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
even also his great Expositor Cardinal Cajetan and consequently too even all the famous School of Thomists to be Judges Nam Schysmatici sayes Thomas ibidem proprie dicuntur qui propria sponte intentione se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant qui subesse renuunt summo Pontifici membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare renuunt Nolle enim pertinaciter obedire summo Pontifici non est Schysma sayes Cajetan on the same passage of Thomas sed nolle subesse illi ut capiti totius Ecclesiae est Schysma Nam adverte diligenter sayes the same Cajetan and in the same place quod recusare praeceptum vel udicium Papae contingat tripliciter Primo ex parte rei judicatae sen praeceptae Secundo ex parte personae judicantis â—ertio ex parte officii ipsius Judicis Si quis enim pertinaciter contemnat sententiam Papae quia scilicet non vult exequi quae mandavit puta abstinere a tali bello restituere talem statum c. licet gravissime erret non tamen est ex hoc Schysmaticus Contingit namque saepe nolle exequi praecepta Superioris retenta tamen recognitione ipsius in Superiorem Si quis vero personam Papae suspectam rationabiliter habet propterea non solum praesentiam ejus sed etiam immediatum judicium recusat paratus ad non suspectos Judices ab eodem suscipiendos nec Schysmatis nec alterius vitii crimen incurrit Naturale namque est curare nociva cavere a periculis Potestque persona Papae tyrannice gubernare tanto facilius quanto potentior est neminem in terris timet ultorem Cum quis autem Papae praeceptum vel judicium ex parte sui officii recusato non recognoscens eum ut superiorem quamvis hoc credat tunc praecipuâ— Schysmaticus est Et juxta hunc sensum sunt intelligenda verba litterae hujus id est textus D. Thomae sayes Cajetan Inobedientia enim sayes the same Cajetan going on still and concluding quantumcumque pertinax non constituit Schysma nisi sit rebellio ad officium Papae vel Ecclesiae ita ut renuat illi subesse illum recognoscere ut superiorem c. Where you see clearly That according to the sense of even the Angelical Doctor himself and even of his great Expositor and consequently of even the whole Thomistical School our Remonstrance cannot be charg'd with any Schismatical proposition or clause taking this word Schismatical properly or as it imports that sin of Schism which is distinct both from the sin of pure disobedience or disobedience only and from all other sorts too of sin Because it appears out of St. Thomas and Cajetan here that no doctrine or proposition is Schismatical in this proper sense of the word but that which freely voluntarily and intentionally separates from other members of the Catholick Church or spiritual Head of it the Pope not by disobedience only but also by denying to submit to the very true proper and just Office or Headship of the Pope or to acknowledge it and it hath already appeard out of the Remonstrance it self that there is no such doctrine or proposition formal or virtual therein As for Schism improperly taken so it still imports a sin either that of pure or only bare disobedience or any other whatsoever you please if it can import in any true sin any other sin but that of meer disobedience I have also already and abundantly vindicated the said Remonstrance from such also or from any such injurious and false aspersion both all along hitherto and even in this very Section but most particularly in my argument against its being unlawful For as the sin of pure disobedience so also every other is dictum factum or concupitum contra legem Dei But if the Divines of Louain will have our Remonstrance to be Schismatical because it separates from their evil doctrine per me licet in that sense because that is a good and vertuous sense of the word though as too too improper so no way conducing to their end nor consisting with their judgment of sub Sacrilegii reatu c. and because the doctrine of all the most Holy most Catholick and Learned Fathers and of the Blessed Apostles and even of Christ our Lord himself may be truly said to be Schismatical in that sense being it separated from the wicked Doctrine of Atheists Deists Jews Scribes Pharisees Hereticks and Schismaticks truly and properly such And Secondly As to the second branch of the said Minor which second branch is that of our said Remonstrances not being Heretical I proceed thus No Remonstrance is Heretical which contains not formally or virtually some Proposition either formally or virtually against Holy Scripture or Catholick Tradition Ours is a Remonstrance which contains no such Ergo Of the Major there can be no controversie because Heresie is defined to be an errour and onely that errour which is against some Doctrine publickly revealed by God to the Church and because it is confessed of all sides there is no Doctrine so revealed by God but that which is either formally or virtually revealed in Canonical Scripture or Catholick Tradition And the Minor I have at large already proved partly in this very Section and in my first Sillogisme therein against the two suppositions expressed in the Louaine Censure and partly also as also without comparison more amply and irrefragably in so many other Sections before some of which proceeded in a negative way against the four chief grounds of the same Louaine Censure and against all the Arguments of Bellarmine and others and the rest in a positive way no less Demonstratively against the self same grounds and Arguments Where the Reader may see diffusely that the Doctrine of a Supreme even Coercive power of Lay-Princes over even all sorts whatsoever of Clergymen within their own Dominions and that of an answerable Subjection of all sorts of people both Clerks and Laicks to the same Princes is so far from being such an errour or being Heresie against either Scripture or Tradition that it is warranted by both and the contrary Doctrine likewise manifestly against both And in this very Section I have shewed already there is neither Clause or Proposition in our whole said Remonstrance but only such as contains no more in effect but an acknowledgment of the Power in Princes and of that Subjection and Obedience of Subjects Behold Christian and impartial Reader four or five Syllogisms against the Epithets either formal or virtual of the Louain Censure which four or five together with that other longer Syllogism against the two Suppositions or Causes or Reasons expressed therein compleat the whole number of my Arguments or of what I intended to say in this last Section against that abortive Censure And now I leave it to thy own serious indifferent and Christian judgment whether considering all I may not again most justly repeat and evidently
distinction of Countrey or Degree or Sex or Age Men Women Children from the most illustrious Peer to the most obscure Plebeian wheresoever in any of His Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions even at this present lie under all the rigorous Sanctions and all the severe Penalties of so many incapacitating so many mulctative Laws nay and so many sanguinary which reach even to life in several cases And your Predecessors before you have well nigh a whole Century of years been continually under the smart or apprehension of the severity of them And so may your Successors and your Children and Posterity after you for so long more if the true causes of Enacting at first those Laws and continuing them ever since be no better considered i.e. no more narrowly search'd into nor more effectually regarded by you than they have been by your Fathers for you or themselves But whatever Gods providential care of or goodness to your Posterity after you may be I am sure it cannot be denied but all Roman-Catholicks universally now living any where in England Ireland or Scotland must upon due reflection find themselves highly concern'd in having the Sword-point of those penal Constitutions hanging continually and even perpendicularly over their heads Do not we all manifestly perceive they are with-held at present from execution by a very small and weak Thred not only of one life that is mortal but even of one will alone that yet may be alter'd of a sudden upon many occasions which may happen when least expected Now seeing you are all every one thus concern'd in those Laws surely so you must all be in the causes of them i.e. in those genuine true proper and onely causes which continued must necessarily continue those very Laws and which removed will naturally remove them But if in those causes your concernment be such how can it be other or indeed how can it be any way less in the Subject of this Book All the several Treatises and Parts thereof and all the several Relations Discourses Disputes Animadversions therein occasion'd by either of the two Formularies drive ultimately at a plain and full discovery of those very causes and of their continual dependance on your own proper will alone and how lawfully and justly you may or rather how strictly you are even by all the known Maxims of Christian Religion Catholick Faith and Natural Reason bound in Conscience to remove them Your Concern therefore above all others in the Subject being thus at last clearly manifested I need no further Apology for the Dedication A Consecratory Address to you appears now evidently enough to have been required by the Nature of the Work it self as a necessary Appendage of that real duty which I have endeavoured to the best of my understanding all along in this Book to pay the most sacred name of Catholicks And in truth to whom other than to your selves ought or could I upon any sufficient ground dedicate a Book of so universal and weighty a Concern of yours Yet after all I must acknowledge that besides your propriety in the Subject I had the current of my own desires and my own Ideas to exact this Duty I have in truth these many years had continually even passionate desires of some fair opportunity to offer unto you but with all due submission still some farther and more particular thoughts relating both to the proper causes and proper remedies of all your foresaid evils And have at last entertain'd the pleasing Idea of a Dedicatory as the fairest occasion I could wish to speak directly and immediately to your selves all whatever I think to be for your advantage on that Subject and sutable to the measures of a Letter and what I moreover know some others think who yet have not the courage to speak or to inform you And therefore to pursue my old method I call it old having held these 26 years of delivering my thoughts fully and throughly in all Points which I conceive to be material though at the same time expecting from some contradiction and from others worse but comforting myself nevertheless with the conscience of very great Truth with the zeal of your highest advantage and with the certain expectation that all judicious good men will approve what I shall say and lay all to heart as they ought I must now tell you that if we please to examine things calmly with unprejudiced reading and unbyass'd reason we may find without any peradventure I. That the rigour of so many Laws the severity of so many Edicts and the cruel execution of both many times against even harmless People of the Roman Communion have not intentionally or designedly from the beginning aim'd nor do at present aim so much at the renunciation of any avowed or uncontroverted Articles of that Christian or Catholick Religion you profess as at the suppression of those Doctrines which many of your selves condemn as Anti-catholick and for the prevention of those practises which you all say you abhor as Antichristian II. That it is neither the number of Sacraments nor the divine excellency of the Eucharist above the rest either by the real presence in or Transubstantiation of the Consecrated Host nor the communion thereof in one kind onely nor the more holy and strict observance of Confession nor the ancient practice of Extreme Vnction nor the needless Controversies 'twixt Vs and the Protestants if we understood one another about Faith Justification Good Works or those termed Supererogatorie or about the Invocation of Saints Veneration of Reliques Worshipping of Images Purgatory and Pardons nor is it the Canon of the Bible or a Learned Liturgy or Continency of Priests and obligation of certain Vows or holiness of either a Monastick or Cloystered life in a well-ordered Community of devout Regulars nor is it either a Patriarchical power in the Bishop of Rome over the Western Church according to the ancient Canons and Customs or which is yet somewhat more an universal Pastorship purely spiritual acknowledg'd in Him such I mean as properly flows from the Celestial power of the two Keyes of Peter as far as ever it was acknowledged by all or any of the ancient Councils I say it is not any of all these Articles or Practises nor all together not even join'd with some others whether of lesser or greater note that is the grand Rock of scandal or that hath been these last Hundred years the cause of so many Penalties Mulcts Incapacities of shameful Deaths inflicted and more ignominious Characters given us III. That of our side the original source of all those evils and perpetual spring of all other misfortunes and miseries whatsoever of the Roman-Catholicks in England Ireland Scotland at any time since the first change under Henry VIII hath been a System of Doctrines and Practises not only quite other than your selves do believe to have been either revealed in Holy Scripture or delivered by Catholick Tradition or evidenced by Natural Reason or so much as defined by
testimonies of all Ages from the first of Christianity I say that being it is therefore plain and clear enough to any dis-interessed judicious and conscientious Divine that neither these Councils or Popes could upon rational grounds pretend any positive law of God properly or truly such either out of Scripture or out of Tradition at least for such exemption of the persons of Clergymen and in temporal affairs too from the supream civil coercive power it must consequently be confessed that unless we mean to charge an errour on these Councils and Popes we must allow the answer of such Divines as with Dominicus Soto 4. dist 25. q. 2. art 2. hold against Bellarmine in this matter to be not only full of respect but of reason also viz. that by jus divinum ordinatio divina voluntas omnipotentis cura a Deo commissa these Councils and Popes understand that right or law Divine that ordination Divine that will of God that care by God committed which is such only in as much as it is immediatly from or by the Canons or laws of the Church and that by jus humanum they understand the civil laws or institutions of meer Lay-Princes And indeed that of respect in this answer will be allowed without contradiction And that that of reason also cannot be any more denyed I am sure will appear likewise to any that please to consider how it is very usual with Popes and Councils to stile their own meer Ecclesiastical Canons Divine and such Canons I mean which by the confession of all sides never had any positive law of God in Scripture or Tradition for them For amongst innumerable proofs hereof which I could give that of the 27. Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon and that other in the third action of the VII General Synod will be sufficient proofs For in the former it is plain that meer Ecclesiastical Rules though concerning only the district jurisdiction and preheminence of the Constantinopolitane Patriarch and some other Bishops and Metrapolitans are called divine Canons and that in the latter too the title of divine constitutions or divinely inspired constitutions is attributed to the laws or Canons in general of the Church So that jus divinum ordinatio Dei c. must not be opposed in these places quoted by Bellarmine or any other such to all that which is properly strictly immediatly or only from men however taken for Lay-men or Church-men but to that which is from men acting by a meer lay natural civil temporal and politick power and not at all acting or enacting laws as the Church enacts by a pure spiritual supernatural and therefore by way excellency called a divine power and their laws therefore too in that sense or for so much called divine though not divine at all in the strict proper sense of a divine law as by this we ought to understand that which was immediatly made or delivered by God himself and by the mouth of his Prophets or Apostles or by Scripture or Tradition 3. That however this be or however it may be said by Bellarmine or by any other to be well or ill grounded or to be truly according to the sense or mind of these Councils and Popes he alleadges yet even Bellarmine himself and all others of his way will and must grant that although we did suppose and freely admit his sense of these places to have been that indeed of these Councils and Popes yet the argument is no way concluding any other not even I say for as much as it is grounded on the authority or manner of speaking used by these very Councils which are accounted General as Trent and both these Laterans 1. Because the canons or places alleadged are at best and even at most even the very best and most material of them but canons of Reformation or canons of meer Ecclesiastical Discipline which are worded so And no man that as much as pretends learning is now so ignorant as not to know that even entire Catholick Nations and many such too oppose very many such canons even of those very Councils which themselves esteem or allow as truly General and oppose not the bare words or epithets onely as our dispute now is of such words or even of bare epithets but the whole matter and sense and purpose nay and the very end too uncontrovertedly admitted to have been that of such General Councils And the reason is obvious enough vz That in canons of Reformation Discipline or manners as it is generally allowed and certain the Fathers deliver not nor intend nor pretend to deliver or declare the Catholick Faith and that in all other things they are as fallible and as subject to errour as so many other men of equal knowledge though without any of their authority or spiritual superiority 2. Because that in the very Decrees or Canons of Faith General Councils even the most truly such may erre in such words as are not of absolute necessity for declaring that which is the onely purpose of such Canon For so even Bellarmine himself teaches l. 2. de Concilior Authoritate c. 12. expresly and purposely and in these very words Denique in ipsis Decretis de fide non verba sed sensuâ— tantum ad fidem pertinet Non enim est haereticum dicere in canonibus Conciliorum aliquod verbum esse supervacaneum aut non rectè positum nisi forte de ipso verbo sit decretum formatum ut cum in Concilio Niceno decreverunt recipiendam vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et in Ephesino vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where you see that he exempts onely from this general rule the case wherein a Council should of purpose frame a Decree or Canon of Faith concerning the very use of such or such a word or epithet as the first of Nice-did for the word bâ—mousion or consubstantial against Arrius and the Council of Ephesus did for the word Deotocon or Godbearing against Nestorius Which cannot be said by Bellarmine or any other in his behalf or that either any Council or Pope have ever yet done so as to or concerning the use of the words jus divinum ordinatio divina c or of the single word or Epithet Divine in our case 3. Because and according also to not onely truth but eveâ— Bellarmine himself again in the same book and chapter in the Acts of General Councils even those Acts which concern Faith neither the disputes which are premised nor the reasons which are added nor those things or words which are inserted for explication or illustration are of Faith or intended by the Fathers to be submitted unto without contradiction as a matter certain and infallible but the bare decrees onely and not all even those very decrees but such of them onely as are defined expresly to be the Faith delivered that is as even Bellarmine himself elswhere and all the Schools now teach with him such as are said in such Council to have
and which only questionless those framers intended to give their Kings either in spiritual or temporal things or causes But hereof elsewhere It sufficeth at present that these good Abbots of Constantinople by this title of Headship by consequence or implicitly and virtually concurr in acknowledging the supream civil coercive power of the Emperour over all Clergiemen even the very Pope himself being that Headship could be no other but a Headship of civil direction by his civil laws and coercion by the material Sword And it sufficeth moreover to conclude that not those holy Fathers only who purposely expound or expresly apply the text of Paul ad Rom. 13. by Pauls more sublime powers understand the civil Princes but all other holy Fathers also who acknowledge as they all do the subjection of Churchmen to Princes do by consequence or implicitly and virtually understand the very same And therefore out of all said hitherto out of the holy Fathers I conclude my main purpose in this third way that is I conclude that as I have formerly or in my two former wayes both out of the â—etter of the text and end of it ruind all the several three answers of our Adversaries to my fourth grand argument in this Section out of St. Paul so I have now in this third way out of the clear sense or doctrine of the Fathers concerning the sense of that text of Paul as delivered to us by Tradition or especially in their writings or at least by such of them as purposely expound St. Paul To all these evidences nay to the very clearest most express and particular of them to the point for the sense of the holy Fathers generally or of any one or moe of them our Adversaries find no other answer but first to say as Bellarmine doth against Barclay cap. 3. that etiamsi non eximebat Apostolos ab â—â—la subjectiâ—â—e professio Christianae Religionis eximebat tamen principatus Apostolicus qui sublimior est omni principatu naturali albeit the profession of Christian Religion did not exempt the very Apostles themselves from that subjection to say Princes yet the Apostolical Principality which is more sublime then any natural Principality did exempt them Secondly to say as others do cont Fâ—â—g there is a great difference twixt the Sacrament of Baptisme and that other which is of Holy Orders For say they Baptismus relinquit hominem in comwani hominum caetu Ordo verò elevat ad Paternitatem etiam supra Principem Baptisme leaves a man in the common ranke of men but Order rayseth to a paternity or fatherhood above even the Prince himself Albeit not onely the reasons given by several of the holy Fathers in some of those very passages quoted by me already in this present Section evidently destroy these last answers also as they do the three former and shew them to be against the letter of the law and end of the law and against that very sense too which those Fathers themselves conceived and believed to have been of Paul in that general precept omnis anima but also my own discourses and reasons given partly in my two last Sections LXXI and LXXII in answer to some objections or evasions of Bellarmine and of others yet I think not amiss for the Readers more ample satisfaction fuller confutation of our Adversarie's in this also to handle briefly the same matter again with some necessary additions as a further illustration of what I said before And therefore I observe First that for what concern's Bellarmine's said evasion or pretence of Apostolical Principality which he sayes did exempt the Clergie albeit their profession of Christianity did not and must say also if he will answer to the argument grounded on the now given doctrine of the Fathers that the Fathers intended not to teach that that of Apostleship did not I say we must observe first that whereas that of Apostolick principality or Apostleship is as they grant found or continued onely in Bishops nay perhaps according to their doctrine found or continued in the chief Bishop onely that is in the Pope alone it must follow that either onely the Pope or at most the Bishops onely must be exempted by this evasion of Bellarmine Why then doth he exempt and notwithstanding S. Paul by the very law of God pretend to exempt the rest of the infinit multitude of inferiour Clerks from lay Princes whether the same Princes will or no nay why doth he and others of his way pretend to exempt so or even by the sole canons the very cooks and scullions of Clerks or Monks cap. Parrochianos de sent Excom in 6. O Vemerandos lixas for I may here against my Adversaries exclaime and admire so with a certain late Writer extra omnes saeculi potestates positos qui scilicetâ—e monachali culina vncti adeo pulchri emergunt vt sacram ordinis Ecclesiastici vnctionem aequiparent ipsos vnctos Domini Reges dominos suos non agnoscant I know my self sayes the same writer a little pittifull dorp or village in Insula Vegliensi of scarse a hundred straw or thatch'd houâ—es wherein there are above three-score Priests and other Clerks who use to confess ingenuously that so many of them take orders of Clerkship to the end they may be freed from the burdens wherewith other Plebeians or the Peasants are loaden by their Prince especially from rowing in the gallies So that under pretext of Sacred orders Princes are deluded by their own proper Subjects the commonwealth suffers ac interim Ecclesia repletur quisquilijs otiosorum imo sordidorum sacerdotum sayes he But however this complaint be well or ill grounded and however that abuse be of the priviledg of Clerks by the Clerks themselves or by the intention or design of such as receive orders it is not my intention here or elswhere to complain of the observance of all or any priviledges of theirs which the Princes themselves have bestowed or custome hath allowed them In this Authors admiration onely I concurre where instancing the very cook of a Convent he exclaims at the pretended exemption of Bellarmine or of even such a cook from the very supream civil power of all earthly Princes in all causes whatsoever Secondly I observe and answer directly or rather directly refute both the above last answers of Bellarmine and his fellow-stickler that if Baptisme ought not to be injurious to Princes by exempting their subjects from subjection to them so neither should Apostleship nor any sacred Order Because otherwise it is plain enough that Princes would have just cause to apprehend the growth admission or tolleration of the Faith of Christians or of themselves To prevent which apprehension or fear of Princes and of their people too it was the Fathers tel us that even Christ himself would have that subjection which himself did owe presumptively but his Apostles naturally observed not onely in and by his Apostles but even by himself too as
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
the Tridentine Fathers but also quite contrary to those Doctrines and Practises which are manifestly recommended in the letter sense and whole design of the Gospel of Christ in the writings of his blessed Apostles in the Commentaries of their holy Successors in the belief and life of the Christian Church universally for the first Ten Ages thereof and moreover in the very clearest dictates of Nature it self whether Christianity be supposed or not IV. That of those quite other and quite contrary Doctrines in the most general terms without descending to particular applications of them to any one Kingdom or People c the grand Positions are as followeth viz. That by divine right and immediate institution of Christ the Bishop of Rome is Vniversal Monarch and Governour of the World even with sovereign independent both spiritual and temporal authority over all Churches Nations Empires Kingdoms States Principalities and over all persons Emperours Kings Princes Prelates Governours Priests and People both Orthodox and Heterodox Christian and Infidel and in all things and causes whatsoever as well Temporal and Civil as Ecclesiastical or Spiritual That He hath the absolute power of both Swords given Him That He is the Fountain of all Jurisdiction of either kind on Earth and that whoever derives not from Him hath none at all not even any the least Civil or Temporal Jurisdiction That He is the onely Supreme Judge of all Persons and Powers even collectively taken and in all manner of things divine and humane That all humane Creatures are bound under forfeiture of Eternal Salvation to be subject to Him i. e. to both His Swords That He is empowred with lawful Authority not only to Excommunicate but to deprive depose and dethrone both sententially and effectually all Princes Kings and Emperours to translate their Royal Rights and dispose of their Kingdoms to others when and how He shall think fit especially in case either of Apostasie or Heresie or Schism or breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or any publick oppression of the Church or People in their respective civil or religious Rights or even in case of any other enormous publick Sins nay in case of only unfitness to govern That to this purpose He hath full Authority and Plenitude of Apostolical Power to dispense with Subjects in and absolve them from all Oaths of Allegiance and from the antecedent tyes also of the Laws of God or man and to set them at full liberty nay to command them under Excommunication and what other Penalties He please to raise Arms against their so deposed or so excommunicated or otherwise ill-meriting Princes and to pursue them with Fire and Sword to death if they resist or continue their administration or their claim thereunto against His will That He hath likewise power to dispense not only in all Vows whatsoever made either immediately or mediately to God himself nor only as hath been now said in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to the King but in all other Oaths or Promises under Oath made even to any other man whatsoever the subject or thing sworn be That besides Oaths and Vows He can dispense in other matters also even against the Apostles against the Old Testament against the Four Evangelists and consequently against the Law of God That whoever kills any Prince deposed or excommunicated by Him or by others deriving power from Him kills not a lawful Prince but an usurping Tyrant a Tyrant at least by Title if not by Administration too and therefore cannot be said to murther the Anointed of God or even to kill his own Prince That whosoever out of pure zeal to the Roman-Church ventures himself and dyes in a War against such a Tyrant i.e. against such a deposed or excommunicated Prince dyes a true Martyr of Christ and his Soul flies to Heaven immediately That His Holiness may give and doth well to give plenary Indulgence of all their sins a culpa poena to all Subjects rebelling and fighting against their Princes when He approves of the War That antecedently to any special Judgment Declaration or declaratory Sentence pronounced by the Pope or any other subordinate Judge against any particular person Heresie does ipso jure both incapacitate to and deprive of the Crown and all other not only royal but real and personal Rights whatsoever That an Heretick possessor is a manifest Vsurper and a Tyrant also if the possession be a Kingdom State or Principality and therefore is ipso jure out-law'd and that all his People i. e. all his otherwise reputed Vassals Tenants or Subjects are likewise ipso jure absolved from all Oaths and all other tyes whatsoever of fidelity or obedience to him That he is truly and certainly and properly an Heretick who misbelieves calls in question or even doubts of any one definition of the Tridentine Council or of any one that is of meer Papal Constitution or of any one of those Articles profess'd in Pius Quartus 's Creed That not only the Pope but any Patriarch nay any inferiour Bishop acknowledging His Holiness may if need be both excommunicate and depose their own respective Princes Kings or Emperours and may also without their leave or knowledge reverse the Decrees of their Vice-Roys or Lieutenants and even censure depose from and restore again such Lieutenants to their former dignity and charge That all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever both Men and Women Secular and Regular Patriarchs Primaâ—s Archbishops Bishops Abbots Abbesses Priests Fryars Monks Nuâ—s to the very Porter or Portress of a Cloyster inclusively nay to the very Scullion of the Kitchin and all their Churches Houses Lands Revenues Goods and much more all their persons are exempt by the Law of Nature and Laws of Nations and those of God in Holy Scripture both Old and New Testament and those of men i. e. of Christian Emperours Councils and Popes in their respective Institutions and Canons and are indeed universally perpetually and irrevocably so exempt from all secular civil and temporal Authority on Earth whether of States or of Princes of Kings or of Emperours and from all their Laws and all their Commands that is from both the directive and coercive virtue of either or which is the same thing in effect from sin against God and from punishment by God or man for only transgressing them That consequently if any Church-man should murder his lawful and rightful King blow up the Parliament fire burn and lay waste all the Kingdom yet he could not be therefore guilty of Treason or truly called a Traytor against the King or against the Kingdom or People or Laws thereof no nor could justly be punish'd at all by the secular Magistrate or Laws of the Land without special permission from the Pope or those deriving Authority from Him That nevertheless all Clergy-men regular and secular in the World from the meanest either Accolits or Converts to the highest Generals of Orders and greatest Patriarchs of Nations inclusively may be out of all Kingdoms and even contrary to
though somewhat more particularly to the Fifth That besides the facilitating all I could the Repeal of penal Statutes by overthrowing the grand Objection against it I had no other extrinsick end hitherto in any of the Controversies wherein I am engaged nor shall God willing have at any time hereafter save onely that which must have been consequential nay that which is very well becoming not only a Roman-Catholick Priest and Votary of St. Francis's Order but any Christian of whatever Church or Profession viz. the breaking down of so much of that middle wall of partition between us which hath separated first the Orient from the Occident and then again in the Occident it self hath divided from one another so numerous flourishing and conspicuous both Nations and Churches holding them so long involved in a direful Schism to the great hurt of Christianity and to the destruction of so many Souls This so great and so desirable a blessing of Peace and reconciliation of one to another in God by the Cross and by the breaking down the wall of partition all enmity being slain on both sides between the Churches i. e. between the Sons of the Church of England on this side and those of the Roman-Church on the other as many at least as are subject to His Majesty I must confess I have these many years regarded as my chief and ultimate end howsoever unlikely it seem'd in this world To this most desirable end all my Studies Writings Elucubrations and Books have been principally directed At this my Remonstrances Professions Protestations Renunciations have perpetually aimed For this I took so much pains devoured so many labours underwent so many hazards and suffered those well nigh innumerable Evils whereof I see not even yet either period or measure And finally this happy end is it that hath made me as elsewhere in some other of my Writings so now in this Epistle declare so plainly and openly against so many embroiling Positions notwithstanding they be the Doctrines of a very powerful Faction amongst Roman-Catholick Professors nay the beloved Maxims of the Roman Court and its Minion-writers Whose soever they be it 's clear enough that of them is built one entire side at least of that middle wall of partition (a) Ephes 2.14 which to the unspeakable reproach and further unvaluable hurt of the Christian Church in general hath so often both formerly and lately engaged yea and doth at present engage People Nations Principalities Republicks Kingdoms Empires not only unhappily but damnably in mortal feuds one against another but which therefore ought and must for the great end of Peace amongst the Children of God be broken down of every side by Him who is our Peace by Him who not onely in former times as you read in the Prophet and Apostle in Isaiah (b) Isa 57.19 and in (c) Ephes 2.14 17. Paul hath evangelized Peace Peace the fruit of the lips to them that were far off and to them that were nigh but now also at this present to the now divided Parties Preaches the same Peace to the end that the Sons of Peace on each side co-operating He may again make in himself of twain one new man so making peace and reconciling both unto God in one body by the Cross having stain again the enmity in his own flesh Oh that we might live to see once that day That day so fervently so anxiously beg'd of God by all his Saints That day so long desired by Princes expected by Prophets wished for so passionately by all the Children of God! That day in which there will be neither Jew (d) Coloss 3.12 Galat. 3.28 nor Gentile nor Barbarian nor Scythian nor Protestant nor Papist I mean nor Reformist nor Romanist nor any other names or symbols of Discord That day wherein once more Christ himself will be all (e) Coloss 1.18 24. Ephes 5.23 and in all both head and body and consequently there shall be one fold (f) John 10.16 and one shepherd Oh blessed day and blessed eyes that shall behold it And oh how willingly how heartily with all my Soul would I to see that most happy day run into the arms kiss the hands embrace the knees lie down at the feet of those who have bereft me of all things else and fought my life How freely how gladly for that end would I moreover if they pleased even appear before them as a Criminal even in the habit of a publick Penitent my head covered with Ashes and my body with Sackcloth my eyes running down with tears and my flesh pined away with fasting How lastly to see that greatest bliss in this life would I prostrate my self before them on the earth even without the door and porch of the Church and with humblest prayer beg admittance and not only reconciliation but pardon where even I mean according to my own proper judgment there was no need of it no fault committed by me to require it These have been the wishes God knows and this the constant disposition of my Soul these many years And therefore as an universal condemnation of the new Doctrines to eternal night and silence hath continually appear'd to me no less than necessary of one side for breaking down the middle wall of separation so amongst the Christian Churches that blessed that heavenly reconciliation union coalition in the Spirit of God and Peace of Christ which is above all sense hath alwayes been the very ultimate end in this world that I have propos'd to all my Labours and Sufferings As for the rest I know that how Divine soever the Wishes be how proper and pure and holy and excellent soever the Means that we employ for attaining them yet the Success must be in the hand of the Almighty alone who (g) Wisd 8. reaching from end to end strongly and disposing all things sweetly makes the morning star to arise in his appointed time and the evening star on the sons of the earth who (h) 2 Cor. 4.6 commands light to shine out of darkness and who alone with one word of his pleasure determines the roughest Tempest in the gentlest Calm Hatred in Love Schism in Unity and the bloodiest War in the most blessed Peace when (i) Coloss 1.20 he will and as he will reconciling all things whether Terrestrial or Celestial by the blood of his Cross Fifth Appendage relating also to all the Queries That notwithstanding any whatsoever excellence of all and every the ends both intrinsick and extrinsick which I had proposed to my self in the Controversies yet I have continually shun'd as I would a rock or a shelve in a Tempest that other late Doctrine of those Schoolmen of ours who are called Probablists which teacheth the sanctifying forsooth of all wicked means by good intentions And therefore that as far as I know my own heart and actions and the Laws of God or man I have at no time hitherto been wanting nor shall hereafter with the grace
excuse their great dependence from the Ordinaries and Secular Clergy as to their future admission to the respective Districts or Diocesses and their establishment for houses in the Countrey Besides that they were but a very few and inconsiderable in respect of others That however their judgment affection or extraction lead them yet this cause alone might be sufficient for their excuse not to subscribe without encouragment by example from the Ordinaries And yet it is very well known that several of them as likewise of the other more ancient Orders laboured earnestly and mightily that there should be no such encouragment or example at all from Ordinaries or any other Whereof the reason is very obvious Because the later any religious Institution is and the newer in any Catholick Countrey the greater dependence it must have and the more support it wants from Rome Which those three last Orders amongst us were so far from putting to any hazard to be lost by subscription that they would assure themselves of it more and more by the greatest opposition they could make in favour of all pretences for the holy See and thereby also be sure to continue their yearly pensions of Missionaries such of them I mean as are pensionaries upon the account of mission as several are 9. That above all the Jesuits yet more particularly found themselves concern'd on this particular account that so many great and famous Writers of their Society and by consequence the whole Society it self had been all along these fourscore years at least throughly engaged to maintain the contrary doctrine and practises 10. That on the other side the Secular Clergy pretended there was no signing for themselves before the Regulars concurr'd who as being commonly the best Divines and Preachers and many in number and changeable from County to County and from one Diocess and Province to another at their Superiours will and in most parts in greater esteem with the lay people then the Secular Clergy would if not concurring with them cast such an aspersion on them as would be able to render them infamous and contemptible amongst their own Parishioners upon account of so specious a pretence amongst ignorant people as the renouncing the Papal power and acknowledging the King to be Supream Head of the Church would amount unto For so many and very many too of both Secular and Regular Clergy gave out to the common sort against their own knowledge and conscience the Subscribers mean'd and did by that Remonstrance of 61. representing it as the same thing with the Oath of Supremacy which Roman Catholicks generally have refused this hundred years and therefore lay under so many incapacities and other penalties Nay some of those Clergy-men did not stick to say and swear too they would sooner take the Oath of Supremacy than subscribe that Remonstrance And yet it is very clear those Gentlemen understand neither or if they do either that certainly they are out as to both in their explications of them as far as from East to West For in the sense wherein the sons of the Protestant Churches of England and Ireland take the Oath of Supremacy they acknowledge no spiritual Supremacy purely such or any such spiritual Headship or supream Government-ship in the King in any causes or things what soever even temporal so far are they from acknowledging such in causes or things Ecclesiastical or Spiritual not even in those which are by extrinsecal denomination only called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual but only a Supream Politick Civil or Temporal Head-ship or Government-ship in all things whatsoever by the power of the material Sword and this of this Sword over all persons generally as well Church-men as others Which sense is very Catholick and owned in relation to their Kings and 〈…〉 temporal Governours by all Catholicks in France Spain Germany Poland Italy 〈◊〉 wheresoever in the world Nor do they intend to deny by the 〈◊〉 Oath in the negative â—â—me any power purely spiritual to the Pope or other even 〈◊〉 Prelate 〈◊〉 that power only which 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—ugnant to that supâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 temporal or politick Government-ship be not said to be such as indeed it cannot justly And on the other side it is plain the Remonstrance o◠〈…〉 not a word or clause either defectâ—â—◠〈◊〉 directly or by any kind of consequence importing the 〈◊〉 wherein the Roman Catholicke have refused â—â—therto the â—â—nd Oath of Supremacy 〈◊〉 this sense is no other than 〈…〉 by the universality of the words or signs 〈◊〉 the affirmative and negative 〈◊〉 the Roman Catholick Vulgar understands ever also a spiritual Privacy or Supremacy purely such to be attributed to the King and denied to the Pope and other Bishops in those Dominions albeit this sense be plainly repugnant to the very Confession of Faith in the 〈◊〉 articles of the Prâ—â—estâ—â—â— Church England and Ireland and to those others of Queen Elizabeth in her Injuctions authorized and owned even by Parliament Now it is no less manifest and out of all controversie amongst such as do but even lead singly over the Protestation of 61. that there us not a word in it 〈◊〉 â—biâ—â—ting any such to the King or denying it to the Pope or intending at all any such thing nor indeed any thing else but what is allowed and approved by the doctrine and practice of all the Catholick world abroad iâ— peradventure the present Roman Court not the Roman Church be not excepted and the few sticklers for it although against the sense and inclination of all the wise and moderate Popes even I mean too such as governed that See in these latter times But however this be or be not such was the pretence of many for not concurring by their subscriptions albeit they confess'd withal the Remonstrance very catholick in it self And for this pretence or the scandal raised against the Remonstrance of renouncing the Pope or importing the same with the Oath of Supremacy besides the malicious or wilful stumbling of some at one word in it not construed or taken with the words immediatly following restraining that word as all men of never so little reason or sense must allow it ought to be I know not but the reprinting of the single sheet of that Remonstrance at London by some of purpose to gain by selling it when all the first Edition was immediately bought and the reprinting of it with a false Title cryed and sold so up and down the Streets which false Title imported the renouncing of the Pope by the Popish Clergy of Ireland whether I say this occasioned not at first that aspersion amongst some ignorant people I know not though I am sure it could not amongst the Clergy on Layety either that read the paper it self or what was therein contained 11. That some also of the leading men had a special pick to it only because advanced by the Procurator by whose means they would not even desire the freest exercise of their Religion because he had been all
pretence or even true real only cause of Warr so declared and prosecuted by the Pope against our King is purely and solely for unjust laws made and executed against Catholicks and against as well their temporal as spiritual rights and only to restore such rights to the Catholick Subjects of great Brittain and Ireland and be it further made as clear and certain as any thing can be made in this life to an other by Declarations or Manifestoes of the Popes pure and holy intentions in such an undertaking and of his Army 's too or that they intend not at all to Usurp for themselves or alienat the Crown or other rights of the Kingdoms or of any of the people but only to restore the Catholick people to their former state according to the ancient fundamental laws and to let the King govern them so and only disinable him to do otherwise and having put all things into such order to withdraw his Army altogether let all this I say be granted yet forasmuch as considering the nature of Warr and conquest and how many things may intervene to change the first intentions so pure could these intentions I say be certainly known as they cannot to any mortal man without special Divine revelation what Divines can be so foolish or peremptory as to censure the Catholick Subjects for not lying under the mercy of such a forraign Army or even in such a case to condemn them either of Sacriledg or of any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith only for not suffering themselves to lye for their very natural being at such mercy Or if any Divines will be so foolish or peremptory as these Lovain Divines proved themselves to have been by this second ground of their Censure I would fain know what clear uncontroverted passage of Holy Scripture and allowed uncontroverted sense thereof or what Catholick uncontroverted doctrine of holy Tradition or even what convincing argument of natural reason they can alleadg in the case And as I am sure they cannot alleadg any so all others may presume so too being their said original long Censure wherein they lay down all their grounds and likely too their best proofs of such dare not see the light or abide the test of publick view And if all they would have by this ground or pretence of ground or by the bad arguments they frame to make it good were allowed it is plain they conclude no more against a Remonstrance which assures our King of his Roman Catholick Subjects to stand by him in all contingencies whatsoever for the defence of his person Crown Kingdom and people and their natural and political or civil rights and liberties against the Pope himself then they would against such a Remonstrance as comprehended not such standing by against the Pope but only against French Spanish or other Princes of the Roman Church or Communion For the Pope hath no more nor can pretend any more right in the case to make Warr on the King of England then any meer temporal Prince of that Religion can being if he did Warr it must be only and purely as a meer temporal Prince for as having pure Episcopal power either that wich is immediately from Jesus Christ or that which is onely from the Fathers and Canons of the Church or if you please from both he is not capacitated to fight with the sword but with the word that is by praying and preaching and laying spiritual commands and inflicting spiritual censures only where there is just cause of such And I am sure the Lovain Divines have not yet proved nor will at any time hereafter that the non-rebellion of Subjects against their own lawful Prince let his government be supposed never so tyrannical never so destructive to Catholick Faith and Religion or even their taking arms by his command to defend both his and their own civil and natural rights against all forraign invaders whatsoever and however specious the pretext of invasion be is a just cause of any such spiritual Ecclesiastical censure Nor have proved yet against them or can hereafter that such censures in either of both cases would bind any but him alone that should pronounce them and those only that besides would obey them Yet all this notwithstanding I am farre enough and shall ever be from saying or meaning that Subjects whatsoever Catholick or not Catholick ought or can justy defend any unjust cause or quarrel of their Prince when they are evidently convinced of the injustice of it Nor consequently is it my saying or meaning that Catholick Subjects may enlist themselves in their Princes Army if an offensive Warr be declared against the Pope or even other Catholick Prince or State soever and had been declared so by the Prince himself or by his Generals or Armyes and by publick Manifesto's or otherwise known sufficiently and undoubtedly to be for extirpation of the true Orthodox Faith or Catholick Religion or of the holy rites or Liturgy or holy discipline of it Nor doth our Remonstrance engage us to any such thing but is as wide from it as Heaven from Earth It engages us indeed to obey the King even by the most active obedience can be even to enlist our selves if he command us and hazard our lives in fighting for the defence of his Person Crowns Kingdoms and People amongst which people our selves are but only still in a defensive Warr for his and their lives rights and liberties but engages us not at all to any kind of such active obedience nor ever intended to engage or supposed us engaged thereunto in case of such an offensive Warr as I have now stated What obedience the Remonstrance engages us unto in this later case is onely or meerly passive And to this passive obedience I confess it binds us in all contingencies whatsoever even the very worst imaginable But therefore binds us so because the law of the Land and the law of God and the law of Reason too without any such Remonstrance bound us before The Remonstrance therefore brings not in this particular as neither indeed in any other any kind of new tye on us but only declares our bare acknowledgement of such tyes antecedently Even such tyes as are on all Subjects of the world to their own respective lawful supream politick Governours Which bind all Subjects whatsoever to an active obedience when ever and where euer they are commanded any thing either good of its own nature or even but only indifferent and where the law of God or the law of the Land doth not command the contrary or restrain the Princes power of commanding it And to a passive obedience when he commands us any evil or any thing against either of both laws That is to a patient abiding suffering or undergoing without rebellion or any forcible resistance whatever punishment he shall inflict on us for not doing that which he commands and is truly evil in it self as being against the laws of God or is
the sacrament or capable of either 2. That the Confessor in such case is bound to protest that he neither receives nor is bound to receive such a matter under the Seal of confessional secrecy unless perhaps he fear a greater evil from such protestation to himself or others than would be the scandalizing of such a Confitent by revealing without such protestation made the mischief so confess'd by him And thirdly in plain tearms that he is not only licenced but obliged to reveal it so he may conveniently without danger to himself But let us here Sylvester speak his own language Quinto queritur â—uibus casibus audita in confessione dici aut manifestari possint sine fractione dicti siâ—illi Et dico hoc fieri posse in casibus multis Primo si penitens c. Secundo si sâ—â—erdos c. Tertio si quis confitetur se velle facere aliquod malum puta homicidium quia secundum Innoc. sequitur Panorm d. cap. omnis istud non est dictum in penitentiali foro nec sacerdos illud celare tenetur quia peccatum non commissum sed committendum non est dictum in penitentià Quod limita in quantum est committendum secus inquit Panorm si poeniteret de voluntate praeterita quia tunc est commissum respectu voluntatis Quod tamen dictum est sacerdotem ad hujus celationem non teneri intellige primo quando adest firmum propositum committendi secus secundum Mon. si quis confitatur super aliquo tentari et aliquando consentire aliâ—uando vero dissentire revelare non debet Et si adest dictum propositum firmum secundum eundem debet sacerdos protestari quod tale quid nec recipit nec recipere tenetur sub sigillo confessionis ad scandalum evitandum quod intellige nisi ex tali protestatione sequeretur malum majus scandalo paenitentis puta homicidum Intellige secundo quando illud peccatum committendum vergeret in periculum vel damnum communitatis vel etiam privatae personae Quo casu non solum non tenetur celare sed tenetur manifestare si id potest commodè sine damno suo et cum proximi utilitate etiam peccantis secus est ubi quis confitetur se non posse ab aliquo abstinere nulti nisi sibi noâ—ituro c. Now this being the doctrine those being the Queries Resolves Instances and reasons of Sylvester in express words and sense can it be denyed to be as clear as the Sun that he both means and reacheth in his grand Resolve of our case the revealing of the very individual person of the Confitent without his own consent For of the lawfulness or obligation of revealing him with his own consent no man ever yet disputed as neither of that of revealing the sin or treason without revealing the person of the Confitent or penitent either directly or indirectly is there any controversy at all not even with Suarez or Bellarmine for what concerns properly the sacramental Seal as such even of a true sacramental confession though upon other unwarrantable grounds these two great Divines restraine the Confessor from declaring so the treason it self to an Heretick Prince or one esteemed by them such But whatever the doctrine of Suarez or Bellarmine be or be not in this matter It is evident that what I say of Sylvester and the same must be of Abbas Innocentius and other Divines Canonists Summists or Casuists who taught before or after him the same things must be as intellectually clear to the eye of any rational man that reads him as the visible Sun in the most serene day is to the corporal eye of such as have this organ perfect For whoever expresly teaches that there are no sins nor other appendages or circumstantials whatsoever of any sins as time place complices c. or whatever els you please under what name soever fall under the Seal of confession but only sins already committed and as already committed and as such confess'd not however but sacramentally that is in true order to the sacrament of pennance with hope of pardon and without a purpose to continue them hereafter and besides such sins so confess'd nothing els and yet that neither any such sins nor any their such appendages or circumstantials simply as such or simply too as so confess'd fall under that Seal but relatively or only as they relate to the Confitent or as the sins of such a person who confess'd them and besides this expresly and consequently teaches that a future sin or present fixed purpose or design of a sin to be committed hereafter either by the Confitent himself or by any other cannot for what is future as neither for what is present or past of such purpose and is not yet retracted be at all sacramentally confessed and moreover expresly instanceth for example of such a truly unsacramental confession or Confitent one that tells the Priest in the confessional chayre or in a seeming way of sacramental confession that he is fixedly resolved to kill such a man and teaches too expresly that such confession is not sacramental and further yet expresly teacheth in this case that the confessor is so farre from being bound by any Seal of either sacramental or unsacramental secrecy that it is not only lawful for him to reveal all that he knows so and is necessary for prevention but is obliged to do so and yet much more obliged if the wickedness tend to the destruction of a community or commonwealth and lastly and expresly also gives for reasons of such resolves and Instances that whoever confesses and in as much as he confesses such things and in such manner doth not confess to the Priest as to the Minister of God nor with hope of pardon nor with a true order to the sacrament nor any matter at all belonging to the sacrament or subject to the Keys of the Church consequently nothing capable of the Sacred Seal of the Church or of confession appointed by God and the Church Whoever I say teaches expresly all this it cannot be rationally denyed to be as clear as the Sun that he both means and reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of such a Confitent and I mean still without nay against his consent when the danger to a third person much more to a Kingdom commonwealth or even any lesser community is great and not to be otherwise prevented and that he may reveal him without danger to himself But Sylvester teaches expresly all this that is teacheth expresly that there are no sins nor other appendages or circumstantials whatsoever c. Ergo it cannot be rationally denied to be as clear as the Sun that Silvester both means and reaches in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for and obligation too c. The conclusion follows necessarily the Premisses if Aristotle
is requisit but onely that simple or natural ratiocination or discourse which all men can have Such for example sayes he thirdly are all the precepts of the Decalogue For out of that first principle imprinted in the hearts of all men That God is to be worshipped must follow that Idols ought not to be worshipped and that we ought not to swear God in vaine As likewise out of that other first principle what you would not have done to your self you must not do to an other must follow that you must not kill you must not commit adultery you must not steal c. It is true indeed sayes our learned Cardinal and perhaps truly too in so much that some such precepts as these of the second degree or some such conclusions have been sometimes and in some nations blotted out of the hearts of men by too great a blindness which did seize their understanding faculty as appears out of Caesar lib. 6. de Bello Gallico where we read that amongst the Germans theft was esteemed no vice but a vertue and out of St. Hierom l. 2. in Iovinianum and of Theodoret l. 9. ad Gracos who relate many vices against nature which have been approved as lawful in some countries not onely by the people but by their laws and law-makers And yet notwithstanding this ignorance or blindness of some concerning the precepts of nature in such matters it is also and alway true that such precepts do truly and properly belong to the law divine natural as St. Thomas of Aquin teaches 1. 2. q. 94. art 5. q. 100. art 8. where he holds that no dispensation can take place or be given at all in the precepts of the Decalogue or in such as we commonly call the ten commandements because these are properly of divine natural right or law The third degree of natural precepts is of such others as are deduced indeed from the principles of the law of nature but not by a consequence absolutely necessary nor altogether or any way evident and therefore do want humane institution And these are they which the Divines properly referre to jus gentium the law of nations This being the doctrine of this great Cardinal and his division or distinction of the several degrees of the law divine natural and his Resolve of the above Quere being that which a little after he gives in these words His ita explicatis dicendum videtur Exemptionem Ecclesiasticorum non pertinere ad primum vel secundum gradum naturalium praeceptorum nec tamen esse juris tantum positivi sive canonici sive civilis sed referendam esse ad tertium gradum praeceptorum juris naturae seu quod idem est ad jus gentium that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks belongs not to the first or second degree of natural praecepts and yet is not from any law positive onely either canonical or civil but must be referr'd to the third of those are praecepts of the law of nature or which is the same thing sayes he to the law of nations I leave it now to the judgment of all judicious men whether he do not abuse the name of the law of nature or law divine natural and of precepts of such a law and consequently his undiscerning Reader by attributing that name to those dictats which are not indeed any such law or any precepts at all of such law not even I say according to his own doctrine here For a law divine natural hoc ipso that it is such a law or indeed any true law at all and precepts of the law divine hoc ipso that they are such precepts or even any true preceps of any true law must be of necessity binding this property or quality of binding as it is confessed of all sides being essential to a true law and true precept of such law I mean still according to that proper sense wherein I must be understood to speak here of laws and precepts that is as they are distinguished from other free unobliging rules of direction council or advice which not a superiour onely but every conscientious and knowing Inferiour also may give And yet Bellarmine here confesses in effect that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks was not obliging any nor binding by the sole vertue of any pure dictate of natural reason or not at all antecedently to an institution made by man forasmuch as it is onely of the third degree and therefore positive and consequently not a conclusion that follows any way at all evidently or necessarily out of any evident or certainly true principle of natural reason And what is this els but the dictat thereof not to be binding at all by natural reason and therefore consequently no law no precept of that same reason For if we see it doth not follow certainly out of any evident or allowed principle as our natural reason will not suffer us to be bound by it upon the bare account of such an uncertain false illation so will not our natural reason suffer us to esteem it upon that same bare account a law of meer natural reason and consequently nor a law divine natural Whence also it must be evident enough that Bellarmine seeks without any sufficient ground to impose again on his Readers credulity where he sayes in his said Resolve that this Exemption is not onely juris positivi sive canonici sive civilis For if it was not at all as his own doctrine here confesses it was not before the institution or determination of men however this determination was made by custome onely or otherwise how can it be true that it is not onely from or by a positive law institution or determination of men and this law either civil or canonical or both being there is no other way of a positive determination Behold the reason partly wherefore this learned Cardinal seeing well enough his doctrine and Resolve or both together could not but argue him of absolute contradiction if he would be understood so as to speak properly or even to speak sense at all flyes immediatly from the name or title of law divine natural to that of a law onely of Nations or rather confounds both together that is the law of nations and his third degree of the laws divine natural But so he might have without any authority to impose new names confounded together and comprehended under the self-same appellation heat and cold and vice and vertue or at least as many different species's of qualities as have no contrariety in the same subject However allowing him this priviledge or passing by this shifting of names or appellations and his attributing in some sense though an improper abusive sense the titles of a law of nature and of a law of nations to the exemption of Clergiemen in his own greatest height extent or latitude of this exemption or as it imports even that exemption which he maintains to be of the persons also of Clergiemen and even in all temporal causes
and consecrated to God and for his special service and sanctified too both externally and internally when they are baptized at the Sacred Font when the sanctified water is poured on them the words of life are pronounced over them and the rest of the Sacred Rites are duly performed by the Priest of God as of signing them with the sign of redemption and anointing them with the Chrysm of Sanctification and anointing them too in so many parts together as their Crown and Breast and Shoulders and of c And consequently how can it be denyed that all Christians universally that all those we call meer laymen or women must be in some sense and that even a very good true and proper sense made as if they were the peculiar and property of God Certainly not onely in this same sense or quasi can it be denyed either of Israelits or Christians but not even in the most strict and proper sense imaginable of the property of God can it be denyed that by and for many other most considerable titles as those of creation redemption sanctification preservation general and particular providence c. all the Nations of the earth aswell Infidels as believers and all their lands and goods are of the property of God As it cannot be denyed that it is onely respective or in some certain respect onely he sayes himself or we say that such or such a people or such or such things belong to God Therefore as the belonging of all persons and all things whatsoever on earth to God and the belonging of them to himself alone immediately by and for so many other titles of eminency and excellency admits according to natural reason nay and requires also according to the same reason that earthly Kings and civil Magistrats as his Vicegerents on earth in temporal matters should nevertheless have such a right derived from him to govern justly and righteously to dispose of all the very self-same persons and things it must follow by the same natural reason still that no other particular title whereby some sort of people or things are said to be God's can exempt such people or things from such a right in Princes to govern and dispose of them to such ends as God himself would have them govern'd and disposed of unless the very same God who hath bid us all universally and undistinctly obey such Princes hath himself by special provision revealed to us exempted such a sort of people or things from the government of Princes But no such special provision is yet proved in relation to Clerks Nay the quite contrary shall be proved hereafter in its proper place And yet whatever be said or thought of other proofs or no other proofs of such a special revealed provision for Clerks I am perswaded it now appears sufficiently out of what I have hitherto said That our learned Cardinal hath alleadged no proof at all nor dictate of natural reason which is our present controversy for such a portion And consequently neither any such proof or dictate for that his Assumption which he delivers so confidently in these words Certe autem in ea quae sunt eblata consecrata Deo quasi propria ipsius Dei facta sunt nullum jus habere possunt Principes seculi And yet gives no reason at all for that his too confident assertion but onely in general would have us believe him that the light of reason doth shew it to be so and then would have us believe him too that God himself hath not obscurely delivered it to be so Levit. last chap. v. 29. where it is said by Moyses to the people Quicquid semel fuerit consecratum sanctum sanctorum erit Domino whatever shall be once consecrated shall be holy of holies to the Lord. But our learned Cardinal should have considered we are not bound to believe that his bare saying That the light of reason doth shew any such thing unless he further prove it to us by a discourse of reason which yet he doth not as much as venture upon and I have shewed already he could not venture upon if he would not be foiled Nor likewise are bound to believe his bare saying that God himself hath not obscurely delivered it to be so in the said passage of Leviticus unless we can be convinced by that very passage it self or by the sense or interpretation of it delivered us by Tradition in the writings of holy Fathers But he brings us neither Church nor Fathers nor as much as one single Father so far he is from venturing on Tradition for any such meaning of that passage And I am sure the words taken either precisely in that passage or relatively and by comparing them to or expounding them by any other passages of that same chapter or even of any other either in the whole book of Leviticus or what book soever in holy Bible imports no such meaning as Bellarmine would impose on us Whatever is once consecrated shall be holy of holies to the Lord are the words Ergo sayes Bellarmine for this must be the consequence these words import not obscurely that the Vicegerent of the Lord on earth in the external Government and by the power of the carnal material or corporal sword hath no power at all from God or by nature to force by means proper to him when he shall see it necessary such consecrated persons as Clerks are to serve God holily and behave themselves justly towards their neighbours according to the ends of their consecration and thereby live so as they may be alwayes and in all things holy of holies to the Lord. If this consequence follow by any reason or Philosophy or any Scripture or Theology we may hereafter perswade our selves that ex quolibet sequitur quodlibet And if either clearly or obscurely or any way at all they import any such thing I confess my self to understand no kind of thing Therefore the natural genuine and even obvious meaning of that passage can be no other but what is sufficiently declared in that whole chapter as likewise in many other chapters even of that very book but more especially in the former part of that same 29. verse where you read this general rule given by God to the Israelits Any thing that is consecrated to the Lord whether it be man or beast or field shall not be sold neither can it be redeemed And then follows immediatly in the same verse and as a corollary that passage quoted by Bellarmine whatever is once consecrated shall be holy of holies to the Lord. Whence being compared to what is said before in the same chapter of the redemption of vows made of Lands Houses Beasts either clean or unclean and of the persons too of men and women appears plainly that nothing else is intended but that if the thing vowed be not redeemed by a sum of moneys before consecration made it shall not be lawful to redeem it any time after consecration
and Burgundy and exercised also that self same Vicariat office without any regard of the former Bulls of this Pope excommunicating deposing and depriving this Lewis for we know very well that in the Countries obeying that Emperour himself there was not nor could be any such material publication much less reception of any thing or Bull for such a part at least as struck though indirectly at the prerogatives and rights Imperial I mean such as were truly such as we know it is a maxime amongst Civilians and Canonists that laws are then laws indeed quando moribus utentium comprobantur when they are approved by reception and submission to them and yet we know withal that for such approbation or reception of and submission to all and singular the definitions of this Bull so little can be said albeit enough may be for some of them and yet not for any of them as in this Bull as it is apparant the Bull it self or the tenor of it hath been for some ages unknown and even unknown to and unseen by the very most learned and most curious at least until about some fifty or threescore years since it was by meer chance lighted on in Biblotheca Cottâ—niana Sr. Robert Cottons Library finally passing by altogether in silence as not material what Villanius an Italian Author of this Popes time and St. Antoninus too the holy Archbishop of Florence after him and others after both report of the election of this very Iohn to the Papacy or how it was himself alone being called before his Papacy Iacobus de Ossa Episcopus Cardinalis Portuensis that chose himself to be Pope viz. the Colledge of Cardinals being at variance long and compromising at last and fixing on and electing him blindly whoever he should be that were or would be elected by him alone whereupon he chose himself as likewise and as not very material passing over wholly in silence what Ciacconius relates of his breach of oath made to Neopoleon Ursinus the Archdeacon who was one of the Conclave and was author to the rest of the Cardinals to leave the whole election to him Iacobus de Ossa then but after Iohn the XXII for this oath was that he would never mount either horse or mule but to go to Rome whence his Predecessors Clement the V. had in a manner removed the Papal See by living all his life-time in France where alâ—o this Iohn or this Iames de Ossa was chosen to be Pope and yet he never once attempted to go to Rome though he lived a long and healthy life after in his Papacy and therefore the said Neapoleon would never come at him as much as once more in his life nor even after his death as much as go to his funeral ceremonies not even notwithstanding that to appease or to win him from his rigid resolution this Pope had promoted two of his Family and created them Cardinals at two several promotions Iohn Cajetanus Vrsinus and Matthew Vrsinus I say that passing by at present all the both general and specifical and particular advantages I might any way take either of the doctrine of the fallibility of Popes in general or of the fallibility of Iohn the XXII Bulls in particular or of this singular Bull of his as to some part of it at least in the sense of some Divines against Marsilius and Iandunus or of any thing else hitherto alledg'd in this last Paragraph nay supposing or granting all and each animadversion had been not only immaterial but false and which is consequent admitting the certainty of the legalâ— both emanation and publication and general reception too of this Bulâ— throughout all Christendome and of every branch of it and that even Iohn the XXII himself had either been himself alone infallible in all his Definitions of any matter to be of Catholick Faith and consequently of the matter of this Bull or at least had been so fortunate as to have defined nothing so by himself for such but what was formerly or concomitantly acknowledged to be such and even acknowledged so by the universal Church of the infallibility of which Church in matters of Faith no Catholick doubts yet I say again that granting all this My direct and positive answer to the above fourth remaining objection is very clear and very full and satisfactory viz. That although without any peradventure my doctrine hitherto all along in this Tract of a supream civil coercive power in supream temporal Princes to punish criminal Bishops Priests and other Clergiemen whatsoever dwelling and offending within their dominions is or was part of the doctrine taught as well by Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno as by thousands of the very best Roman Catholicks both in their time and before and after their time yet it is no part of that doctrine or of those articles of Marsilius or Jandunus which is properly called theirs or which as theirs John the XXII condemned or as much as touch'd at all and therefore that the objection for so much of it as is to purpose is absolutely false Which to evict no less manifestly we need no other proof then what is obvious to every judicious man by comparing together my doctrine hitherto and the above five articles which Iohn the XXII himself relates as the only proper doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus against which he takes exception and pronounces condemnation For the first of those articles is that that which is read of Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew that he paid tribute to Cesar when he commanded the stater taken out of the fishes mouth to be given to the Collectors he commanded and did so non condescensivè liberalitate suae pietatis sed necessitate coactus not out of his condescension liberality and piety but as constrained by necessity But it is evident enough the doctrine of a supream coercive power of all Clerks in temporal Princes needs not involves not the support of any such article as this first concerning Christ whatever the sense of Marsilius or Iandunus therein was good or bad false or true for the doctrine of such power in Princes speaks only of it in relation to Clerks who are only men by nature not of Christ who was both God and man by nature even as to all the perfections and power of as well the divine as humane nature Be it therefore so that Marsilius and Iandunus mean'd heretically in this first article of theirs that is mean'd to say that Christ paid tribute not only or solely to avoid scandal but also as bound by his own condition and by the sole virtue of that tribute law in it self and as abstracting wholy from all cases of scandal and be it so as it was so that Iohn the XXII rightly condemn'd this heretical sense or even be it so that he justly condemned that first article as bearing this sense and rightly judg'd it to beare this very sense and no other good sense at all what hath
this to do or wherein doth this condemnation or judgment reflect on the doctrine which teacheth not of Christ but of the Disciples of Christ and only teacheth that all men who are only men and not Gods or that all mortal and sinful men whether Laymen or Clergiemen who are members of any commonwealth and not the heads thereof do lye under a proper and strict obligation not only of charity for the avoiding of scandal but of justice also to be humbly subject in criminal causes to the supream coercive power of the supream politick head Nay and under an obligation of justice also even to pay him tribute if he himself exempt them not from tribute I mean were it necessary for me to urge that of tribute as it is not And only teacheth moreover that such obligation of Justice ariseth from the very law divine it self both natural and positive or which is the same thing is evidently commanded by reason and by revelation by plain Scripture and Catholick Tradition by the doctrine and practice of the Christian Bishops themselves and of even their very best Christian Princes and people all along from the beginning of Christianity until this present day Certainly there is no man so blind as not to see that that first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or condemnation of it hath nothing to do with this doctrine Nor yet so blind as not to see that my elucidation of this doctrine all along or any where in this Tract hath nothing to do with that first Article taken I mean in that sense wherein as I have declared already and in no other the said Iohn the XXII condemn'd it I confess I have before that is in the 239. page of this first Part by occasion too of speaking somewhat against Bellarmine concerning the doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus or that part of their doctrine which is in this first article said That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether to free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of yet a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condem'd nor censur'd at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters I have said so there I confess But what then or doth it follow that by such answer to Bellarmine I maintain this first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or that I fall under the condemnation of this first article nothing less This first article is as the Pope himself relates it in these words and only in these words Illud quod de Christo legitur in Evangelio B. Matthei quod ipse soluit tributum Caesari quando staterem sumptum ex ore piscis illis qui petebant didrachma jussit dari hoc fecit non condescensive liberalitate suae pietatis sed necessitate coactus And the condemnation of this article or the sense wherein this article was condemned is that which imposes a constraint of necessity on our Saviour for paying the didrachma and which denyes that he paid it not condescensively that is not out of his meer condescension and out of the liberality of his piety Now who sees not first that I do not by any means deny it was out of his meer condescension to the infirmities of weak men and of his liberality and piety that our Saviour commanded the didrachma to be paid nay who sees not that I do rather expresly enough say it was meerly out of his liberality piety and condescension he commanded it to be paid so for himself Do not I say most expresly or at least insinuat most sufficiently that he paid it only to avoid scandal and that he was bound by no other law to pay it but by the law of love and charity or which is the same thing and to repeat here again my own former determinate words that as the fulfiller of the old law and Prophets and as the giver of a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And secondly and indeed consequently who sees not that in that discourse of mine or whole passage quoted above out of my 239. page I have not a word importing any constraint of necessity or any either constraint or necessity for in effect they are both the same or import the same thing taking these words properly or absolutely and simply that is without any dimunitive adjection addition restriction or taking them not any way at all for that which is secundum quid tale as they ought not to be taken but for that which is simpliciter tale as they ought to be taken where other words or the subject restrains them not For to aver such constraint or such necessity incumbent on our Saviour in paying the didrachma were as much as to aver that either he had an inward constraint or necessity on his will or soul for want of that inward essential indifferency which makes the will and soul free in it self inwardly to volitions and nollitions or had an outward compulsion or coaction of his executive faculty for want of outward means as for example twelve legions of Angels at his command to free him from the power of those that would force him to payment whether he would or no if he had denyed it or certainly had the constraint or necessity of an obligation or tye of justice and obedience on him arising from the tribute law it self obliging him as other men under the guilt of sin and other penalties of such law to pay tribute Which last kind of necessity is that which the arguments of Iohn the XXII against the first article of Marsilius do seem to fasten upon it and condemns in it and the whole article for seeming to say that out of such necessity our Saviour paid the didrachma But whether so or no I am not concern'd because I remove all three kinds of necessity from our Saviour and all other kinds too of necessity if there be any other simply such For though I say in the beginning of the said passage page 239. that our Saviour himself by his own non scandalizemus eos Mat 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free c but that he was bound c and consequently say that our Saviour wanted some kind of freedom
and therefore say also by consequence that he lay under some constraint and some necessity and some bond tye or obligation to pay that didrachma yet is it not consequent that I say he wanted that freedom or any such freedom which is simply such or lay under any constrrint or necessity which are simply such or even under any bond tye or obligation at least of justice simply such or which might oblige him under sin or the penalty of sin or by vertue of the tribute law it self to pay any tribute for the rest of my discourse most evidently shews I mean thereby no other constraint necessity or obligation but such as are secundum quid or diminutively such even such as Iohn the XXII himself allows even such as our Saviour himself means by saying ut non scandalizemus eos da c. and even such finally as arise only from the law of love and of that divine love which told him it was not fitting for him to give cause of scandal to the weak ones by his own refusal or denial or failer and which made him at last to give his life for them that took it from him And therefore also 't is not consequent that by any thing or word said in that passage of mine page 239 I joyn or concur with Marsilius or Jandunus in this first article of theirs not even as much as in the words much less in the sense of that article condemn'd by Pope Iohn the XXII Besides it is clear enough that for the defence of my thesis against Bellarmine's argument grounded by him on the texts of Matthew Mat. 17. Ergo liberi sunt filii and ut nâ—â— scandalizemus eos c. I needed not give as I did not give in my LXIII Section page 150 151 153. where I handled these words of our Saviour at large and of purpose any such answer but solved the argument fairly and clearly there without any such or as much as reflecting on any such answer that is on any such necessity or any such obligation of justice or obedience due arising from the tribute law or other command of presumed superiour Powers And it is no less clear that I was not in my 239. page nor am here now at present nor will be elsewhere any further concern'd for Marsilius or Jandunus then they held close to the general thesis only that is to the general doctrine only of the Catholick Church and that whereever they swerve from that I do from them and where that Church condemns them I also condemn them nay and that I am content likewise to condemn them where ever Iohn the XXII himself alone or in this Bull of his condemns them and yet hold still constantly to my thesis For and forasmuch as concerns their second complex article viz. Quod B. Petrus Apostolus non plus authoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerint nec aliorum Apostolorum fuit caput Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae nec aliquem Vicarium suum fecit 't is plain it concerns not our present controversie of the exemption of Clergiemen or that even of the very Apostles themselves or that even sayl also of S. Peter himselâ— from the temporal powers and in temporal matters For that Peter should have had that is actually and immediatly from Christ himself had more authority then the other Apostles had and that he should have been made or was actually made the head of them all and that Christ should have or had left some one Head to the Church and made left some one his own Vicar which is the contradictory of this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus argues nothing at all for the exemption from temporal Princes in temporal matters of as much as Peter himself or of him that had that greater authority or of that head or of that Vicar Because the doctrine of the Catholick Church teacheth us that that greater authority of Peter whatever it was and that Headship of his over the rest of the Apostles and that one Headship and one Vicarship under Christ in the Church and over the Church was meerly and purely spiritual and because not only that very doctrine but reason also and experience tells us that such greater authority spiritual and even such one Headship and one Vicarship spiritual consist well very with a lesser authority temporal in the same Head or Vicar and even with none such at all in Him and yet with another Headship and another Vicarship temporal in another person and with a full entire subjection in temporal matters to this other person or other head and other Vicar whose authority and power is only and purely temporal as on the other side the temporal Headship or temporal Vicarship consists very well with its own subjection in spiritual matters to that Headship and Vicarship which is only spiritual And more or other then what is here said Iohn the XXII arguments in his discourse against this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus do not conclude or indeed as much as pretend to being all his reasons here are only and wholly bent against a parity of power in the Apostles amongst themselves without any exception of Peter or preheminence given to him over them How strong or how weak his reasons are I need not care at least for the present being that for the present I allow all in general both his definitions and reasons in this Bull and in particular what he reasons and defines against this second Article as not as much as in the least touching me or my thesis of the subjection of all Clergiem whether Apostles or not Apostles and even of the very spiritual Prince of the Apostles Peter himself in temporal matters to the supream temporal respective Princes within whose dominions they live For likewise as for the third of those Articles or this Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam instituere destituere ac punire as the said Iohn the XXII relates it in the beginning of his Bull or this other form of it Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam corrigere punire ac instituere destituere 't is clear enough it may be allowed as I also do allow it to be false erroneous and heretical for one part and in one sense or even for both parts in a certain sense whatever is in the mean while thought of the other part or even of either in another different sense and yet my grand Thesis and all my doctrine hitherto even where it descends or rather ascends to the Pope himself be untouch'd by any such censure That one part I allow to be so is that which sayes it belongs to the Emperour to institute and destitute the Pope and the sense wherein I allow this part to be so or to be false erroneous and heretical is that whereby any should conceive that the Emperor could at any time and by his own proper imperial authority as such
Canterbury as relating to our present purpose and put all that into this special form of argument Syllogisme and objection against my own grand Thesis Whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's cause quarrel or contest with Henry the second must be false But my grand Theirs of a power in secular supream Princes to coerce all criminal Clergiemen whatsoever living within their dominions is such or is a doctrine which condemns or opposes that very cause quarrel or contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury Ergo my grand Thests must be false The Minor will be proved thus and must be proved thus or not at all Such doctrine must necessarily suppose an errour both in the solemn canonization of him at least for a martyr properly such and yet he was solemnly canonized for a martyr properly such by Alexander the Third Pope of that name his own contemporary and must further necessarily suppose an errour too that both in the belief and practise of the universal Church of Christ forasmuch as they believe him to be a martyr properly such and both venerat and invocate him as such For that such doctrine as condems or opposes the justice of his quarrel against Henry the Second must also necessarily suppose such an errour in his canonization veneration and invocation as a martyr properly such appears hence manifestly that it is therefore he was canonized for such and is venerated and invocated as such because that quarrel of his was and is believed to have been just and that it was for maintaining the justice of it he suffered death and suffered death patiently and Christianly as became a true martyr without any resistance at all Now it is plain that such doctrine as must necessarily suppose such an errour in such canonization veneration and invocation of any must be false nay erroneous and schismatical nay and heretical too in Christian belief because it must consequently suppose that not onely the Pope nay not onely this or that particular orthodox nation but even the universality of all true Christian nations even the Catholick Church her self taken in her whole latitude not onely may sometime erre in matters which they she accounts to be part of her holy belief holy practise but hath already and continually err'd and almost for five hundred years compleat that is since the year of our Lord 1173. wherein Alexander Tertius canonized him solemnly for a martyr and she no less solemnly invocated him as such Then which consequent supposition what Roman Catholick can say that any may be more even fundamentally heretical For it must be granted as an article nay and also at least among Divines as a fundamental article of Christian Catholick religion that the true Christian Catholick Church is infallible in credendis agendis both in her belief and in her practise I mean such as she her self accounts divine or holy or certainly it must be granted that we have nothing at all infallible in her or in our religion delivered by her but what may without any special revelation from God or any either particular or universal tradition from her be demonstrated by pure natural reason and consequently that our belief of even the very whole mistery of the Incarnation of the Son of God and of that other no less above our natural reason of the Trinity of persons in one God which are purely credenda as likewise those of Baptisme and the Lords Supper quatenus inter agenda as they are practised are fallible and unreasonable practises being we have nothing to render us absolutely certain of the contrary if the universal Church be fallible in her belief and practise But for the Minor as I confess that I see no other proof possible but by instancing the particulars of the difference 'twixt King Henry the Second and this holy Praelat so I confess also that if in any of those particulars or in altogether my grand Thesis or any part of my doctrine hetherto in pursuance of that my Thesis may be found and that it be clear also that St. Thomas of Canterbury suffered death therefore and was therefore canonized a martyr by the Pope and as such was therefore venerated and invocated ever since or at any time by the Catholick Church then I must consequently grant the objection to be very well or at least very probably grounded as no man can deny it to be syllogistically formed or deny the conclusion to follow of necessity if both the Premisses be certainly true And for the first of them we have already seen it pretty well driven home at least by a very specious discourse and one concluding such an inconvenience as no Roman Catholick will dare allow I mean the infallibility of the whole Catholick Church either in religious belief or practise whatever in the mean time be held or thought of the Pope alone or of his particular Roman Diocess as taken a part from the rest or of any one or moe even National Churches whatsoever of Catholick communion so they amount not to that which we call and is truly the Catholick or universal Church or the general congregation of all particular or National Churches or of the more considerable parts of them or the General Representative of such more considerable parts of them which are now in Ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Bishop his particular Diocess of Rome For this general Congregation of all such particular Churches or of all the more considerable parts of them and this general Representative also whenever it is of all such more considerable parts is it I call now here and elsewhere still understand to be the Catholick Church Whereof I desire my good Readers to take special notice not that I see any special need of it to solve this objection but that I may no where seem either to equivocat or to be unwilling to be understood when there is occasion to distinguish between the sense of the Pope and that of the Church or between the authority of a particular Church or some one of ro moe peradventure and that which is properly of the universal Church Therefore now not onely to shew what may be said or not said and that even out of the very Ecclesiastical History or Annals of Baronius himself of the particulars of the said difference or quarrel and for the proof of the said Minor being it is onely from History all that can be said for the proof of it must be had and that Baronius can not be presumed to relate such matter of fact with any kind of partiality or favour to me or my Thesis or my doctrine against his own pretended Immunity of all Clergiemen or be presumed to omit any material thing which might any way advance his own pretence of such Immunity upon the contradictory question confirmed by the sense by the life and death of so great a Saint and even sealed by the bloud of so glorious a martyr
insist ultimately without any change did Henry the second quit all other branches that such doctrine I say is false concedo But that whatever doctrine condemns or opposes such other branches of his quarrel whereon he would not so insist ultimately to the effusion of his bloud if the rest were quitted by the King that such doctrine I say is false nego Or even thus that the doctrine is false which condemns or opposes the Saints quarrel above the 16. Heads collectively taken concedo But that doctrine to be false which condemns or opposes the justice of his quarrel if he had any such as 〈◊〉 he had not for every one a part or for every head not onely collectively taken or joyntly with all the rest but even severally or separately taken nego Or thus also if you please yet more neer home to our purpose whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of his quarrel as in relation to the second Head of the sixteen and as it was proposed in terminis is false concedo but as in relation onely to the punishment of criminal Clerks by the supream civil coercive power or even by the subordinat when the laws of the land are for the civil Judges nego Or finally thus Whatever doctrine condemns or opposes so the quarrels or even any part of the quarrels of St. Thomas of Canterbury with Henry the Second that it also condemns or opposes his Sanctity or martyrdom in all the several and Ecclesiastical acceptions or uses or senses of the word martyrdom or opposes at all his canonization veneration invocation c is false concedo that condemns or opposes otherwise that contest only is false nego And conformably the Minor being distinguish'd I am sure the consequent inferr'd in the Syllogisme will appear to any and be in it self a meer non sequitur And further yet a fourth answer may be to the matter of this objection and a third to the Syllogisme by denying that there is any necessity to admit the Saints quarrel or controversy with Henry the Second to have been objectively just in all respects for any part of it whether original intermediat or ultimat or by denying that it was objectively prudential for the Saint to have been so rigid or so stiff in his own way and in such matters or any part of them against that King all circumstances duly considered Conformable to which answer to the matter the major and minor of the Syllogisme may be again distinguish'd and the consequence denyed absolutely as a non sequitur Which two last Answers the third and fourth I add to the former two not that I find those former two first any way defective or unsatisfactory or that I do not my self insist on those former as the answers which I own and which chiefly I would have reputed to be my own or those onely upon which I do most rely or that I do at all give this last of all or the fourth answer as my own but that I observe several reasons why it is not amiss to give them for the solution of the argument one way or an other in all sorts of judgments of Catholick writers and even also contemporary writers to St. Thomas himself who gave their judgment severally though briefly on those contests of his with Henry the Second Whereof The first reason is that St. Thomas of Canterbury doubtless might without any sin have complyed with Henry the Second that is might have had permitted him to have his will in all the several Instances or branches of the whole contro either of the first original complex of the five first or of the intermediat grand and long of the 16. customs or even of the final which was the onely proper and immediat cause or occasion of his death For to lay aside that which Parker sayes but sayes onely by guess might have been the very first of all originals in this controversy the Saint's changing his former way of living vainly and changing it into the strictness and holyness of a Saint I say that leaving this onely a side as not being to be or even indeed that was not quarreld at by the King nor quitted nor to be quitted at any mans pleasure by the Saint without sin he might cease from such earnest pursuance of those laymen who till his time held those lands alienated to them by his predecessours from the Church of Canterbury and without sin retayn his office of Chancellorship without sin abstain from hindering the temporal revenews of vacant Churches to be payed into the Kings Treasury or Exchequer and abstain also from speaking against the collection of hyde money without sin deliver over to secular justice the two criminal Clerks I say that he might without sinning have yielded in all those five instances which make the complex of the first original causes of the following evils to such earnest desires of such a King and that moreover he might without sin have yielded to him also in signing sealing the 16. customs especially when he knew all the other Estates both spiritual and temporal to have approved of them and to have entreated him so earnestly and passionatly to concurr that likewise he might without sin have abstained from appealing to the Pope and from his flight to Flanders incognito and against the Kings will and from incensing so much as he did in his voluntary exiâ—e the Papal Court against his King and from procuring or accepting a Legantine power to proceed joyntly by such an extraordinary power of Legat a latere by special commission and of his own ordinary Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction against even the King himself and from threatning and preparing himself to publish an Interdict against all the Kings dominions and from excommunicating by name and during his exile so many Bishops and others who had sided against him in the controversy of the 16. customs and from falling a new upon others at his return from exile in the temporal concerns of his Church of Canterbury lastly that he might without any sin have not only absolved the excommunicated Bishops without any condition being he very well knew they were excommunicated by the Pope at his own instance and that himself had all the Papal power might be delegated and that the injury was not such as lay not in his own power to remit without such a condition tying them to stand to what the Pope should enjoyn to or determine of them but also have permitted his Clerks to swear the oath proposed or to be proposed to them viz. that of maintaining the Kings laws and his said 16. customs for it could be no other oath I say that without sin St. Thomas of Canterbury might have so behaved himself as to have let the King have his desire in all and each of these branches and therefore in his whole controversy with Henry the Second being these instances or branches I have now repeated make up the whole series of his controversies and
here I gave it not purposely for any such end unto which I know it both improper and forreign but gave it occasionally and only to shew the Reader that neither am I single in some other matters particularly or signally in that of the Oath of Supremacy wheresoever in this Work or elsewhere I reflect thereon mildly and interpret or expound it more benignly though withall more truly and groundedly than furious Zealots would But to strengthen S. Clara's Testimony and elucidate my own foresaid Answer in my fourth Reason the learned Reader may be pleased to consult Bruno Chaissaing a French Recollect of the same Franciscan Order Penitentiary to and under Gregory the XV and Vrban the VIII in the First or chief Church of Europe St. John Laterane at Rome and consult and read him in his Work intituled Privilegia Regularium printed at Paris with approbation Anno M.DC.LIII In which Work besides this Proposition Bruâ—o Chaissaing de Privil Reg. Tract 1. cap. 1. prop 9. 10. Possunt Reges Supremi Senatus licite retinere Bullas Apostolicas in casu vel magni scandali aut perturbationis aut praejudicii tertii aut aliorum similium which is his Tenth Proposition in order Tract 1. cap. 1. You may also find his former Ninth Proposition to be this other viz. Potest legitime appellari de abusu ad Principem Saecularem seu Senatum Supremum quotiescunque potestas Ecclesiastica pronunciat aut agit contra Canones Privilegia potestque Princeps Senatus Supremus appellationem suscipere appellantes a violenta suorum Praelatorum vexatione eripere And you may see him there purposely and at large by several Arguments proving this Ninth Proposition But you shall no where see him mincing or using any kind of nicety about the word or term Appeal nor quitting it for that other of Recourse but a fair and clear Assertion in express terms That it 's lawful for all sorts of Ecclesiasticks even the strictest Regulars to Appeal to the Secular and Supreme Lay-Power from the unjust or uncanonical Pressures of their own Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates and this also as often as the said Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates pronounce or do any thing contrary to the Canons of the Church or Priviledges of their Order And consequently you shall not in this Author Bruno Chassaing meet with Franciscus a Sancta Claras Nudam potestatem civilem but with Jurisdictionem proprie dictam in the Majesties or Persons of Kings and other Lay Supreme States over all Clergy men whatsoever living under them Otherwise how might it according to the said Bruno's Doctrine in the place above quoted be lawful for Clergymen to Appeal I mean in the proper and strict sense of this word Appeal from their own Ecclesiastick Superiors to the King or State Or how might it be lawful for the King or State to receive such Appeals For Appeals properly or simply such argue Jurisdiction no less properly and simply such in the Judge of such Appeals Further and although it be not so much to my present purpose yet if to what St. Clare hath of the power of meer Lay Princes or States in general and in particular of that of our Kings of England to collate or to nominate and present for Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices I add also the Doctrine of another very late Roman Catholick Writer and Doctor of Divinity Joannes Baptista Verius in his Book intituled Pastorale Missionariorum Tract 4. Art xi Joannes Baptista Verius S. Theologiae Doctor in Pastorali Missionar Tract 4. ar xi I hold it not amiss For in the place thereof now quoted this Doctor Verius not only teaches with Lessius and Sanchez Two Jesuits whom he quotes but out of the Extravagant Ad evitandum c. of Martin the V. in the Council of Constance expresly proveth That even all Heretick Lay Patrons whatsoever not yet by name denounced enjoy still their former right of Canonical Patronage and that consequently all such do notwithstanding their Heresie both validly and as to all effects bindingly nominate or present fit persons to all kind of Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices whereof they or their legal Predecessors at any former time were the acknowledged Patrons Now from such whether necessary or unnecessary digressions to return to the series of my proofs for my main purpose here viz. that of St. Thomas of Canterbury's not having at any time for ought appears been guilty as much as of any Treasonable Principles or Doctrines My fifth Reason is 5. Because that a pure speculative judgment of either the probability or certainty of such or such a power to be or to remain as yet or to be naturally still inherent in the Church not only to give Royal Authority at first to these or these persons but also to take it away again from them or others deriving from them in some extraordinary case of grand demerit or grand incapacity must not infer a practical dictate or any at all for the lawfulness of taking it so away And because both Reason and Experience tell us That no such pure Speculation while it remains such and comes not to be practical or to have a practical or other dictate flowing from or annex'd to it either assuring us of the lawfulness of putting such power in execution or prompting us accordingly to execute can at all annoy hurt or in any wise lessen either in fact or intention the Majesty of Temporal Princes or States as it is clear enough to any rational man without further Discourse But that such a pure speculative judgment of such a power in actu primo in the Church doth not infer a practical judgment prompting so or any other judgment practical or speculative of the lawfulness of such execution in actu secundo of such a power we have also Theological reason and Humane Experience Theological Reason which approves that Maxim of both Civilians and Canonists and of natural Reason too where the Plea is not clear against the Defendant who is in possession Melior est conditio possidentis And which tells us also Quod ubi partium jura sunt obscura favendum sit Reo magis quam Actori And tells us moreover That none is by a probable Title only to be deprived of that which he holds by as probable a Title Have not Kings at least as probable a Title for their own civil and temporal Power to be even originally independent from the Church as the Church or any Churchman Divine Civilian or Canonist hath ever yet alledged That it is dependent from the Church either in the first Institution or after Conservation of it Or is it possible That any knowing man or at least such a great and excellently and Divinely knowing Church Prelate and Lawyer as Thomas of Canterbury was suppose him never so much prepossessed with the opinion or practice of the Roman Court then growing or already grown over-mightily should but know and confess this
how I conceived their signing those Declarations of Sorbon might be of good use And since they were absolutely upon a new unsignificant Formulary of their own without taking notice of his Graces two former messages how the said Sorbon Declarations signed by them freely and unanimously might in great part supply the defects of their Formulary How what remained after to be supplyed might be done in a distinct Schedule which I had prepared by me to be signed by them after they all had once concurred in signing those Declarations of Sorbon if indeed they would sign all six that distinct Schedule being such as interpreted the meaning of their new Formulary of Recognition to be That they intended therein to bind themselves to continue according to the Laws of the Land faithful and obedient to the King even in all contingencies whatsoever especially of Excommunication fulminated by the Pope against the King or themselves for being obediently faithful to His Majesty as likewise to protest not only against all and every equivocation and both Mental and Vocal reservation but all Doctrines also whatsoever contrary to the true honest plain and obvious meaning or sense of the words of their said Formulary or Act of Recognition Finally how I believed there would be less difficulty in getting them to sign these matters in a distinct Schedule than to insert them in their beloved Formulary and truly no difficulty at all if once they had sign'd the six Sorbon Declarations as they offered already to me by their Committee After all which at large reported and declared I told his Grace That I knew they intended to sign their said Formulary or Act of Recognition that very day and present it at night to his Grace That notwithstanding I absented my self from them of purpose to try whether by such my absence they might be any thing the more brought to reason or to do that which was for their own advantage yet being they had so earnestly and by so many messages and that offer also of signing those six Sorbon Declarations desired my return and being moreover they were now on the point of concluding what they intended wherein it was hard or somewhat unseemly for me to single my self from them to no purpose I prayed his Graces either commands or advice as to that of my return once more to and concurring with them wherein I saw they concluded any thing Lawful how unsatisfactory or unsufficient soever otherwise it might peradventure be as to the main point in controversie or that principally expected from them And that His Grace would be pleased to give the most favourable reception he could to such persons as were to come that night from the Fathers with their Act of Recognition c. and promise them his Answer thereupon after he had taken a day or two for considering the Contents of such Instruments as they presented to him And such indeed was the only end of my going that morning to the Lord Lieutenant being continually sollicitous even during my recess from and distance or difference with the Congregation how nevertheless to do them all the good offices I could with his Grace and in one way or other to prevail with them also to do themselves and poor Clergy and People too represented by them that right in some measure at least which became the Priests of God to do now at last for a Nation rendred hitherto the most miserable of any in Europe and rendred such by their endevours and misdemeanours only And I dare say His Grace also had as real desires of their doing themselves and rest of their Nation and Religion that very same right as I had or could have whereof I am sure they themselves had very many clear Arguments but I a hundred more In pursuance of which on this very occasion of my address or discourse this morning or of my prayer not only of his advice to my self as to the point of my returning or not returning to the Fathers but of a favourable reception of the Deputies at night His Grace both commanded me to return to the Congregation and promised that reception of the Deputies which I desired yea notwithstanding that he knew as fully and throughly as I did how they had so temerariously and unworthily yea almost incredibly slighted both his former messages to them Wherefore as well in obedience to his Graces commands as in compliance with the Fathers and not to single or estrange my self wholly from them in any thing at all wherein I might comply but give them all the satisfaction I could about evening I returned and entred unexpectedly to their House even just then when they were signing a great Parchment Roll containing their new unsignificant Formulary or Act of Recognition As soon as they saw me entred their chief Leaders both welcom'd me and exprest extraordinary much contentment at my return even their Chairman himself leaving his Chair and coming some steps forward to embrace me twixt his arms as he did then telling me what they were upon and shewing the publick Instrument of Recognition they were signing and withal how together with it they had for my satisfaction prepared an other distinct Paper containing the three first of those six Sorbon Declarations which three or Paper containing them as the only of those six which seem'd to them to concern their Allegiance to the King they would then likewise presently subscribe to be together with their said Parchment Roll of Recognition presented to the Lord Lieutenant finally praying that I would concur with them in each and now after all I had all along till the present so obligingly done for them not to desert them in any respect or thing but prepare a good favourable and gracious reception for those who intended as deputed by and from the Congregation to wait on the Lord Lieutenant's Grace that night with the foresaid publick Instruments viz. the Bishop of Ardagh and himself the Chairman and that I would not only prepare their such reception but accompany also and introduce them to His Grace at such hour as I thought fit or should be appointed by His Grace When I had heard out all I answered in short That I never intended really either to seperate from or be wanting to them in whatsoever I might be useful That my late and short recess was only for their good viz. thereby to occasion their further and better enquiry into the defects of the Formulary they intended to present and their supplying those defects That although I returned not at the desire or upon the proposals of any of their several Committees sent unto me yet I begun to hope well of them when the second Committee they sent offered to me their intended Subscription of those six Sorbon Declarations That thereupon I waited on my Lord Lieutenant and informing His Grace of all the differences and whatever else passed betwixt either the Congregation it self or their said Committees and me made special use
this present Work immediately after the Fourth Treatise See there pag. 80. For albeit this Part or Treatise and Section of the Book where I am at present were the more proper place to give the said Propositions of Allegiance yet forasmuch as they are already Printed where I now told I having thought fit for some Reasons to give them in that place when some five or six years since I Printed the three next following Treatises viz. the Second Third and Fourth before this present First which I am now ending and that to Reprint them here again were needless and but increase of Charge in the Printing-house therefore I direct the Reader to the said Treatise 4. pag. 80. where he may see those Propositions and under this Title The Fourteen Propositions of F. P. W. or the doctrine of Allegiance which the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland may with a safe Conscience and at this time ought in prudence to subscribe unanimously and freely as that only which can secure His Majesty of them as much as hand or subscription can and that only too which may answer the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion and by consequence of the toleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State 7. That in this Title may be seen what end I had both in writing those Propositions and having them so debated even the same end which the controverted Remonstrance it self and all my Books written and Persecutions too suffered in defence thereof had hitherto and shall have hereafter 8. That in the same Title I attributed these Propositions to F. P. W. viz. to my self not so much because they were wholly my own draught and had not a word either added to or detracted from them by the said Divines save only in one or two places at most where to satisfie some of the Fathers I mollified the expression of my own Copy in a word or two or rather indeed left out and wholly blotted those words but chiefly because the Franciscan Provincial Chapter having come on and sate before the Divines had run over and throughly debated any of the three last Propositions or Paragraphs and the same Divines being consequently forc'd to adjourn for that time and such new distractions too having hapned in that Provincial Chapter as occasioned the departure of several of those very Divines who debated the former eleven Propositions there was no further meeting held either about the examination of the other remaining three last or subscription of any of all the Fourteen by these Divines as was at first intended Which want of subscription by them to those even eleven Propositions albeit otherwise throughly debated and approved by them all unanimously in the very terms even to a syllable wherein I give them printed Treat 4. pag. 80. 81 and 82. and want also of through examination by them i. e. by the said Divines of any of the three last although otherwise read publickly by them and not at all excepted against in that reading by any of their Colledge made me not to venture on publishing the said even so much as the first eleven Propositions in their name but only in my own all the Fourteen until they were or happen'd I mean to be hereafter actually subscribed by others Because if I had done otherwise I was not sure but some would peradventure say I had no authority for doing so being I had no actual subscription yet and consequently was not sure but such Title involving others and consequently the Propositions themselves would be disown'd at least by some of them But I was certain of my self to own both my own Title and whole Work even every individual of the Fourteen Propositions to the least word and syllable 9. That for my change of stile in the Thirteenth Paragraph or Complex Proposition which contains the three last of the six Sorbon Declarations made by that Faculty in the year 1663. or change thereof I mean from assertory of the outward object to promissory or rather only declaratory of an inward unalterable resolution of mind whereas in the eleven former it is assertory but in the said thirteenth only promissory i. e. or declaratory as now said containing only a promise or rather declaring our unalterable resolution never to approve or practise according to any Doctrine or Positions which in particular or general assert the contrary of any one even of the very three last of those six late Sorbon Declarations made against the extravagant and uncanonical pretences of the Pope the reason inducing me to this kind of change and to an abstaining also therein from any kind of Censure against those contrary Doctrines or Positions how otherwise false and wicked soever in themselves was That I feared several of the said Divines would hardly be drawn to concur unto approve of and least of all subscribe an assertory expression viz. upon the matter of the said three last Sorbon Declarations but doubted not they would easily be persuaded to come off to such a promissory or such a declaratory one without any Censure of the contrary Doctrines For otherwise had I in the Copy or Draught proposed to them express'd fully my own sense and what I would my self dare maintain publickly even under my own hand I had done it as to the outward object i. e. in plain terms categorically either asserting or denying the outward object or subject which you please to be so or so And therefore 1. as to the Fourth of those Sorbon Propositions I would have spoken thus The Pope hath no authority which is repugnant to the Supreme Royal Jurisdiction of our King no nor any which is so much as contrary to the true liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in the same Kingdom and by consequence it ought not nor cannot be maintain'd for example That the Pope hath any authority at all to depose Bishops against the said Canons And 2. as to the Fifth I would have express'd my self in this manner The Pope is not only not above the General Council but is under every Oecumenical Council truly such As likewise 3. and as to the Sixth I would have no less plainly thus The Pope is not infallible not even in questions of Right arising about the Articles of divine Faith but certainly fallible in all even such points if or wherein he hath not the consent of the Catholick or Vniversal Church Nay further I had to such my Assertions added as smart Censures of the contrary doctrines as any of those are which you find in any of the former eleven Paragraphs or Propositions But my business or design in drawing those 14 Propositions and consequently the Thirteenth of them having been partly to draw them so as I might rationally expect to prevail with the Colledge of Divines for their concurrence I judg'd it necessary to alter my stile from assertory to promissory and make use of no Censure at all when I came to the said
they make in those words we promise c. be very specious at first sight reading or hearing to such as are not versed in their distinctions evasions equivocations mental reservations and curious abstractions by such general terms from many particular cases which they refused so plainly and boldly to comprehend by any words able or sufficient amongst understanding men to comprehend or express them yet is it not any whitt more specious or real or general or particular or any thing more satisfactory then that which Bellarmin or Suarez or Gretzer or Becan or Lessius Parsons or Fitzherbert who all writ against the oath of Allegiance or a jot more then even Sanctarel Mariana or any other of the very worst Authors that maintained the lawfulness of the deposition of Kings by Popes or by the people themselves could or would make or teach to be made even by the Irish Catholicks to Charles the Second and even I say to His Majestie in this very condition or case of theirs and his at present and teach I mean that promise to be so made and so also observed religiously without any kind of contradiction of their alwayes constant doctrine for the lawfulness of deposing Kings in certain cases and the unlawfulness for the people or any person to uphold them or obey or bear Allegiance or Faith to them after they are so deposed by the sentence of the Pope or people For all these writers and their Schollars confess that Subjects are bound by the very law of God to bear inviolable faith and true Allegeance to the Temporal Prince King or Majestie lawfully such and teach that a promise of such Faith or Allegiance is lawfull and binding But withall teach that after the sentence of deposition or deprivation the person to whom that promise was made hath no Majestie in him is no more King or Prince nor the people any more his Subjects And therefore no more faith nor Allegiance ought nor can be in them to him but on the contrary an obligation on them to take Arms against him and destroy him as an Usurper and Tyrant if he yield not himself calmely as devested lawfully of all power And consequently the speciousness of that promise imports no more all circumstances and contradictory publick debate well considered but that the subscribers promise they will bear inviolable faith and true Allegiance to Charles the Seconds Majestie until it appear by such means as they shall Judge lawful before God that Charles the Second is devested of Majestie by publick sentence or otherwise Nor doth the ensueing or second part of that promise any whit clear or secure it more albeit they make it in these other words And that no power on earth shall be able to withdarw us from our duty herein For to say nothing here-of what they themselves understand by these words power on earth and specially by the word power whether as well that Authority purely spiritual supernatural and divine and even the highest such that is in the Church of Christ on earth as any Temporal properly and purely such or whether only corporal or material and carnal compulsory force of men and Arms which they leave very doubtfull to such at least as know not they purposely omitted the adjective Spiritual which yet in so many other former Remonstrances and in some offred by the very Jesuits three years since was not omitted for to others that know they purposely omitted that word Spiritual it may seem more then probable they intended thereby or by these bare words power on Earth to equivocat and impose but to say nothing hereof at present nor of the liberty they left others that would subscribe or interpret to choose what meaning they listed to deceive and impose likewise it is manifest enough to such as understand them and saw their unreasonable obstinacy on the publick debate that consequently to their meaning in the first branch of their promise this second part is understood by them They promise indeed that no power on Earth shall be able to withdraw them from their duty herein to witt in bearing true Allegiance to His Majestie c. but when or if the case of deposition deprivation excommunication c. shall happen they will confess ingenuously that some spiritual or temporal authority on Earth may in that case make them receed and perhaps declare too against him that till then was in some sense their King but not in any wise break their promise here nor withdraw them from their duty in bearing Allegiance to His Majestie For it is their belief opinion sense and Doctrine that in such cases they will owe no Duty of Allegiance or faith to Charles the Second but will rather lye under a quite contrary duty and obligation and even a tye of conscience and under pain of sin and Excommunication when that case shall happen to prosecute him as a publick enemy an vsurper a Traytor and Tyrant The thing signified therefore say they by the words of their promise here subsisting no longer or being no more in such cases nor any possibility of it I mean of any more duty of Allegiance or faith to Charles being no more King they have for their parts kept and observed religiously what they promised if they kept it until such cases hapned Which is the reason they mend not the matter at all nor any way clear themselves herein by what next followes in the third place and in this other expression of theirs And that we will even to the loss of our blood if occasion requires assert your Majesties Rights against any that shall invade the same According to their opinion or that which they by no means can be drawn to dis-own there will be in such cases no more Majestie in Charles no more Kingly-power in him over them no more obligation or tye of conscience on them to obey him either actively or passively and consequently no more Rights of Majestie due or belonging to him And therefore no more obligation from this promise so expressed or made here on them to assert his Royal Rights things that have no being any more against any that shall invade the same These words shall be in such cases de Subjecto non Supponente as Logicians speake Neither is their further declaration immediately ensueing to any more purpose They make it thus We do further declare it is not our Doctrine that Subjects may be discharged absolved or freed from their obligation of performing their duty For to pass by at this time how unsignificant such a negative declaration must be specially when and where they industriously publish that the contrary Doctrine and in their sense of it and that which also they will say these words do bear is the Doctrine of Rome at least of the Court there and no less industriously impose on the very present Pope Alexander the 7th that his Holyness hath by the former and later Letters of Cardinal Francis Barbarin and of the two
immediately succeeding Internuntius's of Brussels Hieronimus de Vecchys and Jacobus Rospigliosi determined the case as well in this particular point as in all others of the like nature against the former protestation of 61. and so reserved to themselves a latitude or liberty of telling all others and practising themselves accordingly That indeed although it be not their own particular Doctrine sense or Judgement yet for as much as it is Romes or at least the Courts there and for as much as they owe obedience to that See and must submit their Judgements to and receive commands from it specially whensoever his Holiness shall declare or if he hath so al-ready on the point declared an obligation of Conscience or that it is of necessity or that it is a command to them which cannot be transgressed Salvâ veritate fidei Catholicae or sine dispendio salutis aeternae they must for these reasons obey and conform themselves to the contrary Doctrine and practice flowing from it To pass by at present I say all this and that for these causes or motives besides divers others which I likewise pass over this time they would no way censure the contrary doctrine nor as much as seem to dis-allow it as they do not as much as simply averr what their own judgment on the point is or shall be hereafter at any time Who cannot but see out of all said already that by Subjects in this passage they understand only such as are and must or ought to continue Subjects alwayes De Jure and even De Jure Divino not such as are de facto only Subjects such as are onely Subjects by force or out of prudence onely that is until they see they prudently may in some cases of deposition deprivation Excommunication or without any such sentences in some cases of Apostacy heresy schysme or of publick oppression or tyrannical administration and that the people themselves by virtue of their own pretended inherent Civil and supream right in some cases declare themselves exempt and their king or the person until then their King now devested of that power and themselves freed of all kind of tye of subjection to him For even in such cases or contingencies they will say and may truely say according to their present sense opinion and general negative abstraction here That it is not their Doctrine that Subjects may be discharged absolved or freed from their obligation of performing their duty And yet they will and may say then according to their present meaning and that meaning too which their Remonstrance in the words contexture all other present circumstances affecting it necessarily imports that such as were until then Subjects are no more Subjects And if they be still in fact or by force or out of prudence till they find their time they are not so by right Or if by right of the lawes of the Land yet not by a right derived from the lawes of God nature And therefore that although this proposition of theirs be alwayes true then too shall be according to this their present meaning or explication which understands by Subjects none but such as are and ought by the lawes of God nature to continue such and according as they understand the said lawes yet in the cases or emergencies above such persons owe no more any duty of obedience or allegiance and consequently need no further discharge absolution or freedom by the sentence or declaration of any man or men from such duty which hath not nor can have a being or existence in such cases but they are discharged absolved and freed from any such duty on them by the very nature and contingencie of things and by the very consequent ceasing of the obligation of duty of it self I mean and without any further ceremonie They will also and may truely say without giving cause by this passage or any other in their Remonstrance to be up-braided with untruth herein breach of promise or falsity that however or whatever they or any of them may themselves or shall otherwise peradventure think of this matter or whatever their own private Judgement or Doctrine be or be not yet if the Pope shall declare or hath already unto them his or that of his Courts to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and with all command them by his Apostolical authority to follow it they must accordingly practise And that it is therefore they formed this Declaration as all the other several clauses of their remonstrance with so much caution and reservation as withal they framed them so that they might not seem to denie the common principle of Christian faith allowed by both sides as too evident in Holy Scripture though for my own part I believe those other they decline to be no less evident there That Jure Divino or by the law of God Princes are to be obeyed by their Subjects and yet by so many abstractions distinctions and explications render that very principle unsignificant and unbinding if and when they shall think fit Whence the ingenious Reader may also perfectly understand the causes or motives of the subtilty and fineness used in placing the words that compose the Proposition or Declaration immediatly following or which directly relates to and seems to condemn the doctrine of the lawfulness not of deposing or depriving Kings but of murthering or killing them by the hands of their Subjects Wherein it might be expected by vulgar judgments that if in any passage the Assembly would be more clear and ingenuous although to such as are fully versed in the controversie and positions of Suarez Bellarmine and such others whose doctrine as to this point or whole matter the Assembly would not by any means condemn it will not seem strange they be no more since the lawfulness of killing or murthering of Kings even I say by the hands of their own Subjects must be equal to that of a sentence of deposition or deprivation of them by Pope or People or of a Censure of Excommunication or other commanding the people to rebel or take Arms against them or to put any such sentence in execution As indeed Bellarmine in his answer to William Barclay and Suarez in his to King James and all others of that way on this subject plainly confess and averr as a consequence unavoidable So many experiences where and as often as any such attempt of deposition hath been made and the nature of man to preserve himself to his power shewing the moral impossibility or at least the very rare contingency of an effectual deposition of a King by his Subjects but withal he was murthered by them Whence it is necessarily consequent that whoever licences the one must the other And yet these late Remonstrants or Subscribers to this Protestation of 66. would by their dexterity seem but to such only as are not conversant in the dispute or do not strictly examine the placing of their words to condemn a doctrine of so
determining at all whether the King or his inferior Courts or Judges may or may not justly and by their own proper supream or subordinat civil authority and expresly against the Popes decrees proceed against such criminals according to the present municipal lawes of the land nor determining whether such Ecclesiastick criminals may in conscience where they may or can choose subject themselves in such cases as wherein by the Canons of the Roman Church they are exempt from the power and punishment of the secular Magistrat and his lawes unless or until they be delivered over to him by the Church albeit the subscribers of that Remonstrance of 61. were then are now and will so continue principled in conscience and doctrine that by the lawes of God no Canons of the Church may exempt any Church-men of what rank or degree soever no more then they can meer Lay-men from either the directive or coercive supream temporal power of such Kings as have not any other superior in their temporals but God alone nor against their wills or lawes from their courts or subordinat Judges though it be most conformable to the law of God and nature that Princes should for the reverence of the sacred function exempt them generally from the power of inferior or subordinat judicatures and leave them to be punished by their own Ecclesiastical superiors if not in such cases or contingencies as they shall find their said Ecclesiastical superiors to be unwilling or unfitting or to be involved themselves in the same crimes or the chief Patrons of them But however this be in truth and whatever the subscribers of 61. think or think not of this matter and whether the foresaid two lines which finally conclude their said sequel petition and resignation imply formally or virtually or any way at all such renunciation of Ecclesiastical immunity or implye it not in any kind of manner yet for as much as upon many occasions great use has been made as I have said before of the above objections though as often cleerly and throughly solved as made against the Remonstrance of 61. and that in this other of 66. the contrivers and promoters of it have intirely omitted that passage both as to the words and sense and I mean that sense which they themselves conceive or certainly would have others conceive of purpose to render that passage and by and for it the whole foresaid Remonstrance of 61. odious and scandalous and for as much also as from persons so principled in that point of Clergie mens exemption there can be no assurance to the King by general words and notions or by such too too general acknowledgements protestations declarations and promises of any real true and significant subjection intended or promised by them but such only as leaves them alwayes at liberty that is free from the supream temporal Coercive power of the King and his laws and leaves them not so much as under an inward obligation of sin to conform outwardly or submit as much as to the direction or directive part virtue or power of any kind of Temporal or civil Magistrat or laws but only under such an unsignificant obligation as these words ex aequo et bono import and for as much further as until they declare sufficiently that is cleerly expresly and particularly against this dangerous false and scandalous doctrine it must in reason be to no purpose for them to offer or for His Majestie to receive any kind of Protestation of Allegiance from them therefore I found this alteration and omission of the said two lines nothing equivalent as to that sense how injuriously or invidiously soever conceived by them being in their own Remonstrance given in lieu thereof I say I found that change a most material exception and if not a greater at least as great as any of all the former Leaving to the judicious Reader to be considered soberly and coolely what according to such doctrine of the exemption or immunity of Clergy-men signifies any word acknowledgment protestation declaration or promise as from such Clergy-men in their Remonstrance even in case there had been no other Exception to it What those words which are their very first beginning of it We your Majesties Subjects the Roman Catholtck Clergy of Ireland c Or whether from such men so principled in this matter these words must be construed or understood to import any more then that they profess themselves verbally not really equivocally not univocally Subjects Or do not they withal and at the same time perswade themselves and stiffely maintain that however in word they complement yet in deed they are not Subjects either in soul or body not even in any kind of case to any civil or temporal power or law on earth as barely such Or doth the Kings Majesty pretend his own to be other then barely and only such that is temporal and civil And so I conclude all my four Instances Which especially the second and fourth or this last I confess might be comprized in a fewer Lines But I chose this method of purpose to make the weaker sort of capacities to understand at large the causes of dissatisfaction my Lord Lieutenant and Council have in this Remonstrance of the foresaid late Assembly how specious soever it may appear at first reading to such as are not throughly acquainted with the intrigues And now to those Instances and Exceptions will only add in brief two Observations more Which especially the first of them confirm evidently enough to any indifferent man that is not a fool how little how weak and frail and false the assurance is the King can derive from such a Remonstrance of such men and in such a country and time as this First Observation That upon the sole account of their express refusal on the contradictory publick debate in the Assembly to petition his Majesty as you have seen at large in the Narrative whlch goes before the Exceptions for pardon of those crimes or offences chargable on them as committed by them or any of them or any else of the Irish Clergie by reason or occasion of the first Insurrection 23. Octob. in 41. or of the after conjunction of the rest of the Irish Catholicks the same or following year in a social war with the first Insurrectors or by reason or occasion in particular of the Clergies general Congregation at Waterford under the Nuncios Authority and their Declaration therein and those other actings afterwards in pursuance thereof in the next general Assembly of the three Estates in Kilkenny against the peace of 46. or of the total breach and publick rejection of it in all parts of the Kingdom or by reason or occasion also of the Declarations of the Bishops at Jamesstown against the second Peace or that which followed in 48. and of the consequent breaches thereof by so many other persons and parties and in so many other Provinces and Counties of the Kingdom I say that upon the sole account of
that We know what Innocent the Tenth and his Congregation have decreed against the three Negative propositions of the Catholicks of England We know moreover the brief of Paul the Fifth against the Oath of Allegiance Finally we know many other decrees and Canons made by several former Popes against all kind of Oathes and obligations of Allegiance to Schismaticks Hereticks or excommunicated Princes and even I say to all such as they deem such whether they be such or no indeed I could add that we know also what the Doctrine or Maximes of the Court of Rome is in particular concerning Clergie-mens exemption from the secular power and how they hold it unlawful for such men to Swear any Allegiance contrary to their own Canons or their own interpretation of the Canons And yet the Congregation would make the world believe they have by those their three additional propositions supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance But let fooles and ignorant persons believe them I am sure no wise man acquainted with the business will No nor would be induced to think that although they had come throughly home in express words as they did not at all nor any way neer and came home so as to all particulars and to the very points both in their Remonstrance and propositions added yet that only denying at the same time and with so little reason and so much passion preoccupation and obstinacy to sign those other three of Sorbon applyed to His Majesty and themselves in the case would be argument enough to evict even from themselves a confession of this certain truth that they were obstinatly resolved to give no real assurance to His Majesty of their future obedience or faith to him either by their Remonstrance or propositions or both or any other sufficient manner and that accordingly they gave none The third argument is ab intrinseco properly or from and grounded on the significancy or rather unsignificancy of the very propositions in themselves as such and without relation to the two former arguments which are though otherwise convincing enough derived from and grounded on circumstances more extrinsecal It is from the bare words and sense or meaning the leading persons or chief Divines of the congregation have conceive or would or intend only to express by these words It is from and on their distinctions of and specifical exceptions from the too too great generality of what the words may to some import though not to others And in a word it is further derived from and grounded on their abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations in these very three propositions no less then in their Remonstrance Albeit they would impose on such as they thought fit and whilst they thought it fit that by these additional propositions they supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance as at the same time they would let others know and shew them cleerly too they signified nothing at all as to the points controverted that is signified nothing or brought no obligation on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free by force of Arms to maintain any quarrel or cause against him Which to evince I will here again repeat the propositions or declarations as they are subscribed by them 1. Wee the undernamed do hereby declare that it is not our Doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in Temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second yea we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in civil and temporal affairs 2. That it is our Doctrin that our Gracious King Charles the Second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil or temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be our constant Doctrine from which we shall never recede 3. That it is our Doctrine that we Subjects owe so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can ever dispense with or free us of the same Now to pass by that Negative manner of expression in the former part of their first proposition and how unsignificant such must be from them who sees not their obvious equivocation in these words It is not our Doctrine on such as they list they will thereby impose and to others they tell that it is not indeed their Doctrine but the Doctrine of so many great and holy Pontiffs of the See of Rome and very expresly too and in many instances these five or six hundred years the Doctrine of Gregories the Seventh and Ninth and of Pascehals and Urbans and Innocents and of Boniface the Eight even in that publick extravagant Vnam Sanctam inserted in the body of the Canon law and of Sixtus's and Pius's yea and of Alexander the Seventh that now governs that See the Doctrine of all their Courts for so many ages and of so many Bishops Cardinals and other Prelats and Doctors of Nuncius's Internuncius's and other Ministers and messengers of Popes that in several Countries and in several occasions taught and maintained it by word and writing amongst whom as Bellarmine and Baronius and Peron and Lessius and Becan and Gretzer Fitzherbert Weston and Parsons have in their own dayes after those Seventy two other writers whom Bellarmine quotes against Barclay some sixty years agoe been very eminent so in ours and very lately nay and continually too any time these four years past Cardinal Francis Barberine at Rome and the two immediatly succeeding Internuncius's at Bruxels De Vecohys and Rospigliosi and the Divines of Lovayn have shewed themselves no less vehement by censuring as much as in them the protestation of 61. of the Catholick Bishop of Dromore of Fa. Peter Walsh and other Irish Divines and after them of others the Nobility and Gentry of that Nation So that our Gentlemen of the Congregation of 66. will by this gloss or explication of their word Our where they say it is not our Doctrine or by that equivocation or distinction elude at pleasure this Declaration as to any honest meaning They will say they have declared it is not our Doctrine that is It is not a Doctrine whereof we are the Authors or it is not a Doctrine proper particular and peculiar to us alone or which only we do teach or maintain or which we have broached or set on foot And will say nevertheless nay rather the more that for as much as it is the Doctrine of so many great men nay and of so many great and Holy Bishops of Rome at least these full six hundred years and that expresly and clearly too even in their very Canons it is consequently the Doctrine of the Church for they account the Pope and Church the same thing And therefore must not be disavowed or opposed by the faithful when there is occasion to follow or practice it So that they will say that in one sense they may
truely declare it is not their or it is not our Doctrine though in an other sense they cannot nor intended so to do And for to justifie this declaration distinction or equivocation they will according to the principles of equivocating Divines readily make use of that passage or words of our Saviour in the Gospel mea doctrina non est mea sed ejus qui mifit me Patris And yet when they shall find it for their advantage they will no less readily acknowledge that their intention also was to declare by those words that what follows is not the doctrine of even those very Doctors or Popes nor consequently of the Church And yet will acknowledge too this much without any prejudice to their own opinion or judgment in the points controverted and without holding themselves obliged by this Declaration understood as it ought or may not to practice accordingly For all they say in this first part of that first Proposition is We the under-named do hereby declare that it is not our doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second They will here presently when they please and shall think fit have recourse to the several meanings of the word Authority And without any necessity of using the distinction which yet is obvious enough and frequent with them of authority in fact and authority of right they will say although not with the Doctors of Lovaine in their censure of the Remonstrance of 61. that they declare it is not the doctrine of the Romae Church that the Pope hath any authority which is purely or meerly temporal or even humane at all or by humane right ways or title acquired over the King in his temporal Affairs And that neither hath he any Divine or Spiritual which is ordinary over him in such or which at his pleasure may at all times and in all cases dispose of the Kings Temporals And after this or notwithstanding any thing here declared they will say with Bellarmine that all the most supream right or authority challenged by Popes to depose Princes and dispose of their Temporals is entire and safe enough For this grand Authority indeed they have or challenge thereunto universally is not in the rank of temporals nor in the order of humane Authorities but in that of wholy spiritual and purely divine and supernatural Is not ordinary but extraordinary or as Innocent the 3d. speaks casual only that is in some particular great and extraordinary cases or emergencies and this too ratione peccati alone as the same Innocent further saith And consequently they will say that by any such general though negative Declaration or by a Declaration in such general words only or against any Authority in general to be in the Pope this very specifical this extraordinary casual spiritual celestial divine Authority in such great unusual contingencies must never be thought to be declared against according to the maxime of Lawyers and Law before given in my Exceptions to their Remonstrance For which saying they will further yield this reason That without any such specifical meaning intended their said Declaration or Proposition may be useful to shut out of doors the Popes humane pretences or pretences of meer humane right said to have been acquired and by the present Faculty of Lovaine maintained to continue still in force to these Kingdoms by donation submission prescription feudatary title and forfeiture And that such Declaration or one against such humane pretences in particular to his Majesties Kingdoms of England or Ireland nay and Scotland too was enough to be expected from them by his Majesty without putting them to the stress of resolving on that other supereminent divine pretence and which really is to all other at least christian Kingdoms in the world or all those of other Kings and in such extraordinary cases as well as to his Majestie 's They have yet in store a third explication equivocation distinction but as fallacious as if not more than any of these two already given And I call it a third way of evasion though as to the first part of it and as to the matter in it self of that first part however the words be different it varyes not or but very little from what is already said in effect It does in indeed in the second Part as will be seen They will as occasion requires or they find it expedient say nothing of the first on the words our doctrine nor of the second on the words authority in temporal affairs But when they come to Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will instantly tell you as Logicians or Sophisters of their specificative and reduplicative sense And that these words bear it And that the cause it self and the conjuncture of circumstances make their recourse to this kind of distinction very lawful They will therefore when they please to proceed a third way allow it is not the doctrine not even of the Catholick Church that the Pope hath any authority not even spiritual or divine in temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second they will I say allow this Proposition or this part of that first complex Proposition but allow it only in sensu reduplicative in the reduplicative sense or as the reduplication falls on these last words Our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second In the specificative they will deny it and withal deny it was their meaning what ever the Sorbonists meaned by the like to their own King to declare at any time or by that Proposition that the Pope had not some authority in temporal affairs over our King considered as a Criminal or Sinner though in such not any over him considered only as our Soveraign Lord and King Charles the Second They will further say that while the Pope himself or people or both joyntly suffer or tollerat Charles the Second as King the Pope hath no authority in temporal affairs over him But yet when he finds it convenient and necessary in any of those great extraordinary emergencies not to tollerat him any longer he may by his divine authority in such cases depose and deprive him of all his temporals together and transfer the right of them to another and this by way of Jurisdiction over his person as a criminal and sinner not over his person as a King not criminal or sinful They will further say and though I meaned it hitherto as the second part of this third way yet it may be also and is a fourth way of explication or evasion that allowing it not to be the doctrine of the Church that the Pope hath any Authority of Jurisdiction Power or Superiority properly such in temporal affairs over the King considered either in the reduplicative or specificative sense and allowing too that themselves intended to declare so much by the said former part of their first Proposition yet the last refuge is alwayes open A Power and Authority in the
in question it was I say to avoid the grossness and odiousness and the danger withal of the consequences of that third explication or gloss in this second part they chose rather to have their more ordinary recourse to the two former and yet more plausibly to the second than first And indeed the said Father N. N. who as I have told in my Narrative was the chief man at first to offer to my self and draw the Congregation to a Subscription of them though not for any real end that might be to assure the King of their Loyaltie but for that only in my Narrative expressed and for no other besides but for a meer blindation and though after his first heat and upon a more serious reflection he was the chief man also to keep them back from subscribing the last three of those six of Sorbon I say the said wel-spoken Father when I dealed with him freely and to make himself to my self in plain tearms declare his own distinctions and evasions when I asked him familiarly how could he that was so great a stickler for Bellarmine and so great an opposer of the Remonstrance of 61. where it was against Bellarmine how could he holding still to that stickling and opposition subscribe that clause or second part of the first proposition so plainly or seemingly against Bellarmin's Doctrine of the indirect power Or how consequently would he choose rather to subscribe those propositions of Sorbon applyed to our King than the said Remonstrance of 61 or would he indeed by the promise in the first proposition to oppose the assertors of even the indirect power have it understood that he promised so in case of Excommunication Deposition Deprivation issued or pronounced by the Pope for the crimes of Apostacy Heresie Schisme tyrannical administration publick oppression of the people c when I put these queries to the said Reverend and both eloquent and learned Gentleman of the Society his answer was plain and positive That as the propositions reached not descended not expressed not such cases so the Congregation would not subscribe them as comprehending any such himself would not the words imported no such meaning And therefore he excepted alwayes those cases And questionless his meaning was as I know his principles are that the Pope alone is the only Judge of those cases that is can determine whether and when the King is or shall be guilty of Apostacy Heresie Schisme tyrannical administration publick oppression of the people or finally of any other hainous crime which may merit Excommunication or Denunciation and what is consequent deprivation deposition c. And yet notwithstanding all this Father N. N. would subscribe and hath subscribed that he shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over the King in civil and temporal affairs And yet maintains as all the rest do this subscription is not any way prejudicial to that explication of his and of theirs all in general The fourth and last explication of this second part of the said first proposition is both of the learned and unlearned of those Gentlemen of the Congregation and of their adherents or beleivers That indeed the promise must be understood with this tacit condition virtually implyed or supposed to be implyed in or annexed to all kind of lawful promises provided it appear not to us hereafter that the Pope hath already declared or shall at any time henceforth declare this our promise to be unlawful unconscionable or against the safety of our Soules or which is the same thing to be of a matter unlawful of it self to be promised or of a thing which either in it self or by consequence is against the sinceritie of Catholick Faith and Religion For say they it must be supposed alwayes and by all men that we will submit and conform to such a declaration being we have on the contradictory question expresly refused to disown the Popes infallibility Behold here four several expositions given by themselves that is by their chiefest Divines of each of both parts of this first proposition Expositions questionless even each or every of them able to evict from any man this confession that for neither of both parts nor both together this first proposition adds any thing to their Remonstrance or gives the King in the cases doubted any more assurance of their Loyaltie than their unsignificant acknowledgments declarations promises engagements oathes in the said Remonstrance do That is even just nothing at all No kind of obligation thereby on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free to maintain by force of Arms any quarrel or cause against his Majestie And for as much as their next which is their second proposition in order is liable to the very self same or the like expositions to the very self same exceptions reservations equivocations and even distinctions of the reduplicative and specificative sense and that it hath not a word able or significant enough I mean in this age and amongst Sophisters to obstruct these evasions learn'd at last in the later and worser ages of the Church from a few deceiptful or deceived Schoolmen and for as much as Father N. N. and the other chief Divines of the Congregation those interpreters of their mind and sense do in very deed and self same way and no other to whom and where and when they think fit expound the second also and for as much as though they declare positively in this second It is their doctrine that our gracious King Charles the second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil and temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be their constant doctrine from which they shall never recede yet they understand first those three words our gracious King and every of them in a reduplicative sense only not in the specificative that is while he is suffered to be King and is theirs and gracious withal unto them or until he be deprived or deposed by the Popes sentence or otherwise or even cease to be any more truly our King by the very nature of his pretended misgovernment and secondly understand by that clause nor hath in civil and temporal affairs any power above him under God I say they understand in that clause by the word power an ordinary power only not that extraordinary power which as before they still reserved to the Pope in those extraordinary cases of Apostacie Heresie c. and when they please too a power meerly and solely temporal such as never is the ordinary power which they attribute the Pope over Kings and thirdly tell us on those other words under God that the power of the Pope is the same which God hath and fourthly where in the end of the said proposition they declare that to witt the former parts of the same proposition to be their constant doctrine from which they shall never recede expound their
declaration and meaning to be always with this reserve that whatever this their second proposition or constant doctrine signifie or be intended or conceived by any to signifie or this their resolution so expressed never to recede from it yet all must be with perfect submission to the Pope and so that if it sufficiently appear the Pope hath already declared or shall at any time hereafter declare by Brief Bull or other letters against such doctrine as uncatholick or against such resolution as unsafe they will quit both for these causes I say there can be no rational indifferent person but will be convinced that out of this second proposition as from them there can acrue no more assurance to the King of their future fidelitie than out of the first and consequently than out of their Remonstrance alone without any such additional proposition or propositions That is as I have a little above said just none at all Nor will their third or last Proposition mend the matter They give it indeed as the two former in words specious enough to plain well-meaning men to the simple and ignorant Nay specious enough to very understanding persons but yet such persons only as are not acquainted with their explications borrowed from late School-men and particularly from Bellarmine against Barclay and from other impugners with him of the Oath of Allegiance against the most learned Father Green and Preston of St. Beâ—ns Order as well under Widringtons name at first in several works as their own at last in their Apology to Gregory the Fourteenth and against the rest of the Roman Clergy of England that so learnedly conscientiously modestly nay and patiently too maintain'd that oath in King James's dayes especially the Secular Clergy maâ—gre Cardinal Bellarmines Letter to the Arch-Priest Blackwel and maugre likewise all his other several books under his own or fictitious names and maugre also even that either true or pretended brief of Paul the Fifth in the year 1606. against the said Oath procured by Father Parsons upon the mis-representation and most false suggestion of Cardinal Bellarmine and his seven or eight other fellow Divines to whom joyntly the examination of the said Oath of Allegiance was committed by the same holy Father Paul the Fifth and finally notwithstanding the best and worst endeavours of besides Lessius Gretzer Fitzherbert Becan Parsons himself and several others Franciscus Suarez the Spanish learned Jesuite at the instigation of the English Fathers of the same Society and in pursuance of the said Brief and for the unlawful advancement of his own great Masters no less unlawful interest This third Proposition therefore I say notwithstanding its words or tenor so specious at first to such as are not acquainted with the familiar explication or meaning of the chief proposers a meaning or explication learned from these late Sophisters that writ so ill and so erroneously too against King Iames's said Oath of Allegiance being reviewed being duly pondred as from them or as from those Congregational men will be found to be of as little weight as any of the two former and will be so found I mean as to the resolution justly expected from so venerable so grave and so withal justly suspected an Assembly But not to delay the Reader my longer I repeat again here that Proposition in it self barely or as they have given it in their own words We the undernamed do hereby declare that it is our doctrine that we Subjects oâ—e so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can either dispense with or free us of the same Now mark the Sophistry In the first place the reduplicative sense must be allowed in these two words We Subjects that is in as much or while we are Subjects Which will be no longer than it shall please the Pope not to denounce the King by name excommunicated or deprived of or deposed from his kingdoms by a judicial process or bull on pretence of his apostasie heresie schisme oppression of the Church or People against that which the Pope shall determine to be justice or faith Next the same reduplication must be allowed to fall on the word King And thirdly at the word power all the former distinctions of fact and of right of humane or temporal and divine or spiritual and of ordinary and extraordinary must be ushered in And in the last place from these general words under any pretext soever there must be alwaies understood an exception of those extraordinary cases or contingencies above so often repeated of destroying the Church or People tyrannically by endeavouring to make them Apostats Hereticks Schismaticks or by tyrannising over them even in their temporal or civil rights alone And the judgment hereof must be the Pope's only or the people's when they please to take it Nor will the Doctrine of the Apostles even in the cases of tyrannical heathen Emperours as of Nero and Domitian much less of the Fathers even in the cases of manifest notorious Apostats and Hereticks as of Iulian Constantius Valens Anastasius c. move the Divines of our congregation any whit at all They say with Bellarmine the Apostles and Fathers and other primitive Christians dissembled in this point because they had not strength enough of men and arms to oppose though besides that this answer is impious it be also most manifestly false in the case of Iulian the Apostat and of the succeeding Heretick Emperours Having thus with all sincerity considered all and every of their three Propositions both nakedly and abstractedly as they are in themselves and also as given by that Congregation and having layd open most sincerely too the meaning or sense these Divines or at least the chief and most leading of them have conceive or intend others should upon fit occasions understand by those Propositions and by their several clauses and words it only now remains that I briefly put in form my third Argument grounded on such abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations And I frame it thus Syllogistically because I have to deal with some caprichious Logicians or Sophisters No Propositions are sufficient in this age for giving assurance to the King of the future loyalty of a Roman Catholick people and as from such a Roman Catholick people too whom he hath already by experience and his Father before him found in several publick Instances manifestly disloyal and even perfidious in the highest nature could be but such Propositions as by clear express words from which there can be no exception or evasion and of which there can be no distinction according to the present School-divinity of Bellarmine or Suarez or such others descend to the specifical cases about which the controversie is if the Proposers be expresly desired by the King or the Lieutenant in his Name or by his Authority to descend so in their Remonstrance or Propositions to such cases and if they expresly and obstinatly too refuse to descend so or
to such particular or specifical cases But those three foresaid Propositions of the said Congregation are such as as do not so descend by clear express words from which there can be no exception or evasion and of which there can be no distinction according to the present School-divinity of Bellarmine or Suarez or such others to the particular or specifical cases about which the controversie is and the said Congregation being the Proposers have been expresly desired by the King or his Lieutenaut in his Name or by his Authority to descend so in their Remonstrance or Propositions to such cases and they have expresly and obstinatly too refused to descend so or to such particular or specifical cases and yet they are a people whom he hath already by experience and his Father before him found in several publick Instances manifestly disloyal and even perfidious in the highest nature could be Therefore those three foresaid Propositions of the said Congregation are not sufficient in this age as from them for giving assurance to the King of their future loyalty Or thus If the foresaid three Propositions of Sorbon applied by the said Congregation to the King of Great Britain and Ireland and to themselves and rest of his Roman Catholick Subjects of Ireland be in the judgement of the chief Divines and leading men of that Congregation lyable rationally all circumstances weighed to such constructions as I have said hitherto they have already made and will hereafter make of the words to such as they please and when they find it opportune and if notwithstanding they have been expresly and often desired even by his Majesties Lieutenant and for his Majesties assurance of them to descend by clearer and more expressive words to the particular cases wherein the doubt was or would be yet of their future loyalty they all and their Agents for them even to his own face after long consultation for so many dayes expresly refused to descend so or assure his Majesty by those or any other additional Propositions of their future faithful carriage in such particular or specifical cases or I mean to assure His Majesty under their hands and by words comprehending expresly and specifically those very cases then it must follow evidently that they were both absolutly and obstinatly resolved to give no more assurance by the foresaid three Propositions no more satisfaction by them to the King or his great Ministers in coming home to the point or to the particular or specifical cases wherein their loyalty might be and was and is with reason doubted of than they had given before in their Remonstrance as I have in my Exceptions layd open their meaning in and by it But the foresaid three Propositions of Sorbon applied by the said Congregation c. are in the judgment of the chief Divines and leading-men of that Congregation lyable rationally all circumstances considered to such constructions as I have said hitherto c. and notwithstanding they have been expresly and often desired even by His Majesties Lieutenant and for His Majesties assurance of them to descend by clearer c. they all c. expresly refused to descend so c. Therefore it must evidently follow that they were both absolutely and obstinatly resolved to give no more assurance c. I see not I confess what their best or worst Sophisters can say that may ridd them out of the Briars And for the first I think verily none of them that understands reason will have the confidence to speake a word to the matter of either of the premisses the Major being such as in morals and in a Country where such disputes are and so many great and sad experiences relating to the matter of it may be well accounted of the nature and assume the name of that which Logicians call or tearm propositionem per se notam And the Congregation of the Clergie of Ireland at Waterford under the Lord Nunciu's presidencie withal the Decrees and consequents thereof against the peace of 46. and the meeting of the Bishops at James-town and their declarations and decrees there against the peace of 48. and all other consequents of that meeting evidently prove the Minor As for the illation and form or frame of the whole I give them leave to consult with Aristotle in his first figure and fourth moode To the second I beleive indeed they will peradventure attempt some kind of answer but such a one notwithstanding as will not abide the tryal They will perhaps denie the Minor as to the first part if they with any kind of colour denie any thing or make any answer at all to either Minor Major or conclusion They will say the foresaid propositions are not lyable rationally to such constructions c. And they must consequently disavow those abstractions distinctions c and therefore say also consequently that I impose on them And this is all they can say with any kind of colour though a very bad one But for conviction of the first branch of this answer I appeal to all judicious Readers of Bellarmines several pieces on this Subject both of those in his own proper name set forth and of those also in other mens and to the daily practice of the Schools and besides to so many other printed authors of Bellarmine's way and brethren that stiffly maintain the doctrine of equivocation and mental reservation And for the conviction of the second branch I appeal even unto Father N. N. the chief speaker and interpreter as a divine of the sense of that Congregation though he was not chaire-man and the very first proposer and to my self also of the said propositions of Sorbon even of all the six to be signed by them though of purpose only to decline the approbation or signature of onely one proposition offered them by me as I have observed in my Narrative Nay and for the conviction of this second branch of such answer I appeal to the whole Congregation and even to all and singular the members thereof whither it be not true that really they denied all along and even on the contradictory question to approve the propositions parts or clauses of the former Remonstrance that I mean of 61. Which in plain tearms disclaims and renounces any power in the Pope to deprive or depose the King or to raise his Subjects in Rebellion c by virtue of any sentence of Excommunication Deprivation Deposition or Declaration or in any other manner soever or under what pretext soever and whether they denied not to declare that there was nothing contained in that Remonstrance of 61. that might be deemed Heretical Schismatical or sinful and whether it was not upon the sole account of such particulars therein contained they did so and whether it was not therefore because they could not approving it pretend any latitude for the former evasions interpretations abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations equivocations for as much as the expressions of that were too plain and
and scandalously taught nay taught farr worse than ever Bellarmine did in that Howse or Colledge of the Society the chiefest of all that moved Sorbone at that time and juncture in 1663. was indeed as all the rest without any kind of inclination to or even the least immaginable approbation of Iansenisme But certainly was the removing out of their Kings brest in that suspicious conjuncture all kind of jealousie of a doctrine which being not disclaimed by them at that very time might render all their five former declarations or propositions wholy unsignificaâ—t as to any assurance of them to their King when it should please the Pope That be the immedâ—â—t or mediat occasion or both in part or in the whole too what Father N. N. sayes or at least by his invidious and no less truely impertinent unprofitable and odious digression to those disputes of the Iansenists and Anti-Iansenists would insinuat or impose on the reader be it that very debate betwixt them on the quaestio facti as he speaks whither the propositions condemned as heresie by the Pope be condemned in the true sense and meaning of the Iansenists or no whether in the book of Iansenius or no or be it also either in part or in the whole that contest of the Iansenists for the first way that is for the fallibility of the Pope declaring any matter as of faith without a general Council and be it this contest or allegation of theirs was onely to vindicate themselves from the censure and be it moreover that there was no other occasion moved the Faculty of Sorbone to this sixth declaration or proposition granting all and giving thereby to Father N. N. all the advantage he can desire I am content to joyn issue with him and leave it to all prudent men to judge whether hence must follow that the doctrine of the Popes infallibility as in it self and of it self abstractedly considered without any relation to Iansenisme or any other error or as considered by us does not touch our scope or that none can declare against the same thing but for the same cause that another doth I am sure all prudent men that withal are sufficiently knowing for I suppose it is onely to such Father N. N. appeals will confess that as there is often a vast difference betwixt the occasion and the thing occasioned so that which is occasioned may touch an other controversie although the occasion do not That whatever the occasions be of the declarations of Councils or Vniversities in doctrinal points yet the declarations must be always understood generally or indefinitly as the words are and without any limitation or restriction to particulars or to such occasions especially when and where such particulars or such occasions are not mentioned at all either concomitantly subsequently or precedently in the same or other instrument of such declarations as none are in this 6th or any of the other five precedent declarations of Sorbone or in the Instrument of them but such occasion onely as make them general That for the reasons above given neither the same cause nor the same end which the Iansenists had in asserting the Popes fallibility or declaring against his infallibility can be presumed of Sorbone and the rest of the Vniversities of France declaring against the same infallibility nor that limitation or restriction of their meaning to the case of Iansenisme alone That it has been always and must have been very often the practice even of general Councils to assert Christian â—aiths in a good cause and for a good end which truths even manifest notorious obstinat and condemned Hereticks had formerly and as stiffly maintained whether the cause or end they had therein was good or evil and that thereof are late examples enough in the very Council of Trent which defined many Catholick verities against Iohn Calvin and other Sectaries although Martin Luther had earnestly before and at the same time asserted the same truths and against the very self same other Sectaries And therefore it can be no prejudice to a declaration against the doctrine of the Popes pretended infallibility that the Iansenists had done the same already not even I say were it confessed of all hands the Iansenists were manifest notorious and convicted Hereticks That now and to come up closer yet to Father N. N. in the main debate I am content that either with or without any supposition at all or admittance or grant of any occasion either mediat or immediat or of any thing else but what the matter according truth bears along with and in or of it self only to leave that very main debate or quaerie to all prudent men to judge whether the Universities of France saying as Father N. N. here confesses of them and not of Sorbon only or whether they declaring publickly to the world in plain words That it is not their doctrine that the Pope without the consent of the Church is infallible whether I say this touched our scope or no But withal that as I have put the quaerie in Father N. N. his own words and in his own sense and as near his purpose too as himself could possibly frame it so I desire all such prudent men to consider that our scope is to assure his Majesty of the hearts and hands of all the Roman Catholicks of Ireland both Clergy and Laylty in all dangerous contingencies whatsoever but more especially in those wherein the Pope would peradventure concern himself on the account or pretence of Religion and in pursuance of such pretence though really for other ends declare against the lawfulness of the congregations Remonstrance or Oath of Allegiance or any other such former or latter of Allegiance though in temporal things alone and against the three first Propositions or any other in pursuance thereof signed by the said congregation or by any others for his Majesties greater assurance of their loyalty in temporal things only That whoever maintains the Popes infallibility where and when declaring by his papal Authority and without a General Council any doctrine sentence opinion proposition declaration acknowledgment engagement oath or promise to be unlawful or to be against the Catholick Faith or salvation of Souls or who refuseth in such a case as the congregation did refuse to disown that infallibility must be consequently resolved or at least must be supposed to be resolved to conform himself in practice when ever the occasion is offered to whatever Declarations of that nature shall at any time issue from his Holyness And consequently resolved to retract at his pleasure any form or any subscription to any form of Remonstrance Declaration or other writing whatsoever obliging them to be true liege-people to the King in temporal things only That it is no new thing with the Popes by their own immediat authority and with their Ministers on pretence of their authority whether truly granted or not granted to declare so against forms of Oathes Remonstrances or Declarations of Allegiance
further in pursuance of such promise and intention when they begun again and after my Lords return by an express Paper and Messenger to them taking notice of the three last not signed as yet and exspecting these also to be signed when I say they notwithstanding begun again to demur the second time and fall off their former intention and thereupon were given to understand His Grace had sent to them to dissolve they looking upon one another in a great confusion and trouble expressed even in their countenances desired me instantly and earnestly to go and prevail with my Lord that they might have a little more time to consider And that herein too I prevailed for them and got them time enough as much as themselves desired to that purpose albeit they made such unfortunate use of it So that from first to last there was nothing done by me underhand to further that dispute as nothing but what I ought to have done and what themselves expected I should and gave me the occasion themselves and for their own sake to do 5. That the foresaid Catholick virtuous and grave Gentleman sent them upon this occasion by his Grace and only to read them his Message for it was given him in writing by my Lord although after his reading that his Message publickly to them all-together he spoke of himself moreover at the same time and place not as from my Lord which he declared likewise what he thought fit briefly substantially and catholickly to perswade them not to lose the fair opportunity then present to do themselues and all others of their Communion and Countrey much right and good withal and therefore not to demur any longer on this matter of the three last propositions but subscribe these also yet all this and what more he said to perswade them was so far from being under-hand as it was before them all-together sitting in their Assembly And that more than this he did not to further this dispute 6. That if none of such I mean the said Gentleman and Father P. W. and their own special Committee or such others of the Congregation as spoke in their house on this subject or the whole Congregation themselves all together be not those few Iansenists I know none in all this Kingdom nor ever as much as heard of any one single Jansenist amongst us nor of any one as much as suspected for such only one single Chaplain to a Lady of great virtue and quality excepted and so far only too excepted that I heard some say whether with ground or not I know not he seems to have been bred with or devoted to those are now by some called Iansenists although not maintaining the doctrine imputed to Iansenius 7. That for the said Catholick vertuous and grave lay gentleman of quality who delivered the said message and spoke so as I have before said publickly what he thought reasonable to perswade them in this matter although peradventure and I say peradventure because I do but onely guess or suspect he may be the marke aimed at amongst those few Iansenists because forsooth he had been known to Father N. N. abroad in France and in the time of his exile to have been conversant with or friended by one of those are now called Iansenists though one of his own Country and Religion otherwise I am sure notwithstanding that he is no Iansenist nor ever yet hath been nor with Gods grace will at any time hereafter understanding that by a Iansenist which ought to be and is understood by such as speake either properly or truely an adhearer to or a better of the doctrine of the five Propositions condemned and in that sense they are condemned by the Roman Catholick Church not that is not understood at all but most falsly and injuriously too a man that onely hath a good opinion of and esteem for those many excellencies laying a side the quarrel of thos five condemned Propositions he sees or hath seen to be in all or most or some of those are now abusively called Iansenists and onely called so because they speake reverently of the person of Iansenius and write severely against many wicked Aphorismes of some Casuistes albeit at the same time they conform absolutely and submit humbly to all declarations even proceeding from the Pope alone against the doctrine imputed either by Popes or others to Iansenius 8. That for their own special Committee or such of them as in that Committee or in their house spoake publickly and most cleerly and positively and urgently too and tooke great pains herein that is to perswade their subscriptions to the three last as to the three first and by consequence and not by consequence onely but without any consequence expresly and determinately also to the very last of all the six Propositions or that of the Popes not being infallible without the consent of the Church or a general Council these were in the first place Fa. Iohn Talbot of the very society one of those two Divines that together with their Superiour sate as chosen members and Divines for the said Society of Jesuits in that Congregation and surely therefore not of those few Iansenists his own Colleague Father N. N. aimes or glances at And in the next place Angel Goulding a Spanish Doctor of Divinity known to be estranged as farr as from East to West from all kind of Iansenisine properly or truely such and therefore also not of those few Iansenists And that for any other of their house that spoke in that buisiness to be of those few Iansenists though it should more concern Father N. N. and his purpose to clear them yet I must confess ingenously that I never heard as much as any of them as neither indeed any of all their whole Congregation at any time suspected of being a Iansenist 9. That for what concerns or may in the opinion or suspition of any concern my self in this point or as peradventure aimed at or reflected upon by Father N. N. in this place or in his if not perhaps some few Iansenists albeit his under-hand immediately following and construed together with those few seems enough to manifest I cannot rationally be thought to be any way perstringed in this passage since all I did in the matter was what I noted before so farr from under-hand that he and the rest did think it rather too much over board and that besides I must confess I have no ground to think he aimes at me yet because I pressed that matter or this dispute most of any when once himself and Congregation had given first the cause of pressing it so and that I know not whom els he meaned if indeed he meaned any at all as I confess also I suspect he doth not but onely makes this part of his colour to abuse ignorant or undiscerning people and perswade them the better of the reasonableness of the Congregations dissent I thought fit to speake herein too what is truth as I
inclination to nor any the least tincture of a Iansenist And if what I have said here conclude me to be a Iansenist I profess my self one But if it do not as I am sure it doth not then I am none at all it not such a one as Father N. N. and the Congregation should and ought and must profess themselves in life and death if they will not live and dye out of the Catholick Church Whence it appears evidently that whatever Father N. N. intended by his few Iansenists that furthered this dispute I cannot be comprehended amongst such And I have shewed already there is none remaining to be rightly or justly intended by such But for as much as whether he really meaned any or no or entertained in his own breast with or without ground that suspition of any or no but onely intended this jealousie as a meer trick to abuse the unlearned Roman Catholicks in the reading of his paper with some kind of specious preâ—ence for not signing and consequently fixed on this of Iansenisme as the most proper to strike the greatest horrour into them of a doctrine furthered by such men as Iansenists so lately and solemnly condemned by three Popes of Heresie as he sayes I thought also fit but by no trick at all further yet a little to disabuse the readers of that unreasonable writing of his by giving here exactly and sincerely all those very doctrines which imputed to Iansenius whether found in his book or no and whether in his sense or no have been so condemned by three Popes already and are those onely which gave the name of Iansenists to such as before that condemnation maintained them in the sease they conceived them written first by Iansenius himself for such of these doctrines I mean as they allow to be in Iansenius and still maintain that neither all are found in him nor any of all condemned in his sense In giving of which I have no further end than that such readers by comparing those doctrines to this dispute may themselves be judges of this truth also that our present dispute of the Popes fallibility or infallibility without the consent of the Church hath no kind of relation to them nor they to it And of this other too that F. N. N. hath indeed no less impertinently than invidiously brought this to question The doctrines therefore of Iansenius or imputed to him in whatever sense are these following here commonly called the five condemned Propositions 1. Aliqua Dei praecepts hominibus justis volentibus et conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia deest quoque illis gratia qua possibilia fiant 2. Interiori gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam contradicitur 3. Aâ— merendum et demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in homine libertas â necessitate sed sufficit libertas â coactione 4. Semipelagiani admittebant praevenientis gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus etiam ad initium Fidei et in hoc erant haeretici quod vellent gratiam esse â—alem cui posset humana voluntas vel resisterevel obtemperare 5. Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum faisse et sanguinem fudisse Now let any man that understands reason be judge whether the dispute of the Popes fallibility or infallibility without the consent of the Church and the decision of it in the negative against the Pope cannot be furthered by any either privatly or publickly under-hand or overboard but he must fall under the suspicion of maintaining those five so condemned propositions or some â—ne of them For my own part I protest again in the presence of God I neither have maintained nor do nor will any of them unless first determined by the known consent of the Church or that of a General Council And yet I have done already and will hereafter do what becomes me to further this dispute now in hand and the decision of it already by the Catholick Universities of France against the Popes infallibility without the consent of the Catholick Church And I know others have done so before I or Iansenius was born And that all the world can do so without either formal or virtual or consequential relation to them or any of them whether they be true or false heretical or not found or not in the Book or Works of Iansenius or by those three Popes or any of them condemned or not in his meaning To his last pretence or the disturbance of both King and Countrey which he hath kept for his Triarii for his very last and strongest and surest reserve and therefore gives it in these very last words of his Paper I need not say more in this place having said so much already before to falsifie this supposition of his side and verifie it of my own against him but that were it true as he alleages it he had indeed behaved himself for so much like an Orator or Sophister of repute reserving his best argument of all to conclude all In fine triumphat Orator That being it is so manifestly false in his sense and to his purpose I wonder with what confidence he alleages it That he could not give his cause a more deadly wound than by rubbing up again our memory of this consideration That I have shewed already it is not this dispute of that sixth Proposition against the Popes infallibility and resolve of it in the negative which only was the dispute and the resolve intended all along by those that furthered it in their Congregation that can be said to be to the disturbance of either King or Countrey but the contrary dispute and resolve for that pretended infallibility must be that in this matter which ever yet since it first began hath been accompanied infallibly in several parts of the world with the disturbance of both and not with the disturbance only but with ruine also of King and Countrey together nay and of the Church too no less than of the State Politick or Civil That this latter kind of dispute and resolve for which F. N. N. and his Congregation or at least very many of them would fain be if they knew well how are already and too notoriously known to be the very first grand and necessary fundamental of the superstructure of that other so false dangerous and destructive pretence of the power direct or indirect or whatever else you call it in the Pope for deposing Kings and licencing Subjects to rebel against them That whether so or no yet no man can deny this latter pretence of power from God to depose Kings and raise their Subjects against them to be altogether insignificant where it comes to the test of reason or even of Scripture or Traditional dispute amongst rational knowing men without that other of infallibility concomitant and unseparably annexed That if so many late and sad experiences at home within this last century of years or
religious or civil or both and by all right reason it is to be condemned in all temporal Kingdoms or Common-wealth where the civil laws of the land declare and provide against it as Treason or Rebellion 6. We hold it uncatholick false and scandalous doctrine which teacheth that Apostacy Schisme Heresie or any kind of sin or sins how grievous soever or any Excommunication or other Ecclesiastical censures of the Church of Christ how ever denounced can or do of their own nature as they abstract from the civil power and laws of the civil Magistrate or of the respective Kingdoms and Sâ—ates deprive any person whatsoever Prince or Subject of any of their temporal rights or Dominions or warrant any other to take away their life or any way annoy them in their persons or goods 7. We hold it manifestly impious unchristian and against the word of God to averr that a King lawfully such by title may upon any pretence whatsoever even of Schisme or Heresie or also of tirannical administration either in civil or religious matters or both be murthered or killed by any of his Subjects even in case the Pope alone or joyntly with other spiritual or temporal superiours of the Church should licence or pretend to licence it either by a publick or private or pretended sentence of Excommunication Deposition or Deprivation 8. The doctrine which teacheth that a King lawfully such by title and possession is no more King after he is deprived or deposed by the Popes sentence upon any pretence whatsoever and consequently teacheth by a vain and wicked distinction that who killeth him after such sentence killeth not a King but a private man or a publick and tirannical Usurper is false dangerous and intollerable amongst Christians 9. Notwithstanding the allegations of some for the general exemption of Clergie men by divine or human laws or both from the secular power We hold that all both Secular and Regular Clergie men whatsoever born and residing within any of His Majesties Dominions are by the law of God subject to His Majesties supream temporal both directive and coercive power as to that of their onely supream temporal Lord on earth from which none can justly pretend any exemption either divine or human other than what by the allowance favour and indulgence of the supream Magistrate and laws of the land are in force and use however they may have a right to be exempted in some cases from the temporal jurisdiction of inferiour Judicatures 10. Subjects professing declaring or subscribing any conscientious Oath Instrument Form or paper of their Allegiance and fidelity to their Prince in temporal affairs cannot in conscience make use of the doctrine of equivocation whereby they may be said to have a reserved sense in their words or mind not obvious or not conceived generally by others that intend no deceit 11. Nor can they in conscience then or at any time after make use of that other new doctrine of some Casuists or Probablists as they are called which teacheth the lawfulness of changing opinions and practices thence consequent at pleasure or as oft as you will even in matters of conscience and which teacheth consequently the lawfulness of following the opinion of others in those you judge less safe and less probable and following them even against your own fixed judgement and practising accordingly For to extend this doctrine of such Casuists that least the cases of either publick or private contracts much more or much less or any way at all â—o that of a publick or even private profession of allegiance to the Prince were nothing else but to teach perjury deceit and perfidiousness and to take away all faith and truth and safety from the world even from all kind of society of men Wherefore notwithstanding any controversie about the lawfullness of any form professing allegiance to the Prince and notwithstanding some peradventure may be who may say and even upon probable grounds either extrinsecal or even intrinsecal the said form to be unlawful that is unconscionable yet if it be not evidently such but on the contrary probably lawful it must ever hind him that taketh sweareth or subscribeth to it so that he may not at any time ever made in practice follow the contrary opinion notwithstanding any multitude or authority of its Patrons less than that of the Catholick Church 12. After mature perusal examination and discussion of the Remonstrance or Protestation of Loyalty subscribed in ouâ— at London by the Catholick Bishop of Dromore Father Peter Walsts and other Divines and by the Catholick Irish Nobility and Gentry then likewise there as also by others after both of the Clergy and Lavity here at 〈◊〉 in Ireland We find and we declare this to be our opinion judgment and conscience That notwithstanding the censure of those few Divines of the Lovaine-Faculty a censure some three years since and very imprudently too by the Agency Solicitation and Importunity of some of our Countrey-men procured and notwithstanding the Letters now of late or even those formerly sent to this Nation as from and in the name of Cardinal Francis Barbaâ—â—â— from Rome or those others from Bruxels and from the two succeeding Interâ—â—â—iuâ—'s there Hieronimus de Vâ—cchiis and Iacobus Rosâ—â—gliâ—sâ— and notwithstanding any other allegations whatsoever against the said Remonstrance or Protestation yet there is nothing in the said humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition that may justly be repâ—ted against the Catholick Faith nothing that may not be owned and subscribed with a safe conscience by every good Catholick Subject and consequently nothing that under the guilt of sacriledge or other sin ought or can at any time hereafter be disowned by such as have already or shall hereafter subscribe that Instrument And we further declare it to be our opinion judgment and conscience That for many reasons and specially for that of avoiding the imputation and scandal of our Adversaries that the Roman Catholick Tenets are inconsistent with the loyalty of Subjects due unto Protestant Kings and consequently of a disloyal inconstancy to be brought on themselves and the Catholick Religion they are bound under the heavy guilt of a sacrilegious breach of that Protestation not only not to revoke at any time for fear favour or any other respect their subscriptions but also not to decline in any wise in whole or in part the doctrine of that Protestation or the practice of it in relation to His Majesty according to the true sincere and plain meaning of the words without any kind of equivocation abstraction exception distinction or mental reservation And to the end it may appear to all the world we neither have nor will nor can have any kind of reserve we thought fit to declare our selves fully even on all the six late propositions of Sorbon as applyable to his Majesty of Great Brittain and Ireland our gracious King and to his Subjects And therefore and being we have already in the eight first
propositions of this paper at large and with all clearness discharged our duty as to the three first of those fiâ— of Sorbon and that now remain only the three last 13. We declare further it is our unalterable resolution proceeding freely from the perswasion of a good Conscience and shall be ever with Gods grace First never to approve or practice according to any doctrine or positions which in particular or general assert any thing contrary to His Majesties Royal Rights or Prerogatives or those of his Crown annexed thereunto by such Laws of England or Ireland as were in force before the change under Henry the 8th And never consequently to approve of or practice by teaching or otherwise any doctrine or position that maintains any thing against the genuine liberties of the Irish Church of the Roman Communion as for example that the Pope can depose a Bishop against the Canons of the said Church Secondly not to maintain defend or teach that the Pope is above a General Council Thirdly also never to maintain defend or teach That the Pope alone under what consideration soever that is either of him as of a private person or Doctor or of him as of a publick Teacher and Superiour of the universal Church or as Pope is infallible in his definitions made without the consent approbation and reception of the said Church even we mean in his definitions made either in matters of discipline or in matters of faith whether by Briefs Bulls Decretal Epistles or otherwise 14. Lastly we declare it is our unalterable resolution and shall be alwayes by Gods grace That if the Pope should or shall peradventure be at any time hereafter perswaded by any persons or motives to declare in any wise out of a General Council or before the definition of a future General Council on the point or points against the doctrine of this or any other the above propositions in whole or in part or against our selves or any others for owning or subscribing them We though with all humble submission to his Holiness in other things or in all spiritual matters purely such wherein he hath power over us by spiritual commands according to the Canons received universally in the several Roman Catholick Churches of the world shall notwithstanding continue alwayes true and faithful to our Gracious King Charles the Second in all temporal things and contingencies whatsoever according to the true plain sincere and obvious meaning and doctrine of all and every the fourteen propositions of this paper and of every part or clause of them without any equivocation mental reservation or other evasion or distinction whatsoever and in particular without that kind of distinction which is made of a reduplicative and specificative sense wherein any such may be against the said obvious and sincere meaning and consequently vain and unconscionable in this matter QUERIES CONCERNING The LAWFULNESSE of the Present CESSATION AND OF THE CENSURES AGAINST ALL CONFEDERATES ADHERING unto it PROPOUNDED By the RIGHT HONOVRABLE the SUPREME COUNCIL to the most Reverend and most Illustrious DAVID Lord Bishop of OSSORY and unto other DIVINES WITH ANSWERS GIVEN and SIGNED by the said most Reverend PRELATE and DIVINES Printed at KILKENNY Anno 1648. And Re-printed Anno 1673. The Censure and Approbation of the most Illustrious and most Reverend Thomas Deasse Doctor of Divinity of the University of Paris and Lord Bishop of Meath I The undernamed having seriously perused and exactly examined the Answers made to the QUERIES by the Right Reverend Father in God David Lord Bishop of Ossory and by the Divines thereunto subscribing do esteem the same worthy to be published in Print to the view of the world as containing nothing either against God or against Caesar but rather as I conceive the Answerers in the first place do prove home and evidently convince the Excommunication and other Censures of the Lord Nuncio c. to have been groundless and void even of their own nature and before the Appeal and besides do manifestly convince that in case the Censures had not been such of their own nature yet the Appeal interposed suspends them wholly with their effects consequences and jurisdiction of the Judge or Judges c. And withal do solidly and learnedly vindicate from all blame the fidelity integrity and prudence of the Supreme Council in all their proceedings concerning the Cessation made with the Lord Baron of Inchiquin notwithstanding the daily increasing obloquies and calumnies of their malignant opposers In the second place the Answerers do sufficiently instruct the scrupulous and ignorant misled People exhorting them to continue in their obedience to Supreme Authority as they do in like manner confute and convince efficaciously the opposition of such obstinate and refractory persons as do presume to vilifie and tread under foot the Authority established in the Kingdom by the Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks And finally the Answerers dutifully and loyally do invite all true hearted Subjects to yield all due obedience to their Sovereign and to any other Supreme Civil Magistrate subordinate and representing the Sovereigns Supreme Authority according to the Law of God the Law of the Church and the Law of the Land Thomas Medensis Given at Kâ—lkenny Aug. 17. 1648. Another Approbation BY the perusal of this Treatise intituled Queries and Answers I am induced to concur with other eminent Surveyors thereof That it contains nothing contrary to approved Doctrine sound Faith or good Manners and therefore that behooveful use may be made thereof by such as love truth and sincerity 7. August 1648. Thomas Rothe Dean of St. Canie And Protonotary Apostolick c. Another Approbation HAving perused by Order of the Supreme Council the Queries propounded by the Supreme Council c. with Answers given them by the Right Reverend DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory and other Divines and being required to deliver my sense of this work I do signifie That I find moving in the said Queries of Answers against Catholick Religion good Life or Manners but much for their advancement and great lights for the discovery of Truth I find by evident proofs declared that the Council in this affair of Cessation Appeal interposed against and other proceedings had with the Lord â—uncio and his adherents 〈◊〉 themselves with a due resentment of the general destruction of the Kingdom and with is true and knowing zeal of Loyalty for the maintenance of the Catholick Religion Justice lawful Authority the lives estates and rights of the Confedâ—ranâ—s I find by uncontroulable reasons proved That the Confederates cannot without worldly ignomity and Divine indignation fâ—ll from the said Cessation while the condition are performed and time expired I find lastly hence and by other irrefragable arguments That all and every of the Censures pronounced either by the Nuncio or any else against the Council or other Confederates upon this ground of concluding or adhering to the Cessation are unreasonable unconscionable invalid void and against Divine and Humane Laws
to have no other judgment of these or any of them but what should be wholly and purely conformable to the Doctrine of the Holy Roman Church to the inviolable Decrees of Sacred Canons to the common sense of most famous Divines to the known practice of other Catholick Nations and to the manifest Principles of the very Law of Nature and after diligent perusal of all the proceedings past between your Lordships and the Lord Baron of Inchiquyn and the Lord Nuncio and Congregation from the first day this Cessation was entertained by Treaty until the present having duly pondered all and each of the said Lord Nuncio's and Congregations Arguments against it with the satisfaction given them alwayes by your Lordships and withal after much labour taken by us for several dayes in turning Divines and Canonists and weighing the strongest Objections either made by the Lord Nuncio and Congregation which indeed with all submissive reverence be it said are but groundless and too too weak suspitions no way proved or which our selves could frame against our selves we have fixed unanimously and constantly on the following Answers without as we call God to witness the least scruple of swerving from Divinity Law or Reason And although we are not ignorant how the Dean of Firmo by authority from the Lord Nuncio published Commands Censures and Penalties against all Divines and Canonists who should deliver their opinions for the Cessation until or before they had accosted his Lordship and Congregation to hear from them the Reasons which oppose it yet in regard it appears unto us evidently after mature deliberation and exact debate That such Commands Censures and Penalties are not only most unreasonable and unjust but also invalid since they would take away from us that just liberty which throughout all the world is of right belonging to and absolutely requisite to be resident in Divines viz. to answer Cases of Conscience occurring or proposed it being otherwise impossible for them either to govern their own Consciences or direct others but all should often live in tormenting perplexities which is repugnant to the Law of God And since our going to the Lord Nuncio and Congregation would be to no other purpose than to hear and see his Lordships objections against the Cessation all which we have already to the least word perused in the Books given us by your Lordships directions for there can be no kind of likelihood that we should receive from his Lordship or Congregation any better or stronger Reasons than what he hath given your Lordships to whom questionless it was more material and for their purpose to give them and with whom they laboured so much for point of Conscience as they pretended to hinder the conclusion of this business since also there are such considerable difficulties in going to his Lordship neither day or place prefixed for any that would go the distance and dangers of the wayes being such as are known and which is above all his Lordship residing in a place and amongst an Army which stands in opposition to the Council and seeming to have made himself with these few Bishops about him a party to side with Refractories and open Enemies to the Kingdom besides no fafe conduct given or offered us and the setling of our own and of all other Souls committed to our charge admitting no delayes in so great a difference and so near concerning us since likewise it is manifestly consequent out of our Answers given to the first and second Querie That as the Lord Nuncio's Censures against your Honours and your Adherents in the principal cause are of no force as well by reason of the intolerable Errours which with much reverence and due submission we say they contain as of the Appeal interposed both which do jointly and severally disannul them so the Deans Censures and all others if there be any else issued hitherto or henceforth to be issued against us or any who should give their opinion for or approbation to the said Cessation are for the same Reasons throughly invalid yea should we grant that such persons as issued them had even in righteous causes a lawful power over every and each of us which is yet very questionable we are therefore so far from apprehending any unlawfulness in delivering freely before the World our Opinion in this matter that in the present circumstances specially being required by your Lordships we conceive it our duty to the Publick and a merit before God praying heartily to Heaven that the ignorant may find instruction the wavering settlement and the refractories that reproach of their unjust proceedings which may reclaim them in these Answers of Our very good Lords Your most devoted Servants David Ossoriens And the rest who subscribe to the Answers The First Querie answered SUpposing here as a Tenet undeniable by any Catholick That the Faithful may without breach of Conscience conclude and observe a Cessations of Arms yea constant Leagues (n) Vid. Bonacin tom 2. d. 3. q. 2. p. 8. Turrian de just jur d. 87. dub 2. Layman Becan infra citandos and Peace with Infidels and Hereticks whereof we see before our eyes most warrantable presidents even in holy Scriptures and practice of the Saints of God as that of Abraham (b) Gen. xxi ver 27. with Abimelech of Joshua (c) Josh ix ver 9 15. with the Gibeonites of Samuel (d) 1 Reg. 7. ver 15. with the Amorites of many faithful Kings of Judah (e) 4 Reg. 3.2 Paralip 16. ver 3. 18 3. 36. 1 Reg. 28.29 with the Idolaters of Israel or Samaritans and of the valiant Maccabees (f) 1 Maccab 10. ver 6.44 12.43 2 Mac. 11. ver 15. 14. ver 23 24 25. who in their time were the Champions of Religion and approved by God with the Romans Spartiats and some Successors of Alexander to whom they gave Donaries and whose Regality they acknowledged whereof also we have for so many Ages the alwayes allowed practice of almost all Christian Catholick Princes (g) Knowls Turk Hist and States of the Emperour of Constantinople and Germany the Kings of Hungary Poland France the State of Venice and many other Catholick Princes with the Turks of the Kings of Spain (h) Vindiciae Gallicae with the Moors of Sivil Granado Valentia c. of St. Gregory the Great Pope of Rome with the Arrian Longobards (i) Baron Spond ad an 598. of Charles the Fifth no less mighty than religious Emperor and of his Successors with the Lutherans (k) Auctar. Chro. ad annal Baron ad an 1547. Hist Turc in Achmat. of Germany with Henry VIII excommunicated and with Denmark Holland Scotland Swedeland c finally of the Most Christian Kings of France with Huguenots (l) Surius ad an 1567. Supposing likewise another undoubted Truth maintained by all Divines who ever yet put Pen to paper as Beacan (m) Becan in Opuscul Theol.
delinquent from which when it is moderate and lawful no Appeal is admitted but if an Ecclesiastick be unjustly grieved or vexed by his Superiour it is allowed him and he cannot be hindered of this liberty by all both divine and humane Laws to appeal See the Glosse of the said Chapter verb. nec subjecti Hence it is That we cannot but approve the Councils and other Confederates practice in not fearing and not regarding the Lord Nuncio 's or any others Excommunications and Censures issued against them who countenance and adhere to the said Cessation having the doctrine of great Writers and the common sense of Divines to guide us herein who teach That when the Censures are invalid either by reason of a just Appeal or otherwise they are not to be cared for but may be disobeyed and their invalidity is to be published by those against whom they were pronounced After which publication or notice had of their nullity if any will seem to be scandalized at the neglect or contempt of such Censures the scandal can be no sin in the Censured since it is only a scandalum Pharisaeorum not pusillorum Graffi in decis aur lib. 4. de Cens c. 3. Gabr. in 4. sent d. 18 q 2. col 2. Syl. verb. Excom cap. 15. Graffiâ—s in decis aur l. 4. de Cens c. 1. Ostiens in c. Rom de sent Excom l. 6. ibi Joan. â—ndr columna 4. in c. const f. eod tit Jas. in l. quod jossit n. 41. 42. ff de re judicata So expresly Graffiis And in case we had not so many reasons and authorities to maintain the justice of our opposing the said Censures yet as Graffius excellently advertiseth since the Lord Nuncio and other Prelates who are of his mind do see that such Censures prove not healthful medicines but redound rather to the hurt of souls that we may speak for the present according to their opinion who hold the Excommunication and Interdict are both valid and just and bring along with them on us and all others their opposers death of sin and despair of conscience the Lord Nuncio and Prelates who joined with his Honour in pronouncing the said Censures ought to desist from publishing any more or further continuance of the already published in regard that Ecclesiastical Judges are bound to carry themselves like indulgent Fathers pious careful of their childrens souls and because that the power of Excommunicating was not given them to make it a snare of despair and destruction for souls but for their preservation and to be a salve for restoring health Out of all which Reasons Laws and Doctors we cannot imagine but every indifferent judgment will approve our opinion and conceive our practice in opposing the said Censures to be most just Yet to take away all the doubts of the doubtful and leave no refuge for even the obstinate to carp at us by objecting That in a business of controversie and doubt though indeed we see no more any doubt we ought to obey the commands of our Superiours let them read Diana P. 4. T. 3. R. 9. who recites other Authors where he holds and teacheth That when or where one justly fears any notable inconvenience either in his life fame or fortunes nay if he feared those evils to another by following his Superiours opinion to wit in case the Superiour did not doubt of his own proceedings and yet he doubted whether the Superiour proceeds justly or no in those circumstances he cannot be obliged in conscience to conform himself to his Superiours opinion because that according to the common Maxim in doubtful things favendum est reo or to him that is in possession of his liberty and because that the Subject in such a case is in possession if not of his liberty at least of his own security and right of preserving himself or another from danger Neither in this or any other case wherein he is not bound to obey can he be excommunicated Hitherto this learned Divine with others whom he cites (t) Anton. Diana P. 4. T. 3. R. 9. Sanchez in sum tom 27 l. 6. c. 3. n. 27. Vasques in 1. 2. q. 19. a. 6. d. 62. c. 6. vide comp Dianae verb. subditus And surely this very last passage were enough to quiet Consciences and discharge them of scruples but specially if it be taken together with that (u) Navarrus cap. 27. num 280. Valentia disput 2. q. 14. p. 4. quos citat sequitur Becan in sum de bon act in t cap. 4. q. 9. con 2. Diana p. 2. T. 13. R. I. P. 4. T. 4. R. 4. §. ad id vero Sanchez in sum tom 1. l. 1. c. 9. â— 14. Theologi communiter contra Perez alios paucos common Tenet of Divines which teacheth that it 's lawful to follow any probable opinion when the question is Whether the Act be conscionable or no yea though the contrary opinion were more safe and more probable as the said Anthony Diana Beacan Vasquez with other Authors cited in the Margent and which the torrent of Doctors do teach if likewise what Sanches (x) Sanchez in sum tom 1. l. 1. c. n. 97. Villa lobos tom 1. tr 51. diff 17. n. 3. Beroto in c. 1. â— 281 de const sine ulla distinctione decent Fillucius tom 2. tr 21. c. 4. n. 1. 34. Merolla tom c. disp 3. c. 4. dub 1. n. 4. Sanchius in select disp 5. n. 11. disp 6â— n. 63. Diana P. 4. T. 4. R. 30. Vide comp Dianae verâ— opinio probabilis Villalobos Fillucius Merolla and others hold be considered to wit That the resolution of one learned and pious Author Doctor or Divine studying a case and examining the reasons pro contra doth make a probable opinion how great soever the number be against him if also it be considered there are many most learned and most vertuous Divines of both Clergies even great Prelates and most Illustrious and Reverend Bishops known to be of the ablest and most vertuous men in the Kingdom who after a long and serious debate of all the proceedings grounds and reasons of this Cessation and of the Declaration and Censures issued against such as adhere unto it have resolved notwithstanding yea and with strong reasons declare evidently That nothing can be found in the said Cessation against Catholick Religion or which may be a just ground for Excommunication For certainly so many sentences of such men concurring and having so many reasons which they esteem manifestly convincing having solved the objections which might be made to the contrary must at least wise render this way probable and consequently secure in Conscience Neither doth it any wise prejudice the probability of their opinion That the Lord Nuncio and Congregation declared the Cessation and the adhering to it to be unconscionable for it is certain That neither his Lordships definition nor Congregations assent could
Suar. Tolet. Cajet alii quos citat sequitur Bonac tract de decalog d. 3. q. 9. pu unic prop. 3. nu 4. 5. according to the Catholick doctrine to relie for it is a mortal sin to tempt God by expectation of miracles And is there any man of sense will say That a dispensation which draweth along with it so much evil could either be in it self just or have a just cause specially where the cause pretended is the declining of a sin in adhering to a Cessation wherein or in which adhering we have manifestly proved no sin could be committed Nay We have evinced the said Cessation could not be not adhered unto or could not be rejected by the Council and Confederates without most grievous and fearful sins and we have shewed this to be the constant doctrine of the Catholick Divines and of the Church of God and that when the contrary was practised through ignorance and temerity the experience was fatal and cost them dear Thirdly By reason of the disesteem it would bring upon all Confederacy and of the unsecurity manifest danger and confusion it would bring upon and throw into all Christian States and Governments For if by such dispensations and upon such grounds the common Subject could be withdrawn from his Allegiance and with a good Conscience rebel what Prince what State or Republick nay what private man could live one day in security whereas they often see before their faces such boundless enraged ambition and such cruel designs of some Prelates may this be spoken without disparagement to so many other great and good Prelates who by their vertuous lives and apostolical doctrine support States Kingdoms and Monarchies of Christianity as in particular several are seen to use with us at this present such praise-worthy endeavours for the preservation of the Confederates If together with this example it were maintained as a Catholick Tenet That such Prelates or Churchmen could at their pleasure or upon such designs challenge and assume a power of the Fortunes Estates Crowns Lives of Kings and Republicks by dispensing with particulars or promiscuously with the multitude or any other in their due obedience and Oaths of Allegiance what should not be hourly feared Lastly which is hence consequent by reason of the aversion and hatred it would breed in all Infidels and Sectaries against our Religion For what Prince State or Commonwealth of any other Religion would admit of ours if our doctrine of dispensations in the Subjects Allegiance were so destructive of all Policy and good Government and so cruelly wicked Let us therefore here and evermore stop our Christian ears from such blasphemies against the Law of God and the Faith of the Holy Roman and Universal Church in all Ages to this present time And let us leave such Antichristian principles to Luther Calvin and such other infernal Furies who covered a great part of Europe with the blood of Christians by doctrine in substance not unlike this but certainly no worse than this and whereby they at their pleasures armed the Subject against the Prince and the People against the Magistrate for the destruction of Christianity and of the Church of God Read the Catholick Author who writ on Fox's Kalendar of Martyrs where he at large rehearseth the dangerous anarchical and bloody principles of late Sectaries specially of Puritans The Seventh and last Querie answered AS the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio highly entrench with submissive reverence to his Grace we say it on all Supreme Governors on the Law of Nations the Honour of the Confederates and brings a scandal on our Holy Mother the Catholick Church which contrary to his Lordships proceedings teacheth and warranteth Promises Leagues Contracts Cessations and Peace made with Hereticks to be Religiously performed as we have seen in the second Supposition made in our Answer to the first Querie and in the Authors there cited and teacheth as we have seen before that all Subjects both Laicks and Ecclesiasticks Priests Fryers Jesuites Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs Cardinals are bound under mortal sin and eternal damnation to obey all Orders of the Civil Magistrate wherein evil and sin doth not manifestly appear which we have sufficiently proved not to appear in their orders concerning this great difference so it must follow that none of either state Temporal or Ecclesiastical may without shipwrack of his Conscience and loss of his Soul disobey the orders of the Supreme Council on sole pretence of the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio these proceedings being now declared by strong and insoluble reasons to be unjust illegal invalid sinful commanding and enforcing to most enormous and execrable sins of Infidelity Perjury Rebellion Treason and to so many other abominable Crimes which stream out of these evil sources Whence is apparent how unsatisfactory and ignorant their Answer is who to excuse their disobedience to the Council alledge the Commands of their spiritual Superiours Guardians Pryors Provincials Bishops the Lord Nuncio c. to the contrary as if such Commands or of such Superiours or of any else whosoever temporal or spiritual were of more force to oblige their Consciences than the Commandments of God and than his Law which according to the Declaration made thereof unto us by St. Paul the Apostle Rom. 13. and by the doctrine of the Church of God the Holy Fathers and Catholick Doctors in all Ages on pain of eternal damnation enjoin both them and all such their Superiours whatsoever either of the Secular or Regular Clergy to obey the Council in all matters where manifest sin doth not appear And that sin doth not appear in any of the Commands of the Council concerning the faithful observation of this Agreement made with Inchiquyn yea notwithstanding any Censures of the Lord Nuncio we have more than sufficiently manifested and they who make this ignorant answer confess in regard it could not be hitherto found what Article or part of the Cessation might be with reason maintained to be sinful as by their flying to this strait they are constrained Otherwise certainly if they could shew any evil or sin therein they would rather make use of so reasonable an excuse for opposing the Decrees of the Council than of so bad a pretext as blind obedience to the Commands of Superiours who are as they obliged by the Law of God to be wholly subject to the Council for what concerns the peace and tranquility of the Commonwealth Wherefore what they call obedience to their Superiours is no true nor vertuous obedience but vitious but sinful but against their Conscience but damnation to their Souls as the Apostle hath because it implies plain disobedience to and transgression of the Commands of God who must be obeyed before all men of the earth Will any even of themselves deny but their obedience to the Commands of their Superiours enjoining them Rapine Theft Murther Adultery Sacriledge c. or enjoing them never to confess their sins never to pray
my self and other friends against all both Forreign Censures and Home Impostures I had in truth some regard of vindicating my self and all those persuaded by or associated with me either in signing or adhering to the foresaid Remonstrance and consequently too of vindicating even that Formulary it self from the no less malicious than both scandalous and false aspersion of unlawful detestable sacrilegious yea schismatical and heretical with which our Adversaries branded us And if I had not had that consideration in some degree of my self and Friends I had been as unsatisfied with my own heart as ever any of my Adversaries were with any of my Books For I think every honest man is bound in Conscience to defend himself and Friends especially his own and their good name wherein and as far as he justly may cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae And I am persuaded no man will be so rash or impudent as to reprove me for thinking so But withall I do protest in the presence of God it was not any such or other whatsoever private consideration or regard of my self or said Friends that was the chiefest or strongest motive I had to put Pen to Paper in any of the foresaid now hereafter following Treatises or in any other Treatise or Part or even addition of other Appendages to all the Treatises of this present Book but that more publick regard of the more common and universal good of the Irish Nation and Catholick Religion which I have signified before And so I perclose here at last this Second Part and consequently as to both Parts the whole First Treatise Which Treatise the necessary Theological Disputes against the four grounds of the Censure of Louain for an Hundred sheets together in the First Part have made so long albeit I confess the pure Historical Sections are even of themselves long enough But the next following Three Treatises will in some measure by their shortness compensate the former length For they are proportionably as short as may be and yet as long as their several Subjects require them to be having nothing Historical in them and but a strict and pure partly Theological and partly Rational Examination of the import and weight of those foremention'd three several Papers of the National Congregation and yet even that such an Examination too as in many or rather most material places doth suppose the reading of this First Treatise or of some things diffusely treated therein Which is the reason they needed not be longer than they are What I think will seem most wanting in them to the Readers ease must be That they have no Marginal nor any other sort of Remissions directing to the Sections or Pages of this First Treatise where some of the Publick Instruments or other matters related unto are given or handled at large But I could not help that being I was necessitated to write and print them before I had written a word of this And a diligent or curious Reader may quickly help himself at least by turning to the Table THE SECOND TREATISE CONTAINING Exceptions against the form or protestation of Allegiance subscribed and presented the 16. of June 1666. to His Grace the Duke of Ormonde Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of Ireland by such of the Irish Clergie of of the Roman Communion as convened at Dublin the 11th of the said month and year and dissolved the 25th thereof FIrst they varied in this form not only as to single words but to entire clauses and their sense in the most material parts from the former protestation subscribed by those others of the said Clergie and of the Nobility and Gentry at London in 61. And varied so of set purpose as openly appeared upon the contradictory question and debate for fourteen dayes together in their publick Assembly that they might be free from all tyes of duty faith obedience and acknowledgment or recognition of His Majesties power over them or their own obligation to obey him in all cases and contingencies wherein Bellarmine Suarez Santarellus Mariana or any other such later or former Writers maintain the lawfulness of the deposition of Kings by the Popes or peoples authority and the lawfulness also of the Rebellion of the people against Princes deposed so or excommunicated and denounced by the Prelats of the Church And that they should not be convinced to have disclaimed any wise either clearly and expresly or equivalently and by consequence in the general pretence of a power in the Pope or Church by divine immediate right spiritual or temporal or mixt of both either direct or indirect to depose all kind of Princes at least such as they account as Hereticks in the Christian Religion and to absolve their Subjects or declare them absolved from all kind of Allegiance at least in the extraordinary or even ordinary cases of such as they likewise account or esteem Apostacie Heresie Schisme or other tyrannical or sinful administration or either true or pretended oppression of the people nor convinced also to have disclaimed even in those other meerly humane titles or rights which the Popes have so often pretended and still do and which many or most of that Irish Clergie as likewise the present faculty of Lovaine Divines in their late censure of the former Remonstrance procured by the Agency and sollicitation of some of the said Irish Clergie and by the vehement interposition of the late Internuntio at Bruxels the Italian Abbot of Mount-Royal Hieronimus De Vecchiis do peculiarly and stiffely maintain to the Realmes of England and Ireland to wit those of donation submission feudatary title and forfeiture Or which are the same those argued from the either true or pretended Bull of Adrian the fourth to Henry the second concerning the Kingdom of Ireland and those likewise argued from the famed resignation of the Crowns or Soveraignties of both Kingdoms by King John to Innocent the Third or to his Legat Pandulphus at Dover and from the payment of Peter-pence Secondly And to come to the particulars of this change or variation and and I mean it in the material parts only And not to take any notice though it is fit there should be some of the changing the Epithet or Adjective Rightful first Line of the said former Protestation of 61. into that of undoubted in this of 66. for one may be an undoubted Soveraign De facto though not De jure rightful but an Usurper Or may be in fact or possession undoubted Soveraign though another should be in deed and so acknowledged as to right the true King and Soveraign Nor yet to take any notice of altering those other three words under pain of sin second Line of the said former printed Remonstrance into those in Conscience albeit the doctrine and practice of equivocation so common to and so mightily insisted upon amongst them and yet further the positive exceptions of some of their party even at London some four years since against those very words and
sense of them and moreover also their doctrine or perswasion of the exemption of Clergy-men in particular from the Secular or civil Power and Laws as will at large appear in the end of this discourse give just occasion to believe they do not mean any obligation under pain of sin by that theirs of conscience I say that not to take notice of these or of any more such of lesser moment or less appearing changes either in the words or sense I observe secondly the great and clear and most material change can be in four several Instances and this partly by a manifest and purposed omission and partly by equivocation First Instance That the former printed Remonstrance of 61. hath in clear express words Line the 2 3 and 4. a Declaration of a tye under pain of sin on the Catholick Subjects to be obedient in all civil and temporal things to his Majesty as much as the Laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom require at their hands For the words of the former as to this point are these And therefore we acknowledge our selves to be obliged under pain of sin to obey your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as any other of your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands This later hath of set purpose and to evade the acknowledgment of of any tye of conscience what ever they mean by conscience from the Laws of the Land or rules of Government hath I say changed that clause and formed it thus Consequently we confess our selves obliged in conscience to be as obedient to your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as any Subject ought to be to his Prince and as the Laws of God and nature require at our hands Declining so of purpose the Laws of the Land or the municipal and humane politick Laws whether those are called common or those are termed Statute-laws and all other rules of State-government by Proclamations or otherwise for the peace of the Country ordained by men whether ecclesiastical or civil And consequently declining the acknowledgment of any obligation of conscience on the Subscribers to this later form from such humane laws and rules For although according to the doctrine and conscience of the former Subscribers to the first Protestation or that of 61. the very laws of God and nature oblige them to be obedient to the King in all civil and temporal affairs even according to the humane laws and rules of Government of the Land albeit they had never expressed it in their Protestation which yet they did of purpose to avoid all jealousies of equivocation or mental reservation and to declare expresly against the ill grounded opinions or doctrines in that point of some late School-men and Writers of their Church whereof some vainly teach the civil Power and Laws cannot oblige any under pain of sin Others no less vainly that at least they cannot so oblige Clergy-men as being no way subject to the coercive part or power of them but at most and only ex aequo bono to their direction yet according to the publickly declared judgment and doctrine of these other Subscribers or the late Assembly subscribing this their own other form and according their judgment I say on the very point and contradiction of it they will have themselves so understood as that they conceive and believe that neither the laws of God or nature oblige them in conscience so to obey his Majesty either by an active or passive obedience in all civil or temporal affairs or to obey him as much as the laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at their hands but on the contrary speak and teach even many of them publickly and almost all universally in private that they do not oblige them in conscience to be so obedient which is the reason they found this change of this clause very material Second Instance is In the total change of the two next and most material clauses of all those contained in that former Protestation of 61. I mean those And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any authority spiritual or temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against your Majesty or your Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our abilities our faithful loyalty and true allegiance to your Majesty And we openly disclaim and renounce all forrain power be it either Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise tumults bear arms or offer any violence to your Majesties person Royal Authority or to the State or Government And this Instance further is in the clear omission not only of this passage in the next period of that Remonstrance of 61. line the 12. Be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what forrein power or authority whatsoever but also in the like wilfull omission of the two intire periods immediatly following viz. And further we profess that all absolute Princes and supream Governours of what religion soever they be are Gods Lieutenants on earth and that obedience is due to them according to the laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all civil and temporal affairs And therefore we do here protest against all doctrine and authority to the contrary All which four intire periods besides that part here likewise noted of a fifth the only material clauses or declarations not only of that Remonstrance of 61. but which might or may be of any other home to the purpose this Congregation of Dublin in 66. wittingly and willingly and purposely and obstinatly would and have accordingly omitted in their Protestation and would have it so notwithstanding so many convincing reasons given them publickly and privatly for six dayes together and notwithstanding that both the expedience and absolute necessity was so declared unto them why they should and ought by such express clauses renounce the doctrines whence their own so well known so late and so fatal practises of the generality of the Clergie of Ireland since 41. but more especially since the congregations of Waterford in 46. and Jamesstown in 50. did flow and so refused to insert them and as well for any part as the whole of them either in word or sense in their own form which they framed or fixed on of purpose to decline both the words and sense and as well the sense as words of those four several periods as likewise of any other material expressions in the Remonstrance of 61. and so I say fixed on this form which now they call their own because signed by them although not framed