to proffer so much in writing by a publcik Act of their Congregation i. e. by signing the paper to that purpose offered them to be signed unless besides other prejudices and evils which their proceedings hitherto must if not remedied by new Resolves bring of necessity on all the Roman-Catholick both Clergy and People represented or lead by them they intend also to sowe the seeds of a perpetual scandalous and fatal Schism amongst that very Clergy and People These being the heads of what we think necessary to be so debated and our desires and Petition of a Committee and Conference to such end being no other than we likewise think every indifferent Person will hold to be very reasonable in the present circumstances we have moreover thought fit to assure the Fathers That in case they convince us by reason or argument which may take with any judicious indifferent Person we shall most freely and resignedly submit to them in all and every of the controverted Points So little are we byassed against that Light which God hath imprinted on every rational Soul nay on the contrary so resolved are we to hold perpetually to the best of our knowledge to the Rule of Christian Belief which we conceive to be now or as to us and all other faithful men living the Holy Scriptures of God as they are interpreted by the constant unanimous universal Tradition of the Church and Doctrine of all the Holy Fathers even for Ten whole entire Ages of Christianity until the days and Vsurpation of Gregory the VII But if notwithstanding all and particularly so fair an offer the Congregation shall which God forbid suffer themselves to be either misguided or over-awed and over-ruled still by those persons amongst them who seek not the good of either Nation or Religion but their own peculiar worldly interest every one of them and this even knowingly to the prejudice of Evangelical truth and Propagation or Confirmation of both Schismatical and Heretical Errours or if to pleasure such persons the Congregation will not condescend to a desire so earnest and reasonable a Petition so equitable and humble for such a necessary Committee and Conference this Letter will at least bear us witness that of our part and to our power we have done what became us for preventing those evils which we mightily fear and are almost certainly perswaded the bad counsels and further designs of some leading persons amongst them will at last bring upon the Nation in general Whether in the mean time the Congregation it self can avoid the Censure of all understanding men whether even of those who otherwise might be the most fiery pretending Zealots for the Church and Pope may be worth the considering We mean when it shall be made publickly known That such a National Assembly of Ecclesiasticks would neither frame a Remonstrance of their own satisfactory to the King in point of professing their Allegiance to him for the future in meer Temporal things nor at all joyn or concur in that of others which was indeed in all respects satisfactory and as such already accepted by His Majesty and was also by not a small number of both Ecclesiasticks and Layicks of their own Countrey and Religion and amongst these and those many persons too not only considerable for other qualifications but for their Learning and judgment who even Principally to do them all the good lay in their power had freely and conscientiously signed the former Remonstrance nor yet no not even on the contradictory question would shew their Lawful exceptions or indeed any at all against the former nor even do so much as suffer it to be debated 'twixt a Committee of their own and another of the Subscribers of it no nor so much as to be debated in their own House or elsewhere by their own Divines alone whether it contain'd any Errour or any other cause of Lawful exception nor finally no not to prevent all those otherwise impending evils especially the very worst of them viz. a manifest scandalous and fatal Schism amongst the Catholick Clergy and consequently People too of this Nation the setting up or continuing of Altar against Altar would so much as testifie under their hands or by a publick Act of their House what they themselves professed there in word That they had in truth no exception against either that former Remonstrance or the Subscribers of it We say it may be worth the considering whether when all those matters and whatever else pertains unto them shall be made publick to the World this National Congregation of Roman-Catholick Irish Ecclesiasticks can avoid the heavy Censure of any understanding man Nay whether all understanding men who shall and when they shall read a perfect and full relation of all and particularly of this our present both hearty and humble Petition and withal of the Congregation's declining still nevertheless to come to such an issue will not judge That the same Fathers and together with them all other our Antagonists both at home and abroad Natives and Forreigners yield up the Cause justifie us and condemn themselves that refuse a Tryal so equitable in it self and so heartily and humbly desired of them by us This is all we have to say or pray at present save only That your Lordship may be pleased either by your self or some other Member of the House to read publickly in the House to all the rest of the Prelats and Fathers there Assembled this Letter of our Expostulation with and Petition to them all in general being it is only to this purpose directed to your Lordship as their Chairman Wherefore concluding we heartily wish your Lordship and them our Right Reverend good Lords and Venerable Fathers and wish them in their final Resolves before they dissolve the efficacious influence of the All-powerful Spirit of God which strongly and sweetly works all the good Resolves of men And so with much affection and all due respect we kiss your sacred hands Right Reverend and our very good Lord your Lordship 's most humble Servants Secular Priests Laurence Archbold Bartholomew Read Dominicans Fr. Clement Birn Fr. John Reynolds All Franciscans Fr. Valentine Brown Fr. Peter Walsh Fr. Anthony Gearnon Fr. Francis Coppinger Fr. Thomas Harold Fr. Christopher Plunket Fr. James Tuit Fr. Patrick Carr. Fr. Laurence Tankard Fr Thomas Talbot Fr. Mathew Duff F. James Fitz Gerrald Fr. Anthony Saul Fr. Valentine Cruiz What the qualifications or Titles were of these Subscribers you may see Treat 1. partly pag. 9. and partly pag. 47. In both which places they amongst others subscribe their names with their respective qualifications or Titles to the former Remonstrance some amongst the first Subscribers in England and others after amongst those who signed in Ireland Yet I confess there is one amongst them whose subscription was not valued nor desired by any of the rest but rather declined yea and had been absolutely refused by them if they had known how to refuse it prudently
of God be wanting in any reverence duty or obedience which by Vow or Rule or Canon or Reason I do or may according to the Faith or Doctrine of the Universal Church owe either to the most Holy Father the Bishop of Old Rome or to any other Bishops or to any other Prelates or Superiours in their respective places whether Secular or Regular because doing otherwise I could not but condemn my self of using evil means to attain or drive at lawful ends and consequently of being as bad an Interpreter of that saying of our Lord in St. Matthew (a) Matth. 6.22 Si oculus tuus fuerit simplex totum corpus tuum lucidum erit as any of the late extrinsick Probablists are Whereunto also is consequent That I never at any time hitherto intended nor shall I hope through the same grace of God for the future willingly or wittingly intend either in my Writings Actions or Designs any thing against the Divine Authority of the Catholick Church or even against the venerable either Majesty or Primacy or even Power Authority and Jurisdiction of the First of Bishops or First of Apostolical Sees the Roman I mean not altogether so far as a number of Popes speaking in their own cause or a company of Schoolmen prepossessed by them or frighted or hired or misled through corruption and ignorance of the later times have asserted the former in their Canons and the other in their speculative Writings but as far as the Catholick Church in all Ages hath believed or taught how great soever or whatsoever that Patriarchical or Jurisdictional power be which she believes or acknowledges to be in the Roman Archbishop either from divine Title or humane onely nay which but the National Churches hard by us though composing her but in part the Spanish and the Sicilian the French and German the Venetian and the Polish notwithstanding they be of strict communion with the Pope do universally or unanimously believe For I think it too hard a task for any private man much more for me to know better what hath been delivered in all former Ages or is believed in this present as an Article or Doctrine of undoubted Faith divine by the Universal Church of Christ on earth than may be learned from the unanimous consent of those very National Churches of Europe alone agreeing together upon any Article as undoubtedly such Other humane Laws indeed or Canons or Customs they may agree in that oblige not other Catholicks of their communion in other Kingdoms or Nations but where and as much as they are received and not abolished again or antiquated either by a Municipal Law or National Canon or even by general Custom prescribing against the former The Sixth and last Appendix relating likewise generally to the former Questions That as notwithstanding my Appeal to your judgment of discretion I never intended to exempt or withdraw my self i. e. my person from the Authoritative or binding sentence of Canonical Delegates if my Adversaries continue their prosecution and His Holiness may be induced to grant me such Delegates as He is certainly bound to do or at least to acquit me and rescind all the illegal proceedings hitherto of his subordinate Ministers and Officials against me so neither do I decline their judgment of my Writings Nay on the contrary my resolution hath alwayes been and I hope shall evermore be which I do now the second or third time declare in Print under my own hand or name to submit with full and perfect resignation every word in my several Books even to the Authoritative judgment not only of the Catholick Church the House (b) 2 Tim. 3. of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth or which is the same thing of its lawful Representative an Oecumenical Synod truly such that highest Tribunal on earth in matters of Divine Faith and Holy Discipline nor only of a free Occidental Council of the Latin Church alone but even of any other Judges whatsoever many or few or even so few as two or three that shall in the interim of such a Council be delegated by His Holiness or any other that hath a lawful Church-power to require obedience from me in such cases provided those other Judges Delegate be competent i. e. indifferent or above all those exceptions which the Canons of the Catholick Church allow To the Authoritative sentence even of any such Delegates I will and do submit both my Person and my Writings in this sense that if I cannot conform my own inward opinions reason or belief to theirs yet I will abide whatever punishment they shall therefore inflict upon me and patiently undergo it until absolv'd from it or dispens'd with by a higher or at least equal power But to that of such an Oecumenical Synod or even such an Occidental onely as before I shall moreover God willing as I do at this very present for all future times most heartily conform all the most inward dictates of my Soul for what concerns any matter of pure Christian Faith and shall throughly acquiesce in their determination whatever may be in the mean time disputed by others or even my self of the absolute Fallibility as to us of the very most General Representatives or most Oecumenical Councils themselve before their Decrees be at least virtually or tacitely received by the Represented or Diffusive Church without publick opposition to them from any considerable part of the said Church Besides for what concerns not the binding power of publick Tribunals but the discerning of every private Conscience I shall and do most readily submit even every word also in my Writings not only to your â—ensure but to that of all such learned men of whatsoever Nation or Religion as diligently and sincerely seek aâ—ter Truth And God forbid I should be otherwise disposed or that I who believe and maintain the Pope himself not to be Infallible not even in His definitions of Faith if made by Him without the concurrence either of the Catholick Church diffusive or of its lawful Representative a General Council truly such wherein He is but the First or Chief Bishop onely should think my self not Fallible or not subject to Errour Yet I hope and am sufficiently assured that in any material point either of Doctrine or Practice relating to the publick Controversie in hand I have not hitherto fallen into Errour After all this submission it must not seem strange if I except as I do plainly in this Cause both against the Authoritative and Discretive Judgment of all the Roman Ministers Cardinals Consistories Congregations Courtiers and all their Clients whatsoever And yet it is not their Fallibility but their Partiality their extreme blindness or wilfulness or both in their own Cause and for maintaining their own worldly Interest and consequently it is their actual Errour yea and actual prejudgment too of the Cause without so much as giving any reason nay without so much as hearing once the Parties concern'd
that they might be free from all tyes of Duty Faith Obedience and Acknowledgment or Recognition of His Majesties Authority over them c. 1. This general Exception proved manifoldly viz. 1. By four several Instances of such Variation 2. By two notable Observations added to those Instances 3. By examining all and every of the several parts periods or clauses of their said Remonstrance and what their meaning in each must be and consequently by discovering all their subtlety of Ampliations Restrictions Abstractions Constractions Modifications Equivocations Reservations in fine all their Evasions and Subterfuges yea their beloved distinctions as well of Fact and Right as of the reduplicative and specificative sense 4. By Eighteen special Exceptions All from pag. 1. to 20 or last of this Second Treatise First special Instance of such variation and most material change 2. Second special Instance thereof 3. Third special Instance 13. Fourth and last Instance 14. These Instances back'd with two notable Observations more First Observation 16. Second Observation 17. One passage of their Remonstrance examined 2 3 5. Another 4. Two more 6. A Fifth 7. Sixth passage 8. Seventh 9. Their Conclusion 10. And after all the very beginning of their Remonstrance however it be in these words We Your Majesties Subjects the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland together assembled do hereby declare and solemnly protest before God and his Holy Angels That we own and acknowledge Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supreme Lord and undoubted Sovereign as well of this Realm of Ireland as of all other His Majesties Dominions This very specious beginning and these very words I say as proceeding from the said National Congregation and as relating to all as well the Clauses inserted after as those purposely omitted is and are evidently proved to signifie a meer nothing 10 11. Eighteen special Exceptions against the said Remonstrance of the National Congregation 18 19 20. In the Third Treatise Which considers the Three first Sorbon Propositions as applied and published by the Dublin Congregation THere can be no more assurance of the present or future faith of those Congregational Subscribers from their Subscriptions to the said three Propositions added to their Remonstrance than was before intended by them in or could be from their sole Remonstrance taken according to or in that sense of theirs declared and proved to be theirs in the former Treatise Pag. 21. The unreasonable obstinacy of the Congregation as well in framing their said Remonstrance as in applying their said three Propositions both manifestly and manifoldly appears 23. First and second Argument to prove this ib. Third Argument which is ab intrinseco 24. The said three Sorbon Propositions applied c. 25. Four several Explications of the first of those three Sorbon Propositions and all those Explications own'd by the chief Divines of that Congregation ib. First Exposition 25. Second and Third 26. The Fourth and last 29. Expositions questionless even each or every of them able to â—â—ict from any man this confession that for neither of both parâ—s or both together the first Proposition adds nothing at all to their Remonstrance Pag. 30. Their second Proposition lyable to the same Exceptions Abstractions Reservations Equivocations and even Distinctions of the reduplicative and specificative sense ib. Their third Proposition also how specious soever yet as from them is wholly insignificant as being subject especially to the distinctions of the reduplicative and specificative sense of fact and of right of humane or temporal and divine or spiritual yea of ordinary and extraordinary c. 31. Third Argument in form 30. Proofs that the three Sorbon Propositions both in themselves and as applyed by the foresaid Congregation are lyable rationally to such Constructions 33. Fourth and Fifth Argument 34. An Evasion obviated 35. The Parisian Censure of Sanctarellus at length 35 36. Confirm'd by the seven other Vniversities of France 38. In the Fourth Treatise Containing Answers to the Reasons why the Congregation would not Sign any of the three latter of the Six Sorbon Declarations c. THeir Title might not ungroundedly be turn'd to this other The Jesuits Reasons unreasonable Pag. 39. The three rejected Propositions or Declarations 40. The first Paragraph of their Paper of Reasons c. contains the first or rather onely general Reason alledg'd by the Congregation for rejecting them ib. That general Reason is in effect either the Impertinency of all and each of the said Fourth Fifth and Sixth of the Six late Sorbon Declarations to assure His Majesty of Great Britain of the future Allegiance of the Irish or is the insignificancy of the same three later Propositions to assure Him any more or better of the Irish Clergies Fidelity than His Majesty might have been by their two former Instruments viz. their Remonstrance and their three first of the said six Sorbon Propositions ib. The end which the Author hath in answering as well that first or rather onely indeed but no less false than general Reason as all the rest following I confess pretended but in truth likewise very false specifical Reasons or rather pretended specifical Proofs of the foresaid general one viz. by Induction of particulars ib. The second Paragraph of their Paper i. e. the first of their specifical Reasons or Proofs viz. That they look'd upon the Fourth Proposition of Sorbon as not material in their debate For c answer'd by demonstrating the contrary as to every point of their Allegations 41 42 43 44. Particularly their speaking these words We conceive not c. in their general Reason and in their said first specifical these other words We look'd upon it c. so much in truth against their own certain knowledge and therefore Conscience answered 40 41. And their horned Argument or Dilemma answer'd 42. And their saying that they conceive not what more they might have said thaâ— hath been touch't already positively in their Remonstrance answer'd 43. They might in terminis applying the said Fourth to themselves have said That we do not approve nor ever shall any Propositions contrary unto our Kings Authority or true Liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in the same Kingdom for example That the Pope can depose Bishops against the same Canons 41. And more at large discoursed upon Pag. 43. And their saying That they admit not any Power derogatory to His Majesties Authority answered 44 45. Third Paragraph of their Paper containing their next two specifical Reasons or Proofs and Arguments for their general one and for what particularly I mean concerns the Fifth Sorbon Declaration viz. their alledging first That whether the Pope or a General Council be above or not above c. is a School Question of Divinity which they thought not material to their affairs to talk of secondly That they conceive it not only impertinent but dangerous c. in the consequence to deny the Pope to be above a General Council for then it would follow that they must
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
testimonies of all Ages from the first of Christianity I say that being it is therefore plain and clear enough to any dis-interessed judicious and conscientious Divine that neither these Councils or Popes could upon rational grounds pretend any positive law of God properly or truly such either out of Scripture or out of Tradition at least for such exemption of the persons of Clergymen and in temporal affairs too from the supream civil coercive power it must consequently be confessed that unless we mean to charge an errour on these Councils and Popes we must allow the answer of such Divines as with Dominicus Soto 4. dist 25. q. 2. art 2. hold against Bellarmine in this matter to be not only full of respect but of reason also viz. that by jus divinum ordinatio divina voluntas omnipotentis cura a Deo commissa these Councils and Popes understand that right or law Divine that ordination Divine that will of God that care by God committed which is such only in as much as it is immediatly from or by the Canons or laws of the Church and that by jus humanum they understand the civil laws or institutions of meer Lay-Princes And indeed that of respect in this answer will be allowed without contradiction And that that of reason also cannot be any more denyed I am sure will appear likewise to any that please to consider how it is very usual with Popes and Councils to stile their own meer Ecclesiastical Canons Divine and such Canons I mean which by the confession of all sides never had any positive law of God in Scripture or Tradition for them For amongst innumerable proofs hereof which I could give that of the 27. Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon and that other in the third action of the VII General Synod will be sufficient proofs For in the former it is plain that meer Ecclesiastical Rules though concerning only the district jurisdiction and preheminence of the Constantinopolitane Patriarch and some other Bishops and Metrapolitans are called divine Canons and that in the latter too the title of divine constitutions or divinely inspired constitutions is attributed to the laws or Canons in general of the Church So that jus divinum ordinatio Dei c. must not be opposed in these places quoted by Bellarmine or any other such to all that which is properly strictly immediatly or only from men however taken for Lay-men or Church-men but to that which is from men acting by a meer lay natural civil temporal and politick power and not at all acting or enacting laws as the Church enacts by a pure spiritual supernatural and therefore by way excellency called a divine power and their laws therefore too in that sense or for so much called divine though not divine at all in the strict proper sense of a divine law as by this we ought to understand that which was immediatly made or delivered by God himself and by the mouth of his Prophets or Apostles or by Scripture or Tradition 3. That however this be or however it may be said by Bellarmine or by any other to be well or ill grounded or to be truly according to the sense or mind of these Councils and Popes he alleadges yet even Bellarmine himself and all others of his way will and must grant that although we did suppose and freely admit his sense of these places to have been that indeed of these Councils and Popes yet the argument is no way concluding any other not even I say for as much as it is grounded on the authority or manner of speaking used by these very Councils which are accounted General as Trent and both these Laterans 1. Because the canons or places alleadged are at best and even at most even the very best and most material of them but canons of Reformation or canons of meer Ecclesiastical Discipline which are worded so And no man that as much as pretends learning is now so ignorant as not to know that even entire Catholick Nations and many such too oppose very many such canons even of those very Councils which themselves esteem or allow as truly General and oppose not the bare words or epithets onely as our dispute now is of such words or even of bare epithets but the whole matter and sense and purpose nay and the very end too uncontrovertedly admitted to have been that of such General Councils And the reason is obvious enough vz That in canons of Reformation Discipline or manners as it is generally allowed and certain the Fathers deliver not nor intend nor pretend to deliver or declare the Catholick Faith and that in all other things they are as fallible and as subject to errour as so many other men of equal knowledge though without any of their authority or spiritual superiority 2. Because that in the very Decrees or Canons of Faith General Councils even the most truly such may erre in such words as are not of absolute necessity for declaring that which is the onely purpose of such Canon For so even Bellarmine himself teaches l. 2. de Concilior Authoritate c. 12. expresly and purposely and in these very words Denique in ipsis Decretis de fide non verba sed sensuâ— tantum ad fidem pertinet Non enim est haereticum dicere in canonibus Conciliorum aliquod verbum esse supervacaneum aut non rectè positum nisi forte de ipso verbo sit decretum formatum ut cum in Concilio Niceno decreverunt recipiendam vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et in Ephesino vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where you see that he exempts onely from this general rule the case wherein a Council should of purpose frame a Decree or Canon of Faith concerning the very use of such or such a word or epithet as the first of Nice-did for the word bâ—mousion or consubstantial against Arrius and the Council of Ephesus did for the word Deotocon or Godbearing against Nestorius Which cannot be said by Bellarmine or any other in his behalf or that either any Council or Pope have ever yet done so as to or concerning the use of the words jus divinum ordinatio divina c or of the single word or Epithet Divine in our case 3. Because and according also to not onely truth but eveâ— Bellarmine himself again in the same book and chapter in the Acts of General Councils even those Acts which concern Faith neither the disputes which are premised nor the reasons which are added nor those things or words which are inserted for explication or illustration are of Faith or intended by the Fathers to be submitted unto without contradiction as a matter certain and infallible but the bare decrees onely and not all even those very decrees but such of them onely as are defined expresly to be the Faith delivered that is as even Bellarmine himself elswhere and all the Schools now teach with him such as are said in such Council to have
been delivered and declared unanimously by the Fathers therein from the beginning as of divine Faith or as the doctrine of Christ or of the Apostles as received from Christ or that the contrary is heretical c. Non enim sunt de fide sayes Bellarmine ubi supra disputationes quae praemittuntur neque rationes quae adduntur neque ea quae ad explicandum et illustrandum adferuntur sed tantum ipsa nuda Decreta et ea non omnia sed tontum quae proponuntur tamquam de fide Interdum enim concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile c Quando autem decretum proponatur tamquam de fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilij semper enim dicere solent se explicare fidem Catholicam vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt vel quod est communissimum dicunt anathema ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt Quando autem nihil borum dicunt non est certum rem esse de fide Whence it must follow evidently and even by an argument a majori ad minus that neither the words or epithets used even by the most general Council may be in their decrees of Discipline Reformation or manners nor the suppositions or praevious or concomitant bare opinions which occasion'd the use of such words or epithets in such decrees bind any at all to beleeve such words or epithets were rightly used or fitly applyed or that those opinions were well grounded or certain truths at all Whereof the reason too is no less evident and obvious To wit that the Fathers or Council had not examined or discussed this matter it was not at all their business to determine it nor did they determine it And that we know laws of Reformation and even the very most substantial parts of such Canons are grounded often on or do proceed from meer probable perswasions or such as onely seem probable nay sometimes from the meer pleasure of such law makers All which being uncontrovertedly true where is the strength of Bellarmines grand or second argument framed of such bare words or epithets did we grant his sense even in the whole latitude of it were that of these Popes and Councils Or how will he seek to establish a maxime of such consequence or of so much prejudice to all supream civil Governours and even to the peace of the world to all mankind it self and a maxime for so much or for what hath reference to the exemption of Clerks as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power so clearly as will be seen hereafter in some of the following Sections against express and clear passages of holy Scripture and against the universal Tradition for a 1000. years at least how will he I say have the confidence to endeavour the establishing of such a maxime upon so weak a foundation which every man can overthrow at pleasure or deny with reason to be a foundation at all for that or any other maxime as I mean asserted to be declared such in the positive law of God either in holy Scripture or in undoubted Tradition For the positive law of God appears not to us but by either of these two wayes of the written or unwritten word of God himself 4. And lastly that besides all said in these three answers to this second argument of Bellarmine if we please to examine further what the places alleadg'd import we shall find that whatever the private or peculiar but indiscussed opinion of these Popes or Councils was or was not concerning our present dispute of the exemption of Clerks and that by the positive law of God as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil or temporal coercive power nay or whatever such words as jus diuinum ordinatio Dei voluntas omnipotentis c. abstractedly taken may import yet the places alleadged or these words or epithets used in them by these Fathers must not by any means be thought therefore to have comprehended our present case or extended to it at all And the reason is 1. That all Divines and Canonists agree that all expressions words or epithets in any law whatsoever must be understood secundum subjectam materiam or must be expounded by and according as the matter which is in debate or is intended requires and further so as no errour inconvenience or mischief follow and yet the law and words thereof maintain'd still in a good sense and to some good use especially according to former wholesome laws 2. That the matter unto which there was any reference in these places or authorities quoted so by Bellarmine was either Ecclesiastical Immunity in the most generical sense abstracting from the several underkinds true or false or pretended onely of it or was it in a less generical sense taken for that of their persons but still abstracting for any thing appears out of these places quoted from that pretended species of exemption of Clerks as to their persons from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes especially when the crimes are high and so high too as they are subversive of the very State it self and are besides in meer temporal matters and no remedy at all from the spiritual superiours And in truth for what concerns the Council of Trent which as of greatest authority amongst us as being the very last celebrated of those we esteem general Councils Bellarmine places in the front 1. it is clear enough to any that will please to read the whole tenour of that twentieth chapter Ses. 25. de Reformatione which he quotes That that Council did even there so much abstract from this matter or so little intended it that on the contrary the Fathers much rather seem to speak onely there of the Ecclesiastical exemption of Clerks as to their persons from onely inferiour secular Judicatories or onely from the inferiour Courts Judges and Officers of Princes but not at all from the Princes themselves or from their supream civil power or that of their laws Which I am very much deceived if this entire passage whereof Bellarmine gives us but a few words do not sufficiently demonstrate Cupient sancta synodus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam in Christiano populo non solum restitui sed etiam perpetuo sartam tectam a quibuscumque impedimentis conservari praeter ea quae de Ecclesiasticis personis constituit saeculares quoque Principes officij sui admonendes esse censuit confidens eos ut Catholicos quos Deus sanctae fidei Ecclesiaeque protectres esse voluit jus suum Ecclesiae restitui non tantum esse concessuros sed etiam suâ— ditos suos omnes ad debitam erga Clerum Parcchos et superiores ordines reverentiam revecaturos neâ— permâ—ssuros ut officiales aut inferiores magistratus Ecclesiae et personarum Ecclesiastisarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu
matters For the Canons of this Council as the Faith of this Council had the approbation and joynt concurrence and the authority of the supream civil power of the Emperour himself there in person to give them force and virtue where-ever the sole authority spiritual of the Fathers was not sufficient or might peradventure be said by any not to have been sufficient And what I have said above was that no canon of the Church or of any Council approved or allowed in so much by the Church can be produced out of which it may appear that the Fathers of the Church the Bishops did ever by their own proper Episcopal Authority exempt Clergiemen from the Jurisdiction of as much as the inferiour lay Magistrates or declare them exempted so 4. That Iustinians foresaid 83. Novel which was made by him near 200. years after this Canon of Chalcedon and notwithstanding this Canon of Chalcedon was still in force and Iustinian himself a great reverencer and observer of all was concluded in that great Council shews the word prius in this Canon must be interpreted so as I have above of the first Instance or with relation to a posteriour judgment which might be before the secular Judges in case the parties could not agree For so the said Novel of Iustinianus made in favour of the Clergy expresly decrees that Clergymen should first be convened before their own Bishops and afterwards before the civil Judges And therefore being it is just for us to suppose the word prius in this Canon of Chalcedon was not idlely or superfluously set down by so many learned and worthy men as were those 630. Bishops who composed or enacted it we must also from hence rationally conclude that the civil Jurisdiction of even secular subordinat Judges over the Clergy is not weakned by this Canon but rather confirmed The third Council in order of those alledged by Bellarmine is that of Agatha or as others call it Agde Concilium Agathense held in the year 506. where the Fathers convened there made this Canon of Discipline which is the two and thirtieth of this Council Clericus nec quenquam praesumat apud secularem Judicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare Sed si pulsatus fuerit non respondeat nec proponat nec audeat criminale negotium in judicio saeulari proponere Si quis vero secularium per calumniam Ecclesiam vel Clerum fatigare tentaverit convictus fuerit ab Ecclesia liminibus catholicorum communione nisi digne paenituerit coerceatur Let no Clerk presume without the Bishops leave to sue any in a secular Judicatory And if he be sued let him not answer nor propose nor dare to propose a criminal matter in a secular Judgement But if any secular shall attempt by calumny to vex the Church or Clergy and shall be convicted hereof let him be driven out of the Church and from the communion of Catholicks unless he repent worthily And this is what this Council ordained and the whole tenour of this Canon Concerning which the Reader is to observe first that Gratian changed the letter and sense of it in his Decretum 11. q. 1. Can. Clericum whether of purpose and willingly or whether ignorantly or perhaps that he had another but false copy of this Council different from that of all others I know not But sure I am that instead of the Councils words which are these I give here Clericus nec quenquam praesumat Gratian abuses his Reader with those other words which quite alter the sense Clericum nullus praesumat apud secularem Iudicem episcopo non permittente pulsare to the end the prohibition may comprehend Laicks also or that not even Laicks may sue a Clerk before a secular Judge whereas in truth or according as the canon is set down in the Council it self or all copies published in the Tomes of Councils it is only for Clerks without any mention at all of Laicks in that first part of this Canon Nay the last part of this very Canon it self shews the Fathers intended not to forbid Laicks not to sue Clerks before a secular Judge but only not to vex them by lies or calumnies before any Judge Which indeed the Fathers might justly do and justly also punish by Ecclesiastical Censures all such as would otherwise behave themselves towards Church-men either in a Secular or Ecclesiastical Judicatory if convicted to have willingly sued them so or falsely charged them Nor is it this canon only as to our business that Gratian corrupted but also that passage commonly alledged out of Pope Marcellinus's Epistle ad Faelicem in eadem causa quest can 3. where also instead of Clericus nullum Gratian foists in Clericum nullus So that for such Canonists as for what belongs to Councils have onely read the Collections of Gratian and consequently were deceived by his false reading or quotations of them we must not wonder if they have fallen into this errour of the general exemption of Clerks by Councils or Popes which I here impugne Though for all that I cannot my self but somewhat wonder that Bellarmine would in his controversies l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. follow this corrupt Reading of Gratianus and follow it alike both as to that Canon of Agatha and that Epistle of Marcellinus and not rather follow the true and genuin text in the Tomes of Councils and even in the very animadversions or castigations added to Gratian himself And the Reader is to observe secondly this Council of Agatha was but a Provincial Council or at most but a little National of such Catholick Bishops as lived in that part of Gaule or France which was then subject to King Alaricus the Arian Goth. For the number of the subscribers of this Council was only 24. Bishops 9. Priests Deacons who had proxy from such other Bishops as were absent That consequently the Canons of this Council may not be said to be canons of the Church but onely of such particular Churches as were govern'd by those few Bishops in that Kingdom of Alarick unless it may be shewed that these canons were approved of received or as they speak canonized again by the authority of some General Council of the universal Church as we know that divers not onely national but provincial Synods for example the third of Carthage and those of Gangra Laodicea Antioch c have been That it is not yet as much as pretended by any that this Council of Agatha was so received of or authorized by any General Council nor as much as confirmed by the Popes themselves or by any one Pope That if the Popes approbation or confirmation had been desired by the Fathers of it and granted to it which yet appears not to have been no more could be concluded thence but his bare approbation and confirmation of the acts for that Nation or that Kingdom onely for which they were made unless the Pope had moreover by his Patriachal or Papal power
the King labours and watches for the defence not onely of Laicks but of Clerks also therefore not Laicks onely but also Clerks do give him that honour which is due to Kings according to the precept of the Apostle Peter Fear God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. Finally they pray for the King as the Apostle bids them 1. Timoth. 2. saying I desire therefore first of all things that obsecrations prayers postulations thankes-givings be made for all men for Kings and all that are in preheminence Nor onely do they power their prayers to God for Kings in general but say in specie in particular pro Rege N. vel pro Imperatore N. for our King N. or for our Emperour N. expressing their names First therefore what Bellarmine sayes here is that the King may exempt some part of his own people from some part of his own power or even from his own whole power And this he proves thus Because sayes he the King may bestow on some house or Citty an exemption or immunity from tributs What 's this to our question Doth an exemption from tributs work this effect that whoever is so exempted is no more bound to the Prince in any kind of subjection For this is the onely question We confess the priviledges given to Clerks to be greater then a sole exemption from tributs but we deny that Clerks therefore are totally manumised set free or exempted from their subjection to Princes But sayes Bellarmine it is the prerogative of a Prince to exact tribute as it is to command or judge or punish and therefore if he can remit the one why not the other A vast difference there is most eminent Cardinal It is indeed proper to or the prerogative of a Prince to exact tributes because none exact such but Princes or States which are the same thing here But it is also proper to a King to remit tributes because none else may and that by such remission he ceaseth not to be â—â—ince of the same persons or people or City to which tribute is so remitted and that it may also be expedient sometimes for his Principality to remit them Nay if Princes had universally remitted all kind of tribute to all the people of their Dominions as Nero thought to do and could and would content themselves and bear all the charges of the publick and defend it too with by and out of their own patrimony would they fall therefore from their Principality But it is no way proper to a King to remit to any in all things all kind of obedience or subjection to himself and yet still to be truly called and truly essentially or properly to be or to remain King of those very persons to whom such remission is made because the power of lording commanding judging punishing at least in some cases is the very essence of Principality so that the Prince cannot remit or quit this and withal continue Prince Nor doth Bellarmine help himself by saying that albeit the Prince may not exempt or set free all his people and still remain Prince yet he may some part of them For it is plain that he cannot any part and together be Prince or King of that part whereas it is of the very essence of a King to lord it over and command his whole Kingdom to provide for his whole Kingdom and to have all within his Kingdom Natives Forreigners Dwellers Sejourners Inmates Travellers c. of what degree or quality soever obnoxious or subject to his will and laws the good to be encouraged to be rewarded by him and malefactors to be coerced and punish'd also by him Nor indeed is he instituted King to govern any part or parts of his Kingdom but to govern the whole Kingdom And therefore it must be that if he exempt any part from subjection to himself which yet he cannot de jure without the consent of all the Estates of the Kingdom he must as well in order to such part cease to be King as he would in order to all if he had bestowed that plenary exemption upon all and every part of his Kingdom For I beseech you what rational man would perswade himself that for example the present French or Spanish Kings are absolute Kings respectively of all France or of all Spain or of all French and Spaniards if in the richest and fruitfullest Territories of all France there be four or five hundred thousand Frenchmen and so many French women and if double trebble or quadrubble that number be in the Spanish so exempt from the French and Spanish Kings Dominions and yet so diffused in every Province County City Corporation and the very Villages that nothing can be more and yet having moreover so much influence on the rest of the people that they can turn them which way they please Or how could for another examples sake either Henry the Eight in England or his Catholick Predecessors be justly called or stiled Kings of England if the Clerks of that Kingdom then almost innumerable and possessing as their own proper lands and goods wel-nigh the one entire moyety of it were not truly and properly subjects to the said Henry and to other his said Predecessors Secondly what Bellarmine sayes though by way of interrogation is That if some great King doth in the middle of his Kingdom free some one City or absolutely bestow it on another he may be notwithstanding said to be King of his whole Kingdom But I would fain know what our great Cardinal understands by these words Rex totius regni sui King of all his own Kingdom Doth he repute that City so exempted or so made free by that great King to be notwithstanding part of that very Kings own whole Kingdom If so our Cardinal recedes not only from truth but from common sense For I pray what is it else to be a King but to lord it over those or to command those of whom he is King Can Bellarmine himself deny the King to be Superiour in relation to those of whom he is King And yet himself teaches cont Barclaium cap. 13. that every Superiour may command his Inferiour omnis superior potest imperare inferiori suo Some indeed question how far or in what things the power of Kings extend to their people but none at all whether in any thing or even very many things it reach or command them But our Cardinal will have that City exempted to be no more subject in any thing to be no more commanded in any matter by that King Therefore he is no more King of it Nor doth it make any difference in the case that he protect or defend that Citty For it is one thing to be a Protector or Defender and an other to be King Who is it would say that the Kings of England or France were Kings of Holland and of the rest of the United Provinces at any time since the said Provinces rebelled against their own natural King albeit we know and it
otherwise then by force he did not observe that law as corrected or as made in all points agreeable to the laws of God and made so too even by himself and by himself also published as such Yet I must here advertise the Reader that although I argue this ad hominem out of Baronius's own proper exposition of this last place of Gregory we may thence not onely conclude his inconstancy to himself but his unadvertency also that I may say no more of the true meaning of Gregory in the said words of his Preface to the first book of his Dialogues For the truth is that those words contain nothing less than that allusion of Baronius Because in that passage or by those words Gregory speaks onely of the troubles which his occupation or employment of himself in hearing the differences and controversies of the faithfull according to the rules of charity and that of Paul 1. Corinth 6. give him To the determining and composing of which controversies albeit he was not bound yet through the importunity or at oppressed by the tumults of some seculars on a certain day as himself speaks he was forced to attend Whereof also that is of the like to have happened to himself S. Augustine complains in the like manner And this is the manifest sense of that place of Gregory out of his said Preface of his Dialogues not that which Baronius both ungroundly as to the matter it self and contradictorily as to himself pitch'd upon And so I have done at last with my third Instance In the making out of which that is in the explication of that memorable and most notable place and fact of Gregory which appears in his often quoted epistle to Mauritius and in the vindication of both from those injurious interpretations of some of our own writers I confess I have somewhat long enlarged my self but not without much reason for it is an irrefragable testimony a testimony above controul of the subjection of all the very Ecclesiasticks nay and of the very chief Ecclesiastick of the world the Roman Pontiff himself in civil matters to secular Princes and a testimony yet of so much the more moment by how much we know that although Gregory was a most holy man he was notwithstanding one of those more ancient and more inclinable Popes whom the thoughts of an vniversal but spiritual Monarchy in the Church did now and then pleasantly move And yet this very same Gregory so holy a man as he was and so retentive withall to his power and as handsomely as he could of all the rights or pretences also then of his own See over all other Episcopal Sees in the world in spiritual matters even this Gregory doth not in one or two places onely confirme his own subjection to the Emperour but in several other places too both approveth and praiseth the Emperour's jurisdictional care even over and as to the very Ecclesiasticks in general Iobinus sayes he l. 1. indic 9. epist 43. excellentissimus vir filius noster praepositus per Illyricum scriptis suis nobis indicasse dignoscitur ad se sacris apicibus destinatis jussum fuisse Episcopos quos e propriis locis hostilitatis furor expulerat ad eos Episcopos qui nunc usque in locis propriis degunt Pro sustentatione stipendiis presentis vitae esse jungendos Et licet ad hoc Paternitatem vestram jussio Principalis admoneat habemus tamen majus mandatum aeterni Principis quo ad haec terribilius peragenda compellimur Oportet ergó vos ad hanc rem caelesti primitus Principi obedientes existere Imperialibus jussionibus consentire And to Constantia the Empress writing in the concern of Maximus Bishop of Spalata he sayes l. 4. epist 54. Atque ad me venire secundum jussionem Dominorum noluit ego autem praeceptioni pietatis eorum obediens eidem Maximo ex corde laxavi And to the Bishops or souldiers of Naples l. 12. epist 24. speaks in the same stile Vnde sayes he scriptis vos presentibus curanius admonendos vti predicto magnifico viro tribuno sicut fecistis omnem debeatis pro serenissimorum Dominorum vtilitate vel conservand a civitate diligentiam exhibere In all which besides that you see with how much respect he speaks of Mauritius giving him the attribute or title of Piety and calling him so often his Lord and his most Serene Lord also you see in obedience to the Emperours will what he writes to the Resident Bishops concerning such other Bishops are were banish'd by the arms of the Barbarians What will our late Bellarminians or Baronians say here the Emperour commands the Bishops possessing still peaceably their own proper Sees and revenues that they receave and maintain out of their said Episcopal revenues such other Bishops as were by hostile force driven from their own and Gregory cals this command next to that of God jussinem principalem that is according to the phrase of the Fathers as may be seen also in many of their very canons a command proceeding immediately from the Prince and sayes that it is to be obeyed as such nor doth he add any precept of his own but onely urges the execution of that Imperial command Did he this de facto onely and not de jure Did he correct expunge or amend or alter this command Did he rayse tumults against Mauritius for having said his commands for on Bishops and by his own supream civil and imperial authority shared or disposed of their Ecclesiastical revenues And yet for such and less then such in aftertimes Monitories Interdicts and actual Excommunications have been multiplied But now at last omitting Gregory let us proceed a little further and shew that for the very Pope himself by actual Instance to obey the Emperour was not peculiar to this one holy Pope St. Gregory nor the doctrine of a tye of conscience on all Popes too as well as on others peculiar to him for such obedience in temporal things To prove the former part I believe that which Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes in Constantino Papa may be sufficient enough for this time Misit Imperator says he and understand you by this Emperour Iustinianus posterior or the later of that name ad Constantinum Pontificem Sacram per quam jussit eum ad Regiam ascendere urbem Qui sanctissâ—musâ—uir jussis Imperialibus obtemperans illico navigia fecit parari quatenus iter aggrederetur marinum Therefore it was not peculiar to one Pope onely or to Gregory alone to be so in fact or by actual Instance obedient to the Roman Emperours Here you see Constantine an other most holy Pope after the days of Gregory crossing in person so vast a Sea as is from Rome or some other part of Italy to Constantinople at the sole command of Iustinian the Younger To prove both parts I shall not make vse of Adalbertus Bishop of Hamburg albeit a holy man too and most celebrious Legat of the
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
too he may be deceived in the objective truth of things and sometime to import onely a witnessing by bloud so spilt or a testimony of innocent and holy bloud against those cruel men who spil'd it for no other cause but that themselves might reap some worldly advantage thereby though otherwise they had no quarrel at all with such a Saint nor he with them or with any other for defence of which his life should be taken away Secondly this fourth supposition is denyed by me because neither the diffusive nor representative Church was ever concern'd I mean their pursuant veneration or invocation of any canonized for a Saint and under the title of a martyr was never concern'd in such an intrigue as this viz whether in the more strict or large sense of the word Martyr he were a Martyr nor concern'd whether his whole or even any substantial part of his quarrel as in his Legend or in the process of his canonization was true or no or such as might entitle to martyrdom strictly taken according to the objective truth of things nor truly concern'd any further in him or in his life or death but that he was a great extraordinary servant of God in both or at least at the time of his death and that now he was in the glory of God For this onely being certain though all other matters reported of him were uncertain their veneration and invocation of him must be not onely void of all impiety but acts of true religion and true piety and for the rest they are free to believe or not by humane faith according as they see those humane proofs alleadg'd to be strong or weak Thirdly that fourth supposition is denyed because the miracles wrought cannot be said upon rational grounds to have been wrought in confirmation of the at least objective truth or justice of this or that controversy whatsoever not certainly Evangelical which such a Saint or Martyr sometimes had in his life being they were not wrought at the invocation of God by the Saint himself or by any other that God might be pleased by working such miracles to evidence the justice of such a cause For if they had been wrought so the case would be clear enough as to such who saw those miracles or to whose knowledg authentick proofs of them did sufficiently come that even the obedience truth and justice of things in such a controversy had been on such a Saints or Martyr's side But otherwise wrought they can be no more but divine testimonies of his having wonderfully or extraordinarily served God either in his life or death or both whether he was deceived or no in some things and whether he had some times and in some occasions or controversies some failings or no at least out of want of true knowledg or sound reflection for the very greatest Saints might have been deceived sometimes nay and failed too sometimes in their duty and besides they can be no more or at least on any rational ground cannot be said to be any more then divine testimonies of his being now with God in glory Out of all which I think 't is evident enough there are several suppositions in the proof of the Major which I am not bound to allow not even in their principles or doctrine who teach the infallibility of the Pope in his Bulls of canonization and several suppositions which yet I am not bound to allow notwithstanding I do my self as I confess I am bound most religiously allow the canonization veneration and invocation of St. Thomas of Canterbury and all three of him as of a glorious martyr too and notwithstanding I allow also all the miracles reported of him And consequently I think 't is evident enough that it is not necessary to admit the Major to wit this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of S. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel against Henry the Second is false for any such suppositions or for any such inconvenience as that proof of it which I have given before would inferr or deduce out of the denyal of it Therefore my reason in and for admitting that Major in this my second answer is no such matter nor is that I could not maintain St. Thomas of Canterburie's extraordinary great sanctity in his life and in or at his death and his consequent canonization veneration invocation miracles not that I could not I say maintain all without admitting that Major and granting that of necessity the quarrels causes or controversies of such a Saint with such a King and in such matters as those of Thomas of Canterbury were in must have been just from first to last of the Saints side and just I mean according to the objective truth of things in themselves But my reason for admitting it so simply and absolutely without any distinction in this second answer is that I see no reason to call in question the credit of those Historians who relate the matter of fact in that controversy so and so circumstantiated or the credit of other Historians or Antiquaries who relate those ancient Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along unrepealed in our case till Henry the Second did so repeal or attempted to repeal them so and that on the other side all right reason shewes that S. Thomas of Canterbury having so the very municipal laws of the land of his side he had justice also arising immediatly from such laws of his side and consequently that the same right reason shews that whatever doctrine condemns or opposes such known justice in the quarrel of any man whatsoever Saint or not Saint Martyr or not Martyr must be false in the case And this and this onely is my reason for admitting so that Major But what then Must I admit the Minor subsumed thus But my doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c with Henry the Second Must I admit this Minor I say nothing less For I deny it plainly and flatly and that too without any kind of distinction And that I may deny it so deny it without any contradiction contrariety inconsistence or falsity you have had already in my first answer and in my precedent observations enough to convince you Therefore consequently it must be said that the conclusion does not follow or that of the Syllogisme which pretends my doctrine of a supream civil coercive power of Clerks in criminal causes to be false for it is ill inferr'd the Minor being false or being denyed upon such rational grounds as I have formerly given An other Answer yet may be as a second to the Syllogisme though a third in order to the matter in it self or to the judgment of St. Thomas of Canterbury For the Major may be distinguish'd thus whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of such part of S. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel which was all along and until the very last of his life that whereon he did and would
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
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
the proper acception of the word Schism as importing that special grievous sin distinct from all other both greater and less And take not the sense only from the Etymology of the word in which most of the faithful Subjects and Prelates Laity and Clergy entire Nations your Lordship nay Popes themselves may be termed Schismaticks that is to say as often and whenever they are any way severed divided or cut either from others or among themselves But 't is manifest That neither Walsh nor Caron do or ever did separate themselves or any other from the Unity of the Church of their own free will and by design nor of any others if this did suffice as 't is plain it does not to Schism Do or ever did refuse to be subject to the Pope or communicate with the members subject to him and this not only not with Rebellion which nevertheless were necessary to Schism but not even without any manner of Rebellion By what Right then are they called Schismaticks Now for what concerns Apostasie the matter is no less clear For your Lordship will not say That Apostasie is taken here in the Etymological or most generical sense of the word namely as it imports any kind of standing or going back even from the observance of the Divine Law or Commands According to which sense the Wiseman speaks when he sayes To Apostatize from God is the beginning of all Pride * * Eccli 10.14 and according to which the Holiest among the Faithful must of necessity both often and truly be called Apostates since 't is manifest that all do sometimes sin and need the grace of God and fall seven times every day and who thinks otherwise and sayes he is not according to this less usual sense of the word an Apostate lyes according to the Apostle and the truth of God is not in him * * 1 Joan. 1.8 Wherefore since for the present we are to consider Apostasie in the specifical proper and restrained sense in which it is now generally used by the Faithful and as it imports according to the meaning of those who use it whether of the School or People a special sin distinct from other kinds and a temerarious receding only from the state of Faith Clericate or Religious Order as may be seen in St. Thomas 2.2 q. xii and his Commentators 't is most evidently manifest That Walsh and Caron are causelesly termed Apostates They never receded from the profession of Christians namely the Roman-Catholick and not only never receded totally which nevertheless according to the Archdeacon were necessary to Apostasie as it signifies a special sin but not so much as in the least kind or word nor ever will Neither from the Clericate Hitherto they have and for the future will as they hope from the goodness of God while life and health endures exercised the Sacred Function of Priests according to the circumstances of time and place as other Clergymen of the Roman Communion in the British Empire do They have not taken Wives They live not after the manner of Laymen They left not off their habit and tonsure with a mind to live so and with whatever mind they put off their Regular and put on a Secular habit as your Lordship himself knows all Ecclesiasticks of the Roman Communion must of necessity wear who live here or come into these or other Countries not acknowledging the jurisdiction of the Pope I say They put not off the one and put on the other without lawful Faculty and Mission from their Superiours Lastly They have not applied themselves to business of the World misbecoming the calling of Clergy-men or any against the Canons Extra de vita honestate Clericorum And for what concerns their Religion or Regular Institution in which they have lived from their youth viz. The Seraphick Order of St. Francis nothing can be objected to their face nor has any such thing ever yet been objected by which they may be accused of any Apostasie or receding from it As partly follows from what has been said And even fully is manifest from hence That from the first day in which they took the habit of the Seraphick Order they never lived or tarried any where without the consent of the Superiours of the Order never went out of the Monastery never Travelled any whither without Letters of Obedience as they call them neither are they now in England or Ireland without lawful Mission under the Hands and Seals of their Superiours not revoked to this day but rather confirmed and that lately by those to whom it belongs That moreover the Mission of both is to the Three Kingdoms of the British Empire And that over and above all Walsh in particular now some Three years since was by an ample authentick Instrument made by the chief of the Irish Clergy Procurator of the same Clergy to His ROYAL MAJESTY and chief Ministers and Officers whatsoever for those things which concern the good peace and advance of the exercise of Catholick Religion in Ireland and prosecution of right as to the favours and benefits granted by the Articles of Peace an 1648. to the Clergy and People of Ireland Wherefore since not even according to the general Statutes of the Franciscans Cap. 6. § 20. pursuant to the holy Synod of the Fathers at Trent any are said Apostates from the Order but such as wander through Countries Provinces or some places without Letters or Licence of their Superiors nor any other disobedience though contumacious nor any other whatsoever transgression of vows nor by consequence of any particular precepts of the Rule or Statutes which a fortiori is to be affirmed of other meer precepts which are called ab homine is termed Apostasie with what reason I beseech you are we called Apostates even as much as from our Order only For Apostasie from our Order or that by which we ought or not at all be stiled Apostates imports here as likewise that which is from the Clericate or Faith a special crime far different from others even from contumacious disobedience as appears above from Cajetan and others or else we must of necessity admit the universal Church it self for the far greatest part to be overflown with a Sink of Apostates But perhaps it is allowable in the Calumniators of innocent men who have suggested these things to your Lordship out of hatred and rancor to abuse words and their sense and Divinity it self and the Holy Canons when they vomit out against Caron and Walsh the damnable poyson of their ulcerous corrupted breasts Nevertheless your Lordship would do well to consider what satisfaction an upright Conscience and Christian Doctrine would have given to those who are unjustly wronged in recompence of the injury 'T is a received Maxim amongst Divines taken from St. Austin * * Epist 54. ad Macedonium That Sin is not pardoned till what is taken away be restored But my Lord I conceive it fit to reflect a
omnibus Catholicis ad quos divertere contingerit in visceribus Jesu Christi Vale in Christo Jesu ora pro Nobis Datum Brugis Flandrorum in Conventu nostro Fratrum Minorum Recollectorum die .13 Mensis Februarii Anno 1659. sub me a Signatura officiique Sigillo majori Frater Antonius ab Oudenhoven qui supra O Locus Sigilli Ego infrascriptus admitto per omnia has Patentes Reverendissimi Commissarii Generalis quatenus vel si necessum sit eandem Licentiam facultatesque omnes consequentes de novo a meipso in quantum possum eidem V.A.P. Fatri Petro Valesio qui supra concedo In quer fidem subscribo in Conventu Montisfernandi hac Decima Feb. 1662. Frater Antonius Docharty Minister Pronuncialis Having done I laid these Original Patents down upon the Speakers or Chairmans Table before him as I did the two former Instruments And then desired the said Chairman or Prolocutor my Lord Bishop of Kilfinuran that if any could object any thing he should appear and speak without further delay But no man did against either any of these Instruments or my own Person or my Authority or what I did or what title of their general Procurator I used in Print or the ways I took or the good intentions I had all along to serve them and the Catholick Nation of Ireland On the contrary the Chairman returned me Complements of thanks and acknowledgments not only of my good intentions all along but of the highest obligations laid by me on all Irish Catholicks both Clergy and People c. Indeed against what I moved and so earnestly urged them to viz the controverted Remonstrance I remember the Primat spoke his own Resolution in these very words Father Walsh I know you are as good a Catholick as any of us and yet I declare to you that I will not sign that Remonstrance Wherein the Bishop of Ardagh did second him much more vehemently and passionately To the Primat the reply was in short That his reason had he given any might be shewn unreasonable and his understanding better informed but there was none but God and himself could rectifie his will As for Ardagh notwithstanding he gave no more reason for his passionate wilfulness then the Primat did yet because he bustled much more violently and confidently and withal unconstantly if not perfidiously I took the pains to expostulate with him a little more and expose him publickly to the whole Congregation pulling out and reading to them all that Letter of his from Seiz in France to his Brother Sir Nicholas Plunket which you had before Part. 1. Sect. Pag. And then demanding of him My Lord Can you deny this Letter to be written all along and signed by your own proper hand your own said very Brother Nicholas gave me it even this very Original which you see And since you cannot deny this Letter What is the reason you will not sign now what you have therein so approved by reason and argument under your own hand To this he answered but faintly and ridiculously too viz. That indeed although he could not deny that to be his own Letter yet he thought the Remonstrance which he so approved therein varied something from thence ever since controverted even from that which now was publickly read Therefore leaving Ardagh to find a better answer I turn'd to my Lord of Kilfinuran the Speaker himself and demanded of him likewise Whether his Lordships own self had not procured at St. Malos in France 1663. even the Subscription of about a dozen Irish Priests there at that time unto this very controverted Remonstrance or Copy thereof sent as it was thither in Print from London both in single sheets and in my own More Ample Account He could not deny it How then my Lord said I comes it to pass that you are now so much estranged from that you so much then approved Why so averse from it now We have says he no prejudice against nor aversion from it but we would be at liberty to make use of our own words for expressing our own sense Hereunto as soon as I had replyed again what you have before of wording or sense to be worded I converted my self to some others who were concern'd not to be as mute on that Subject as I had known they were continually since they sate the very first day I asked 1. The Provincial of the Franciscans Whether he himself had not under his own hand in a Letter dated at Multifernan in January 1662. S. V. to the Lord Lieutenant approved at large both the sense and words of the Remonstrance without any kind of exception 2. Father Oliver Desse the Vicar General of Meath Whether he was not of Council in contriving and sending that very individual Formulary unto me to London 3. Ronan Magin Vicar General of Dromore and Cornelius Fogorty D. V. I. two other Members present Whether they had not signâ—d that Instrument 4. The Jesuits also present whether they could deny that in the Winter of the said year 1662 their then Provincial Superiour Shelton together with his two Companions of the same Society Father Thomas Quin and Father John Talbot being for the Lord Lieutenant and introduced by my own self to his Grace and amongst other things demanded by his Grace what they had to say against the signing of the said Instrument they all every one answered They had nothing at all either of Heresie or Schism or other unlawfulness to object to it nay confessed ingenuously They apprehended not so much as a Venial Sin or Venial Transgression of any Law Divine or Human to be in it or in the signing of it though they themselves through fear of the Popes displeasure abstain'd and desired to be excused from signing it And whether the said three Fathers Shelton Quin and Talbot had not by such their answer moved so his Grace that he thereunto replyed in these very words The King shall continue King in spite of the Pope But neither to these Queries nor any other part of my discourse in prosecution of them or any of them was there a word return'd some of the persons concern'd especially the Franciscan Provincial hanging down their heads and the rest also by their silence acknowledging no less the truth of all I said than their own either prevarication or cowardliness Yet I must confess my remembrance of Father John Brady's standing up and speaking in his own concern and excusing himself where and when I taxed him particularly for having gone Anno 1662 Agent over the Seas to procure as he did the Censure of the Faculty Theological of Louain against the former and Loyal Formulary But verily he said nothing to satisfie any indifferent person being he so disingenuously protested there in publick that although he designedly went as he was indeed sent to Louain about that business yet he only desired the opinion of the Doctors there but never any Censure of that Remonstrance
Thirteenth especially considering that the promise and declaration thereof made in that Thirteenth is delivered in such words as must of necessity argue though not a formal yet a virtual assertion because a supposition of each of these three last Sorbon Propositions in that very maâ—ner I have now presently express'd or of the truth of them and by consequence also a virtual censure and condemnation of the contrary Tenets For otherwise how could We declare truly honestly and conscientiously That it is our unalterable resolution proceeding freely from the persuasion of a good Conscience and shall be ever with Gods grace First never to approve or practise according to any Positions which in particular or general assert any thing contrary to His Majesties Royal Rights or Prerogatives c. and consequently never to approve of or practise any thing contrary to the genuine Liberties of the Irish Church c Secondly not to maintain defend or teach that the Pope is above a General Council Thirdly also never to maintain defend or teach That the Pope alone under what consideration soever c. is infallible in his definitions made without the consent c as at large in the said Thirteenth complex Proposition or Paragraph How I say could We or any persons whatsoever declare truly honestly and conscientiously in such terms such a resolution as to such matters unless we or they were at the same time inwardly and throughly persuaded of the verity of those three assertory single Propositions which I say are previously and at least virtually supposed and by consequence also of the falsity of the opposite doctrines For no man at least no Divine Preacher Confessor Leader and Guide of others by his Calling and Function may or can honestly profess in publick to the World such an unalterable resolution unless he be inwardly persuaded that doctrine he disclaims in is false and the contrary true because the Apostle and reason too assures us That whatever proceeds not from Conscience is a sin and consequently that it is unlawful for any man at least who is bound to be the spiritual guide of others to profess especially in such manner such a resolution against doctrines pretended to be Religious and Evangelical of the falsity of which he is not throughly convinced being it is clear enough that want of such conviction would argue his Soul to be either habitually or actually depraved i. e. resolved to run wilfully the hazard of opposing an Evangelical Truth and therefore to be in a wicked state 10. That the foresaid Colledge of Divines consisted partly of graduated or licensed and instituted Professors of Divinity and partly of other qualified Fathers but who were also Divines although not as the former instituted Professors to teach in the Schools and that the names and qualities too or titles of all both these and those I mean as many of them as I can exactly now remember to have ordinarily come to that meeting were as followeth viz. Fr Antony O Docharty Minister Provincial of St. Francis's Order in Ireland Fr Thomas Dillon Vicar Provincial of the Discalceat Carmelits in Ireland Laurence Archbold a Secular and Parish-Priest formerly Vicar General of Dublin George Plunket a Secular Parish-Priest and Archdeacon of Meath Fr Antony Gearnon of St. Francis's Order several times formerly Guardian viz. of the Convents of Dundalk Dublin c. Fr John Reynolds of St. Dominick's Order Protonotary Apostolical c. Fr Thomas Talbot of St. Francis's Order one of Her late Maiesty the Queen Mother's Chaplains Fr Valentin Brown of St. Francis's Order Reader Jubilat of Divinity and formerly Minister Provincial of Ireland Angel Goulding a Secular Parish-Priest of St. Owens in Dublin and Doctor of Divinity Fr Bernardinus Barry of St. Francis's Order and Reader Jubilat of Divinity Fr Thomas Harold of the same Order Reader Jubilat of Divinity Fr Simon Wafer of the same Order Reader of Divinity Fr John Grady of the same Order Reader of Divinity Fr Peter Walsh of the same Order Reader of Divinity and Procurator c. In all Fourteen whereof Nine Franciscans three of the Secular Clergy one of the Carmelits and one of St. Dominick's Order and this last viz. Father John Reynolds was also their Secretary or he that writ down what they had agreed upon and kept the Papers This is a true account of the occasion end time and manner also of debating as likewise of the persons who debated the said Fifteen Propositions or Doctrine of Allegiance contain'd in them And now there remains but a few other particulars I would have here briefly advertised 1. That several other Churchmen at several times came to that little meeting as it was free and open for any that pleased to come and go when he would and object whatever he thought fit but that I do not remember any of those others that came so to have objected any thing 2. That Father Harold was he as he is a very able man that disputed most and press't hard against me on the controverted points or arising difficulties though he concurr'd at last with my sense on every point 3. That where I speak of a select number of Divines by that word select I would signifie only those who of the foresaid whole number of Fourteen were School-professors of Divinity who were indeed but seven whereof I am sure that five were as select as any our Countrey could then afford 4. That amongst the same foresaid number of Fourteen there were three who had been actual Members of the late National Congregation viz. Antony Docharty Provincial of the Franciscans Thomas Dillon Provincial of the Carmelits and Angel Goulding Doctor of Divinity 5. That six of the whole number had neither before nor after sign'd the controverted Remonstrance viz. Antony Docharty Thomas Dillon Bernardinus Barry John Grady Angel Goulding George Plunket 6. And lastly That I have been by so much the more exact in giving the particulars of this Colledge of Divines held after the National Congregation was dissolved and of the matters debated therein by how much I found it and my self also even for it traduced by false relations thereof sent over Seas For my Lord Bishop of Ferns out of his own candid nature and some kindness also to me was pleased to let me know so much though not before the year 1669. The words of his Letter dated the 6th of October said year 1669 to the present purpose are these Father Peter Walsh is said to have used fraud and force in the Congregation of the Clergy at Dublin anno 1666 and that he kept an Anti-Congregation of his own faction to vex them I saw a relation sent over of that I saw also severe lines of a great Cardinal to that purpose Whereunto he further adds kindly some further notice viz. of the late cause of their anger against me at Rome in these other words It was ill taken by all That after Cardinal Franciscus Barberinus 's Letter in His Holinesse
of the Articles of Peace and had purposed to have made it good they should have set down the Article violated by it But they have been so used to have credit given to their words upon trust that whether what they say be true or false they are sure it will do their work and that and not Truth is the thing they aim at We confess to have given Commissions to many Protestant Officers and that they and their men were provided for as others of their respective conditions And VVe affirm That for their Fidelity Gallantry and Ability they deserved their Commissions and Pay full as well as any other of their respective conditions And it is not true That they or the most of them or any of them that VVe gave Commissions to did betray any place or person under their Command or ever deserted Us or the Cause VVe undertook True it is That We finding the desire and design of many of the People set on by the Declarers was to starve or otherwise destroy and break the remain of the Protestant Party that came to Us for these and other reasons hereafter to be expressed We permitted them in June or July last to make their conditions with the Enemy and so sent them away But that any one place was betrayed by any of those Protestants cannot be instanced nor that any more than about Three of them whereof one was a Major and the other two Lieutenants ever went away without Our Licence How many of them dyed valiantly doing their duty or that were cruelly put to death by the Enemy there are many amongst you that know Second Article of the Declaration That the Holts and Ports in Munster as Cork Kingsale and Youghal were put into the hands of faithless men of the Lord of Inchiquin's Party that betrayed those places to the Enemy to the utter undoing of the Kings interest in the whole Kingdom This good service they did His Majesty after soaking up the sweet and substance of the Catholick Subjects of Munster where it is remarkable upon making the Peace his Excellency would no way allow the Loyal Catholicks of Cork Youghal and Kingsale and other Garrisons to return to their own homes or houses ANSWER It is very well known That We put not the Holts or Ports in Munster into the hands of any but left them in the hands We found them as We had good reason to do those persons without capitulation having received Us as His Majesties Lieutenant And if any of them have betrayed those places as We conceive the Governours of Cork Kingsale and Youghal did not but were by others betrayed We are not reasonably chargeable with their Treachery and We believe they soaked as much of the sweet and substance of Munster and were as chargeable to that Province before as after the Peace Nor is it strange if they would not agree to a Peace that must have let in those that had been of a contrary Party to be Masters of the Holts they had before the Peace upon any occasion of their drawing forth till a full settlement of Parliament till when the Confederate Roman-Catholicks were to hold the Towns possessed by them But provision was made Articles of Peace in the 17th article See it before in the Appen of Instrum pag. 53. That such as were not admitted to re-inhabit the Towns for We understand divers were were to have the full benefit of their Houses and Estates in the said Towns or Garrisons So that what is remarkable in that in making the Peace We would not allow the return of those of Cork Youghal and Kingsale to their Houses We see not more than that as without they were debarred from it for a time neither the Army under the command of the Lord Inchiquin nor the then Inhabitants of the Towns would be drawn to submit to the Peace so as the Assembly being convinced thereof and of the great danger it might bring upon the Kingdom to have them oppose the Peace consented to the Article as it is expressed in the Book of the Articles of Peace But that which these Declarers would indeed have marked and collected out of their dark Note is That by this means these Towns were perhaps purposely given up by Us to the Rebels For as they have infected the People they know them so ready to make the worst construction of all events that they need not speak plainly to them Third Article of the Declaration Catholick Commanders instanced by the Commissioners of Trust according to the Pacification and thereupon by his Excellencies Commission receiving their Commands in the Army as Colonel Patrick Purcell Major General of the Army Colonel Piers fitz Gerald alias Mac Thomas Commissary of the Horse were removed without the consent of the said Commissioners and by no demerit of the Gentlemen and the said places that of Major General given to Daniel O Neale Esq a Protestant and that of Commissary of the Horse to Sir William Vaughan Knight and after the said Sir William to Sir Thomas Armstrong Knight both Protestants ANSWER To this VVe have fully answered in Our Answer to the second Article of the pretended Grievances except the particular of Mr. Daniel O Neale who was not named in the said Article For your clearer satisfaction VVe have caused the said Article and Our Answer to be Transcribed as followeth Article viz. The second of those called the Grievances They say That notwithstanding it was by the said Articles * Articles of Peace See the 9th of them before in the Apoendix of Instrum pag. 49. provided That places of Command Honour Profit and Trust in His Majesties Army in this Kingdom should upon perfection of the Articles actually and by particular instances be conferred on the Roman-Catholick Subjects of this Kingdom and that for the future no difference should be made between the said Roman-Catholicks and other His Majesties Subjects in distribution of such places but that it would be indifferently and that the command of Forts Castles Garrisons Towns and other places of importance in this Kingdom should be upon perfection of the Articles by instances conferred on His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects in this Kingdom and that 15000 Foot and 2500 Horse of the Roman-Catholicks of this Kingdom should be of the standing Army of this Kingdom yet contrary thereunto were persons by instances vested in places of command in the Army upon perfection of the Articles soon after removed and others placed in their stead (a) As in the cases of Major General Purcell and Commissary Peirs fitz Gerald. That Commanders of Forts instanced upon Catholicks upon perfection of the Peace were soon after transferred to Protestants (b) As in the case of Capt. Thomas Roch in the Fort of Duncannon That His Majesties whole Army in this Kingdom did not consist of so much as was promised to the said Catholicks for their security And that of the number whereof His Majesties Army did
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