probability how great soever so it retain still the true ond onely nature of probability and arrive not to evidence and consequently be no more that which is meer probability but a quite other thing can serve our adversaries to quarrel against my doctrine which maintains no exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat For if their arguments or reasons whatsoever be but probable or should I admit any of them to be probable how intrinsecally soever yet admitting them but as onely such and not convincing and further shewing clearly they are not convincing the consequence of my admitting them for such onely that is for even intrinsecally probable and no more must be also that the tenet grounded on them cannot be certain And therefore that by the common doctrine of Divines and Lawyers Princes cannot be deprived of their supream power over Clerks whereof they are and have been alwayes in possession Because upon or for an uncertain title or uncertain allegations and all reasons which are onely probable are uncertain as to us none may be justly thrown out of a long continued possession and a possession which was bona fide such and a possession too which in the case and according to reason must have at least the same or as much even intrinsick probability for it in point of natural reason as is pleaded against it from pretences of the like natural reason This being the nature of meer probability of reason if understood to be such to inforce by a necessary consequence the like probability of reason producible for the other side of the contradictory Which advertisement I premise for the less acute or less discerning Readers sake not that I do my self apprehend any such true intrinsick probability in the propositions or assumptions of any the above reasons of Soto or Victoria as inferring their intended consequence nor that I fear any other judicious uninteressed or unbyassed person will apprehend any such in them whereas on the contrary I doubt not my solutions or answers to them will no less clearly in the point also satisfie the Reader then my former to Bellarmine's Scriptures Laws and Canons have Therefore to pass by at this time what I could answer in general to all those arguments both of Soto and Victoria and to all other such of others if any other such be which is that learned men would in such a matter of so great weight and consequence and of such infinit prejudice to Princes and the State Politick universally expect a demonstration if not a pure Philasophical one of both Premisses and conclusion at least a Theological one and not such pittifull aequivocate Sillogismes or rather ill assuming and ill concluding Parologismes to which there are as many clear and convincing answers as there are propositions or even almost words And that it very ill becomes so great Clerks to lay so weak a foundation for so vast a fabrick as they would build thereon a power in the Pope to exempt all Clerks nay to exempt so many millions of men and women subjects and free them all from that subjection which they all owe to Kings by the laws of God and nature I say that to pass by now this general animadversion and To answer first in particular to Soto and to all the particulars of his argument I distinguish the Ecclesiastical power which he sayes to be per se that is of it self or of its own proper nature self sufficient and independent from the civil For if thereby Soto understand that the spiritual authority given to the Apostles and Church viz. that of preaching the word administring the sacraments interpreting of scriptures absolving from sins excluding contumacious sinners out of the Church receiving them again when they are penitent and of doing or discharging all such other functions which are purely spiritual and are sufficient for eternal salvation of mortals I confess that Ecclesiastical power so taken is per se of it self or of such its own nature sufficient to attain its own true proper ends that is to lead people to salvation or which is it I mean can without any help from the civil power lead unto this great end And consequently may enact such proportionable laws and sanctions as are necessary in circumstances to attain this self same happy end But withall I say that as it is one thing to say as it must in truth be said That Ecclesiastical power so taken and so sufficient for such end is in such respect independent from the civil power because the civil power can neither give it nor take it away and a quite other thing to say that the persons who have this Ecclesiastical power are not or may not or ought not to be in other respects dependent from the civil power and civil Magistrats so it is perspicuous That a law for the exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power and this law of exemption made also by the very Clerks themselves of themselves and by vertue onely of a pretended power in themselves and without any consent nay with manifest reluctance of the said civil supream power and Magistrat I say t is perspicuous that such a law of such exemption so made nay indeed or any way made either without or with the consent of the said supream civil Magistrat or even by either spiritual or temporal power or even by both powers together cannot be numbred amongst such other laws or sanctions as are necessary to lead unto or attain salvation For who ever yet doubted that Christians whatsoever Clergie and Layety can or could be saved notwithstanding that all Clergiemen were subject still to the civil jurisdiction of even the subordinate lay Judges and were in all politick or temporal matters or causes whatsoever both civil criminal or mixt of both convened in civil courts tryed by the common laws and received sentence from the lay Judges as formerly it hath sometimes been a long time been under not onely Heathen but very Christian Emperours Or whatever others answer how can Soto in particular say otherwise then that such a law or such exemption cannot be necessary For upon one side he teacheth as we have seen before that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino and on the other no man in the world and consequently nor Soto himself will deny nor can deny That all kind of things provisions laws c whatsoever accounted necessary for salvation must be confess'd to be de jure divino But forasmuch as Soto adds That the power Ecclesiastical may not only enact such laws as are necessary for its administration but such laws also as are congruent I would fain know of him what he means by congruent If laws so agreeable meet fitting or expedient for the due exercise or execution of the same true genuin pure Ecclesiastical Power that without such laws no such due exercise or execution may be of such power then indeed or understood in this sense he
stretch'd along on the ground at his feet weeping and beseeching him and at their representing to him how the King had threatned him and all his with exile with destruction and death unde Rex sayes Hoveden ad an 1164. plurimum in ira adversus eum commutus minatus est ei suis exilium alias exilium mortem and I say when by such means he had sworn in retracting at last on better advise so rash an oath and refusing to confirm those pretended customes by his seal or subscription 8. And lastly in refusing either to absolve the excommunicated Bishops but in forma Ecclesiae consueta or consent that his own Clerks which came with him out of France should take any unjust or unlawfull oath contrary to the two material demands or commands to him in behalf of Henry the second by his four murtherers Willelmus de Traci Hugo de Mortvilla Richardus Brito and Reginaldus filius Vrsi For to their third which was that he should go reverently to the young King and do him homage and fealty by oath for his Archiepiscopal Barony as Parker relates it its plain enough he never refused that not onely because he did so at the time of his investiture to Henry the second himself the Father King but also because that upon his return from exile which was but a month before his death he was on his journey as farr as London to the young King's Count to do and pay this young King also all the respects and duties becoming but was by the Queens Brother Gocelinus as Hoveden writes commanded in that very young King 's own name not go to Court nor proceed further whereupon he return'd back to Canterbury In all which eight several Instances as also in all their necessary Antecedents Concomitants and Subsequents I confess again ingenuously it is my own judgment that St. Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side because in some he had all the laws of both God and man for him and in the rest he had for him the very just and politick municipal laws of England as yet then not legally repealed these very laws I mean rehearsed by me in my seventh observation and because there was not any law of God or man against him in the case or in any of those Instances being the laws of the land were for him in all and because the design of Henry the second to oppress the people of England both Clergie and Layety but especially the Clergie and to render the Sacerdotal Order base and contemptible as we have seen before observed out of Polydore Virgil required that the Archbishop of Canterbury should stand in the gap as farr as it became a Subject by denying his own consent as a Peer and as the first Peer too of the Realm and by proceeding yet as a Bishop and as the Primate also of all Bishops in England and by proceeding so I say in a true Episcopal manner against such as would by threats of death force oppressive customs for new laws on both Peers and people Clergie and Layety against their own known will and their own old laws And therefore also consequently do acknowledg my own judgment to be that the Major of the Syllogistical objection against me or this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c against Henry the Second is fals may be by me admitted simply and absolutely without any distinction Though I add withall it be not necessary to admit it for any such inconvenience as the proof which I have given before of that Major would inferi or deduce out of the denyal of it In which proof I am sure there are several propositions or suppositions involved which no Catholick Divine not even a rigid Bellarminian is bound to allow As 1. that neither Church nor Pope can possibly err in matter of fact or in their judgment of matter of fact though relating to the life or death or precise cause of the death of any Saint or Martyr which matter of fact is neither formally nor virtually expressed nor by a consequential necessity deduced out of holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For Bellarmine himself confesses that even a general Council truly such may err in such matters of fact And the reason is clear because the judgment of the Church in such matters is onely secundum allegata probata depending wholly on the testimony of this or that man or some few or at most of many mortal and sinfull witnesses or of such of whose veracity in that the Church hath no authentick or absolutely certain revelation from God but humane probability or at most humane moral certainty which is ultimately resolved into the humane credit or faith we give an other man or men or to their veracity who possibly may themselves either of purpose too deceive us or be deceived themselves however innocently And the case is clear in the famous and great controversy about those heads were called the Tria Capitula all which concern'd matter of fact of three great Bishops in the fourth and fift general Councils under Pope Leo Magnus and Pope Vigilius And is yet no less clear in the controversy about Pope Honorius which was of matter of fact whom two general Councils condemn'd for a Heretick for a Monothelit so long after his death and out of his own writings and yet Bellarmine defends him from being such and on this ground defends him that those Councils were deceived in their judgment of matter of fact by attributing to him that doctrine which he held not 2. That the infallibility which Catholicks believe and maintain to be in the Church necessarily implyes her infallibility of judgment concerning this or that fact of any even the greatest Saint whereof we have nothing in holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For the Infallibility of the Church is onely in preserving and declaring or at least in not declaring against that whatsoever it be matter of fact or Theory which was delivered so from the beginning as revealed by God either in holy Scripture or Apostolical Tradition 3. That St. Thomas of Canterbury could not be a holy maâ—tyr or great miraculous Saint in his life or death or after his death at his tomb were his quarrel against Henry the second not just in all the essential integral and circumstantial parts of it from first to last were it not I say just according to the very objective truth of things and of the laws of God and man though it had been so or at least the substantial part of it whereon he did ultimately and onely all along insist had been so according his own inward judgment and though also his Soul had been otherwise both in that and all other matters ever so pure holy religious resigned to follow the pleasure of God and embrace truth did he know or did he think it were of the other side in any part of the
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
praescripto protestamur profitemur nos esse humillimos obedientissimos ejusdem sanctae Sedis filios subditos paratosque pro illius Superiorum nostrorum authoritate animas penere Adeeque nos hujusmodi Schismatica attentata detestari nec eorum authores vel fautores pro genuinis fratribus agnoscere Quia tamen ex authentico testimonio Reverendorum Patrum Provincialis Exprovincialis Angliae verbis scriptis nobis exhibito constat ulteriores processus contra hujusmodi refractarios non solummodo in nullum bâ—num cessuros sed etiam in grave praejudiâ—ium persecutionem et perniciem Catholicorum in Anglia et Hibernia hinc censemus hâ—c tempore supersedendum ulteriori executioni salva semper Superiorum authoritate quorum mandatis et ordinationibus cum omni humilitate et animorum promptitudine nos submittimus Datum Antuerpiae c. Subsignatum erat ab omnibus Quâ—d testâ—r Frater Iacâ—bus de Riddere Commissarius Generalis Germanâ— Belgious Extractum Lovanii 4. Ianuarii 1665. per me Fratrem Bâ—naventuram Docharty Now to be more particularly and fully informed of the truth of this Instrument or copy as soon as I received it I accoasted the then Provincial of the Franciscans in England Father N. L. Croix whom I know to have been a member of that Congregation And he told all was true but withal that himself refused to sign it Behold here another considerable effect of that Lovaine Censure For albeit endeavours have been used to get the University of Salamanca in Spain to conncurr in the like or some other as bad censure against the Remonstrance and great expectations thereof as appears out of the Dominican Provincial Father John Harts letter yet nothing could be done there nor in any other University in the world against it only that of Lovaine excepted To which because some Anti-Remonstrants look so much on this University Censure to bear down the scales the Subscribers oppose Sorbon and Navarre and all the eight Universities of France and all those too in the State of Venice besides the practice and doctrine of the whole Christian world out of the temporal Patrimony of the Pope a small district of Italy to say nothing of so vast a cloud of other yet more convincing testimonies and authorities of Scriptures Fathers Doctrine and Practice of the whole primitive Church and that also of all succeeding ages of the Christian Church until Gregory the VII who lived not until the eleventh age of Christianity nor to say any thing too of so many irrefragable arguments of reason both Natural and Theological which may be seen partly in my More Ample Account and for the rest very learnedly at large in Father Carons Remonstrantiá Hibernorum LII But the last and worst effect of all was a kind of specious pretence for those more unlearned and more ignorant of the Irish Clergy in all places both at home in Ireland and abroad in other Countreys and not for such only but for the more knowing of the Dissenters or Opposers to heighten their animosities and strengthen their opposition and even to except amongst the vulgar thence forward against the Remonstrance not as unexpedient only or unnecessary but as sacrilegious schismatical and heretical being it was in effect declared such by the Lovaine Divines Which is the reason I think it not amiss to give here what I know or what I have heard from those very eye-witnesses of the chief grounds those Lovaine Doctors built upon to issue a Censure of so much temerity falsity and folly Father Brian Barry of St. Francis's Order who was then at Lovaine a learned understanding Gentleman and Father Iohn Brady the chief Agent for and Sollicitour of this Censure were they that gave me this account For I have said before the first and long censure of that University wherein the propositions apart and censure of each and grounds of every censure are distinctly set never came to publick view nor could be seen by any of the Subscribers to this day Therefore what I give here of that matter must be on the credit of those two Gentlemen And 't is like none will doubt at least the Agents relation that procured it especially when they know he is a man that wants neither understanding nor memory as I assure them he is First ground That the Remonstrance bereaves the Pope and See Apostolick of that humane right or that even temporal civil and politick Supremacy or Soveraignty which he hath or pretends partly by donation partly by submission and partly too by prescription to the Kingdoms of England and Ireland 2. That if not formally at least virtually and consequentially it bereaves the Pope of even a meer spiritual binding and loosing power of the Subscribers as for example in case he should make warr on the King of England of set and only meer purpose to recover the Church-lands of Ireland to restore them to the right proprietors and apply them to those holy uses they were at first design'd unto by the donors and in such case should on pain of excommunication command all Irish Catholicks not to fight against his army landed in this Kingdom but on the contrary to joyn heart and hand with it against the King and moreover to hold themselves really truly and conscientiously absolved by him from all Allegiance to his Majesty 3. That it tyes Ghostly Fathers to reveal secrets heard in Sacramental Confession as when the penitents accuse themselves or otherwise declare in the confessional seate either directly or indirectly any treason plot or conspiracy against the King 4. That it subjects Clergy-men against ecclesiastical immunity to the cognizance and punishment of the civil Magistrate And these were all the grounds which the said Agent Father Brady told my self upon his arrival at Dublin from Flanders after procuring the said censure which the Lovaine Divines had given of that Remonstrance as being therefore sacrilegious and against the sincerity of the Catholick Faith Weak ones indeed and partly most false and partly too most unsignificant to prove either the one or the other LIII For in relation to the first ground as the Procuratour then reason'd with the said Agent Neither can that humane right or title of the Pope or See of Rome to England or Ireland be proved so even as to its first Origine much less as to the continuance of it in after ages that any Divine may even according to the common rules or maximes of School Divinity censure him that is in actual possession bona fide his predecessors before him for so many hundred years to be either guilty of sacriledge or of doing any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith for defending his said possession and title thereof against all opposers Nor consequently censure the Subscribers of a declaration which asserts that right unto him to be guilty of either The onely Original pretence of the Bishop or See Apostolick to Ireland is that relation which
earthly Princes and in all criminal causes whatsoever LXIV And let the Reader be also himself Judge betwixt me and this most eminent Cardinal or his defenders the Divines of Lovaine of the strength or weakness of his second proof which is the only remaining of his arguments for a Position so temerarious I say so temerarious in as much as it exempts by any law whatsoever and specially by the positive law of God all Clerks from the supream civil coactive power of supream temporal Magistrates Princes or States and that too in meer temporal matters What I would therefore say further is 4. That the case is still clear enough on my side as to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture notwithstanding all or any of his allegations of Councils or Canons for himself in his said second proof and whereof only that proof consists I admit that the Council of Trent Ses 25 cap. 20. de Reformat speaks thus Eccelesia et personarum Ecclesiasticarum Immunitas Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus instituta est That the Council of Colen held a little before the Tridentine Synod speaks also thus par 9. c. 20. Immunitas Ecclesiastica vetustissima res est jure pariter divino et humano introducta quae in duobus potissimum sita est Primum ut Clerici eorumque possessiones à vectigalibus et tributis aliis que muneribus laicis libera sint Deinde ne rei criminis ad Ecclesiam confugientes inde extrahantur That the Council of Lateran held under Leo the X. and but a little too before that of Trent speaks further thus in the 9. Ses Cum a jure tam divino quam humani Laicis potestas nulla in Ecclesiasticas personas attributa sit innovamus omnes et singulas constitutiones c. That another of Lateran also under Innocent the III. hath this language cap. 43. Nimis de jure divino quidam Laici usurpare conantur viros Ecclesisiasticos nihil temporale obtinentes ab eis ad praestanda sibi fidelitatis juramenta compellunt That Boniface the VIII in cap. Quanquam de censibus in 6. speaks of Ecclesiastical Immunity as if it had been certainly granted to be of divine right That John the VIII also hath these words or expression can si Imperator dist 96. Non a legibus publicis non a potestatibus siculi sed a Pontificibus et sacerdotibus omnipotens Deus Christianae Religionis Clericos et sacerdotes voluit ordinari et discuti That Symmachus with his whole third Roman Synod long before John the VIII affirmed That solis sacerdotibus disponendi de rebus Ecclesiae indiscusse a Deo cura commissa est That finally Innocent the IV. though as Bellarmine himself confesses here not as Pope but as a particular Doctor in his Commentaries upon cap. 2. de majoritate et obedientia after he had taught that Clerks were by the Pope with the Emperours consent exempted from the Lay-power adds moreover that forasmuch as this kind of exemption seems not to be a plenary or full exemption therefore it must be said that Clerks have been exempted so by God himself I admit I say these Councils either Provincial or General as they are or as they are called such respectively and these Popes likewise have in the places quoted these expressions or this manner of speech where they have somewhat to enact or treat of concerning the exemption of Clerks and that consequently in these places they dog in general terms speak of that exemption in general so as to attribute it in part to Gods ordination as the Fathers of Trent or to the Divine right or law as those of Colen of both Laterans Boniface the VIII or to the will of God as Iohn the VIII and for what concerns to particular the disposing of the Goods of the Church Symmachus too in that his Roman Synod As for Innocent the IV. it matters not at all what he sayes on this subject in the place quoted being its confessed by Bellarmine himself that he writ these Commentaries before he was Pope and therefore in so much is but as another private Canonist of whom we are not bound to take notice where he brings no proof For we confess there is a number of such Canonists and some Divines too that without any ground in holy Scripture or Tradition hold with him in this point but whom therefore all other sound and great Divines who examine the matter throughly and strictly charge with errour both against express Scripture and Tradition But for these Councils either General or Provincial and for these Popes also who being Popes did speak so so all and every of whom we must observe that reverence due respectively to them the answers are 1. That none at all of these places or authorities alledged out of them are home enough to our present case or dispute of the exemption of Clergy-men by the positive law of God in holy Scripture from the supream civil co-active power of Kings or States Nor as much as one word hereof And therefore did we grant as we do not nor can by any means that these Councils or Popes intended by such expressions or by these or such other words Dei ordinatione jure divino omnipotens Deus voluit a Deo cura commissa est to signifie that such exemption of Clerks even in the whole height and latitude or sense of it in Bellarmines way had been ordained immediatly and expresly by God himself or by some express immediat positive law of his delivered unto us by Revelation and by the tenets of Catholick Faith to be by us believed yet should it not follow that therefore these Councils or Popes did signifie this positive law of God for it was or is in holy Scripture Because there may be positive laws of God come to us by Tradition though not a word of them in Scripture And because it is evident these authorities alledged have no distinction at all nor any intimation of Scripture 2. That being it is plain enough out of what is said before to Bellarmines arguments out of Scripture that these Councils or Popes could not pretend to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture and no less plain out of Bellarmine himself and others of his way that they could as little pretend to any such as delivered us by Tradition for himself doth not in all this matter as much as once pretend the least Tradition unless peradventure some body will misconster him or his second proof here and say he mean'd it as a proof of Tradition in the point which cannot be laid to his charge at all for he could not be so grosly overseen as to give us only such sayings of these late Councils of Trent Cullen Lateran or of these three Popes for a Catholick Tradition and we know very well and confess he makes other kind of arguments for any particular tenets being of Tradition arguments composed of
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
opposite opinion of errour and so convince it that neither Walsh or other Subscribers or Divines who would otherwise except against it could have left them any thing of moment which in their own conscience they judged unsolved In which case nevertheless not to assent would be unlawful not for such Brief or Bull consider'd precisely of it self or in its own nature but because the truth is rendered manifest and the mind convincâ—t by arguments unavoidable which 't is evident are not necessarily requisite in such Letters These things are said according to the sense of those who are Patrons of the Papal Infallibility For otherwise we might recur to other Authors no less Catholick and truly Learned who in this or the like Controversie would without more ado openly reject all definitions of the Pope whatsoever made without the consent of a general Council though declared by Bull directed to all the faithful of Christ in whatever part of the world and who nevertheless were are and in that case too would be most dutiful observant sons of the Bishops of the Roman See as united by the holy band of Religion and the strict tye of whatever other Ecclesiastical communion But because what is said above is abundantly sufficient to answer the objection drawn from the judgment of his Holiness whether only pretended or true makes now no matter as far as it concerns our present case that is the coincidence or identity to use the School terms of some Propositions in our Protestation with those which some mistakingly would have condemnâ—d by Paul the V. in the Allegiance Oath of King James it is not for the present necessary to have any recourse to them Now for what relates to a like conformity suppos'd in the judgment alledged of our Holy Father Alexander betwixt some Propositions of our Protestation with others said to be condemned by Innocent X. of happy memory namely the three Negatives signed as is said by some Fifty English Catholicks of Quality to Cromwel to obtain some liberty for those of the Roman Catholick Faith the answer is much easier partly from what has already been said and partly from what will presently be alledged For Innocent did not publish that judgment of his by any Bull or Brief either to the Catholicks of England or any other so much as one particular man anywhere as far as has been heard to this day so much as by rumour But if any Decree were either made or projected of that matter in a Consistory of Cardinals with the assistance or by the command of Innocent and afterwards sent to Bruxels or Paris to the Nuncio's as there is a report of its being sent to the Nuncio of Paris nothing has been heard more of its publication but remainâ—d suppressed according to that report in the hands of that Nuncio Now whether it were so or no is no great matter nothing to purpose since according to Divines generally and Canonists too such Decrees fram'd in that manner and no otherwise declared do not force consent nor reach faith nor oblige any of the faithful to submission at least out of the Popes temporal State no not in a Controversie of far less moment as where there is no question of faith but only and it may be a just reformation of manners And yet 't were much more proper to attribute the care of such a reformation to the Pope alone I mean without the intervention of a general Council than of declaring the truths of Faith by an infallible judgment and definition such as it were unlawful for any man in any case to contradict Besides 't is a plain case that Cromwel was an Usurper a Traytor and a Tyrant all manner of wayes both in administration and title according to the twofold acception or sense of that word found generally amongst Divines and particularly in Suarez against the King of England And therefore that wise Pope might neither imprudently nor unjustly condemn such Propositions in that conjuncture of things or looking upon the immediate though extrinsecal end then in view namely of observing fidelity to a Tyrant Although we are to judge quite otherwise and according to the common doctrine of Orthodox Divines it be lawful to judge so in case He had not respect to that end but minded only the intrinsecal or even extrinsecal end which is limited by the Law or took the Propositions bare in themselves and abstracting from all bad ends Wherefore it does not appear to the Church of Christ nay to any particular men nor ever did authentically and legitimately that those negative Propositions were any way either by word or writing condemn'd by Innocent the X at least by him as Pope and speaking ex Cathedra Wherefore my Lord since there is no other condemnation of Innocent or Paul the V. to which his Holiness Pope Alexander could relate than those here mentioned and your Lordship objects nothing else and since those old arguments so often brought by Bellarmine Suarez Lessius c. as well under their own as borrowed names from some places and facts of former Popes though in their own cause and some appearances if they be appearances of Councils and scrap't together from false Reason and the Authority whether of some later Doctors or the ancient and holy Scriptures have by other famous men of the Church of Rome long since been weakned answered overthrown there remains to Walsh the same liberty of expostulating which devout men and men no less learned than holy have by their example in all Ages so often taught May your Lordship therefore cease to persecute Caron or Walsh May his Eminence Cardinal Barberin cease May you both cease and I beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ who will judge both you and me at his terrible judgment Cease I say both of you to seduce the Clergy and People of Ireland You have laboured now these three years to corrupt them both You have endeavoured to tear again in pieces a Kingdom every way miserable You have bestirred your selves to your power to replant a most pernicious Errour but onely amongst either simple or mercenary people onely in one corner of the world with those of discretion and honesty you prevail not a jot In all Europe besides in Italy it self next the very temporal Patrimony of St. Peter which now for some Ages has been annex't to the Popedom onely by Humane not Ecclesiastical or Divine Right that is by the gift of Princes or favour of the People you lose your labour For the mask is now taken off and if I may conjecture of future things will be taken off more and more every day Which your Lordship himself if I be not deceived knows to be so true that you cannot be ignorant that in the rest of the world I mean those parts of it which are in the Catholick communion of the Roman Church this your or our question of the Popes pretended right over the Temporals of Kings whatever name it go
cloud of Neotericks or of all the very most ancient Fathers and holy Doctors Doctors of Christianity all along for a Thousand years till Gregory the VII Pontificat Nor any thing at all either of holy Scripture or natural Reason both plain enough in the case For I have already in my First Part abundantly given all such Arguments And yet I will observe here that no where have I made use of Protestant Authors albeit many of them have most learnedly refuted all such petty and whatsoever other Objections but above others Joannes Roffensis most diffusely and excellently Nay nor made use not even of Marcus Antonius a Dominis the learned Archbishop of Spalato not even of him there I say where in his Ostensio errorum Francisci Suarez he canvasses the Allegation made of those 70 or 72 Authors and even reduces that number to 20. A small number God wot as to that of bare extrinsick authority of Writers if that I mean should be of any value as indeed it should not to persuade any Nay let us suppose that not only Marcus Antonius but even Joannes Barclaius in his Pietas had come short in their arguments or examination of those 70 or 72 Writers alledged by Bellarmine in his little Book de temporali potestate Papae against William Barclay for himself and that Eudaemon Joannes against John Barclay had got the better of him and not been throughly confuted by his more learned Answerer and consequently that in very deed Bellarmines whole number of 70 or 72 had been rightly and to his purpose alledged by the Bishop what proportion or rather what weight I pray could 72 late Writers have to persuade any in comparison of 72000 I am sure the most learned and holy Fathers Pastors Doctors of the University of Christians throughout the earth in all Ages from Christ and even Christ himself and his Apostles Peter and Paul in the head of them What to the belief and practice also of at least 72 millions or rather 72 hundred millions indoctrinated by them Nay or speaking even of those who writ on or as to the very point in specie and after I mean the subtle distinctions invented either by Schoolmen or others in the later and worser Ages since Gregory the Seventh's dayes what proportion can there be between those 72 Writers or Authors alledg'd by Bellarmine and those other more than 272 Writers quoted by Caron to the contrary but that of one to four So that from first to last if we regard even but the extrinsick authority onely of the number of Teachers and Writers and Writers I say on the very point and distinction the Bishop will find he relies on a weak Reed that will break and pierce and bore through his hand Nor can he pretend that St. Thomas of Aquin or S. Bonaventure have been holier than Chrysostom Austin Gregory the Great and so many other ancient Fathers whose doctrine in the controverted question so contrary to that of those late Scholastick canonized Saints I have before produced Sect. Lxxiii Lxxiv But the truth is that no extrinsick authority either of number or sanctity not even of the greatest Saints how numerous soever can be of any moment either against holy Scripture or Catholick Tradition that I may say nothing now of plain demonstration from the principles of natural reason Otherwise Cyprian of Africk and Firmilian of Cappadocia and Dionysius of Alexandria had born down the scale against other Doctors in the question of Re-baptization And for Holiness I demand who was holier than Cyprian himself alone Therefore neither did St. Thomas of Aquin nor St. Bonaventure's holiness render them infallible in their Scholastical disputes Nay do not our own Schoolmen every day reject both Thomas and Bonaventure even in a hundred points and even also where we have neither evident Scripture nor manifest tradition nor clear demonstration of reason but only stronger probabilities against them Do not all Scotists in the world laugh to scorn the Arguments in particular of Thomas of Aquin and maintain a Thousand contradictory Positions to the very Conclusions or Positions and Thesis's of Thomas and all his School of Thomists So much I could not forbear to say here occasionally though it be not my business now to dispute or confute What is more proper at present is to tell the Reader That my Lord of Ferns having received my Letter at St. Sebastian and seeing he could not prudently venture against my advice thought fit to send his letter of Proxy to his own Vicar-general N Redmond living then at home in his Diocess of Ferns and County of Wexford to supply his place in the National Congregation to be held at Dublin and vote pro or con for or against the Remonstrance according as he should see the major and sanior part do For those were the words of that Letter of Proxy if my memory fail me not for I saw and read it Whether any private instructions were contrary I know not And however we see no opposition at all no endeavours I mean from this Bishop to hinder the Fathers from meeting Which is the scope of all hitherto said as in this place said VI. AS for the Bishop of Kilfinuran Andrew Lynch the third and last of those Irish Bishops then abroad I have nothing to say that might relate to any opposition or contrivance of his to hinder the meeting of the Fathers in the National Congregation Nor indeed besides what you have already seen Part I. Sect. v. pag. 12. have I any thing else to remark here of him save only 1. That he was one of those 12 persons which the Nuncio immediately after the rejection of the Peace of 1646. recommended to Rome by his Dean Dionysius Massarius to be made Bishops and who by the same Dean received next Spring their Bulls and accordingly soon after both Consecration and Installation 2. That nevertheless in the controversie about the cessation of Arms with Inchiquin and censures of the Nuncio he seem'd to be for the Supreme Council 3. That he cunningly declined appearing either one side or other in the business of Jamestown 4. That I for my own part alwayes until I discovered him upon his landing at Dublin and by his carriage in the Congregation took him to have been rightly and honestly principled and therefore as on the same account for the Bishop of Ardagh so I had also on the same been in all occasions an earnest sollicitor of my Lord Lieutenant to suffer him to return out of France and come home to his charge of Kilfinuran 5. That notwithstanding several invitations by letters and otherwise from me to him since the year 1661. to the present 65. assuring him also that he might safely return and reside in his own Diocess yet he neither would nor it seems had any mind to return Whereof we shall see hereafter the causes 6. That concerning him and more closely in order to his affection or disaffection to our
dangerous consequence or overture of such horrid disputes cannot follow the subscription of this fifth For to make good this consecution or to prove those consequents to follow the only medium must be this other proposition The Parliament or people in such an Hereditary Kingdom have the same power respectively in temporals over all persons even that of the Prince himself and even to deprivation or deposition too which the universal Church or general Council hath in spirituals over all faithful brethren amongst whom the Pope must be Which proposition doubtless the congregation might see if they pleased that neither Bellarmine nor Suarez nor any other Divine of their way ever yet evicted or sufficiently proved And from those Divines of either of both the other wayes there could be no reason to expect a proof thereof since those made it their work to disprove it by laying quite contrary principles which they abundantly evidence as I also my self have in my little Book on the Remonstrance of 61. Where I have by two clear Demonstrations More ample Account pag. 67 c one a priâ—ri and the other â posteriori and by Scriptures and Fathers and practice of the primitive Church by answers also to all material objections proved the Soveraignty or as Bodin speaks the Majesty to be in the Prince in all cases not in the Parliament or people not even in any extraordinary case or contingency whatsoever speaking at least as I do here of Hereditary Kingdoms So that the Fathers of the congregation would have dealed more ingenuously if they had omitted the second reason and in lieu thereof only said they conceived it their interest or it was their pleasure to adhere to Bellarmines doctrine as to this point rather then follow the example of Sorbon or doctrine of the Gallican and other national Churches or even that in those two General Councils above rehearsed And yet I confess they would have said this inconsequently withal forasmuch as they had already relinquished Bellarmine in the three former propositions if understood without vain distinctions and yet had not such clear authorities of General Councils therein for themselves albeit they had enough besides Scripture and Reason the Faculty of Sorbon directly on those very controverted points And further they would have said it against the chief purpose which must have been Sorbons and should be theirs to obstruct those other indeed no less certain evident natural then bad sad and dismal consequences of the Popes being asserted to be above General Councils I am come at last to their two last last paragraphs Which I give together because they are of one subject the sixth and last also of those propositions of Sorbon You have it above rendred in English by the Congregation and in these words That it is not the doctrine or dogme of the Faculty that the Pope without the consent of the Church is infallible Why the said congregation would not subscribe this proposition mutatis mutandis or taking it thus It is not our doctrine c. they give their reasons such as they are in these two paragraphs here following in their own words The sixth regards the Popes infallibility in matters of Faith whether the Pope not as a private Doctor but with an especial congregation of Doctors Prelats and Divines deputed can censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie or whether it be necessary to have a general Council from all parts of the world to decide define censure and condemn certain Propositions of Heresie The Iansenists already condemned of Heresie by three Popes and all the Bishops of France to vindicate themselves from the censure contest the first way they write in their own defence and many more against them on which subject is debated the questio facti whether the propositions condemned as Herefie by the Pope be in the true sense and meaning of the Iansenists or no whether in his book or no as may appear by such as we can produce if necessary The Vniversities of France say That it is not their doctrine that the Pope c. Whether this touched our scope or no we leave it to all prudent men to judge If they think it doth let them know that we should not hold the Popes Infallibility if he did define any thing against the obedience we owe our Prince if they speak of any other infallibility as matter of Religion and Faith as it regardeth us not nor our obedience to our Soveraign so we are loath forreign Catholick Nations should think we treat of so odious and unprofitable a question in a Country where we have neither Vniversity nor Iansenist amongst us if not perhaps some few particulars whom we conceive under-hand to further this dispute to the disturbance of both King and Country Where I observe the sum of what they would say after mistating the question and after so many disguises and windings to be that this sixth Proposition is impertinent odious unprofitable unfit to be disputed in this Country relates to Jansenisme is suspected to be under-hand furthered by some of that way and finally tends to the disturbance of both King and Country And therefore they thought it fit not to subscribe to it But the contriver of these reasons will now give me leave to clear this fogg which as Sorcerers use to do he hath raised before the eyes of the Reader Whom therefore I must tell That Father N. N. hath first mis-stated the question That the question was not is not whether the Pope either as a private Doctor or as a publick of the whole Church or which is the same thing as Pope either without or with a special congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats can censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie Or whether it be necessary to have a general Council from all parts of the world to decide define censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie But the qustion was and is whether the Pope even as such or even as the publick Master Doctor Director and Superiour in spiritual matters of all the faithful and even as joyntly taken with or sitting in such a special Congregation of Doctors or Divines and Prelats can so decide define censure and condemn certain propositions of Heresie that without the joynt consent or concurrence antecedent concommitant or subsequent of the universal Church at least in its Representative a General Council such decision definition censure or condemnation must be in it self infallibly true or must be as such only without any kind of even internal contradiction opposition or doubt received and believed by all the faithful or accounted infallibly true or de fide divina Catholica of divine and Catholick faith and I say accounted such or of Divine Catholick Faith hoc ipso that the Pope hath defined it so That no Catholick Writer hath ever yet questioned or denied a power and lawful authority in or to even a particular Bishop much less in or to a
shall answer God and such truth also as leaves him nothing to reply nor any thing at all to justifie this although conditional yet no less injurious than suspicious reflection if intended so by him or construed so by any other For although I had the honour of some little personal acquaintance in my youth with that most illustrious and most Reverend Person Iansenius himself at Lovain about some 29 years past when he was first assumed from being a Doctor of that Vniversity to the Bishoprick of Ipres being as yet but Elect onely in which quality he was pleased to honour my Philosophical publick disputes there with his presence in St. Anthony of Padua's Colledge having to that end first presented his Lordship with my Theses and Dedication to himself and although I had been soon after studying my Divinitie in the same Colledge throughly acquainted with those opinions now called Iansenisme De gratia Sufficiente et efficaâ—i c however this was by accident onely and in the writings onely too of that same Colledge and in the School dictates as they are called of that other very Reverend and learned man Father John Barnewel a little before publick professor of Divinity there and a while after Provincial of the Franciscans in Ireland Uncle to the present Lord of Trimle-stown which he defended publickly and in print though not ad mentem Scoti but Sti. Augustini and in that very Colledge some years before Iansenius was ever known or thought to write of that Subject and which also the same Father Barnewell did by the advice of that other most Reverend and learned Father of the same Order the founder of thâ— Colledge by his mediation with the Spanish Court that great Augustinianâ— Florentius Conrius he that writt de Statu parvulorum then titulary Arch-Bishop of Tuam in Ireland living in that Colledge the greatest Augustinian of the age and by whom Iansenius was indoctrinated first in those principles as they say and although moreover just when I had ended my course of Divinity in that School I was one of the very first though by meer accident onely too that ever saw and read that worke so famous now called Augustinus Iansenij for I read it in albis before it was bound and as it came from the Lovain-press about the year as I take it 1640. and although further I was curious enough to understand all the intrigues of those opinions both then and after they came soon after to publick debate in Rome and as often too ever since as I heard the great contest for or against them under the three Popes Vrban Innocent and Alexander and as farr or as much as I could heare of at so great distance or know the said contests yet I declare conscientiously before God and man 1. That I was never from the first day to this present any further concerned for Iansenius or all or any of his or the said opinions or against him or them either for the Anti-Iansenians than every or any other the most indifferent Roman Catholick in the world should be or was Nor any further at all than to know what was or might be said on both sides without any further inward prejudices of or to either than what I did or should understand the Catholick Church did or would entertain 2. That nevertheless I have always been for my own private interiour sentitiments inclined more to follow the way of sufficient grace even before any determination of Vrban Innocent or Alexander though without condemning in my own private judgement the contrary 3. That for external conformity or submission I have been alwayes resolved and am at this present as I should be in such perplexed abstruse controversies where there is no evidence on either side to acquiese in the determination of the great Pontiff unless peradventure and until a general Council truely such declare the contrary to whose determination as in all other matters of Catholick faith being bound to submit both inwardly and outwardly so in this I must and ought and will by the grace of God if ever any such Council happen to be held in our days 4. That for those Iansenists who have submitted externally to the determinations of those three great Pontiffs for what concerns the point of doctrine and are further absolutely resolved to submit both externally and internally in such and all other points or matters of Faith to the final definitions of a general Council truely such and for ought I understand all those are called Iansenists have submitted so and are so resolved I hold not them to be Hereticks at all whether those opinions attributed to Iansenius or them be Heresies or no that is onely material Heresies or no according to the phrase of the School Because to be a Heretick inwardly inward pertinacie in the judgement or will against the known faith of the Catholick Church is required and obstinacy against the sole determination of the Pope not knowing it to be withal the Church's is not sufficient as to be outwardly such outward pertinacy in words or demeanour 5. That although or if these Iansenists have been already condemned of Heresie by three Popes that is if those opinions of theirs be condemned or declared by so many Popes to be Heresies which yet implyes no declaration of the Iansenists to be or against them as Hereticks no more than did St. Cyprians doctrine of rebaptisation though declared an Heresie in it self conclude him to be an Heretick yet consequently to the Catholick doctrine of the fallibility of Popes in all kind of matters even in those of Divine belief and even those too properly and purely such we are not upon that sole account of being condemned or declared so by these Popes alone or together with their Congregation of Divines or Prelates at Rome or any other of that particular City or Diocess obliged either inwardly or outwardly to beleive them therefore infallibly such that is infallibly to beleive those opinions to be Herâ—â—es in themselves materially nor upon any other account also for what relates to extrinsecal authority besides holy Scripture evident in the points at least evident according the general and unanimous interpretation of holy Fathers but that of knowing them to be reputed and beleeved infallibly such by the Catholick or universal Church or declared such by a general Council its lawful supream Representative Which notwithstanding warrants not those Iansenists not any other to oppose or contradict those declarations of those three Popes at least in the point of doctrine and in the senâ—e the declarations were made until a general Council be convened but leaves them for their infallible directour in point of a Divine belief to another cruely certain and infallible rule indeed the declaration or consent of the Catholick Church however that be certainly and infallibly known by a general Council or otherwise 6. And lastly That I never had nor have this day nor will hereafter with Gods grace any other
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