some such special one to be ready in all kind of contingencies whatsoever even that of life or death to obey And whereas moreover that passage of the Apostle is made use of by all Divines for the deduction of many consequents inferred thence as out of a maxime doubtless of absolute certainty both in Faith Reason There is no power to destruction but to edification and that that other passage likewise of another Apostle is no less clear and certain We must obey God rather then men And finally that we cannot but see manifestly the positive absolute command of God unto us for obeying in all temporals the King next to God alone or which is the same thing more then any other mortal when he commands nothing against the law of God What I say moreover and notwithstanding that I now immediatly said is That whensoever it shall appear legally or certainly and authentickly that in your Paternities foresaid letter to Father Caron the Subscribers were intended that is admonished or summoned or indeed shall be hereafter in any other way or by any other paper and that neither your Paternity nor General Minister will be satisfied without some one appear for them and in their name on your side of the Sea I will my self petition earnestly and use all my best endeavours that it may be lawful for at least my self as well in my own behalf as in that of all the rest of the Subscribers to appear there give the best satisfaction I can Though verily what the reverend Father Caron in his answer to your Paternity desired seems without any question farr more equitable to wit that you would be pleased rather to send a Commissary to the Province it self that is to Ireland where according to the Canons all debates and causes or their merits may be far better inquired into and more uprightly judged Which his either demand or counsel seems by so much the more reasonable by how much it cannot be unknown to your Paternity that the third year of our Provincial is now very near wherein your self ought according to the Statutes of our Institution to visit the Province and view in person the several faces of those under your charge and not by Delegates at least not by such Delegates who against all laws and not so much out of custom as corruption and even to conceal from you the true state of things are desired and further desired only for the continuing still a petty tyranny of some few persons and yet further desired with the shame and loss of the Order and who are and have been notwithstanding the great evil of such a precedent or the worse consequents of so evil an example granted by you and your Predecessors now for fifty years at least And hence Good Father so many tears But if your Paternity be resolved or have any mind to send a fit Commissary that is a man worthy of that imployment and a man too qualified according to our laws one not of the same Province but of some of the next adjoyning or if which would be yet more expedient you intend in person yourself to visit now at last the Irish vineyard as you must resolve on either to what end a citation of so great a number and of such persons to appear out of Ireland on your side the Sea Truly before even such of them as are young strong and healthy if any
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
Church for these are the very words of Gerson that such a Prelate in such proceedings be resisted to his face provided it be done with that moderation which an unblameable defence requires as Paul resisted Peter For as Origen sayes on Joshua Hom. 22. where no sin is we cannot eject any out of the Church least peradventure endeavouring to root out the cockle we root up also the very wheat Which eradication of the wheat St. Augustine in his 3d. book 2 chap. against Parmenian post Collator c. 20. so desired the Prelates of the Church to beware that he teaches there expresly the very cockle must be often let lye still as often to wit as he that otherwise deserves to be so eradicated hath a great multitude that go along with him in his delinquency And teaches consequently that to attempt the separation of such a person or in this case when the Prelates cannot without the loss or destruction of the wheat also would be most grievous sacriledge Whence it is that many Catholick Writers and those too most religious and learned have thought according to this rule of St. Augustine that upon such account Gregory the VIII Boniface the VII Innocent the IV. Iulius the II. and many other great Pontiffs who govern'd the See of Rome after and betwixt their several Popedomes have been guilty of most horrid sacriledge as such that by their excommunications of Kings and Princes their Interdicts of Kingdoms and Republicks have done nothing else but rend the Church into fatal Schismes The blame and sin whereof those writers also think ought to be charged upon those very Popes abusing so their power by unjust excommunications and other censures not on the Princes defending justly themselves and their people But as for my self and for all other true Catholick and knowing Patriots of Ireland and not of Ireland only but England too it must seem to us without doubt very certain that the greatest evils of both Nations and greatest miseries under which the professors of the Catholick Faith amongst them have so long groaned to this present had first their very fatal origin from the sentences censures and depositions pronounced by Clement the VII Pius the V. Sixtus the V. and some other great Pontiffs of the Roman See now again at last their very prodigious encrease from the more then temerarious Interdict and Excommunication of Iohannes Baptista Rinuccini late Nuncius Apostolick extraordinary from Innocent the X. in our our own dayes to the Catholicks of Ireland And these passages I give here so many and so at large on this subject of caution thaâ— your most Reverend Paternity may the better perswade your self throughly that Father Carons either advice to you or desire from you hath been very prudent For when your Paternity shall consider that to condemn a Protestation Declaration or promise of Allegiance in temporal affairs to the King must be an intollerable errour because expresly repugnant to the Gospel of Christ Matt. 22. and to the clear precepts also of the most blessed Apostles Peter and Paul Rom. 13. and 1. of Peter 2.3 and 4. chap. when you must consequently judge there can be no sin at all to be proceeded against in such a necessary subscription or if there should according to the sentence of some few seem to be any kind of transgression therein yet in the judgment of others even the greatest Doctors of the Catholick Church there can be none but rather a degree of merit as the necessary concomitant of a laudable vertuous action so farre is that Protestation from implying in the judgment of moderate Divines any kind or even smack of heresy or schysme when however your Paternity think of this I said last you must undoubtedly acknowledg the cause of those subscribers of your Order to be such as has a multitude involved therein nor of those onely of the Seraphical Order nor of others too of the secular and regular Clergie alone but of the lay people also of the Gentry and Nobility the most honourable and most remarkable of the Kingdom and those likewise in very great numbers who questionless will assert that Doctrine or the Sanctity equity and justice of that Protestation or of that our Form to which they also by a particular Instrument of their own have subscribed and will assert it with their blood and life as their predecessors have before them done these 500. years under the Kings of England when lastly whatever be the crime or cause which is either objected to or presumed of those the Subscribers of your Order if indeed your Paternities quarrel be to them at all or to that their subscription or to that Form of theirs when I say your Paternity shall understand or consider that they are not as yet contumacious and I hope they will never be against the Church or against their Prelats being they have not been ever yet called unto or summond to appear for ought appears to them not once twice thrice nor peremptorily or by any one peremptory citation sufficing for three nay not as much as once barely admonish'd in any wise and when you therefore consider that a sentence pronounced against them the case so standing with them must be extreamly unjust even for want of due procedure according to the substantial or essential form of law and reason albeit no intollerable errour as to matter of right or fact could be alleaged when I say your most Reverend Paternity shall consider seriously all these particulars I doubt not you will entertain a very serious thought also of the prudence and reasonableness of that of Father Carons either advice or desire That you take good heed to carry your self with deliberation matureness and charity in this debate which our emulous Antagonists have raised against us least otherwise more scandals and evils and such as will draw long repentance after them do follow then may be hindered taken away or ended at any time by your Paternity or by the Minister General and his perswaders or indeed by any other And so most Reverend Father I conclude this Epistle which the shortness objected by your most Reverend Paternity to Father Carons former letters which I have not yet seen hath made thus prolix For I am not without some apprehension that you will take the like exceptions to his later also which I have seen As for other passages which concern a yet more perfect account to be given by the Subscribers specially by Father Caron me and the rest of our Institution to the great Pontiff to whom next to God according to the Canons of the Catholick Church and the rule moreover of our Seraphical Father St. Francis which God willing we shall endeavour alwayes to observe we profess all reverence and even absolute obedience in spiritual affairs due from us or as to passages yet wanting if there be any such that relate to the satisfaction expected from us by as your Paternity sayes and to be given to
justice or such dispensation may be given without manifest injury to a third and besides where it is not repugnant to the law of God positive or natural And all this binding and loosing power in the Pope even in the whole Execution of it according to the Canons of the Vniversal Church and as farre as these Canons allow it as it is and will be religiously acknowledged and observed still by the Subscribers in all occasions so it is left wholly untouch'd unspoken of unmedled with but supposed still by the Remonstrance as a most Sacred Right not to be controverted much less denyed the Pope by any Catholick nor even to other Bishops of the Church for the portion belonging to them by the self same Canons But what hath this to do with the Lovain pretence of a power in the Pope to bind people by the Popes own peculiar laws Canons precepts or censures by Bulls or otherwise to do that which according to plain Scriptures practise of the primitive Church and Churches following for XI entire ages and according to the interpretation or sense delivered by Holy Fathers of those very Scriptures and according to the very first and clearest reflections also of natural reason must be vitious wicked and even most enormously wicked transgressions of those laws of God wherein neither Pope nor Vniversal Church have any power to dispense what to do with a pretended power in any to absolve from Subjection or command the Rebellion of Subjects against Soveraign Princes who are accountable to none for their temporals but to God Or what to do with binding or loosing to the prejudice and manifest injury not of one third person alone but of so many millions of third persons as there are people in a Kingdom or State This loosing is not of sin or of the penalties of sin but of virtue of Christian duties and divine injunctions Nor is such binding a binding to Holy righteousness but to Horrible depravedness And therefore both such binding and such loosing must be from no true power Divine or Humane from no Gospel of Jesus Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church nor from those Holy Keyes of knowledge or jurisdiction given St. Peter to open Heaven to penitents or shut it to impenitents nor from any Keyes at all but very false and errant Keyes if not right or true Keyes in this sense and to this purpose only that they set open the Gates of Hell first to receive all such unhappy Soules as make use of them and then to lock them in for ever Yet now that the Pope is and while he is or shall be continued a Soveraign temporal Prince in some part of Italy for the time hath been for many ages of Christianity even since Christian Religion was by law established when the Pope had no such not only Soveraign or supream but not even any inferiour subordinate temporal Princely power and may be so again for ought any man knows the Subscribers will freely grant the Lovain Divines That upon just grounds when truely such are or shall be the Pope may in the capacity of a temporal Prince but not of a Christian Bishop and may I say without any breach of the law of God declare and make Warr against the King of England always provided that he observe in all particulars what the law of God Nations and Nature require from him in the declaration or prosecution thereof And may do so with as much right as any other Soveraign Prince meerly temporal can but with no more certainly And further that the grounds of warr may possibly or in some extraordinary case be such on the Popes side as not only in the unerrable judgement of God but in the opinion of all men that shall know the grounds of both sides truely and sincerely stated the Warr may be just on the Popes side and unjust on the Kings The Subscribers do freely grant the Lovain Divines all this and all the advantages they can derive hence But what then must it follow that the subscribers have therefore sacrilegiously or against the sincerity of Catholick Religion declared in general or promised in their Remonstrance that they are ready to stand by the King and loose their lives in defence of his Person Rights or Crown or of his Kingdom State and people against all invaders whatsoever Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal c. forraign or domestick Or must this follow albeit we grant also the said promise or Declaration of standing so by the King to extend it self to or comprehend that very extraordinary case or contingency of our certain evident knowledg of the injustice of the Warr on the Kings side and clear Justice on the Popes Certainly neither the one nor other follows For albeit the case or supposition be rather metaphysically then morally possible that the generality of Subjects of either of the Princes or States in Warr together may evidently know or certainly assure themselves of the cleer Justice of the affailants fide at least so as to have no such kind of probability of any Justice on the defendants part and forasmuch as he is a Defendant yet admitting the case were morally possible who knows not that natural reason tells us and Divines and Lawyers teach that however the Prince both rashly and unjustly brings a Warr on himself and people yet both he and they are bound to hazard their lives each for others mutual defence that is for the defence of the Crown Kingdom State and Republick and for the lives liberties goods and fortunes of all that compose it though not for defence of any rashness or injustice So that although it be granted that both Prince and people are to quit all kind of unjust pretences yet their own natural defence or that of their goods lives and liberties as it comes not under that notion so it is unseparable from their taking armes in their own mutual defence in a meere defensive Warr or even that which happens after to be offensive before a good or Just peace can be obtained and is so I mean unseparable notwithstanding any injustice whatsoever done at first by Prince or people that brought the Warr upon themselves Be it therefore so that the Pope in such temporal capacity would make Warr on the King of England and be it granted for the present what otherwise in it self is very doubtful at least if not manifestly false That for the only unjust laws or only unjust execution of such or only other misgovernment or oppressions whatsoever of one King or Prince of his own proper natural undoubted Subjects without any injury done thereby to forraigners or any other forraign Kings Subjects or Prince or State such forraign Monarch or Common-wealth may justly declare and make Warr against him as for example the French or Spanish King and by the same reason the Pope also in his said temporal capacity against the King of England and be it clear and evident likewise that the
pretence or even true real only cause of Warr so declared and prosecuted by the Pope against our King is purely and solely for unjust laws made and executed against Catholicks and against as well their temporal as spiritual rights and only to restore such rights to the Catholick Subjects of great Brittain and Ireland and be it further made as clear and certain as any thing can be made in this life to an other by Declarations or Manifestoes of the Popes pure and holy intentions in such an undertaking and of his Army 's too or that they intend not at all to Usurp for themselves or alienat the Crown or other rights of the Kingdoms or of any of the people but only to restore the Catholick people to their former state according to the ancient fundamental laws and to let the King govern them so and only disinable him to do otherwise and having put all things into such order to withdraw his Army altogether let all this I say be granted yet forasmuch as considering the nature of Warr and conquest and how many things may intervene to change the first intentions so pure could these intentions I say be certainly known as they cannot to any mortal man without special Divine revelation what Divines can be so foolish or peremptory as to censure the Catholick Subjects for not lying under the mercy of such a forraign Army or even in such a case to condemn them either of Sacriledg or of any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith only for not suffering themselves to lye for their very natural being at such mercy Or if any Divines will be so foolish or peremptory as these Lovain Divines proved themselves to have been by this second ground of their Censure I would fain know what clear uncontroverted passage of Holy Scripture and allowed uncontroverted sense thereof or what Catholick uncontroverted doctrine of holy Tradition or even what convincing argument of natural reason they can alleadg in the case And as I am sure they cannot alleadg any so all others may presume so too being their said original long Censure wherein they lay down all their grounds and likely too their best proofs of such dare not see the light or abide the test of publick view And if all they would have by this ground or pretence of ground or by the bad arguments they frame to make it good were allowed it is plain they conclude no more against a Remonstrance which assures our King of his Roman Catholick Subjects to stand by him in all contingencies whatsoever for the defence of his person Crown Kingdom and people and their natural and political or civil rights and liberties against the Pope himself then they would against such a Remonstrance as comprehended not such standing by against the Pope but only against French Spanish or other Princes of the Roman Church or Communion For the Pope hath no more nor can pretend any more right in the case to make Warr on the King of England then any meer temporal Prince of that Religion can being if he did Warr it must be only and purely as a meer temporal Prince for as having pure Episcopal power either that wich is immediately from Jesus Christ or that which is onely from the Fathers and Canons of the Church or if you please from both he is not capacitated to fight with the sword but with the word that is by praying and preaching and laying spiritual commands and inflicting spiritual censures only where there is just cause of such And I am sure the Lovain Divines have not yet proved nor will at any time hereafter that the non-rebellion of Subjects against their own lawful Prince let his government be supposed never so tyrannical never so destructive to Catholick Faith and Religion or even their taking arms by his command to defend both his and their own civil and natural rights against all forraign invaders whatsoever and however specious the pretext of invasion be is a just cause of any such spiritual Ecclesiastical censure Nor have proved yet against them or can hereafter that such censures in either of both cases would bind any but him alone that should pronounce them and those only that besides would obey them Yet all this notwithstanding I am farre enough and shall ever be from saying or meaning that Subjects whatsoever Catholick or not Catholick ought or can justy defend any unjust cause or quarrel of their Prince when they are evidently convinced of the injustice of it Nor consequently is it my saying or meaning that Catholick Subjects may enlist themselves in their Princes Army if an offensive Warr be declared against the Pope or even other Catholick Prince or State soever and had been declared so by the Prince himself or by his Generals or Armyes and by publick Manifesto's or otherwise known sufficiently and undoubtedly to be for extirpation of the true Orthodox Faith or Catholick Religion or of the holy rites or Liturgy or holy discipline of it Nor doth our Remonstrance engage us to any such thing but is as wide from it as Heaven from Earth It engages us indeed to obey the King even by the most active obedience can be even to enlist our selves if he command us and hazard our lives in fighting for the defence of his Person Crowns Kingdoms and People amongst which people our selves are but only still in a defensive Warr for his and their lives rights and liberties but engages us not at all to any kind of such active obedience nor ever intended to engage or supposed us engaged thereunto in case of such an offensive Warr as I have now stated What obedience the Remonstrance engages us unto in this later case is onely or meerly passive And to this passive obedience I confess it binds us in all contingencies whatsoever even the very worst imaginable But therefore binds us so because the law of the Land and the law of God and the law of Reason too without any such Remonstrance bound us before The Remonstrance therefore brings not in this particular as neither indeed in any other any kind of new tye on us but only declares our bare acknowledgement of such tyes antecedently Even such tyes as are on all Subjects of the world to their own respective lawful supream politick Governours Which bind all Subjects whatsoever to an active obedience when ever and where euer they are commanded any thing either good of its own nature or even but only indifferent and where the law of God or the law of the Land doth not command the contrary or restrain the Princes power of commanding it And to a passive obedience when he commands us any evil or any thing against either of both laws That is to a patient abiding suffering or undergoing without rebellion or any forcible resistance whatever punishment he shall inflict on us for not doing that which he commands and is truly evil in it self as being against the laws of God or is
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
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 Against these very last lines of this Petition or against this final perclose of of all leaving those that are or hereafter shall be guilty of other crimes c. to the punishment prescribed by the law our Adversaries labour so mightily to except as unlawful to be owned or subscribed at least by Catholick Priests or as acknowledging Clergy-men subject to the Secular Court and consequently as either disacknowledging or at least renouncing the priviledge of their Order whereby they are for their persons especially in criminal causes wholy exempt from the jurisdiction of Lay Judges let the crimes be never so hainous until they be first judged in the Ecclesiastick Court before their own proper competent Ecclesiastick Superiours or spiritual Judges and before they be further condemned by such and after all degraded or at least delivered over also by such to the Secular Court or Lay Judges But who sees not the vanity and nullity of this objection or of this consecution Who sees not the Objectors were resolved to seek here a knot in the bul-rush Clergy-men of the Romish Communion living in a Country where all the laws are against their very profession where all the prejudices imaginable were and with much ground too against the very persons of many as enemies to the Crown and State and where as yet no endeauours had been used by them to secure the State of as much as their Allegiance only for the very future and in a Countrey also where no such priviledge at least as to them is or hath been owned by the Kings Laws Magistrates or Judges for a whole century of years such Clergy-men I say and such of them too I mean as find themselves not guilty of other crime then that which according to the law of God is no crime at all addressing themselves to a just and merciful Prince but a Prince nevertheless that is not of their communion nor doth acknowledge or admit of such their Exemption and attempting by a declaration and promise of their future Allegiance to free themselves from a severe persecution raised against them cannot such Clergy-men as observe strictly and religiously that precept in particular of St. Peter to all Christians in general whether Lay-men or Clergy-men Nemo autem vestrum patiatur ut homicida aut fur aut maledicus aut alienorum appetitor let none of you suffer as a murderer or as a thief or as a rayler or as a coveter of other mens Goods 1 Pet. 4. Cannot such Clergy-men I say and cannot they too according to all the rules of prudence and conscience intreat and implore the Princes compassionat regard of their innocent profession and harmless behaviour in the pure exercise of a holy Religion and humbly beg his protection of them from suffering on that account only and for a further inducement of such Princes favouring them on that account remonstrate also unto him what should and ought to be consequent in the case that they are not Supplyants for any of their function who is or shall be hereafter guilty of any true crimes as theft murder sedition rebellion c. but only for such as are or shall be charged with such matters as only in the presumption of the present laws of the Land are crimes and only too even by such presumption religious crimes Or cannot they in such a Countrey and circumstances prudently and lawfully too for what concerns conscience do so and remonstrate so especially in such discreet wary general terms as these leaving those that are or shall be hereafter guilty of other crimes c. to the punishment prescribed by the law without dis-acknowledging or even renouncing even as much as to themselves alone where they can choose the priviledge or pretence of priviledge of Clergy-men for being exempt Or must it follow that they acknowledge that priviledge whatever it be or how ever expounded or extended by some not due to them by any law divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical Or must it follow that they do absolutely renounce it either for themselves or others if it be probable or possible they may to any real purpose challenge the benefit thereof Or rather is it not manifest and as clear as the Sun that no such consequence follows out of such Remonstrance or such words or such leaving in the circumstances or cases but at most and at worst a conditional resignation of their own souls or conditional renuntiation of such priviledge or pretence thereof and as to themselves alone and in such circumstances only or while the laws of the Land are such and the Prince and People observant of such laws and that Romish Clergy-men must will they nill they be judged by and according to such laws And consequently too as clear as the Sun that those words above leaving c. which end that petition and whole paper of that of 61. and which are the only pretended ground of that objection cannot be justly taxed at least in the case or circumstances with other meaning or sense then can be justly derived from this other expression which might be of it in these other words we do not beg your Majesty to protect us from any persecution can be against us upon account of Theft Murder Treason Rebellion or any other of those true crimes crimes which are otherwise stiled in the Canons lay-crimes nor we intercede or supplicate for any persons guilty of or in as much as they shall be charged with any such true crime but for what concerns us resolve to let all such answer for themselves and stand or fall according to law Now it is plain that all this imports no more then a greater detestation of such crimes in Clergiemen and of the persons of Clergiemen as guilty of such And further and at most and worst but a resolution not to be concern'd in such nor to petition the King in their behalf nor to interpose at all twixt them and the law though meaning without any peradventure that which is by His Majesty understood the law For they exclude above expresly all equivocation And yet the Divines of Lovaine and sticklers for them in Ireland must needs censure so harmless so prudent and so necessary a petition or expression and censure it as renouncing or declaring against Ecclesiastical Immunity and further censure it as even sacrilegious and containing somewhat against the sincerity of Catholick Faith Certainly if so or if they be not abused by misinformation or misrepresentation of their grounds of censure I cannot otherwise judge of them but that they have been
them from tribute and of the Domestick family of such Princes or their children free also from paying tribute and lastly on our Saviours bidding Peter to pay for them both least people should be scandalized as if sayes Bellarmine our Saviour himself had thereby declared or said that both himself and his family whose Prefect Peter was should be free from all tribute quasi diceret et se et familiam suam cujus Prefectus erat Petrus liberos esse debere where I say now is the strength of this argument to prove that by the positive law of God as much as per quandam similitudinem all Clergiemen of the world are exempt more then others both as to their goods and persons from the supream civil power or even to prove they are by such law exempt more then others as much as from tribute All Christians are of the family and as such Peter is Prefect of them all And certainly Bellarmine himself hath strugled much in his books de Rom. Pont. and more singularly yet in his others against Barelay and Widdrington to prove that Peter was so in his own days and after his days that other succeeding Bishops of Rome are so likewise even over all the goods and lands and bodies too of Christians and not onely over those of Christians but over all those of the Heathen also For so at last Bellarmine found himself constrain'd to say by the arguments of Widdrington and Barclay to which he could find no other answer But however this be or whether by any kind of similitude it may be concluded out of this passage of Matthew that Clergiemen as being in one certaine sense more especially of the Household or Domestick family of Christ either as he was the natural Son of God or as he was a man should be more exempt from paying tribute or taxes then others of his even holy believers and sanctified family who are not in that certain sense or in that special manner that is by such a special function of his family whether I say this follow or no pâ—â— quamdam similitudinem out of that passage of Matthew yet no man of never so little reason can alleadge for Bellarmine That our Saviour's instance there in his Querie to Peter about the Kings of the Earth and his pronouncing and concluding out of Peters answer Ergo liberi sunt fily must inferre that Clerks should therefore be exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of the civil Magistrate or of any supream earthly King For it is well known that earthly Kings do not exempt not even the most special domesticks of their children from their own Royal supream coercive power or from that of their laws in criminal causes albeit they give them exemption from tributs or taxes and many other priviledges And no less known too That they exempt not from that power and in such causes not even their very children themselves Nay nor in civil causes either so but that they may be sued even before the subordinate inferiour Judges in the Kings Courts of Justice And for criminal causes the Cronicles of England and Histories of Spain can shew us Instances These of a Prince of Spain put to death by his Father King Phillip the Second for some intelligence as some do say with the Turk And those of a Prince of England proceeded against even by an Inferiour Judge for some misdemeanour committed or authorized by him and even proceeded so against without any special warrant from the King but that which the Judge had in the laws of the Kingdom All which being so how can it follow out of that our Saviour's illation from the answer of Peter concerning the practice of Earthly Kings in the case of not exacting tribute or taxes from their own children That by the positive law of God in this place of Matthew Clerks are absolutely exempt from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes Or how indeed I say doth that consequence follow as much as per quandam similitudinem And follow yet upon this account that Clerks are in such a special manner of the family of the Prince or even of the Kings Heir apparant If he shall answer by quitting our Saviours illation implied in the word Erge and that of the similitude from the practice of earthly Kings as to the matter of coercion and by insisting only on these words liberi sunt filii as upon a positive declaration made by our Saviour of the exemption of Clergy-men from all Kings of the Earth and in all matters whatsoever and consequently also by appropriating so the word filii here to Clergy-men alone that not only all other Christians because Lay-persons but even our Saviour himself be not thereby understood in the quality of the natural Son of God I say that if any shall answer by such a systeme of suppositions the Reply is clear and convincing enough 1. That they are all either very false or at least very vain because without any proof or colour of proof 2. That such a positive Declaration by these words Ergo liberi sunt filii is contradicted by Bellarmine himself who expresly acknowledges no divine precept properly such of the positive law of God either in this place or any other of holy Scripture for the exemption of Clergymen either from taxes or judicial proceedings of the civil Magistrate And I am sure both he and all other Divines will confess that a positive Declaration made by Christ in holy Scripture is to all Christians a divine precept and properly such of the positive law of God 3. That if these words were such a positive Declaration neither Bellarmine nor others needed their per quandam similitudinem nor any further going about the bush 4. And lastly that if they were such then certainly St. Paul had been much out of the way when he declared the contrary Rom. 13. and all the holy Fathers expounding him there even for a whole thousand years and all the Christian Church consequently until our new Interpreters and Sophisters came in these latter ages to tell us what Christ declared as will appear evidently in one of the following Sections where I treat of that command of St. Paul or of God rather by St. Paul 13 Rom. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit c. Let the judicious Reader himself be now judge whether the case for what concerns any positive law of God in holy Scripture be not clear enough on my side what ever Bellarmine say or whether he confess that there is no precept properly such of God or of such law in holy Scripture being our Adversaries alledge no other places either out of the old or new Testament but these I have now considered as the only of all which together Bellarmine frames but to no purpose his first argument to prove that Clergymen are even by the positive law of God free or exempt from even the supream civil coercive power of all
way as by saying they understood not by divine that which is properly and strictly divine but that only which is in a large though somewhat improper acception such and by lay-persons understand only such inferior Lay-persons Judges or Governours as in certain cases haue not from the supream power and civil laws any cognizance of Church-men Which indeed is the only rational and natural exposition of these authorities without any erroneous absurdity falsity inconvenience or prejudice as the very Canon alledged above by me at large out of the Tridentine Synod seems expresly to intimate for as much as it expresly and signally desires or confides for so it speaks that Emperours Kings and Princes will not suffer that their Officials or inferior Magistrats or Judges violat the Immunities of the Church or Church-men out of any covetousness or inconsiderancy confidens c. nec permissuros ut officiales aut inferiores Magistratus Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiasticarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione canâ—nicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu inconsideratione aliqua violent Besides the Reader is to observe two things for that of the fourth Lateran 1. That where 't is said there that Laicks usurp too much of divine right c. by divine right here we ought not nor indeed can if we will not make the Fathers to speak improperly understand the law of God but only the right belonging to God whether that right be derived immediatly from the law of God or law of man 2. That it cannot be truly said that any Clerks receive no temporal thing or benefit from the supream civil Magistrate whereas all Clerks receive from them temporal protection at least And therefore in reason owe Allegiance to such their protectors For Boniface the VIII although his authority or judgment alone without a Council be amongst very Catholick Nations or Universities of no great value or esteem in this or any other which concerns the difference or controversie For we know well enough how his extravagant unam sanctam de Majorit obed is reputed in the Gallican Church and what his Letter Brief or Bull was to a King of France where he declared them all Hereticks that would not acknowledge himself to be supream in that Kingdom and as well in all temporals as in spirituals and that the same esteem indeed and as to our main purpose may be and also truly and groundedly may be entertain'd of Innocent the Third no judicious Divine that will read in Spondaâ—uâ—s Contin his proceedings against most of all the Christian Kings not in Europe only but in Asia will deny I say neverthess that for what concerns only our present purpose of the exemption of Clergymens persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coactive power under which they live and are protected our learned Cardinal alledges this very Boniface to no purpose albeit he alledge him in cap. Quamquam de Censibus in 6. Where indeed there is no such thing For in that place as it is manifest enough out of the whole chapter and purpose or matter treated therein which was only of and against Guidagia that is a kind of toll custome or exaction to be paid for the safeguard of High-wayes and out of the very words which Bellarmine would not quote because not to his general purpose or to that of proving generally all the parts of his Fifth Proposition Cum igitur Ecclesiae Ecclesiasticaeque persâ—nae ac res ipsarum non solum jure humano quin etiam divino à saecularium personarum exactionibus sint immunes it is I say very manifest hence that Boniface in that place and no other is alledged out of him doth not as much as touch upon our controversie or say as Bellarmine imposes on him that Clerks and their goods are exempt from the secular power For be it well or ill said of Boniface here that as well by divine right or law as by humane Churches and Churchmen are free or exempt from all publick exactions of secular persons whereas by such exactions all Divines and Canonists understand only tributes tolls customes or taxes whatsoever of money or other things imposed as payable to the publick and whereas the very matter treated of and determined by Boniface in that Chapter is only that of guidagia or pedagia which was a duty as it seems payable then in Italy by all travellers and for their safe convoy or safe travelling whereas he commands only there that in prosecution of a certain decree made by Alexander the IV. his Predecessor Church-men pay no such guidagia or pedagia for their own Persons or Goods which they carry along or cause to be carried or sent non causa negotiandi who sees not it is a very great inconsequence and meer abuse of the Reader to conclude that therefore Boniface the VIII supposed generally nay says it to be de jure divino positivo taking this jus divinum strictly and properly that Clerks are wholy exempt in all criminal causes and all matters whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of Lay-Princes Certainly neither doth Boniface teach any such matter there nor must any such follow out of what he either supposes or dedetermines there Because it is clear enough that certain persons even meer lay-persons may have a priviledge from all kind of taxes and yet be subject in other causes and other matters both criminal and civil to such as impose taxes For Iohn the VIII That who ever please to consider that whole chapter Si Imperator quoted by Bellarmine will be convinced this Pope intends no more but that as it is fitting the Emperour himself should for what concerns Religion learn from and not teach the Church so in Ecclesiastical matters it was Gods pleasure that Clerks should be ordered and examined and if they chanced to fall into an errour should be also reconciled on their return not by the Lay-powers but by the Pontiffs and Priests Which these words omitted by the Cardinal recipique de errore remeantes do sufficiently insinuat Besides that any man knows it is a very weak and sensless argument of a positive law of God for any thing or any duty or any priviledge that either Iohn the VIII or any other even a whole General Council should speak in this manner Omnipotens Deus voluit it was the will of God unless they had withal and on the debate or controversie it self made of purpose an express Canon declaring that thereby or by such manner or by these words it is or it was the will of the omnipotent God they mean'd to signifie not the general or special providence of God or his good will or pleasure known only to us for example in the present matter of Exemption because we see the Clerks as to many things are exempted so by the laws of Princes and that we know this could never have been done by Princes if God had not moved their hearts to do so For
extended them to other Kingdoms and that besides they were after approved of and received by the Bishops of such other Kingdoms That neither Gratian's insertion of them into the body of his Decretum nor the publication of his Decretum as such by the approbation authority or command of Popes makes them hoc ipso to be extended or of more binding authority in the nature of laws then they were before such insertion publication or approbation command or authority or makes them hoc ipso to be laws for the Catholick Church but onely to be more authentick whereas we know there are a thousand authorities alleadged by Gratian which are not therefore binding laws to the Church Thirdly that whatever may be said of Inferiour lay Judicatories judgments or Judges nothing at all can be with any kind of colour inferr'd hence against the supream of the Emperour himself in any matters whatsoever laws or canons whereby his power may be conceived whether right or wrong to be any way limited Because the supream extraordinary and absolute judgment of the Prince is never understood never signified by or comprised under the general notion or common use of these words secularia judicia as the Prince himself is not understood by the general or common name of a Judge or of a secular Iudge being these words or the like according to the common use or meaning signifie onely such as are such by special office and not him at all who by a supereminent power creats both these and all other even much higher Officials For it is a rule among both Civilians and Canonists That the words of any Canons Institutions or other laws whatsoever though Canons or laws of priviledg must be stâ—â—cti juris and strictae interpretati nis where otherwise a very great inconvenience must follow or where they derogate to a former uncontroverted right of any third person and much more when by any other interpretation they derogate to the supream authority either spiritual in the Pope or temporal in the Emperour and most of all when they ruine and quite destroy either in relation to their subjects being that in so much they are purely odious though in other points where no such prejudice is they are purely favourable And Odia restringi favores autem convenit ampliari is a rule of the very Canon law in Sexto Now who sees not there can be nothing more inconvenient in it self and more odious to Princes then that so vast a number of both men and women living within their Kingdoms and going under the name and title of their Subjects should yet be exempted wholly from their even supream royal power and in all cases whatsoever civil or criminal Pursuant to the former rule is that other which Felinus hath cap. uit de sanâ—nia Quoties species a â—â—â—it aliquid generi numquam appellatione generis venit species Now Iu â—ex secularis and judicium seculare is a genus Rex Imperator c. and judicium supremum Regium or judicium supremum imperiale is a species And pursuant also to both rules is the doctrine of that celebrious late Doctor of Paris Andreas Duuallius de suprema Rom. Pontif. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q. 4. p. 264. where notwithstanding his being so great and known a stickler against the ancient School of Paris for the Pope in too many things yet he writeth thus Notum est nomine Cleric rum c. It is manifest that in any odious matter Bishops are not comprehended under the name of Clerks nor sometimes in the same matter â—ther Religious men under the name of Mâ—nks neque similiter nomine Dominorum Reges nor likewise Kings under the name of Landlords Govern us or Lords in regard of the height and Majesty of the Royal dignity c. And finally pursuant to the said rules and their meaning or scope it is that we read the same or the like other exceptions and of several other particulars from a comprehension under general notions in Armilla verb. Abbas n. XI verb. Clericus n. 2. verb. sacerdos n. 1. Sayrus tom 1. l. 3. c. 33. Navarr tom 2. commentar in cap. Finali de simâ—nia n. 5. Silvester verb. excommunicatio 19. n. 82. Parag. Quadragesima tertia Innâ—centius in can sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis Moreover as it is a general maxime That in a general concession or priviledge how general soever the words be such things are not to be understood as granted which evident reason tell us that in all probability the Prince or Pope or other Legislator or graunter of such concession or priviledge would not grant by any means if he had reflected or thought on it in particular so it must be as general a rule That in a general prohibition of any law or Canon and how general soever the words be such things are not prohibited which if reflected on in particular right reason tells us that in all probability it could not have been the intention of the makers of such a law or Canon to prohibit them Out of all which it is evident enough that no Divine or Canonist may conclude from the prohibition of this Council of Agde or of this Canon of it or of this second part of the said Canon that the Fathers comprehended or intended to comprehend the supream absolute and extraordinary judgment of Kings or Emperours under the general notions of secularia judicia but onely such as were commonly understood by such those I mean of subordinate inferiour Iudicatories and from which there might be upon rational grounds and by the concession or permission of their Prince or custom of the Country even at that very time wherein these Fathers lived an exemption of Clerks For who is so bereaved of common sense as to say that the Councils of Christian Bishops in those days would be so high or unreasonable or rather so mad as to prohibit Clerks not to appear at all before the King Emperour or other supream Magistrate though called upon and expresly commanded to appear before them which yet these Fathers must be said to have decreed in this Canon or second part of it if Bellarmines allegation of it be to his main purpose here of Exemption of the Clerks by this Canon from even the supream civil coercive power or if it be against mine here also which is that no Canon hath ever yet so exempted them not even this of Agde or which is the same the same thing if secularia judicia in this Canon reach even to the very supream of the Emperour or other King and in all cases and causes temporal civil or criminal whatsoever But if Bellarmine or any other for him see no absurdity in granting this to have been the meaning of this ancient though onely Provincial Synod of a few Bishops of Guien onely he must pardon me for not joyning with him in so hard a censure or opinion of such scandalous consequence of any Catholick Coucil especially so
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
there was not as much as a coercive power in the politick or civil Head for correcting punishing or any way restraining the Ringleaders of such fatal dances and where the Clergie themselves both Priests and Bishops and Popes too themselves were these Ringleaders But suppose the Popes had never had a hand in such matters yet if Princes could not at home with themselves and without application to the Pope consequently without too too long delayes while the difference twixt them and their own Clergie were debated at Rome if I say in the mean time the Princes these politick Heads of the civil common-wealth might not in conscience make use of all their strength to coerce the Factious and Rebellious Clergiemen and if such Clergiemen lay under no kind of tye to submit to their coercion how could it be possible in nature that either the one were enabled with a sufficient power of politick Heads or the other had incumbent on them sufficient tyes of Citizens parts or members to attain the ends of their politick common-wealth which they are supposed to compose joyntly Before such debate were ended nay before the beginning of it could be or as much as the news of any such matter could arrive at Rome the evil would often be incurable if it could not be cured at home by the coercive power of the Politick Head and material sword Avant therefore such unsatisfactory answers of Bellarmine answers which himself must have very well known to have been voyd even of all truth and conscience and yet would give them because he could give no better in so bad a cause and that his worldly interest did not suffer him to yield to the victorious cause But although I have so now sufficiently illustrated and abundantly proved my last Minor proposition or that of my last proof and thereby evidently concluded my former whole second argument yet for the satisfaction of the more curious Reader and as an appendix of that either my last proof or of that my former second argument whereof it was the proof I will give here in Bellarmine's own words what he answered to the simile of the natural Head and members of the natural body and to some other particulars objected to him on this occasion by William Barclay You say sayes Bellarmine to Barclay that all the members must be so under the Head and all the Citizens so under the Rector of the Citty that the Head and Rector may correct and punish all the members and Citizens and that Clerks are members of the body politick and as to temporal thing Cittizens of the earthly Citty I answer In the natural body its necessary that all the members be under and obedient to the Head because in such a body exemption hath no place But in the body politick wherein exemption hath place it is unnecessary that all the members that is all the Cittizens be properly under or subject to the power of the Head that is to that of the Rector And therefore it is unnecessary that the Prince may coerce or punish all the Cittizens as it is unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute or that all bear arms or turn souldiers to defend the Republick but it may suffice that by counsel or exhortations or prayers to God they help the temporal common-wealth But the Republick will be troubled or disturbed if Clerks may without fear of coercion or punishment transgress the laws of Princes I answer that they shall not without punishment transgress for they shall be coerced by their own immediate Bishop or by the chief or Great Bishop But Charles the V. called Hermannus the Archbishop of Colen to his own secular tribunal 'T is true but he called him as a Prince of the Empire for the Pope Paul III. called before himself too the same Hermannus as an Archbishop witness the same Surius in the same place which very Surius a little after writes an 1547. that by the Pope's and Emperours command Hermannus was deposed but that the sentence of deposition was given by the Pope But how diligent an observer of Ecclesiastical Immunity Charles the V. was may be hence understood that in the year 1520. a most horrid conspiracy against the said Charles being detected wherein there were some Ecclesiasticks Charles did punish the Laicks but remitted the Clerks to their own Ecclesiastical Situations to be punished Witness Malin â—4 c. 21 de Hispan priâ—og Barclay added that there are some grievous transgressions or crimes which in France go under the name of privilegâ—â—ta priâ—iledged as reserved to the Princes But this argument may be retorted against the Author For such are not called priviledged because the Prince had reserved them to himself or to his own cognizance when he gave the priviledg of exemption to Clerks as Barclay sayes they are but are called such or crimina privilegiâ—â—a because that by the priviledg of the See Apostolick it is indulged to the Kings of the French that they may take cognizance of such crimes when committed by Clerks which Clarusq 36. Parag. finn vâ— sicul ultariâ—◠〈◊〉 and Auâ—â—â—rius in Clementina Vit Clericorum de offic Jâ—d Ord â—iâ—uâ—â— do explicate Bellarmine therefore sayes here the difference in the similed or which to our purpose must be in the similitude twixt the natural body and politick body is that in the politick exemption hath no place and that hence it is unnecessary that all the members politick that is all the Citizens be properly under or subject to the power of the politick Head that is of the Rector and therefore also that it is unnecessary that Princes may coerca or punish all the Cittizens as it as unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute c. But who sees not that there is no exemption can be in the body politick oâ— of the members of it which may not by similitude be applyed to and found in the natural body For the respective members of natural Bâ—dyes may be qualified with those exemptions which are not against the nature or essence of such members in the same body and under the same Head For example the hand may have this exemption bestowed on it that it be not bound to labour daily and the feet this exemption that by a man's lyeing down a bed they may rest from going And yet will it not follow that either the natural hands or natural feet are not under the power of the natural Head Even so in the body politick may it very well be and is it de fact that some part of the Cittizens be exempted from tributs and from Judicial courts or those of subordinate and ordinary Judges and yet be still under the power of the politick Head to witt of the King or Prince or other supream Governour But neither in the politick body nor in the natural body can the members be so exempted that they be no more under the Head because this would be against the definition and essence of members and
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
his lawful Procurator to answer such crimes as were objected to him by the said Clergy and Academy and in the mean time to innovate nothing but to restore all things were innovated into their former state And therefore that they will find in Spondanus that this Emperour summon'd this Archbishop even as an Archbishop and consequently did not only summon and proceed against him as a Prince of the Empire but as a very Archiepiscopal Clerk and even too in a meer cause of Religion For this last particular also of the being of the cause for which the Emperour summon'd him a cause of Religion and Faith the same Spondanus hath expresly in the same place where he tells us that it was therefore the Pope Paul the III. who then sate in the See Apostolick thought fit by his own Letters of the 18. of Iuly immediatly following in the same year to summon to Rome the same Hermannus giving him sixty dayes for appearance before himself to wit least otherwise his Holiness might be thought to let go his own challenge of peculiar right in the See Apostolick only to proceed against so great a Clerk especially being the cause was properly Clerical and properly too a cause of Faith and reformation of the Church in religious tenets and rites and least consequently he might seem wholly to quit the quarrel of external coercion of either Clerks or Laicks where the crime was Heresie and by his own want or neglect of proceeding by his own proper Apostolical Authority against Herman whereas the Emperour had begun and proceeded already upon account or by virtue also of his own pure or sole imperial civil and lay power might be esteemed to acknowledge in lay Princes that supream external coercive right of even all sorts of very Clerks and even too of such in the very meerest and purest causes of Faith and Religion The testimony of Spondanus to this purpose is in these words Quod ut Pontifex audivit he means the summons sent by Charles from the Dyet of Worms for the Archbishop parum prohare visus quod Cesar in causa Fidei reformationis Ecclesiarum Iudicis authoritatem sibi sumeret die decima octava Iulii eundem Coloniensem ad sexagesimum diem citavit ut per seipsum vel per legittimum procuratorem coram ipso Romae se sisteret To that also which Bellarmine hath of crimina privilegiata and for as much as he sayes that in France those are call'd priviledg'd crimes whereof that Clerks may be accused before a lay Judge in the secular Court the Pope hath indulged I say it is farr otherwise And that Bellarmine could not shew nor any other can for him any Sanction or Law nay or any other authentick writing wherein it is recorded to posterity that such a priviledge was given by the Pope to Kings or Republicks Though I confess many Popes have been free enough of granting priviledges where they had no right to grant any and where only the ignorance or injustice of pretenders gave them some kind of bad excuse for attempting to give any and would willingly have all both Princes and people to desire of them priviledges for all they could themselves do before of themselves nay and were often bound to do without any priviledge Whence also it may be sufficiently evicted that it is no way probable this ordinary jurisdiction supream of Kings over Clerks was granted to them by the Pope but on the contrary certain that whereas anciently the very most Christian Kings and Emperours made use of all their both directive and coercive power to govern Clerks in all civil matters whatsoever nay and in spiritual matters too for what I mean concerns the external regiment of the Church by external direction of laws and by external coercion too of the material sword and to govern them also either immediatly by themselves or mediatly by their subordinat lay Judges and whereas the civil laws wherein and whereby afterwards the same Emperors and Kings exempted Clerks in many causes or most or if you please to say or think so in all whatsoever from the ordinary subordinate lay Judges have not a word of any exemption from the Prince himself the supream civil Judge of all both lay and Ecclesiastical Judge of his own Kingdom in the external coactive regiment therefore it must be concludent it was only from and by the free will of the Princes themselves that ordinary jurisdiction supream temporal or civil over Clerks was reserved still to themselves who remitted or bestowed away of their own right all whatever they pleased as they did that in the present case of deputing lay men for the ordinary subordinat Judges of those causes of Clerks which are not common but priviledged and retained also what they would Of all which the late and most learned Milletus may be read who in that choice and elegant Tract of his which he inscribed de delicto communi casis privilegiato shews very learnedly and clearly 1. That all such priviledges of Clergiemen had their whole and sole origen from Kings 2. And therefore that such crimes as Clerks are accused of and judged in foro civili in the ordinary civil or lay Courts are properly to be called delicta communia because to be tryed by the common law and before the common or lay Magistrate and those only which are remitted to the Bishop are by a contrary reason to be tearmed privilegiata to wit because it is by a priviledge granted by Kings or indulged by them to Bishops that bishops may take cognizance of and judge them As for Clarus and Ausrerius whom Bellarmine alledges for that his own sense of what is a priviledged crime of Clerks or for any other Canonists soever I regard not much what they say or not say in this matter Because they all commonly and without any ground not only bereave Princes of this supream right of either coeâ—cing or directing Clerks but also teach that all kind of meer temporal Principality flows and depends from the Papacy As that Legat did who in a Diet of the German Princes had the confidence to ask or querie thus A quo habet Imperator Imperium nisi habet a Domine Papa For so Radevicus hath related this Legats folly And so having throughly destroyed all the replies of Bellarmine to the grounds or any part of the grounds of my second grand argument and of the proof of it which second argument and proof of its Minor I derived partly from and built upon his own principles of Clergiemens being Cittizens and parts of the politick commonwealth I am now come to My third argument of pure natural reason which shall end this present Section Though I withal confess the grounds of this third argument are already given in my illustration of the former second But however for the clearer methods sake because too the medium is somewhat different from that in the form of my foregoing second I would give
the King labours and watches for the defence not onely of Laicks but of Clerks also therefore not Laicks onely but also Clerks do give him that honour which is due to Kings according to the precept of the Apostle Peter Fear God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. Finally they pray for the King as the Apostle bids them 1. Timoth. 2. saying I desire therefore first of all things that obsecrations prayers postulations thankes-givings be made for all men for Kings and all that are in preheminence Nor onely do they power their prayers to God for Kings in general but say in specie in particular pro Rege N. vel pro Imperatore N. for our King N. or for our Emperour N. expressing their names First therefore what Bellarmine sayes here is that the King may exempt some part of his own people from some part of his own power or even from his own whole power And this he proves thus Because sayes he the King may bestow on some house or Citty an exemption or immunity from tributs What 's this to our question Doth an exemption from tributs work this effect that whoever is so exempted is no more bound to the Prince in any kind of subjection For this is the onely question We confess the priviledges given to Clerks to be greater then a sole exemption from tributs but we deny that Clerks therefore are totally manumised set free or exempted from their subjection to Princes But sayes Bellarmine it is the prerogative of a Prince to exact tribute as it is to command or judge or punish and therefore if he can remit the one why not the other A vast difference there is most eminent Cardinal It is indeed proper to or the prerogative of a Prince to exact tributes because none exact such but Princes or States which are the same thing here But it is also proper to a King to remit tributes because none else may and that by such remission he ceaseth not to be â—â—ince of the same persons or people or City to which tribute is so remitted and that it may also be expedient sometimes for his Principality to remit them Nay if Princes had universally remitted all kind of tribute to all the people of their Dominions as Nero thought to do and could and would content themselves and bear all the charges of the publick and defend it too with by and out of their own patrimony would they fall therefore from their Principality But it is no way proper to a King to remit to any in all things all kind of obedience or subjection to himself and yet still to be truly called and truly essentially or properly to be or to remain King of those very persons to whom such remission is made because the power of lording commanding judging punishing at least in some cases is the very essence of Principality so that the Prince cannot remit or quit this and withal continue Prince Nor doth Bellarmine help himself by saying that albeit the Prince may not exempt or set free all his people and still remain Prince yet he may some part of them For it is plain that he cannot any part and together be Prince or King of that part whereas it is of the very essence of a King to lord it over and command his whole Kingdom to provide for his whole Kingdom and to have all within his Kingdom Natives Forreigners Dwellers Sejourners Inmates Travellers c. of what degree or quality soever obnoxious or subject to his will and laws the good to be encouraged to be rewarded by him and malefactors to be coerced and punish'd also by him Nor indeed is he instituted King to govern any part or parts of his Kingdom but to govern the whole Kingdom And therefore it must be that if he exempt any part from subjection to himself which yet he cannot de jure without the consent of all the Estates of the Kingdom he must as well in order to such part cease to be King as he would in order to all if he had bestowed that plenary exemption upon all and every part of his Kingdom For I beseech you what rational man would perswade himself that for example the present French or Spanish Kings are absolute Kings respectively of all France or of all Spain or of all French and Spaniards if in the richest and fruitfullest Territories of all France there be four or five hundred thousand Frenchmen and so many French women and if double trebble or quadrubble that number be in the Spanish so exempt from the French and Spanish Kings Dominions and yet so diffused in every Province County City Corporation and the very Villages that nothing can be more and yet having moreover so much influence on the rest of the people that they can turn them which way they please Or how could for another examples sake either Henry the Eight in England or his Catholick Predecessors be justly called or stiled Kings of England if the Clerks of that Kingdom then almost innumerable and possessing as their own proper lands and goods wel-nigh the one entire moyety of it were not truly and properly subjects to the said Henry and to other his said Predecessors Secondly what Bellarmine sayes though by way of interrogation is That if some great King doth in the middle of his Kingdom free some one City or absolutely bestow it on another he may be notwithstanding said to be King of his whole Kingdom But I would fain know what our great Cardinal understands by these words Rex totius regni sui King of all his own Kingdom Doth he repute that City so exempted or so made free by that great King to be notwithstanding part of that very Kings own whole Kingdom If so our Cardinal recedes not only from truth but from common sense For I pray what is it else to be a King but to lord it over those or to command those of whom he is King Can Bellarmine himself deny the King to be Superiour in relation to those of whom he is King And yet himself teaches cont Barclaium cap. 13. that every Superiour may command his Inferiour omnis superior potest imperare inferiori suo Some indeed question how far or in what things the power of Kings extend to their people but none at all whether in any thing or even very many things it reach or command them But our Cardinal will have that City exempted to be no more subject in any thing to be no more commanded in any matter by that King Therefore he is no more King of it Nor doth it make any difference in the case that he protect or defend that Citty For it is one thing to be a Protector or Defender and an other to be King Who is it would say that the Kings of England or France were Kings of Holland and of the rest of the United Provinces at any time since the said Provinces rebelled against their own natural King albeit we know and it
be confessed that the French and English Kings were their Protectors and Defenders against the Kings of Spain Or who would say that Henry the Second of France was King of the Confederate Princes of Germany although it be confessed also that the said Confederate Princes chose him for their Protector And as little doth that other reason or pretence and allegation of Bellarmine cives illi leges regni sponte servent that the Cittizens of that so exempted Citty do freely observe the laws of the Kingdom make any material difference in the case unless peradventure that if the Spaniards would receive the laws of France and by an express Statute enact these laws for themselves or otherwise out of custom observe them it must be granted that consequently the Spaniards renounce their own Principality and yield themselves to that of France But if Bellarmine understand or mean that Citty so exempted to be no more of the Kingdom then is the similitude to no purpose being himself grants and averrs that after and notwithstanding the exemption of Clerks Kings are not onely Kings of the Laymen but also of the Clergiemen Reges esse nonsolum Laicorum sed etiam Clericorum Reges Yet as for the reasons which he gives for this concession and asseveration I must say they are childish and unworthy of Bellarmine The first is that Clerks do freely observe the politick laws But I have rejected this presently or a little before Nor indeed can it be said with any colour that it some Nation as for example now the Armenians did receive observe the laws of a forraign King as for example too those of the King of France or Poland or Spain c. therefore such Nation must be said to acknowledg this forraign King for their own King The second is quia Clerici causas quas cum Laicis habens cum actores sunt aâ— tribunal iâ—sius Regis deferunt in judicio sententiae ejus in ejusmodi causis acquiescum that Clerks when being Actors against Laicks bring their causes to the King's tribunal and in such causes acquiesce to the judgment and sentence of his temporal Court or politick Judges But who sees not that this is not to acknowledg him to be their King And who sees not that there is no other subjection of Clerks herein but such as is acknowledged by meer strangers forraigners aliens and such as is necessary in all kinds of judicial proceedings If a Frenchman have a suit with a Spaniard if any man of this King 's natural and legal Subjects commence a suit against the Subject of an other King and living still in the Dominions of this other King must not such a Plaintiff or such an Actor apply himself to the Courts or Judicatories of the Defendant that is to those of this other King Will the Plaintiff therefore acknowledg this other King to be simply or absolutely his own King will a Spaniard if he sue in France and before French Judges acknowledg therefore the French King to be his own King or will a Hollander sueing an Englishman in England therefore acknowledg the King of England to be his own meer trifles Actor sequitur forum Rei And therefore as you rightly conclude that he is the Defenders King simply and absolutely before whom in the case he is convented so is it unreasonably inferred that he is the Actor's King before whom such Actor convents an other But sayes Bellarmine Clerks do pray in specie for the King and pray thus Pro Rege nostro N. For our King N. c. And what is more against Bellarmine For hence nothing follows more directly then that the King is King of Clerks also and that Clerks are his Subjects For who can conceive the King to be King of Clerks and yet that Clerks should not be his Subjects Being that as Almainus de sup potest c. q. 2. cap. 5. teaches Aliquem esse Regem nihil aliud est quam habere superioritatem erga subditos in subditis esse obligationem parendi Regi c. One to be a King is nothing els but to have a politick both directive and coercive power of superiority over all the people of his Dominions and that consequently there be obligations answerable on the same people as Subjects to obey him However Bellarmine would needs by so many absurd arguments uphold his very absurd sentences which say in plain tearms the King to be King of Clerks and yet Clerks not to be Subjects to the King a Citty or people to be absolutely free and yet have the King for their King and themselves for part of his Kingdom and which in word consequently confound the very notions of King and Subject and of ruling and being ruled But certainly nothing could be said to confirm and illustrate more my purpose here or that of no power in Kings to exempt Clerks from their own supream power then that Bellarmines answers and reasons for the contrary are such wretched ones indeed Out of the refutations of which and of all said before in this Section especially in prosecution of my second and third Argument it will be obvious enough to frame this other in behalf of that Corollary or Incidental Position which I gave only as an appendix of my third argument Whoever have and continue any office which essentially involves a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions may not devest themselves of the power of directing and coercing the same Clerks unless they do withal devest themselves of that office as towards the self same Clerks Because they cannot devest themselves of the essence of that which they hold still or while they hold it or for the time wherein they are to hold it this arguing a plain contradiction But the office of Kings involves a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions For this I have proved already and at large by very natural reason Ergo whoever have the office of Kings may not devest themselves of a power supream both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions unless with all they devest themselves of the office Kings as towards the self same persons Now we have seen hitherto that not only by reason and experience but even by our learned Cardinals own concessions and allegations Kings have not devested do not devest themselves of the office of Kings towards the Clerks of their Dominions but on the contrary that Kings are truly properly and essentially Kings also of such Clerks And consequently too we have seen that while the case is so and for the time it shall be so with them they cannot by any priviledges at all they have given hitherto or shall give hereafter so exempt Clerks as to exempt them from their own supream directive and coercive power And so I end this LXXII Section of my three grand Arguments of all their appendages composed partly of undoubted Theological
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
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
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
See Apostolick or although it be related of him in Adam l. 4. c. 46. apud Baronium tom XI an 1097. n. 17. how he used to glory that he had onely two Lords or Masters to witt the Pope and the King to whose dominion jure subjaceant omnes seculi Ecclesiae potestates all the powers of the world and Church were de jure subject and that he had both fear and honour for these two Masters I say notwithstanding that to prove the later part I shall not make use of this however a most clear and material testimony if rightly understood of both a celebrious and holy Legat Apostolick but I will produce Gerbertus sometime that is first Archbishop of Rhemes in France next of Ravennas in Italy and last of all of Rome where and when he was called Silvester the Second Even this very Silvester and this Gerbertus it is that writes thus epist 154. to the Emperour Paremus ergo sayes he Caesar Imperialibus edictis tum in hoc tum in omnibus quaecumque divina Majestas vestra decreverit non enim dâ—esse possumus obsequio qui nihil inter humanas res dulcius vestro aspicimus Imperio This treatise would swell beyond measure if I should bring all particular Instances I could even of Bishops and Popes out of learned holy writers either for the fact or right or both of such obedience in temporals given heretofore to the supream civil Princes in all temporal things But for that reason I abstain from any more such Instances until at least I come to those I promised of Princes For I cannot well treat of the one but somewhat of the other sort must be annexed Yet I cannot abstain here from observing how strangely the Church is altered now from that it was then and how different the carriage of the chief Bishops hath been at least as to many of them in the later ages from that was not onely of the most holy but of all universally in the former and more primitive ages Nicholas the first Pope of that name and Innocent the third of his chose rather to wrest aside and set awry nay to corrupt plainly the genuine sense of holy scripture than yeeld to Emperours that obedience due to them Let us heare Nicholas writing to Adventius Bishop of Mets. Apud Baron tom 10. an 863. nu 66. Illud â—ero sayes he quod dicitis Regibus Principibus vos esse subiectos eo quod dicat Apostolus 1. Pet. 2.13 Sive Regi tanquam praecel lenti placet Veruntamen videte utrum Reges isti Principes quibus vos subiectos esse dicitis veraciter Reges Principes sint videte si primum se bene regant deinde subditum populum Nam qui sibi nequam est cui alij bonus videte si jure principantur aliequi potiùs tyranni credendi sunt quà m Reges habendi quibus magis resistere ex adverso ascendere quà m subdi debemus Alioquin si talibus subditi non praelati fuerimus nos necesse est eorum vitijs faveamus Ergo Regi quasi praecellenti virtutibus scilicet non vitijs subditi estote sed Apostolus ait propter Deum non contra Deum Hetherto Pope Nicholas Paul enjoyns obedience to Nero to witt in all politick affairs or things belonging to humane policy or government nor doth he enquire by what right or title he is Prince of the Roman Empire But Nicholas will have us enquire by what right any is King or Prince and whether he be truly such in his sense when we obey him in temporals The former holy Fathers and Pontiffs both obeyed in their own persons and actions evil Princes heretick and tyrant Princes and by their doctrine with Paul the Apostle taught others also that they should obey even such Princes But Nicholas tels us here the quite contrary and sayes that we ought not obey not even in such things any civil Prince that is not truly a Prince over all his own passions and affections and is not moreover a just and good Prince in the government of his people nay tels us plainly that if he be defective in either that is according to our judgment we ought to rise and rebell against him Is this the doctrine of the former holy Fathers and Pontiffs or of the Apostle Paul or of the holy Spirit of God himself in the writings of any of the Apostles Or is it not rather the hissing of the old Serpent though proceeding from the mouth of a Roman Pontiff but certainly in so much not a Christian Pontiff however in other doctrines and in his life or conversation as religious precise strict holy as you please Against God that secular Princes nay that the very spiritual supream Pontiffs themselves are not to be obeyed in either spiritual or temporal things who ever yet doubted But that secular Princes are not to be obeyed in human things which are indifferent of their own nature which are such that by giving obedience either active or passive or both in them to the Prince we transgress no law of God or nature we commit no sin at all though the Princes themselves were known to be loaden with sin I am sure was not the doctrine receaved by Nicholas from his most holy Fore-fathers from tradition or from Scripture As for Innocent the Third it is no less clear to me that he stuffed that Answer of his to the Emperour of Constantinople which in part you may read in the Decretals of Gregory the Ninth c. Solicitae benignitatis de majoritate obedientia with many subtleties to decline or disswade this obedience due to Princes or disswade it as due from Ecclesiasticks but indeed with such subtleties I mean of distinctions or interpretations of Scripture examples and other passages especially one out of S. Peter as appeare evidently upon sober examination to be vain inventions and meer frivolous toyes if compared with the common sense or interpretation and practise also of the holy Fathers and Pontiffs in the preceeding purer ages of the Church and even for so many such ages together until at least the eight or ninth century nay or if compared but with the very bare letter and necessary sense either theological or grammatical of S. Paul himself Rom. 13. who certainly did not teach against the epistle of Peter or if compared with the whole sole drift of that great Apostle Paul there Farre enough God himself knows were both these and all the rest of the most blessed Apostles were also those most holy Successours of theirs for so many ages of Christianity from hammering or thinking of such cunning evasions The divine spirit of true Christian simplicity and humility taught them much otherwise and made them also teach others plainly and honestly without aequivocation or reservation and practise too in their own persons humbly and sincerely without the least opposition or contradiction as farre otherwise as from East to
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
in it self purely or as abstracting from matter of fact we say two things here to clear all the fog which many of our late School Divines do raise without any cause at all to loose themselves and others in it The one is that in this cause of Caecilian and such others of Church-men wherein Constantine or other Christian Emperours interposed their imperial authority and carried themselves properly as Judges that wherein they did so was pure matter of fact whereof questionless the lay Emperours when judicious and just were secundum allegata probata as competent Judges as any Ecclesiastick And the other is that whereas the Emperour and the same we must say of every other supream or Soveraign Prince within his own dominions is of supream absolute independent power within his Empire he must consequently have sufficient authority from God himself to promote all that may be for the publick good peace or safety of his people in this life and of their happiness too in the other according as he is directed by the law of God and therefore also must have sufficient power from God himself to see and take effectual care and such effectual course as is necessary that the very Ecclesiastical affairs within his Empire be duely carried on Therefore albeit he be not the competent Judge in a doubtfull case what was or was not the Faith delivered once in such or such a point controverted yet he is a competent Judge to see and determine as to matter of Fact whether the Ecclesiasticks of his Kingdom duely observe the uncontroverted Faith or that part of Faith which all men which even themselves confess acknowledge to be that which was once so delivered or whether they duely observe the known and holy canons of the Church made for preservation of that Faith And he is a competent Judge also or hath a competent sufficient absolute independent power to force the very Ecclesiasticks themselves to keep that Faith entire and sound even also I mean as to the very Theory of it and to all questions of divine right especially where and when he sees that by reason of controversies arising about such very questions or Theory the publick external peace of either Church or State may be endangered or that the publick tranquillity depends of the unity of his people in such matters according to what was from the beginning taught By which very consideration that Constantine himself was very much induâ—ced â—o interess himself in these matters of Faith even himself also writes apud â—arrâ—nium tom 3. an 313. n. 37. least otherwise he should have seen dangeâ—ous troubles and commotions in his Empire and thence have suffered also very much in his reputation as not governing well or prudently or also as haveing imprudently embraced that religion whose professours he could not keep in peace or unity amongst themselves Of which consideration and judgement of Constantine or rather of which power and authority of Constantine or indeed of both the one and the other St. Augustine speaks ep 162. where he writes thus Quasi verò ipse sibi he means Felix Aptungitanus â—â—c comparavit ac non Imperator ita quasi jusserit ad cujus curam de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset res illa maximè pertinebat But of this authority and superintendency in general of Emperours Kings Princes and other supream temporal or politick States in and over the Church or the spiritual or Ecclesiastical both Superiours and Inferiours of the same Christian Catholick Church this is not the proper place to treat at large It sufficeth at present to say that forasmuch as Constantine did so and so often too interess himself in this cause of Caecilian and deputed Judges to hear and determine it he did all this by the true proper genuine authority of an Emperour and even of a Christian Emperour whose duty it is when the Ecclesiasticks themselves alone cannot end or compose their own dissentions that he by his own supream authority assist and promote their agreement and even force them to a just and equitable agreement Which the Milevitan Council approves in effect canone 19 and ponitur xi q. 1. c. 11. and in these tearms Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum petierit honore proprio privetur Si autem Episcopale judicium ab Imperatore postulaverit nihil ei obsit But that Constantine did in aftertimes adorn and magnifie the Church or Churchmen with most singular and most ample priviledges concerning civil judgments or judgments in civil affairs this he did not as Baronius tom 3. an 314. n. 37. would make us believe he did to correct or by way of correction of those former judgments of his own in the said or like affairs of Ecclesiastical persons which judgments our great Annalist sayes were unduly and unjustly usurped by the Emperour but did so or gave such priviledges out of his meer liberality and piety alway nevertheless reserving his own proper supream and general and imperial authority to provide upon emergencies by himself or by such others as he should think fit to depute for the necessities of the Church and Churchmen as often as he saw need However let us proceed in the matter of fact which is our proper subject here For notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment also of the Council of Orleance the Donatists yet appeal even from it and the second time to the Emperour himself against and in that cause of Cecilian and the Emperour admits again their appeal judges the matter himself absolves Cecilian and condemns the Donatists St. Augustine is my author and witness ep 48. and epist 162. where yet he neither accuses nor reprehends the Emperour Nor doth Cecilian except but obeyes and freely presents himself to be judged by the Emperour For it was a criminal judgment that is the matter debated was a crime charged upon him Nay St. Augustine openly sayes and avers that neither the accusing or appealing Bishops themselves were to be reprehended on this account that they drew or brought the affairs or causes of or accusations against other Bishops to a lay secular Judicatory For thus he writes ep 48. Si autem sicut falso arbitramini vere criminosum Caecilianum judicandum terrenis potestatibus tradiderant quid objicitis quod vâ—strorum praesumptio primitus fecit he speaks to the later Donatists quod eos non arguerimus sayes he quia fecerunt si non animo inuido noxio sed emendandi corrigendi voluntate fecissent Therefore St. Augustine sayes that where and when the dispute concerns the correction and amendment of Ecclesiasticks to demand the judgment or sentence and to appeal to the power of earthly Princes is not reprehensible if the accusers proceed not in such or indeed any other application out of envie or malice Concerning this second admission of Constantine or indeed rather concerning his whole procedure in this affair by admitting any appeal at all or
then stood either of such crimes peradventure till then private as they charg'd with one the other or of the indeed publick and truly general concern of all for which the Council was called not to bring at that time or before that Council any such scandalous accusations and animosities of orthodox Bishops to debate and therefore advised both the accusers and accused to choose rather to leave also the amendment expected or wrong done to the judgment of God himself on the final day when he shall judge us all so also it must be said that he mean'd not thereby to disown or deny his own proper civil imperial and external coercive power of such crimes or such criminals but only the expediencie of acting at that time and in such an occasion and for such crimes against them as a judge and therefore advised them not to press him therein but leave all to God and in the mean time agree amongst themselves Which and no other to have been the meaning of Constantine in that famous saying of his if it was his at all I have evicted before I mean by his after carriage towards criminal Bishops in so many publick famous instances throughout all his life and by the general silence of all Bishops and Popes too who yet were all most highly concern'd not to be silent if he had miscarried as much as in any of those Instances By all which questionless and by the natural equity of such meaning and conformity of it to the express law of God in many places of holy Scripture and particularly in St. Paul's 13. chap. to the Romans I say it is clear enough that if you attribute not that saying of Constantine in the strictness of the words to some then present excess of piety and reverence towards those Bishops he treated with or of tenderness or care of their esteem or to at least a civil complement and politick art of his to carry on the more easily all the Bishops united together in peace against the heresie of Arrius this I have now given and no other must of necessity have been his meaning in all the several branches of that very saying And so I have done with great Constantine the very first Christian Emperour who established the Church by law and consequently who deserved more and better of the Church then all Emperours Kings or Princes that preceeded or succeeded him to this day Only this I will add in relation to that so famous a saying of Constantine if it was his and particularly to that part of it wherein he desired the Bishops to refer all these accusations to the great judge of all Christ our Saviour himself on the final day and to use no other means of punishing constraining or forcing one the other by their own authority and at least in such things as properly concern'd the execution of their Episcopal office towards their respective flocks in relation I say to this part of that saying or the meaning of Constantine I will add that Constantine might have heard of others or perhaps of himself learned and read in St. Cyprian's works for Cyprian was before his dayes what even this great and holy Martyr Bishop himself said to this purpose openly in a great Council of his Affrican Bishops of all whom as being himself the Archbishop of Caâ—thage he was Primate Neque enim sayes he in Concil Affric de Herret Baptis quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adegit quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tanquam judicari ab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterum judicare sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui unus solus habet potestatem praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro judicandi So this blessed Cyprian intending and signifying if I be not very much deceived the parity of Bishops amongst themselves or inpendence from the judicial authority or authoritative judgment of one another if we regard only the immediate law of God and therefore exhorting them all not to judge one another by any such pretended authority but to leave all their differences or dissentions whatsoever about their several or distinct wayes of discipline or of the government or spiritual direction of their respective flocks to the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who sayes he is the only and sole he that hath power both to prepone us in the government of the Church and to judge of our act For sayes he before none amongst us takes upon himself to be the Bishop or a Bishop of Bishops or by tyrannical terrour to force his collegues to a necessity of submitting whereas every Bishop hath his own proper arbitrement pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae according to the pleasure of his own liberty and his own power so as he may not be judg'd by another as neither can he judge another Wherefore sayes he immediatly after concluding let us all expect the judgment of our lord Iesus Christ c. Which final and peaceable advice of St. Cyprian to the Bishops of that above mentioned Affrican Synod Constantine the great may be thought to have alluded unto in his advice also being it is so like given to those other Bishops of the Nicen Council But whether certainly it be so or not it matters not much here or any more at all then to shew upon what ground Constantine might have advised the Bishops to peace amongst themselves and for pure ecclesiastical differences in point of meer discipline or reformation of manners or of the lives or conversation of the Bishops themselves in peace and unity to expect if they were not otherwise of one sentiment or equal edification the judgment of God alone and not proceed to the censure of one another especially in the occasion then present of the grand controversie with Arrius of the chiefest fundamental of the Christian Faith it self and in it self abstracting so much from all personal sailings in life and conversation of either Bishop Priest or Laick Nor doth it matter at present how or in what sense we must understand this saying of Cyprian or every or any particular branch of it further then that of Constantine and in his right meaning which I have before given is parallel to it To proceed therefore from Constantine to more Instances of matter of Fact in other Emperours and Kings who succeeded him Constantins one of the sayd Constantin's three Sonns who were Emperours together offers himself first For this Constantins would have and accordingly had the criminal cause of Stephanus the Patriarch or Bishop of Antioch as being accused de Vi publica Lege Cornelia de Sicarijs of murther to be tryed in a secular Iudicatory and before himself in the Palace and not by any means in the Church Praetor
opinion or rather certain and true judgment of such a power in the Emperour as properly and essentially belonging to his Imperial office it was that the orthodox Bishops of Syria writ also to the same Emperour Leo for punishing by his own Imperial power according to the laws of the civil Commonwealth Timotheus Elucus Bishop or Patriarch of Alexandria as by the same laws and against both the same laws and Princes too being guilty of various crimes but in particular of adultery and murder De delictis autem say they post Câ—ncil Chalced. praesumptionibus quas nefandê commisit Reipublicae legibus corum praesulibus judicio competenti subdetur Where you see a meer secular judgment called or said to be a competent judgment of criminal Bishops And indeed that the banishment of the said Timotheus which soon after followed by the decree of this Emperour Liberat. Brevi c. 13. proceeded onely from his own proper Imperial power not from any Church power or from any commission or delegation from the Church we may gather sufficiently out of the 100. epist of the above S. Leo the Pope wherein he writes thus to Gennadius Dilectio tua eniti elaborare debit ne redeundi integram capiat libertatem de quo jam Edictis suis Princeps Christianissimus judicavit Finally pursuant to the same knowledg of the Imperial power and authority from God for judging and sentencing the criminal causes and inflicting corporal punishments in such criminal causes and on such Clergymen as were found guilty Pope Simplicius epist 9. 11. beseecheth the Emperour Zeno Vt quod per nos sayes he Ecclesia seriò postulat imô quod ipsi specialiùs supplicamus Petrum Alexandrinae Ecclesiae pervasorem ad exteriora transferri piissima praeceptione jubeatis But to leave this judgment of Popes or other Bishops of the power and authority Royal in the case which Judgment as such of the power is not the proper and primary subject of this section or at least of this part of it and to return to matter of fact onely and this of the Princes themselves acting by particular Instances The next Prince I offer to the Readers consideration is Theodoricus King of Italy For this Prince albeit an Arrian as to his beleef of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ yet in all other points of Christian religion and in his veneration and observance of the Church and Churchmen and of their priviledges and exemptions in general and this without any distinction of Arrians or not Arrians he was precise wary and strict enough nor is there any reprehension or complaint of him in History as not being so And yet he is recorded to have admitted of and discussed the accusations drawn and presented to him by the very Catholicks themselves both Layety and Clergye against Pope Symmachus Of which matter Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes thus in Symmacho Post annos vero quattuor aliqui ex clero zelo ducti aliqui ex Senatu maximè Festus Prâ—binus insimulaverunt Symmachum subornarunt falsos testes quos miserunt Ravennam ad Regem Theodoricum accusantes beatum Symmachum occultè revocarunt Laurentium post libellum Romae factum fecerunt Schysma divisus est iterum Clerus nam alij communicaverunt Symmacho alij Laurentio Tunc Festus Probinus Senatores miserunt relationem Regi caeperunt agere ut visitatorem daret Rex Sedi Apostolieae quod canones prohibent And albeit upon debate this King at last remitted this cause of Symmachus to a Council of Bishops and that by the same King's licence several Councils of Bishops convened at Rome to sift it throughly which Councils I have amongst others and upon an other occasion quoted in the marginal note of my introduction to this first Treatise pag. 1. yet no man can deny that he admitted the accusations and thereupon and as judg of them and of the whole cause exercised several judiciary acts as having a legal power or Christian authority to do so Nor did Symmachus except or resist nor did any for him or in his behalf or in behalf of the Church or of Ecclesiastical Immunity reprehend Theodorick for doing so Nay we have seen before in this Treatise Sec ... this very Symmachus himself openly professing that he himself would yield to God in the Emperour's person to wit by obeying him in humane things as we saw him desiring on the other side that the Emperour should likewise revere God in the person of the Pontiff doubtless for what concern'd spiritual or divine matters The Catholick Emperour Justinus proceeded yet more imperially in the criminal cause of Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica For this Bishop being accused of sedition and of several murders too and particularly of the murder of Iohn who was one of the Legats of the See Apostolick and the rest of the Apostolick Legats being his accusers before the Emperour and being so also by express command from Hormisda the Pope whose Legats they were and he too that was murdered and this Pope himself pressing hard that the said Bishop Dorotheus the supposed murderer of his Legat should either be deposed by the Emperour from his Bishoprick and sent to banishment farr from his place or See and Church or certainly be sent to Rome with all fit prosecution of his cause Iustin indeed proceeded to a judicial tryal and sentence of the criminal Bishop but with so much regard of his own imperial power in the case that he neither did the one nor the other which Hormisda so earnestly pressed for Of all which the Suggestions amongst and after the epistles of Hormisda and these epistles themselves particularly the Suggestion which is after the 56. epist and the second Suggestion after the 64. epist and the 57. epistle in it self may be read Promittit say the Legats writing to the Pope Sancta Clementia for so they stile the Emperour vindicare citare Dorotheum quia nos contestati sumus pietatem ejus c. And Hormisda himself the Pope epist 57. writing to the said Legats Nam eumdem Dorotheum sayes he Constantinopolim jussu Principis didicimus evocatum adversus quem Domino filio nostro Clementissimo Principi debetis insistere ne ad eamdem civitatem denuo revertâ—tur sed Episcopatus quem numquam bene gessit honore deposito ab eodem loco ac Ecclesia longius relegetur vel certè huc ad urbem sub prosecutione congrua dirigatur But wherefore doth not this Pope command his Legats to insist upon the delivering of such a criminal a criminal Bishop into their own proper custody hands and power to proceed against him to judg and punish him as they shall find cause being they alone and not the Emperour were his competent Judges in the case if we believe our Bellarminians and Baronius wherefore do not these Legats wherefore doth not this Pope himself being denied what he desired fulminat excommunications against Iustine
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
vniversae personae regni qui de Rege tenent in capite habent possessiones suas de dominico Regis sicut Baroniam inde respondent justitiis ministris Regis sequuntur faciunt omnes consuetudines regias rectitudines sicut ceteri Barones debent interesse judiciis curiae domini Regis cum Baronibus usque perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem 4. Si quisquam de Proceribus Regni diffortiaverit Archiepiscopo vel Episcopo vel Archidiacono de se vel de suis justitiam exhibere Rex debet justitiare si fortè aliquis disfortiaverit domino Regi rectitudinem suam Archiepiscopi vel Episcopi Archidiaconi debent eum justitiare ut domino Regi Satisfaciat 5. Catalla eorum qui sunt in Regis forisfacto non detineat Ecclesia vel â—â—meterium contra justitiam Regis quia ipsius Regis sunt sive in Ecclesiis sive extra fuerint inventa 6. Filii rusticorum non debent ordinari absque assensu domini de cujus terra nati dignoscentur Fourthly you are to observe out of the same Authors Baronius Spondanus c That notwithstanding the principal or grand quarrel was concerning these and those in all sixteen heads yet the more immediat motive of the Saints death was only his refusal of giving absolution from Ecclesiastical censures but upon a certain condition to some Bishops after the King was reconciled to him For to pass by at present all other matters happen'd in prosecution of the said great difference from the year 1164. wherein the Saint presented those heads to Pope Alexander and 1170. wherein being reconciled to the King in France and with his licence return'd to England he suffer'd at Canterbury and to say nothing at all here of the Kings excessive cruelty against the favourers of St. Thomas during those six years after of his exile nor of the Saints earnest prosecution of the grand quarrel and of his own part against the King abroad in the Papal Court both in France and Rome when that Court was removed to Rome in the interim nor of the first meeting design'd 'twixt the Pope himself and the King to determine the controversie but frustrated or rather impeded wholly because the King would not assent to the Saints being present nor of that other meeting which came after to be held about the same controversy twixt the same King of England Henry the second and King Lewis of France even the Saint himself too being admitted to be present nor of three or four solemn Embassies even along to Rome about the same matter from the same Henry and so many more of Bishops Archbishops and Cardinals part of them French and part Italian sent from Pope Alexander to Henry nor of the different judgments or affections of the same Cardinal Embassadours or Legats and how some complain'd they were corrupted by the Kings money nor of King Lewis of France though otherwise both a pious Prince and great favourer of Thomas his having been dissatisfied with our Saint's rigour at the conference with Henry wherein Lewis interceded for him to Henry nor of the said Lewis's favouring again mightily the Saint and in his quarrel undermining closely at Rome King Henry nor of the Legantine power for the Kingdom of England excepting only the Diocess of York committed by the Pope to our Saint notwithstanding his being still a banish'd man in France nor of the revocation or moderation and suppression for a time of that same power upon new applications made to Rome by Henry not also of the renewed confirmation after all this of Thomas in all the fulness of the same power extending even to the Kings own person and to the inderdiction of his whole Kingdom if it pleased Thomas nor of Thomas's condemning while yet he was in France eâ—iled the controverted laws especially and namely some chief heads of them by virtue of his said Legantine power excommunicating also all the advisers upholders observers c. of them and absolving moreover all the Bishops from the oath they took firmly to observe them nor of the excommunications he moreover pronounced nominatim as well against the Kings Embassadours to the Emperour Frederick as against several others in England nor of the other difference happened twixt him and the Archbishop of York with his associat Bishops who joyntly consecrated the young King at the old Kings or Fathers command and consecrated him so in the Diocess of Canterbury against the express inhibition sent them both by himself the ordinary of that Diocess and whose right or priviledg such consecration was and by Pope Alexander too nor of the excommunication also and other censures fulminated partly therefore against the said Archbishop and his consecratours the Bishops of London and Salisbury and fulminated even by the very self same Pope Alexander and partly for having sworn to maintain or observe the 16. controverted laws nor of the preparations made by Thomas to interdict by his own Legantine power both King and Kingdom nor of the peremptory day prefixed the King even also by the Pope himself and by some other extraordinary Legats sent him to agree with Thomas at his peril by the said day nor of the final and terrible threat indeed sent also by them to the King from the said Alexander to witt that if he would not restore Thomas immediatly and without any condition at all of observing the controverted laws His Holyness would deal with him as he had all ready done with Frederick that is bereave him by a judicial sentence of his Crown and Dignity rayse both his own people and forraigners against him c nor of the absolute reconciliation of Thomas by such threats to the King on the Feast of Mary Magdalen and his solemn admission then to his Majesty by the mediation of the said last extraordinary Legats the Archbishop of Roan and Bishop of Nivern and without any condition at all on S. Thomas's side nor of the King 's falling off immediatly in some things from his promise to the Legats by denying to restore to the Church some lands which Thomas claimed as its proper right nor lastly of the new threats of Interdict from Pope Alexander for not restoring these lands I say that to pass by at present and say nothing here of all these and some other particulars happen'd in the prosecution of the principal controversy twixt the said King Henry and S. Thomas from the year 1164. until 1170 it is manifest even also out of Barâ—nius himself that after the King had newly promised Thomas to restore those lands when he I mean the King should be in person return'd from Normandy to England and that Thomas himself laying aside all further delayes of his own return to his own See of Canterbury having the Kings licence to return and the Dean of Salisbury to safe-guard him along by the King's command had accordingly embarked and was landed though
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
threatned and prepared also to interdict the Kings Dominions Let it be so as indeed Historians confess it was so And let it be so too that he prepared to publish both a local and personal interdict and which is more yet to excommunicate the Kings own Person for I confess also this very last of preparing to excommunicate the King though nothing out of History of what quality the interdict was to be or whether not only local but also personal And though reason tells us and we are not without reason or History to presume otherwise then that if personal also it was only to be against such persons as gave cause for such interdict however it was not reason either by the law of the Land at least then or by the nature of even such interdict the most general could be Not by the Law because none such is alledged nor indeed can be being it is very certain that Ecclesiastical Discipline Jurisdiction and censures were allowed then by the Law or Custome of England to be exercised in all the formality of the Canons Nor by its own nature because it is a pure spiritual penalty depriving only of Divine Offices and Ecclesiastical Burial and of some Sacraments viz. Eucharist Order Matrimony and in some cases of that of Pennance too As for the Saints preparing to excommunicate the King I have said enough of that already or of the nature and effects of the excommunication which he was resolved to pronounce had the peace not been made And I am sure we have example enough in St. Ambrose interdicting the great Roman and Christian Emperor of the World Theodosius from entring his Church at Millan that Ecclesiastical censures as such pronounced against a King by his Bishop however otherwise in temporals his own subject render not the Bishop a traytor against his King or Countrey And if you say that such general interdicts of a Kingdom are sometime causes or occasions of the peoples rising in armes against the Prince what then they are not so by their own nature nor commonly so as much as by accident or by the mallice or folly or impatience of such as abuse them The pure preaching of the Gospel hath been sometimes through the malice of men an occasion of armes and wars and slaughter of subjects and of Princes too And the holiest things and best means and wholsomest Physick may be abused Must this hinder the right use of them or must it render Christian remedies treasonable among Christians that even some Popes or some Prelates or some other Clerks or some people have either actually made evil use of them or intended to do so But for such intention it cannot be fix'd on St. Thomas of Canterbury and I shall give presently sufficient arguments that it could not be so fixed on him nay that really he had not any such And yet in the mean time I confess I am not my self in my own judgement nor ever was since I understood any thing in Theology for the practice nay or Theory of such general interdicts of a Kingdome either local or personal much less of any mixt of both nor even of a Province Diocess City or University But this is not my work now whether my own private opinion or judgement herein be right or not as I do not absolutely averr that it is right nor is it requisite I should here give my self or others the trouble of discussing the grounds Pro or Con. 7. But Pope Alexander threatned by his last Embassadours or Legats and bitter express Letters to King Henry the Second that if he did not receive Thomas to peace and without prosecution of the 16 Customes he would proceed against him as he had lately against the Emperour Frederick that is to a sentential deposition of him from his Crown and Kingdome or to the actual raising in War of both his own Subjects and of those were not his own Subjects against him Thomas of Canterbury had no hand in contriving such an Embassy or in procuring such Letters as to these particulars He solicited indeed by his own Letters from France to Alexander at Rome and so did the King of France and some of the Bishops of France most earnestly that the Pope would be pleased to recall his own late Papal suspension of the Legatine Commission and his own late Papal exemption given to King Henry the Second at the same Henry's earnest suit by his Embassadour from Thomas's both extraordinary power of a Legat and Ordinary of the Archbishop of Canterbury over King Henry and licence him to proceed Ecclesiastically against this King And no more appears out of History that Thomas solicited the Pope in if not peradventure that the Pope himself would immediately by himself proceed against Henry in the same manner was uncontroulably allowed by all the Christian Church then and all the Christian Common-wealth that is to a pure spiritual excommunication and pure spiritual interdict If the Pope exceeded both the desires of Thomas and power of Alexander what was that to Thomas For I confess that if Henry the Second did not acknowledge himself Alexanders vassal in temporals or his Kingdome tributary or to hold it in fee from Rome or that it was so then indeed by some kind of true humane right then certainly it must follow that Alexanders threats were not well grounded nor just but very injurious and very erroneous too though not treasonable in him because he was no Subject of Henry's I say if because I do not certainly know what the conscience of Henry or well or ill grounded opinion of English men generally was at that time I see that this very same Henry a little before took such a Bull for the invasion of Ireland from Adrian the fourth Pope of that name an English man who sate immediately before this Alexander that gives much ground to think that either he was perswaded the Pope had a supream even I mean temporal right to all the Christian Islands at least in the West or that he would make use of any the most improbable and ridiculous title what soever to invade and possess other mens rights And I see that he trembled at the very mention of the Popes interposition But however this matter be nothing appears out of History or ancient Records of the Saints Letters and whence should we know or should Henry the 8th after 300 years know but from History or such Records that our Saint had any kind of hand directly or indirectly in procuring or intending such a message from Alexander the III. to Henry the II. And we know Alexander was his own Master and that being setled at Rome and having humbled Frederick whether by lawful or unlawful means he little cared for Henry whereever the controversies touched or concerned his own whether true or only pretended supream Pontificial power in the exemption of Clergy-men from secular powers or in any other such whatsoever Though in other matters wherein his own interest
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
the guilt of Sacriledge to refix their signatures which can be no less even formally than to say That the Remonstrance in it self is sacrilegious But that virtually and consequentially they judge it also to be either Heretical or Schismatical no other proof is requisite besides that where they say That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Religion For whoever sayes so of any form must virtually and consequentially say the same form is either Heretical or Schismatical or both because all judicious learned persons know very well That no things are repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion but such things as imply Heresie or Schism or both Secondly You are to consider That in their first and long original unpublish'd Censure the Louain Divines gave these four chief grounds which I have hitherto impugned in well nigh a Hundred sheets and gave them I say for their own grounds of alledging those two pretended Causes or Reasons and of their consequent Censure so as above of our Remonstrance as unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. And consequently you are to consider That being those four chief grounds of theirs are so clearly and utterly and universally ruined by me hitherto their said two pretended Causes or Reasons which had no subsistence but in those grounds must also be no less universally clearly and utterly ruined and by further consequence so likewise no less universally clearly and utterly must their said Censure be being this depends wholly on those two Reasons or Causes and these on the four grounds Thirdly You are to consider yet more particularly the grand Temerity against Prudence Falsity against Truth Injury against Justice and Scandal against Charity of this Censure by reflecting first on those Reasons or Causes given in and for it and secondly on the sense of each of those words adjectives or epithets of it and by comparing both these epithets and those causes to the several parts clauses or propositions of the Remonstrance it self analyzed into propositions or even to the whole Remonstrance as comprising all together without any such Analysts understanding now by the Remonstrance that part of it which only is in dispute the Act of Recognition with the Declarations Renunciations c. therein contained and the Petitionary address thereunto annexed To which purpose I desire the judicious learned Reader to look back to the 7 8 and 9th page of this First Part and read there once more attentively that our Remonstrance from first to last and then analyse or resolve it I mean resolve those Recognitions Declarations Renunciations Promises c. and Petitionary addresses all therein contained and analyse or resolve all into so many particular distinct propositions as they are fit or may be resolved into and after this to apply those two Reasons or Causes and each and all those adjectives or epithets of the above Louain Censure to each proposition severally nay and to all at last jointly taken And to the same purpose I desire him to consider that in no part of the Remonstrance nor in the whole taken together any obedience is promised or acknowledged or confessed to be due to our Sovereign Charles the Second or any other Temporal Prince but that which is in Civil and Temporal Affairs only and none at all in spiritual things nor in any kind of spiritual thing For so is the obedience it promises acknowledges or confesseth as due to our gracious King in His own Dominions by all his own Subjects whether Protestants or Catholicks and as due to all other absolute Princes and Supreme Governors within their own respective Dominions also and by their own respective Subjects so I say is that obedience most signally expressed and determined in formal words and in two several passages of this Remonstrance to all Civil and Temporal Affairs adding further yet and in signal formal words too that it be in such meer Civil and Temporal Affairs not universally or absolutely in all cases according to the arbitrary will or pleasure of the Prince Charles the Second but as the Laws and Rules of Government in such things in this Kingdom do require at our hands and to other such Supreme independent Princes or Magistrates according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively Whence any judicious Reader may conclude at least if he have read what I have hitherto so diffusely writ of the subjection of all even Clergy-men to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate in Temporal things That the Divines of Louain did most rashly falsly injuriously and scandalously suppose their first Cause or Reason of their Censure viz. That our Remonstrance contains a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make unto them For I have demonstrated at large before that by the Law of God and Nature and by the Laws of man as well these are Ecclesiastical as Civil all men are bound to pay such obedience to their respective Kings or Supreme Magistrates And if they are so bound to pay it sure the Prince may especially when he sees Reason for it require a promise or an acknowledgment or confession or declaration of it from them and they make such promise acknowledgment c. And I am sure too that our Prince had much Reason then when that Remonstrance was made and hath yet still to expect such even a most formal promise and declaration from the Romish Clergy of Ireland and they no less to make it to Him To the same purpose yet of seeing further into the Temerity Falsity Injury and Scandal of the said Louain Censure the Reader may be pleased to reflect again once more and no less particularly on their abovesaid second Supposition Cause or Reason of it as you have seen that Louain Faculty in this their short Censure which we now handle express that second Cause viz. That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion and I desire the good Reader to apply this and compare it either to all the propositions jointly taken or to every one severally of our Remonstrance and then judge whether I have not just Reason to complain of them and tax them as I do that this which they suppose in the second place is most rashly falsly injuriously and scandalously supposed or alledged by them as a Cause or Reason of their Censure For what can be more rash false injurious and scandalous than to condemn or censure a pure and meer Acknowledgment Confession Declaration or promise of Loyalty or of Allegiance Fidelity and Obedience to our Rightful and Supreme Lord and Sovereign and a promise of such in meer Temporal things made to Him by His own natural Catholick Subjects and made in a publick Remonstrance wherein those of England as well nay antecedently to as those of Ireland joyn'd than I say to condemn or censure such a publick Instrument of such a great Body containing of the
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
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
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
and by his blessed Disciples preach't and declared to the Gentiles of the whole Earth But why this Discourse of the way of the Cross of the way of Religion and Christian Faith to an Abbot of Mount Royal 'T is paint not substance with which you colour things You pretend Religion but intend it not and so with notorious Sophistry alledge a not cause for a cause In St. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations of Peace where he treats of the great differences which then were amongst the Clergy especially the Bishops I find the true cause of that vehement spirit of yours and your and his Eminence Cardinal Barberin's opposition Besides ignorance in many of your Informers and Whisperers there is impetuous anger my Lord and hatred and spite and envy and there is avarice my Lord and pride and ambition and a blind passion to domineer and the glory pomp and vanity of the World But this too is it not o' th freest I confess it but 't is a freedom which the thing requires and which becomes a Christian Priest and old Divine and faithful Subject of His King in a Controversie no less great than unhappy between some of the Clergy with the whole Laity with supreme Princes themselves and Kings and Emperours of the World concerning Right in Temporals Nevertheless to say and write as I have done to the Internuncio of his Holiness and of a Cardinal Is it not misbecoming This I deny For as for your Lordship if in dignity as a Commendatory Abbot and Internuncio of the Pope you go before me yet in Order and spiritual power and in the Hierarchy you come behind me Nor is there in that respect so much difference betwixt a Bishop and the meanest Priest as betwixt you and me Nevertheless I respect and reverence an Abbot and much more an Internuncio nay honour your person without those titles if you respect me as is fitting For what concerns his Eminence as I have a great veneration for the height of the Sacred Episcopal Office as instituted by Christ our Saviour and the Dignity of Cardinal as constituted by the Supreme Bishops so I have a far greater for both in the person of his Eminence Cardinal Fr. Barberin and so much the greater as by the rule of our seraphick Father I know my self obliged by a stricter tye to reverence not only the Governor Protector and Corrector but as I am informed a Friend and Patron and singular Benefactor too of our Order and a man besides if this unhappy Controversie had not lessned his esteem pious and good Notwithstanding I maintain I have used no greater freedom against either than becomes the Cause than becomes Walsh or any other Priest who is a Divine and pious in the same Cause The Cause I must confess is in one respect proper to Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers but in more and more important respects 't is the Cause of a Kingdom of the British Empire of England Scotland and more particularly Ireland nay of all Common-wealths Kingdoms and Kings of Christian Faith over and above and by consequence of the universal Church People and Clergy and all Priests 'T is a Cause besides which for the side you take is wonderful bad and most false which has long since been exploded condemned adjudged and adjudged as seditious scandalous erroneous contrary to the Word of God Heretical and moreover dangerous to Kings and People destructive of the peace of the World apt even to make the Pope and Church of Christ be abominated hated and abhorred And yet so I say or as such adjudged exploded and condemned in all ages all times from the dayes of Gregory the VII to this present and at present also and that most of all by renowned Prelates famous Doctors Universities Churches most Kingdoms and Commonwealths through all Europe preserving notwithstanding the Faith and Communion of Rome Besides 't is a Cause for which and for that part I mean which you have undertaken to maintain albeit that were but only for the Popes indirect power and that also only in some cases over the Temporals of Christian Princes its most learned and eminent Patron Cardinal Perron demanded no more but that as problematical or as uncertain and doubtful it might pass uncensured and demanded this in an Assembly general of the Three Estates in France Lastly 't is a Cause which for that very unwarrantable part the Internuncio and Cardinal do so persuade urge press and to their power constrain also to be embraced and this with all manner of art and craft with all manner of industry and fraud but yet onely in a corner of the World amongst a company of ignorant Islanders the miserable Irish I mean far from the great Continent and but there indeed where such arts are not so well known that not content with the late and entire destruction of a miserable Nation procured by such frauds and fictions for Faith forsooth they would again ensnare them and would rather have them lose for ever the present small such as it is and all future hope of being restored to their Countrey or Religion or as I gladly would to the publick and free exercise of their Religion under a most clement Prince or even to any either temporal or spiritual advantages then not to embrace not believe this most impious Assertion and believe it as an Article of Faith without which they cannot be saved And would have them serve over again their wretched slavery undergo Prisons Banishments and Death And as heretofore in the persecution of the Vandals would have the whole Clergy Bishops Priests Religious as Traytors Rebels and Outlaws either be hanged at home or banishâ—t again to Beggery abroad leaving none in that Island of Saints to baptize the new born or confirm the baptised or absolve those of years or anoint the dying or consecrate or administer the holy Host to any Now if Walsh have expostulated defended and reproved as above and this after two nay almost three years of patience and silence in such a Cause against such an assertion such enormous errours and impostures such more then abominable plots and attempts who that considers the thing as it deserves can object against him that he has spoken more freely than became him But the Cardinal is Protector Corrector and Governour of the Order of the Minors and by consequence has the power of a Prelate and lawful Superiour over Walsh and yet against him much here is said I have granted this before But is it therefore not lawful for Walsh in this or the like case to use the freedom which he here uses or what do you think of St. Peter what of St. Paul what of that reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul St. Paul was the last of the Apostles was called not the ordinary way was the Thirteenth was one who said He was not worthy the name of an Apostle St. Peter was the first chief greatest Prince of the Apostolical Order and Prince
fortune of War and division of minds had hapned he also thought fit to change parties and look back towards the old Confederacy and consequently to be as active as others in the unhappy Congregation of Bishops at Jamestown in the year 1650. signing both their Declaration against the King 's Lieutenant and Excommunication too against all that would any way obey his Excellency This remedy not proving either useful or proper but far more noxious and the Parliament Forces gaining thereby and by the Lord Lieutenant's departure so much ground that all seemâ—d very soon after to be in a desperate condition and the Marquess of Clanrickard by Ormond left Deputy for the King in pursuance of Monsieur St. Katherin's negotiation with him from the Duke of Lorrain having sent other Commissioners to Flanders to Treat with his said Highness of Lorrain provided they had first the King's consent our Bishop my Lord of Ferns also departs the Kingdom to sollicit aids from Catholick Princes but not otherwise authorized thereunto than by the Letters of private persons albeit otherwise some of them Bishops Coming to Paris and there denied access which he desired to His Majesty our Gracious King and attributing this affront to the Marquess of Ormond he takes it to heart and speaks and both writes and prints too a little piece wherein he reflects too severely and unjustly on him the said Marquess of Ormond Which if I mistake not was it that occasion d those Books written after at Paris in opposition and answer one to the other by Father John Ponce the zealous Nuntiotist Franciscan and Richard Belings Esq that no less Ormonist than known Royalist although in former times the first Legat to Rome from the Confederates and other Princes of Italy and the very man that occasion'd the sending of the Nuncio to Ireland The negotiation with the Duke of Lorrain having come to nothing and Limmerick and Galway surrendred and consequently soon after the whole Kingdom submitted to the Parliament of England the afflicted Bishop knowing that by reason of his having on his return from Rome immediately quitted the Nuncio party and both submitted to and promoted the Peace of 1648 and of his consequential being blasted ever since by the factious Irish at Rome as an Ormonist there could be no favourable reception or accomodation expected for him in that Court he shifts the best he can for himself in several places until at last the Archbishop of St. Jago in Galicia in Spain harbour'd him generously and bountifully according to his dignity and merits where continuing for some years and officiating as a Suffragan Bishop he begun a correspondence with me by Letters soon after His Majesties happy Restauration as together with his Lordship did the good Irish Father of the Society of Jesus Father William St. Leger and either by James Cusack a Secular Priest and Doctor of Divinity or by Father George Gould a Franciscan both which came from him directly and brought me Letters hither to London he sent me some writings of his own against Ferral's Book The Book as I have noted before which not only bastardizing all those Irish not descended of the more ancient Septs or Names that possess'd Ireland even before any Invasion either of English or Danes nor only in general involving all that later brood under the Title of wicked Politicians Anti-Catholicks c. but particularly and singularly falling on the Two Ambassadors yea and taxing them with having of set purpose all along betrayed the Nuncio and his cause the Book I say that by such precious Contents from the first line to the last of it both opened our good Bishop's eyes more then any other argument could to see clearly the ultimate designs of that Party which led him blindfold so long and so often especially at Waterford in 1646. and Jamestown in the year 1650. and if I be not very much out in my conjecture was at least partly either the cause or the occasion of his beginning so and desiring a correspondence with me then anno 1662. at London he himself remaining at St. Jago What followed after his first Letters to me i. e. after what Dr. Cusack one of the first Subscribers of the Remonstrance writ him back what he return'd in the year 1662. to this Doctor what to the Duke of Ormond and me in 1665 pro or con upon the Subject of the Remonstrance what to me again in May 1666. from St. Sebastian viz. after he had received the Indiction and presuming licence to return home had quitted his good condition at St. Jago what I to him in answer and finally what he replyed to me in July that same year from Paris will best appear out of the Bishops own Letters Whereof I give here as many as I judg'd material or useful to any design of this First Tome and much the rather because he is not only the onely Bishop yet alive of those of the Irish Nation that were made before Nuncio Rinuccini's time but the onely also that endeavoured to give the best reasons he could for himself or for his own dissent as to that expected or desired from him And I must say this besides that surely had he the writer of them had as good a cause and been as much conversant in the Gallican Theology which in the point controverted is that of the Primitive Fathers of Christianity as he is both a good Orator and laying the Affairs of Ireland aside a very pious and exemplar Prelate the Irish Nation generally had never been as unhappy as it is even at this present The Roman-Catholick Bishop of Fern's Letter from St. Jago 18 Junii 1662. To the Reverend James Cusack Doctor of Divinity at London SIR BY the four last Letters I had from you to which I have heretofore answered you demand from me two things to wit an approbation of a Protestation signed by L. B. of Dromore your self and other Divines of our Nation in that City and that I would give you a power to sign a Procuratorium Father Peter Walsh hath from the Clergy of Ireland whereunto Edmund Reilly Antony Geoghegan James Dempsy and others have consented as you write to me To the same I also willingly consent and do hereby impower you to sign in my 〈◊〉 the said Procuratorium but with this limitation the said Father Walsh shall do nothing for me nor in my name touching the above mentioned Protestation until he shall receive my own express sense and answer That Protestation seems a Rock to the Divines of our Nation in this Kingdom and they wonder ye there made so easie a work of it yet of your good intentions in illo facto most of them rest well satisfied persuading themselves there was a necessity of undeceiving the Prince and clearing our Clergy from black Calumnies but they differ from you in the judgment of the matter and lawfulness of the said Protestation Briefly the opinion of the Divines here as well of our Nation
as others is quod sit potestas in summo Pontifice puniendi omnes mortales ratione delicti which they aver to be St. Thomas his opinion speciatim in cap. decimo de Institutione Principis This say they is the power Innocentius III. meant when intermedling between the Kings of France and England nimirum quando ad illum Rex Angliae detulit Regem Galliae he said non intendimus judicare de feudo sed decernere de peccato cujus ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura quam in quemlibet exercere possumus debemus For further proof of this power they produce Translationem Imperii and affirm this power of the Pope hath taken prescription for many Ages which they declare out of several Historians Many of them will not be persuaded that ye have a probable opinion for your doings But I have as I think manifestly shewed out of the little Book you saw with me called Strena Catholica that the learned School of Paris holds the same opinion you relie upon in the signature of your Protestation This being so it could not be denied I conceived it so but the opinion was probable that had for it the authority of so famous a School quia probabilitas opinionis desumenda est ex principiis extrinsecis After a view of what I pointed out in the said Book some of them held that the said opinion had lost its probability by what Paulus V. declared in duobus Brevibus contra juramentum fidelitatis Regis Angliae tanquam continens multa quae saluti fidei adversantur Now your Protestation being the said in substance cum isto juramento fidelitatis that Declaration of Paulus Quintus is against your Protestation as well as against the said Oath What shall I say more the Schoolmen of France and Spain if I rightly understand them disagree as much about the lawfulness and matter of the Protestation as both the Nations do in their humors For my part I confess learned Suarez his Arguments and Reasons in defensione fidei adversus errores Secta Anglicanae praecipue quae ab eo dicuntur in lib. tertio de primatu Pontificis lib. 6. de juramento fidelitatis Regis Angliae are of great strength and force Yet for all that I am ready and heartily willing to yield my Prince all obedience and fidelity all honest Bishops and Priests have done to their Princes in all ages and times keeping ever to that old and sound rule of Tertullian nimirum sic colere Imperatorem quomodo Christianis licet illi expedit and I abhor and detest from my heart that impious and heretical Doctrine of John Wickliff to wit That a Prince if he rule ill or fall into mortal sin is no longer Prince but that his Subjects may rise against him and punish him at their pleasures Is it not a wonder the Kings Bishops do not pull this Hypocrite out of their Calendar of Saints where Fox placed him in red Letters for a Martyr though he dyed upon his Bed for being Author of so pestiferous a Doctrine I also abhor the impious dogma of the great Rabin of Geneva teaching That Princes Laws bind not Subjects to obedience in Conscience but only for external and temporal respect whereby this precious Doctor of the Protestants sets the People loose for a Rebellion when they shall please and find an occasion expresly against St. Pauls doctrine Cal. lib. 4. inst cap. 10. cap. 13. ad Rom. Ideo necessitate Subditi estote non solum propter iram sed etiam propter conscientiam This is the man so much esteemed by the Protestant Divines of England who notwithstanding dared pronounce that dangerous position for Princes in his expounding the Prophet Daniel Abdicant se saith he terreni Principes dum insurgunt contra Deum imo indigni sunt qui censeantur in hominum numero Potius ergo conspuere oportet in illorum capita quam illis parere ubi sic proterviunt velint spoliare Deum suo jure The world may see how civil a man this delicate Prophet using this fine phrase conspuere oportet in principum capita and is not this a learned Homily to teach Subjects obedience but if a man ask Calvin who shall be Judge between God and Kings an insurgunt in Deum spoliant eum jure suo he will allow of no Judge in this high matter but himself all one and consequently when he shall so please will stir the people to a rebellion against their King and depose or make Him away as they list because Calvin told them spoliavit Deum jure suo which is a sad lesson for Kings A late Letter from France tells that Tuam and the rest of my Brethren there have consented to subscribe your Protestation Believe me they would not do so here nor dare do it for many reasons I think not fit to commit to this Paper but you may believe me it is so hoc sapienti sat est c. For the rest were onely private business and salutes to Friends After which he subscribes thus My dear Companion Your ever true Friend to serve you Nico Fernen His Letter to my self from the said place dated 19 Sept. 1665. Reverend Father Walsh THither goeth the submissive Letter that lay upon my hands hard upon Twenty months waiting for a sercue conveyance The Contents thereof are I conceive reasonable and sufficient to give his Grace the contentment I desire I am able to say no more against my self then said Letter doth express without belying my Conscience and betraying my Fame which I presume his Grace would not have me do Vpon this affair that is of so tender a concernment I make this Discourse Or the Letter will give clear satisfaction or it will not If the first I shall be much joyed and do my best to be there soon depending with all confidence upon his Graces clemency and protection as by your Letter you have insinuated I well may of me and mine whereof my upright dealing and demeanour will still keep me capable exercising secretly and warily my Function and giving by Gods blessing no kind of occasion of disturbing the peace of the Countrey or offending the State and Government and so shall all do upon whom I shall have influence and if any change or revolution shall happen in the Land it may happen so though I have no ground at present for divining such a matter his Excellency will find me as trusty as any of the Kings own Bishops I bring not with me the spirit of Dissention or Ambition I aim not at Honour or worldly Commodities for I enjoy more here for subsisting me than I can do there that I seek after God is my witness is onely and solely my dear Lambs and Flock their fleece and milk are in another hand if he will content himself with both and seek not to vex me I will be patient with the lack of both and
confidently as if they had with them the most fully and clearly and satisfactorily Loyal Instruments could be framed even Instruments in every respect home to the point expected from them after a short Harrangus such as it was delivered by the Bishp of Kilfinuragh as the Congregations Chair-man presented to his Grace both the Original Parchment Roll opened and the other annexed Original Paper whereof before as they were signed by the proper hands of the Fathers But his Grace having received these Instruments and layed them by on his Table answered only in a very few words That after he had read and considered of their Petition and Instruments they should hear further from him And so his Grace dismissed those first Deputies of the Congregation It remains therefore now to end this Section that for the Readers fuller satisfaction I give here an exact Copy of both the foresaid Congregational Instruments with such Titles prefixed as the Originals have but first a Copy also of their Petition The Congregation's Petition delivered by the two aforesaid Bishops on June 16. 1666. To His Grace JAMES Duke of ORMOND LORD LIEVTENANT General and General Governour of Ireland The humble Petition of the Romish Catholick Clergy now met in the City of Dublin THE Petitioners do most humbly and thankfully acknowledge the favour your Grace hath done them in the allowance and permission of a Meeting in this City of Dublin at this time by which they have had the opportunity of a Free Conference together and the happiness to have concurred in a Remonstrance and Protestation of their Loyaltie to His Majesty wherein they resolve Inviolablie to continue which they beseech your Grace to accept from them and represent to His Majesty the rather that it was so unanimously agreed to as there was not one dissenting Voice in all their Number This is their prayer to your Grace for whom and whose Posterity they will as obliged always pray The Act of Recognition as I call it commonly to distinguish it from the former of others in 1661 or the Remonstrance and Protestation of Loyalty as they term it in their above Petition Signed by the National Congregation of the Irish Roman-Catholick Clergy in 1666 and delivered likewise June 16 by the same Bishops to His Grace as from and by direction of that Assembly To the King 's most Excellent Majesty CHARLES the Second King of Great Britain France and Ireland c. VVE Your Majesties Subjects the Roman-Catholick Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland together assembled do hereby declare and solemnly protest before God and His Holy Angels That we own and acknowledge Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supreme Lord and undoubted Sovereign as well of this Realm of Ireland as of all other Your Majesties Dominions consequently we confess our selves bound in Conscience to be 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 Therefore we promise That we will inviolably bear true Allegiance to Your Majesty Your lawful Heirs and Successors and that no power on earth shall be able to withdraw us from our duty herein 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 or attempt to deprive Your Self or Your lawful Heirs and Successors of any part thereof And to the end this our sincere Protestation may more clearly appear We further declare That it is not our Doctrine that Subjects may be discharged absolved or freed from the Obligation of performing their duty of true Obedience and Allegiance to their Prince much less may we allow of or pass as tolerable any Doctrine that perniciously and against the Word of God maintains That any private Subject may lawfully kill or murther the Anointed of God his Prince Wherefore pursuant to the deep apprehension we have of the abomination and sad consequences of its practice we do engage our selves to discover unto Your Majesty or some of Your Ministers any attempt of that kind Rebellion or Conspiracy against Your Majesties Person Crown or Royal Authority that comes to our knowledge whereby such horrid evils may be prevented Finally As we hold the Premises to be agreeable to good Conscience so we Religiously Swear the due observance thereof to our utmost and will Preach and Teach the same to our respective Flocks In witness whereof we do hereunto Subscribe the 15th day of June 1666. Edmund Archbishop of Ardmagh Primat of all Ireland Patrick Bishop of Ardagh Andrew Bishop of Kilfinuragh Procurator to the Lord Archbishop of Tuam and to the Reverend Fathers Richard Scis Vicar General of Killalla and Maurice Corghcar Vicar General of Aconry James Dempsy Vicar General Apostolick of Dubliâ— He might have added too and Vicar Capitulary of the Diocess of Kildare John Burk Vicar General Apostolick of Cashel Denis Harty Vicarius Apostolicus Laonensis Patricius Daly Vicarius Generalis Ardmachanus ac Procurator Rapotensis Oliver Desse Vic. Gen. Midensis Terence Fitz-Patrick Vicar General of Ossorie Robert Power Vicar General of Waterford and Lismore c. Dominick Roch Vicar General of Corck Connor Fogorty Proctor of Ardfert and Achdeo Nicolas Redmond Vicar General of Fernes Teig O Brien Dean of Lismore and Parson of Dungarvan John Deoran Proctor for Father Charles Nolan Vicar General of Laghlin Thomas Higgin Vicar General of Elphin Ronan Magin Vicar-General of Dromote James Phelan Doctor of Divinity Parson of Callan Dean of Ossory Protonotary Apostolical Thomas Lacy Substitute of Limmerick Father Francis Fitz Gerrald Proctor of the Vicar General of Cluon George Plunket Divine Daniel Kelly Vicar General of Cluonfert James Killine Vicar General Duacensis Edmund Teig Vicar General of Cloanmacnoise Owen O Coigly Procurator Derensis Patrick O Mulderig Vicarius Generalis Dun. Connor Thomas Fitz Symons Divine for the Province of Vlster Thady Brohy Divine for the Province of Leinster Doctor Angel Goulding Divine for the Province of Leinster John Nolan Master of Arts Divine for Leinster Dorby Doyle Batchelor of Divinity of the Province of Leinster Edmund O Deoran Magister Ordinis Melitensis Charles Horan Divine of the Diocess of Elphin in the Province of Connaught Constantine Duffy Vicar General of Clogher John Hannin Substitute and Official of Imly Fr Peter Walsh Reader of Divinity of St. Francis 's Order Procurator of the Catholick Clergy Andrew Bishop of Kilfinuragh Chairman Fr John Hart Provincial of the Order of Preachers and a Divine for the Province of Connaught Fr Stephen Lynch Provincial of the Order of St. Augustin and a Divine for Connaught Fr Antony Docharty Provincial of the Franciscans Andrew Sall Superiour of the Society of Jesus in Ireland Fr Thomas Dillon Vicar Provincial of the Discalceat Carmelits Fr Bernard Barry Lector Jubilate of the Order of S. Francis Fr John Brady Lector of Divinity Fr Dominick Martin of the Order of
ignorance to assert nay and endeavour also even before his own face to maintain That because the King was out of the Roman-Catholick Church it was not lawful to pray for him at all or at least not publickly on any other day in the year than good Friday nor then in particular for him but in general only i. e. forasmuch as he was comprehended amongst the great generality of Infidels or of Jews Mahumetans Pagans and Hereticks for whom altogether the Church prayed on good Friday as being the Aniversary of that day whereon our Saviour dyed for all the Children of Adam in general nor yet then or so to pray for him without some further qualification and restriction of what we should beg of God or wish from Heaven to him i. e. to pray only for what concern'd the Spiritual welfare of his Soul and therefore only to pray for his Conversion to the Roman-Catholick Church but not for his Temporal prosperity in this world until he be a true Member of the only true Church 2. That although his own endeavours partly and partly those not only of the rest of the former Remonstrants but of other good men who albeit they had through fear of the Roman Court and other Ecclesiastical Superiours not subscribed the Formulary or Remonstrance of the year 1661 yet in their Souls and where they durst both in word and deed too approve it had prevailed in most parts of the Kingdom against this wicked Heresie of not praying as they ought for the Supream Temporal Powers he knew notwithstanding too too well that all opposers were not yet perswaded to decry this errour down or to practice against it 3. That notwithstanding the ignorance or malice of such disaffected Church-men the Holy Scriptures to speak nothing at all of Natural Reason in the case or I mean of that reason which directs us to wish well to all men and love our Neighbours as our selves were plain enough both for Praying and Sacrificeing too even for Idolatruos and Heathen yea persecuting Heathen Princes and not only for their Spiritual welfare but their Temporal as Baruch 1.11 and 2 Timoth 2.1 at least joyned together manifestly prove For certainly the Princes and Kings for whom Paul desires Timothy and all other Christians to pray for Heathens and Nero amongst them was the very first Persecuting Roman Emperour And no less certainly both Nabuchodonozor and Baltassar in the Prophet Baruch were Heathen Princes and the former He that sacrilegiously robâ—d the Holy Temple nay utterly in his time subverted the Kingdom of the chosen People of God and carried the miserable remainders of them Captive to Babilon 4. That no Church-canon or Custom or Rubrick or Reason or Doctrine or Practice hath any power to prescribe against the Laws of God or their eternal reason declared in both the New and Old Testaments 5. And Lastly That nothing could more justly render us to all Protestants both suspected of disloyalty and odious for immorality than such our scandalous either opposing or omitting so known a duty Secondly for the later or second part of that same first of those Three Heads he let them know likewise That although not even the Subscribers of the very former Remonstrance or of that of the year 1661 may be thought to be obliged by the only precise contents of that Formulary To acknowledg either the Kings Authority in commanding any meer spiritual duties or the Peoples obligation in point of Conscience to obey the King in such commands yet no man of knowledge will thence conclude that the intention or design of that Formulary or Subscription of it was either formally or virtually i. e. tacitly and consequently to deny all such Authority in the King or all such obligation of conscience on either Lay people or Clergy but only in plain and express terms to acknowledge the Kings other kind of independent Authority viz That in Temporals and for commanding in all Temporals universally according to the Laws of the Land of the misbelief or denyal and rejection of which even Vniversal and Independent Authority in Temporals it behooved the Subscribers to clear themselves or at least those in general in whose behalf they Subscribed and Remonstrated That such concern and such intention or design is very far from any consequution or sequel implying their denyal of the Kings Authority for commanding some Spirituals even truly such nay or of his Authority for commanding Vniversally all Spirituals whether not purely or purely such to be duly perform'd by all Subjects both Lay and Ecclesiastical respectively as they are in their several capacities by the Laws of God and man directed enabled and obliged to perform and discharge them and therefore also very far from any conseqution implying their denial either of Peoples or Clergys obligation in point of conscience to obey the King whensoever He commands a due and holy observance or performance and discharge of such Spiritual works which neither of their own nature nor by any icrcumstances or ends prescribed by Him are vitiated or against the Laws of God but are in every such respect acts of true Religion Piety and Holiness For who sees not That a general affirmation of one sort of Authority in Kings and of a correspondent tye of obedience thereunto in Subjects must not infer a general renunciation or denyal of another kind of Authority in the one and tye on the other when these latter can not be truly said to be inconsistent with those other That both the Examples even of the most religious holy Kings either amongst the Jews and Israelites in the Old Testament or amongst Christians under the dispensation of the New yea in the more early times thereof and the Doctrin of the Fathers and natural reason too in the case manifestly prove this Authority in all Kings for commanding even such spiritual duties and consequently this obligation of and tye of Conscience on all Subjects of whatever Religion true or false the same or different from that professed by their Kings to obey them even in all such their commands whither given by Law or by Proclamation or other temporary Precept That to this purpose the Books of Paralipomenon do furnish us plentifully with the examples of David (a) 1 Parlip cap. 23 cap. 28. 2 Paralip 8 Ezechias (b) 2 Paralip 29. and Josias (c) Ibid. 35. to say nothing now of Joas adhuc dum bonum (d) Ibid 24. faceret coram domino nothing of Salomon (e) 3. Reg. 2. Vide etiam 4. Reg. 18 23. cap. 2 Paralip 19 34 35. cap. Et Mac. 4.59 Ester 9.26 Dan. 3 19. â—on 3.7 c. and the Civil Laws of the Christian Emperours of Rome the Books of the Code Pandects and Authenticks furnish us no less plentifully with examples of Constantine the Great Theodosius both the older and younger Honorius Martianus Justinian Heracliuus Leo and many more amongst whom Carolus Magnus and
Muskerry as likewise that the same Bishop having in the late general ruine of his Countrey when subdued by Cromwel departed and gone to Portugal of purpose to offer his Episcopal service to that Nation wanting Bishops at that time was by the said Father Cornelius a Sancto Patricio for so he called himself there amongst his Order presented with a Copy of that Book owning himself Author thereof 6. That the Subject of the former piece or Apologetical Disputation is the same Authors utmost devoir to persuade the then Confederate Catholicks of Ireland That no King of England John Serjeant an English Priest of the Secular Clergy told me of late in England That studying in Portugal he was well acquainted with this Father Mahony of the Society of Jesus there and knew him by the name of Cornelius a St. Patricio and living at S. Roch in Lisbon and that he professed himself openly the Authour of that wicked Apologetical Disputation and Exhortation added thereunto nor Crown nor People nor State of that Kingdom had at any time any kind of Right to the Kingdom of Ireland or any part thereof that their Title to it was but meer usurpation and violence and that therefore the old Natives i. e. the meer Irish might choose and make themselves a King of one of their own Irish and in the then present circumstances of Charles I. of England's being an Heretick ought i. e. were bound in Conscience to do so and throw off together the yoke of both Hereticks and Forreigners 7. That to this purpose of persuading his Countreymen to so daring an attempt he makes it his work in that piece from pag. 7. to pag. 64. in five several and large Sections to answer all the Arguments commonly made use of to prove the true Right of the Kings of England to the Kingdom of Ireland viz. those of Donation by the Pope or Bull of Adrian IV. to Henry II. Conquest by the Sword Submission of the Irish Kings Princes Bishops People and Prescription even almost of Five hundred years 8. That the whole remainder of that Apologetical Disputation i. e. the last Section thereof even from pag. 65. to pag. 102. is taken up by him in proving an Hypothesis not only no less treasonable but if not manifestly heretical in the grounds yet I am sure much more pernicious to the World in general as to the same grounds For that Hypothesis or conditional Assertion is in these very terms Dato ergo Pag. 65. non concesso quod Reges Angliae olim fuissent legitimi ac veri Domini Hiberniae ut aliqui Angli immerito contendunt nihilominus Ordines illius Regni optimo jure poterant ac debebant omni dominio Hiberniae privare tales Reges postquam facti sunt haeretici atque tyranni And those grounds or Scheme of them you may see in these other words immediately following Hoc enim jus Ibid. potestas deponendi Principes tyrannos in omni Regno Republica est sive Gubernatio sit Monarchica sive Aristocratica vel Democratica Jam si consensui Regni vel Reipublicae in hac re accederet authoritas Apostolica quis nisi haereticus vel stultus audebit negare quod hic affirmamus Doctores Theologi Juris utriusque periti passim docent rationes probant exempla suadent Thus he makes sure work on every side by affirming as you see now That granting or supposing what till then he labour'd to prove was very false viz That the Kings of England from Henry the Second's time downwards until they became Hereticks had a true right of Lordship and Sovereignty in the Kingdom of Ireland yet the Three Estates of that Kingdom might and ought to deprive them as soon as they turn'd Hereticks and Tyrants For sayes he such right and authority for deposing tyrannical Princes is in every Kingdom and Commonwealth whether the Government be Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And then sayes he again if to the consent of the Kingdom or Commonwealth in this matter the authority of the See Apostolick be added who but an Heretick or Fool dare be so bold as to deny what we affirm here and the Doctors both of Divinity and of the Civil and Canon Law do commonly teach Reasons prove Examples persuade 9. That the whole and consequential both subject and scope of his other annexed Piece or Tract called his Exhortation to the Catholicks of Ireland is to exhort the Irish and from all the other Topicks he judg'd most expedient even to enflame them to a putting that in execution which he had already as much as in him lay shewed to be not only lawful for but obligatory on them i. e. to a renouncing the Protestant King of England and electing presently amongst themselves a Roman-Catholick Irish Native to be their King as may be seen partly in these words in the beginning of the first page of the same Exhortation albeit the 103 page of the whole Book as composed of those two Pieces viz In sequenti Exhortatione opto persuadere Hibernis ut Haereticorum jugum semel excussum numquam iterum admittant nec permittant sed potius eligant sibi Regem Catholicum vernaculum seu naturalem Hibernum qui cos Catholicâ— gubernare possit and partly in these other pag. 117. Eligite igitur Regem vernaculum fratrem vestrum Catholicum aliquem Hibernum as likewise partly yet in these pag. 125. Hiberni mei agite pergite perficite incaeptum opus defensionis libertatis vestra occidite haereticos adversarios vestros eorum fautores ad utores e medio tollite especially if expounded as they must be by those other given before in his Apol. Disp. pag. 45. viz. Vnde non solum haereticos Anglos Scotos expellere debetis sed etiam Hibernos cujuscumque conditionis haereticis auxiliantes vel aliquo modo faventes e medio tollere deberetis tanquam Patriae proditores hostes non enim ignoratis poenas quas in Jure incurrunt haeretici illorum santores Legite caput 32 Exodi invenietis quod sanctus Patriarcha Moyses praecepis occidere 23 millia Haebreorum ob peccatum Idololatriae Legite similiter caput 25 Libri Numerorum ubi ob peccatum Infidelitatis Idololatriae praecepit Deus tollere cunctos Principes populi suspendere eos in patibulis Quinimo eodem die occisa sunt 24 millia hominum Israelitarum Jam supra dixi haresim comparari cum Idololatria haereticos esse similes Idololatris sunt enim infideles Deo hominibus Quare ut malum a vobis tollatur e medio tollite haereticos eorum fautores etiamsi alioquin sint fratres proximi vestri sicut Deus praecepit Moyses fecit 10. That beside this extreme cruelty he exhorts unto of putting to death all not only English and Scottish Hereticks remaining in Ireland but all whatsoever even Roman-Catholick Irish albeit
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
or composed by them or any committee from them but by three or four onely and a whole month before the congregation sate or came together from the several Provinces of Ireland and with a resolution not to suffer one â—ord to be altered therein Which was the reason they would never suffer â—â— as much as once to be debated or mended with any addition or explanation or have it sent to my Lord Lieutenant to know of His Grace before it was signed whether he were pleased with it or had any exceptions against it notwithstanding they were often desired publickly in their meeting to send him for that end a copy of it before they subscribed But they would not 〈◊〉 that motion because they were resolved not to give him any reasonable satisfaction And yet there Gentlemen would impose upon others specially on such Protestants as know not their intrigues that they comprised in this their own form or protestation all the Substance as they speak of the former and varie not from it in sense but in words onely At least that they assure the King of their fidelity hereafter or that whetheâ— the Pope as Pope hath from Christ or from the Church any power to depose Princes and at least in some cases to absolved their Subjects or to declare them absolved from the bond of their otherwise due Allegeance or whether he hath not any such power and whether the Pope proceed to Execution of such power or pretended power or shall not so proceed which questions they peremptorily refused to meddle with but abstracted from in this Remonstrance yet they will observe their duty towards the King And so say they they determine as to themselves the lawfulness in matter of Fact and in Relation to the King to oppose the Pope but will not determine any way the lawfulness as to the question of Right or power or authority betwixt two great Monarchs the Pope and King for this is their own language that is they will not determine even as to themselves much less as or in relation to others whether the Pope hath or hath not power from God or from man to depose our King and absolve his Subjects from their Allegeance All which to be their meaning and resolution though this same be but a very sorry one and unsignificant to any real purpose when or if there should be a tryal they would impose on others and have others conceive of them forsooth because that instead or in lieu of all those four and such other express and cleer passages or clauses of the former Protestation of 61 declined by them they insert in theirs this one you shall presently have but one too too general equivocat and ambiguous and therefore to no purpose at all for no kind of real assurance to the King of their fidelity hereafter not even I say in matter of fact and when the Pope or if the Pope shall attempt to proceed against the King or his Subjects out of any such pretended power whether in their opinion he truely hath or hath not any such For all the Assurance they give against such Doctrines and practices and all the declaration they make in theirs in lieu of so many cleer particular ones in the former which they purposely declined you have in these very words and some few more that follow after but which import no more as shall be likewise seen hereafter Therefore we promise unto your Majestie in the presence of Heaven that we will inviolablie bear true Allegiance to your Majestie your lawful Heirs and Successors c. Where in the first place the consequential or Illative word therefore is to be noted For this word importing all that followes to be of no larger extent then what immediatly preceded or which is the same thing to have been virtually comprized in it aâ— a consequent in its Antecedent who sees not that they mean by what followes to promise no other allegiance then that which they conceive due by the Lawes of God and Nature For to these as immediately goeing before this note of Illation and all that followes relate and as I have said before such as understand them know they maintain stiffly though without reason that by the Lawes of God or Nature they are not bound to obey either actively or passively or as much as to acknowledge CHARLES the Second for their King if once deposed or deprived by the Popes sentence upon at least a pretence of Apostacy heresy Schysme or other such crimes as they make that of Tyrannical administration or publick oppression of the people in their Civill or Religious Rights or if the people who are now deemed his Subjects be dispensed with hereafter or declared by the Fathers of the Church dispensed with in their Allegiance much more if themselves be commanded under pain of Excommunication or other Censure to disobey or dis-own him Nay such as understand them know they are themselves perswaded and perswade others that in case of Tyrannical Administration or publick oppression and this case they are also known to suppose now and averr to be at present the people may of themselves that is by virtue of the natural civill and inherent power in them or pretended to be in them as men or as a civill Society abstracting wholy from the consideration of their being a christian Society or Church of Christ without any such antecedent concomitant or subsequent sentence of deposition or deprivation or censure of Excommunication or other declaration whatsoever issued from the Pope or other Prelats or Pastors or members of the Church as such I say that such as know these late Remonstrants and their principles abstractions and evasions know withall that in such case they maintain it to be no sin when prudently they expect any success to take Arms against their King or him that abstracting from such a case and every other of the former would be their King and so moreover their King that it would be a sin in the people and in themselves against conscience to resist him by Arms. For which Tenet of theirs they openly in their congregation and in particular their Speaker made use of this their common place or Maxim how false soever in it self or how ill soever applied That Protection and Subjection are correllatives as they deny that protection to be afforded now to Irish Catholicks as the case stands with them Making themselves so as well in this case as all others the Soveraign Judges at least as to themselves and the people guided by them both of Protection and Subjection of injuries and remedies and of all the Lawes by consequence In the next place and abstracting wholy from that consequential word Therefore or from any Relation thereby to their so warily expressed obligation according to the lawes of God and Nature and to their erroneous interpretation or understanding of those lawes it is no less but yet much more diligently to be noted that although the promise
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
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
truely declare it is not their or it is not our Doctrine though in an other sense they cannot nor intended so to do And for to justifie this declaration distinction or equivocation they will according to the principles of equivocating Divines readily make use of that passage or words of our Saviour in the Gospel mea doctrina non est mea sed ejus qui mifit me Patris And yet when they shall find it for their advantage they will no less readily acknowledge that their intention also was to declare by those words that what follows is not the doctrine of even those very Doctors or Popes nor consequently of the Church And yet will acknowledge too this much without any prejudice to their own opinion or judgment in the points controverted and without holding themselves obliged by this Declaration understood as it ought or may not to practice accordingly For all they say in this first part of that first Proposition is We the under-named do hereby declare that it is not our doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second They will here presently when they please and shall think fit have recourse to the several meanings of the word Authority And without any necessity of using the distinction which yet is obvious enough and frequent with them of authority in fact and authority of right they will say although not with the Doctors of Lovaine in their censure of the Remonstrance of 61. that they declare it is not the doctrine of the Romae Church that the Pope hath any authority which is purely or meerly temporal or even humane at all or by humane right ways or title acquired over the King in his temporal Affairs And that neither hath he any Divine or Spiritual which is ordinary over him in such or which at his pleasure may at all times and in all cases dispose of the Kings Temporals And after this or notwithstanding any thing here declared they will say with Bellarmine that all the most supream right or authority challenged by Popes to depose Princes and dispose of their Temporals is entire and safe enough For this grand Authority indeed they have or challenge thereunto universally is not in the rank of temporals nor in the order of humane Authorities but in that of wholy spiritual and purely divine and supernatural Is not ordinary but extraordinary or as Innocent the 3d. speaks casual only that is in some particular great and extraordinary cases or emergencies and this too ratione peccati alone as the same Innocent further saith And consequently they will say that by any such general though negative Declaration or by a Declaration in such general words only or against any Authority in general to be in the Pope this very specifical this extraordinary casual spiritual celestial divine Authority in such great unusual contingencies must never be thought to be declared against according to the maxime of Lawyers and Law before given in my Exceptions to their Remonstrance For which saying they will further yield this reason That without any such specifical meaning intended their said Declaration or Proposition may be useful to shut out of doors the Popes humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right said to have been acquired and by the present Faculty of Lovaine maintained to continue still in force to these Kingdoms by donation submission prescription feudatary title and forfeiture And that such Declaration or one against such humane pretences in particular to his Majesties Kingdoms of England or Ireland nay and Scotland too was enough to be expected from them by his Majesty without putting them to the stress of resolving on that other supereminent divine pretence and which really is to all other at least christian Kingdoms in the world or all those of other Kings and in such extraordinary cases as well as to his Majestie 's They have yet in store a third explication equivocation distinction but as fallacious as if not more than any of these two already given And I call it a third way of evasion though as to the first part of it and as to the matter in it self of that first part however the words be different it varyes not or but very little from what is already said in effect It does in indeed in the second Part as will be seen They will as occasion requires or they find it expedient say nothing of the first on the words our doctrine nor of the second on the words authority in temporal affairs But when they come to Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will instantly tell you as Logicians or Sophisters of their specificative and reduplicative sense And that these words bear it And that the cause it self and the conjuncture of circumstances make their recourse to this kind of distinction very lawful They will therefore when they please to proceed a third way allow it is not the doctrine not even of the Catholick Church that the Pope hath any authority not even spiritual or divine in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will I say allow this Proposition or this part of that first complex Proposition but allow it only in sensu reduplicative in the reduplicative sense or as the reduplication falls on these last words Our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second In the specificative they will deny it and withal deny it was their meaning what ever the Sorbonists meaned by the like to their own King to declare at any time or by that Proposition that the Pope had not some authority in temporal affairs over our King considered as a Criminal or Sinner though in such not any over him considered only as our Soveraign Lord and King Charles the Second They will further say that while the Pope himself or people or both joyntly suffer or tollerat Charles the Second as King the Pope hath no authority in temporal affairs over him But yet when he finds it convenient and necessary in any of those great extraordinary emergencies not to tollerat him any longer he may by his divine authority in such cases depose and deprive him of all his temporals together and transfer the right of them to another and this by way of Jurisdiction over his person as a criminal and sinner not over his person as a King not criminal or sinful They will further say and though I meaned it hitherto as the second part of this third way yet it may be also and is a fourth way of explication or evasion that allowing it not to be the doctrine of the Church that the Pope hath any Authority of Jurisdiction Power or Superiority properly such in temporal affairs over the King considered either in the reduplicative or specificative sense and allowing too that themselves intended to declare so much by the said former part of their first Proposition yet the last refuge is alwayes open A Power and Authority in the
their future fidelitie hereafter in the cases or contingencies wherein they are suspected I leave the indifferent reader to be judge I know what their answer will be to these two last Objections They will say the Propositions of Sorbon had no such exception against equivocation no censure of the contrary positions But the reply is no less obvious and shews the answer in both parts unsatisfactory Because the disparity is as great as the divinity and doctrine and loyalty of that famous Colledge nay and of all the Gallican Church is known to be such that their Propositions as from them and to their King or people needed no such additional exception or censure at such time as they gave those very Propositions in the year 1663. So many books lately before written by the Divines of that Faculty and Church and by the Curats of Rouen and Paris against the whole mass of casuistical opinions amongst which that of equivocations in such cases at least as ours as likewise the other of extrinsecal probability maâ—ch in the first rank and their general horror of such vile Sophistrie and withal the settledness of the generality of the French Nation both Ecclesiasticks and Lay-men in the true honest and obvious meaning of the said Propositions as comprising without further addition or specification those very cases which our congregational Divines would by their distinctions and reservations except alwayes and yet further the very penalties enacted in the rules of Sorbon and other French Universities against any that would maintain the positions of Bellarmine or the doctrine of a power in the Pope for deposing Kings all these four arguments I say to speak no more shew there was no need that the Sorbonists in the said Propositions to their own King should expresly or any other way than by the bare Propositions in themselves protest they declared them sincerely without equivocation or mental reservation And so many former no less known heavy and home censures not only of Sorbon and Paris but of all other Universities in France against that very doctrine of any power whatsoever and consequently against that which is called by new names direct or indirect ordinary or extraordinary and casual or supernatural spiritual celestial divine c. in the Pope for deposing Kings evict this confession likewise That there was no need Sorbon should to those their own propositions in the year 1663. add any new censure at all of the contrary doctrine To all which and as well concerning that of equivocation as this of censure may be added that the Sorbon-Facultie's purpose in determining and presenting the foresaid six propositions to the French King on the eighth of May 63. was only to wipe off the false aspersion which some had lately and groundlesly cast upon them as if they had held the contrary in terminis Which to have been their chief purpose may be seen by that Title of theirs prefixed to the same six propositions Declaratio Facultatis Sorbonicae contra quasdam propositiones falso impositas eidem Facultati Now who sees not that to this end it was sufficient to give the contrary or contradictory propositions without any kind of addition or explication And who sees not that our case or that of our said Congregation of Dublin of the Irish Roman Catholick Clergy was wholy different in all particulars both the doctrine and practice contrary to the plain sincere and obvious meaning of the said six propositions conceived by men that are no Sophisters hath been and is with all truth and justice grounded on sad long and manifold experiences as withal the doctrine and practice of equivocation and mental reservation charged on the generality that is on the far greater part for number of the said Irish Clergy and their Representatives And neither of them have ever yet except only those few Subscribers of the Remonstrance of 61. for ought appears either in this age or any former since the debates arose first by Books Declarations Propositions or otherwise under their hands or names any way censured that pernicious doctrine or practices following it of the Pope's power or pretence of power for deposing Kings c. as neither the doctrine of equivocation or mental reservation in such cases as ours or in any other soever But to shew what only now remains that Sorbon had that all the rest of the Catholick Universities of the Gallican Church and kingdom had lately before and both sufficiently and smartly too censured the positions contrary to the foresaid three or that of any power or pretence of power in the Pope to deprive or depose Kings raise their Subjects or the people otherwise subject in rebellion against them I will give here out of very many others those censures only of the said Faculty of Sorbon fourth of April 1626. and of the whole University of Paris the 20th of April the same year against the said uncatholick doctrines And further only add the prosecution of the same censure by the other seven Universities of France the same year too All which the late Author of the Quaeries on the Oath of Allegiance hath rendred in English and prepared to my hand as extracted out of a Book lately before printed at Paris Entituled A Collection of divers Acts Censures and Decrees as well of the Vniversity as of the faculty of Theology at Paris The Title of that of Paris and consequently of that of Sorbon therein is A Decree of the Vniversity of Paris made by the Rector Deans Proctors and Bachelors of the said Vniversity in a General Assembly had on the 20th of April 1626. at the Matutines And then immediatly follows the Decree it self in these words to a tittle It having been represented by the Rector that the sacred Faculty of Theologie moved as well by their ardent zeal and fidelity towards the Church His most Christian Majesty and his Kingdoms as also by the true and perfect love which they bear to right and justice and following therein the illustrious examples left by their Predecessors in like cases upon mature examination af a certain Latin Book Entituled A Treatise of Heresie Schisme Apostasie c. and of the Popes power in order to the punishment of those crimes printed at Rome 1625. had in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Heresie found these propositions That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastise Kings and Princes depose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdoms for the crime of Heresie and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them and that this custom has been alwaies practised in the Church c. and thereupon had by a publick just and legal sentence on the 4th of April censured these propositions of that pernicious Book and condemned the doctrine therein contained as new false erroneous contrary to the law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schisme derogative to the soveraign authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the conversion of
Catholick faith and Christian Religion That all the Catholick Vniversities of France which are Eight in number and many more which are in Poland Germanie State of Venice c. do not otherwise controvert this proposition For they hold it positively for certain and undeniable ever since the Council of Constance that a general Council is above the Pope That finally not so many Catholick Vniversities alone maintain this maxime but even the whole Gallican Church nor the whole Gallican Church alone but the Vniversal or Catholick Church in its latitude and by its lawful Representatives even in two general Councils that of Constance I mean about 300 years since and that of Basile immediately after or within 12 years after have amongst their Canons defined this to be a catholick truth All which joyntly with what is said before in this matter if the congregation had seriously considered it is like they would have declined their vain pretence of a School question of Divinity controverted in all catholick Vniversities of the world as they speake What more I have to say on this Subject of that 5th proposition abstractedly in it self considered though by occasion of the said first unreasonable reason of the Congregation or of their absolute refusal to subscribe it upon this or any other ground whatsoever they know best what that ground was will more conveniently be said in a distinct Treatise which will be the 5th in order of this work and followes immediatly after my answers to their allegations for not signing the sixth and laâ—â— proposition and after some few more additional propositions of my own added there Secondly or to their second specifical reason whereby they labour to prove the Subscription of this 5th proposition to be not onely impertinent in it self but dangerous in its consequents and unseasonable c Its answered that indeed to take of any question so as this talke in all the circumstances of it without any profit quiet or other good to the King or his Subjects should be thought in â—ight reason to be a cause of breeding new jealousies or renewing the old between the King and his people or of giving the least overture to such odious and horrid disputâ— concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late experience hath taught us would be now unseasonable though not therefore nor at all impertinent That nevertheless to talke of this specifical or particular question whether the Pope be above the general Council and talke of it now or in this present conjuncture in Ireland and talke of it so as the Congregation might and should and as expected from them or talke of iâ— so as their talke would be to those good and rational ends of bringing dissentors of their country and Religion to a free conscientious and vnanimous subscription of the negative and of thereby obstructing much occasion of new troubles and further of rooting out the seeds of Rebellion from amongst the Roman-catholick Clergie of Ireland on pretence of Papal decrees alone or letters from the Court of Rome that I say to talke of this specifical or individual question and talke of it in this manner or to these or other such good ends and in that Congregation would not be to talke of a question either impertinent in it self or dangerous in its consequents or unseasonable in any kind of respect either of the matter persons time Prince or other people but on the contrary most pertinent safe and seasonable and bringing a long with it naturally much profit both to King and Subjects because much peace and quiet by setling a truth so necessary and of so great importance against a sly error of so pernicious destructive consequence as is the contrary position That if from such talke of this specifical or particular question in such manner to such ends and in such a Congregation any should either out of ignorance or malice fall into such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late sad experience hath taught us it could not therefore be dangerous to give in such an occasion to such disputes so little overture as talke so qualified can be rationally thought by any indifferent man to give being this overture at most and worst could not be to other than the speculative part onely of those other odious and horrid disputes but not by any means to the practical at least for the present in that Congregation or Catholick Clergie of Ireland whom that Congregation represented and commanded That in giving so little overture to that speculation or speculative part onely of that other question and giving such overture not at all necessarily but accidentally and onely out of the biass and malice or ignorance of some of themselves both which themselves too partly and partly others also as was offered might and would easily rectifie if they pleased there could be no danger at all as to the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland or as from them But that in relation to others of the Monarchy of great Brittain who of late or in the late Warrs engaged themselves practically or in the practical part of those other odious and horrid disputes it is nothing this Congregation could say or unsay on that point or any other would engage anew or disengage them That Sorbone and the whole Gallican Church and the French King himself and his Council who all maintain without contradiction as even do his very Parliaments nay his general Assemblies of all the three estates of that Kingdom the most absolute Soveraignty of the French Monarch over all his people even collectively taken in what assembly soever the most independent from them or from any els but God alone can be desired in pursuance of that other tenet they all hold in the said Gallican Church of the Kings power to be given him immediatly by God alone as by the onely efficient of it that I say that learned subtile Faculty Church Prince or people never found that impertinency or danger or unseasonableness in the subscription of Sorbone to the said Proposition But on the other side much pertinency and safety and seasonableness towards the perpetual establishment of that absolute independent power in their King whereof they are jealous as of the apple of their eye and I fear much more incomparably than most Fathers of the Congregation were of the like in their own King if not to deny it him That as these good Fathers declared publickly in their said Congregation and privatly one to another the precedent of Sorbone was enough to secure them in their subscription of the three first Propositions nay and of all for this too they said so they might and ought for the same reason perswade themselves effectually no less at least of the pertinency and safety and seasonableness of their subscription to this 5th also than of the Catholickness and lawfulness of it That further yet or even abstracting as well from all precedents as from
the doctrine or Theses of those that maintained the same pretended infallibility of the Pope to be not onely matter of Religion and faith that is to be fide divina believed but also to be so believed to extend it self to all kind of matters questions disputes or controversies of or concerning what is delivered in the Depositum of faith and what is not or concerning what is lawful and what is not even as much as the undoubted infallibility of the Catholick Church either representative or diffusive can be any way extended to such And consequently could not but know the doctrine of infallibility in all such matters disputes or controversies must of necessity regard or concern this very particular matter dispute and controversy of the obedience due or not due by Subjects in all cases or in such and such special ones to their King or to him that is reputed King being it is one of the particulars included in that Vniversal Thirdly That although it be confessed the said infallibility either pretended or true for it matters not which for our purpose now as falling upon any other matter distinct from that obedience we owe our Prince doth not per se directly and immediately regard or concern that obedience yet mediately indirectly and per accidens it may and even directly often us and the Prince himself nay and the quiet and peace too of his Kingdoms For besides the general concernment of salvation or of having or not having errors in Christian Religion obtruded on us at the Popes pleasure or fancy or out of his ignorance as it may happen or of that of his few Roman Divines only when he defines without a General Council what ever the matter be there are very many particulars wherein Popes may usurp and have usurped already a power of definition which against the universal Canons and Reason and Justice too incroach on the rights both of Prince Clergy and other Catholick People or Subjects though such particulars do not immediatly directly or per se regard this particular question of our Allegiance to the Prince in temporals or though notwithstanding such definitions we were suffered still to acknowledge and obey him as our supream Lord in meeâ— temporals without any definition against that how ever with many disturbances withal on spiritual pretences tending often though per accidens only to the both temporal and spiritual ruine of both Prince Clergy and people Whereof sufficient and manifold instances may be given out of those we call the Liberties of the Gallican Church and such as are common also to other national Churches especially in the matter of Investitures Nominations Presentations Collations Resignations Unions Translations and of Legats and Nuncius's c. That as I have said before to this of impertinency the Sorbon Divines or University or Clergy or Archbishop of Paris in 63. were not of our Congregations judgment in this point or of Father N. N's but perswaded that the Popes pretended infallibility even I say as matter of Faith and Religion and even I say too as not particularly or only relating to their Allegiance concerned notwithstanding both their Prince and themselves and that obedience too for they declared against it in general And so might and ought both Father N. N. and our Congregation but that they would seem more wise and less sincere than Sorbon and the University Clergy and Archbishop of Paris In the third place I must answer his pretence of odium where he sayes in Congregations name We are loath forreign Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a question c. That he imposeth mightily and injuriously on forrein Catholick Nations That there is not one such in all Europe and of the rest you may judge by Europe where this question is odious at all in the negative resolve to all indeed it is in the affirmative or in the assertion of such an infallibility in the Pope as matter of faith and religion unquestionably though to all also very indifferent for both sides as it is only disputed scholastically speculatively or problematically without intending it as matter of faith and religion in the affirmative or of any further design either by the affirmative or negative than of opposing truth to error and certainty of divine belief to the uncertainty of humane opinion or collection though seemingly or probably deduced out of Scripture-places or some others of great esteem amongst us That neither some few Divines at Rome nor that whole City or Clergy therein if all were of that opinion of the Popes infallibility as matter of faith and religion not even taking along with them the most blessed Pope himself the Cardinals and whole Court do make one little Nation no nor if you further aggregate unto them all those other few Divines and few I call such comparatively or in relation to all Catholick Divines of the contrary side who in several other Countreys of Europe either privately or publickly in their Schools or Writings maintain either dogmatically or problematically that assertion of the Popes infallibility or maintain it any way at all either as matter of religion and faith or as matter only of meer uncertain but yet probable opinion That by their own confession the Universities of France and these are eight in all have concurred in the negative which denyes any such infallibility to the Pope and by consequence this question as to the negative answer must not be odious in that Country That whatever France or the Gallican Church maintains in relation to faith and religion is not odious nor can be in any other Catholick Nation of Christendome because they are all of the same faith religion and communion with France and the Gallican Church That the controversie of the Venetians in 1606. with Paulus V. and all the consequents of it show manifestly that all the Catholick Countreys subject to that Commonwealth reject the Popes infallibility and hold it not odious to determine against it That for the German Hungar and Polish Nation the General Councils of Constance and Basil which for a very great part consisted of them and their general esteem and veneration to this day of those Councils and amongst other Canons made by those Councils of that particularly which altogether subjects the Pope to a General Council sufficiently prove this question and resolution of it in the negative cannot be odious to them as neither to any other Nation that maintains the Supremacy of a General Council above the Pope which all Catholick Nations and people do generally with the said Council For it must be an infallible consequence that if a General Council be above the Pope the infallibility cannot be in the Pope alone without a General Council That for Spain and other Kingdoms subject to it in the dayes of Philip the Second it may be seen out of his Edict published and observed by them against the eleventh tome of Baronius concerning the Monarchy and I mean
confundetur super eum cum venerit in gloria Patris sui cum Angelis sanctis And then of the prediction Odio eritis omnibus propter nomen meum And after in the last place of the benediction of the encouragement and great reward therefore Beâ—ti eritis cum vos oderint homines cum separaverint vos exprobraverint ejeâ—erint nomen vestrum tanquam malum propter filium hominis gaudeâ—e in illa die exultate ecce enim merces vestra multa est incaelo secundum haec enim faciebant prophetis patres eorum 3. That the Clergy of Ireland least of any Clergy in the world hath any such dependencies at this present of the Pope and his Court. They have not from him or any else either benefice or pension if not perhaps some few Capucines and a very few more that receive from that Court and for their mission yearly some little inconsiderable sum Their benefices and patrimony is the sole benevolence of the poor Catholick Laytie which the Pope cannot take from them if themselves please And therefore must be the less excusable by much I speak according to humane weakness For it is a confessed truth they should not for the whole temporal patrimony of the Pope or Prince either speak or be silent against their Faith in such an occasion at least as that was of the Congregation And for their dependence of him in spirituals properly or purely such they know very well the maxime of the great Apostle There is no power to destruction but for edification Besides they are sure enough the Pope would not if he could lessen or weaken or discountenance that And that his Holyness cannot but understand very well that the veneration of his See and of his predecessors hath been much greater when this pretence of infallibility was far lesser and that that may be again expected when this shall be no more challenged and that to this end besides the regard of Souls the continuance of them in their spiritual functions in Ireland will be as useful as so many Church-men amongst such a people 4. That besides their independence in any kind of temporals from the Pope or his Court both Clergy and Laytie of Ireland of his communion are generally ruined as we see at present and eternally too for ought we see both themselves and posterity after them in their temporals and God send that only in their temporals for through and by their too much observance of that Court and the supream Bishop of it and yet nothing the more relieved or regarded after by him or his Court if a few parchment-rolls titulary Bishopricks or Vicarships in partibus that is here at home in miserable Ireland but given withal to such men only as were imployed by the chief Ministers of that Court of purpose to add fuell to the fire instead of quenching the flame while there was either fire ot flame or may be further yet any such expected be not reputed a relief or regard of a whole Nation that lost it self unfortunatly upon such foolish accounts And consequently least of any Catholicks in the world ought to regard the odium of that Court where they saw no other odium of other men against them on the account which only ought to be regarded amongst them of having done any thing against the truth or will of God against faith or religion which neither N. N. nor any else of the Congregation did as much as pretend unto against this sixth or any of the two former propositions unsubscribed by them 5. That if notwithstanding so many so clear and satisfactory answers the Fathers of the Congregation be yet unsatisfied of the unreasonableness and and unsufficiency of this pretence of odium to decline the subscription of the Popes fallibility if their apprehension of being lessened in the esteem or favour of the most blessed Alexander the 7th or of those are powerful in his Court who may give or hinder those vain concessions of I know not what empty titles expected thence of the translation of one from one titular See to another or the succession of another to an Archbishoprick not vacant as yet or the promotion of a third and fourth to other two such vacant Sees or of so many others of them both secular and regular to as many Bishopricks as there are such Irish titles in the Roman list each one pretending for one and some for more to be sure at last of one or of some also to inferiour titles to Vicariats Apostolical or General or even to Deanryes and Parsonages though still bare titles only or of the election or institution of Regulars to their own peculiar offices of Provincials Commissaries Visitators Priors Guardians Rectors c If I say their apprehension or fear of seeing all their hopes of and long pursuit after such empty titles how inconsiderable and invaluable soever in their own nature or esteem of others thwarted crossed frustrated wholy perswade them as yet of the reasonableness of this pretence of odium in the Roman Court against the question or that resolution of it or if moreover their expectation or inclination to which God forbid should be or I should charge on them a new conquest by forreigners in the present conjuncture of affairs in this year 66. expected by so many to produce as many more wonders do help on that perswasion of that resonableness and that no consideration no regard of what becomes Apostolical Bishops of Christ and Priests of God to do for discharge of their conscience in point of declaring their faith or doctrine especially on such an occasion as that was whereof we treat then I must tell Father N. N. and rest of our fathers of the Congregation in the first place that they proceed inconsequently alleaging here that odium for their excuse in not subscribing the 6th which if any such odium be they have incurred before for subscribing the first three For certainly the Popes and that Court have ever yet farr more concerned themselves in maintaining their pretences of power to depose Kings than that other of infallibility in themselves without a Council In the next place that they quite mistate and mistake the wayes to attain or retain what they would be at For matters as to them too run not in the same Channel now they have under former Princes this last hundred years We have through Gods favour a Gracious and wise King and Ministers answerable that can and will make some neerer inspection into the affairs and intrigues of their Roman Catholick Subjects of the Clergie as well as into those of others and as farr as they relate to their own safety and that of all their Subjects of whatever Religion or Communion And in the last place that supposing or granting the very worst of their expectations desires or fears that which no true Subject or good Catholick of these Dominions can desire yet as to such contingencies also future
to have no other judgment of these or any of them but what should be wholly and purely conformable to the Doctrine of the Holy Roman Church to the inviolable Decrees of Sacred Canons to the common sense of most famous Divines to the known practice of other Catholick Nations and to the manifest Principles of the very Law of Nature and after diligent perusal of all the proceedings past between your Lordships and the Lord Baron of Inchiquyn and the Lord Nuncio and Congregation from the first day this Cessation was entertained by Treaty until the present having duly pondered all and each of the said Lord Nuncio's and Congregations Arguments against it with the satisfaction given them alwayes by your Lordships and withal after much labour taken by us for several dayes in turning Divines and Canonists and weighing the strongest Objections either made by the Lord Nuncio and Congregation which indeed with all submissive reverence be it said are but groundless and too too weak suspitions no way proved or which our selves could frame against our selves we have fixed unanimously and constantly on the following Answers without as we call God to witness the least scruple of swerving from Divinity Law or Reason And although we are not ignorant how the Dean of Firmo by authority from the Lord Nuncio published Commands Censures and Penalties against all Divines and Canonists who should deliver their opinions for the Cessation until or before they had accosted his Lordship and Congregation to hear from them the Reasons which oppose it yet in regard it appears unto us evidently after mature deliberation and exact debate That such Commands Censures and Penalties are not only most unreasonable and unjust but also invalid since they would take away from us that just liberty which throughout all the world is of right belonging to and absolutely requisite to be resident in Divines viz. to answer Cases of Conscience occurring or proposed it being otherwise impossible for them either to govern their own Consciences or direct others but all should often live in tormenting perplexities which is repugnant to the Law of God And since our going to the Lord Nuncio and Congregation would be to no other purpose than to hear and see his Lordships objections against the Cessation all which we have already to the least word perused in the Books given us by your Lordships directions for there can be no kind of likelihood that we should receive from his Lordship or Congregation any better or stronger Reasons than what he hath given your Lordships to whom questionless it was more material and for their purpose to give them and with whom they laboured so much for point of Conscience as they pretended to hinder the conclusion of this business since also there are such considerable difficulties in going to his Lordship neither day or place prefixed for any that would go the distance and dangers of the wayes being such as are known and which is above all his Lordship residing in a place and amongst an Army which stands in opposition to the Council and seeming to have made himself with these few Bishops about him a party to side with Refractories and open Enemies to the Kingdom besides no fafe conduct given or offered us and the setling of our own and of all other Souls committed to our charge admitting no delayes in so great a difference and so near concerning us since likewise it is manifestly consequent out of our Answers given to the first and second Querie That as the Lord Nuncio's Censures against your Honours and your Adherents in the principal cause are of no force as well by reason of the intolerable Errours which with much reverence and due submission we say they contain as of the Appeal interposed both which do jointly and severally disannul them so the Deans Censures and all others if there be any else issued hitherto or henceforth to be issued against us or any who should give their opinion for or approbation to the said Cessation are for the same Reasons throughly invalid yea should we grant that such persons as issued them had even in righteous causes a lawful power over every and each of us which is yet very questionable we are therefore so far from apprehending any unlawfulness in delivering freely before the World our Opinion in this matter that in the present circumstances specially being required by your Lordships we conceive it our duty to the Publick and a merit before God praying heartily to Heaven that the ignorant may find instruction the wavering settlement and the refractories that reproach of their unjust proceedings which may reclaim them in these Answers of Our very good Lords Your most devoted Servants David Ossoriens And the rest who subscribe to the Answers The First Querie answered SUpposing here as a Tenet undeniable by any Catholick That the Faithful may without breach of Conscience conclude and observe a Cessations of Arms yea constant Leagues (n) Vid. Bonacin tom 2. d. 3. q. 2. p. 8. Turrian de just jur d. 87. dub 2. Layman Becan infra citandos and Peace with Infidels and Hereticks whereof we see before our eyes most warrantable presidents even in holy Scriptures and practice of the Saints of God as that of Abraham (b) Gen. xxi ver 27. with Abimelech of Joshua (c) Josh ix ver 9 15. with the Gibeonites of Samuel (d) 1 Reg. 7. ver 15. with the Amorites of many faithful Kings of Judah (e) 4 Reg. 3.2 Paralip 16. ver 3. 18 3. 36. 1 Reg. 28.29 with the Idolaters of Israel or Samaritans and of the valiant Maccabees (f) 1 Maccab 10. ver 6.44 12.43 2 Mac. 11. ver 15. 14. ver 23 24 25. who in their time were the Champions of Religion and approved by God with the Romans Spartiats and some Successors of Alexander to whom they gave Donaries and whose Regality they acknowledged whereof also we have for so many Ages the alwayes allowed practice of almost all Christian Catholick Princes (g) Knowls Turk Hist and States of the Emperour of Constantinople and Germany the Kings of Hungary Poland France the State of Venice and many other Catholick Princes with the Turks of the Kings of Spain (h) Vindiciae Gallicae with the Moors of Sivil Granado Valentia c. of St. Gregory the Great Pope of Rome with the Arrian Longobards (i) Baron Spond ad an 598. of Charles the Fifth no less mighty than religious Emperor and of his Successors with the Lutherans (k) Auctar. Chro. ad annal Baron ad an 1547. Hist Turc in Achmat. of Germany with Henry VIII excommunicated and with Denmark Holland Scotland Swedeland c finally of the Most Christian Kings of France with Huguenots (l) Surius ad an 1567. Supposing likewise another undoubted Truth maintained by all Divines who ever yet put Pen to paper as Beacan (m) Becan in Opuscul Theol.
as Thomas of Canterbury but also to shew and lay down before hand such evidences out of the very self same Annals of Caesar Baronius as may hereafter and forasmuch as depends of History be most abundantly sufficient to justifie in all points my solutions of and answers to the said objection when I come to answer it in form and each of the promisses apart therefore now I say and First you are to observe out of Baronius tom 12. ad an Christi 1162. and from that year all along to his year of Christ 1173. and out also of Rogerus Hovedenus and Gulielmus Neubrigensis both good faithfull ancient and Catholick Historians of England the first of them being even contemporary to St. Thomas of Canterbury and the last if not contemporary yet I am sure in the very next degree of time as likewise out of Herebertus one of the Saints own Clerks and Willelmus Cantuariensis Ioannes Sarisberiensis and Alanus Abbot of Decche the foure compilers of that life of his which is in five several books in the Vatican and all four the Saints own Disciples in his life time as one of them to witt Ioannes Sarisberiensis was his Secretary out of all these contemporary uncorrupt unbyassed wittnesses at least unbyassed to favour me as well as out of Baronius himself who quotes them all you are to observe that upon the death of Theobaldus the 37. Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket then great Chancellour of England but formerly Archdeacon to the said Theobaldus for as Polydore Virgil sayes in Henrico Secundo l. XIII Hystor Anglic. it was the very same Theobaldus that of himself at first chose this Thomas Becket to be his own Archdeacon and soon after recommended him to King Henry the Second for the great Chancellourship of England being in a Council of the Bishops in England held at London an 1162. the King himself Henry the Second present and at the same Kings desire and instance chosen to supply and succeed Theobald in his then vacant See and as Herebertus writes after some reluctance and a protestation made to the King himself by him that if he were chosen by his Majesty he must oppose him thenceforth in the point of Ecclesiastical Liberty being nevertheless perswaded at last sayes Ioannes Sarisberiensis by Henricus Pisanus Cardinal SS Nerei Achillei and Legat there and then at London and in that Council for Alexander the Third who was himself at that time in France and in Monte Pessulano being I say by this Cardinal Legat and President of the said Council perswaded to acquiesce in the election made of him and having sent immediatly after to Alexanander for his Pallium and received it the same year of Christ 1163. that is at such time as Ecclesiastical Immunity was scrued too high by reason of the temporal usurpations of Gregory the VII on the Empire and other Kingdoms also and of the continuance of the same temporal usurpations by all or most or at least many of his Successors ever since the year of our Lord 1076. or thereabouts when Gregory began to lay about him so strangely until the Papacy of this Alexander the Third who was nothing less backward against Frederick the Emperour and IV. of that name then Gregory was against Henry the III. and at such time nevertheless wherein the Norman Kings of England one after an other continually William the Conqueror William Rufus Henry the First King Stephen and our present Henry the Second were mightily favoured or at least strangely connived at even in the very matter of investiture of Bishops Abbots and Priors even by those very Popes who trampled under foot the Empire and Emperours and other Kings also by occasion partly of the like investitures and partly of other quarrels and were favoured or connived at so by those Popes not onely because these Norman Kings of England were somewhat farre from Rome and in an Iland so remote and consequently more out of their reach then others were stubborn and had the pretence of a late conquest to continue in their own hands that of investiture whereby to assure themselves the better of the English nation but also because it was the fortune or prudence rather of those five Norman Kings one after an other to side constantly with those very Popes and acknowledg them as true Popes against so many Antipopes and Emperours too who raysed or who favoured such Antipopes moreover because the Popes thought it no wisdom to cut out too much work at once for themselves or to fall out with all Kings at the same time but to keep still in hand some of the little Serpents while the Roman See and Pontiffs were destroying others of them and especially until they had quite destroyed the great Dragon for so Innocent the IV. called the Emperour by the name of the great Dragon and other Kings by the name of little Serpents if Matthew Paris relate such matters truly Anonnullis affirmative dicebatur sayes this ancient contemporary Monk of St. Albans pag. 142. quod Dominus Papa sitienter super omnia desiderabat ipsum quem magnum Draconem vocabat pessumdare ut ipso suppeditato conculcato Reges Francorum Anglorum nec non alios Christianitatis Reges quos omnes regulos serpentes esse dicebat facilius exemplo dicti Frederici perterritos cenculcaret and pag. 740. relating what the same Innocentius Quartus said upon an occasion to one Martin his own Collector of Peter-pence and other exactions in England but thrown out of England for his said intollerable exactions Expedit sayes this very Pope himself ut componamus cum Principe vestro ut his Regulos conteraâ—â—ts recalcitrantes contrita enim vel pacificato Dracone cito serpentuli conculcabuntuâ—â—at such time as this when albeit in many other parts beyond the seas where the Popes had power enough Ecclesiastical liberty as they call'd it was right or wrong grown to a prodigious height even over the very Imperial Crown yet in England both it and other undoubted rights of the Church were on the other side too much often depressed and oppressed by those first Norman Kings and particularly were endeavoured to be so by Henry the Second himself more then by any perhaps of all his predecessours for he relyed partly on the Schysme which he saw then in the Roman Church devided twixt Alexander the Third and true Pope as chosen canonically by the farre greater number of Cardinals and Octavianus alias Victor the Antipope as chosen uncanonically and by an inconsiderable number though allowed of by the Emperour and partly on his own merits or great obligations put on the said Alexander as 1. that when forced to retire from Rome to France he was not onely acknowledged by him as he was likewise by Lewis King of France but also the said Lewis of France was for his sake and in his quarrel received by him in person leading a powerfull army and rescued from
all the power of the Emperour Frederick accompanied with such numerous and formidable legions and with all the Princes of Empire and Kings also of Denmark and Bohemia at Avignon whether this Emperour of purpose to entrap Lewis in a conference and force him to quit Alexander and 2. when immediatly after this he also personally visited this Pope Alexander apud Bobiense Monasterium where he was then retired presented him richly and did him so much honour and reverence that after kissing his toe he excused himself from sitting in the chayre prepared for him and with all his Barons sate on the bare ground at his feet and 3. That together with the said King Lewis of France at their meeting upon the River Loyre where this Pope mediated and concluded a peace betwixt them he out of exceeding reverence towards him and to countenance him the more against the Antipope Victor and Frederick the Emperour and for example to his own Subjects and those of France too and all others performed the office of a yeoman of the stirrop upon one side as the King of France did on the other leading his horse by the reyns both of them a foot on the right and left hand till they left him at his lodging as he after continued constant in his observance of this same Pope Alexander all along during the whole Schysme of three Antipopes created against him at such time and such a conjuncture as this Thomas Becket having been so elected by this Henry the Second as we have seen and so confirmed by this Pope Alexander the Third nay and immediatly upon his election and before any word sent to or received from Alexander though so neer him then as Mons Pessulanus in France having received investiture as the custom then yet was in England from a lay hand from that King 's own hand by receiveing from him a staff and a ring the first occasion spring or motive of all their following great long and fatal differences was very soon after unluckily happen'd even the very second year of his Archbishoprick that is immediatly after his return from that great Council of 17 Cardinals a hundred and four and twenty Bishops four hundred and fourteen Abbots and of an infinit number of other Priests and Clerks held in the month of May 1163. by Alexander at Tours in France concerning the Schysme where Alexander did such extraordinary honour to this our Canterbury Archbishop Thomas Becket as to send all his Cardinals two onely excepted who assisted himself out of town to receive him as he came to the Council But that which you are specially to observe here and first of all in order to our main purpose is what the particulars were of this first occasion spring or motives And indeed I confess that as Gulielmus Neuhrigensis tells us in the 16. Chapter of his History that at this Council of Tours though not publickly in the Council but privatly this our St. Thomas of Canterbury resigned his Archbishoprick to Alexander as not being able otherwise to bear the stinging pricks of his own conscience for having received the investiture of it from a lay hand and that Alexander again with his own hand invested him so he also tells us that the sole original cause of all the following fatal differences 'twixt St. Thomas and his King Henry the Second was that he would not suffer the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests that is would not suffer him to have them tryed sentenced and punish'd in the civil Courts or by the civil Judges according to that law which the King said was the law of the land the law and custom of his Predecessours But Cesars Baronius ad an Christi 11â—3 corrects Neubrigensis in both particulars And yet he or his Epitomizer Henricus Spondanus ad an Christi 1163 sayes that Neubrigensis was an Author of that time and both a faithful and accurat Writer Willelmus Neubrigensis sayes he hujus temporis scriptur fidelis aâ—â—enatus However Baronius corrects him in both the said particulars and sayes that as the first of Thomas of Canterburie's resignation happen'd in the year 1164. when being fled out of England he the second time accoasted the same Pope Alexander and presented the heads of those laws about which the consequent main contest was 'twixt the King and him so it appears out of the Acts of our Saints Life written by the before named four Authors of the said Acts that besides that of not suffering the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests which he confesses interceded yet several other causes preceded and most just causes too which imposed a necessity on the Saint to reprehend the King For sayes he these Acts relate how the King came to be incensed against him viz. because he endeavoured to recover from the hands or possession of Lay-men some lands which formerly belong'd to the Church of Canterbury and were unduly alienated by his Predecessors and because he endeavoured likewise to abolish the bad custom which had long prevailed in England that the revenues of vacant Churches should be payed in to and challenged by the Kings Exchequer whereby it came to pass that the Churches were too long of purpose kept vacant and yet because that being Archbishop he quitted his former office of Chancellorship against the Kings will who desired he should keep it still together with his Episcopacy which yet he would not reflecting on that of St. Paul Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus and because moreover he prohibited the exaction of an unjust assessement laid on the subjects and further also because he delivered not to the secular court a certain Priest condemn'd of murther but only degraded him and shut him up in a Monastery for his pennance nor delivered to secular punishment as the King desired another certain criminal Chanon but only laid him under Ecclesiastical Censures And these were the causes or springs of the great contest which followed as Baronius sayes out of the said Acts. And yet I must say that as he doth not as yet out of the same Acts or any thing here said by him out of them disprove what Neubrigensis said to be the only that is the first or sole first cause motive or spring for all these four or five did not happen altogether and that of not delivering the criminal Priest and Chanon to the secular court might have been the first of all for any thing related by him out of those Acts being they distinguish not or declare not particularly as he relates them which was first or last in time so it is clear by Baronius's own prosecution of the history of this Saints troubles and the Kings quarrel to him that this of not delivering those criminal Ecclesiasticks was that onely which occasion'd all the ensueing differences or that onely at least which the King took as the immediat pretence of his first publick quarrel with him and rest of the Bishops
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
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 Parricides on the sacred persons of their Princes The Rectors Deans Proctors Batchelors and whole Vniversity have made this Decree That the sacred Faculty of Theology ought highly to be commended for having given a judgment so pious so religious so wholsome against so wicked and dangerous a Doctrine for having so opportunely held forth to the whole Church but especially to all France the clear light of ancient and orthodox Doctrine for having so gloriously followed the illustrious generosity of their Predecessors and performed a task not only becoming their particular profession to defend the truth but deserving the imitation even of the whole Vniversity it self And to obstruct altogether the very entrance of this new and pernicious doctrine and cause all those who now are or hereafter shall be members of this Vniversity or merit promotion to any degree therein to remember for ever to form and regulate their opinions according to the judgments pronounced by that sacred Faculty and keep at utmost distance from the doctrine so justly proscribed and that every one in particular may fly detest and abhor it and as well in publick as privat combat confute and convince its falsity They do decree that in the next solemn procession as also annually in the Assembly for the procession general immediatly after opening the Schools in the month of October this censure shall publickly be read by the Proctor of the University the first business nothing to intervene and recorded in the Registers of each Faculty and Nation and that two Copies hereof written and signed by the hand of the Clerk of the sacred F-culty of Theologie shall be kept in the common Records of the University and the like number be sent as soon as may be to all Superiours of Colledges and Houses to the end all possible care and diligence be used to secure all those who frequent or reside in the said Colledges from the corruption and poyson of this pernicious doctrine and that they never give way that any person whatsoever presume to say or do any thing contrary to what has so wisely been determined and ordained by that sacred Faculty If any Doctor Professor Master of Arts or Scholler resist and disobey or go about in any sort by word or writing on any cause or pretence whatsoever to offer at the least attempt or make the least opposition against this so laudable and legal a censure let him for a note of infamy and ignominy be expelled and deprived of his degree faculty and rank by a sentence that may for ever cut off all hope of admittance Quintaine Scribe of the University The like Decrees and censures have been made and past on the same occasion and against the same doctrine that the Pope can punish Kings with temporal punishments depose or deprive them of their Kingdoms or Estates c. and have been publickly enacted by these other several Universities following as appears too out of the foresaid Collection of Divers Acts c. By the Vniversity of Caen assembled in the Convent of St. Francis 7. May 1626. By the Vniversity of Rheims the four Faculties being assembled in the Chappel of St. Patrice 18th May 1626. By the Vniversity of Tholouze the Rector and professors of all the Faculties being assembled in St. Thomas's School at the Dominicans 23. May 1626. By the Vniversity of Poitiers assembled at the Dominicans 26. June 1626. By the Vniversity of Valence assembled in the great Hall 14. July 1626. By the Vniversity of Burdeaux assembled at the Carms 16. July 1626. By the Vniversity of Bourges all the Deans and Doctâ—rs-Regent of all the Faculties assembled by the Rector 25. November 1626. By all which the said doctrine was condemned as false erroneous contrary to the word of God pernicious seditious and detestable And so I conclude this my third Treatise or my considerations of the foresaid three Sorbon-propositions as applied by the Congregation to our own gracious King and themselves or Catholick Clergy and people of Ireland Or which is the same thing my considerations of what the said three single Propositions do signifie as from them and as to any further or clearer assurance of their fidelity hereafter to the King or Government in the cases controverted than that was they had before signified by the former paper of their Remonstrance alone without any such additional propositions Now to their third or last paper I mean that of their reasons given to my Lord Lieutenant why they would not subscribe the other three or the three last of those six of Sorbon applyed mutatis mutandis to our King and them selves THE FOURTH TREATISE CONTAINING Answers To the reasons presented in writing to His Grace the Twentieth of June 1666. by Father John Bourk Vicar General of Cashil and Father Cornelius Fogarty D. V. I. in behalf of and by Commission from the Congregation The title of the said writing or reasons being The reasons why we the Roman Catholick Clergie signed not the other three propositions But no hand or Subscription either of Secretary Speaker or any other not even of those very Commissioners that delivered it unto the Paper BEcause that writing is somewhat long and I have already given it intirely and consequently word by word in my first Treatise or Narrative where the Reader may turn to it I will onely take it here by pieces as I have in my second Treatise their Remonstrance And having little to say to the title nor else but what I hope will appear in the procedure and conclusion of these answers which is that I might as justly prefix to this Treatise of mine as a Gentleman in England since the Kings Restoration did to a piece of his own this other title The Jesuits reasons unreasonable and that Father N. N. of the Society can tell his Clients the misterie of such prefixion or application as who hath been as well the chief contriver of those reasons as he was next the Chairman the grand obstructer of the Subscriptions unto I mean the three last propositions I observed their said writing consists of five Paragraphs Whereof the first though short enough truly yet comprehends in general their reasons The following other four are only to prove by induction and by special instance of their rejected propositions and consideration of them what is said so in general is that first Paragraph Which Paragraph therefore they begin and conclude in those words Because we conceive them not any way appertaining to the points controverted And though we did we thought we had already Sufficiently cleared all scruples either by our former Remonstrance seperatly or jointly with the first three propositions we had already subscribed But to make us believe or conceive these reasons as reasonable they give first