quarrel and though his body likewise had been subservient and obedient in all things to the most holy dictats of his Soul For we know that invincible or inculpable prejudice ignorance or inadvertisement against the truth of things in the course of a mans life in his actions or in his contests or even some time in his doctrine which strikes not at the fundamentals of Christian doctrine so his Soul be ever piously and charitably and Christianly and resignedly disposed to embrace truth when known either by evidence of reason or from such an authority as it is bound to submit unto doth not hinder either Sanctity or martyrdom or miracles or due canonization or a fit veneration or answerable invocation of him as even a martyrized and miraculous Saint The example of S. Cyprian that great holy martyrized Saint and Patriarch of Affrick who both lived and dyed in a wrongfull contest with even the Popes of Rome themselves and even also in a very material point of Christian doctrine is evidence enough for this And S Paul's contest with S. Peter at Antioch about the observation of the Jewish laws is evidence enough And very many other examples of great holy Fathers and Doctors of the Catholick Church who lived and dyed in material errours and material heresies too especially if the doctrine of Bellarmine in many places nay or that of even of many or rather most other School Divines be true may be produced ex superabundanti to make good this evidence 4. That the infallibility of Pope Alexander the third in canonizing S. Thomas of Canterbury and I speak now to them who suppose the Pope so infallible in all his Definitions or Bulls concerning any doctrine or fact or matter of Piety that he is so too in his canonization of Saints implyed or inferr'd of necessity that all his quarrels or at least the substantial part of that quarrel which occasion'd his death principally immediatly ultimatly not onely was just but must have been just according to the very objective truth of things in themselves and that otherwise there could be no infallibility in the said Alexander's canonization of him for a Saint and a martyr and that likewise the pursuant veneration and invocation of him for such by the Church and the miracles wrought at his hearse before he was interr'd as for example the candles lighting of themselves about his hearse after they had been quenched and his lifting up his hand after the office of the dead was ended and blessing the people c and so many other miracles wrought at several times at his Tomb after he had been long enterred that I say neither that veneration or invocation could be in truth practised without impiety or at least very much temerity not those miracles alleadg'd without forgery and fallacy nor he called a martyr in any true sense if his quarrels or quarrel as now is said with Henry the Second had not been just according to the objective truth of things in themselves For as I denyed the former three suppositions so I do this fourth also or at least I say that I am not bound to admit it First because that even allowing or if I did allow Bellarmine's or any other's doctrine of the infallibility of Popes in their Bulls of canonization and other Bulls whatsoever yet is it plain enough and even admitted by such Divines that possibly there may be an errour in some particular allegations or suppositions entertained by the Popes in the process formed for such canonization and even expressed also or insinuated in the very letters of the canonization and that no such allegations or suppositions reasons or motives are defined in any Bull of canonization or even in any other whatsoever but the principal design onely and that this in Bulls of canonization is onely that such or such a holy man is in the joyes of the blessed seeing God in the face and therefore he may be invocated as such and consequently that the infallibility which they do attribute to the Popes in their Bulls of canonization may subsist notwithstanding that some of those motives or inducements were in themselves false according at least to the objective truth of things For all which these Divines pretend to in this matter is the infallible assistance of Gods holy spirit or of his external Providence promised infallibly as they suppose to the Pope in not proposing any by such a solemn declaration to be invoked as a Saint who is not so indeed but not in supposing this or that which is said of some passage of his life nor by consequence in supposing what was the true cause of his violent death when he dyed so or that the cause was such as would make him a martyr in the stricktest sense of this word Martyr as used in the Church by way of distinction not onely from a Confessour but from such holy men who suffered violent deaths unjustly that is not by the prescript of the laws but by the power onely of wicked men or women and that too sometimes not for any cause they maintayn'd but out of hatred to their persons or to arrive at some worldly end which their life observed whereof St. Edward the Second a Saxon King of England Son to the good King Edgar is a very sufficient example who was and is invoked as a martyr and a very miraculous martyr too notwithstanding he was murthred onely by a servant and at the command of his Stepmother Alfreda as he was drinking on horseback and this too for no other cause but that her own Son Ethelredus should come to be King as presently he was made Polydore Virgil Anglicae Historiae l. VII as sometimes also for a cause which though not so clear on either side in the judgment I mean of some other indifferent men nay perhaps unrighteous on the side of the holy sufferers according to the objective truth of things in themselves yet invincibly appearing just or the more just and the more holy and pious unto them and to others also who had their life otherwise and justly too or according also even to the certain objective truth of other things in due veneration For Martyr in Greek is a witness in English and martyrdom in the Ecclesiastical use of the word is variously applyed sometime strictly to import a violent death suffered without any reluctance and suffered meerly and onely for professing or for not denying a known certain evident or notorious Catholick Evangelical truth or which is the same thing to import a witnessing or a bearing testimony to such a truth by such a death sometime largely or not so strictly however properly still to import by such a death a witnessing or a bearing testimony to a good zeal and great piety and excellent conscience in being constant to a cause which one esteems the more just and generally seems the more pious for all he knows though it be not an evangelical truth and though perhaps
powred forth unsavouriness and those who should have enlightned others to have brought darkness on them Wherefore such as have kept themselves free from subscriptions or from this kind of infectious disease let them by all means beware they be not drawn into the pitt by their blind leaders and let them uphold the doctrine that is sound Who stands let him take heed he fall not But for such as are unhappily fallen let them rise without delaye And let them know so much as to acknowledg and take hold of that Right hand which their as well most Holy as most loving Father stretches forth in admonishing them Finally let all of you joyned together in the bond of peace yield those respects to the King which true Faith teaches In the mean time I in the name of the whole Congregation appointed overseers of your affairs do wish all things may be prosperous no you and withal exhort you to retain the same constancy of most valorous Resolutions which you have manifested in defending the purity of Religion That you beleive also that all Irish Catholicks are beloved in the bowels of Christ by our most Holy Lord and that his Holyness is even from his whole heart and out of that charity which is from God possessed with the greatest desires of the health and tranquillity of you all Given at Rome the 8. of July 1662. Your most addicted Francis Barbarine VIII Soon after the date of these Letters of Cardinal Francis Barbarine and of the Bruxels Internuntio Hieronimus de Veccbiis the Lord Lieutenant being come for Ireland and the Procurators duty bringing him thither after he had answered the man in the dark in the behalf of the Irish in general and in relation to their temporal Estates and had also in the Clergies name made his gratulatory address first to both their Majesties the King and Queen and next to the Lord Lieutenant also when His Grace had the second time that great charge of the Lieutenancy of Ireland put upon him and being arrived at Dublin and being commanded by His Grace to endeavour presently the subscriptions of those at home in the Countrey the first opposition he found was that of fine words and offers of money for his pains taken hitherto for them and three hundred pounds therefore if he would prevail with His Grace to accept of their subscriptions to another form such as themselves would frame because that signed at London was odious in the Court of Rome as lessening the authority of the most holy Father But when they found him unalterable and that he told them positively it was unworthy of them to move any such thing and of him to listen to it besides that they were much deceived in their judgment of His Grace or of the matter in it self as if it depended of the Procurator to perswade or disswade His Grace therein or as if His Grace did not sufficiently understand the consequence of any the least material change or the sense of English words and what imported or not the King or States security as from them presently he understands of a late and general resolution taken by all the Heads of the Clergy not to sign at all that Remonstrance nor suffer any under their respective charges to sign it And further understands that besides the three Provincials of the Franciscans Dominicans and Augustinians a little before his landing met at Dublin and entred into a confederacy together against it Anthony Mageoghegan Bishop of Meath and the Provincial of the Franciscans by name Anthony Docharty and besides him Thomas ma Kiernan Francis Ferral and others of the same Order with some Vicars General of the North had signed an Instrument and sent an express messenger one Father John Brady with it over Seas to procure Letters and Censures against the Remonstrance Subscribers That moreover Father Peter Aylmer a little before made Curat of St. Owens at Dublin aspiring further to be made Bishop or at least Vicar Apostolick for having lately been so eminent an opposer of the Remonstrances at London abusing the people with telling them though most falsely the Sorbonists were against it grounding himself only for this vain report upon simple letters from another Irish Priest at Paris a man as ignorant as himself and who seemed to know as little what the Parisians taught or taught not as himself that I say this Father Aylmer made himself very instrumental for such ambitious ends to encourage which he needed not the said Bishop of Meath and the said Father Dempsy Vicar General of Dublin and all others of both Secular and Regular Clergy to resolve absolutely against it Wherein he had the more credit that they were told he had lately been my Lord Aubignyes Confessor at Whitehall and surely therefore knew the King did not expect any such paper or subscription from them nor the Duke either but that as he and they gave out all was the Procurators own contrivance and importunity to further that wherein himself had once engaged That further they saw such as were even at Court and in the daily sight of His Majesty and greatest Ministers of State the Queens own Chaplins those that were natives of England and Ireland were not as much as once called to for their subscription And yet none other of that Clergy in such favour as they Nay that both the grand Almoners of both Queens the Lord Aubigny and Abbot Montague both of them so great and so considerable and the first so near in blood to His Majesty and both looked upon at least the former in a fair way to the greatest dignities in the Catholick Church next the Papacy that both those said they were known to be averse from it But I must advertise the Reader that although use was made of such arguments suggested by the said Father Aylmer some others whom I know very well yet the same Gentlemen could not but know as well then and all others have been long since or at least are now at last throughly convinced of this truth That it was both His Majesties my Lord Lieutenants earnest desires by His Majesties express positive directions to him The Irish Clergie should sign that Remonstrance as an argument of their purpose and firm resolution to be more faithful to Him hereafter than the generality of them had proved to his Father the same Lord Lieutenant heretofore in the late Warrs of that Country That Father Welsh their own Procuratour though zealous enough for the lawfulness Catholickness expediency and necessity also of such signature by them yet had never urged any when once he perceived their general opposition had not His Grace told him of His Majesties pleasure in the case and not seen withall the consequents of their refusal or delay would prove in time very prejudicial both to themselves and the Lay People instructed by them and that such their subscription must have been the only medium to procure them that
is true he did not so fully dilate himself nor troubled himself nor his Reader with forming at large the argument grounded in these clear passages but left that to the judicious Reader as very obvious to any For what can be more obvious first than that neither St. Paul did say or mean that an Angel from heaven or himself should or would at any time preach any other to the Galathians Nor Christ our Saviour did say or mean that himself should or would at any time say that himself did not know the Father Secondly then that St. Paul notwithstanding that certain truth resolved and prayed or wished that both himself and even an Angel from Heaven should be accursed in case of that otherwise in it self absolutely and morally impossible supposition and that our Saviour also who was essential and eternal truth himself said and therefore truely said that in case himself did say he knew not the Father he would himself be a lyar Thirdly then that a general Council howsoever truely such cannot be less deservedly subject to be accursed or less any way be lyars is then Paul or an Angel from Heaven or at least then the natural Son of God Himself and what can be more obvious to a rational man then this discourse framed on such premisses St. Paul and our Saviour himself do cleerly say here that in case of one impossibility an other should follow St. Paul that in case an Angel from Heaven did preach otherwise he should erre and therefore should be accursed Our Saviour that in case himself said he knew not the Father himself should be a lyar And yet neither St. Paul can be therefore taxed with saying absolutely that an Angel from Heaven shall or will or may erre or may be accursed nor our Saviour with saying absolutely that himself shall or will or may be a lyar Ergo neither can the Procurator be in the case taxed with saying absolutely that a general Council truly such shall or will or may at any time erre or with saying absolutely what would onely be consequent to a general Councils conditional errour that the case may shall or will be that the subscribers shall or may be forced either to have recourse from the Representative Church that is from such a general Council to the Diffusive Church or suffer themselves to be mislead by such a Council And this is the argument which he supposed all judicious Readers would of themselves frame out of those two passages of St. Paul and our Saviour given by him briefly in the said 62. page of His More Ample Account Which now again he confesses to appear so evident to himself that he sees not what may be answered but cavil For it matters not a pinn as to the greater or lesser consequence or inconsequence what perhaps some will object that St. Paul was more firmly and cleerly certain that an Angel from Heaven would not preach otherwise c. and that our Saviour questionless was more certain that himself would not say he knew not the Father then the Procuratour was or could be that a general Council should or would or might not define the contrary doctrine c this matters not a pinn I say to prove the form of speech or the strength of the Antecedent to be any way unlike or not the same in both cases as to the concluding or inferring the like consequence to our purpose mutatis mutandis for it is the likeness or sameness of the words in the Antecedents or premisses and not the likeness or sameness of certainty in the eternal sentiments that conclude alike or inferr the like or same consequents However to clear this matter a little further and illustrate it as with the beams of the Sun I will give the objectors two cases to be considered here One past at least partly and very long since even 12. hundred years and an other which may yet well enough be in future times The first or that so already past I have briefly hinted in my More Ample Account pag. 61. it is this Before the general Council of Nice which was the first of general Councils truly such being those Councils of the Apostles have yet a more excellent name which is that of Apostolical although for ought we know ended all of them without any definition of any matters of Faith but that of the Legals only I say that before this first of Nice assembled by the Emperour Constantine the Christian Church especially in the East was lamentably divided into great factions about the Faith of one Substance one partly holding with Arrius and even amongst those very many great Bishops and Archbishops and entire Churches too That there was but one substance or nature of God the Father and of God the Son the other holding they were by nature two substances and so different by nature that the Fathers substance was increated but the Sons even I mean as God purely and essentially created or a creature and onely like the Father and God onely by grace and adoption Now I demand of our objectors what should one of these true believers of one substance answer one of the other side an Arian Heretick pressing him hard before that general Council of Nice convened and pressing him with this discourse You hold firmly and pawn your Salvation on it that there is but one and the self same identical increated substance or divine nature in God the Father and in God the Son as he is God and you are absolutely resolved never to alter that your Faith and you have subscribed a Formula or confession of Faith and a protestation too or Oath whereby you declare and swear that you will never alter your judgment in this point and whereby too you renounce and disclaim in and protest against all contrary doctrine and all authority whatsoever Temporal or Spiritual in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to oblige you to the contrary and notwithstanding all this you see now here is very soon to sit at Nice a general Representative or a general Council truly such of the whole universal Church of Christ on earth What will you say then when they are sate or what will you do or what will you think of that your said Formula confession protestation Oath present resolution and your subscription to all if this general Council most truly such define the contrary I demand I say of our objectors what would themselves have the Catholick Consubstantialists or believers of one substance in three persons which is the very first grand Fundamental of Christian Religion or indeed what the Consubstantialist or Catholick himself could answer in such a case or to such a metaphisical contingencie caprichious interrogatory insisted upon by the Arrian or what could he answer otherwise then as the Procuratour did to the like of Brodin or what is there imaginable to be returned in answer but that in such case the Consubstantialists would
christian Doctors at all in this point as neither in any other that relates to either of their Censures their first and long and their last and short one of our Remonstrance For I am sure there is no Divine no knowing christian no man of reason in the world that knows what christian Religion is will say there can be other convincing proof of a Theological assertion or censure either in the affirmative or negative but one of those I offer them to prove theirs by And yet I know there may be vitious customs in the Church though not therefore imputable to the Church as approving but only at most to the Superiors or some or the chief of those Superiors as not correcting them And confess too there may be amongst either the old or late canons of those which are commonly stiled amongst us the Canons of the Church some concerning discipline only which conclude no man not even any Roman Catholick necessarily so as to render it uncatholick or unlawful in point of conscience for him to swerve from them either in a good opinion of them or moral practice by them in all cases times or Countries On which Subject and to which purpose Canus the Dominican learned Bishop of the Canaries one of the Trent Fathers may be consulted with in his work de Locis Theologicis But the rejection in so many Catholick Diocesses and countries of those very Canons of Discipline in our most famous Tridentine Council though generally amongst all of the Roman Communion held for Oecumenical besides many others of like nature and several other Councils too even uncontrovertedly general of elder standing may be more seriously considered All which notwithstanding or notwithstanding that what I have now observed of such customs or canons be a consideration of great importance yet I wave it freely as to my present dispute with the Divines of Lovaine about the seal of confession or the Confessors obligation to reveal both the treason and person in our case of such damnable confession or consultation in the confessional seat and when the evil cannot be otherwise prevented LVIII But to the end the Readers may see if they please I am not more single or singular in this very case of revealing so the very person of such a Confitent when of absolute necessity for preventing of such evil than I was in that other of revealing the evil only or treason it self to prevent it the very self same Catholick and Classick Authors especially Sylvester verb. Confessio 3. Quaesito quarto et quinto quoted by me above in my fift consideration will sufficiently prove being themselves of the same opinion and upon the self same grounds maintaining it that is not only the lawfulness of such revelation but an obligation too on the confessor to discharge himself so when he may without danger to himself For although Sylvester does not in those places querie or even resolve in express tearms about revealing the very person of such a Confitent yet it is as clear as the Sun he both means and reaches it both in his Queries and Resolves First because in his first Querie of that Chapter or title where he demands quid cadat sub sigillo Confessionis he resolving that those sins only fall under that seal which directly fall under Sacramental confession and all things els which indirectly or out of which any third person might come to knowledge of any such sin not simply in it self but relatively to the person that confess'd it ex quibus deveniri potest in notitiam peccati non simpliciter sed relative ad personam quae illud confessa est resolves consequently as well in that very place or in answer to that first Querie as in an other place after or amongst his answers to the 4th Querie and resolves too with all truth and Divinity and with Scotus and the common Doctrine of Divines against Panâ—rmitan That no sins confess'd fall under that seal as simply sins or simply confess'd but only as having relation to this or that person Secondly because that after having layd this ground in that first Querie he demands in his fourth Vtrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessionem revelare contra dictum sigillum propter aliquod damnum aut peccatum vel periculum vitandum whether it be lawfull for the Priest in any case to reveal confession against the said seal for prevention of any hurt sin or danger And in his fifth Quibus casibus andita in confessione dici aut manifestari possint sine fractione dicti sigilli In what cases the Confessor may without breach of that seal reveal what he knew in confession And thirdly because his resolves to the said fourth and fift Queries and his Instances and the reasons he gives for such resolves and instances evict plainly this truth For having first answered negatively that fourth Querie according to the common doctrine of St. Thomas and others he restraines and limits immediately after that general resolution by a specifical exception of such cases wherein there is not a true sacramental confession but a meer fiction of such for other evil ends as those for example of engageing the Confessor himself or of getting his advice or other help to execute a sinful design And gives for a reason that such a fained Penitent or Confitent opens not such matters to the Priest as to the Minister of God nor as in sacramental confession As the Reader may see here in his own words and language Quarto utrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessionem revelare contra dictum sigillum propter aliquod damnum aut peceatum vel periculum vit andum Et dico secundum S. T. et Pe. et communem omnium quod non Quod limita secundum Rai et gl in tit de paen et re quando quis vere confitetur Secus quando ficté ad impetrandum a confessore auxilium vel â—â—nsilium super aliquo peccato Hoc enim non est confessio etiam si dicatur hoc tibi dico in confessione sed confessionis destructio Et consentit Innoc. in dicto capite omnis dicens non esse verum quod tales dicant in paenitentia vel Dei Ministro cum animae consilium non requirant And having answer'd the fift Querie affirmatively or that in many cases the sin heard in confession may be revealed by the Confessor without any breach of that Seal he instances in the third place or case one that tells in Confession he hath still a real fixed purpose to commit some evil as for example to murder some body and in this third case resolves with Innocentius and Panormitan 1. That such confession is no confession at all belonging to the penitential or sacramental Court nor the Confessor bound to conceal it as being not of a sin already committed but hereafter to be committed and consequently of a sin by no means told in the sacrament or under the Seal of
as much as a thought of pardoning him or offering him his life on condition he would renounce the contrary opinion some man can aver certainly or truly or as much as probably that what he alledged for himself of having only known the plot in confession either sacramental or not sacramental was true 2. That in case it had been true his own very Order that is all the Writers of his own Society if we may believe Suarez condemn his opinion of the seal for as much as he pretended it was therefore he would not reveal the plot because he had only heard it in confession and consequently seal'd up from any discovery by him For Suarez defies the King of Great Brittain ' gainst whom he writ even King Iames himself to produce as much as one Jesuit Writer that ever held it to be against the seal of confession oâ— any way unlawful to reveal the treason so as the Penitent or Confitent himself were neither directly or indirectly revealed And yet it is very certain that Father Garnet not only not did so whereas he might safely have done so even without any kind of danger to himself and might have done so by a hundred wayes and without as much as discovering himself but also pretended that he ought not to have done so or to have revealed the treason albeit there could be no danger thereby of revealing either directly or indirectly him that told it in confession 3. That hence it appears this objection whatever it be good or bad is not properly or peculiarly against the doctrine of this sixt consideration but more directly against that of the third and fourth where the Doctors of Lovaine and their ignorant sticklers may see other Catholick and Classick Doctors crying shame on them condemning it To which Doctors there quoted I now add Alexander Hales part 4. q. 78. memb 2. art 2. S. Thomas 4. distinct 21. q. 3. ar 1. ad 1. Scotus in 4. dist 21. q. 2. Hadrianus Papa 4. dist ubi de Sacram. Câ—nf edit Paris 1530. pag. 289. Navar. in Enchirid. c. 8. Ioseph Angles in Florib part 1. pag. 247. edit Antuerp Petrus Soto Lect. 11. de Confess Suarez Tom. 4. in 3. part D. Thomae disp 33. paragraph 3. Greg. de Valentia Tom. 4. disp 7. q. 13. punct 3. who all teach what I have in my said third and fourth consideration the lawfulness of disclosing the treason without disclosing the Penitent 4. That it s no way probable that a man so versed in at least not so ignorant of the doctrine of his own School or wherein he was bred with Father Suarez his old companion in Spain the doctrine of extrinsick probability as we must suppose a Provincial of the Society to have been should have made conscience of revealing the treason without revealing the Confitent being we cannot by any means presume that he was so extreamly ignorant as not to know this kind of revealing was taught by so many famous and pious even Classick Divines 5. That we may rather certainly and groundedly perswade our selves That being himself in other Instances confessed he knew of that wicked plott by other means also or out of confession as well from Father Greenwell as from Mr. Catesby it was no pretence of a Confessional Seal or any such opinion of the being of such a Seal in the case that hindered him from discovering either the treason it self or the traytors but that other more damnable opinion which he learned of so many other in this licentious and impious writers That no faith no allegiance is due from any Catholick Subjects to an excommunicate heretick Prince nor sinful treason can be committed against him or his laws or his people who support him 6. That be it so or be it otherwise nay granting all the objection pretends to or that it were true certain and notoriously known that Father Garnet had suffered only and meerly and when he could otherwise choose for that opinion of the unlawfulness for such a Confessor to reveal the very individual person of such a Conficent as we have supposed in our case and had suffered death for refusing to retract when he might have had life pardon for retracting yet all this amounts to no more then to an argument of the inward opinion of one single man or of his not pretending outwardly in word what he had not inwardly in thought But perswades no rational man therefore that his opinion was true or his perswasion right or his zeal according to knowledg much less that his martyrdom was Christian or glorious We know there are martyrs of errour as well as of truth and these to be the martyrs of Christ and those the martyrs of the Adversary of Christ We know what death and how willingly the Donatists and Circumcellions Gregor l. 2. Regist. op 36. ad Vniversos Episcopos Hibernia and twenty other sorts of Sectaries in all ages to this present suffered often for their false opinions And we know whose saying it is that Non paena sed causa martyrem facit And we know moreover how pertinently that indeed great and holy Pope St. Gregory the Great applyed this passage of Cyprian with so many other excellent sentences of his own reproving those ancient Bishops of Ireland a 1000 years since for their sufferance of persecution in so bad a cause and upon account only of so bad a cause as their opinion was of the Tria Capitula 7. And lastly that being it is on the contrary certain that Father Garnet approved not so his at any time inward perswasion by such outward testimony of his blood spilt or life lost to confirm it much less his constancy in it and being therefore that all can be concluded from his allegation or his suffering amounts to no more than to a bare outward pretence of his own having followed once such an opinion in such an unhappy and unholy matter of fact and this pretence also taken only or made use of that unconstantly contradictorily too for to excuse himself in part that is to lessen his guilt of that horrid conspiracy nay being in very deed and by Father Garnets own confession that he had other knowledg of that plott then what he had onely in confession and consequently being that he could pretend no more truly to excuse himself then a meer natural secrecy without any kind of relation to a sacramental secrecy Iohn de Serres in Henry the Fourth Pag. 865. Translat Grimstone The objectors will give me leave to mind them of as pious and religious a Father that Millanese Father Honorio of the Cappucchins Institute who farre more fortunately discreetly piously and conscientiously practised according to the quite contrary even home or at least as home upon one side as Father Garnet may be justly said to have done on t'other to our case by discovering to Henry le Grand of France the very individual person that was to assassinat
with marrying Theophanes Augusta or the widdow Empress notwithstanding his own former legitimate wife was still alive and no other cause to divorce from her and that besides he had received her or the said Theophanes's Son as a Godfather out of the Sacred Font and with too much liberty given to his army to oppress against all right and reason as well the Layety as the Clergie indulging them whatever they fancied and without any punishment and with robbing the very Churches of their donaries and with laying grievous excessive tributs on both Churchmen and Layemen against the law and with assuming to himself entirely the elections of Bishops and taking to himself also all the spoils of the dead Bishops and finally with endeavouring to have all the Souldiers killed under him in his warr against the Sarracens to be accounted and invoked as martyrs Do not the Greek Historians charge this Nicephorus with all these particulars and not with that law onely And if so as questionless it is so how could Basilius Porphyrogenitus or Bellarmine or we out of either perswade our selves with any certitude it was for a bare law revoking some former priviledges of the Clergie in case I say that law was such that Empire suffered in after days and not rather for some of those other undoubted exorbitancies against undoubted either divine or humane laws or suffered not for that law in it self but for the evil end or evil execution or use of it For a law may be good in it self and yet the intention of the law maker and his use of it very wicked And after all whether it was so or no what proof I beseech you is that bare saving conjecture opinion or judgement of Porphyrogenitus That Bellarmines pretended Exemption of Clerks in all both civil and criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil power hath been established either by the law divine natural or by the law of Nations That saying of Basilius Porphyrogenitus doth not touch this matter at all So that from first to last I dare conclude That for such Exemption and by such law of Nature and Nations Bellarmine hath not brought as much as any one argument which may seem to have the least colour of even probability itself nay nor even of that very worst sort of probability or that which our late Schoolmen call extrinsick onely Which himself did know so well that after having laboured so much to impose on us such exemption by such laws in a whole chapter yet in the chapter immediately following which is his 30. chap. l. 1. de Cleric he dares not give this doctrine of his own any better title or any better assurance not even for the being of it as much as by the divine positive law but onely the title or assurance of a bare probability of consequence And which further yet he knew so well that as he never once thought of the least Exemption of Clerks either as to their goods or as to their persons in politick or temporal affairs criminal or civil causes from any civil power whatsoever supream or not supream not even from the most inferiour civil Courts or Judges or of any kind of Exemption at all established for them in temporal matters by any law divine either natural or positive that I say as he never thought of any such Exemption by such laws in all or any the former editions of his Controversies or not until the very last edition of them by his own commands so it must be confessed he was in this point a very great changling to wit after he had seen all his other arguments out of human law or out of the civil and Canon law for his exorbitant exemption answered home by Doctor William Barclay in his accurate though little book de Potestate Papae particularly in the 15. and 32. chapters of the said book For in those former editions himself taught in express tearms against the Canonists Exemptionem Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona jure humano introductam esse non divino That the exemption of Clerks in politick matters as well concerning their persons as their goods was introduced by humane law not by divine Nay also as Barclay well notes de Potestate Papae c. 15. made it his business to wit in those former editions besides which the foresaid Barclay the Father knew of none to prove the truth hereof by three several sorts of arguments 1. by that of Paul Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit according to St. Chrysostome's exposition and understanding of it to be a command as well for Clerks as for Laycks 2. by other testimonies of holy Fathers in the point 3. because sayes he nullum prâ—ferri potest Dei verbum quo ista exemptio confirmetur there cannot be any word of God alleadg'd for this exemption From which doctrine he was so farre in his last edition that seeing he was left no other argument undissolved no other way unblocked for maintayning or carrying on his Exemption or that of Clerks in his exorbitant latitude of it and yet would not yield to victorious Truth he would needs in his old age trouble himself and others with a new invention or pretension rather nay rather too a meer aequivocation in effect of not onely a positive law divine per quandam similitudinem but even of a natural law divine and further confound the law of nature with that of nations and yet in the end of all pretend no more cap. 30. in solutione primae objectionis but a meer probability of consequence for his positive law of God nor for his natural but such a third degree c 29. as by his own explication of the third degree is no kind of degree at all of any true law of nature Whether this be not to abuse both Clerks and Layicks Princes and Subjects the State and Church being the controversy is of so high concern to all for the peace of the world I leave the indifferent Reader to judge For I have done my part and proceed now to shew by the solution of his other arguments LXVIII That for what concerns human laws too either civil or Ecclesiastical the case is also clear enough of my side both against him and our late Doctors of Lovaine That by neither law Clerks have ever yet been exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power nay nor in any kind of meer temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil from that supream civil power were it necessary for my present purpose to add this as it is not Though I confess they have been exempted and very justly too by several both imperial and other municipal and Royal laws from inferiour civil Judicatories in many civil causes and in some Countries by the peculiar municipal laws of such Countries exempted also in some criminal causes in prima instantia from the inferiour subordinate civil Judges and other Judges that
tale aliquid sive ex scripto sive ex non scripto praesumpserit imperare post cinguli privationem XX. librarum auri poenam exolvere jubemus Ecclesiae cujus Episcopus produci aut exhiberi jussus est executorem similiter post cinguli privationem verberibus subdendum et in exilium deportandum Item post multa si autem a Clerico aut Laico quccumque aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam apud sanctissimum ejus metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas et nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum Patriarcham Diocesees illius referatur causa et ille secundam canones leges huic praebeat finem Finally but yet moreover after quoting the law of Gratianus Valentinianus and Theodosius out of the Code l. VII titu XLVII constit III. in the point of nullity of a sentence when pronounced a non suo Iudice and the laws of Arcadius Honorius C. l. IX titu I. censtit XX. in the point of accusation made by Servants or Slaves except only the case of treason or crime against Majesty and the judgment of Modestinus the Lawyer ad legem Iuliam Majestatis l. Famosi lib. Pandectarum XLVIII in the point of credit not to be given to such accusers even in such a crime if the life or esteem of the accused was not such before as might render him suspected and another Novel Constitution as he calls it which is Authent de testib Parag. Et hic vero in the point of not condemning any by or for testmonies of witnesses to near which he was not called and of not receiving the testimonies of vile persons sine corporali discussione as he begun with and proceeded all along only out of the civil laws so he concludes at last that whole epistle out of the same civil laws tit XLIV lib. Câ—diâ—is in the point of giving sentence in writing quia scriptis debuit judicaâ—i Nam ibi inter alia dicitur atque praecipitur ut sententia quae sine scripto dicta fuerit ne nomen quidem sententiae mereatur sayes Gregory putting a final perclose to this 54 epistle ad Joan. Defensor l. XI Registri And this being the whole tenour as to the substance of that letter of St. Gregory and not as much as any one Canon at all as much as related unto by him therein from the first word to the last but only those canons in general which concern the order of Appeals in a Bishops cause not in that of other Clerks from the Metrapolitan to the Patriarch and yet these Canons too related unto here not by Gregory but by Leo Augustus himself and this also according to former civil laws of other Emperours and with so many exceptions still particularly for the cases of treason against Majesty and of a special warrant from the Prince himself to a lay subordinat Judge who sees not that Bellarmine had no kind of ground in this Epistle to abuse his Reader with quoting it as containing some argument to prove that although the civil law or Novels of Iustinian did not generally exempt Clerks in criminal causes from all publick or civil Judicatories yet the canon law did exempt them so or in such causes from all such Tribunals even the very supream But as for that other proposition which to compleat his second argument he assumes as a maxime That the civil law must yield to the canon law and for that also which to prove this maxime he further sayes That the Pope may command the Emperour especially in such matters as concern the Church which say at present of each a part and both together and of this manner of arguing is that in all I see nothing alledged or proved I mean to his purpose here but ignotum per ignotius and that my following Sections will further shew that in his sense or as applyed to his purpose or at least is necessarily inferring his Thesis or grand proposition or assertion of his Ecclesiastial Immunity both maxime and proof are absolutely false and yet and moreover consequently that his ratiocination or discourse composed of both is nothing else too but falsum per falsius However because neither the truth or probability as neither the untruth or improbability of any thing before said by me in this present Section depends of the truth or falsity of either that maxime or that other proposition assumed to make good that maxime being the dispute hitherto hath not been whether the Church could heretofore make or hereafter can make such canons as Bellarmine would have for such exemption or consequently whether in such case the civil laws being contrary must and ought to yield and be corrected by the canons or whether in such case too that maxime and proposition assumed to prove it might not be alledged and ought not to be admitted as out of controversie but the dispute hitherto in this Section having only been of the fact of the Church not of the power that is having been whether indeed she hath either justly or unjustly right or wrong validly or invalidly made at any time already or heretofore until this very present any such canon and because I perswade my self that I have sufficiently enough and very clearly too solved all that ever Bellarmine alledg'd either in his great work of Controversies and even in the very last edition of that great work or in his little book writ after of purpose by him De Potestate Temporali Papae adversus Gulielmum Barclaium for any such canon hitherto made I will now finally conclude that wherewith I begun this Section which is that neither by the Canons of the Church there hath ever been yet any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends or his Schollars in this the Divines of Lovaine of any Clerks whatsoever Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs c. from the supream civil temporal or lay power or Magistrats under which or whom they live And I conclude also my two several Affirmations immediatly following that Assertion and given or made there so immediatly as further illustrations of my meaning And to this conclusion add only here That I have taken so much pains in examining the canons alledg'd by our great Cardinal not indeed out of any purpose desire or inclination to exagitat the priviledges of Clergiemen or that I do at all or would envy them such priviledges or endeavour to lessen the reverence or esteem due or the honours or favours done or bestowed on their sacred functions and persons which any one may easily believe that knows me to be one of them my self through Gods mercy and favour to me how otherwise undeservedly soever But that next to that of speaking all necessary truths as it becomes a man of my profession in defence also of this so certain and christian truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from the supream secular civil Power as likewise of so many
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
of a Lay Judg in such a cause of debt challenged on a Clerk should be tearmd heer damnable presumption and temerity Yet reason tels us that Boniface supposed a former law or priviledg exempting Clerks in such a cause the breaking of which law or priviledg most have been it which he calls heer damnable presumption and temerity But who made this law or gave this priviledg whether Emperours and other Kings or whether the Pope alone or even with other Bishops or also whether God himself immediately this canon of Boniface determines not at all And though Boniface therein commands the Ordinarie to proceed with Ecclesiastical censures against such Lay judges as would presume to give sentence in a cause of debt against a Clergieman yet so might Boniface have done nay and justly too have done if such a law of exemption had been formerly made by the supream civil power and onely by this power Because even in this case Clergiemen had acquired a civil right not to be proceeded against by such inferiour Lay judges And consequently the Bishops might use the censures of the Church for defence of it as they might for defence of any other civil right in either Clergie or Layety until the same supream civil power did repeal such law or transferre again such right For so long and no longer should this law of Boniface for excommunicating such Lay Judges by the ordinaries continue So that out of so many heads either joyntly or severally taken it appears this cap. seculares de foro competenti in 6. is no sufficient proof at all that ever any Pope hath as much as de facto exempted Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power though I confess it must have supposed them formerly exempted by some power in some civil causes from inferiour Lay Judges But what 's this to purpose 7. That for the later of these two canons or cap. Clericis de Immuniâ— Eceles in 6. though it cannot be denyed that Boniface flew so high therein excommunicating all Rectors Captains Powers Barons Counts Dukes Princes Kings Emperours c. who imposed on or exacted or even received from Churchmen or Churchlands or goods any kind of burdens tallies or collections and halfs tenths twentieths hundreths or any other portion or share whatsoever of their profits or revenues as likewise all Prelats and Ecclesiasticks whosoever both secular and Regular who should pay any such under what pretext soever without express permission from himself or other Bishop of Rome succeeding him though I say all this cannot be denyed to have been so notoriously done by Boniface that it was necessary to correct so great an extravagancy of his and correct it even in a general Council which soon after his death followed under Clement the V. at Vienna in France and to revoke it wholly as may be seen by Clementina Quoniani de Immunitate Ecclesiarum yet I say withal that Boniface decreed nothing in this very chapter Clericis that may be alleadged with any reason for Bellarmine's voluit that is nothing for a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of very meer temporal Princes nay nor for a power in either to exempt Clerks from such payments Not for the former power because he speaks onely here of such payment and such payments are very different from other causes criminal or civil also Nor for the later because albeit he proceed so vigorously against all such as would either exact or receive such payments how freely soever made otherwise or would submit or consent to such payments without his own express consent yet all this he did as supposing the lands and other goods of the Church and the Churchmen themselves before exempted from all such payments and yet determines not here nor else where it was by the power of either Pope or Church they were so before exempted And Boniface perswaded himself that by what power soever they had been so exempt or by what law soever divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical those of Emperours or Kings or those of Popes or other Bishops it was his own part to see an exact observance of such exemption and that he might to this end make use of his Ecclesiastical or spiritual censures And questionless had his supposition been true in the whole latitude of it concerning an exemption so general from all kind of tributs taxe c. in all contingencies whatsoever and by what power soever even the highest supream civil on earth laid on or received from Churchlands Goods or Persons he might observing due moderation command under meer and pure spiritual censures the due observance of such exemption though granted only by the meer temporal power and civil laws But this supposition was not right and he exceeded therefore and therefore too this Decree of his was totally annulled in the above Clementina Quoniam as I have said already 8. That for the Bull which is commonly called Bulla caenae as being yearly and with so great solemnity published and renewed at Rome on Maundy Thursday when the last Supper of our Lord is specially remembred whence it is that name of the Bull of the Supper is derived nothing at all can be concluded from it for any such voluit of Bellarmine For albeit amongst twenty special excommunications contained therein against several sorts of persons or delinquents there are at least four large ones with a huge variety of clauses particularly against so many sorts of infringers or presumed infringers of Ecclesiastical Exemption Immunity or as that Bull calls it Ecclesiastical Liberty videlicet XIV XV. XVI XVII XVIII Excommunication yet as the Pope assumes not pretends not in this Bull that himself thereby gives that liberty so he determines not therein who gave that liberty immunity or exemption to Churchmen whether God or Man And if man whether the Popes themselves or Church or whether not the Emperours and Kings As neither doth he there determine that in truth they had formerly from either God or Man or Pope or Prince or State or Church all those liberties or even any in particular of those liberties against the infringers of which he proceeds in that Bull with so great severity The Pope therefore only supposes that Churchmen had by some law or some fact of God or Man of Church or State or of the lay Princes and people these liberties But from which he sayes nothing in the Bull. Now we know that suppositions are no arguments of a determination in the case For so our own School-Divines and Bellarmine himself elsewhere de Concilior authoritat and truth it self do teach us whereof I have before given the reason Whence it appears evidently this Bulla caenae is to as little purpose alledged as any of those former papal canons for the Popes having been he that gave de facto Ecclesiastical Exemption from either supream or subordinate secular Judicatories in temporal matters whatsoever
only such causes as are meerly Ecclesiastical That Peter Martyr in cap. 13. ad Roman not only teaches the very same but further adds that Princes could not give Clerks the priviledge to be exempt from or not to be subject to the politick Magistrats because sayes Martyr this would be against the law of God and therefore that notwithstanding any concessions of Princes Clerks ought alwayes to be subject to the secular Magistrats And that Ioannes Brentius in Prologamâ—nis and Melanchthon in locis cap. de Magistrat subject Ecclesiasticks to the secular Tribunals even in matters and causes Ecclesiastical But who is so weak as to be frighted from any truth because maintained also or asserted by some lyars Or who knows not that all both Hereticks and Arch-hereticks too joyn with the most orthodox in many both Philosophical and Theological Natural and Moral Divine and Humane positions and even in very many of the most precise uncontroverted revelations of Christian Faith Must it be suspected to be a Christian Truth that Jesus Christ is the Messias promised that he is the Son of God that there are three persons in the Godhead that there are some Sacraments of the new Testament that Christ was born of a Virgin that he suffered for Mankind that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead c. must I say any of these be suspected not to say rejected because Melanchthon or Brentius or Martyr or even Calvin himself or Luther beleeve and maintain them against other Hereticks If therefore they or any other such as they taught also this truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from but subject to the supream civil coercive power of Princes which only is it I undertake here to maintain must Bellarmine therefore think to fright us from saying the same thing although we say it not at all because they did And yet I must further tell the Readers and Admirers of Bellarmine although my task here require it not 1. That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of a yet more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the di-drachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condemned nor censured at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters 2. That if Calvin pretend no more but that Clerks ought to be subject in politick matters to the supream temporal Magistrate and where the same temporal doth not exempt them insomuch he speaks not his own sense but the sense he was formerly taught in the Catholick Church which yet in so many other points he unhappily deserted Thirdly That although if Martyr be understood also of inferiour Magistrats as I doubt not much he ought to be his addition be absolutely and simply false yet if understood of the supream onely as perhaps others may understand him and of Clerks living still as Subjects under any such temporal power supream and acknowledging and owning it for such and themselves for Subjects Martyr was not out by saying in this Hypothesis that Princes could not in secular matters exempt Clerks from the secular Magistrat vz. from the supream secular Fourthly That although also if Brentius and Melanchthon understood by causes Ecclesiastical those which are purely and originally such and not those which by custome onely or concession of Princes or because onely permitted or delegated by Princes or their laws to the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Judges are now and have been a long time called Ecclesiastical vz. per denominationem extrinsecam by an extrinsick denomination from such Ecclesiastical Judges not by any intrinsick assumed from the nature of the causes which in themselves otherwise are meerly civil or temporal as for example usury adultery theft committed in Sacred places or of Sacred things c I say that although if not this latter kind of Ecclesiastical causes but the former be understood by Melanchthon and Brentius and if they further mean'd that Clerks are to acquiesce finally in the judgment or determination of the temporal Magistrat in all such pure Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes it must be confessed their doctrine or this meaning of it is very false and heretical yet if they understood onely the second sort of Ecclesiastical causes and by secular Magistrats intended onely the supream secular it must be also confess'd that in so much they spoke orthodoxly Besides that none may upon rational grounds deny to Kings and other supream temporal Governours a certain kind of external and temporal or politick and civil superintendency even of the very truest and purest Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes of the Church such as are those of believing this or that to have been revealed by God of Ministring the Sacraments in this or that manner and with convenient or decent rites c. Provided they do not use nor attempt to use immediately by themselves or even mediately by others and by vertue of their own proper authority other means or execution of such superintendency but such means and execution as are meerly temporal and corporal or such as are answerable to the civil power and sword Which kind of superintendency and supream civil coercive judicatory power annexed and I mean also annexed in order to such spiritual causes no man will deny to Kings that will consider it is onely from their supream coercive power the Ministers of justice derive authority to put any man to death for Apostacy Infidelity or Heresy in Faith or doctrine or Sacriledg in the administration of Sacraments For it is not the Bishop or Church that by any power Episcopal or Church power adjudgeth any Clerk to death for denying or renouncing Christianity or any Priest for poysoning his communicant at the Sacred Altar or with a Sacred or unsacred hoast but the King and State and their laws and power So that these onely are still the supream Judges for temporal and corporal and civil punishment or coercion whether by death or otherwise and let the cause be never so spiritual or let the crime be committed in matters or things never so purely strictly or solely Ecclesiastical And therefore if Brentius and Melanchthon intend no more but this by saying that Ecclesiasticks were not exempt but subject even in causes Ecclesiastical to the supream civil power they both meand and sayed in so much but what the Catholick Church had taught them As if they meand any more that is if they meand to say that Ecclesiasticks
there was not as much as a coercive power in the politick or civil Head for correcting punishing or any way restraining the Ringleaders of such fatal dances and where the Clergie themselves both Priests and Bishops and Popes too themselves were these Ringleaders But suppose the Popes had never had a hand in such matters yet if Princes could not at home with themselves and without application to the Pope consequently without too too long delayes while the difference twixt them and their own Clergie were debated at Rome if I say in the mean time the Princes these politick Heads of the civil common-wealth might not in conscience make use of all their strength to coerce the Factious and Rebellious Clergiemen and if such Clergiemen lay under no kind of tye to submit to their coercion how could it be possible in nature that either the one were enabled with a sufficient power of politick Heads or the other had incumbent on them sufficient tyes of Citizens parts or members to attain the ends of their politick common-wealth which they are supposed to compose joyntly Before such debate were ended nay before the beginning of it could be or as much as the news of any such matter could arrive at Rome the evil would often be incurable if it could not be cured at home by the coercive power of the Politick Head and material sword Avant therefore such unsatisfactory answers of Bellarmine answers which himself must have very well known to have been voyd even of all truth and conscience and yet would give them because he could give no better in so bad a cause and that his worldly interest did not suffer him to yield to the victorious cause But although I have so now sufficiently illustrated and abundantly proved my last Minor proposition or that of my last proof and thereby evidently concluded my former whole second argument yet for the satisfaction of the more curious Reader and as an appendix of that either my last proof or of that my former second argument whereof it was the proof I will give here in Bellarmine's own words what he answered to the simile of the natural Head and members of the natural body and to some other particulars objected to him on this occasion by William Barclay You say sayes Bellarmine to Barclay that all the members must be so under the Head and all the Citizens so under the Rector of the Citty that the Head and Rector may correct and punish all the members and Citizens and that Clerks are members of the body politick and as to temporal thing Cittizens of the earthly Citty I answer In the natural body its necessary that all the members be under and obedient to the Head because in such a body exemption hath no place But in the body politick wherein exemption hath place it is unnecessary that all the members that is all the Cittizens be properly under or subject to the power of the Head that is to that of the Rector And therefore it is unnecessary that the Prince may coerce or punish all the Cittizens as it is unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute or that all bear arms or turn souldiers to defend the Republick but it may suffice that by counsel or exhortations or prayers to God they help the temporal common-wealth But the Republick will be troubled or disturbed if Clerks may without fear of coercion or punishment transgress the laws of Princes I answer that they shall not without punishment transgress for they shall be coerced by their own immediate Bishop or by the chief or Great Bishop But Charles the V. called Hermannus the Archbishop of Colen to his own secular tribunal 'T is true but he called him as a Prince of the Empire for the Pope Paul III. called before himself too the same Hermannus as an Archbishop witness the same Surius in the same place which very Surius a little after writes an 1547. that by the Pope's and Emperours command Hermannus was deposed but that the sentence of deposition was given by the Pope But how diligent an observer of Ecclesiastical Immunity Charles the V. was may be hence understood that in the year 1520. a most horrid conspiracy against the said Charles being detected wherein there were some Ecclesiasticks Charles did punish the Laicks but remitted the Clerks to their own Ecclesiastical Situations to be punished Witness Malin â—4 c. 21 de Hispan priâ—og Barclay added that there are some grievous transgressions or crimes which in France go under the name of privilegâ—â—ta priâ—iledged as reserved to the Princes But this argument may be retorted against the Author For such are not called priviledged because the Prince had reserved them to himself or to his own cognizance when he gave the priviledg of exemption to Clerks as Barclay sayes they are but are called such or crimina privilegiâ—â—a because that by the priviledg of the See Apostolick it is indulged to the Kings of the French that they may take cognizance of such crimes when committed by Clerks which Clarusq 36. Parag. finn vâ— sicul ultariâ—◠〈◊〉 and Auâ—â—â—rius in Clementina Vit Clericorum de offic Jâ—d Ord â—iâ—uâ—â— do explicate Bellarmine therefore sayes here the difference in the similed or which to our purpose must be in the similitude twixt the natural body and politick body is that in the politick exemption hath no place and that hence it is unnecessary that all the members politick that is all the Citizens be properly under or subject to the power of the politick Head that is of the Rector and therefore also that it is unnecessary that Princes may coerca or punish all the Cittizens as it as unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute c. But who sees not that there is no exemption can be in the body politick oâ— of the members of it which may not by similitude be applyed to and found in the natural body For the respective members of natural Bâ—dyes may be qualified with those exemptions which are not against the nature or essence of such members in the same body and under the same Head For example the hand may have this exemption bestowed on it that it be not bound to labour daily and the feet this exemption that by a man's lyeing down a bed they may rest from going And yet will it not follow that either the natural hands or natural feet are not under the power of the natural Head Even so in the body politick may it very well be and is it de fact that some part of the Cittizens be exempted from tributs and from Judicial courts or those of subordinate and ordinary Judges and yet be still under the power of the politick Head to witt of the King or Prince or other supream Governour But neither in the politick body nor in the natural body can the members be so exempted that they be no more under the Head because this would be against the definition and essence of members and
supream temporal Prince in any of the Citties or territories which he either actually possesses or challengeth to himself as such an absolute or supream independent temporal Prince To enquire into any such intrigue is not material nor any part of my purpose And all I say of it because I mention'd it accidentally is that if the Pope be not so I could heartily wish he were so provided all Popes made that good use of it and onely that good use which some blessed Popes have For I am farre enough for envying the Apostolical See or even present Roman or Papal Court any even worldly greatness which may be to the glory of God and general good of Christian people was verily such even worldly greatness not onely of the Popes of Rome but of other Bishops and of other Priests too may be without any peradventure if regulated and applyed well And I am also farre enough from perswading my self that no Christian Priest can be found who may for natural parts and gifts of God be among Christians and if it please the Christians themselves such an other as Hermes Trismegistâ—s was among Heathens a great Priest great Prophet and great King withall Nay I confess that many Clergiemen have many excellencies and advantages for government above most Laymen Yet I say withall that if in elective Kingdoms or States they were by the people put at the Helme of supream temporal government or if in hereditary Kingdoms any of them came by succession to it their being Priests Bishops or even Popes would not could not enlarge their temporal power in any kind of respect nor give them any more temporal exemption as from any pure law of God or Christian Religion then they had before they were Priests c. It is not therefore against any power Ecclesiastical or even Papal as such I dispute here but onely against the unwarrantable extension of such and as onely such by those two most eminent writers Cardinal Baronius and Cardinal Bellarmine Yet I will say this much for Cardinal Bellarmine albeit shewing 〈◊〉 this also his contradiction of himself that in his great work of controversies de Concil Eccles l. 1. 〈◊〉 13. I know lot how but by the too great power of truth he confesses in very express worth that even the very Popes themselves have been subject and even too subjected themselves in temporal affairs to the Emperours and consequently that their Pontifical or Papal office or dignity did not exempt them from subjection to the lay supream power For considering there how the foâ—â— first general Councils of the vniversal Church had been convoked by the Emperours and fearing least such convocation might prejudice that authority which he ascribes to the great Pontiff and consequently bringing four causes or reasons why the Popes then were necessitated to make use of the power Imperial as he sayes for the convocation of those four first general Councils he delivers thâ—â— his fourth Reason Quarta ratio est sayes he quia to tempore Poâ—â—tyex eâ—si in spirituâ—libus essex caput omnium etiam Imperatorum tamen in temporalibus subâ—â—citbus se Imperatoribus ideo non peterat invito Imperatore aliquid agere cum tantum â—â—bâ—isset petere ab Imperatore auxilium ad convocandum Synodum vel ut permitteret Synodum convocari tamen quia Dominum suum temporalem cum agnoscebal supplicabat ut jubereâ— Synodum convoâ—â—i At post illa tempora ista omnes causae mutata sunt Nam neo illa lex viget he means that old Imperial constitution which prohibited all Colleges and frequent or numerous Assemblies without the Emperours licence to prevent seditions designs Vide l. 1. ff de Collegiis illicitis l. Conventicula ff de Episcopis Clericis noc Imperatores in â—oto orbe dominantur nec sumptibus publicis fiunt Concilia nec sunt Gentiles qui impedire possint Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus cum etiam ipse in suis Provinoiis sit Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij id quod divina providentia factum est ut Pontifex libere manus suum exequi possit So Bellarmine cleerly and expresly to a word Therefore by this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself the Pope hath no freedom no exemption at all in temporal matters from the civil power of the Emperour by virtue I mean of his Pontificat or Papal office But hath all his exemption in such matters by vertue onely of the supream temporal Principality which he acquired after as Bellarmine's sayes and which he possesses yet And consequently Bellarmine confesses also that this temporal Principality being removed or lost as by a just conquest and many other legal wayes it may be the Pope will be no more exempt in temporals from the Emperour or King of Rome but subject to him wholly in such Which is that onely I contend all along in this dispute of the Pope And therefore it must also follow evidently out of this doctrine and confession of Bellarmine himself that all other Priests Bishops and Clerks whatsoever even Cardâ—nals who have no supream earthly power and Principality of their own must be throughly and entirely subject in temporal matters to those supream lay Princes in whose dominions they live and whom they acknowledge to be their own very true Soveraign Lords Which is that moreover which I contend for in all the Sections of this whole and long dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity against the Divines of Lovain And I am extremely deceaved if Bellarmine yeeld it not fairely and freely in this place however he coyned a new faith for himself after in his old age and in his little books against Barclay Widdrington and some others But forasmuch as nothing more confirmes the rightfull power and authority of Kings in all humane things over also their subjects even all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever then the most ancient custome and perpetual practise in the Christian Catholick Church this very Church her self not onely not resisting but consenting also and approving such custome and practise therefore it is that to those particular Instances already given of such practise or matter of fact in the persons of those two most holy Bishops Athanasius and Eusebius and in the persons also of those other two and not onely most holy but even the very Head Bishops of the whole Earth in their own time as being the great Pontiffs then of the Roman See to witt Gregory and Constantine I must now moreover add those other particular Instances in such matter of fact which I promised of Princes Wherein if I be somewhat prolix in bringing not a few examples down along throughout almost all ages of Christianity from the days of Constantine the great and first Christian Emperour the profit will yours good Reader and the labour mine For you may cull out and pause on such as you find the most illustrious the rest you may read over cursority on pass by
contemporary English man though Latin Writer and who might therefore have known the truth and was most likely to have writ but what he thought was the truth especially in a matter of such consequence being he is reputed to be a sincere Historian and as such quoted often by Baronius himself tels us in his Annals that S. Thomas and the other Bishops had Pope Alexander's consent to swear in that form however Baronius deny it for this reason forsooth that Alexander being some time after this accoasted by S. Thomas when he fled out of England and presented with the heads of those were called the Royal customs did soundly check him for ever having upon any tearms sworn to observe them That after this Parliament or great Council of Clarendon was broke up and upon S. Thomas his departure from the Court there it happening sayes Baronius out of a certain Supplement annexed to the Acts of S. Thomas that he was grievously rebuked by his Cross-bearer as having by such his carriage and oath betrayed the libertyes of the Church the Saint immediatly and most deeply sigh'd repenting what he did therein and presently also dispatch'd an express to Alexander craving an absolution and purposing in the mean while to abstain from all both Pontifical and sacerdotal office and ministery and that to his letter the Pope return'd him an other full of comfort whereby also after commanding him to confess his sins to a discreet Priest he absolved him from the said oath That when the King had heard how the Archbishop fell off the second time and refused to sign and seal the agreement of Clarendon according as it was there also agreed that he should sign and seal it nay and that he refused to stand at all to his oath whether seal'd or not seal'd being much more bitterly exasperated then ever he sent Embassadours to Alexander and to desire particularly two things of him viz. 1. that the Legantine Power Apostolick used to be entrusted to the Archbishop of Canterbury should be given for the time to the Archbishop of York and that his own Holyness would be pleased to confirm the foresaid Royal customs That Alexander upon this embassy finding himself in streights on each side that is on the point either of alienating for ever from himself that Kings good affections to whom nevertheless he owed so much for benefits receaved formerly on of granting his desire to the prejudice of the Church or Church liberty thought fit to use this mean for saving all viz. to bestow that Legantine power on the Archbishop of York whereby to satisfie the King in some degree and yet to deny him the confirmation of those Royal customs that the Church might not suffer writing withall at the same time to the Archbishop of Canterbury our S. Thomas and exhorting him earnestly that by all means he should endeavour to observe and please the King always and in all things Salva honestate Ecclesiastici â—rdinâ— That in a conjuncture wherein by other letters of a later date this Pope Alexander had restrained so that Legantine power of the Archbishop of York that he should have no power at all over Thomas of Canterbury's person or Diocess or to exempt the Suffragans of Canterbury from obeying him still as their own proper Metropolitan in all Metropolitical rights thereby frustrated the Kings great design in desiring that Legation for York being this design was no other but to get Thomas canonically deposed wherein the King being therefore in earnest angry even with the Pope himself had rendered the said Legaâ—tine Commission useless to all other lesser purposes now that the Pope had so rendred it to the said great purpose that I say in this conjuncture Thomas of Canterbury with the rest of the Bishops being called by the King to Northampton to give aâ— account of the revenues of the vacant Churches which he had while he was Chancellour administred and being accordingly brought to a strict account of these revenews and after demanding the advice of the rest of the Bishops when he had heard most of them advising that either he should renounce and give up his Archbishoprick or obey the King in all things having desired time to consider till next day and having also early on that next day celebrated the Mass of St. Stephen the Protomartyr as preparing himself for martyrdom which on that very day he hoped to suffer having carryed secretly about himself the most Sacred Hoast according to ancient custom but publickly carrying in his own hands his own Archiepiscopal cross and going in this manner to the Palace he was both scorn'd and derided by his own Suffragan Bishops and was by them and by others also of the Kings Council and as they saâ—e in Council condemned by a sentence of deposition as a perjured man and one disloyal to the King because he refused to stand to his former promise and oath to observe the Royal customs That S. Thomas having there in presence pleaded his own cause and shewed that when he was against his own will drawn by the King to the Church or Archbishoprick of Canterbury he was at that very time of his election and promotion declared by the King to be freed of and absolved from all tyes of the Court and further declining the judgment as well of the King as of his Council and appealing to the Pope and declaring also that he did by no means quit or give up his own Archiepiscopal See he reserved the further and universal cognizance of his whole cause to the See Apostolick of Rome to which he there also and then summon'd his fellow Bishops for having chosen rather to obey men then God that presently departing Court but loaden with contumelies and reproaches of Courtiers he soon after fled or parted the Kingdom for Flanders and to an Abbey of Monks called S. Bertin's in the Citty of S. Omers whence writing to the Pope of all things done and of his Appeal and flight he obtained from his Holyness an abrogation of all such proceedings against him That on the other side while all his other lesser Adversaries in England decryed him as a fugitive the King above all being wonderfully enraged sent the Archbishop of York and other Bishops of England to Alexander to accuse Thomas and to desire his Holyness to send a Legat a Latere to England to judg of the cause depending twixt him and Thomas provided also he sent Thomas in person back to be judg'd in England That albeit these Episcopal Embassadours press'd this matter vehemently in the name of their King and even to threats of Schysme on his behalf yet the Pope thought not fit to deliver so innocent a man to such cruel Adversaries but rather that he should be expected as he was called to be judg'd by himself that is by his own Holyness in their presence and that they refusing this offer of the Pope or not content with this answer departed with much indignation
by whom or wherein Thomas of Canterbury after some ages and upon a review of his life or actions and knowledge of his nefarious turbulencies and tragedies and of his intollerable arrogancy in raising himself above the royal power laws and dignity as he sayes was so condemn'd It seems he was either ashamed to name the person or raign of Henry the eight in such a matter and in opposition to such a Saint or verely he would impose on his unskilfull Reader and make him think it might peradventure have been so by a King and so in a time that was not reputed Schismatical by the Romanist's themselves and thereby would wholly undermine the credit of a Saint who certainly could be no true Saint if Parker was either a true Bishop in the truth and unity of the Catholick Church or true Christian in the truth and integrity of the Catholick Religion And I give it moreover to take notice of his wilful imposture where he sayes that that nameless King found out what kind of man Thomas was what evilt he had raised c. and sayes also that that nameless King found out all this in a great Conneil of all the Prelats and Peers of the Kingdom meaning so to impose on his Reader as a truth without as much as the authority of any writer for he quotes none in this nor could but against all truth that the Bishops of England in that Kings time concurr'd with him in his judgment or condemnation of Thomas of Canterbury for a traytor viz. against the Kings person or people of England or their laws or all three For certainly he could not be on any rational ground declared traytor or even to have been such at any time in his life not to speak now of the instance of his death or of any time after his reconciliation to Henry the Second but upon one of these three grounds or as having acted either against the Kings own person or royal rights or against the liberties of the people or against the sanctions of the municipal laws of England And O God of truth who is that is versed in the Chronicles of England can imagine any truth in this sly insinuation of Parker concerning that of the Bishops to have concurr'd with Henry the Eight in the condemnation or prophanation and sacriledge committed against St. Thomas of Canterbury so many hundred years after his holy life and death and so many hundred years after he had possessed not England alone but all the Christian world with the certain perswasion of his sanctity attested so even after his death by such stupendious miracles at his tomb and wrought there at or upon his invocation and by such stupendious and known miracles I say that Parker himself hath not the confidence as much as to mutter one word against the truth and certainty of their having been or having been such Nay who is it can upon a a sober reflection perswade himself that either Henry the Eight himself or any other whatever and how even soever atheistical Councellor of his could pretend any as much as probable ground in natural reason laying aside now all principles of Religion to declare this Thomas of Canterbury so long after his death to have dyed a traytor nay I say more or to have lived so or to have been so at any time in his life T is true that in all branches and each branch of the five membred complex of those first original and lesser differences which preceded that great one of the sixteen customs he for some part did not comply with the Kings expectation and for other parts positively refused to obey the Kings pleasure or even command But so might any other Subject and might I say without being therefore guilty of treason nay without being guilty of any other breach of law or conscience had he the law of the land and liberty of a Subject of his side as Thomas of Canterbury had in each of these five original differences And that he had so the law of the land for him even in that very point of them which Henry the Second took most to heart that I mean of the two criminal Clergymen besides all what I have given before at large of those very laws to prove it this also is an argument convincing enough that Henry the Second was not where he had the law of his side a man to be baffled by any Subject whatsoever nor would be so ceremonious as to call so many Councils or Parliaments of Bishops and other Estates to begg that which by law he had already in his power without their consent And therefore certainly had the law of the land been at that time for him that is for the ordinary coercion of criminal Clerks in his lay Courts and in what case soever or even in case of felony or murder committed by Clerks he had without any further ceremony at least after he saw the Archbishop refuse to comply with his desire or obey his command and after he saw also the Priest was in the very Ecclesiastical Court convict of murder sent his own Officials to force him away to and before the lay Judges and sent his Guards too or Souldiers were this necessary Neither of which he as much as attempted to do And therefore had we no other argument who sees not that it is clear enough out of this very procedure that the Archbishop committed no treason in this very matter wherein of any of also the branches of that whole five membred complex he most positively and plainly opposed that King though by such a kind of opposition as might become a Subject that is by an opposition of dissent without any interposition of arms or force 2. T is true also that after this Thomas of Canterbury opposed mightily but with such a kind opposition as I have now said all those sixteen heads of Henry the Second pretended by him to have been the Royal Costoms of his Grandfather and that after giving a forced consent and taking a forc'd oath to maintain them he retracted again freely and conscientiously his said consent and oath and refused to give his hand or seal for introducing or establishing them But I am sure there was no treason in this not only because he saw or apprehended they were against the former laws and for an evil end too press'd by that King so violently but also because he saw or apprehended that the very pretence was false that is that some of them had never been customes Is it not lawful without treason nay or other breach of law for any Peer and so great a Peer as the Archbishop of Canterbury to deny his own assent in Parliament or even to revoke and for as much as belongs to himself his own former assent at least when otherwise his conscience is wounded and when he proceeds no further by force of arms and that the laws is yet only in deliberation to be establish'd but not
in his own Conscience and both before God and man confess it when he reflected on so many Texts of Holy Scripture especially on that of St. Paul 13 Rom. and on the Doctrine and Expositions of all the Holy Fathers and on the practice not only of the Primitive Church but of all ensuing Churches throughout the World and of both Laity and Clergy until Gregory the VII time some Ten entire Ages after Christ and all for the independency of the civil Power of Princes from the Church as also for the subjection of the Church in civil matters to earthly Princes Humane nay and daily humane Experience also forasmuch as we see it Taught by so many famous Divines and read in their Books That it is not alwayes safe in point of Conscience to follow that opinion in practice which in pure speculation seems probable to us nay or even that which so seems the more probable whereof I could instance a variety of Examples and see it taught and read in them consequently That some may have a pure speculative opinion as probable nay as the more probable to them for such or such a power to be in the Church in actu primo and yet not this other annexed consideratis omnibus That it is lawful for the Church to proceed at any time to the execution of it And forasmuch also as all Ghostly Fathers or the Judicious and who are of a timorous Conscience nay and others too besides Ghostly Fathers daily find it so in themselves at least in such cases wherein they know that if possibly they should err and transgress against the objective Truth of Things and Laws by following in practice such a speculation as upon some ground or other seems to them to be probable or even the more probable they may run a great hazard to undergo the punishment due in the justice of God for such breach whereas they are absolutely certain that whether their such speculation be true or false yet if they in practice follow the contrary opinion or speculation there is no Law at all as much as objectively taken which may be transgressed by them As for Example in case of such a pure speculative opinion of a power in ones self to force away his Horse or Purse or House or Lands or Lordship or Principality from another who both himself and Predecessors was and were ever till then bona fide in peaceable possession and were so if it was a Lordship or Lands c. for a Thousand years For in such a case there can be no sin no breach of any Law in not Conforming in practice to the speculation but there may be in Conforming And consequently common experience also in the daily regulation of our own Conscience tells us there must not of necessity be such a connexion of dictates Besides who sees not that whether so or no there was not in England at least in the dayes of Thomas of Canterbury any Law making it Treason to hold That the Christian Church in some extraordinary case might transfer the Right of that Crown from Henry the Second As for Example in case he had really Apostatized and not only from the true Papacy or from Pope Alexander to the Anti-Pope Victor but even from Christianity it self as some of his Ambassadors to Rome and the Bishop of London in some of his Letters extant in Hoveden seemed to Threaten either the one or the other T is true I am against the Doctrine which attributes any such power to the Church as a Church or to it at all de jure divino and much more against the lawfulness of putting such pretence in execution But hence it doth not follow That as much as in my judgment the Doctrine of such power or of such practick lawfulness is Treasonable at least in all Times and all Countries For the Church may some time and in some Countrey have such a power by meer humane Right And whether she have or no where the Law of the Countrey doth not make the practice Treason or the Doctrine or Dictate Treasonable neither can be so Each or both may be unconscientious erroneous injurious and wicked at least according to the objective Truth of Things and Laws of God in themselves but to be Treason or Treasonable is another thing I said That in the dayes of Thomas there was no such Law in England for I leave it to the Learned and Reverend Judges of England to determine Whether after the Laws of Praemunire by Edward the Third and Richard the Second were made and that Declaration in this of Richard the Second made by joint consent of the Bishops too That the Crown of England is subject to none but God it be Treasonable Doctrine in England to teach the contrary I am sure the like in France and of France though extremely and most justly too censured by all the Universities of France and the Abettors or Teachers of such degraded lately in Schools and otherwise punished yet Cardinal Peron's interposition in the time of Henry the Third of France by his fine speech in the Assembly of Estates hinderâ—d it from being then declared Treason or Treasonable or Heresie or Heretical and ever since from being accounted or punished as Treason or Treasonable though of late severely and I think justly proceeded against as at least false erroneous scandalous dangerous against the Word of God c. And yet I am sure also That whether it be so or no at this time either in France or England St. Thomas of Canterbury cannot be said to have been or to be concern'd You will say again perhaps objecting your very last and strongest reserve That whatever may be said to excuse his principles of Judgment or Doctrine from being Treasonable for that I mean which appears in any of his Epistles or in that Speech of his at Chinun or other extant nothing can be said to excuse him from actual Treason which is more and worse For you will say That the Archbishop of York and Bishop of London and Salisbury did so charge him when after his return he refused to absolve them but on such a condition as they would not lie under without the Kings consent and when therefore they having cross'd the Sea to the old King the Father to Normandy they sent an Express back to England and to the young King to persuade the said young King That Thomas had sought and endeavoured to depose him Qui ei persuaderent sayes Spondanus out of Baronius and Baronius out of the Saints own 73 Epist which was his last to Pope Alexander Thomam quaesivisse cum deponere But I answer That such a charge of his such publick and profess'd Enemies was not is not to be at all believed without other proof than their own such private suggestion of it by their own Messenger to the young timorous King That no Relation or History makes mention not only not of any proof but not as much as of any
other ARTICLES proposed to the Catholicks of England whereunto it was required they should subscribe their negative Answers whereby it might be understood they profess that there is nothing contained in these three Articles which doth necessarily belong to the Catholick Faith and Religion insomuch that they may and will abjure if it be thought needful the practice and execution of them all I. THat the Pope or Church hath power to absolve any person or persons from their obedience to the Civil and Political Government established or to be established in this Nation in Civil and Political Affairs II. That by the Command or Dispensation of the Pope or Church it if lawful to kill destroy or do any injury to any person or persons living within the Kings Dominions because that such a person or persons are accused condemned censured or excommunicated for Error Schism or Heresie III. That it is lawful in it self or by dispensation from the Pope to break promise or oath made to any of the aforesaid persons under pretence that they are Hereticks Fifty English Catholick Gentlemen have subscribed Negative answers to these three Articles upon certain conditions secretly agreed upon for the good and free exercise of the Catholick Religion they being assured by divers Priests both Seculars and Regulars under their Hand-writings that it was lawful for them so to do Which since a Congregation in Rome hath ordained and decreed was not nor is not lawful Whereupon a Priest writeth out of England to his friend a Doctor of Divinity of Paris and sends him a Copy of this Congregational Decree earnestly desiring him that he will let him freely know his sentiment and opinion in this business Which Doctors answer to the question here followeth Most dear Brother in Christ HAving seriously considered the three Articles you sent me with their little Preface which you say contains in brief the substance of what was intended both by the proposers and your selves I cannot refuse neither in charity nor friendship to give you my opinion concerning your Subscription thereunto Yet being unwilling you should relie upon my private and particular judgment in a matter of such moment I have consulted with several great and learned men of our Nation but especially some of the most ancient and learned Doctors of Divinity of our Faculty here whose constant sentiments are that not only in their Opinion your Act is lawful just and true but that it is also the general and universal belief of all the learned and judicious men of this Kingdom So that I see not upon what grounds you need fear or apprehend the Censures which the Decree of the Congregation in Rome pretends you have incurred Were your Kingdom or State setled and that your liberty depended only upon your giving assurance of your fidelity I should easily procure you such sovereign Antidotes against your timorous apprehensions and such publick Declarations of your duty in this kind as that none but either weakly scrupulous or busily factious would be any whit moved at the interessed proceedings of the Court of Rome Methinks you should not be ignorant how such Decrees of those Congregations are slighted and rejected in the Supreme Courts of this Kingdom by the most learned and most vertuous Secular Judges of the Christian world Even those who bear the most dutiful Respect to his Holiness as well Seculars as Regulars will openly profess That the Cabals and Interests of the Court of Rome are now so generally known that the Decrees of their Congregations are scarcely taken notice of out of the Popes Territories We had not many months ago such a Decree sent hither from Rome to the Pope's Nuncio against a late Book called Les grandeurs de L'eglise Romaine which because the Popes Nuncio would have published and dispersed throughout the Kingdom having obtained licence from the King to it The Kings Advocate General Mr. Talon a man worthy of his place made a learned Speech in open Parliament without any relation or interest to the Doctrine of the Book against the admittance of such Decrees wherein he remarked very well the different nature and quality of these Congregational Decrees which were never received nor acknowledged as legal and authentical in France from th Bulls of his Holiness as Head of the Church And this Speech was immediately confirmed an ratified by a judgment given by this renowned Senate and so the publication of the Decree was hindered and suppressed There was likewise in the year 1625. a seditious Book written by one Garasse a Jesuite but bearing no name entituled Admonitio ad Regem secretly dispersed up and down in this City which was condemned by a general Synod of the Clergy of this Kingdom then assembled in this Town wherein the indispensable duty and obedience of Catholick Subjects to an heretical and even to a persecuting King or State was particularly declared and avouched You may see the words themselves pag. 12. Quare id ipsum c. Given at Paris in the general Assembly of the Clergy the 13th of Decemb. 1625. Whereupon one Sanctarellus an Italian Jesuite was caused to write a Book in approbation of the Pope's temporal authority to depose Kings and Princes and to absolve their Subjects from their obedience which was presently censured by our Faculty of Divinity and the affirmative Doctrine of your first Article which is your chief difficulty and other such like Positions were improved and condemned as new false erroneous contrary to the Word of God c. Given in the Sorbon the 1st of April 1626. Hereupon four of the most famous Jesuites of France then residing Superiours in their Colledges here were sent to the Parliament and being demanded their Opinions in this point they confirmed and ratified this Censure under their hands professing farther That they did and would consent and adhere to what the Sorbon had or should declare in this or any other matter of Doctrine I could send you the particulars of these and many such like proceedings here being partly in Print partly upon publick Record but I conceive it needless at least for the present However the Court of Rome's pretensions to Secular and Temporal power over Kings and Commonwealths are now grown out of date nor was it ever authorized but by the execution of it The Origine of the Pope's authority in Temporal Affairs is well enough known The great piety and respect to the See of Rome of divers ancient Emperors Kings and Princes have made them receive their Crowns and Diadems from his Sacred hands and cast their Swords and Scepters at his Saintly feet Others have made use of the Pope's swaying power to settle themselves in their usurped Monarchies and Princedoms Not any versed in Ecclesiastical History but knows the particulars of these Truths But to come back to your Decree I perceive that the Authors of it looking only upon tht Negative answers to the bare Articles without the Preface or separated Instrument whereunto you Priests
undoubted Rights of the Crown to Altercation Which can be no way lawful especially to Subjects Nevertheless I did not altogether as yet despair having withall at that very time and place received the said Lord Chancellor's command for calling to him my Lord Aubigny who should from him know His MAJESTIES final resolution Which was the reason I fostered still some little kind of hopes for three or four dayes longer But all in vain For notwithstanding any reasons my Lord Aubigny gave the Chancellor declared unto him in His MAJESTIES Name we should not stir Then which tydings indeed I scarce resented any thing in all my life with more sadness as having had most ardent inclinations even my self alone yea without a particular invitation by Letter or safe conduct to go and kiss your Lordships hands at Brussels and satisfie to my power the Superiours in Belgia and the Doctors too of the Theological Faculty at Louain as to that Form which is called ours For as I had fixedly resolved to yield what in me did lie to any thing might be rationally offered for the peace of my Brethren and Countreymen and Clergy and People of Ireland much more for that of the Universal Church of the Roman Communion and not only for preserving but promoting yet more and more that Reverence and Obedience which is due in spirituals throughout the whole earth to the great and most blessed Pontiff so I had also firmly determined not to shun nor decline any meeting or conference either private or publick of the most Learned especially of those of Louaâ—n And yet I doubt not those Louanians have without any just cause without any well-grounded reason without any end that is divine but meerly humahe too too rashly Censured that Form Otherwise wherefore should they be ashamed of their judgment given Wherefore apprehend so much it should be exposed to publick view Or why should they fear to let us that are above all others concerned or to let any other indeed for us have a sight of even as much as any one Copy of their original Censure For there is a report nor a report only but an asseveration of eye-witnesses that that original Censure is scarce contained in Seven Eight or Nine sheets of paper or thereabouts and that according to the manner of University Censures therein single Propositions of the Formulary are noted and Reasons given whether probable or not I now dispute not of the Censure of each Nor is it less known that the other secondary short Censure of Louain which is dispersed abroad contains in the whole but a few lines only singles not out any one or more Propositions gives no Reason at all probable or improbable Nay That Dr. Synnick answered lately the said Father Gearnon at his being at Louain and praying to see the true original first and long Censure answer'd him I say in these words only We have sent it to Rome it pleased the Pope he reserves it for his own time O worthy Academicks O excellent Divines O men born to Flattery and Servitude And O truth of mortal Wights and immortal Spirits whither art thou exil'd A very few Doctors of our Age and of one City alone to determine against the torrent of other Doctors of the whole Earth and of all Ages of Christianity and give no Reason openly for doing so and not to determine only so but to divide but rend in parts the Church as much as in them lies disturb the peace of Nations and Kingdoms asperse the Faith and make odious the Communion and Religion of the Roman See and Bishop But hereof another time At present whereas neither Caron nor Walsh can go to Brussels it will be fit to consider what is to be done to that end which your Lordship designed if even both had together appeared there For I will not question but your Lordship proposed to your self the peace or quiet of Catholick Religion and as well the liberty or free exercise thereof in the British Empire or Dominions of our King as in all other respects the comfort of Catholicks and what besides must necessarily follow a more ample and more obsequious veneration of the great Pontiff But I understand not what you might pretend to for attaining these matters if Father Caron and Walsh appeared at Brussels which you may not by exchange of Letters to and fro from them Although and I speak it in the word of a Christian and of a Priest and of a Professor too of the Seraphical Order and by consequence of a most devout observer of His Holiness and speak it moreover in the presence of omnipresent and omniscient God I have for my own part desired most passionately to go my self to Brussels laying alide all kind of delayes and humane respects whatsoever But however this be as to that now in hand Either you thought of our Refixing or Retracting our Subscriptions forsooth because according to the supercilious Louanians Censure pronounced by them as from the tripos of Apollo we are bound under the guilt of Sacriledge to Refix as they speak Which yet I scarce think could be hoped for by your Lordship or indeed by any other I mean until we be first convinced either 1. By manifest Arguments such I mean as are evident or such as can have no probable Answer That our Form implies either Heresie or Schism or some other sin Or 2. By some decree or determination of a lawful general and future Council For in those Councils past already it 's plain there is not as much as one word against us as neither in the Books of Holy Scriptures or Volumes of Holy Fathers or Tradition called Oral whatever is to the contrary babled by Bellarmine Becan Suarez Lessius Gretzer c. whose Writings altogether which Treat of this Subject no less than those of their opposers I have perused most attentively as likewise the Writings of those others who preceded them some Ages and whose too too erronious footsteps they all along followed Durand Bertrand c. 3. At least by some decree or decision and that future likewise of some Roman Pontiff for to this day there is none produced to any purpose by our Adversaries none I say of all that ever yet emaned from any Bishop of the Roman See and such decree or decision made in or by a clear authentick undeniable and unanswerable declarative Bull directed to all Christians wherever diffused throughout the World or at least to some Nation or people albeit this later kind of Bull I mean to a particular Nation or people is not sufficient according to the doctrine of Divines not even I say of those very Divines who attribute Infallibility to the Pope alone without a Council in his declaration of Faith and yet such Bull decree or decision precisely determining the point as of Christian Catholick Faith received from the Apostles and so to be necessarily believed viz. That the Roman Pontiff may by vertue of a power in
to give a right account to my God of a sacred depositum the charge of Souls committed by him to my trust and care Which Commission can hardly be discharged by me without some toleration and liberty Both I may in some measure enjoy supported by his Grace 's protection against surmises murmurations calumnies and many vapours of that kind which will be elevated from the envy of men that will hate me more for being the man I am than for my enmity against the Commonwealth Such men I foresee will seek to black my innocency and in such an article I hope his Graces benignity will be a refuge to me Truly if a person of my mind who intends not abire in consilio impiorum neque in via peccatorum stare in pondere mensura Deo quod Dei est reddere quod Caesaris Caesari if such an one may not pass his dayes unafflicted I may well say that is a Land of misery But let us suppose the worst which I hope will not happen to wit that his Excellency by my Letter and clear intention will not be satisfied if so I shall truly hold my fortune hard having suffered so much and so sharp afflictions and reproaches in Rome Spain and Flanders upon the score of being taken for a great friend and servitor of his and that I may use the language of those vexed me a principal Leader in the Anti-catholick Ormonian Faction Collige ex ungue leonum by the confession of Father Patrick Hacquet But one thing which is more home I will say to you which I never said before in verbo Sacerdotis verum dico I have done his Grace a certain good turn that claims and merits I dare boldly aver it a greater recompence than what I now demand from him or ever shall If that with the contents of my Letter and the good intents also I bear to heart shall not be able to pacifie his jealousie and anger I will say my luck is harder than that of many others that have more offended him and less served him But if it shall come to that extremity what is to be done I seek advice from you that is a Priest and Missioner whether I am to stay where I am or adventure unto that Countrey In my opinion it would be the resolution of a languishing spirit if the fear of men in such an article would be able to deter a Bishop from doing the work of God and attending his flock You know Kings themselves have no power to hinder those divine Functions If I am put to it in this matter I conceive my best answer will be that of the Apostles obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus If St. Paul said vae enim mihi est si non Evangelizavero he said so quia ei incumbebat necessitas Evangelizandi what shall I be able to say for my self in the last day if I shall in this short day of life leave off this Divine duty for the fear of men how shall I escape that anger of God what priviledge can I pretend to the Apostle had not I going into that Land with the Spirit of peace and meekness for attending the saving of Souls in all humility and charity intending to give all due obedience to my Prince in Civilibus and to all those he shall appoint to govern under him and to pay each one the Tribute due unto him cui timorem timorem cui honorem honorem and in all my functions and proceedings so to carry my self as none shall have just cause to complain of me and I confidently hope God will give me grace and power to perform all I here promise Of this long Letter which will I fear weary you in the perusing as it did me in the penning you may impart to his Grace what you think fitting who may not as I conceive be offended with any branch thereof I conclude all with that noble saying of an ancient Sage Nocens veretur legem innocens fortunam I may fear the last being confident no just Law will ever do me harm My great freedom is an evident argument of my confidence in you which indeed is great for my opinion of you is better and far more benign than that of many others c. The rest were onely private business and salutes to Friends After which he subscribes thus Reverend Father Your true Friend And affectionate Servant Nico Fernen St. James 's in Galicia 19 Sept. 1665. His submissive Letter from the same place but dated Sept. 22. the same year to His Grace the Duke of ORMOND Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of IRELAND May it please your Grace A Friend from them parts advised me to write a Submissive humble Letter begging pardon of your Grace and that after such a Letter nothing would remain to obstruct my going home and your Graces Protecting me hereafter Your noble inclination and desire of making Peace even with those have offended you is so manifest as I presume your Grace is of Seneca's mind who said penitens est fere innocens being then in my self truly penitent for any thing coming from me that hath or could have displeased your Grace I have made a fair step to be innocent in your Consideration and I truly make account my luck is good that am to appease an anger that of itself begins to be pleased I do not say this with intent to tickle or flatter your Graces ears for this is not my Custome who have as is well known to all that know me offended men more by freely speaking truth then pleased them by flattering them I will say one thing more perhaps in some mens judgment insolent that displeasing your Grace I am in less danger then offending a man of a low condition that should have any power to avenge himself of me The reason is evident because the low man Dum cuncta timet cuncta ferit But the anger of great Men is like a Thunder and Lightning that bringeth more fear than destruction To come nearer the Point as a Christian I may not deny a rational satisfaction even to the meanest person injured by me Leaving that so the question is What is the Crime I should seek Pardon for how great and when committed against your Grace for what hath passed before the Peace if not Murther or some black doings of which I am no way guilty the Act of Oblivion giveth me and all a freedom and safety Since the Peace I have faithfully observed the Articles thereof and never betrayed the common Interest There is not any man living can accuse me that way But the doings of Jamestown are objected as Treasonable a breach of the pacification and an attempt of pulling down Kingly Authority I was then upon a common bottom and can truly say for one and all of us that me no way intended to despise your Person or Dignity or act an thing against Kingly Authority or the Interest of the
both examin what he means by his In hac where immediatly after his said excellent arguments he advises the Irish in these terms In hac igitur constantes estote nec vestri animi robur tentet aut labefactet jactatus timor c. but also retort on himself his decipulae hostis humani generis c. and tell that as he meanâ— not the true Catholick Law but that of the Court of Rome only so it is himself and his Associats that have been catch'd in the decipulae of and prompted by the inimicus homo qui superseminavit Zizania in agrotritici when he and they for maintaining their own Usurpation and Pride writ so many uncatholick and unchristian Letters to lead Captive again the miserable Irish and praecipitate them indeed to both Temporal and Eternal Destruction 10. That by his following threats of Divine Vengeance from the most Holy Father against those he says were past the bounds of modesty as also by so many other expressions not only both in this Letter and former too in the year 1662. of the Cardinals but in those also of the three Bruxels Internuncios one after another De Veccii Rospigliosi and the present Airoldi originally and truly indeed may be seen whence the great storm at last of Citations Excommunications Denunciations Depositions c. against me and my friends have proceeded especially since the year 1669. to this present 1673. But it is well they have not at Rome that true Divine Vengeance at their will And well that in such matters I owe them no obedience not even by vow or otherwise And best of all that I can be both in foro Dei in foro Ecclesia of the Faith and Communion of the true Catholick and Apostolick Church even Roman also if this new Epithet must come in to the Creed without being in such matters of the pretended Catholick either Communion or Faith of the Roman Court 11. And Lastly that Rospigliosi's Convulsion fitts and commiserating tears his either true or counterfeit weeping and all his flattering Oratory that follows must of necessity make even the most serious and sober man to smile when he considers an Apostolick Minister seeking to impose on the World endeavouring by such lying Arts and notoriously false suppositions finely worded to perswade more knowing men then himself to continue in errour For the truth is that neither he nor Barberin nor Congregation nor Pope himself could have with all their Letters or Arguments or Prayers or Tears perswaded any one of the very most seeming Bigots of the Irish Clergy to such vain and fals and pernicious Opinions as the Remonstrance renounceth if the Irish proprietors had been restored and the penal Laws against Catholicks in general repealed and no access visible for the said Ecclesiasticks to any Church-preferment Benefice or even titular Office or Dignity but as in former Catholicks times when the Laws of Praemunire were universally and strictly observed But those things not being so we must not wonder much if the less consciencious and more ambitious leading men joyn'd with others amongst them naturally desirous of a total change made use of those Letters both to fright the honester and lesser party of the otherwise well-affected well-principled and to amuse the Populace too of their communion with the Authority of the Court of Rome and great Pontiff himself as if the Catholick Religion and Faith had been really and truly invaded by the Remonstrance and the Anti-remonstrants therefore ought to be excused for their opposition of it IX AND yet they saw well enough that all they could say of that nature was not sufficient to excuse them from meeting together in the National Congregation Besides their Intelligencers at Dublin had not after Ferrals landing time enough to send Coppies of the Cardinals and Internuncius's Letter to all parts of the Kingdom where the persons concern'd were all of them at that very time preparing for their journey to Dublin Therefore on the 9th of June being Saturday and most of the Fathers come from several parts and the Bishop of Ardagh though very much contrary to my former expectation of him fallen on a sudden from his former Professions and the Bishop of Kilfinuran who a few days before was landed out of France and he with some others having conferr'd notes together behold a strange contrivance of the same Ardagh to prevent and hinder that i. e. the Meeting which those Letters could not For on that evening he accosts several of the Fathers come to town and tells them my chief design in giving way first unto and next in promoting so much the National Meeting was only or at least partly to get them all to sign a Petition to the King or Lord Lieutenant acknowledging themselves and all the rest of the Roman Catholick Clergy Regular and Secular of Ireland to be Traytors and Rebels Which proceeding from a Bishop that always till then was reputed my friend and the only Bishop too that sign'd the Letters of Indiction could not chuse but startle such as knew me not throughly however in it self otherwise incredible But so it was notwithstanding and so upon a sudden the false report like a watch word pass'd from one to another and the Motion both and Exhortation was no less sudden and rash like that in the Book of Kings ad tentoria tua O Israel every one to his own home and not as much as to stay in Town for Monday the 11th of June and consequently not as much as to meet at all in any such National Congregrtion While some were running to and fro relating that imposture and many encouraging one another to depart others that believed it not came to me and told me thereof and of the design And then it was that I first concluded absolutely that Ardagh had sold himself to Rome for a new Translation which by Oliver Plunket his Kinsman he had sollicited in that Court for some years And yet I could not but wonder that a Bishop should have so little Conscience before God or so little care of himself before men as to be the Author of such a Calumny though a calumny more ridiculous in it self than injurious to me For as soon as I heard it and gave a true account of what pass d twixt the Bishop and me which might have given occasion to that forgery it vanish'd and no man believed a word of it In short the occasion was this and no other but this Either the very morning of that Ninth of June or a day or two before visiting this Bishop of Ardagh and falling into a discourse with his Lordship of the method fit to be taken by the Fathers when assembled I said that in my opinion the Fathers should in the first place depute some of their body to acquaint His Grace with their being Assembled then to render humble thanks for His Majesties permission of or connivence at their meeting and together also to present a
first be but just to your selves In the mean time My Lord know that I cannot but very much resent your designs in making use of me to bring you home designs no less point blanck contrary to all your Letters to me and to the publick end of calling this Congregation than so inconsideratly discovered by your self not only in your private discourse with several within these four and Twenty hours since your Landing but also in the publick Assembly this very afternoon My Lord you know out of one of my Letters which you received at Paris five or six weeks before you came away thence and cannot know but full well out of that Letter particularly upon what terms you were to come if you expected as you did and begâ—d so long and earnestly of me in so many Letters these four years past to come with security or any Protection from the just penalties of the Laws to which you your self are so singularly obnoxious above any other Churchman of the whole Nation And you know nor can but remember these terms were That you should Sign that very individual Formulary which others have before you in the year 1662. And that you should by your own example and other just endeavours as far as you could perswade the rest of the Dissentors to the like duty But have you not already rather much even encouraged all the rest to the contrary To this expostulation the Primat answered shortly and confidently 1. That he came indeed of purpose to hinder the Congregation and consequently the whole Irish Nation from falling from their obedience to the See Apostolick by Signing that Formulary of the famed Remonstrance 2. That he received no such Letter from me containing such terms I was amazed to hear and see the confidence of this answer especially of the second part of it which made me reply in this manner My Lord you make the business worse and worse and afflict me more by your disingenuous denyal then by your designs or any other endeavours For I can never more have that confidence to interpose for you hereafter which I have had hitherto And how can I being out of what you alledged now conscious of your want of sincerity in a matter of such consequence and wherewith the Lord Lievtenant must be acquainted by me as he was with that Letter I sent you And pray my Lord how can you perswade your self that either his Grace or any other will believe you concerning that Letter You have euen now lately corresponded with me every Packet this whole Twelve-month from Paris And as I received all and every of your Letters so you have by your own confession all mine in answer that only excepted How should that miscarry being directed as all the rest were under an unknown name and to the place which your self appointed Nay you received at Paris before you stirred thence three more of mine written after that Nevertheless he persisted still in denying the reception of it Whereupon I added That I could heartily wish it had been so and that his Lordship could evidence it to have been so which though you cannot my Lord yet you will do well to think what you are to speak for your self even also on that Subject to my Lord Lieutenants Grace whom I must acquaint to night with your excuse together with your humble desire to wait upon his Grace Which I will the rather that not only you may know from himself I writ no other to you to Paris either in that Letter or any former or later than truth but also have an assurance from his Graces own mouth of your safety here while you stay or shall be suffered to stay however you carry your self in the Congregation publickly or elsewhere privatly as to the Remonstrance I mean For hitherto you relyed only on my bare Letters inviteing or encouraging you to come and promising you might with all security And though you now deny the terms or conditions added in those Letters yet I know my Lord Lieutenant will not give occasion to new lyes and flanders by restraining you from Liberty to return whence you came if you think fit not to do that which should merit or at least move him to further indulgence though otherwise but your bare duty to the King Such in effect was my Expostulation with the Primat such his answer and such finally my return According to which return I acquainted that very night his Grace with all that passed that day as I did every night his Grace with every days transactions while the Fathers continued that Assembly and amongst other things with what passed either in publick or private between the Primat and me And his Grace notwithstanding he had as many causes of prejudice against even the said Primat in particular as any could have yet overcoming all by that wonderful good nature of his own which so often before during so many years since 1641 had passed by but too too many failings of the Roman Catholick Prelats of Ireland in general was pleased to assign me the next night after to introduce privately to his Closet the said Primat XIV BUT the interposing day which was the fourth of the Congregation and fourteenth of the moneth gives me some further matter to be observed before I come to relate the Primats introduction at night For the Fathers being sate again this day both morning and evening as their manner was to sit twice every day till they were Dissolved only the two intervening Sundays excepted and because I was truly and fully informed of the obstinate nay desperate resolution of their leading men viz. 1. Not only not to Sign the Remonstrance of 1661 and 1662 but not to debate it nay nor suffer it as much as to be read in their House 2. To sign only another new but very insignificant Instrument of Recognition prepared for them which abstracted wholly from all the material parts of the former And 3. not to Petition for any Pardon at all and because withal I was resolved not to be wanting of my own part to prevent or at least to premonish them sufficiently and publickly of the fatal consequencies of such desperate Counsels I thought fit to assist and spend some time with them both in the fore and afternoon partly desiring a positive answer from the Speaker to these two Queries 1. What they had resolved on my Lord Lieutenants Message concerning their Signing the Remonstrance 2. What upon my own proposal to them concerning a Petition for Pardon and partly reasoning against the answers given For to the First Quere the answer was That the House resolved upon a new Remonstrance or new Formulary of their own which they presumed would satisfie the Lord Lieutenants Grace and assure him sufficiently for the future of their Allegiance Faith and Obedience to the King And to the Second That they thought any such Petition needless Whereupon I took the liberty to advise entreat conjure the Fathers not
nay out of prudential considerations opposed to his power their censuring it upon any such motive as might give the King or State here any kind of jealousie To which answer of his I replyed more I am sure than left him any place of rejoynder adding nevertheless that although such endeavours did seem to me a real diminution of and consequently Treason against Majesty yet being it was my whole business to obtain for them all from his Majesty a general and gracious Oblivion of and Indempnity for all and every kind of transgression how heinous soever whereof they or any of all their Brethren the Irish Ecclesiasticks might be taxed as fallen into at any time since Octob. 23. 1641 until the present Month and day of June 1666 sure I had no other end in producing him as the procurer of the Louain Censure but only to make the Fathers present to understand and know the lying Arts wherewith it was procured by him and they all and rest of the Irish Clergy had been so long ever since the procuring thereof hindred from their necessary approbation of and concurrence to the Remonstrance Nor do I remember now any other material passage of this fourteenth day of June and fourth of the Congregation save only two The first was the Bishop of Ardagh's particular and positive and no less passionate than inconsiderate I might say very unwarrantable untrue and notoriously false answer to the second Querie concerning a Petition for Pardon For he and he alone had the confidence that I may not say impudence and frenzy to answer That he knew none of that Congregation who had been ever at any time obnoxious to the Laws for any thing acted in the time of the late Civil Wars of the Roman Catholick Confederats nor consequently any that was in any kind of need of petitioning for Pardon either for themselves or any others of the Irish Clergy I must confess That when I heard this answer from his Lordship nor gain-said by any of the rest I presently apprehended there was no kind of Resolution how mad or desperate soever but might be expected from such infatuated persons However I replyed to his Lordship in this manner But is it possible indeed My Lord that either your self or any other of all here present can believe you speak your Soul in such manner Can not I produce and name more than Twenty nay at least Thirty even of those here present now that have been and are still obnoxious to the Laws upon account of their carriage during the late Wars of the Roman Catholick Confederates Are there not more than five hundred more of the Irish Clergy yet alive who are likewise obnoxious still upon that account Or do not you peradventure know there is no Act of Indempnity as yet granted to them or even so much as to their Lay Confederates Or consider not that this denyal of yours is an express Justification not only of the first Rebellion in the year 1641 but of all that followed even also of the Nuncios and his Parties violation of the first Peace in 1646 and of his and their Censures against the Cessation with Inchiquin and of the second Peace too in the year 1648 nay and of both the Declaration and Excommunication made and fulminated by the Bishop at Jamestown in the year 1650 against his Majesties Lieutenant General and General Governour then of Ireland the then Marquess now Duke of Ormond and all those would obey him yea is not consequently this Speech of yours in effect an express Declaration that it may be Lawful for the Irish to rise again as and when they shall think fit in Arms against the Laws and King This and much more to this purpose did I then indeed affectionately before all the Fathers reply to Ardagh and both dilate upon and exaggerate in the best and least offensive Language I could For conclusion adding 1. That not even his Lordships own self had carried himself so innocently as not to need a Pardon 2. That neither would I nor did I intend to exempt so much as my self albeit not only both the least and latest Transgressor of them all in relation to the War but even the earliest and greatest opposer amongst them of such as would continue the War against the Cessation and Peace c. And yet not one of all stood up or spake a word to second me not even Primat Reilly himself though by his own former confession even in his Letter of submission and though otherwise but too manifestly and notoriously even to the knowledge of all the Kingdom so enormously obnoxious nay though himself had so lately before writ amongst other things under his own hand in his late Letter from Paris for that Assembly Vid. Second Paâ—â—â—f the First Treat pag. 612 Where you have this Letter of Primat Reilly to the Congregation his advice and desire that they should prostrate themselves at his Majesties feet with an humble Petition humbly begging his Majesties plenary Pardon for the offences and transgressions as well those were hidden as those were notorious of all and every individual of the said Irish Clergy such as were committed by them or any of them at any time during the last five and twenty years The Second particular was the Effect with the reading of those publick Instruments i. e. of my Procuratorium and Letters Obediential together with the account I gave all along of my own best endeavours and purest intentions in serving them since 1660 in quality of their Procurator till that present had produced in some of them and that even publickly before the whole Congregation I mean remorse and Repentance for nay publick Confession of their having wrongfully in remote parts of the Kingdom represented and traduced me before they had sufficiently known the truth of things yea and which was consequential a submissive begging of me even there also in publick to Pardon them whatever they had done or spoken so against me Those few Penitents as far as I can remember who made such open confession and beg'd my Pardon so no less openly were Father John O Hairt Prior Provincial of the Dominican Order throughout Ireland and two Secular Priests being Vicars General of two vacant Sees or Diocesses in the Province of Tuam or Connaught one was Elphin as the Vicars name was Thomas O Higgin The other Priests name as likewise of which of the Connaught Diocesses he was Vicar I have forgotten though I remember well his person which was ancient grave and Venerable But that which I shall never forget was my own extraordinary great admiration then To see men of such quality and judgment pretending so much remorse of Conscience by acknowledging in such manner the injuries they had done me and therefore begging pardon of me submissively and yet not one in all that National Congregation to be found that opened once his mouth for confession of any villanies committed against the King at any time
Ludovicus Pius both very Christian Catholick Emperours deserve to be particularly remembred being they made so many good Laws for the Government of meer Ecclesiastical or Church affairs and persons as may be read in their own Capitularies though not in any of those Books which make up that now commonly called Corpus Juris Civilis That for what concerns the Testimony of others i. e. of those we justly call our Holy Fathers as whom in the next degree after the Apostles we look upon as our best Masters of Christianity St. Augustin alone may at present serve for them all the rather that no man in his right senses did ever honestly or conscienciously dispute this matter Let the Disciples of Bellarmine and admirers of Baronius think what they please In hoc Reges Deo servire in quantum Reges sunt si in suo Regno bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad divinam Religionem is the sentence of this great Doctor in several places of his Works (f) Aug contra Crosse Gram l. 3. cap. 51. Ep. 50. super Psal 2. That reason alone might perswade the truth thereof being reason alone without other help teaches all both Kings and Subjects there is a God whom all must worship and glorifie and reason alone shews that when they i. e. both Kings and People are once perswaded though but by Revelation only of the true way to worship God and Kings do moreover know themselves to be the Vice-gerents of God with the power of the Sword in order to the Government of the People entrusted to their charge and the People also believe the same of them it must consequently and even from the nature of Royal Authority follow That of one side Kings are empowred to command the People to worship glorifie and praise God for his mercy render him thanks for his bounty beg assistance in dangers his deliverance from the power of enemies c and therefore also to set apart some days and observe religiously those days already set apart for such holy duties as Preaching and Praying and Fasting and invokeing God even in publick Assemblies at Church humbling themselves before him relieving the poor and doing all other works of mercy corporal and spiritual and of the other side the people are bound to obey their Kings and other Supream Civil Governours in such commands how spiritual soever the matter or things enjoyned be Nay That reason alone yea without any help or illustration either of the more ancient holy Fathers or later Expositors must teach us That if all Subjects are by the general and positive Law of God in St. Paul 13 Rom. commanded under pain of Damnation or Hell to be subject to the Supream Civil Powers without any distinguishing note of the matter enjoyn'd unless that note which makes clearly for the matter of good works to be commanded by such Rulers it must necessarily follow That since according to the Confession of every side all Subjects are obliged by that very Law in St. Paul 13 Rom. to obey their Kings in all Commands at least which are not contrary to the Laws of the Land and which concern temporary or worldly things alone much more must they be obliged to obey them in all those other more excellent and holy commands which relate either immediately and principally or mediately and consequently to their eternal happiness in another life and therefore to the most excellent of Spiritual matters For all the Laws and Precepts of God either those delivered immediately by Christ or by the mouthes and pens of his Apostles regard if not only at least principally first as the due means a Spiritual life of Grace in this World and next as the final end of such means a Spiritual life of Glory in the other Lastly That such Authority in Kings of commanding Spirituals being not derived from the Keys of the Church given to Peter and rest of the Apostles but flowing naturally originally and necessarily too from the Supream Royal or Civil Power of Kings can be no more lost or forfeited by Heresie or other Infidelity nay nor by any kind of sin or misdemeanour whatsoever than their authority for commanding in meer Temporals especially being it is manifest enough That the Authority of commanding such Spiritual duties and Religious worship of God is often too too necessary in Kings for attaining even the very true politick Temporal or earthly and natural ends of a Common-wealth securing the Temporal Peace or happiness of the People and obtaining it of God from whom alone all both Spiritual and Temporal both Supernatural and Natural blessings come So much did the Procurator let the Fathers of the Congregation know i. e. to such purpose did he speak to them on the Subject of the first of those three heads before mentioned And they did seem in truth to have been fully perswaded by his discourse For they all assented and consented That all both Feasts and Fasts all days either of Humiliation or Thanksgiving commanded by the King should be accordingly observed in their way both by themselves and rest of the Roman-Catholick Clergy and people of Ireland XXI ON the second of those Three Heads or that concerning Father James O Fienachtuy the famed wonder-working Priest he spoke in the next place giving a large and very particular account of all he had either heard from others or by his own experience known of that good Father i. e. an account of those arguments which of one side cryed him up for a Wonderful curer of all Diseases and of the other discovered him at last to have never had any such gift of healing or at least to have lost it lately if ever at any time or in any instance formerly he had it But forasmuch as the Reader may be desirous to know more particularly such matters relating to the said Fathers James O Fienachtuy who made for some years so great a noise both in Ireland and England not only amongst Roman-Catholicks but even Protestants I think it worth my labour to give here to my best remembrance the very speech or at least substance of it containing that account given so by the Procurator i. e. my self to this National Congregation as followeth viz Account of the famed Wonder-working Priest c. MY Lords and Fathers it is no disaffection to nor prejudice against the person of Father Fienachtuy but the general concern of all our Church in the truth or falshood of Miracles reported these many years to have been wrought by him puts me now in the second place upon a large discourse and very particular account of him especially as to some later passages which cannot be known to you otherwise then from me or my relation to others The first place and time I heard of this Miraculous Priest was at London in the year 1657 or thereabouts under the late Usurping Power of Cromwel Then and there I
any further practice in that Town yea to command him away as an Impostor or at least a Brain-sick man and that only at the earnest intercession of some few not to give thereby more advantage to Protestants they had forborn to put such thoughts in execution against him Yea Father James Tully a Franciscan and Connarght man both Nuntiotist and Anti-remonstrant living there told me himself was the onely man that strenuously interposed not for any opinion he had of Finachty's Gifts or Miracles but for the foresaid Reason chiefly and that he alone hindred that Decree which was earnestly press'd by others especially the Fathers of the Society Moreover I found that the Franciscan Convent whereof the Guardian and others mostly had subscribed the Remonstrance were the chiefest if not the onely men amongst all the Clergy whether Regular or Secular of that Capital City that shewed him most countenance as who several times had entertainâ—d him civilly and suffered him to practise publickly in their house Whether they did so out of any inward belief or great opinion they had of his Wonder-working gifts or whether only yielding to the Reports come from London or above all whether because they thought he had still especially in other remote parts of the Kingdom a great interest in the common people and knew themselves and the rest of their Fellow-subscribers to have been by some Anti-remonstrants strangely malign'd amongst the Vulgar and that his Authority also had been made use of to hurt them and therefore by Civilities towards him even where the greatest Anti-remonstrants were his greatest opposites and persecutors they would engage him now to be thenceforth of their side or whether for all these Reasons together or other whatsoever I know not But so it was that they were at that time his only publick Friends of the whole Dublin Clergy And so it was also that a young Protestant Irish Gentlewoman by name Mrs. Agnes ......... having come to him in their House when he was practising there was as her self gave out and both they and she after told my self Cured by him of some kind of inward pain in one of her limbs but which I do not remember now though I remember it was not visible to others and was thereupon reconciled to the Roman Church having confessed to one of the Priests of that House and received the Sacrament of Christs body there What this wrought on her might signifie I leave to the judgment of others But it was the onely miraculous Cure whereof as done there or at all in this Town in my absence I had even so much certainty given me as I tell here Hitherto my Lords and Fathers you have the sum of all which in so many years I heard of this good man from others as likewise of my own endeavours to know as well as I could from others the truth of matter of Fact concerning him What follows and that indeed I would be finally and principally at in this account is from my own certain knowledge even from that of my own eyes and ears and conversation with him here during five or six Weeks immediately after ending my said last enquiries For next day in the morning I went and found him out where I understood him to be at Father Ailmer's a Secular Priest's Chappel in St. Owens Arch where he was in the Vestry preparing to vest himself for the Altar I sent in my name and being admitted found him alone on his knees After salutes and sitting down together the introduction to our discourse was my saying I doubted not he had by report heard somewhat of me as I had of him very much albeit the subjects of talking of us had been very different He answer'd 'T was true Then I told him of my great longing for many years and that much greater of late to see him and be satisfied by himself of the grounds of such contrary relations concerning him And so proceeded from the first reports of him seen by me in a Letter to London from Ireland in the Protector 's dayes to the contradiction thereof by Father Mellaghlin thence to the Lord Lieutenant's Commands to me thence to my first inquisition at Dublin thence to Mr. Belings and Mr. Brown's relation thence to my Lord Clancarty's thence to that of his having learned his faculty of Exorcising from old Father Moor the Jesuit whose servant he had been thence to my ceasing from any further inquisition for that time thence to the late reports of such manifold miraculous Cures at London thence to what Father Plunket the Carmelite had told me at Kilkenny viz. of his failing now of late after his Landing where he practised publickly at the Earl of Fingalls thence to my own last inquisition through several Diocesses abroad in the Countrey as I returned and finally thence to what I heard since my coming to Town I ripped up and told him clearly all whatever I had heard either of the one or other side for him or against him Yet withal assuring him I did so without any prejudice of my own part and only to be satisfied by himself as being persuaded he would tell me but truth and being resolved to believe his own relation of himself Telling him besides That partly for his own sake and partly for my own but principally for that of the publick of Catholick Religion and the Professors thereof both Clergy and People of Ireland though more especially the Clergy I desired this favour and candor of him being he himself could but know my employment and that by reason thereof an account of him would be expected from me by the Lord Lieutenant and that moreover I could assure him he had been severely proceeded against even in publick Court ere then by the Protestant Officials had they not had some little regard of me or at least expected the Lord Lieutenants pleasure at his return This was the sum of what I spoke to him before he gave me his answers and spoke in truth with as much sincerity as ever I did any thing in my life And therefore I was inwardly much troubled when I found not the satisfaction in some of them which I expected For the substance of his Answers was 1. That he had formerly as he thought the general good opinion and approbation of the Clergy 2. That of late the Jesuits were the men who chiefly both in England and here since his Landing opposed him 3. That he never said any such thing as by my relation the Earl of Clancarty reported of him to me nay never to any or upon any occasion denied the gracious gift of God to himself for curing whatever even the most natural Diseases or Evils 4. That he learned no such matter as the knowledge of Exorcizing or other whatsoever of that Father Moor the Jesuit nor had been at any time his servant 5. That whatever he had formerly or lately done either in Ireland or England was all done by him as Gods Instrument
late they have been to see how far you should venture on such Wonderful undertakings nay nor doubt or at least am not without hope of the return of your former Miraculous gifts if ever at any time indeed you had any such even in any sort of degree or measure As for the rest know there is nothing could happen in this World I would be more heartily glad to hear than the absolute certainty of true Miraculous or Supernatural Wonder-working gifts indeed either again returned or anew bestowed on you or in truth on any other person whatsoever in this Country where I might see with my own eyes the Miracles done This was my last discourse with and those or other to such purpose my very last words to Father Finachty which he answered by promising to do so as I desired viz. to go directly to his home in Connaught to hold no meetings in the way to attempt no further cures at all before he had first recollected himself c. And then remembring how he had though indirectly but the last night insinuated some want I gave him what money I had in my pocket i. e. about fourteen shillings which having taken he departed from me yet he had the confidence within two hours after even that very morning before he left the Town to send me a little Printed English Book in Twelves or Sixteens of his own Miracles lately done at London My Lords and Fathers this is the account which ever since that Book of Miracles given or rather sent by him to me I intended to give you all whensoever it pleased God I should have the honour of speaking to you Assembled together For I held my self bound in several respects to give it you And now that I have discharged my self of that obligation see you whether it be not fit by universal consent to obstruct all such future both attempts and pretences of Father Finachty and not only of him but of any other * * I know two more the one an Augustinian in the County of Catherlogh the other a Franciscan in the County of Wexford who were about 1664 c. by some weak people cryed up for some such wonder-working graces But I knew withall the Augustinian to have been a meer Knave and a Nonsensical Ass to boot The Franciscan was Father Anthony Stafford a Gentleman born and very devout man in his profession and therefore easily adored and cryed up even by some Gentlemen though I think himself never gave way to such reports if other such there be for Miraculous curing either any kind of meer natural disease or any sort of Possessed or Bewitched Person that so you may as much as lies in you vindicate your selves and your Church and Religion from the scandal reproach ignominy of such manifest arguments either of crazy heads or vile Impostors or both Thus having done with what I intended to say on the second of those three Heads before mentioned in the former Section pag. 706. and none having contradicted a word of what either I had so related of that weak man or advised concerning him but rather all condemning his follies and some also telling That notwithstanding his having been so convinced and confounded at Dublin yet he attempted afterwards to practise and did practise on some weak Creatures in Connaught especially Women or Maids whereof some as Demoniacks but reputed such by him he shut up in Portumna and by Discipline and Fasting made almost mad as likewise that for his further saying That all the Women of Ireland were possess'd i. e. by the Devil specially possess'd the Archbishop of Tuam within whose jurisdiction he was had forbid him all such Exorcisms and Exercise others relating that he came into and attempted to practise somewhere in Westmeath but was discountenanced there and in fine all the rest either by their words or silence appearing to be utterly dissatisfied with him and concurring to what I desired even a general opposition and prohibition of his feats everywhere thenceforth I pass'd on to the third and last of the foresaid three Heads And yet I must let my Reader know here 1. That notwithstanding so publick and general notice taken of him the same Father Finachty I have been told in the year 1649 before I left Ireland last he had got himself lately made Vicar-general by the Clergy of the vacant See of Elphin in the foresaid Province of Connaught though whether that report was true or no I cannot avert nor did I enquire 2. That no sooner had this Roman-Catholick Irish Priest Finachty been so discovered at Dublin but at Cork a Town also in Ireland starts up one .......... Gratrix an English Lay-Protestant to supply the formers place by making People believe he himself too had a Gift from God to Cure all Diseases by Praying and Stroaking and accordingly practises everywhere on many even also at London whither he came at last to Cheat the World as the former was thought to have done What became of this Gratrix I neither know nor care Only this I know That not long after his practises on Folks at London he went out like the Snuff of a Candle just as Finachty did XXII VVHat I discoursed on the third and last Head was not long because the two Books were extant and the Authors known and the designs and effects of them such as none of all the Fathers how otherwise willing soever at least some of them of that Congregation durst publickly in that place open his lips to justifie And therefore my relation of that discourse shall be answerable i. e. very short For as to the first of these Books I thought enough to let them know 1. The Title of it which is Disputatio Apologetica De Jure Regni Hiberniae pro Catholicis Hibernis adversus Haereticos Anglos 2. That it hath another small Treatise annexed as an Appendix which bears this Title Exhortatio ad Catholicos Hibernos 3. That both pieces are own'd by the same Author though under the Capital Letters only of C. M. as he owns himself to be an Irish man For in the Frontispiece or Title-page of the Disputation he sayes and only sayes Authore C. M. Hiberno Artium Sacrae Theologiae Magistro and after the second Title or that of his Appendix or Exhortation he adds again Authore C. M. Hiberno 4. That in the former Title-page 't is pretended to have been Printed at Francfort Francofurti Superiorum permissu typis Bernardi Gourani Anno Domini 1645 though we had reason to think 't was Printed in Portugal 5. That albeit the Author was unknown to me for so many years after I had seen the Book yet at last I came to know certainly and this from the there present Lord Bishop of Ardagh That he was an old Irish Jesuit living in Portugal by name Constantine or Cornelius in Irish Con or Cnochoor and by Sirname O Mahony a Munster and County Cork man of the Barony of
's name to the Clergy he viz. Father Peter Walsh no way lowr'd his Sail but remained obstinate and insolent I likewise saw a great Man's Letter I mean a Roman termed him and Caron Apostates But I hope as it hath appear'd manifestly before in the former Sections that I have not used in any manner not even in the least degree whatsoever any kind of either fraud or force in that Congregation so by what I have said hitherto in this present Section and third Appendage therein it doth no less now appear that I kept no Anti-Congregation at all much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Congregation For to pass over now as not material that the foresaid Colledge of Divines was not held at the same time with but first assembled after the Congregation had dissolved and four parts at least of five departed to their own respective dwellings in other parts of Ireland neither can it be said 1. That that Colledge was of my faction being it had from the beginning even the first day thereof almost one moyety of Anti-Remonstrants and was free and open for ten times so many of that sort to enter it after at any time they pleased Nor 2. That it was called either to determine any thing contrary to what the Congregation had professed or as much as to debate on that which they had concluded Nor 3. That it did in truth determine or debate any such matter No nor 4. can it be said that any such was the design or scope of calling that Colledge whereas interessed Members of the Congregation were to compose it and that after all nothing was to be therein carried by the greater vote but by the stronger reason and clearer conviction and full concurrence at last of every individual person And therefore as that Colledge ought not to be nay could not in any reason or with any truth be called an Anti-Congregation so ought it be said 1 To have been composed not only not of those of my faction or not of them more than of those of the contrary but not of any persons whatsoever that might in any wise according to their own rule proceed factiously if otherwise they would And 2 To have been kept for a much better end than to vex them or than that could be of vexing the Congregation Unless peradventure any can shew That to secure His Majesty of the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland as much as hand or subscription can and thereby to answer home and fully refute 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 be not a much better end than that of vexing the Congregation Or at least can prove That to secure so His Majesty and to answer so that grand objection was not the end which Peter Walsh proposed to himself in calling or keeping that Colledge Which yet can never be proved being so directly even against the very so long since printed Title of those Fourteen Propositions which he prepared and presented to be as they were indeed the only matters to be agreed on by the Divines of that same Colledge Now if out of all it doth not appear that I kept no kind of Anti-congregation much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Congregation I know not how any thing can appear For the often mention'd Colledge of Divines held upon the Fifteen Propositions being cleared of that scandalous name of an Anti-congregation there was no other held by me or by any other besides me to be charg'd with it because neither I nor any other hold any kind of other Colledge Congregation or Meeting while that National Congregation sate besides it self nor after it dissolved but only the foresaid Colledge of Divines upon the Fifteen Propositions A Letter indeed and but that one Letter you have before pag. 696. address'd to the National Congregation it self yea address'd by way of humble desire and Petition was during the Session subscribed by Eighteen of my Friends or of those who had formerly subscribed the Remonstrance of 1661. and delivered to the Speaker and read in the House But I assure the Reader That the Fathers who sign'd that Letter kept neither Anti-congregation nor Congregation because neither Colledge nor any Meeting at all in any house or place or time or upon any other business or even upon that very Letter whereas only some of them first and others after met some by chance and some perhaps of purpose walking in a Garden hard by the House where the National Assembly sate as they were desired and they themselves thought also good did singly sign that Letter And yet after and notwithstanding all such known manifest Truths I believe my Lord of Ferns did see as he sayes he did that false relation sent over to Flanders out of Ireland and those severe lines also of a great Cardinal to that purpose But who can hinder either the lying of Lyars or even the severe lines of an interested Cardinal on such a Subject As for the other friendly advertisement given me in the same paper and next place therein by my Lord of Ferns viz. How it was taken ill by all that after Cardinal Franciscus Barberinus c because it doth not properly or indeed at all concern my present third Appendage and that I have elsewhere at large in a more proper place answer'd it I will only say here 1. That as you may see before in this Treatise viz. pag. 632. that Letter of Cardinal Francis Barberin which the Bishop means here so you may see also there pag. 636 637 638 and 639. my brief animadversions both on that same and other Letters too as well of the said Barberin as of the three Bruxels Internuncio's immediately succeeding one after another these ten years past Hieronymus de Vecchiis Jacobus Rospigliosi and the last of all ........ Airoldi 2. That if I had lowr'd my Sail in any kind of way or sense the said Cardinal desired I had by doing so renounced the Catholick Faith as to one essential or at least material and necessary point thereof and even betrayed my Countrey to boot and consequently by doing so or complying with the Cardinal in any way must have at the same time profess'd my self an impious Rebel against the Church and a perfidious Traytor against the King Crown and Kingdom 3. That refusing to do so is so far from remaining either obstinate or insolent that without any doubt it is on the contrary remaining constant and resolute in the very best cause I could and was in Conscience obliged to undertake and maintain against the corrupters both of Loyalty and Christianity 4. That being it appears now more than manifestly more than abundantly as well out of the Louain Vniversities Censure which I have given pag. 102. and the Franciscan Belgick Declaration pag. 116. as out of
if the Pope define evil to be good or vice to be virtue that is define that to be good or virtuous which you thought was evil or vitious you must believe him And so do all our Sophisters maintain now a dayes that all he does is very well done and that he cannot err in that regard And so especially and particularly must all the Fathers of the Society maintain and think too not so much because of their 4th vow as it is in the Bull of Julius the 3d. wherein their Order and Statutes are confirmed but chiefly for that which their founder Saint Ignatious Loyola layes before them as the chief if not onely fundamental of their Society the denial of their own judgement in a letter of his written in Italian to the Fathers of Portugal and in this passage of it We easily endure to be out-done by all other orders in fastings watchings and other hardnesses which they use in a holy manner according to their Institution But in purity and perfection of obedience I earnestly desire that you would surpass all the rest with a true resignation of your own will and a denial of your own judgement and also because of that which moreover is said in the very articles of their institution confirmed by the Popes Buls and inserted in that above mentioned of Julius the 3d. that they are bound to acknowledge Christum velut praesentem Christ as present not onely in the person of the Pope but also of their General Moreover so must even all the assertors whatever they be of what order or institution soever of the doctrine of obedientia caeca blind obedience as it is commonly taught in this age maintain and think Further yet and to return once more to the Society in particular so have several of them very cleerly expresly and zealously taught and thought if they taught not otherwise than they thought at Coloâ—e as appears out of that prescribed Rule of theirs in Censura Colonienst fol. 136. If any man examine the doctrine of the Pope by the Rule of Gods word and seeing that it is different chance to contradict it let him be rooted out with fire and sword Finally and to return once more also to Bellarmin's own self so has this most eminent Cardinal no less distinctly and positively delivered in four several assertions in his fourth book third fourth fifth and sixth chap. de Rom. Pont. the very first genuin but sandy foundation of all this ruinous however guilded structure of the Popes pretended infallibility These assertions are First that the Pope when he teacheth the vniversal Church in such things as appertain to faith can in no case erre Secondly that not onely the Pope cannot err in faith but not even the particular Church of Rome Thirdly that the Pope cannot err not onely in matters of faith but not even in precepts of manners which are commanded to the whole Church and which consist in things necessary to salvation or such as are of themselves good or bad Fourthly that it is probable and may be piously believed that the Pope not onely as Pope but even as a particular person cannot be a Heretick by believing with obstinacy any error against the faith Although I must confess that notwithstanding all this learned Cardinals painful indeavours to prove each of these assertions throughout all the foresaid whole chapters and for eight or nine chapters more to disprove the contrary by solving as well as he can all objections making therein a particular enquirie of all the Popes that ever lived and have been charged with error and maintaining also the best he can that not one amongst them ever yet errect and that they were all honest and holy men yet he sayes nothing in all his arguments or solutions in this matter to perswade any judicious man of his pretended infallibility But however this be or not it is plain enough that according to these very principles or assertions alone any according to onely the first and third which at least of all four Father N. N. and the Congregation infallibly own as yet and refuse obstinatly to disown we cannot make sense but that which is contradictory and not to any purpose of what he sayes here not though I say we grant his meaning therein grounded on those two suppositions Fifthly That be his meaning so grounded or not or be it what ever els or however he please yet he cannot deny but the Congregation refused openly and either constantly or obstinatly as he will and even too upon the contradictory question to give as much as this very Proposition or promise under their hands that if the Pope did would or should define any thing against their Remonstrance or three first Propositions they would notwithstanding maintain them and be accordingly faithful and obedient to the King Nor can deny that there is not so much as one hand of theirs or of any els for them to this paper of reasons wherein it is said as in their name they let all prudent men know that they should not hold the Popes infallibility if he did define any thing against the obedience they owe their Prince Both which being so what truth can be in this confident assertion whatever it imports Or how can such an allegation serve them in any prudent mans opinion to wave the subscription of what was so rationally expected concerning the 6th Proposition or declaration against the Popes infallibility without the consent of the Church or a general Council Or to shew the unnecessariness thereof in their case or in relation to a sufficient assureance of their fidelitie hereafter to the King against all pretences of the Pope to his Crown or other Royal rights And so having done more than abundantly with his tacite pretence of unnecessariness virtually implyed in that allegation I must in the next place observe his transient return to his plea of impertinency again If sayes he and in the Congregations name still they he means all prudent men speake of any other infallibility as matter of Religion or faith as it regardeth us not nor our obedience to our Soveraign c. For although I have before now sufficiently demonstrated the pertinency of the question and Proposition or declaration concerning the Popes pretended infallibility without a general Council yet because Father N. N. seems to distinguish here a two-fold infallibility of the Pope for as much as he sayeth any other infallibility I must tell him First That he had more properly and intelligibly distinguished the matter in which the Popes pretended infallibility must be said to be conversant than the form of infallibility in it self which form questionless in esteem must be one and the self same whether it fall on the obedience we owe our Prince or on any other matter soever capable Secondly That he knew very well the dispute and declaration of Sorbone was against the Popes infallibility in general or in any kind of matter and against
Drogheda We therefore applied Our uttermost industry to supply that place with what it wanted placed in it Sir Arthur Aston as expert and gallant a Governour as We could wish for gave him the same men and the same number of men Horse and Foot that he desired and furnished him with the full proportion of Ammunition and other provisions he demanded judging that if Cromwel could be there foyled or kept before it but for a time it would much advantage Us that had so lately received so great a blow as required time to recover and the Rebels in the neck of it having received so great a countenance and strength as Cromwel brought with him being the best of the Rebels old Army in England But it pleased God in a few dayes to give that Town into their hands and all the Officers and Souldiers that were within it to the cruelty of their Swords where there were lost 2000 of Our best Souldiers with all their Officers who were chosen as the likeliest men by giving a check to Cromwell in his first attempt to recover the Kingdom Now that after the defeat at Rathmines and that great loss at Drogheda for so it was so powerful and so prevailing an Army as Cromwels marched without interruption from Us that had not above 700 Horse and 1500 Foot and of those some not to be trusted others newly raised and all discouraged from Dublin to Rosse is not much to be wondred at For all the men We could make were not sufficient to man Wexford which being taken as We have before said there were lost in it others of Our best men to a considerable number That the Rebels might have been prevented in building over their Bridge at Rosse considering the scituation of the place and the power their Ordnance had from the Key to and upon the other side of the River We believe they are very ignorant or malicious that will affirm But if it had been a thing as easie as they would have it believed We were so far from being able to attempt any thing that We never all that time had either 24 hours Pay or Provision before hand to keep the men We had together where they were upon no duty much less to bring them near an Enemy where they must be held to hard duty close together It should here also be considered That during Cromwels march from Dublin to Wexford and those parts began the revolt of the Towns and Army in Munster which occasioned very much of jealousie distraction and other interruptions and gave the Rebels leisure to prosecute their Victories When they marched over their Bridge at Rosse towards Carrick it was believed they meant to march to Kilkenny and if VVe had not been diverted by a false Alarum which coming as it did VVe had cause to credit of their being gone as far as Bennets Bridge towards Kilkenny whil'st VVe lay at Thomas-town and thereby drawn thither for the defence of that City We had as Our purpose was engaged them to fight before their getting to Carrick In what miserable condition Our Army was when VVe came to Carrick which VVe were forced to leave meerly for want of provision to keep it there and so much money as to make necessary materials to gain that place is so generally known that it must argue the contrivers of this Article guilty of a strange degree of malice to object to Us as an omission That the Rebels Army whil'st it lay before Waterford was not attempted or once faced by Us. And sure VVe are it is as openly known That in Person VVe twice conducted men for the defence of Waterford and that the last Supply VVe brought was that which occasioned the Rebels raising their Siege as the refusing a Garrison and other disobediences of that City were the inducements moving them to come before it When by this means the Rebels were removed and retired to their Winter-quarters so harassed as that their speedy marching forth was not to be feared VVe designed the regaining of Carrick and Passage first and then of Rosse and Wexford and to that effect brought with Us a Party of Horse and Foot but were so far from gaining any admittance for them into the City * i. e. Waterford or to lie under the walls though they brought their means with them and were to receive their constant Pay out of the Countrey That for those Our good intentions and former pains taken for the relief of that City when Cromwel was before it it was there brought in question at a Council held amongst some of the City Whether We and the men We brought should not be fallen upon as Enemies VVe were then for Our safety forced to retire thence leaving those indeed easie works VVe had designed undone there being no means of doing them but by and out of that City whereunto as to the first visible cause and to the example thereby taken by Limerick may be attributed all the following success of the Rebels this last Summer What ancient Travellers or men of Experience they were that informed the Declarers That VVe kept a Mart of Wares a Tribunal of Pleadings or an Inne of Play Drinking and Pleasure rather than a well-ordered Camp of Souldiers We know not but do believe these Declarers themselves want not the malicious intention to forge it in their own heads Which VVe the rather believe they have done by the ignorance appearing in charging it as a fault and want of order that in a Camp there should be a Mart of Wares or a Tribunal of Pleadings which to have in the most peaceful time and place are amongst the greatest Arguments of good Government But if they intend the Tribunal of Pleadings as that wherein VVe more busied Our Self than consisted with the duty of a General that meaning is known to be maliciously false And so it is if it be meant by Us That VVe kept an Inne of Play Drinking and Pleasure being content to have all the Lyes in this Declaration taken for Truth if it can be proved That during Three months time VVe were in the Field VVe drank Twice betwixt meals or at meals more than was fit That VVe play'd Thrice at any Game though at fit times VVe account Recreation no fault or unusual in well-governed Camps or in all that time We ever took the pleasure of sleeping otherwise than in our Cloaths And of this We have better Testimony than the Declarers though they had been upon the place But they being to justifie with some colourable pretences so high a Treason as the usurpation of the Regal power We wonder not they should make their way to it thorough any Calumny they can defame Us withall Touching Drogheda Wexford Rosse Carrick and the not fighting the Enemy near Thomas-town We refer you to part of Our foresaid Answer to the pretended Grievances with this addition to that of Carrick That as it is more then hath or can be proved that Carrick
was betrayed by the Protestant Ward that was in it surprized indeed it was so the endeavour of recovering that place was not under Our immediate conduct We going that day it was attempted with a Party to Waterford But who it was that importuned the falling on of the men so unprovided Sir Lucas Dillon and others there present as We have heard are able to inform you And for not fighting at Thomas-town it is here set down as if the Officers and Souldiers had proposed some such thing and were absolutely forbidden or refused leave or to be led on by Us to fight Which is a malicious and false suggestion For never any such motion was made to Us by any Officer or Souldier nor indeed could be for before the Enemy were drawn up that morning on the Top of the Hill on the other side of the water over against Thomas-town We were by a false Alarum drawn towards Kilkenny as is set down in Our Answer to the pretended Grievances as is well known to Mr. Patrick Bryen and others We believe there assembled Here again the Declarers must be beholding to their ancient Travellers to make it good That it is an advantage of ground to have a Bridge to pass by Three or Four in a Front in the sight of an Enemy and a steep Hill to ascend to the charge of an Enemy drawn up in order on the Top of the Hill for thus it is very well known is the scituation of Thomas-town and the Hill whereon the Enemy drew up after We were drawn away to Kilkenny as is aforesaid The rest of this Article is a passionate enumeration of the Enemies subsequent success wherein the Declarers and their Instruments have more to answer for than We as We were a greater loser than many of them put together But how We become chargeable with the loss of any place in Leinster since We put the whole management of the affairs of that Province into other hands especially of Catherlogh commanded by a Bishop Dromore We much wonder And if We had not proof of these mens prodigious faculty in framing and venting Untruths We should admire at their shameless impudence in saying Tecroghan was given up by order and their affirming it with this parenthesis viz. to speak nothing for the present of other places insinuating That if they would they are able to tell of many other places given up by Our order when they might have been longer held For so this Declaration being framed against Us must and they desire it should be understood Which is so foul so unchristian and so uncharitable a way of proceeding That it would make one believe they rather conjured for the spirit of the Father of Lyes than invoked the assistance of the Holy Ghost to assist when they framed this Declaration VVhat endeavour there was used to relieve Tecroghan and how it was given up there are many there met that are able to witness especially the Lord Marquess of Clanrickard Sir Luke Fitz Gerald and Sir Robert Talbot the then Governour of that place who is able to declare perhaps to produce all the orders he received from Us concerning it Tenth Article of the Declaration That the Prelates after the numerous Congregation at Cloanmacnoise where they made Declarations for the Kings great advantage after printed and after many other laborious meetings and consultations with the expressions of their sincerity and earnestness were not allowed by his Excellency to have employed their power and best diligence towards advancing the Kings interest but rather suspected and blamed as may appear by his own Letter to the Prelates then at Jamestown written August 2d and words were heard to fall from him dangerous as to the persons of some Prelates ANSWER That which VVe complain of is That notwithstanding their continual Declarations of Loyalty to His Majesty and their sincerity and earnestness to advance His service and interest they have continually by themselves and their known instruments practised the direct contrary The Copy of Our Letter of Aug. 2d sent them to Jamestown is before recited upon another occasion And VVe believe there is nothing contained in that Letter but is well known to be Truth and will be justified by many of best Quality in that Assembly What the words were which were heard to fall from Us dangerous to the persons of some Prelates when VVe are particularly charged with them VVe shall deny nothing that is Truth In the mean time let it be judged if VVe had such a desire of doing them hurt in their persons whether in the person of the Bishop of Killaloe who signed this Declaration VVe had not in Our power a subject whereon to have manifested Our disposition to revenge Whom yet the Bishops in a Letter of theirs to the Earl of Westmeath the Bishop of Leghlin and others which Letter is before recited upon another occasion do acknowledge to have been preserved by Our means though in the said Letter they untruly charge those they call Cavaliers with any attempt or purpose of doing the said Bishops person any further prejudice than to apprehend him and bring him before Us. Eleventh Article of the Declaration That his Excellency represented to His Majesty some parts of this Kingdom disobedient which absolutely deny any disobedience by them committed and thereby procured from His Majesty a Letter to withdraw his own Person and the Royal Authority if such disobediences were multiplied and to leave the People without the benefit of the Peace This was the reward his Excellency out of his envy to a Catholick Loyal Nation prepared for Our Loyalty and Obedience sealed by the shedding of our blood and the loss of our substance ANSWER VVe acknowledge to have represented to His Majesty That divers places in this Kingdom were in disobedience to His Authority And that there were and are such places is a Truth as well known to these Declarers as any work is known to the Workman that made it Which to have concealed from His Majesty had been to have betrayed the Trust by him reposed in Us and to have taken upon Our Self the blame due to them We also acknowledge to have humbly desired His Majesties leave to withdraw Our own Person out of the Kingdom in case those disobediences were multiplied Which having received and those disobediences being multiplyed VVe had withdrawn Our Self from being an idle witness of the loss of the Kingdom and the ruine of many of Our Friends had not divers of these Declarers several times but more especially at Loghreogh dissuaded Us from going and promised to do their uttermost endeavour to procure Us the obedience VVe desired without which it was plain to all men VVe could attempt nothing for the preservation of the Kingdom with hope of success But VVe were not so bold as to direct His Majesty to remove His Authority or how else to dispose of it as the Declarers are But how really VVe know not troubled they are that
stretch'd along on the ground at his feet weeping and beseeching him and at their representing to him how the King had threatned him and all his with exile with destruction and death unde Rex sayes Hoveden ad an 1164. plurimum in ira adversus eum commutus minatus est ei suis exilium alias exilium mortem and I say when by such means he had sworn in retracting at last on better advise so rash an oath and refusing to confirm those pretended customes by his seal or subscription 8. And lastly in refusing either to absolve the excommunicated Bishops but in forma Ecclesiae consueta or consent that his own Clerks which came with him out of France should take any unjust or unlawfull oath contrary to the two material demands or commands to him in behalf of Henry the second by his four murtherers Willelmus de Traci Hugo de Mortvilla Richardus Brito and Reginaldus filius Vrsi For to their third which was that he should go reverently to the young King and do him homage and fealty by oath for his Archiepiscopal Barony as Parker relates it its plain enough he never refused that not onely because he did so at the time of his investiture to Henry the second himself the Father King but also because that upon his return from exile which was but a month before his death he was on his journey as farr as London to the young King's Count to do and pay this young King also all the respects and duties becoming but was by the Queens Brother Gocelinus as Hoveden writes commanded in that very young King 's own name not go to Court nor proceed further whereupon he return'd back to Canterbury In all which eight several Instances as also in all their necessary Antecedents Concomitants and Subsequents I confess again ingenuously it is my own judgment that St. Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side because in some he had all the laws of both God and man for him and in the rest he had for him the very just and politick municipal laws of England as yet then not legally repealed these very laws I mean rehearsed by me in my seventh observation and because there was not any law of God or man against him in the case or in any of those Instances being the laws of the land were for him in all and because the design of Henry the second to oppress the people of England both Clergie and Layety but especially the Clergie and to render the Sacerdotal Order base and contemptible as we have seen before observed out of Polydore Virgil required that the Archbishop of Canterbury should stand in the gap as farr as it became a Subject by denying his own consent as a Peer and as the first Peer too of the Realm and by proceeding yet as a Bishop and as the Primate also of all Bishops in England and by proceeding so I say in a true Episcopal manner against such as would by threats of death force oppressive customs for new laws on both Peers and people Clergie and Layety against their own known will and their own old laws And therefore also consequently do acknowledg my own judgment to be that the Major of the Syllogistical objection against me or this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c against Henry the Second is fals may be by me admitted simply and absolutely without any distinction Though I add withall it be not necessary to admit it for any such inconvenience as the proof which I have given before of that Major would inferi or deduce out of the denyal of it In which proof I am sure there are several propositions or suppositions involved which no Catholick Divine not even a rigid Bellarminian is bound to allow As 1. that neither Church nor Pope can possibly err in matter of fact or in their judgment of matter of fact though relating to the life or death or precise cause of the death of any Saint or Martyr which matter of fact is neither formally nor virtually expressed nor by a consequential necessity deduced out of holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For Bellarmine himself confesses that even a general Council truly such may err in such matters of fact And the reason is clear because the judgment of the Church in such matters is onely secundum allegata probata depending wholly on the testimony of this or that man or some few or at most of many mortal and sinfull witnesses or of such of whose veracity in that the Church hath no authentick or absolutely certain revelation from God but humane probability or at most humane moral certainty which is ultimately resolved into the humane credit or faith we give an other man or men or to their veracity who possibly may themselves either of purpose too deceive us or be deceived themselves however innocently And the case is clear in the famous and great controversy about those heads were called the Tria Capitula all which concern'd matter of fact of three great Bishops in the fourth and fift general Councils under Pope Leo Magnus and Pope Vigilius And is yet no less clear in the controversy about Pope Honorius which was of matter of fact whom two general Councils condemn'd for a Heretick for a Monothelit so long after his death and out of his own writings and yet Bellarmine defends him from being such and on this ground defends him that those Councils were deceived in their judgment of matter of fact by attributing to him that doctrine which he held not 2. That the infallibility which Catholicks believe and maintain to be in the Church necessarily implyes her infallibility of judgment concerning this or that fact of any even the greatest Saint whereof we have nothing in holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For the Infallibility of the Church is onely in preserving and declaring or at least in not declaring against that whatsoever it be matter of fact or Theory which was delivered so from the beginning as revealed by God either in holy Scripture or Apostolical Tradition 3. That St. Thomas of Canterbury could not be a holy maâ—tyr or great miraculous Saint in his life or death or after his death at his tomb were his quarrel against Henry the second not just in all the essential integral and circumstantial parts of it from first to last were it not I say just according to the very objective truth of things and of the laws of God and man though it had been so or at least the substantial part of it whereon he did ultimately and onely all along insist had been so according his own inward judgment and though also his Soul had been otherwise both in that and all other matters ever so pure holy religious resigned to follow the pleasure of God and embrace truth did he know or did he think it were of the other side in any part of the