and of allowing a competent prerogative to celestial favors that is to persons or places which by extrinsecal denomination are divine or which have that Celestial favor to be specially dedicated to the service of God But is there no other difference to be made no other prerogative to be given but an exemption so general from the supream civil power Besides our Cardinal himself confesses that Iustinian spake these words of the material Churches as he made that law for them onely not at all for the persons of Churchmen but as long as they were in those Churches albeit he made several other laws in favour of their persons also whether in or out of the most sacred Churches Of which last sort of laws more presently in the next Section So that any right collection either out of the former priviledg of Constantine or out of these later words of Iustinian signifies nothing at all to prove a custom amongst Christians forsuch exemption as Bellarmine would have amongst them as flowing from nature 2. For his second argument or similitude who sees not that as Divines and Philosophers too confess as the argument which is à simili is the very worst and most unconcluding sort of argument if it run not upon all four as they speak so this here of this great Cardinal is very lame in that respect For the difference is so wide and so great 'twixt both that we know evidently and by daily experience that the body can act nothing at all not as to natural sensation or vegetation but as a meer dead trunk a carkass without the soul nor act any thing at all rationally or freely without the direction of that superiour portion of the soul which is by some called the spirit and we know no less evidently that the lay civil Magistrate both supream and subordinat can act both rationally freely and honestly too without nay and often also against the direction of those we call the meer spiritual Magistrates or of any kind of ecclesiastical persons That the one may be and hath not seldom been without the other that is the former without the latter and yet compleat and perfect as to its own proper functions And the latter may erre and hath often err'd involving it self in politick matters out of its own sphere when the former did not But we see the natural body cannot as much as be without the soul So that for Bellarmine to assume this simile is to argue from a very lame similitude and expect this ordinary answer to the like similitudo non currit quattuor pedibus Besides I must advertise the Reader that he abuses him again by taking it in the abstract of one side Whereas if it did or could signifie any thing he should have taken it in the concrete of both sides that is made the simile 'twixt the soul and body of one side and the lay Magistrate or lay Judges and the spiritual persons of Clerks or Ecclesiastical Superiours on the other and not have assumed on this side the civil power and spiritual power only in the abstract For it is very well known these as such act not at all either of them And moreover that this argument or simile did it prove any thing as we have seen it doth not proves not only the exemption of Clergy-men from all lay-power and in all causes and matters whatsoever nor a co-ordination only in temporal matters but also and in all imaginable even the most worldly matters of any kind a super-ordination or an absolute dominion of Church-men over all the lay-persons even the most supream Monarchs on Earth To which purpose although Bellarmine presses this very same argument elsewhere dei Roman Pontif. l. 5. cap. 6. however against his other main purpose which is to give the Pope alone a power to dethrone Kings and this simile would give this very power to every Diocesan Bishop nay to the inferiour Ghostly Fathers or Parish-priests of every King yet no man I hope will be any more so foolish as to believe him or be perswaded by so lame a simile having both evidence of Reason Scripture and Tradition to the contrary as will appear hereafter in some of the following Sections on this very point we now handle Lastly I must advertise the Reader that he is not to be amused with a greater excellency of the spiritual power in it self or in its own nature or even in the end for which it was given this end being wholy supernatural such as must be that which is to a life of grace in this world and of glory in the next and which the meer lay civil or temporal power as such only hath not nor can pretend The greater excellency of one calling or profession cannot warrant the professors of it to subject to their own commands all or any other persons that profess a calling of less excellency as may be seen by daily experience in all the several professions or trades in the world Nor is it consequent by any discourse of natural reason that because one sort of men are of greater dignity as to their callings they cannot be subjected in many things or matters by the King to the command of others who are otherwise of much inferiour dignity or perhaps of none at all Nay we see daily and by ten thousand practices that Lords Marquesses Dukes must in many things obey and receive commands from very poor mean persons of no kind of titles otherwise but that of their present office and that too of the very meanest offices not seldom And must it be against natural reason that because the King of all Kings the Lord of life and death of all creatures hath out of his mercy and for the eternal ends of his mercy to all people given a certain ministery or even dignity the greatest that can be to some sort of men and this also for the service of other men in a certain calling which belongs to their spirits or souls onely they might not have been or they have not actually been subjected to other men though not so dignified in that special ministery and subjected I mean to such in other matters onely which concern their natural and civil being onely as a civil society of men living in this world We see by a thousand experiences daily that many who are very fit for one sort of command or calling are very unfit for the other And we know that the spiritual function alone to be discharged well requires the whole man And we know also that spiritual men or Clerks must notwithstanding their Clerk-ship remain always men that is involved by a thousand occasions in affairs which belong directly and properly to the temporal government of things belonging to the body alone Must it be against natural reason that God should not have exempted them in such matters from the Governours that are proper for such matters Or must it not be rather according to natural reason that in such
confess that their both Constitutions and Oath if there be any such Oath of those amongst them them they call Masters of Divinity are only for maintaining the doctrine of St. Thomas of Aquine not as articles of Faith nor as the doctrine of the Church nor Dogmatically at all at least not out of their School Pulpits but only by way of Scholastical speculations and for sharpning of wits and shifting the truth problematically or probably in all such matters wherein the Scripture or Tradition was not clear and certain and still only within the Schools That otherwise the whole Order of the Franciscans and all the other Schools of Scotists who maintain as stiffly and are alike by their Constitutions bound to maintain against St. Thomas the Thomists all the speculations all the subtleties of the Subtile Doctor Scotus who writ ex professo against all or almost all even every individual position of St. Thomas as well in his Divinity as Philosophy where the matter is not certain otherwise by Scripture or Tradition were to be condemned by them Which yet they will not dare in point of morallity prudence and conscience That moreover it is manifest St. Thomas of Aquin is not weaker in his proofs for any of his Theological opinons then for this of a power in the Pope or Church for deposing Infidel or Heretick Princes on pretence or because of Infidelity Apostacy Schisme Heresy where he determines it so in his Theological Sum. 2. 2. q. x. ar 10. and q. 12. ar 2. And that he relyes for proof of so weighty an Assertion first on a reason that would not move the meerest novice in Divinity Quia fideles sayes he merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles qui transferuntur in filios lucis Supra q. 10. ar 10. in corp Which yet is the only reason this great Holy Doctor brings to prove that a very infidel Prince who was never Baptized may be deposed by the Church Secondly for proof of that same Assertion as relating specially to an Apostat Heretick or Schysmatick Prince that was Baptized relyes onely and wholy on the bare judgment and practise of Gregory the VII otherwise called Pope Hildebrand or on that Canon made by this Pope which you may find in Gratian. 15. q. 6. cap. Nos Sanctorum That as it is therefore manifest that St. Thomas of Aquin is not weaker in his proofs of any of his Theological Assertions then of this of a power in the Pope or Church for deposing Infidel or Heretick Princes as the Reader may see partly in the Latin notes which follow this Paragraph for the rest satisfie himself at large in Father Caro'ns Remonstrantia Hibernorum so it is no less manifest that generally where the Thomists find in any other positions of this Angelical Doctor and those too of infinite less concern insuperable difficulties they decline him there expound him or his mind by some other place of his workes where he held the contrary or perhaps retracted considerately what he had before unadvisedly handled by the example of St. Austin himself in his books of Retractation And so those Irish Fathers might if they pleased have declined in this matter St. Thomas in his said Sum and expounded St. Thomas there by following St. Thomas where he holds by plain consequence of reason the contrary in his exposition of St. Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians That they could not deny but that notwithstanding all their Constitutions and Oathes whatsoever they all now generally and confessedly and without any exposition or interpretation of one place by an other decline St. Thomas of Aquin even in that matter wherein their whole Order these full 300 years found themselves most concern'd of any in point of reputation at least to follow defend him that is in the dispute of the Blessed Virgins conception without original sin Nor can deny this matter to have come within these late years to that height in Spain even where they are in such esteem that the very Provincial of their Order in the Kingdom or Province of Castile was confined to Penna de Francia by orders from the King until he subscribed under his hand against that opinion of St. Thomas in this matter and consequently acknowledged so the Blessed Virgin conceaved without original sin against the confessed doctrine of St. Thomas and against the letter of his Constitutions and verbal tenour of his Oath as a Master And yet he was not so commanded by any decrees of the Church which as it is well known hath never yet decided that question And yet also that question of the Blessed Virgin is no less known to be of infinite less consequence to the Peace or Settlement of either Church or State for the owning or disowning of either the affirmative or negative resolution and for a subscription to either than ours of the Remonstrance of our indispensable loyaltie in Temporal things to the Supream Magistrate and our lawful and rightful King Finally that St. Thomas of Aquin's Scholastical assertion whatever it be or a Statute in an Order to teach such or such a doctrine or Oath of some few members of such an Order how learned religious or eminent soever that Order be is a very bad plea at least in such a matter as ours against ten thousand other Holy and eminent Fathers Doctors Prelates in all Countreys and ages of the Church against so many express clear passages of Holy Scriptures against the universal tradition of all Christians till Gregory the VII days about the Xth. age of Christianity and against the greatest evidence of both natural reason and of hundreds too of Theological arguments the first grounds of Christianity being once admitted Quâ—niâ—â—â— autem singula persequimur admonere oportet D. Thomam alicubi in ea opinione esse ut existimet ius dominii praelationis Ethnicorum Principum justè illis auferri posse 22. q 10. art 10. per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae authoritatem Dei habentis vt ille ait D. Thomae magna apud me authoritas est sed non tanta ut omnes ejus disputationes pro Canonicis Scripturis habeam vel ut rationem vincat aut legem Ejus ego Manes veneror doctrinam suspicio Sed non est tamen cur illa ejus opinione aliquis moveatur tum quia nullam suae sententiae vel rationem idoneam efficacem vel authoritatem profert tum etiam quia in explicatione epistolae Pauli ad Corinth 1. contrarium planè sentit tum denique quia neminem secum antiquorum Patrum consentientem habet Cap. 6. rationes multae authoritatesque in contrarium supperunt Ratio autem quam adfert est quia infideles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles qui transferuntur in filios Dei Mala ratio tanto viro indigna quasi verò si quis meretur privari officio beneficio
as Subject to that Metaphysical contingency nay more most of them then that of our Protestation Why then may it not be as lawful for us to practice herein notwithstanding such conditional and caprichious interrogatories We have this advantage of them that in our judgments and in the judgments of at least the incomparably far greater part even of the Catholick Church there is not only both extrinsecal and intrinsecal probability in that we promise and protest but even an absolute certainty as grounded on most clear Scriptures and traditions and that the contrary positions or tenets are so farr from having any intrinsick probability at all that they are manifest errors against the word of God whereas they on the other side practice daily in matters of greatest concern relying only on the bare saying or quotation of one or two Casuists and these too not seldom extravagant and superficial men for matter of knowledg in the most profound questions of Religion And it is further manifest by reason that were such Metaphysical contingencies or apprehensions of them of power to render any unlawfulness in our signing the said Protestation the very same contingencie must vitiat their opposing us even I say as to the question of expediency or necessity And all the expositions made by the Fathers on hard passages of Scriptures and all the Sentences or controverted conclusions of Catholick writers in the succession of all ages since the days of Peter Lombard have been and are still unlawful even as to the expediency of delivering or teaching them Which to assert would be in effect to bereave our selves of all charity and all modestie and all reason Nay all the Canons Definitions Anathematismes of so many ancient holy Christian Councels either Provincial or National as we find in the Tomes of Councels and which have been held some a thousand others 11. 12. 13. 1400. years agoe and some latter all reverenced and many of them canonized by the very Popes themselves must have been unlawful and not onely temerarious but even sinful scandalous and schismatical yea the profession of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ or an Oath or Protestation made to that purpose disclaiming in and renouncing all Doctrine and authority to the contrary that is in so much would be not onely unexpedient but even unlawful sinful scandalous schismatical before the first general Councel of Nice against Arrius or that other which was held at Constantinople against Macedonius yea that admonition of Paul Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed would be so too nay and that asseveration of our Saviour Christ himself in the Gospel was rash and false Si dixero quia non scio eum similis ero vobis mendax if this argument or interrogatory of our opposers be to any purpose or if their foolish impertinent discourses or private whispers ever since the 15. of Feb. last amongst our lay Gentry here signifie any thing to prove that we renounced or disclaimed in the Doctrine or Authority of a General Councel because we disclaim and renounce any at all as yet known to us which teaches or maintains any power Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal which may absolve us from our natural Allegiance to His Majestie or which may license us to rebell against him or to kill or murther the Anointed of God our Prince though of a different belief from ours Though which is observable our Protestation rigorusly taken as to this particular be onely against all such authority as is forreign and that that of a general Council truly such be known not to be properly forreign to any Christian Country And although the true meaning and purpose of it be onely against the Spiritual or Temporal pretended power of Popes alone But however this be or any thing heretofore said to these wild imaginations I would â—ain know whither it be not an undubitable Maxime in moral Philosophy and Divinity that our action is then lawful when it is against no law that is yet known or doubted to be either of God or man And expedient when in the judgment of wise men or in our own weighing all circumstances it is expected to conduce towards a good or just end we propose to our selves And whether the possibility of a future law or declaration against or inhibition of the like any more can vitiat actions qualified so which precede such laws Certainly as this last querie must be answered in the negative so the two former in the affirmative Now let any man that reads this passage and what I have given before it and for its illustration here in this present Book and Section let I say any such man of what affection soever so he be a man of reason be judge himself whether in this passage I do undervalue the authority of general Councils And I am sure there is no other passage in any other of all my writings where I say any thing to undervalue them And yet I must tell my adversaries that such Catholick Divines as hold the absolute fallibility of General Councils even I mean in point of Faith think they can say enough for themselves to prove that themselves do not therefore or indeed at all undervalue General Councils And enough also to prove that they justly charge their opposers with overvalueing General Councils As also to prove that themselves do still acknowledg a General Council truly such to be the onely Supream Tribunal in the Church And still acknowledg the Supream power of making Canons which concern either Faith or Discipline to be in this Council And still too acknowledg both external and internal acquiescence and obedience due from all persons even from the Pope himself to all their decrees in all Spiritual matters purely such whatsoever wherein an intollerable error against the Faith received is not evidently demonstrated And enough moreover to prove that to attribute more then this to General Councils howsoever truly such were indeed to overvalue them against truth and Tradition And finally enough also to prove it may be as daungerous an errour in religion or Faith to overvalue either Pope or Council as to undervalue them But whether such Catholick Divines as think so or think themselves can say enough for all and each of these particulars do think aright I am not concern'd at present no further then to tell my Adversaries they should rather dispute against them who give some kind of ground then charge me and falsely too being I give them no such ground at all nor any other of being charged with undervalueing General Councils XXXII Fourthly they would find their allegations false where they say that in the opinion of the Diffusive Church corporal punishments may be inflicted by a spiritual power I say that this is false if they mean as they do certainly and must speaking to the purpose by the word
excellency or dignity even the very supream of that Order is in it self unreasonable unevangelical and altogether groundless and unmantainable I referr thee first Good Reader to my foregoing LXIII LXIV LXV LXVI and LXVII Sections where as I have already in this very Section told you I have of purpose examined throughly and fully answered all Bellarmines arguments for his law divine either positive or natural alledged by him for the exemption of Clerks and secondly referr thee to the very next two or three Sections immediatly following this present but more especially to the first of them which in order is my LXIV of this first part of this first Treatise where I at large and of purpose and by positive arguments of Scriptures and Fathers demonstrate even the quite contrary of what Bellarmine sayes here of heathen Princes Besides that as I have also noted above my two next arguments of natural reason which you shall have immediatly in this present Section demonstrate the falsity of this last Answer as it relates to all Clerks in general Yet for as much as Bellarmine hath given us here a most particular or special exception of the Pope however the rest do for he thinks all may be in effect safe enough if the heal only he safe being that if the Pope himself alone be exempt by divine right or law de jure divino he may then by his own papal constitutions exempt all the rest of the Clergy whether Princes will or not I must give also here my animadvensions upon his reasons or those given by him for that special exceptions made or his Holiness and for his own answer to saying that Barclayes argument which I have reheâ—â—sed a little before had two faults viz a false Antecedent and a vitious or ill inferr'd Consequence that antecedent of Bâ—rclaye being That the Pope himself had not his own exemption 〈◊〉 that of his own person but from the meer liberaliâ—â— and favour of Princes because sayes Barclay as even our Adversaries confess the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to heathen Princes as other Citizens were and that consequent also being That therefore that is for the Popes having been subject by the law of God to heathen Princes before they were converted it must follow that he must also by the same law be subject to them when converted or which is the same thing to Christian Kings and Emperours I say that Bellarmine for his giving answer that the antecedent is false and consequent vitious alledges first for reason of the former That our Sauiour Christ had made the Pope his own Vicat on earth and that hoc ipso by making him such he exempted him from all power of earthly Princes And in the next place alledges for reason of the latter That whereas the Pope is by the same Lord and Saviour constituted over the whole family of beleevers and that Kings and Emperours are consequently incorporated by him to be directed and ruled by him certainly no reason suffers that he be subject to them over whom he is by divine right to preside But who sees not that as Barclay assumed that very Antecedent not only from Scripture Tradition and Reason as well appear in the next Section but from the common doctrine of all at least the best sort of even School Divines and which is more from Bellarmine himself for as yet our learned Cardinal had not set forth his Recognitions and Barclay could not have once suspected that Bellarmine would in his last days of old age have changed from that which till then he had publickly exposed to the world in his Controversie so that reason which Bellarmine alledges to prove it false must appear it self to be most unreasonable to wit that Christ had appointed the Pope his own Vicar and thereby exempted him from the power of Princes Indeed if Bellarmine could evidence that our Saviour had created the Pope his Vicar General and in all things and his own Vicar too as himself was the natural Son of God and second person of the Trinity and as God by pure nature not by communication or hypostastical union and not as a mortal man or as he appeared on earth before his Resurrection or if Bellarmine could evidence briefly that our Lord created the Pope his own Vicar as well in all kind of earthly powers and temporal matters whatsoever as in some kind of limited spiritual power and things then he might have truly said that Barclayes Antecedent is false and the contrary certain or that it is not from the favour of Princes the Pope hath what exemption he hath but from the law and power of God immediatly But nothing is more certain then that the Pope was not created such a Vicar General his power as that of the Universal Church being purely and only spiritual It is true Joan. 3.35 27.21 the Father gave Christ all things into his hands and the power of all flesh Pater dedit Christo omnia in manus potestatem omnis carnis But our Cardinal hath not yet proved that either Son or Father gave or ever yet committed so large a power to any one Vicar and the contrary is otherwise in it self very certain both by Scripture Tradition and Reason Our Saviour Jesus Christ therefore left by his law the temporal administration to the temporal civil or politick Magistrates as before and from the beginning it was by all laws to the great Pontiff he committed what was agreeable to a Pontiff only or to the prime Pontiff that is to be his Vicar in all pure spiritual administration and in such only too according to the holy canons of the Catholick Church And it is clear this Function or this Dignity how great soever it be doth no more exempt the Pope as Pope from temporal subjection that is from subjection in temporal matters to a meer lay or secular Prince or Magistrate then the most high supream and by God himself immediately ordained civil power of secular Princes Kings Emperours can or doth exempt them in spiritual matters from the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope or even of any other their own proper Patriarch or Bishop or even also of an inferiour Priest in the confessional seat or other administration of the Sacraments to them And who sees not that as that Consequent of Barclay follows manifestly and necessarily out of the Antecedent once admitted because that as I have already proved and as Barclay too alleadged Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo c even so it must follow and whether it follow or not it is clear enough in it self that Bellarmine's reason to the contrary or to shew this consequence to be vitious or ill inferr'd is a most pittifull unsignificant one indeed and as such by me very often answer'd already For how many times was it answered before that the Pope as Pope is by our Lord and Saviour appointed the chief Superintendent or
arguments for it from the positive express law of God in holy Scripture might be rendred at last so farr unsignificant as not to conclude all men nor all affairs though otherwise temporal under it but on the contrary to exempt from it even the very most considerable part of men and affairs and a vast number too of both and consequently to lessen extreamly if they could not totally extinguish it as for any thing at least to be said for it from Scripture I must crave your pardon Reader if I be as prolix in this argument as in any or perhaps more then in any of the former or even in all three together being I am resolved to give long entire passages out of the doctrine of the most eminent of the holy Fathers and out of Ecclesiastical History too the practice of the Fathers to evict that sense of those Scripture passages which is so obvious of it self to have also been that all along handed to us by our said great fore-fathers and consequently that sense to be certain also by Tradition But first or before I come to the doctrine or which is the same thing to the exposition or sense of the Fathers or that which they delivered to us of those Scripture places in their own proper genuine and uncontroverted books I frame my fourth argument thus Whoever are expresly and clearly commanded by the mouth or pen of Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. to be subject to the higher Powers and are further told by the same Apostle and in the same place that there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God that therefore whoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall acquire damnation to themselves that earthly Princes are the Ministers of God that as the Ministers of God they bear the sword and not in vain and finally that for all these reasons every soul must needs be subject to these higher Powers I say that whoever are commanded so and told so are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently threin declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes But all Clergiemen whoever living within the Dominions of any supream secular Prince are commanded so and told so by Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. Ergo all Clergiemen whoever living within the Dominions of any supream secular Prince are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes The Major is evident because that as no man ever yet doubted of any of these passages of St. Paul in the said thirteenth Chapter to the Romans to be of holy Scripture and for so much to contain the very positive law of God that although it may be said also they for so much contain the very natural law of God so it can neither be denied honestly or christianly or even at all rationally that by Higher Powers c. in the text of Paul secular Princes only are understood being those Powers only are there understood who only bear the sword and to whom only tribute and custom is paid c. Nor can it be denied that by the text of Paul all souls are commanded to be subject in some things or some causes and therefore if not in spiritual certainly in temporal whereas all things or causes are either spiritual or temporal Nor besides can it be denied they are said here to be subject in such temporal causes only which are called meerly civil as civil are opposed to criminal because by the text they are subject even in such causes wherein use is to be made of the sword against malefactors and it is plain that such are also criminal and not civil only Nor finally and consequently can it be denied they are commanded here to be subject to the coercive part or virtue of the Princes temporal power whereas the directive as such only doth not cannot make use of the sword to punish evil doers The Minor also is evident because all Christians all men and women universally without exception or distinction of any state or profession or character are so commanded and so told and consequently Clerks being they are Christians and men For so doth the very interlineary Gloss understand it Omnis anima id est omnis homo sayes this Gloss potestatibus sublimiâ—ribus subdita sit And because the end of the precept could not be attained if all Clerks universally as well as Laicks were not so commanded and so told And because too the express doctrine and known practise of the holy Fathers for many ages after the Apostles time do teach us clearly expresly and particularly that in this text of Paul and others like it or of the same nature in the Bible all Clerks indistinctly are understood no less then Laicks As for the conclusion our Adversaries I am sure will not except against the necessity or evidence of it if the premisses be once granted or if they otherwise be in themselves true and certain To the premisses therefore to the Major and Minor it is that several frame several Answers some denying that for some part of it and others this for the whole but all of them equally spurning against truth and even rebelling against the light of their own consciences as those in Iob qui rebelles sunt lumini qui dicunt Deo recede a nobis scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus The first answer then is that by higher Powers in St. Pauls text those only are understood which are truly the higher to wit the powers Ecclesiastical or Spiritual For at least comparatively speaking these are the higher and temporal Powers the lower because the spiritual is of a more excellent nature as more directly tending to God then the temporal And consequently this answer sayes that by the Sword in the same text the material sword of Iron is not understood but the spiritual of Excommunication c. The old Authors of this answer albeit as old as St. Augustine himself for he refutes them as will be seen hereafter and other late readers and embracers of it though without sufficient patronage from its antiquity being there have been heresies confessed of all sides for heresies as old as the dayes of Austin and long before the dayes of Austin even in those of the very blessed Apostles must be obliged to deny the Major or that last part which is the only affirmation of it where I say that whoever are commanded sâ— and told so are by the positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to and consequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes The second Answer is of a newer stamp indeed but of no lesser both absurdity and heresie in it self and contradiction also to the
and all the rest in general of the inferior Clergie of Ireland England Scotland Wales wherever at home or abroad in other Countries he sent copies immediately to the chief of the Irish Clergie with other particular written letters from himself also some and some from the said Bishop of Dromore to invite them to a concurrence and shew them the necessity of it in that conjuncture Particularly to Iohn Burke Arch-bishop of Tuam Robert Barry Bishop of Cork Patrick Pluncket Bishop of Ardagh Andrew Linch Bishop of Kilfinuran at that time all in France and to Nicholas French Bishop of Ferns living then in Spain Onely the Arch-bishop of Ardmagh Primate Reilly then at Rome he thought not fit to write unto at that time because more then any of the rest lying under too too great and special prejudices in Ireland and with His Majestie and Lord Lieutenant and therefore since the Kings Restauration withdrawn and even from Rome commanded to with-draw and that wholly depending of that Court for a poor subsistence the Procuratour thought not fit to bring new jealousies on him there also which he feared his correspondence in such a matter would For although he was very certain His present Holyness would not or that Court under so wise and moderate a Governour declare any thing publickly against the said Remonstrance or subscribers forasmuch as he knew most evidently there was nothing in it which was not the sense of the Catholick world abroad yet he was perswaded withal it could nevertheless but be somewhat unwelcome and displeasing to the flatterers of his Holyness and that there would not be wanting many both English and Irish Clergiemen to incense that Court against the subscribers as will be seen hereafter it happened IV. However they contained themselves at first against the expediency alone of such a Remonstrance yet when The more ample Account was published seeing those kind of exceptions would do no good some of the Irish from Lovain and others from other places began to mutter and write letters also which were privately carried from hand to hand that the said Remonstrance or Declaration and Protestation of Allegiance to His Majestie therein contained though in temporal things only was against Catholick Religion because a diminution of the authority of the great Pontiff Whereupon Father Redmond Caron of St. Francis's Order who at the time of the signing of the said Remonstrance at London had been in Wales with my Lord Powis and was now come to London and signed it after the rest tooke the pains to write and print an other smal Treatise in English too against that scandalous errour dedicating it to His Majestie and giving it the title of Loyalty asserted Wherein to convince that errour he amassed together a huge number of Catholick Authors Scriptures Canons Fathers Popes c. quoting only the places briefly not the words but adding withal a great many Theological reasons though briefly and in the end of it answering Cardinal Peron's Oration and all the arguments of that indeed elegant but not well grounded speech to the third estate of France Which the said Father thought fit to do at that time because much use was made also of that piece of eloquence amongst those that were not versed in the matter nor had ever seen those learned satisfactory answers thereunto returned some fifty years since as well by Catholicks as Protestants V. By this time the Antagonist's of that Remonstrance were working their intrigues being much netled and bafled And yet I saw no great encouragement they had then from the Bishops of their Country living abroad For Andrew Linch Bishop of Kilfinuran who had at home in the troubles of Ireland although promoted by the Nuncio to his little Bishoprick adhered nevertheless to the supream Councel for the peace of 48. against the Nuntio and was not at Iames-town nor countenanced or engaged in the troubles of the other Bishops there against the said peace as soon as he received at St. Malos the book and letters sent from London called together those Irish Priests there at that time and got their subscriptions to the same Remonstrance Although within a while after the brute coming of endeavours at Rome against it by some there and of discountenance in that Court for it was no more yet and those very Priests at St. Malos who had sometime before subscribed fearing though unreasonably they might therefore and upon account of their subscription suffer in their livelyhood where they were or in their present or future pretensions where they were not in the Roman Court came to the said Bishop and importun'd from him the paper of their subscriptions And the Bishop of Ardagh Patrick Plunket residing then in an other part of France who likewise and though promoted also by the Nuntius adhered constantly to the same peace and to the former cessation notwithstanding the Nuntio's censures against it and absented himself from the Council at Iames-town as being assembled in his Diocess without his consent as much as demanded of him and never approved of the Acts of that meeting was supposed by all that knew him to approve of the Remonstrance and protestation of loyalty therein Whereof in the year 1662. 2. of October by this following letter sent to his Brother Sir Nicholas Plunket he gave ample testimony however his carriage proved after in our Dublin Congregation in 1666. For his Honoured Brother Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight these at Dublin WOrthy dear Brother the Oath taken by the Nobility and your self I seriously considered and consulted with others Both they and I find the same most just lawful and conformable to St. Pauls doctrine For there are two sorts of obedience the one necessary the other voluntary By the necessary thou oughtest humbly to obey thy Ecclesiastical Superiours and such as are authorized by them Also it is necessary to obey thy Civil Superiours as your King and the Magistrates which he hath established over thy Country Finally thou must obey thy domestical Superiours as thy Father and Mother Master and Mistris This obedience is called necessary because no man can exempt himself from the duty of obeying these Superiours God having placed them in authority to command and govern each one according to the charge which they have over us and to obey their command is of necessity Voluntary obedience is that whereunto we oblige our selves by our own election and which is not imposed upon us by an other and of which we make no solemn vow As a conclusion I boldly and with an assured confidence say our Gracious King is better incomparably then such Kings as were in St. Pauls times being infidels yet would have them obeyed Not els but Yours as his own Ardagh At Seez the 2d of December 1662. V As for the Bishop of Corke Robert Barry then living also at St. Malos although his earnestness all along for the Nuncio's quarrel without any regard of his own extraction family or interest
for the quarrel of God and for the defence of their Religion Nunc ergo O Filii aemulatores estate legis date animas vestras pro testamento Patrum vestrorum And cap. 13. we find vos scitis quanta ego fratres mei Domus patris mei fecimus pro legibus pro sanctis praelia I know the Author of the Book of the defence of the Remonstrance or Protestation saith that the Machabees made war through ignorance because they understood not their own law nor had the light of the law of Jesus Christ but he must give us leave not to believe him until he produceth some more warrantable authority then his bare word God having justified their war with miracles I have heard some say being pressed by this and other arguments that the wars of the Machabees were just not for that they fought for Gods cause or in defence of their Religion but because the true Prince retaineth his right alwayes and can recover his Kingdom again by force of arms if occasion serveth and he be able though his people be conquered and in a long and continued subjection to another King And therefore the Machabees had right to recover Iudea from the Gentile King and for this reason the war was just of their side But this evasion is a very slight one first because the Machabees are not praised for fighting for that cause but for their Religion Secondly because they had no right to the Crown of Iudea but the Progenitors of our Saviour Jesus Christ but they kept the command to themselves and never gave it to the right line of succession to the Crown among the Jews Besides none will presume to say that the wars of the late Earl of Tyrone against the Crown of England were just though his Ancestors were Kings of Ulster or Monarchs of Ireland What a probable opinion is and when a man may lawfully follow it Potest quis sequi tanquam probabilem opinionem unius doctoris probi docti maximé si adducat aliquam rationem intrinsicê probabilem et non sit contra opinionem communem Ita Sanches et undecimiali Non tamen si ab aliis Recentioribus valde famigeratis recitatur Ita Bresserus et alii Neque eo ipso quo invenitur impressa in aliquo Authore censeri potest probabilis .. Neque approbatio libri approbat omnes ejus opinniones Ita Marchantius et omnes alii communiter Let the Affirmative and the Negative of the above proposed question be be considered with the Reasons and Authors of both sides If they find reasons and authors according to what is laid down here concerning what is a probable opinion he may follow which part he pleaseth otherwise he cannot not follow it as a probable opinion XXVIII That forasmuch as in the Procuratour's Answers to their two or three former Queries they had had particularly cleerly his answer to this also that he found no new matter in this second paper but pitiful though replyes in effect which they can reasons for the affirmative yet such replyes as are grounded solely on the bare saying or opinion either of Pontius one of their own Society or of a confused rabble of such other Neoterick Schoolmen thronging together and treading in the stepps one of another like a flock of sheep without further serious ponderation of the nature of things in themselves or of those reasons would render such their saying intrinsecally probable or even extrinsecally from any decision or at least from any manifest determination obliging to submit unto nor found any thing more then either a full conviction of their not being conversant in those great Classick Authors Gerson Maior Almaine Johannes Parisiensis c. or the precedent or example of the Macchabees rebelling against Antiochus and the answer of the Procuratour to it in his little book entitled The More Ample Account this imperfectly related as ill considered and that worst of all applyed to maintain their affirmative resolve or a power in the Christian Church as purely such to inflict by force of Arms and by virtue of a Divine supernatural power corporal punishments upon any therefore and because too that none came ever after to own this second paper or demaund his rejoynder and moreover because themselves that sent it whoever they were did no longer insist upon it or any thing contain'd therein as shall be seen hereafter he lay'd it by as unsignificant for other purpose then to relate the folly of men that maugre all Christianity abuse themselves and others with such like silly and weak or false or only negative arguments For besides that if they had been pleased to consult Barclay the Father Son against Bellarmine and Widdrington's so many learned works against both the same Eminent Cardinal 's several books writt on this subject bearing either his own proper name or those of Tortus Sculkenius c as also against all the choycest arguments even of Cardinal Peron and so many others of the Society as Parsons and Gâ—etzer and fitz Herbert and Lessius personated under the name of Singleton or if they pleased to read what those other excellent Professors of Divinity of S. Benedicts Order Father Preston and Green apologized for themselves most learnedly to the Pope Gregory the XIIII they would have not only seen the vanity of their maxime of Statists or philosophers as here made use of or of Aristotle in particular so ill understood by them but that meaning of it or that the coercive power must be of the same kind with the directive to be that which was of a great number of most famous Classick Authors of the School besides that it was in all ages the doctrine of the Church and of even all the holy Fathers till Gregory the VII and that meaning also for what concerns our purpose deduced out of clear and evident Scriptures as those most famous Classick Authors perswaded themselves I say that besides all this if the authors of this Quaerie and second paper had considered a little their own allegations here and the arguments to the contrary they would find them partly false and partly unconcluding XXIX First they would find them false where they say that such as hold the negative can scarce produce one Classick Author c. and such as hold the affirmative may produce as many as ever wrote ex professo of this matter and if they mean only that Basilius Pontius sayes so they will find him too notoriously false if they please to consult Alensis Maior Gerson Almain Johannes Parisiensis c. not to speak a word of all or any of the holy Fathers nor of so many whole entire Vniversities nor of the common sense and practise of so many millions of the whole Catholick Church in all ages till Gregory the VII and after that believed and acknowledg'd themselves as a Church of Christ purely such to have no other coercion but
justice or such dispensation may be given without manifest injury to a third and besides where it is not repugnant to the law of God positive or natural And all this binding and loosing power in the Pope even in the whole Execution of it according to the Canons of the Vniversal Church and as farre as these Canons allow it as it is and will be religiously acknowledged and observed still by the Subscribers in all occasions so it is left wholly untouch'd unspoken of unmedled with but supposed still by the Remonstrance as a most Sacred Right not to be controverted much less denyed the Pope by any Catholick nor even to other Bishops of the Church for the portion belonging to them by the self same Canons But what hath this to do with the Lovain pretence of a power in the Pope to bind people by the Popes own peculiar laws Canons precepts or censures by Bulls or otherwise to do that which according to plain Scriptures practise of the primitive Church and Churches following for XI entire ages and according to the interpretation or sense delivered by Holy Fathers of those very Scriptures and according to the very first and clearest reflections also of natural reason must be vitious wicked and even most enormously wicked transgressions of those laws of God wherein neither Pope nor Vniversal Church have any power to dispense what to do with a pretended power in any to absolve from Subjection or command the Rebellion of Subjects against Soveraign Princes who are accountable to none for their temporals but to God Or what to do with binding or loosing to the prejudice and manifest injury not of one third person alone but of so many millions of third persons as there are people in a Kingdom or State This loosing is not of sin or of the penalties of sin but of virtue of Christian duties and divine injunctions Nor is such binding a binding to Holy righteousness but to Horrible depravedness And therefore both such binding and such loosing must be from no true power Divine or Humane from no Gospel of Jesus Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church nor from those Holy Keyes of knowledge or jurisdiction given St. Peter to open Heaven to penitents or shut it to impenitents nor from any Keyes at all but very false and errant Keyes if not right or true Keyes in this sense and to this purpose only that they set open the Gates of Hell first to receive all such unhappy Soules as make use of them and then to lock them in for ever Yet now that the Pope is and while he is or shall be continued a Soveraign temporal Prince in some part of Italy for the time hath been for many ages of Christianity even since Christian Religion was by law established when the Pope had no such not only Soveraign or supream but not even any inferiour subordinate temporal Princely power and may be so again for ought any man knows the Subscribers will freely grant the Lovain Divines That upon just grounds when truely such are or shall be the Pope may in the capacity of a temporal Prince but not of a Christian Bishop and may I say without any breach of the law of God declare and make Warr against the King of England always provided that he observe in all particulars what the law of God Nations and Nature require from him in the declaration or prosecution thereof And may do so with as much right as any other Soveraign Prince meerly temporal can but with no more certainly And further that the grounds of warr may possibly or in some extraordinary case be such on the Popes side as not only in the unerrable judgement of God but in the opinion of all men that shall know the grounds of both sides truely and sincerely stated the Warr may be just on the Popes side and unjust on the Kings The Subscribers do freely grant the Lovain Divines all this and all the advantages they can derive hence But what then must it follow that the subscribers have therefore sacrilegiously or against the sincerity of Catholick Religion declared in general or promised in their Remonstrance that they are ready to stand by the King and loose their lives in defence of his Person Rights or Crown or of his Kingdom State and people against all invaders whatsoever Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal c. forraign or domestick Or must this follow albeit we grant also the said promise or Declaration of standing so by the King to extend it self to or comprehend that very extraordinary case or contingency of our certain evident knowledg of the injustice of the Warr on the Kings side and clear Justice on the Popes Certainly neither the one nor other follows For albeit the case or supposition be rather metaphysically then morally possible that the generality of Subjects of either of the Princes or States in Warr together may evidently know or certainly assure themselves of the cleer Justice of the affailants fide at least so as to have no such kind of probability of any Justice on the defendants part and forasmuch as he is a Defendant yet admitting the case were morally possible who knows not that natural reason tells us and Divines and Lawyers teach that however the Prince both rashly and unjustly brings a Warr on himself and people yet both he and they are bound to hazard their lives each for others mutual defence that is for the defence of the Crown Kingdom State and Republick and for the lives liberties goods and fortunes of all that compose it though not for defence of any rashness or injustice So that although it be granted that both Prince and people are to quit all kind of unjust pretences yet their own natural defence or that of their goods lives and liberties as it comes not under that notion so it is unseparable from their taking armes in their own mutual defence in a meere defensive Warr or even that which happens after to be offensive before a good or Just peace can be obtained and is so I mean unseparable notwithstanding any injustice whatsoever done at first by Prince or people that brought the Warr upon themselves Be it therefore so that the Pope in such temporal capacity would make Warr on the King of England and be it granted for the present what otherwise in it self is very doubtful at least if not manifestly false That for the only unjust laws or only unjust execution of such or only other misgovernment or oppressions whatsoever of one King or Prince of his own proper natural undoubted Subjects without any injury done thereby to forraigners or any other forraign Kings Subjects or Prince or State such forraign Monarch or Common-wealth may justly declare and make Warr against him as for example the French or Spanish King and by the same reason the Pope also in his said temporal capacity against the King of England and be it clear and evident likewise that the
earthly Princes and in all criminal causes whatsoever LXIV And let the Reader be also himself Judge betwixt me and this most eminent Cardinal or his defenders the Divines of Lovaine of the strength or weakness of his second proof which is the only remaining of his arguments for a Position so temerarious I say so temerarious in as much as it exempts by any law whatsoever and specially by the positive law of God all Clerks from the supream civil coactive power of supream temporal Magistrates Princes or States and that too in meer temporal matters What I would therefore say further is 4. That the case is still clear enough on my side as to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture notwithstanding all or any of his allegations of Councils or Canons for himself in his said second proof and whereof only that proof consists I admit that the Council of Trent Ses 25 cap. 20. de Reformat speaks thus Eccelesia et personarum Ecclesiasticarum Immunitas Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus instituta est That the Council of Colen held a little before the Tridentine Synod speaks also thus par 9. c. 20. Immunitas Ecclesiastica vetustissima res est jure pariter divino et humano introducta quae in duobus potissimum sita est Primum ut Clerici eorumque possessiones à vectigalibus et tributis aliis que muneribus laicis libera sint Deinde ne rei criminis ad Ecclesiam confugientes inde extrahantur That the Council of Lateran held under Leo the X. and but a little too before that of Trent speaks further thus in the 9. Ses Cum a jure tam divino quam humani Laicis potestas nulla in Ecclesiasticas personas attributa sit innovamus omnes et singulas constitutiones c. That another of Lateran also under Innocent the III. hath this language cap. 43. Nimis de jure divino quidam Laici usurpare conantur viros Ecclesisiasticos nihil temporale obtinentes ab eis ad praestanda sibi fidelitatis juramenta compellunt That Boniface the VIII in cap. Quanquam de censibus in 6. speaks of Ecclesiastical Immunity as if it had been certainly granted to be of divine right That John the VIII also hath these words or expression can si Imperator dist 96. Non a legibus publicis non a potestatibus siculi sed a Pontificibus et sacerdotibus omnipotens Deus Christianae Religionis Clericos et sacerdotes voluit ordinari et discuti That Symmachus with his whole third Roman Synod long before John the VIII affirmed That solis sacerdotibus disponendi de rebus Ecclesiae indiscusse a Deo cura commissa est That finally Innocent the IV. though as Bellarmine himself confesses here not as Pope but as a particular Doctor in his Commentaries upon cap. 2. de majoritate et obedientia after he had taught that Clerks were by the Pope with the Emperours consent exempted from the Lay-power adds moreover that forasmuch as this kind of exemption seems not to be a plenary or full exemption therefore it must be said that Clerks have been exempted so by God himself I admit I say these Councils either Provincial or General as they are or as they are called such respectively and these Popes likewise have in the places quoted these expressions or this manner of speech where they have somewhat to enact or treat of concerning the exemption of Clerks and that consequently in these places they dog in general terms speak of that exemption in general so as to attribute it in part to Gods ordination as the Fathers of Trent or to the Divine right or law as those of Colen of both Laterans Boniface the VIII or to the will of God as Iohn the VIII and for what concerns to particular the disposing of the Goods of the Church Symmachus too in that his Roman Synod As for Innocent the IV. it matters not at all what he sayes on this subject in the place quoted being its confessed by Bellarmine himself that he writ these Commentaries before he was Pope and therefore in so much is but as another private Canonist of whom we are not bound to take notice where he brings no proof For we confess there is a number of such Canonists and some Divines too that without any ground in holy Scripture or Tradition hold with him in this point but whom therefore all other sound and great Divines who examine the matter throughly and strictly charge with errour both against express Scripture and Tradition But for these Councils either General or Provincial and for these Popes also who being Popes did speak so so all and every of whom we must observe that reverence due respectively to them the answers are 1. That none at all of these places or authorities alledged out of them are home enough to our present case or dispute of the exemption of Clergy-men by the positive law of God in holy Scripture from the supream civil co-active power of Kings or States Nor as much as one word hereof And therefore did we grant as we do not nor can by any means that these Councils or Popes intended by such expressions or by these or such other words Dei ordinatione jure divino omnipotens Deus voluit a Deo cura commissa est to signifie that such exemption of Clerks even in the whole height and latitude or sense of it in Bellarmines way had been ordained immediatly and expresly by God himself or by some express immediat positive law of his delivered unto us by Revelation and by the tenets of Catholick Faith to be by us believed yet should it not follow that therefore these Councils or Popes did signifie this positive law of God for it was or is in holy Scripture Because there may be positive laws of God come to us by Tradition though not a word of them in Scripture And because it is evident these authorities alledged have no distinction at all nor any intimation of Scripture 2. That being it is plain enough out of what is said before to Bellarmines arguments out of Scripture that these Councils or Popes could not pretend to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture and no less plain out of Bellarmine himself and others of his way that they could as little pretend to any such as delivered us by Tradition for himself doth not in all this matter as much as once pretend the least Tradition unless peradventure some body will misconster him or his second proof here and say he mean'd it as a proof of Tradition in the point which cannot be laid to his charge at all for he could not be so grosly overseen as to give us only such sayings of these late Councils of Trent Cullen Lateran or of these three Popes for a Catholick Tradition and we know very well and confess he makes other kind of arguments for any particular tenets being of Tradition arguments composed of
matters they should be subject to such Governours though in other matters which are spiritual these very same Governours be directed by them I am sure that however any do answer to this in point of reason he cannot make any good use of Bellarmines second argument here from his simile of the soul and body to answer it 3. For his third argument from the names or titles of Fathers and Sons Pastours or Sheepheards and Sheep we know very well that both scriptures and Fathers and sacred and prophane writers adorn also Kings and supream civil Magistrats with the same titles or names of Fathers and Pastours That as Bellarmine or others of his way understand a politick or temporal Father-hood and Pastour-ship by such denominations as given to the civil Magistrate so of all sides the same titles given to Churchmen must be understood onely of that Father-hood and Pastour-ship which is purely spiritual and consequently the titles of children or sheep given to all laymen as relating to such Fathers and such Pastours must import onely spiritual sheep and spiritual children or children onely and sheep onely in matters purely spiritual That as the King is properly Pater Patriae and Pastor Patriae in that sense which is proper to him so all persons whatsoever either civil or Ecclesiastical who acknowledg him their King and themselves his Subjects are in that same sense his children and his sheep That those words Fathers and Sons Pastors and sheep being Metaphorically or onely by a Metaphor applyed to both sorts of Rulers and ruled persons the temporal and spiritual the same words names or titles are as properly applyed or attributed in a politique sense or as designing or meaning a civil Father-hood Pastor-ship c. of government as they are to a meer spiritual That hence this learned Cardinal may see First his third argument very easily solved For if reason teach that children are bound to obey their parents c and the sheep to be directed by their Pastors and consequently neither Parents nor Pastors to be subject to but exempt from the power of their children and sheep reason also teacheth that although we admitted this without any distinction when the parents and children and Pastors and sheep are such not by a metaphor but by nature that is when they are natural parents natural children natural pastors and natural sheep yet when they are such onely by metaphor or by a metaphorical kind of speech that is onely by some kind of similitude as in our case on both sides then it must be granted of necessity that the children are onely bound to obey wherein they are children and the sheep to be directed onely wherein they are sheep and consequently the parents and pastors exempted from their such respective children and sheep onely wherein they are such parents and pastors and not in other cases or matters I say that reason teaches all this and even Bellarmine himself must confess all this or certainly confess that which he would more unwillingly and plainly too against his own very first position of the Immunity of Ecclesiasticks or their exemption I mean from the lay power in Ecclesiastical or spiritual matters For the supream lay Magistrats Kings and Emperours are the politick civil Fathers and pastors of all the Common-wealth and even of all their respective Subjects aswell Clerks as Layeicks and no less properly called Fathers and pastors then the Priests Bishops or Popes themselves are so called being that neither King or Pope are so indeed but in a certain sense though different sense each of them and both onely called so by a metaphor and by some kind of similitude and in some things onely to a natural Father and natural sheep-heard and being this similitude is at least as great apt and obvious to nature in the government of Princes as in that of Priests Secondly he may see it retorted thus For if metaphorical children be subject to their metaphorical parents in all things wherein the one are such parents and the other such children and if metaphorical sheep be subject to and are to be directed by their metaphorical pastors then must it follow that in all worldly or temporal affairs in all civil and criminal causes c. all Clerks Priests and Bishops are subject to and consequently not exempted from the supream civil politick worldly temporal Father and pastor of the Common-wealth For as they are still Cittizens and members of the Common-wealth notwithstanding their special function and as they are still subjects and acknowledg the temporal King that rules temporally the Common-wealth to be even their own King alwayes for so doth Bellarmine himself confess notwithstanding the plain contradiction so must it be consequent that they must alway too acknowledg themselves metaphorically or in all such temporal respects his children and his sheep Thirdly he may see in this metaphorical argument his assumption or antecedent partly false and partly unconcluding False where he sayes or supposes at least and must suppose if he will conclude any thing that natural children are generally bound to obey their natural parents in all things and at all times both during their being minors and after and that natural parents cannot be subject to their own natural children in any respect or at any time For the contrary is evident in the doctrine of all Divines and Lawyers and by the practice of all Countries and ages or that even I mean in all things otherwise onely indifferent natural children being once come to lawful years are not bound to obey their very natural parents not even in the state of their life of marrying or living single entring Religion or not taking to this or that trade dispensing so or so of goods acquired by their own industry and a thousand such like And that also the natural parents may be bound in some cases and some times to obey their own natural children and in such to be not exempt from but subject to them As for example in all matters relating to the publick when natural children are made publick Officers or Governours of Kingdoms Provinces or even of particular Towns or Citties c. Unconcluding where he assumes for a proof of his purpose That according to nature natural sheep must be directed and govern'd by their sheepheard in all cases not he by them in any case For albeit this be simply true without any kind of distinction yet it is therefore onely true so universally because such sheep are by nature meer natural Beasts without any reason at all without discourse in any case and their sheepheard in all cases a rational Creature and as to them at least capable of some knowledg discourse and foresight of what may be for their good or hurt Now to conclude hence that men of reason because they are said to be or are indeed metaphorical sheep in order to some other men and but so in some respects or cases onely though withal truly and properly metaphorical
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
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
as holy a Pope as Gregotius Magnus torments our Adversaries extreamly And therefore they leave no stone unremoved to elude it though with ridiculous answers Wherein as in a matter of so much gravity Cardinal Baronius took more pains then any other Which is the cause that I insert this great Annalist'e whole dispute of this matter Sed amabo te hic pie lector sayes he in his 8. tome ad an 593. n. 16. siste gradum Etenim ni fallor dum haec audisti te admiratum vidi subiudignatum obduxisse supercilia eo quòd abiectè nimis visus sit tibi loquutus S. Gregorius dum praeter alia tum in epistola ad Mauritium tum in ista ad Theodorum data quodammodo professus appareat sacerdotes a Deo subjectos esse Imperatori verbis illis imprimis cum ait ex persona Christi sacerdotes meâ—s tuae manui commisi de Imperatore ad Theodorum Ei omnia tribuit deminari cum non solum militibus sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit But I for my own part here desire Baronius himself to hold himself a little and consider well whether he that reading those passages of Gregory's humility subjection and obedience to the Emperour would be troubled at them and angry with him should not rather be angry with Paul nay and troubled at the very words and deeds too of Christ himself In earnest according to my judgment there is no rational pious and learned Catholick but should be rather troubled at and angry with Baronius himself for his interpretation so remote from all piety so frivolous and unskilfull too where he draws and wrests and forces S. Gregory to vain and we l-nigh impious senses But let us heare the rest of his Praeltidium At haec Novatores non vt tu maerentes accipiunt sed hilari vultu exultantes inâ—o insultantes quasi irrefragabile nacti sint testimonium viri Sanctissimi atque doctissimi cui nefas sit contradici qui docentis Cathedram cum ascenderit tum apertis verbis videatur esse testatus subjectum a Deo Imperatori Sacerdotium esse ut non nisi contumelia tanti Patris id negari astrui contrarium videri possit nempe ipsum hallucinatum non vera loquutum vel saltem Imperatori turpitee idulatum But verily in this part of his praeludium our eminent Annalist is much deceived where he most improperly and inconsiderately sayes that Gregory seems to admit the Priesthood it self to have been subjected by God to the Emperour For Gregory sayes not that the Priesthood was committed granted or subjected to the Emperour but the Priests Which are different things being that must have been very falsely and this no less truly and without any kind of flattery said And yet Baronius goes on to trifle thus Sed larvis istis absterreant Novatores ipsi infantes clamoribus istijusm di fueris pavorem incutiant non tibi Lector si bene nostivim Sanctionum Ecclesiasticarum atque traditionum robur fortitudinem doctrinae Patrum sed ridâ—bis nobiscum insultantium impudentiam imprudentiam What those Novators and Usurpers who have departed from us and whom he perstringeth here do say as I valew not so is it not to my present purpose to disprove or approve as such but what some Veterators that is some old cunning deceivers amongst our selves have without sufficient reason or authority imposed on the world is that I ought in this place and do take notice of T is truth I love and enquire after Nor will I suffer my self to be startled with those childish bugbears of Baronius For I have without any peradventure shewd already and shall yet further not onely out of Ecclesiastical Sanctions and doctrine of the Fathers abundantly given in the very last Section but also out of plain Canonical Scripture and natural Reason as you have also already seen shall yet further as to some particulars that in Baronius as to our present matter and in this very passage of his no less then in many others dispersed throughout his Annals there is much either of knowledg or certainly of candour nay and of prudence and modesty desired For thus he writes ibid. num 17. Dum nulla habetur ratio rerum gestarum temporum id efficitur ut frustica isti insultent vel timeant pavidè At cum accuratè cuncta perspêcta habuerint planè intelligent S. Gregorium acerrimum fuisse vindicem Pontificiae aestimationis assertorem immunitatis Ecclesiasticae And then he goes on adding Haec ut omnes percipiant inprimis meminisse oportet quae superius dicta sunt quantum idem Gregorius deploravit hoec infaelicissima tempora quibus licet sub Imperatore Catholico ipsa tamen Ecclesia fuerit non secus ac sub Nerone Dioclesiano captiva To the former I say I could heartily wish that many Roman Pontiffs after Gregory's most holy Pontificat had more regarded the glory of Christ and propagation of his Church then the vain oftentation of worldly power and pompe in the Papacy and Ecclesiastical Immunity And to the later that he exaggerats the matter very little piously and less prudently devesting himself as t is his manner often of all modesty nay and of all conscience too whereas it is certain that Mauritius never as much as attempted or intended any persecution of the Faith or of the Faithfull nay and that he had deserved very well both of the Faith and of the Faithfull Evagr. l. 6. c. 20.21 Gregor l. 2. indic XI ep 64. l. 9. ep 40. indic 4. l. 8. ep 2. indic 3. Nicephor l. 18. c. 42. being therefore as was supposed protected by God in many occasions especially in his expedition against the Persians Nor could the most eminent Baronius though indeed too too audacious a censor or rather a very Scourge in his writings of so many otherwise no less famous and glorious then Catholick and pious Emperours bring any thing which might so denigrate the same and esteeme of so great and to Catholick an Emperour as might deserve to have him compaâ—ed to Nero and Dioclesian albeit I confess he was reprehensible and but in that onely without any excuse or good or just pretence that he would not by a sum of Gold redeem some thousands of his own souldiers whom Chaianus the Avar whose prisoners of warr they were did therefore kill every man Theoâ—hanes in Miscella apud Baron tom 8. an 600. num 8. But let us heare this mosr eminent Cardinal Annalist himself proceed Revâ—canda sayes he hic tibi sunt in memoriam quod rerum sic exigat argumentum quae idem S. Gregorius de his habeat jam a nobis anno primo ejus Pontificatus superius recitata Vbi inter alia Gregor in Psalm paenit 5. Concitavit enim Diabolus scilicet aduersus Ecclesiam Dei nâ—n sâ—lum innumerabilem populi multitudinem verùm etiam regiam si fas est
est auferatur fratremque nostrum Paulum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae Episcopum Regali authoritate vt nobiscum id est cum omni generalitate orthodoxé sapere debeat coarctare degnemini Concil Lateran consult 2. sub Martino 1. they desire the Emperour that by his legal authority and by corporal coercion he force him who not onely was a Priest not onely a Bishop but in the highest degree of the Hierarchy ordained by humane constitution or by the canons of the Church even the very Patriarch of Constantinople For a ninth canon that which is in the Ninth Council of Toledo cap. 1. may very well and properly serve where the Fathers acknowledging this supream coercive power of Clerks in Princes ordain thus against Clerks that defraud the community or the Church of the oblations intended in common for the Church Vt si sacerdotem seu ministrum aliquid ex collatis rebus praeviderint defraudare aut commonitionis honestae conventione compescant aut Episcopo vel Iudici corrigenda denuntient Quod si talia Episcopus agere tentet Metropolitano ejus haec insinuare procurent Si autem Metropolitanus talia gerat Regis haec auribus intimare non differant Where you see this ancient Council of Spanish and very orthodox Bishops ordaining that the excesses of Ecclesiastical persons of Priests Bishops and Metrapolitanes be in the last place or when no remedy is applyed by the Bishops or Metropolitanes themselves complained of to the King to be questionless by him and by his regal authority corrected and coerced Tenth and last of those canons I pitch upon and restraine my self unto here is a canon of the Synod of Ravenna convoked by Iohn the ninth Pope of that name about the nine hundredth year of Christ For in this Council Lambertus the Emperour being himself there in person and at some variance with that Pope who who was likewise present in his own person amongst his Capitula or heads which he proposed to the Council and as to be admitted by the Pope and Council proposed in the first place of all this Si quis Romanus cujuscumque sit ordinis sive de clero sive de Senatu seu de quocumque ordine gratis ad nostram Imperialem Majestatem venire voluerit aut necessitate compulsus ad nos voluerit proclamare nullus ei contradicere praesumat Donec liceat Imperatoriae Potestati eorum causas aut personas aut per Missos nostros deliberare Which capitulum was assented unto and ratified by the Fathers and made a conciliary Act and therefore too a Canon of that Council and all this done so solemnly and even in the sight and with the approbation also and consent of the very Roman Pontiff himself there in person present to the end it might appear to the world that after the more directly spiritual or purely Ecclesiastical Canons had been ended by the Fathers the Emperour would by this particular Canon of another nature have it declared that he preserved still entire his own right of judging the very Clergy of Rome it self as an Emperour and in all matters whatsoever belonging to his imperial cognizance and consequently still preserved intire his own imperial coercive power of criminal Clerks or that of punishing them civilly corporally if or when their delinquencies or crimes or the preventing of such crimes for the future in others required such punishments To conclude this Section of Canons I must give some few and brief advertisements to the Reader concerning them and my purpose in alledging them 1. That I alledge them not as causes or as grounds or springs of such authority in secular Princes but only as testimonies of the sense of the Fathers who made them and for those ages wherein they were made that there was by and from a superiour power such a previous original proper essential independent right in supream secular Princes and that for the more certain more demonstrative proofs of such a right in Princes I relye not somuch on any express Canons of either Popes or Councils as upon those plain texts of holy Scripture and those other so plain and so express of all the holy Fathers generally who in their other writings that are not Papal or conciliary Canons commented upon the same Scriptures and besides these two arguments of Scripture and Tradition which I have before given at length in three Sections for I make that of my Instances of practise part of the argument of Tradition that I do also very much relye upon those other evidences of natural reason which you may turn to Sect. LXXII 2. That although for these Canons which are only Papal that is those which are made or issued by the sole authority of one or more Popes without a Council I pretend them not to be of equal authority with such as had the consent of a Council nor hold those meer Papal Canons or any other in Gratian to be properly and strictly the Canons of the Church being these are such as were made at first or approved at last by a general Council or otherwise introduced by universal consent or custome albeit others too may be Canons for the occidental Church apart or apart for the oriental yet as to my present purpose meer Papal Canons may be justly presumed to be most sufficient testimonies because against the Popes themselves or against the present exemption of Popes by divine right and their pretended power also by any right whatsoever to exempt others I mean still out of their own dominions or those wherein they are themselves at present supream temporal Princes 3. That in my interpretations of those Canons or in my conclusions derived or intended from them I do not tye my self either to Gratian whom I confess to have seen many or most or perhaps all of them or to any of his Glossatours if indeed Gratian himself how otherwise great and earnest soever a Hiero Monarchist or Zealot for and assertor of the Roman and Papal Hieromonarchy interpret conclude or say any thing at all point blanck either directly or indirectly or consequentially or virtually against my interpretations or conclusions here out of these Canons or against my assertions all along of the supream royal coercive power of criminal Clerks For truly he may be very well understood without any such meaning xi q. 1. where he had most occasion to deliver himself as of purpose treating there of the proper Judicatory of Clerks Because that forasmuch as of this matter he treats only according to the Canons of the Church and priviledges given by Emperours and that I have shewed and proved already elsewhere in my LXIX Section â—e brings neither an Imperial constitution nor allowed Church canon nor as much as any true or certain though meer Papal Canon which maâ—y be home enough against my assertion of such an absolute independent supream coercive power in Kings and that also in his last Paragraph which begins thus as even his former doth
the said supream power or understood in or by any priviledge of exemption unless it be so expresly specifically or determinatly said by clear words in such priviledge and lastly I have before demonstrated that no such priviledge or any with such words nor any canon or even any other testimony for such a priviledge or such words hath ever yet been alledg'd by any of all our Adversaries LXXVI The few remaining Objections are now to be considered and solved according to my promise and method prescribed to my self in my LXXI Section I call them remaining not that I left any of Bellarmine's arguments unanswered or unresolved where I treated against them of purpose in eight long Sections viz. from my LXIII to my LXX Section both inclusively taken but that I met elsewhere with these objections I am to examine here now or that they occurred to my self and that I have not yet of purpose cleared or sifted them in particular and that they are indeed the only which I conceive to remain as yet so of purpose particularly unresolved albeit I doubt not they are in general or by the general grounds I have laid and proved already in so many former passages and by the general solutions and reasons I have given against Bellarmines arguments sufficiently resolved However that I may leave no place at all for cavil I descend to these also in particular Whereof there are four in all The first is composed of three several Scripture Texts of St. Paul himself For this great Apostle sayes expresly 1 Cor. 10.6 that he himself had a present power to take revenge of or to punish all disobedience In promptu habentes sayes he ulcisci inobedientiam And 1. Cor. 4.21 he puts the question thus to the Corinthians Quid vultis in vïrga veniam ad vos what will you have me come in or with a rod to you And 1. Timoth 5.19 he commands Timothy that against a Presbyter he shall not receive any accusation that hath less then two or three witnesses to make it good Accusationem adversus presbyterum nolï recipere nisi sub duobus aut tribus testibus And several more such peradventure may be added Out of all which the inference must be if any at all be made against me to purpose how unjustly or ungroundedly soever that herein St. Paul contradicts himself and his own command to all souls Rom. 13. or certainly that I have all along hitherto affixed that sense to this command of Paul omnis anima c. Rom. 13. which Paul never had But the answer is very facile and solution obvious viz. that all these three texts and other such in Paul or other Apostle Evangelist or Prophet if any such other places be of him or of any of them are certainly and onely understood of the Ecclesiastical or Spiritual power of Paul and of other Church Superiours and only of meer Ecclesiastical purely such both judgments and punishments denounced or pronounced by vertue of that spiritual power In which manner and by which power it was that Paul without any doubt could deliver and did deliver some disobedient scandalous and exorbitant sinners to Sathan 1. Corinth 5.5 Now that this answer is unquestionably well grounded nor ought to be at all contradicted I need not repeat again what I have so at large produced before out of the holy Fathers generally acknowledging no other power in the Church but purely spiritual not even in the very Apostles themselves who founded the Church And as little do I need repeat those other texts of Paul Rom. 13. or what I said before upon them which is that they can have no kind of sense at all but meer contradictory nonsense if Paul did not mean by them certainly that the very Church and Church Superiours were not exempt in temporal matters from the secular Princes but subject to them in all such even as to civil coercion by the material sword and consequently if he did not mean that the Church as such had no civil corporal or temporal coercive power properly such but only and meerly spiritual or that of Ecclesiastical Censures only properly and strictly such Yet I will not upon this new occasion forbear to mind thee good Reader once more of that canon of Caelestinus III. cap. cum non ab homine de judiciis Which I have given also at large in my last Section immediatly before this present and which onely is enough to justifie in all points my solution here of this first remaining objection Caelestine there expresly declares that the â—hurch hath no power at all not even over the meerest Clerk but that which is purely spiritual by meer Church censures of suspension deposition excommunication degradation and that after pronounceing such censures she hath no more to do but to implore the secular civil power Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat sayes the said Caelestine Which being so who sees not the vanity of this first remaining objection Or who sees not that such a spiritual power in Paul Timothy and other Church Superiours can very well stand with their own subjection and with the subjection also of all their flock whether disobedient or obedient to the civil power of the civil Magistrat in all things and in such manner as is proper to the same civil Magistrat or finally who sees not but that one may have a power to punish with one certain kind of punishment and not with an other The second remaining objection is of S. Ambrose or of his having proceeded judicially and authoritatively to condemn or free a certain Virgin votress accused of whoredom and of his having renewed the judgment of this fact upon an appeal to him and even renewed it against a former judgment pronounced by Syagrius Bishop of Verona Ambrosius l. 1. ep 64. But the answer is as easy and obvious to this also and is that Ambrose sate in judgment on this crime not as intending or pretending to punish it with any civil corporal punishment nor as pretending any Church power properly such to pronounce any sentence obliging to such punishments but as intending onely a meer Ecclesiastical Episcopal and spiritual cognizance and in order onely to a meer spiritual punishment correction and amendment of the accused if she had been found guilty of the crime that is in order onely to a spiritual ejection and spiritual excommunication of her out of the Church until she had by fruitfull and exemplar repentance merited to be readmitted again into the Church Which appears hence also that Ambrose when he had heard all throughly absolved this Virgin as unjustly accused and excommunicated her accusers The third remaining objection is that this doctrine of a supream coercive power in supream temporal Princes to punish criminal Bishops Priests and other Clergiemen is and was the doctrine of Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno both of them condemned as hereticks and this doctrine of theirs condemn'd likewise as an
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
great strictness in his own way I mean according to the judgment of the Prelats and Nobles of that Assembly at Paris But for a judgment also given of purpose on that whole controversie and given by a contemporary Historian a Catholick by religion a Monk by profession and writer of very good repute Gulielmus Neubrigensis and a judgment given by him of this matter even after Thomas had been both martyrized and canonized you have it in his third Book cap. 16. and in these words Sane cum plerique soleant in iis quos amant laudant affectu quidem propensiori sed prudentia parciori quicquid ab iis geritur approbaâ—e planè ego in viro illo venerabili ea quae ita ab ipso acta sunt ut nulla exinde proveniret utilitas sed feruor tantum accenderetur Regius ex quo tot mala post modum pullulasse noscuntur laudanda nequaquam censuerim licet ex laudabili zelo processerint sicut nec in Beatissimo Apostolorum Principe arcem jam Apostolicae perfectionis tenente quod geâ—tes suo exemplo Judaizare coegit in quo eum Doctor gentium reprehensibilem deciatat fuisse licet eum constat laudabili hoc pietate fecisse Third reason That he might possibly be imbued with the doctrine which was growing then of the exemption of Clergiemen either by divine immediate right of the positive or even natural law of God or by that which is pretended to be mediatly divine and immediatly canonical or humane from the Canons of the Church or at least from the bad or false interpretation of those Canons or by some prescription and will and power of those Popes who so mightily in his dayes and for almost a whole age before his dayes immediatly and continually contested with the very Emperours themselves and all other Bishops for both the spiritual and temporal soveraignty of the world and this too by a pretence of divine right And that we must not wonder that even on so great a Saint as Saint Thomas of Canterbury himself the authority of the first Apostolick See and the numbers of her admirers adorers and followers then in what quarrel soever and the specious pretence of piety in the cause and education in such principles or amongst such people should work a strong pre-possession of zeale as for the cause of God being it was reputed the cause of the Church however that according to the veritie of things or true laws divine or humane as in themselves nakedly or abstractedly it might peradventure not have either the cause of God or the cause of the Church Fourth reason and it is a confirmation that is a very probable argument though nor perhaps throughly or rigidly demonstrative of the truth of the Third That in the speech or words of St Thomas of Canterbury in the time of his banishment to his King Henry the Second at Chinun which Honeden ad an 1165. calls Verba Beati Thomae Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun we find this sentence of his Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere c. Wherein I am certain this holy Bishop was point blanck contrary to the sense of ten thousand other holy Bishops before him in the more primitive ages of the Church and contrary to plain Scripture and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for at least the ten first and best ages of Christianity Fift reason That it is not so clear in all respects that those sixteen heads of customs passed not legally and long before the Saints death into a just municipal law of the land or of England notwithstanding that St. Thomas denyed and even justly too denyed his own hand and seale or even justly also retracted his own former consent by oath yea and notwithstanding that it was meerly out of fear that the rest of the Bishop did at first consent or gave their own consent by oath likewise For it may be said first and said also upon very probable grounds out of the several ancient Catholick and even Ecclesiastick Historians who writ of purpose of those dayes and matters that they all freely after consented And secondly it may be said that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament having the consent royal whether one Bishop or moe peradventure or even all the Bishops dissent And thirdly yet iâ— may be said that all laws most commonly or at least too often may be called in question upon that ground of fear of the Prince Sixt and last reason That we must rather give any answer that involves not heresie or manifest errour in the Catholick Faith or natural reason obvious to every man then allow or justifie the particular actions or contests or doctrine of any one Bishop or Pope how great or holy soever otherwise or even of many such or of all their partakers in such against both holy Scriptures plain enough in the case and the holy Fathers generally for the ten first ages in their explications of such Scriptures and consequently against that universal Tradition which must of necessity be allowed Nihil enim innovandum sed quod traditum est observandum Behold here six reasons which taken at least altogether may justifie my giving the two last Answers or my adding them to the other two former As for the rest I leave it to the Readers choice which of all four he will fix on though I my self and for my own part and out of a greater reverence to the Saint himself and to the Pope that canonized him or to that Pope I mean in as much as he canonized him for a martyr in such a cause if he did so or intended so taking the name of martyr properly and strictly whereof what we read in our very Breviary of the cause for which the Pope sayes he suffered may perhaps give some occasion of scruple being it is there said of those Laws of Henry the Second and only said that they were leges utilitati ac dignitati Ordinis Ecclesiastici repugnantes but not said that they were laws against the laws of God though I say I could wish for these reasons that all my Readers did fix as I do my self rather on the first and second Answer then on the two last But on which soever of all four they six I am confident none may infer that they or I question Thomas of Canterbury's sanctity in this world either in his life or at his death or his glory in heaven after his death or question the Bull of of his canonization or question the holy practice of the Catholick Church in her veneration or invocation or finally question as much as those miracles which I suppose were sufficiently proved in the process form'd for his canonization or even those which as wrought after that time at his Tomb or elsewhere are alledg'd upon sufficient grounds if any such be so alledg'd Though I cannot here
Catholicks of those two Nations containing only such matter and to alledge as the cause or as a cause of such condemnation and censure and alledge it also in plain terms That it the said Instrument contain'd some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion What can I say be more rash false injurious and scandalous than to say so of such a matter if it be not so at all if there be no kind of true ground for saying that it is so And that it is not so at all or that the Remonstrance contains not either formally or virtually and consequentially as much as any one thing or part of a thing if such part may be repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion appears hence evidently That neither in its Acknowledgments Confessions Promises Disclaimings Renouncings Declarations Professions Protestations Abhorrencies Detestations nor in its final resignation in the Petitionary Address nor in any other clause or word if there be any other as indeed there is not but what belongs to these heads now repeated there is not as much as a syllable which by any kind of true either Grammatical or Theological or as much as seeming or likely construction imports any more in effect than first a bare Acknowledgment of the Supreme Temporal power of these Dominions of England Ireland Scotland c. and of all persons whatsoever Laymen or Clergymen living within them to be in our gracious Sovereign Charles the Second to have been in His lawful Predecessors and hereafter to be a so in His lawful Successors as likewise a bare acknowledgment of the like Supreme power under God to be in other Princes and Supreme Magistrates within their own respective Dominions And next an express or tacite promise to observe and obey and continue Loyal or Faithful in all Civil and Temporal matters to that self-same Supreme Temporal power of our gracious King yea notwithstanding any Doctrine to the contrary or even any Attempt by any other power whatsoever Temporal or Spiritual to force them or draw them from their Allegiance or Obedience to King Charles in meer Civil and Temporal Affairs For I have already and abundantly too demonstrated where I before Treated against the four grounds of the Louain Divines and more especially where I Treated against their fourth That it is so far from being against the sincere profession of Catholick Religion to assert or promise any such thing that it is on the contrary even revealed and declared positively and expresly and clearly by God himself in several places of Holy Scripture and yet more particularly in St. Paul's Epistle and by the mouth and pen of this great Apostle That all Supreme Temporal power is in the Supreme Temporal Princes and States over all their own respective Subjects as well Ecclesiasticks as Laicks And consequently that in all Temporal matters Allegiance and Faith and Obedience is due to such their power and ought to be paid and performed to them not only for fear of their Anger and Sword but for Conscience and fear of Damnation as St. Paul most expresly declares in formal words 13 ad Rom. And moreover that all this Doctrine hath been so as here delivered by universal Tradition for almost eleven entire Ages of Christian Religion all along till Gregory the Seventh usurped unto himself the Temporal power of the Empire as belonging to him by Divine Right All which being so as certainly it is so I frame thus my Argument Syllogistically against both the said Causes or Reasons supposed and expresly inserted in this second or short Censure of the Louain Faculty Theological as the only Reasons given therein wherefore they censure our Remonstrance and censure it so heavily and grievously or with such odious epithets as these unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. Whatsoever Vniversity or other Censure taxes judges or condemns any Remonstrance that contains only in effect or both in word and sense a bare Acknowledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal Natural Civil and Political power of the Sword as is hitherto said in the Supreme Lay Magistrate Prince or State and withall a promise only of such obedience as before is said in meer Civil and Temporal Affairs to that Power or that Magistrate according to the Laws of the Land I say that whatever Censure taxes judges or condemns such a Remonstrance to be utterly unlawful detestable and sacrilegious viz. upon account supposition or pretence That it contains a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make to them and that moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion Every such University or other Censure whatsoever I say must be rash against Prudence false against Truth injurious against Justice and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity But the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 61. 62. is such or is a University Censure of a Remonstrance that contains only in effect or both in word and sense a bare Acknowledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal Natural Civil and Political power c. and withall a promise only of such obedience c. and yet taxes judges and condemns such a Remonstrance to be unlawful c. viz. upon account supposition c. Ergo the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 1661. and 1662. must be rash against Prudence false against Truth injurious against Justice and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity And indeed the Major of this Syllogism ought at least among such Christian Divines as are men of Reason to be reputed of the nature of those Propositions which are called Propositiones per se notae if or as far as any such may be in Christian Philosophy or Divine Science of Christians For this tells us manifestly and evidently according to that evidence which Christian Religion is capable of That all such Censures as are against other at least Christian men and so great also and numerous a Body of other Christian men and are against them upon such an account only that is for maintaining such a power in the Supreme Civil Magistrate and such obedience due from the Subjects as are both revealed in the very written Word of God himself in holy Scripture and so constantly and universally delivered by Tradition and no less approved and confirmed even by pure natural Reason and so I mean revealed delivered approved and confirmed as I have already in my Disputes against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines proved that power and that obedience to have been I say that Christian Philosophy tells us manifestly and evidently that all such Censures must be so as I have said and even notoriously too rash false injurious and scandalous Rash against Prudence because heady foolishly bold and wholly inconsiderate against the Rules of that even humane Providence or of that right
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
but many of their Superiours amongst them had also discountenanced nay to their power even vexed and persecuted such of their underlings who had signed it and moreover had understood all the other practices of their Agents beyond Seas how I say notwithstanding all this the said Lord Lieutenant had hitherto and for their sakes who signâ—d most patiently expected an amendment of such errours in the rest and in the mean time extended even to the most ungrateful of the Dissentors and opposers all those very favours of Indulgence and connivance of Publick exercise of Religion which the Subscribers enjoy And how the Procurator himself had no way lessened his Zeal to endeavour by all means he could the continuance of those favours even to the very most ungrateful and malicious of his Adversaries in the grand contest Sixth reflected on the great variety of pretences which the dissenting both Superiours and Inferiours pleaded for so many years to excuse their non-concurrence and amongst or rather above all other excuses their desire and expectation of Licence for a National Assembly to consult of the equity of the demand See those either pretences or true cause Tract 1. Part. 1. Sect. 9. from Page 21. to Pag. 27. Where you find the Sixteenth of them to be this of a National Congregation desired Seventh was wholly taken up in the Merits of the main matter in controversie or the only chief end of their meeting viz. the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof And here the Procurator shewâ—d and at large dilated upon the Lawfulness and Orthodoxness of it in point of Conscience and both Christian and Catholick Religion even I mean as to those very causes of the said Remonstrance which was the Rock of Scandal because denying and renouncing all and every the branches and appendages of the pretended Papal Authority either by Divine or Human Right to depose the King c. or dispence with or declare against the Allegiance of Subjects or by Excommunication or otherwise to raise them to a Rebellion against His Majesty c. His Arguments against any such Papal Power and consequently for the said Lawfulness and Orthodoxness he derived evidently 1. From so many plain Declarations and express commands of Holy Scripture 2. From the unanimous consent of Holy Fathers interpreting those passages of Holy Scripture so and not otherwise for a whole Thousand years until Gregory the VII's Pontificat 3. From the Practice also as well as Theory of the Christian Church Universally for those ten whole centuries of years and consequently even from true Catholick Tradition 4. From the general opposition made even in all European Nations Kingdoms States Schools Universities and National Churches to the contrary positions even also in every age since the said Gregorie's days until this very present 5. Particularly from the known Assertions of the Gallican Church and Decisions too of the eight present Universities of France all unanimously condemning those self same contrary positions as impious wicked against the Word of God Heretical and more singularly yet from the six late Declarations of Sorbon May 8. 1663. Not to mention how Cardinal Perron by his fine circumventing speech in the general Assembly of the Three Estates of that Kingdom after the Murder of Henry Le Grand only endeavour'd these Positions should not be declared in formal Words Heretical 6. From the Practice of the Parliaments of Paris and Sicilian Monarchy too 7. From the Statuts of Provisors and Praemunire made so many Hundred years since by the Roman-Catholick Kings and Parliaments of England and Ireland even all the Lords Spiritual assenting especially those Statutes under Edward the III. and Richard the II. which declare the Crown of those Kingdoms to be Imperial and subject to none but God only 8. From the eminency and multitude of most learned Roman Catholick Writers even Scholasticks who all along these 600 years have in every Age expresly condemned and even both specifically and abundantly confuted those vain and wicked pretences set on foot first by Hildebrand 9. From the pitiful silliness unsignificancy and absurdity of all Bellarmin's Arguments for the other side arguments proving either nothing at all or certainly that which neither himself nor any not even of his very beloved Popes themselves would allow 10. And Lastly from the clearness of Natural Reason also in the cases and that I mean too whether the Revelations of Christianity be presupposed or no. From all such Topicks of convincing Reason and Authority I mean as well Divine as Human the Procurator deduced his own arguments for the above Lawfulness and Orthodoxness viz. of the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof notwithstanding any Bugbear of Roman Letters or Louain Censures to the contrary The eighth advanced hence to the consequential both expediency and necessity of their unanimous cheerful Subscription without further delay or regret being there was no other way or means to redeem themselves or their Church or to satisfie or appease the King or his Protestant People for what had been so publickly and vehemently acted in former times partly by them or at least many of them and partly by the rest of the Irish Clergy represented by them and acted even all along either in or immediatly after the very first Rebellion of the Irish Nation in October 1641. and in the unhappy Congregation of Waterford Anno 1641 against the first Peace and further in the year 1648 against the Cessation with Inchiquin and for the Censures of the Nuncio Lastly in the year 1650. and most unhappy Congregation of Jamestown against the second Peace no other way truly in the first place but of humble Submissive Penitential Petition begging pardon for so many former grievous Errors against all Laws Divine and Human. Nor indeed any other in the next place to allay the just suspicions and jealousies of their future demeanour but that of a sincere hearty Loyal Recognition of His Majesties Supream Temporal Independent Power Protestation of Obedience and Fidelity according to the Laws of the Land in all Temporal matters and all contingencies whatsoever and Renunciation also of all pretended Powers and false Doctrines to the contrary The Ninth was the conclusion of all in wishes and Prayers beseeching the Fathers by all that should be dear or Sacred to them to consider That nothing was desired or expected from them in either point but what certainly was more consonant to pure Christianity i. e. to the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ and therefore doubtless more holy than the contrary was or could possibly be 2. The sad fate which had perpetually and universally attended all Rebellions of those of their Religion however at so many several times and places entred into either in England Ireland or Scotland since the first separation under Henry the Eighth 3. Whether wise men ought not even in point of Prudence not only bid at last an eternal adieu to such both Principles and Practices as proved at all times and in all Countries
on ill terms that very year 1663 as it was likewise most certainly known That the University of Paris headed by the Archbishop of the same City went in body and May 8. 1663 presented to his said Majesty the foresaid Six Declarations against the pretended Authority of Popes Which was in Substance what I then answered the Primat who had not a word more to reply but sate down and was silent To Father Nettervil whose confidence or rather want of ingenuity and candor in making in such a Consistory in Publick an objection so notoriously false and even to all Divines who had been any way conversant in the question or in Histories or in other Authors that treated of it at any time in the succession of so many Ages since Gregory the VII commonly known to be notoriously false I much more admired than the Primats because this Father I knew to be not only a Noblemans Son but also as he was for Elocution truly one of the best Speakers in that whole Congregation so he had amongst his own Society the repute of a great Divine as having been both by Title a Doctor and by Office too for some years an actual Professor i. e. Teacher of Divinity in one of their Colledges in France I answered 1. That I could not sufficiently admire his little regard not only of truth but of himself or his own credit when in such an Assembly where there could not be wanting some at least indifferently Knowing Learned and Ingenuous men he durst venture to take an exception so notoriously false against my discourse 2. That he needed not go far to see himself manifestly convinced but open the Books there in that very Room prepared for the conjunction of all such and whatever other false exceptions obiections allegations or arguments of any Dissenters 3. That he might see there in Father Carons both English Loyalty Asserted and Latin Remonstrantia Hibernorum above 250 Roman Catholick Authors who had never been either Schysmaticks or Poets and might see them declaring constantly for that Doctrin which he said was Patronized only by one Schysmatick Historian and one Italian Poet and might see amongst them many even Classical Schoolmen Doctors and Divines of the very first rank and greatest Fame 4. That although he mentioned not the names of those Authors he spoke of so unjustly with contempt yet for as much as I doubted not he mean'd only Sigebertus Gemblacencis and Dante 's Aligherius I must tell the Fathers that not even Bellarmin himself dared once to charge Sigebert with having been a Schysmatick Bellarm. de Scriptor Eccles in Sigeberto although he the said Bellarmin charged this Sigebert to have been for the Emperous sake iniquior Gregorio Septimo and that Dante 's Aligherius notwithstanding his being a great Poet had shewed himself withal to be a great Philosopher Divine Historian Civilian c. in that work he writ against the vain pretences of the Pope in Temporal matters above the Emperour where he gives such arguments as are unanswerable by any would undervalue him for being a Poet. Nay That St. Gregory Nazianzen might be undervalued upon the same account being he was so great and excellent a Poet yea so much addicted to Poetry as his Divine Works do shew 5. That if any doubted of the truth of Father Caron's quotations of Authors or would besides enter into and dispute of the Merits of the main Cause viz. of the Doctrin of the Remonstrance I was ready to justifie all there in publick before the whole Assembly and to that end to bring out of my own partly and partly out of the Dublin Colledg Library all those other Books whatsoever they demanded besides Holy Scriptures viz. Councils Fathers Ecclesiastical Historians the Bodies of the Canon and Civil Laws Scholastick Divines and even the late Expositors of Scripture c. 6. And Lastly That there was nothing I desired more than such a serious and Publick debate if any pretended yet unsatisfaction being it was chiefly for that end I drew the Letters of Indiction or invitation of them to this National Assembly in such form as obliged the Superiours to bring along with them a competent number of professed Divines who should and might be able as well to find out all errors of the Formulary if any were as to declare there was none in case they should be convinced of no Error at all therein And such indeed as to the substance was my answer to Father Nettervil Against which neither he nor any other replyed a word Wherefore I returned back to the prosecution of my former discourse beginning where I was interrupted and continuing to the end as I have shewn before Having done I took leave of the Fathers that day giving them so the more freedom to debate in my absence For I will not trouble the Reader now with the Chairmans complements acknowledgments thanks given me after I had ended and before I went forth Nor will I mention how I had that morning taken care to lay on the publick Table before the Fathers as many Printed Copies both of the Remonstrance it self and of not only my own little book entituled The More Ample Account which gives a full account thereof and answers all the first Objections or Exceptions made at London by the First Dissentors but also of Father Carons Loyalty Asserted as there were Members of the Congregation besides some few Copies more of Carons Latin Folio Book against the Louain Censure dispersed amongst them and one to remain still in a publick place for them to consult and besides also a Copy for every one of them of all other Printed Papers and little Books of my own which came forth for their good since the Kings most happy Restitution But that which is more material to give at length here is a true exact Copy of those Six Sorbon Declarations in the year 1663. and of the most Christian Kings Royal Publick and Printed Declaration in pursuance of the said Academical ones Of both I have by me still the Printed Copy brought to Ireland in the year 1664. out of France by the R. Father Thomas Harold of the Franciscan Order Reader Jubilat of Divinity Out of which genuin Printed French Copy take this other following as agreeing word by word with that very individual Copy of Father Harolds DECLARATION DU ROY Pour faire enregistrer au Parlement de Bretagne celle contre les Maximes des Vltramontains Verifiee audit Parlement le 21. d' Aoust 1663. LOUIS par la grace de Dieu Roy de France de Navarre A tous ceux qui ces presentes Lettres verront Salut La Faculte de Theologie de notre bonne Ville de Paris qui depuis son establissement a este le plus ferme apuy de la Religion de la saine doctrine dans nostre Royaume qui a toujours fait profession des opposer fortement a ceux qui ont voulu en alterer la purete
and falsely and maliciously too ascribed to Justinian by Procopius in that Book but the consequential ruining of Belisarius even amidst the glory of all his victories he may also thereby easily guess at the foresaid latent cause or end especially when I do likewise assure him this was a concernment in some such other unhappy thing Nor may any one justly blame me for this obscurity whether of relation or reflection who considers of one side the Laws of History and on the other the rules of Equity prescribed by Cap. In Scripturis dist 69. taken from and composed of that saying of Constantine the Great which is recorded in Theodoret l. 1. c. xi Concerning the third Point or Appendage viz. How immediately after the National Congregation had been dissolved the doctrine of Allegiance in Fifteen several Propositions was debated for a whole Month by a select number of Divines you are to observe 1. That when I had withdrawn for a day or two from the Congregation with some thoughts of not entring to their House any more if I saw them not coming to more sober counsels yet retaining still my former affection to them and withall considering they still pretended to come home to the substance of the controverted Remonstrance though out of respect to the several Censures of the Roman Dictators and Louain Doctors they would not to the form or words thereof I resolved to try them in this also And therefore I drew up another Form of the substance of that i. e. of the Doctrine Protestation and Promises of Allegiance contain'd in the said Remonstrance and fram'd all into Fifteen several Heads Paragraphs or complex'd either Propositions or Declarations or both 2. That when I had done this I sent for the Reverend Father Bernardinus Barry a Franciscan Reader Jubilate of Divinity one of the Members of the House and of their ablest and most judicious Divines and one also that although he had never sign'd the controverted Remonstrance yet had often the two years past declared himself fully and clearly before many for the lawfulness of signing it but abstain'd nevertheless of his own part to sign because he pretended to the Provincialship of the Franciscan Order in the next Chapter which was to be held in July then at hand and feared the greater number of Votes would be against him if he had sign'd that Formulary Besides that having been formerly bred at Rome and been after Commissary General over the Irish Franciscan Colledges at Prague and Louain and being now ancient and consequently as on the one side he knew himself in a fair capacity of a Bishoprick especially when once chosen Provincial so on the other he foresaw by his own experimental knowledge abroad that certainly he could expect nothing from the Roman Court if he had once sign'd However he it was I sent for to come to me where I was when I had that Paper of the Fifteen Heads fairly engross'd and having told him my ends therein desired him to move the reading of it in the House and both apptobation of and concurrence thereunto by signature as a medium to reconcile all differences if the Fathers continued still their resolution of not offending the Court of Rome by signing the Form so mightily and so lately too in the last Letters decryed by that Court. 3. That Father Barry having approved of both Paper and design and promised his utmost devoir and parted and then in the Congregation offered several times to read those Heads and yet either out of want of courage or willingness failed in his attempt and other matters viz. those of the Sorbon Declarations intervening and the Fathers proving resty in all matters and therefore at last dissolved as you have seen but their ablest Divines staying in Town for some time and other Divines too of the ablest in the whole Nation being likewise then in Town some out of curiosity and some others of them staying for the Provincial Chapter of the Franciscan Order which was to be held in that same City of Dublin and sit upon the 25 of July i. e. within a Month I was desired to call together all the said Divines both these and those and have in that interval i. e. until the day appointed for the Franciscan Provincial Chapter the doctrine of the controverted Formulary in all parts thereof throughly debated by them since the National Congregation would not do themselves or others that right And that accordingly and to such purpose I did invite not only the said Divines but all other Fathers in Town whether so great Clerks or not and whether against or for the said Doctrine and Formulary to meet at the same House and in the same Rooms wherein the National Congregation and their Committees used to sit having to this purpose hired again at my own charges the said Rooms for another Month. 4. That hereupon the said Divines meeting and having chosen a Secretary to write their final resolutions upon each question after a full debate thereof I produced both the controverted Remonstrance and that Paper analysing it into those complex Propositions or Declarations which I had formerly given to Father Barry but altered somewhat with new additions to make out more fully the true intent and scope of the said Remonstrance even also in particular against the late wicked Positions of Extrinsick Probability and to comprehend moreover clearly the six Sorbon Propositions with an express Declaration too both against the Censures of the Louain Theological Faculty and Letters of Cardinal Barberin and the two Bruxel Internuncio's Hieronymus de Vecchiis and Jacobus Rospigliosi And that they all having seen that Paper and heard it read publickly agreed to debate it after throughly from first to last taking apart each Paragraph and each single Proposition too of those many contained in so few complex ones 5. That the Rule observed by them was not to depart from the first Proposition and so for the second third fourth c. until every one that pleased or saw cause to object any thing had objected all he could say and been throughly satisfied either by me that was commonly the Defendant all along or by some other of my opinion on the point in question and when all were agreed the Secretary to write their such agreement even as to the least tittle of the very words of it or if any word were in the Proposition against which word any of them continued still unsatisfied then to change that word or leave it wholly out according as they had all at last unanimously agreed it should be done 6. That during the time they continued that Meeting which was about a Month and excepting Sundayes and Holydayes they ordinarily met as far as I can remember every day or at least other day according as they adjourned their Meeting they passed through and concluded unanimously upon the first eleven whole entire Paragraphs or complex Propositions even to a tittle as you have them Printed in
indeed any but God alone above them in temporal affairs as the very Fathers too of the Congregation avow by their own subscription of the 2d of those Propositions of Sorbone if they will have that subscription and Proposition taken in the plain obvious and honest sense and further yet is such and by reason too and Scriptures plain and cleer enough demonstrated to be such that every person in their respective kingdoms is subject to them And consequently all Parliament men however convened together as being not in any consideration or quallity soever exempt from that general command of God by the Apostle Paul 13th Romans Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subditasit And now if in this doctrine and pursuant to it of those Divines whether Greek or Latin the Fathers of the Congregation such of them at least as are understanding and knowing men see not the great and cleer and evident inconsequence of that argument of theirs which is their second specifical reason for not signing the 5th Proposition or if they see not they argue not here à simili but à dissimili and therefore conclude very ill or if they see not the cases are quite contrary or hugely differing that of the Pope and Council on one side and that of the King and Parliament of the other as to the purpose here I am extreamly mistaken But whether they do or not others I am sure do very cleerly That for such other Catholick Divines as are great sticklers for the Papacie to be Jure Divino immediatly or immediatly ordained by Christ himself during his aboad on earth in that sense at least wherein it is allowed and approved by those Canons are learned Canones Ecclesiae Vniversalis and by the several Catholick Churches Kingdoms and States which have continued in perpetual communion with the Bishop and particular Church or Diocess of Rome though not in that sense and height of latitude of jurisdiction attributed thereunto by the Popes themselves in their own peculiar Canons for such Divines I say as maintain so the Papacie to be De jure Divino immediatly and nevertheless withal do constantly maintain the authority of general Councils above it by the same ius divinum or immediat institution of Christ delivered to us in that passage of Math. 18. Dic Ecclesiae or in any other of the new Testament whether in writing or not or not otherwise known evidently or sufficiently but by unwritten tradition onely the Fathers of the Congregation may see these Divines also declaring and very cleerly and consequently too without any kind of stress in their own principles against the said consequence For they will undoubly say and with very much reason also this to be a meer non sequitur The General Council which hath its power not from the Pope but originally immediatly only and perpetually from Iesus Christ over all the faithfull being declared in the 18. of St. Mathew the very last and supream Tribunal to which an offending Brother must be accused and to whose sentence he must be lyable and being so declared by Christs own mouth even to Peter himself present as may be seen in the foresaid place of Mathew taken together with St. Luke in ch the 17. must consequently be above the Pope albeit the Pope must be above every individual of them separatly taken out of the Council or when there is not any Council in being Therefore the Parliament which originally immediatly and only had its power from the King and yet none from the King or his Laws much less from the Law of God above the King Himself must nevertheless be above him even as yet remaining King and so above him too that they may deprive depose and put him even to death if they shall judge it expedient yea notwithstanding his Royal Power is given him originally immediatly and only from or by God himself and notwithstanding also the express Law of God commands all his people without any distinction of being sate in Parliament or not and commands them all even under pain of damnation to be subject to him and notwithstanding too the very Parliament themselves even sitting in Parliament confess themselves to be of the number of his People or Subjects Yet this must be the very argument which the Fathers of the Congregation must frame here to their purpose if they would pin their foresaid consequence upon even these other Catholick Divines who maintain the Papacy de jure Divino And therefore it must also be that in the opinion too or doctrine of this very class of Divines who are all admitted by Bellarmine himself as undoubtedly Catholick and no way Schismatical who maintain or admit as I have presently said the Papacie it self to be jure Divino from this proposition The Pope is not above a General Council no such dangerous consequence can be drawn no overture of any such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Commonwealths as our late sad experience hath taught us That finally if in the opinion or according to the principles or doctrine of any other Catholick Divines that dangerous consequence follow as I know it does in Bellarmine's and such others of his way who to subject the Crowns of Kings the more easily to the Popes disposal reduce all earthly temporal civil power and resolve it ultimatly into their supream pretended inherent right in the people whom as they say withal and consequently to their other principles the Pope may at his pleasure or when he shall judge it expedient command by excommunication and other ecclesiastical Censures to resume it or that their pretended inherent power for the punishment of an Apostat Heretick Schismatick or otherwise contumacious refractory or disobedient Prince if I say according to this doctrine of this third and last class of Divines how Catholick soever in other matters that dangerous consequent and overture of such odious and horrid disputes follow the above proposition or the not being of the Pope above the General Council yet for as much as their other principles which must be first admitted before any such consequent may be deduced are in themselves very false and in the case of Hereditary Kingdoms evidently such amongst Christians that please to understand the Scriptures plainly and sincerely as the primitive Believers did especially that passage omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit and what follows afterwards to the same purpose in the 13. of the Romans and not go about to elude these and such other express and clear places by distinctions whereof some are apparently ridiculous and some very blasphemous too as I can instance the Fathers of the congregation might notwithstanding with much reason and even abstracting too I mean as well from all precedents as from all ignorance malice or other pre-occupation nay and from their own subscription also of the second or any other of the three first propositions though not from the doctrine of them observe how that
of Nature Scripture Nations and Canons of Holy Church This is the sense of James Talbot Doctor of Divinity Kilkenny Aug. 4. 1648. The Approbation of the Fathers of the Society of JESUS THE ensuing Answers to the Queries being learnedly and laboriously performed replenished with variety of both Moral and Divine Doctrine as the many Authors Canons and places of holy Scripture therein cited do abundantly manifest containing nothing contrary to Catholick Faith and Religion we judge most worthy to be published as an efficacious mean to remove scruples to satisfie each one and to settle the Consciences of all sorts Hen Plunket Superior of the Society of Jesus at Kilkenny Robert Bath of the same Society Christoph Maurice of the same Society Will St. Leger of the same Society Will Dillon of the same Society John Usher of the same Society Another Approbation BY Order from the Supreme Council I have perused these Queries with their Answers and do find nothing contrary to the Catholick Religion or good Manners nay rather that they contain very solid Doctrine well grounded upon the Holy Scriptures and authorized by the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and are most worthy the Press whereby the World may be satisfied and the most tender Consciences resolved in their groundless Scruples and many dangers removed the which unsatisfied might threaten ruine on a Catholick Commonwealth James Talbot Professor of Divinity Sometimes Visitator of St. Augustin's Order in Ireland c. Another Approbation HAving perused this Book of Queries and Answers made unto them by the most Reverend Father David Lord Bishop of Ossory and several Divines of most Religious and exemplar Life and eminent Learning I see nothing contrary to Faith or good Manners nay rather judge it a very solid and profitable work grounded on the Laws of Nature of God and of Nations confirmed by Councils taught and preached by the Holy Doctors and Fathers of the Church and most worthy to be Printed forthwith That to the world may appear the just and most conscionable carriage of the Supreme Council and their adherents in this Controversie about the Cessation and the unwarrantable and illegal proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and others of the Clergy and Laity who for ends repugnant to their Oath of Association seem disaffected to the English Government as it was even in Catholick times and wholly averse from any Peace or Settlement whereby our dread Sovereign Lord and King might be relieved from his present saâ—l condition Kilkenny 12. Aug. Fr Thomas Talbot One of Her Majesties Chaplains The Approbation of Divines of Saint Francis's Order VVE have diligently read this Work and seen in all pages and parts thereof Truth enfranchiz'd Ignirance enlightned the Councils present proceedings for the Cessation and against the Censures vindicated from injustice as the opposers of their Authority are convinced of sinful Disobedience and Perjury Kilkenny the 10th of August Sebastianus Fleming Thesaurarius Ecclesiae St. Patricii Dublin Fr Thomas Babe Fr Ludovick Fitz-Gerrald Fr Paul Synot Fr James De la Mare The Supreme Councils Letter to the most Illustrious and Reverend DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory concerning the Assembling of Divines and returning his and their Result on the QVERIES FInding that to the great hinderance of the Publick quiet and the benefit of the Common Enemy the Lord Nuncio hath issued his Excommunication and thereby so far as in him lay distracted the Kingdom and divided the Nation notwithstanding that by our Appeal presented unto him the 4th of this Month his Graces further proceedings according to the Law are to be suspended Yet because it concerns the duty we owe the Kingdom to omit nothing that may remove the least scruple in any of the Confederate Catholicks by which he might avoid the visible breach of his Oath of Association by declining the Authority intrusted with us we have thought fit to let your Lordship know it is our pleasure and accordingly we pray your Lordship to assemble forthwith all the Secular and Regular Clergy and all other the able Divines now in this City together before you and to get their present Result upon the enclosed Propositions to be transmitted to us with all speed We know your Lordship so zealous a Patriot and so desirous of setling the Consciences of such few of your Flock as may haply be yet unsatisfied as you will use all possible expedition herein which is earnestly recommended to your Lordship by Kilkenny Castle 14. June 1648. Your Lordships very loving Friends Athenry Luk Dillon Rich Belling Patâ— Brian Joh Walsh Rob Devereux Gerald Fenell The QUERIES I. WHether any and if any what part of the Articles of the Cessation with the Lord of Inchiquin is against the Catholick Religion or just ground for an Excommunication II. Whether you hold the Appeal by uâ— made and interposed within the time limited by the Canon Law and Apostles being granted thereupon be a suspension of the Monitory Excommunication and Interdict and of the effects and consequences thereof and of any other proceedings or Censures in pursuance of the same III. Considering that the Propositions of the Lord Nuncio now Printed were offered by his Lordship as a mean whereby to make the Cessation conscionable whether our Answers thereunto likewise Printed are so short or unsatisfactory and wherein as they might afford just grounds for an Excommunication IV. Whether the opposing of the Cessation against the positive Order of the Council by one who hath sworn the Oath of Association be Perjury V. Whether if it shall be found That the said Excommunication and Interdict is against the Law of the Land as in Catholick time it was practised and which Laws by the Oath of Association all the Prelates of this Land are bound to maintain Can their Lordships notwithstanding and contrary to the positive Orders of the Supreme Council to the contrary countenance or publish the said Excommunication or Interdict VI. Whether a Dispensation may be given unto any Person or Parties of the Confederates to break the Oath of Association without the consent of the General Assembly who framed it as the Bond and Ligament of the Catholick Confederacy and Union in this Kingdom the alteration or dissolution whereof being by their Orders reserved only unto themselves VII Whether any persons of the Confederates upon pretence of the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio may disobey the Order of the Supreme Council ANSWERS Made to the foresaid QUERIES BY THE Most Reverend Father in GOD DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory and by the Divines The Preface in form of Letter directed to the Right Honourable the Supreme Council AS well in obedience to your Honours Commands as for satisfaction of our Consciences and guiding Souls committed to our Charge or clearing their Scruples and resolving such from Perplexities who come to us for their spiritual instruction We have seriously considered the Questions delivered us from your Lordships And having first proposed God before our eyes with firm resolutions