and therefore say also by consequence that he lay under some constraint and some necessity and some bond tye or obligation to pay that didrachma yet is it not consequent that I say he wanted that freedom or any such freedom which is simply such or lay under any constrrint or necessity which are simply such or even under any bond tye or obligation at least of justice simply such or which might oblige him under sin or the penalty of sin or by vertue of the tribute law it self to pay any tribute for the rest of my discourse most evidently shews I mean thereby no other constraint necessity or obligation but such as are secundum quid or diminutively such even such as Iohn the XXII himself allows even such as our Saviour himself means by saying ut non scandalizemus eos da c. and even such finally as arise only from the law of love and of that divine love which told him it was not fitting for him to give cause of scandal to the weak ones by his own refusal or denial or failer and which made him at last to give his life for them that took it from him And therefore also 't is not consequent that by any thing or word said in that passage of mine page 239 I joyn or concur with Marsilius or Jandunus in this first article of theirs not even as much as in the words much less in the sense of that article condemn'd by Pope Iohn the XXII Besides it is clear enough that for the defence of my thesis against Bellarmine's argument grounded by him on the texts of Matthew Mat. 17. Ergo liberi sunt filii and ut nâ—â— scandalizemus eos c. I needed not give as I did not give in my LXIII Section page 150 151 153. where I handled these words of our Saviour at large and of purpose any such answer but solved the argument fairly and clearly there without any such or as much as reflecting on any such answer that is on any such necessity or any such obligation of justice or obedience due arising from the tribute law or other command of presumed superiour Powers And it is no less clear that I was not in my 239. page nor am here now at present nor will be elsewhere any further concern'd for Marsilius or Jandunus then they held close to the general thesis only that is to the general doctrine only of the Catholick Church and that whereever they swerve from that I do from them and where that Church condemns them I also condemn them nay and that I am content likewise to condemn them where ever Iohn the XXII himself alone or in this Bull of his condemns them and yet hold still constantly to my thesis For and forasmuch as concerns their second complex article viz. Quod B. Petrus Apostolus non plus authoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerint nec aliorum Apostolorum fuit caput Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae nec aliquem Vicarium suum fecit 't is plain it concerns not our present controversie of the exemption of Clergiemen or that even of the very Apostles themselves or that even sayl also of S. Peter himselâ— from the temporal powers and in temporal matters For that Peter should have had that is actually and immediatly from Christ himself had more authority then the other Apostles had and that he should have been made or was actually made the head of them all and that Christ should have or had left some one Head to the Church and made left some one his own Vicar which is the contradictory of this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus argues nothing at all for the exemption from temporal Princes in temporal matters of as much as Peter himself or of him that had that greater authority or of that head or of that Vicar Because the doctrine of the Catholick Church teacheth us that that greater authority of Peter whatever it was and that Headship of his over the rest of the Apostles and that one Headship and one Vicarship under Christ in the Church and over the Church was meerly and purely spiritual and because not only that very doctrine but reason also and experience tells us that such greater authority spiritual and even such one Headship and one Vicarship spiritual consist well very with a lesser authority temporal in the same Head or Vicar and even with none such at all in Him and yet with another Headship and another Vicarship temporal in another person and with a full entire subjection in temporal matters to this other person or other head and other Vicar whose authority and power is only and purely temporal as on the other side the temporal Headship or temporal Vicarship consists very well with its own subjection in spiritual matters to that Headship and Vicarship which is only spiritual And more or other then what is here said Iohn the XXII arguments in his discourse against this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus do not conclude or indeed as much as pretend to being all his reasons here are only and wholly bent against a parity of power in the Apostles amongst themselves without any exception of Peter or preheminence given to him over them How strong or how weak his reasons are I need not care at least for the present being that for the present I allow all in general both his definitions and reasons in this Bull and in particular what he reasons and defines against this second Article as not as much as in the least touching me or my thesis of the subjection of all Clergiem whether Apostles or not Apostles and even of the very spiritual Prince of the Apostles Peter himself in temporal matters to the supream temporal respective Princes within whose dominions they live For likewise as for the third of those Articles or this Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam instituere destituere ac punire as the said Iohn the XXII relates it in the beginning of his Bull or this other form of it Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam corrigere punire ac instituere destituere 't is clear enough it may be allowed as I also do allow it to be false erroneous and heretical for one part and in one sense or even for both parts in a certain sense whatever is in the mean while thought of the other part or even of either in another different sense and yet my grand Thesis and all my doctrine hitherto even where it descends or rather ascends to the Pope himself be untouch'd by any such censure That one part I allow to be so is that which sayes it belongs to the Emperour to institute and destitute the Pope and the sense wherein I allow this part to be so or to be false erroneous and heretical is that whereby any should conceive that the Emperor could at any time and by his own proper imperial authority as such
Ludovicus Pius both very Christian Catholick Emperours deserve to be particularly remembred being they made so many good Laws for the Government of meer Ecclesiastical or Church affairs and persons as may be read in their own Capitularies though not in any of those Books which make up that now commonly called Corpus Juris Civilis That for what concerns the Testimony of others i. e. of those we justly call our Holy Fathers as whom in the next degree after the Apostles we look upon as our best Masters of Christianity St. Augustin alone may at present serve for them all the rather that no man in his right senses did ever honestly or conscienciously dispute this matter Let the Disciples of Bellarmine and admirers of Baronius think what they please In hoc Reges Deo servire in quantum Reges sunt si in suo Regno bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad divinam Religionem is the sentence of this great Doctor in several places of his Works (f) Aug contra Crosse Gram l. 3. cap. 51. Ep. 50. super Psal 2. That reason alone might perswade the truth thereof being reason alone without other help teaches all both Kings and Subjects there is a God whom all must worship and glorifie and reason alone shews that when they i. e. both Kings and People are once perswaded though but by Revelation only of the true way to worship God and Kings do moreover know themselves to be the Vice-gerents of God with the power of the Sword in order to the Government of the People entrusted to their charge and the People also believe the same of them it must consequently and even from the nature of Royal Authority follow That of one side Kings are empowred to command the People to worship glorifie and praise God for his mercy render him thanks for his bounty beg assistance in dangers his deliverance from the power of enemies c and therefore also to set apart some days and observe religiously those days already set apart for such holy duties as Preaching and Praying and Fasting and invokeing God even in publick Assemblies at Church humbling themselves before him relieving the poor and doing all other works of mercy corporal and spiritual and of the other side the people are bound to obey their Kings and other Supream Civil Governours in such commands how spiritual soever the matter or things enjoyned be Nay That reason alone yea without any help or illustration either of the more ancient holy Fathers or later Expositors must teach us That if all Subjects are by the general and positive Law of God in St. Paul 13 Rom. commanded under pain of Damnation or Hell to be subject to the Supream Civil Powers without any distinguishing note of the matter enjoyn'd unless that note which makes clearly for the matter of good works to be commanded by such Rulers it must necessarily follow That since according to the Confession of every side all Subjects are obliged by that very Law in St. Paul 13 Rom. to obey their Kings in all Commands at least which are not contrary to the Laws of the Land and which concern temporary or worldly things alone much more must they be obliged to obey them in all those other more excellent and holy commands which relate either immediately and principally or mediately and consequently to their eternal happiness in another life and therefore to the most excellent of Spiritual matters For all the Laws and Precepts of God either those delivered immediately by Christ or by the mouthes and pens of his Apostles regard if not only at least principally first as the due means a Spiritual life of Grace in this World and next as the final end of such means a Spiritual life of Glory in the other Lastly That such Authority in Kings of commanding Spirituals being not derived from the Keys of the Church given to Peter and rest of the Apostles but flowing naturally originally and necessarily too from the Supream Royal or Civil Power of Kings can be no more lost or forfeited by Heresie or other Infidelity nay nor by any kind of sin or misdemeanour whatsoever than their authority for commanding in meer Temporals especially being it is manifest enough That the Authority of commanding such Spiritual duties and Religious worship of God is often too too necessary in Kings for attaining even the very true politick Temporal or earthly and natural ends of a Common-wealth securing the Temporal Peace or happiness of the People and obtaining it of God from whom alone all both Spiritual and Temporal both Supernatural and Natural blessings come So much did the Procurator let the Fathers of the Congregation know i. e. to such purpose did he speak to them on the Subject of the first of those three heads before mentioned And they did seem in truth to have been fully perswaded by his discourse For they all assented and consented That all both Feasts and Fasts all days either of Humiliation or Thanksgiving commanded by the King should be accordingly observed in their way both by themselves and rest of the Roman-Catholick Clergy and people of Ireland XXI ON the second of those Three Heads or that concerning Father James O Fienachtuy the famed wonder-working Priest he spoke in the next place giving a large and very particular account of all he had either heard from others or by his own experience known of that good Father i. e. an account of those arguments which of one side cryed him up for a Wonderful curer of all Diseases and of the other discovered him at last to have never had any such gift of healing or at least to have lost it lately if ever at any time or in any instance formerly he had it But forasmuch as the Reader may be desirous to know more particularly such matters relating to the said Fathers James O Fienachtuy who made for some years so great a noise both in Ireland and England not only amongst Roman-Catholicks but even Protestants I think it worth my labour to give here to my best remembrance the very speech or at least substance of it containing that account given so by the Procurator i. e. my self to this National Congregation as followeth viz Account of the famed Wonder-working Priest c. MY Lords and Fathers it is no disaffection to nor prejudice against the person of Father Fienachtuy but the general concern of all our Church in the truth or falshood of Miracles reported these many years to have been wrought by him puts me now in the second place upon a large discourse and very particular account of him especially as to some later passages which cannot be known to you otherwise then from me or my relation to others The first place and time I heard of this Miraculous Priest was at London in the year 1657 or thereabouts under the late Usurping Power of Cromwel Then and there I
Synodum cum Hadriano Papa in Patriarchio Lateranensi in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris quae Synodus celebrata est à CLIII Episcopis religiosis Abbatibus Hadrianus autem Papa cum universa Synodo tradiderunt Carolo jus potestatem eligendi Pontificem ordinandi Apostolicam sedem dignitatem quoque patriciatus eis concesserunt In super Archiepiscopos Episcopos per singulas provincias ab eo investituram accipere diffinivit ut nisi à Rege laudetur investiatur Episcopus à nemine consecretur quicumque contra hoc decretum ageret anathematis vinculo eum innodavit nisi resipisceret bona ejus publicari praecepit Item Leo Papa ut habetur distinct 63. cap. In Synodo In Synodo Congregata Romae in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris Ad exemplum B. Hadriani Apostolicae sedis antistitis qui domino Carolo victoriosissimo regi Francorum Longobardorum Patriciatus dignitatem ac ordinationem Apostolicae sedis investituram Episcoporum concessit ego quoque Leo Episcopus servus servorum Dei cum toto clero ac Romano populo constituimus confirmanus et corroboramus et per nostram apostolicam auctoritatem concedimus atque largimur domino Othoni primo regi Tentonicorum ejusque Successoribus hujus regni Italiae in perpetuum facultatem eligendi Successorem atque summae sedis Apostolicae Pontificem ordinandi ac per hoc Archiepiscopos seu Episcopos ut ipsi ab eo investituram accipiant et consecrationem unde debent exceptis his quos Imperator Pontificibus et Archiepiscopis concessit et ut nemo deinceps cujusque dignitatis vel religiositatis eligendi vel patricium vel Pontificem summae sedis Apostolicae aut quemcumque Episcopum ordinandi habeat facultatem absque consensu ipsius Imperatoris quod tamen fiat absque omni pecunia et ut ipse sic Patricius et Rex Quod si à clero et populo quis eligatur Episcopus nisi à supradicto Rege laudetur et investiatur non consecretur Si quis contra hanc regulam et Apostolicam autoritatem aliquid molietur hunc excommunicationi subiacere decernimus et nisi resipuer it irrevocabili exilio puniri vel ultimis suppliciis affici Now to consider the fourth Article of Marfilius and Iandunus viz. this Omnes sarcerdotes sive sit Papa five Archiepiscopus sive sacerdos simplex sunt ex institutione Christi authoritatis jurisdictionis aequalis quod autem unus plus alio habeat hoc est secundum quod Imperator concedit uni vel alii plus minus sicut concessit alicui sic potest illud etiam revocare albeit I confess this Article and as to all the several parts of it be most justly censurable as false and erroneous in these tearms wherein this Pope Iohn the XXII relates it for whether Christ himself immediatly from his own mouth instituted this diversity of degrees amongst Priests that one should be a simple Priest only another should be an Episcopal Priest a third an Archbishop a fourth a Primat a fifth a Patriarch and the sixt the chief of all Patriarchs whom we now call the Pope or whether Christ did not so immediatly by his own mouth institute any such or other kind of diversity of degrees inferiour and superiour among Priests but only mediatly by the mouths or decrees of his Apostles or even only by the mouths decrees or mutual consent of the Priests them selves who immediatly or mediatly after the dayes of the Apostles did govern the several Churches yet it is plain that by the institution of Christ they are not after such decree made who ever made it of equal authority or jurisdiction because it is plain that for any thing we read Christ our Lord made no such particular institution or such particular provision for parity or equality of jurisdiction amongst them not even I mean in case the diversity of degrees were made by the Priests themselves and not by Christ himself immediatly as it is too plain that if the immediat institution of this diversity of decrees be attributed to him the immediat institution also of a disparity or inequality of jurisdiction amongst them must be likewise attributed to him and therefore the first part of this fourth Article which sayes the contrary and if it do say the contrary must be most justly censurable as false and erroneous and as renewing the old Heresie of Aerius and as deriving or handing it down to Calvin and his godly gang of Presbyterians because we know that by the general and even immediat institution of Christ himself the first Apostolical Priests and all their lawful successors in the priestly function both immediat and mediate until the consummation of the world were and are and shall be impowered to govern the Church and make laws of discipline for the better government of it and consequently to make laws for the diversity of degrees of inferiours and superiours and by consequence also for a disparity and inequality of jurisdiction and because we know he said immediatly by his own mouth Qui vos audit me audit and Quaecunque alligaveritis super terram erunt alligata in coelo and immediatly by the mouth of his Apostle Obedite Praepositis vestris subiacete eis ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri and therefore also the second part of this same fourth Article for as much as it sayes that That one Priest hath more authority or jurisdiction purely spiritual then another Priest it is meerly and only from the imperial power as such that gives more to one and less to another of such spiritual power if this be it it sayes is no less justly censurable as false erroneous and heretical as is consequently the third and last part for the supposition it also involves of such a spiritual power greater and lesser given so by the Emperour to this and that Priest albeit I say my judgment of this fourth Article and of all the several parts of it be such and consequently be in all respects conformable to the censure of Iohn the XXII of it in this Bull yet I say withal what every one sees in this Article or condemnation of it there is not a word in it reflecting either directly or indirectly or at all touching the doctrine of a supream civil coercive power in secular Princes to judge the criminal causes and punish by secular means the crimes of all Clerks whatsoever living within their Dominions or such Clerks as are not themselves also for the time supream temporal Princes as well as Clerks Priests Bishops Archbishops Primats Patriarchs or Popes For the disparity or inequality of spiritual authority and jurisdiction betwixt them and the several degrees of superiority and inferiority in such spiritual power by whomsoever immediatly instituted hinders not their parity and equality of temporal subjection to the secular Prince and to his coercive power in temporal matters
religious or civil or both and by all right reason it is to be condemned in all temporal Kingdoms or Common-wealth where the civil laws of the land declare and provide against it as Treason or Rebellion 6. We hold it uncatholick false and scandalous doctrine which teacheth that Apostacy Schisme Heresie or any kind of sin or sins how grievous soever or any Excommunication or other Ecclesiastical censures of the Church of Christ how ever denounced can or do of their own nature as they abstract from the civil power and laws of the civil Magistrate or of the respective Kingdoms and Sâ—ates deprive any person whatsoever Prince or Subject of any of their temporal rights or Dominions or warrant any other to take away their life or any way annoy them in their persons or goods 7. We hold it manifestly impious unchristian and against the word of God to averr that a King lawfully such by title may upon any pretence whatsoever even of Schisme or Heresie or also of tirannical administration either in civil or religious matters or both be murthered or killed by any of his Subjects even in case the Pope alone or joyntly with other spiritual or temporal superiours of the Church should licence or pretend to licence it either by a publick or private or pretended sentence of Excommunication Deposition or Deprivation 8. The doctrine which teacheth that a King lawfully such by title and possession is no more King after he is deprived or deposed by the Popes sentence upon any pretence whatsoever and consequently teacheth by a vain and wicked distinction that who killeth him after such sentence killeth not a King but a private man or a publick and tirannical Usurper is false dangerous and intollerable amongst Christians 9. Notwithstanding the allegations of some for the general exemption of Clergie men by divine or human laws or both from the secular power We hold that all both Secular and Regular Clergie men whatsoever born and residing within any of His Majesties Dominions are by the law of God subject to His Majesties supream temporal both directive and coercive power as to that of their onely supream temporal Lord on earth from which none can justly pretend any exemption either divine or human other than what by the allowance favour and indulgence of the supream Magistrate and laws of the land are in force and use however they may have a right to be exempted in some cases from the temporal jurisdiction of inferiour Judicatures 10. Subjects professing declaring or subscribing any conscientious Oath Instrument Form or paper of their Allegiance and fidelity to their Prince in temporal affairs cannot in conscience make use of the doctrine of equivocation whereby they may be said to have a reserved sense in their words or mind not obvious or not conceived generally by others that intend no deceit 11. Nor can they in conscience then or at any time after make use of that other new doctrine of some Casuists or Probablists as they are called which teacheth the lawfulness of changing opinions and practices thence consequent at pleasure or as oft as you will even in matters of conscience and which teacheth consequently the lawfulness of following the opinion of others in those you judge less safe and less probable and following them even against your own fixed judgement and practising accordingly For to extend this doctrine of such Casuists that least the cases of either publick or private contracts much more or much less or any way at all â—o that of a publick or even private profession of allegiance to the Prince were nothing else but to teach perjury deceit and perfidiousness and to take away all faith and truth and safety from the world even from all kind of society of men Wherefore notwithstanding any controversie about the lawfullness of any form professing allegiance to the Prince and notwithstanding some peradventure may be who may say and even upon probable grounds either extrinsecal or even intrinsecal the said form to be unlawful that is unconscionable yet if it be not evidently such but on the contrary probably lawful it must ever hind him that taketh sweareth or subscribeth to it so that he may not at any time ever made in practice follow the contrary opinion notwithstanding any multitude or authority of its Patrons less than that of the Catholick Church 12. After mature perusal examination and discussion of the Remonstrance or Protestation of Loyalty subscribed in ouâ— at London by the Catholick Bishop of Dromore Father Peter Walsts and other Divines and by the Catholick Irish Nobility and Gentry then likewise there as also by others after both of the Clergy and Lavity here at 〈◊〉 in Ireland We find and we declare this to be our opinion judgment and conscience That notwithstanding the censure of those few Divines of the Lovaine-Faculty a censure some three years since and very imprudently too by the Agency Solicitation and Importunity of some of our Countrey-men procured and notwithstanding the Letters now of late or even those formerly sent to this Nation as from and in the name of Cardinal Francis Barbaâ—â—â— from Rome or those others from Bruxels and from the two succeeding Interâ—â—â—iuâ—'s there Hieronimus de Vâ—cchiis and Iacobus Rosâ—â—gliâ—sâ— and notwithstanding any other allegations whatsoever against the said Remonstrance or Protestation yet there is nothing in the said humble Remonstrance Acknowledgment Protestation and Petition that may justly be repâ—ted against the Catholick Faith nothing that may not be owned and subscribed with a safe conscience by every good Catholick Subject and consequently nothing that under the guilt of sacriledge or other sin ought or can at any time hereafter be disowned by such as have already or shall hereafter subscribe that Instrument And we further declare it to be our opinion judgment and conscience That for many reasons and specially for that of avoiding the imputation and scandal of our Adversaries that the Roman Catholick Tenets are inconsistent with the loyalty of Subjects due unto Protestant Kings and consequently of a disloyal inconstancy to be brought on themselves and the Catholick Religion they are bound under the heavy guilt of a sacrilegious breach of that Protestation not only not to revoke at any time for fear favour or any other respect their subscriptions but also not to decline in any wise in whole or in part the doctrine of that Protestation or the practice of it in relation to His Majesty according to the true sincere and plain meaning of the words without any kind of equivocation abstraction exception distinction or mental reservation And to the end it may appear to all the world we neither have nor will nor can have any kind of reserve we thought fit to declare our selves fully even on all the six late propositions of Sorbon as applyable to his Majesty of Great Brittain and Ireland our gracious King and to his Subjects And therefore and being we have already in the eight first
under Titus and Vesâ—asâ—an some forty years after the death of Christ Now therefore that of danger that Christians might easily perswade themselves that they were all set free from the laws and power of men by the grace and liberty of the Gospel and that of the consequent danger also of too much scandal to be cast upon them as originally Gallicans and teaching Christian liberty which yet was not rightly understood by some and not of scandal only but of grievous persecutions from Gentil Princes against the religion in general and faith of Christ I say that these dangers fore-seen by the blessed Apostle and his desire of removing such dangers and obstructing also other consequent inconveniencies having been the only cause motive end of that general Edict of his omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit who sees not it was not to his purpose here as not to treat of the spiritual Superiority of Bishops or Pastors or of their spiritual sword or of the obedience or awe beleivers should stand in to either so neither to command or intend that Laicks onely should obey the Lay powers and Clerks the spiritual For if he had intended either those spiritual powers onely or that spiritual sword onely or if he had exempted any at all of the Christians especially so great and considerable a body of them as all their Apostles Evangelists Doctors Prophets Bishops Priests Deacons c. and as all these would prove in time to be who sees not that the secular heathen Princes would think themselves to have a most just cause to rage against them as everting all humane government and power We know and see daily that even Christian Princes even now a days nay even ever since the very first Christian Princes were nor even the most pious and godly of them did ever yet abide that as much as any one individual person how high and holy a Clerk soever should be in their Kingdom and not subject in temporals Therefore the very true primary and proper end of this general edict of Paul concludes against all and every of the above answers no less evidently then the letter or text it self in that whole discourse of Paul Thirdly and yet more particularly and singly as to Bellarmine's own so strange and new and proper invention as I have noted before that some take that answer to be which I have placed as a third answer but certainly his whether it be different or not I am no less certainly perswaded that all disinteressed judicious men will confess that both his reasons for it are convinced again by the very letter of the text or whole context of the Apostles discourse there not onely to be vain pittifull subtilities or rather childish unsignificant captions of words but also to inferre manifest contradiction in that very whole context For though Bellarmine above de Translat Imperij l. 1. c. 2. n. 7. after he had answered Illyricus that S. Paul said not Let every soul be subject to the politick powers but Let every soul be subject potestatibus sublimioribus to the more sublime or higher powers and after he had consequently told Illyricus that before he went about to exalt the politick powers above all souls and by consequence above the Pope himself of whom sayes Bellarmine the chief question is he ought to demonstrate first that the power of the politick Magistrate is more sublime then that of the Ecclesiastical although I say after this Bellarmine interrogates whether S. Paul himself did not openly subject all the faithfull not even the Magistrate excepted to the Bishops where he sayes Obedite prepositis vestris subiacete eis Ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri c. Heb. 13.17 And then produces Nazianzâ—n Ambrose Chrysostome and Bernard who all subject Princes to the Church yet I say withall it is plain enough he brings nothing here to purpose or to prove the reasonableness of or any kind of seeming colour in his answer but those two very bad childish arguments which he most unreasonably grounds on the word powers and on the word higher or words more sublime For no man disputes but grants that all the faithfull including the very Magistrate Prince King or Emperour are bound in spiritual matters purely such or as such to obey the spiritual Superiours of the Church clave non errante which is all can be derived or was intended by St. Paul in that passage to the Hebrews or by those Fathers So that so much of Bellarmines allegations here was impertinent What therefore he relyes upon as material is 1. that as he pretends the word potestatibus powers in that general edict of St. Paul may and ought to be understood in the abstract as Logicians speak vz. as importing onely the authority which Princes have and not the concrete of that power or not the Princes themselves as having that power or authority 2. that as he pretends also the word sublimioribus in that same general command of Paul was intended by Paul comparatively not positively and that comparison also intended by Paul to be betwixt the Ecclesiastical power as more sublime in its own nature and the secular as less sublime Behold his two and onely reasons for an answer so inconsistent not onely with that motive and end we have seen before the Apostle had but so contradictory also to the very letter and all kind too of any litteral sense in the letter For who sees not that by the very letter and litteral sense of that whole context it is evidently seen that St. Paul took the word potestatibus powers in the concrete or which is the same thing that by the word powers he mean'd the very secular Princes themselves who had that power which made them higher or sublimer then others For he sayes that whosoever resist that power acquire damnation to themselves And then presently for Princes are not a terrour of good works but of the evil And soon after will you sayes he not fear the power do well and you shall have praise And then immediatly For he is the Minister of God Whence if it be not evident that by the word powers the Apostle intends the Princes themselves and not their authority in the abstract but in the concrete as affecting and acting in and by the Princes or rather the Princes as acting by it I must confess I understand not how any thing at all can be proved out of any text For besides that the powers or the power in the abstract are not is not resisted or feared but in the concrete it is at least evident that Princes who are a terrour and the Minister of God are powers and power in the concrete And yet nothing is more evident nor can be out of any text then that those which are or that which is called the higher or more sublime powers in the first verse omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit are in the
He desires and prays that Iustine would banish Dorotheus and he cannot prevaile with Iustine forasmuch as to send Dorotheus to Rome But let us here Iustine himself answering this last demand of the Legats Inter haec say the same Legats suggestio 2. post epist Hormisd 64. giving an account to the Pope secundum ea quae praecepistis authoritatem Apostolatus vestri Principi insinuare curavimus ut ad percipiendam doctrinam Catholicae puritatis Romam praefatus Dorotheus una cum Aristide mitteraetar Qui respondit causam non esse pro qua Romam delegarentur audiendi ubi sine accusatorum controversia sese possent liberiùs excusare Where that is to be observed which in the prosecution of this account as it is Suggest 2. post epist Hormis 64. the same Legats further signifie how Dorotheus was carried to the Citty of Heraclea to stay there until his cause were adjudged but that he was presently dismiss'd thence And in the little Index which follows there they seem to signifie moreover that the judgment or Court Imperial was in this cause of Dorotheus corrupted with gold But however this of corruption be certain it is that neither did those Legats themselves nor Hormiâ—da himself at any time complain of any usurpation in or of this judgment by Iustine to which themselves did so often consent although peradventure they might have had some cause to complain of the injustice or corruption of it Iustinianus also the Emperour albeit so great a Catholick and so well deserving of the Catholick Church universally and of Catholick Church-men singularly as he was and as appears too for this of Catholick Church-men particularly out of the special priviledges he gave by his laws to the same Catholick Curchmen over and above what his Praedecessours did this very Iustinianus I say reserved still notwithstanding all his zeal for religion and all his said priviledges given his own Imperial judiciary power and would and did exercise it by proceeding and punishing in very many Instances delinquent or criminal Clerks Priests Bishops Patriarchs nay and so reserved that power still or a power of proceeding against criminal Clerks that by an express law he reserved it also to his lay Praetors of Provinces and to the lay Judges at Constantinople as I have shewed already and at large in my LXIX Section But to give here some of the particular Instances of his punishing Clerks by that his own Imperial coercive power 〈◊〉 know first it was this very Iustinianus who by his own proper and role power and authority Imperial decreed the banishment and who actually forc'd into banishment Anthimus the Patriarch of Constantinople Severus the Patriarch of Antioch Peter Bishop of Apamea and Zoaras the Praesbiter albeit they had been first deposed by an Ecclesiastical sentence Novell 42. ponitur in Concil general 5. Act. 1. where Iustinian speaks thus Interdicimus ei videlicet Anthimo commorari in hac faelici Civitate ejus districtu ac in quacumque alia insigni civitate For this Anthimus was first condemned and deposed by the spiritual or Ecclesiastical sentence of Agapetus the Roman Pontiff and after also by that of the general Synod as an intruder or as intruded into the See of Constantinople and as thinking amiss of some dogmats of Faith Ibid. Act. 1. Severus having been convicted of the same or like crimes had the like sentence of banishment pronounced against him by Iustinian similiter autem sayes this Emperour huic interdicimus omnio Regiam civitatem ingredi aut districtum ejus aut aliquam aliam de insignibus c. And enacted the same punishment against the other two Peter and Zoaras But least any should think or pretend him a meer executor of the sacerdotal sentence against these criminal Clergiemen it is to be considered first that this cannot be alleadged with any kind of colour or upon any kind of ground being that neither Pope nor Council pronounced any thing of banishment against the said criminals as indeed it was never at least in those ancient times the stile of Popes or Councils nor was after of the very Popes themselves until they became temporal Princes For since I confess the Popes do banish and may banish but out onely of their own temporal Principality The sentence therefore which Pope Agapetus and that Council which condemned those Ecclesiasticks gave or pronounced was purely and solely of Ecclesiastical Deposition and excommunication But that of Iustinian was of an other kind and much more grievous even a corporal extermination or banishment not onely from the whole citties wherein before they exercised jurisdiction but also out of all great citties of the Roman Empire And therefore Iustinian was not a meer executor of the Decree of either Pope or Council or of both but an inflicter of a new and much greater punishment and such as was proper to his own power and to which the power of the Church as a Church did neither in truth extend nor at all then as much as pretend Secondly it is to be considered that the words expression and stile which Iustinian uses in the said Novel are such are so absolute and Imperial as they cannot by any means become a meer executor Ad praesentem sayes he venimus legem nostrum Imperium contra istum praesentem scribit legem nec vtique extra Imperialem confirmationem relinquimus sententiam justè contra Severum ab Episcopis latam falsa dogmata ut publicentur nullo modo fieri in Christiano ovili Dei orthodoxo populo justum est neque ab Imperio nostro permissum est Sacram sententiam quam propriam ipsam in seipsa existentem ad huc magis firmiorem Imperium facit interdicimus omnibus â—â—tos suscipere abijci ergo ipsos sancimus de civitatibus Haec pro communi pace sanctissimarum Ecclesiarum statuimus Haec sententiavimus sequentes sanctorum Patrum dogmata ut omne sacerdotium imperturbatum de â—aetero nobis permaneat quo in pace servato reliqua nobis exuherabit politia desuper pacem habens What could be more efficaciously said to signifie that what he decrees here he decrees by his own proper Imperial authority And yet he further and expresly and particularly declares in this very Novel 42. that the judgment Ecclesiastical which proceeded was concerned onely in the bare deposition of these Churchmen from their Sees and cures and in the excommunication of them but that himself and by his own proper Imperial authority does add this decree of banishment For thus he speaks decreeing against Zoaras Et hunc de hac regia vrbe ejus districtu abijoit Imperium habitationem in alijs civitatibus ipsi omnino interdicit Itaque cum illis solis habitet consulat qui a nobis ante memorati sunt qui similia quidem blasphemant similia patiuntur similiter in exilio ponuntur si quid verò aliud in sententia sanctissimorum Episcorum quae
was admonished and cited by name but the rest in general who had medled with that business for these are the very words of the Letter to appear at Bruxels or Rome to render an account of their actions That Father Caron and some other Fathers of those who had subscribed the Protestation and were then at London guessing neither could it be other than pure guess that they were the persons meant immediately by another Letter answered the Commissary General and in it gave their Canonical Exceptions against such a Citation and alledged very just Reasons why they could not obey it by going beyond Sea in case I say they were the persons whom he meant in his Citation which nevertheless was neither peremptory nor one for three neither did it contain a precept nor commination of Ecclesiastical Censure That after this Father Caron sent to Walsh in Ireland and the rest of the Subscribers there the same Citatory Letter of the Commissary General and withall a Copy of his Answer to it That Walsh upon the Receipt of them advising with the rest who were thought concerned if nevertheless we did not think amiss for to this very day we know not writ at large both in his own and the name of all the rest in Ireland to the said Commissary alledging very clear Exceptions both of Law and Fact Copies of all which Letters I have here annexed Lastly That Father James de Riddere Commissary aforesaid upon the Receipt of both our mentioned Answers sate quietly down and transmitted and devolved the whole business to the Minister General of the whole Order For so he answered me in a short Letter and so it appears by his perpetual silence in that matter to this very hour Where now is the disobedience here No man was Cited but only Caron and he but once and that neither under Precept nor Censure Caron answered once and alledged rational Exceptions and Reasons not only probable but necessary why he could not obey And the Superiours desisted from any farther trouble of Citations not replying the least word or shewing they were not satisfied In like manner Walsh and the other Subscribers answered too though neither named nor certain by any circumstance of words or things they had been Cited Where then is the disobedience Shall we say perhaps that those Prelates of the Church and other Ecclesiastical Judges and Subjects and even Lay-men are disobedient to the commands of the Pope who refuse to execute the orders even of the Pope himself though propos'd under penalty of the most grievous censures even Excommunication latae sententiae which intermination of Hell and eternal malediction with a formal precept of most strict obedience nay by the authority of the Holy Apostles St. Peter and Paul and in vertue of the Holy Ghost himself in case they see some cause I do not say every way necessary but only reasonable of not obeying before they declare this cause to his Holiness Plainly whoever say this are wonderful unskilful in the Canons in Divinity and all Law both Divine and Humane and Equity and Justice too Or perhaps are not our Superiours to be judged according to the Rule of the Law to consent in our case where they are silent Where then is the disobedience But my Lord be it supposed which can never be proved that we have in this point been guilty of some disobedience and if you will of such a disobedience as is properly called Contumacy and is a mortal sin and in our Seraphick Order a most grievous crime and in our Statutes of that kind which is reserved by Clement VIII which only then according to the said Statutes has place when after three Admonitions a man for a whole natural day resists the command understand a lawful one are we therefore to be termed Apostates or Schismaticks Those who desire and endeavour to persuade your Lordship this are to be esteemed not only ignorant but mad and full of malice and diabolical fury For who has ever read the Summist's Canonists or Divines where they treat of Schism or Apostacy cannot but see these spiteful Calumniators are blinded by the highest degree of malice nay if he have but attended to the common acception of words even of the most ignorant vulgar For no disobedience how obstinate soever it be makes a Schismatick to wipe first off the infamy of this Reproach unless accompanied with denial and denial too with a kind of Rebellion to be subject to the Pope or Church or acknowledge Her or Him for Superiour Which that learned Cardinal of Cajeta Thomas de Vio following other Canonists and Divines has expresly taught 2. 2. q. 39. ar 1. ad 2. These are properly called Schismaticks sayes St. Thomas in the same place who of their own free will and by design separate themselves from the Vnity of the Church and refuse to be subject to the Pope and communicate with the members of the Church subject to him It is not Schism sayes Cajetan here to refuse even pertinaciously to obey the Pope but to refuse to be subject to him as Head of the whole Church is Schism For mark diligently that to refuse the command or iudgment of the Pope may happen three wayes First on the part of the thing judged or commanded Secondly on the part of the person judging Thirdly on the part of the office of the judge himself If any one pertinaciously contemn the sentence of the Pope because he will not put in execution what the other has commanded for Example to abstain from such a War restore such an estate c. although he err most grievously nevertheless he is not for this a Schismatick For it happens and that often that a man will not do what his Superiour commands and yet retains this Acknowledgment that he is his Superiour But if any one do reasonably hold the person of the Pope for suspected and therefore refuse not only his presence but even immediate judgment and be ready to receive from him Judges not suspected he neither incurs the crime of Schism nor any other fault For it is natural to provide against harms and beware of dangers And the person of the Pope may govern Tyrannically and so much the more easily by how much he is more powerful and stands in fear of none to punish him on earth But when a man refuses the command or judgment of the Pope upon the account of his office not acknowledging him for his Superiour although he believe him to be so he is then principally a Schismatick And according to this sense are the words of this Text viz. of St. Thomas supra to be understood For disobedience how pertinacious soever it be does not make Schism unless there be Rebellion against the office of the Pope or Church so that one refuse to be subject to him to acknowledge him for our Superior c. Thus far Cajetan and with him all Divines Canonists and Summists If I say we look upon
could not or would not see the publick of their Country and Religion And that self-seeking unapostolical design of those leading persons amongst them who sought and were resolved to find some way or other how unjustly soever a specious pretence for leaving the Country and going back to France and the ambition as well of those very men as of a number of others expecting daily I know not what empty Titles from Rome and the discontent of some for their friends or kindreds being out of their Estates and the inveterate dis-affection of many and the ignorance of others whom yet the rest would not suffer to be instructed and the pusillanimity of the remainder and the Quaerie of all Quid ergo erit nobis and in a word the unhappy fate of Ireland for so many years and particularly some farther judgment from the providence or permission and indignation of God hanging still over the generality of that clergy bereaved them so of all due reflexion consideration reason sense that they would not hear any thing which they once suspected might be able to remove them or change their own ill design that which they brought along with them to that meeting That they would not hear or admit any person or persons not even their own Divines to discuss the matter either when they met all together or when only in Committees Because they were obstinatly resolved what ever became on 't for holding to their own privat petty and ungodly ends to thwart the publick consciencious good and religious end and interest which others that laboured so much in bringing them together had only before their eyes And by consequence were even so very obstinatly resolved to give no more assurance by the foresaid three propositions no more satisfaction by them to the King or his great Ministers in coming home to the point or to the particular or specifical cases wherein their loyalty might with reason be doubted of than they had given before in their Remonstrance taken in their own true sense as I have layed it open in my exceptions Which unreasonable obstinacie of theirs or as well in framing their said Remonstrance as in applying their said three propositions both manifestly and manifoldly appears by several un-answerable arguments Whereof I will at this present give only three The first is That not only before but after assenting to and signing the foresaid three propositions as also when they signed them they kept unalterably to their first purpose never to approve of the propositions of the former Remonstrance or that of 61. And flatly all along from the first day of their meeting until the last of it refused to declare by writing or word publickly That having perused it they found nothing therein against Catholick Religion or which might not be owned or subscribed with a safe conscience But it is plain and manifest their onely pretence herein was the letters of Cardinal Francis Barberin and the low-country Internuncius's Vecchys and Rospigliosi and the censure of Lovain against the said Remonstrance of 61. And it is no less evident those letters and censure have been and are against that Remonstrance by reason or cause only of those propositions or clauses therein contained which come home to the point and give satisfaction to His Majesty or assurance of the faith and Loyaltie of such as would or did subscribe it in all cases whatsoever even expresly and particularly in those of Deposition Deprivation Excommunication Absolution or Dispensation c. And it is no less plain and manifest that as the Dublin congregation of 66. refused peremptorily to insert any of these clauses or cases or any thing amounting thereunto in their own Remonstrance as I have else-where clearly demonstrated so there is not a word in the three propositions that cometh home to the said particular cases or that expresseth their engagement in all such particular contingencies to be true and constantly faithful obedient Subjects to Charles the Second The second argument is that before they signed and when they signed and after they signed the three first propositions they resolved peremptorily and notwithstanding all the pressing reasons and evidences to the contrary and notwithstanding â—y Lord Lieutenants own express message sent them in writing to the purpose that I say they resolved peremptorily not to approve yea and in pursuance of such resolution flatly refused to approve of or sign the other three of Sorbon especially the last which concerns the Popes infallibility applâ—ed as the first three to His Majestie and his Subjects or considered in relation to the assuring His Majestie of their obedience and Loyaltie and in relation to their constant observance of their promises in their Remonstrance in case the Pope should hereafter at any time by his own Papal authority alone without the consent of the Church or general Council declare against their said Remonstrance or said first three propositions as unlawful or as containing matters contrary to the Catholick saith Which peremprory resolution and flat refusal of theirs cannot be denied being themselves must confess as it is publickly known they were therefore immediatly commanded by my Lord Lieutetenant to dissolve and were so in pursuance thereof actually dissolved as soon as my Lord Lieutenants command came to their house by their own Deputies or Messengers to his Grace the Bishop of Aidagh and Vâ—an General of Cashil who delivered in behalf of the rest the three first propositions signed by the Assembly and the said Assemblies reasons for not signing the other three and their final resolution not to sign them at all I now demand of any judicious Reader must it not follow manifestly that they neither intended to give nor indeed gave the lying any further assurance by signing those first three Sorbon propositions than they had by their Remonstrance as I have expounded it or indeed any at all home to the point by either Remonstrance or propositions for to any that disown not the Popes infallibilitie both Remonstrance and propositions must be unlawful and un-Catholick if the Pope as Pope that is by Bull or brief or decretal epistle and by the authority of Peter and Paul declare them such injoyning all others under pain of Excommunication to believe them such And consequently all obligation to the King grounded on or proceeding from either must appear absolutely void Now I would fain know what certainty can the King or they themselves have that the Pope will not declare against their Remonstrance and three propositions as such or as unlawful and un-Catholick especially if his Holyness conceive they may be so understood as to come home to the points and cases controverted we know what the late Internuncius and the present both of Bruxels and Cardinal Francis Barberin have signified by their letters as proceding or by command from his Holyness against the Remonstrance of 61. And these Gentlemen of the Dublin-assembly would impose on others their own comes home as much and as farr as