as well with His Grace as with His Majestie and His Majesties other great Ministers and for the rest of the Catholick people of Ireland that ease and connivence he could for what concerned the exercise of their Religion Nor onely that but as occasion offered by writing and printing and exhibiting to His Majestie Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Lord Chancellour of England and other great Ministers of State several papers and books in Print and otherwise of his own labours to move the performance of the Peace of 48. to the Catholicks of Ireland and to mind His Majestie of his justice to Innocents and of His mercy to Nocents But in the first place laboured opportunely and importunely till he prevailed at last to get all the great number of Priests released which had been in several places and Provinces of Ireland in restraint about six-score of them and a great many for several years before His Majesties happy Restauration Wherein he was so impartial to all that although he was offered several times the release of such of those Priests as he would pass his word for that they had been honest all along in the Royal cause during the late difference betwixt the Confederats of Ireland yet he modestly and patiently declined that savour and let those his own special friends suffer with the rest until His Majesties Gracious condescension and my Lord Lieutenants goodness looked indifferently upon them all with an eye of compassion and mercy upon hopes given His Majesty that they would all prove faithful Subjects evermore II. The year 60. and 61. being passed over till the winter came and the hopes of Roman Catholicks for what was moved in their behalf in the House of Lords at Westminster concerning the repeal of laws against them at least and in the first place of those are called Sanguinary being blasted in the bud and the example of the late Irish Rebellion and breach of both peaces in 46. and 48. by some or many of those of that Religion and Nation having besides other arguments and intrigues being made use of against such as moved for such repeal and the Parliament of England being adjourned or prorogued and that of Ireland then under the Lords Justices the Chancellour the Earls of Orrery and Montrath sitting and a great plott amongst the Irish Catholicks so falsly imposed upon them grounded on the no less false and vain pretence of a letter sent by one Priest to an other but contrived onely by a perfidious fanatick impostour as appeared soon after and that Parliament of Ireland however and Lords Justices upon this ground proceeding with strange and new severity against both Clergie and Layety of that Religion and some few of the Catholick Gentry and Clergie consulting together at Dublin of a remedy Sir Richard Barnewal Richard Beling Esq Thomas Tyrrel Esq Oliver Dese Vicar general of Meath Father James Fitz Simons Guardian of the Franciscans at Dublin and others it was resolved upon at last to Remonstrate their condition to His Majestie and Petition his just and merciful regard of them that suffered so unjustly Which accordingly the said Mr. Beling drew in the name of the Catholick Clergie of Ireland Because the design was chiefly imposed on them and upon their account the Layety suffered But forasmuch as he considered that a bare Remonstrance of their sufferings or a bare Petition of redress could not much avail a people that lately had acted as they had done in obedience to the Nuncio both he and the rest of those gentlemen with whom he consulted found it necessary by a Solemn Declaration of their principles in point of obedience in temporal things to obstruct the grand objection of The inconsistency of Catholick Religion and of a tolleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State Which was the reason that one of those Gentlemen remembring they had lately seen a printed Declaration of the Catholicks of England in their name exhibited in a long Petition to the Parliament at Westminster a little before or in the beginning of the commotions of those Kingdoms about the year 1640. and lighting on the book after diligent search wherein they had read it which is that of Father Cressy an English man and a Benedictine Monke sometime before Protestant Dean of Leighlin in Ireland entituled his Exomologesis or the motives of his conversion to the Catholick Church and having brought it to Mr. Beling he judging it very proper for the present matter and purpose of the Catholicks and Clergy of Ireland and much pleased to have such a precedent as that of men so learned and wary as the Catholicks of England for a business or Declaration of that kind extracted it word by word out of the said book pag 76. 77. and 78. Paris impression without any other change but of the Application to the King instead of the Parliament and of Ireland instead of England and inserted it in that Remonstrance which he then drew for his own Countrymen Which although it hath been often already and in several pieces of mine published in Print yet forasmuch as it was that which occasioned this general Congregation at Dublin of the said Irish Clergie in 66. five years after it was in their names exhibited to His Majestie at London and because peradventure many would consider the tenour of it when they come to read this present Treatise and other Treatises following to free them of a trouble to looke after those other pieces wherein it is I have thought fit to give them it here again to their hand To the KINGS most Excellent Majesty The humble Remonstrance Acknowledgement Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland YOur Majesties faithful Subjects the Roman Catholick Clergy of your Majesties Kingdom of Ireland do most humbly Represent this their present state and deplorable Condition That being intrusted by the undispensable Commission of the King of Kings with the cure of Souls and the care of their Flocks in order to the Administration of Sacraments and Teaching the People that perfect obedience which for Conscience sake they are bound to pay to your Majesties Commands they are loaden with Calumnies and persecuted with Severity That being obliged by the Allegiance they owe and ought to swear unto your Majesty To reveal all conspiracies and practices against your Person and Royal Authority that come to their knowledge they are themselves clamour'd against as Conspirators plotting the destruction of the English among them without any ground that may give the least colour to so foul a crime to pass for probable in the judgment of any indifferent person That their Crimes are as numerous and divers as are the Inventions of their Adversaries and because they cannot with freedom appear to justifie their Innocency all the fictions and allegations against them are received as undoubted verities and which is yet more mischievous the Laity upon whose Consciences the character of Priesthood gives them an influence suffer
only such causes as are meerly Ecclesiastical That Peter Martyr in cap. 13. ad Roman not only teaches the very same but further adds that Princes could not give Clerks the priviledge to be exempt from or not to be subject to the politick Magistrats because sayes Martyr this would be against the law of God and therefore that notwithstanding any concessions of Princes Clerks ought alwayes to be subject to the secular Magistrats And that Ioannes Brentius in Prologamâ—nis and Melanchthon in locis cap. de Magistrat subject Ecclesiasticks to the secular Tribunals even in matters and causes Ecclesiastical But who is so weak as to be frighted from any truth because maintained also or asserted by some lyars Or who knows not that all both Hereticks and Arch-hereticks too joyn with the most orthodox in many both Philosophical and Theological Natural and Moral Divine and Humane positions and even in very many of the most precise uncontroverted revelations of Christian Faith Must it be suspected to be a Christian Truth that Jesus Christ is the Messias promised that he is the Son of God that there are three persons in the Godhead that there are some Sacraments of the new Testament that Christ was born of a Virgin that he suffered for Mankind that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead c. must I say any of these be suspected not to say rejected because Melanchthon or Brentius or Martyr or even Calvin himself or Luther beleeve and maintain them against other Hereticks If therefore they or any other such as they taught also this truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from but subject to the supream civil coercive power of Princes which only is it I undertake here to maintain must Bellarmine therefore think to fright us from saying the same thing although we say it not at all because they did And yet I must further tell the Readers and Admirers of Bellarmine although my task here require it not 1. That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of a yet more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the di-drachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condemned nor censured at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters 2. That if Calvin pretend no more but that Clerks ought to be subject in politick matters to the supream temporal Magistrate and where the same temporal doth not exempt them insomuch he speaks not his own sense but the sense he was formerly taught in the Catholick Church which yet in so many other points he unhappily deserted Thirdly That although if Martyr be understood also of inferiour Magistrats as I doubt not much he ought to be his addition be absolutely and simply false yet if understood of the supream onely as perhaps others may understand him and of Clerks living still as Subjects under any such temporal power supream and acknowledging and owning it for such and themselves for Subjects Martyr was not out by saying in this Hypothesis that Princes could not in secular matters exempt Clerks from the secular Magistrat vz. from the supream secular Fourthly That although also if Brentius and Melanchthon understood by causes Ecclesiastical those which are purely and originally such and not those which by custome onely or concession of Princes or because onely permitted or delegated by Princes or their laws to the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Judges are now and have been a long time called Ecclesiastical vz. per denominationem extrinsecam by an extrinsick denomination from such Ecclesiastical Judges not by any intrinsick assumed from the nature of the causes which in themselves otherwise are meerly civil or temporal as for example usury adultery theft committed in Sacred places or of Sacred things c I say that although if not this latter kind of Ecclesiastical causes but the former be understood by Melanchthon and Brentius and if they further mean'd that Clerks are to acquiesce finally in the judgment or determination of the temporal Magistrat in all such pure Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes it must be confessed their doctrine or this meaning of it is very false and heretical yet if they understood onely the second sort of Ecclesiastical causes and by secular Magistrats intended onely the supream secular it must be also confess'd that in so much they spoke orthodoxly Besides that none may upon rational grounds deny to Kings and other supream temporal Governours a certain kind of external and temporal or politick and civil superintendency even of the very truest and purest Ecclesiastical or purely spiritual causes of the Church such as are those of believing this or that to have been revealed by God of Ministring the Sacraments in this or that manner and with convenient or decent rites c. Provided they do not use nor attempt to use immediately by themselves or even mediately by others and by vertue of their own proper authority other means or execution of such superintendency but such means and execution as are meerly temporal and corporal or such as are answerable to the civil power and sword Which kind of superintendency and supream civil coercive judicatory power annexed and I mean also annexed in order to such spiritual causes no man will deny to Kings that will consider it is onely from their supream coercive power the Ministers of justice derive authority to put any man to death for Apostacy Infidelity or Heresy in Faith or doctrine or Sacriledg in the administration of Sacraments For it is not the Bishop or Church that by any power Episcopal or Church power adjudgeth any Clerk to death for denying or renouncing Christianity or any Priest for poysoning his communicant at the Sacred Altar or with a Sacred or unsacred hoast but the King and State and their laws and power So that these onely are still the supream Judges for temporal and corporal and civil punishment or coercion whether by death or otherwise and let the cause be never so spiritual or let the crime be committed in matters or things never so purely strictly or solely Ecclesiastical And therefore if Brentius and Melanchthon intend no more but this by saying that Ecclesiasticks were not exempt but subject even in causes Ecclesiastical to the supream civil power they both meand and sayed in so much but what the Catholick Church had taught them As if they meand any more that is if they meand to say that Ecclesiasticks
and by his blessed Disciples preach't and declared to the Gentiles of the whole Earth But why this Discourse of the way of the Cross of the way of Religion and Christian Faith to an Abbot of Mount Royal 'T is paint not substance with which you colour things You pretend Religion but intend it not and so with notorious Sophistry alledge a not cause for a cause In St. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations of Peace where he treats of the great differences which then were amongst the Clergy especially the Bishops I find the true cause of that vehement spirit of yours and your and his Eminence Cardinal Barberin's opposition Besides ignorance in many of your Informers and Whisperers there is impetuous anger my Lord and hatred and spite and envy and there is avarice my Lord and pride and ambition and a blind passion to domineer and the glory pomp and vanity of the World But this too is it not o' th freest I confess it but 't is a freedom which the thing requires and which becomes a Christian Priest and old Divine and faithful Subject of His King in a Controversie no less great than unhappy between some of the Clergy with the whole Laity with supreme Princes themselves and Kings and Emperours of the World concerning Right in Temporals Nevertheless to say and write as I have done to the Internuncio of his Holiness and of a Cardinal Is it not misbecoming This I deny For as for your Lordship if in dignity as a Commendatory Abbot and Internuncio of the Pope you go before me yet in Order and spiritual power and in the Hierarchy you come behind me Nor is there in that respect so much difference betwixt a Bishop and the meanest Priest as betwixt you and me Nevertheless I respect and reverence an Abbot and much more an Internuncio nay honour your person without those titles if you respect me as is fitting For what concerns his Eminence as I have a great veneration for the height of the Sacred Episcopal Office as instituted by Christ our Saviour and the Dignity of Cardinal as constituted by the Supreme Bishops so I have a far greater for both in the person of his Eminence Cardinal Fr. Barberin and so much the greater as by the rule of our seraphick Father I know my self obliged by a stricter tye to reverence not only the Governor Protector and Corrector but as I am informed a Friend and Patron and singular Benefactor too of our Order and a man besides if this unhappy Controversie had not lessned his esteem pious and good Notwithstanding I maintain I have used no greater freedom against either than becomes the Cause than becomes Walsh or any other Priest who is a Divine and pious in the same Cause The Cause I must confess is in one respect proper to Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers but in more and more important respects 't is the Cause of a Kingdom of the British Empire of England Scotland and more particularly Ireland nay of all Common-wealths Kingdoms and Kings of Christian Faith over and above and by consequence of the universal Church People and Clergy and all Priests 'T is a Cause besides which for the side you take is wonderful bad and most false which has long since been exploded condemned adjudged and adjudged as seditious scandalous erroneous contrary to the Word of God Heretical and moreover dangerous to Kings and People destructive of the peace of the World apt even to make the Pope and Church of Christ be abominated hated and abhorred And yet so I say or as such adjudged exploded and condemned in all ages all times from the dayes of Gregory the VII to this present and at present also and that most of all by renowned Prelates famous Doctors Universities Churches most Kingdoms and Commonwealths through all Europe preserving notwithstanding the Faith and Communion of Rome Besides 't is a Cause for which and for that part I mean which you have undertaken to maintain albeit that were but only for the Popes indirect power and that also only in some cases over the Temporals of Christian Princes its most learned and eminent Patron Cardinal Perron demanded no more but that as problematical or as uncertain and doubtful it might pass uncensured and demanded this in an Assembly general of the Three Estates in France Lastly 't is a Cause which for that very unwarrantable part the Internuncio and Cardinal do so persuade urge press and to their power constrain also to be embraced and this with all manner of art and craft with all manner of industry and fraud but yet onely in a corner of the World amongst a company of ignorant Islanders the miserable Irish I mean far from the great Continent and but there indeed where such arts are not so well known that not content with the late and entire destruction of a miserable Nation procured by such frauds and fictions for Faith forsooth they would again ensnare them and would rather have them lose for ever the present small such as it is and all future hope of being restored to their Countrey or Religion or as I gladly would to the publick and free exercise of their Religion under a most clement Prince or even to any either temporal or spiritual advantages then not to embrace not believe this most impious Assertion and believe it as an Article of Faith without which they cannot be saved And would have them serve over again their wretched slavery undergo Prisons Banishments and Death And as heretofore in the persecution of the Vandals would have the whole Clergy Bishops Priests Religious as Traytors Rebels and Outlaws either be hanged at home or banishâ—t again to Beggery abroad leaving none in that Island of Saints to baptize the new born or confirm the baptised or absolve those of years or anoint the dying or consecrate or administer the holy Host to any Now if Walsh have expostulated defended and reproved as above and this after two nay almost three years of patience and silence in such a Cause against such an assertion such enormous errours and impostures such more then abominable plots and attempts who that considers the thing as it deserves can object against him that he has spoken more freely than became him But the Cardinal is Protector Corrector and Governour of the Order of the Minors and by consequence has the power of a Prelate and lawful Superiour over Walsh and yet against him much here is said I have granted this before But is it therefore not lawful for Walsh in this or the like case to use the freedom which he here uses or what do you think of St. Peter what of St. Paul what of that reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul St. Paul was the last of the Apostles was called not the ordinary way was the Thirteenth was one who said He was not worthy the name of an Apostle St. Peter was the first chief greatest Prince of the Apostolical Order and Prince
under spiritual temporal or mixt of both is not so much disputed amongst learned men as that other far different question drawn especially from the 27th Canon of the great Council of Chalcedon as also from some others of his purely spiritual or at least Ecclesiastical power which has no respect at all to Temporals either directly or indirectly whether this power be truly by Divine right immediately over all the faithful through the whole world or onely by Humane and Ecclesiastical right or else from both at least in that latitude to which they commonly extend it that is over all the faithful everywhere none exempted either in any district of any of the other Patriarchs or in any cause With which most difficult question though I have no intention ever to meddle as however I am fully resolved to follow in this point the common doctrine and to stand unmoveably fixt to the decision of General Councils nevertheless because all men are not of the same mind that is do not judge or understand every way alike many things which may be alledged on both sides nor have the same inclinations or that forward strong and constant affection to his Holiness and the See of Rome which I have notwithstanding the injuries which I cannot deny many and as many as since the beginning of the last War in Ireland took part with the King have suffered with me I thought fit to intreat your Lordship and do with all earnestness beseech you that you will let the Subscribers live in peace not move them to impatience or anger nor reject them from Ecclesiastical charges without other demerit than this pretended one of Subscription and that you will not put a bar to the publick good of undoubted Religion for the maintenance of an assertion so far at least doubtful that in the judgment of many and those Catholick Writers and even entire Universities it deserves the name not so much as of an Opinion but of Error and Heresie and also yet so doubtful that the reason is plain why 't is call'd Heresie Understand my Lord material Heresie as they call it For I conceive no Orthodox Censurers and least of all I ever thought of charging formal Heresie upon the Pope or Church of old Rome or its particular Diocese so much as in this matter controverted betwixt us formal Heresie not being found without obstinacy against the Faith of the Universal Church undoubtedly known But as for material Heresie many orthodox learned and pious men have not doubted to fix it openly upon the Patrons of your opinion mov'd by this amongst other reasons namely that Heresie is no less in excess of than recess from the due mean in points to be believed or that 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith that is assert preach teach impose upon the Faithful to be believed as necessary to salvation or as revealed by God taught by the Apostles preserved by perpetual succession in the Church and as a part of the depositum delivered by Fathers in every age of Christian Religion to their Children That of whose necessity revelation and tradition there is no undoubted and certain evidence but opinion at most or likelihood and this only to somefew of the Faithful the rest which make a greater or as great or at least a considerable part of the Catholick Church denying disclaiming condemning abjuring it I say that according to those Doctors 't is as much Heretical to add to Faith in such manner as it is to substract from it i. e. as it is to deny any thing to be of Catholick Faith of which nevertheless t is truly undoubtedly certainly universally evident that it was revealed by Christ and deposited by the Apostles as much as any other Article of Faith Now who does not see that these who teach that Assertion of the Popes right over the Temporals of Princes as a point of Catholick Faith without the belief of which or with the witting denial of which none can be saved or entirely profess the Christian Catholick Faith relie upon Arguments at best but probable and grounding only opinion against the greater or equal or indeed the far greater remaining part of the Catholick Church which in all ages of Christianity have denied and still persevere to deny disclaim abjure that Position as impious and contrary to the doctrine received by Tradition and without difficulty solve such Arguments which they look upon as Spiders webs as ridiculous Sophisms as Trifles and pure Toyes And indeed some orthodox Doctors moved by this discourse not to mention other Reasons fear not to brand your Position with the note of Heresie But if your Lordship desire my own opinion in the case I must confess ingenuously I see not why it is not as much truly an intollerable error to assert in Popes Bishops Priests or any of the Clergy or even Laity a power to be believed as of divine Catholick Faith which does not certainly and evidently appear from the Rule of Faith that is either from Scripture or Tradition or both as it is to deny a power which does so appear * * See Bellarmine himself de Conc. l. 4. c. 4. where he teaches Errorem esse intollerabilem proponere aliquid credendum tamquam articulum fidei de quo non constet an sit verum vel falsum At last my Lord I conclude this long Letter and yet I neither repent my labour nor ask pardon for my prolixity since it no way more concerns Walsh to write Truth than it does an Internuncio to read it And if your Lordship be of the same judgment it will be well if otherwise I must bear it with patience Let it suffice me to have done what became an honest man videlicet to have refuted slanders reproaches revilings to have proved Caron and Walsh were causelesly term'd by your Lordship either Schismaticks or Apostates or which is less yet any way disobedient causelesly by contempt men of dirt causelesly also raisers of I know not what troubles to the Church of God lastly that without cause it was said to Gearnon's face he had better have been in his grave than subscribed Let it suffice to have defended the freedom of expostulating in a cause most just to have shewn it reasonable and answered those things which with most apparence are alledged to the contrary Lastly let it suffice that for a conclusion I have made you a hearty Prayer and a Petition no less earnest adding at the end and for a complement of the whole discourse that reason of so urgent a Petition which swayes with those Divines who censure with freedom your doctrine Neither have I more to add but onely my wishes that for the future the Internuncio's of Bruxels may be more men of heavenly spirit at least when they have to do with men of earthly dirt Which humbly saluting your Lordship and kissing your hands with all due respect and affection truly and from his soul wishes My LORD
never to do an act of charity c. would be plain disobedience to the Commands of God would be damnation to their Souls Or will they deny but their foolish excuse of blind obedience to their earthly Superiours injunctions would not in this case justifie them either before God or men nor likewise that other senseless evasion That it is not their parts to examine the justice of the Commands imposed upon them by their Prelates but simply to do what they are bid Will not they also confess if we reason with them a little further that it is therefore they should not obey and these excuses would not serve them in such a case because such Commands would be against the Law of God And will not they admit their knowledge hereof to be derived hence that they see it so expressed in Scriptures Fathers Doctors of the Catholick Roman Church in all Ages let it now be supposed that their Superiours should tell them the contrary in the same case How therefore do they on such mad pretences obey the Commands of their Superiours enjoining them to substract Civil obedience from the Supreme Civil power in a matter concerning the peace and tranquility of the Commonwealth and in a matter wherein their Superiours cannot shew nor themselves can see any evil implied Do not they see it is against the express Law of God to substract obedience from the Civil power in this case Do not the Scriptures Councils * Concil Tol. x. c. 2. Si quis religiosorum ab Episcopo usque ad extremi ordiâ—is Clericum sive Monachum generalia juramenta in saluteâ— Regium gentisque aut Patriae data reperiatur violasse voluntate profana mox propria dignitate privatum loco honore habeatur exclusus Becanus in Sum. Theol. de bonit act in t c. 4. q. 7. con 4. alii apud ipsum Fathers Doctors the practice of the Church of Christ in all Ages proclaim it They cannot be ignorant hereof and if any of them hath been hitherto certainly their ignorance can be no longer invincible that is such as might not be overcome by humane industry nor probable that is which hath probable reasons to maintain their disobedience to the Council For what reasons can be probable against the plain sense of Holy Scriptures and the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Catholick Church in all Ages As for affected ignorance gross vincible or improbable none of them excuse from damnation according to the sense of all Catholick Writers But alas Ignorance is not the cause of sinful Obstinacy Malice and a natural inclination occasioneth it in very many a rash engagement in others hopes of preferment to Benefices and Superiority in others in others a stupid fear of losing what they had being persuaded by experience of the former revolution that an Excommunication the most unjust would alter the whole frame of Government and that there should be no living in Ireland for any would oppose the Lord Nuncio's design herein or the power of Owen O Neill Behold the true causes of their Obstinacy In others an apprehension of shame and disgrace in reclaiming an error and falling from this way they once resolved on and no sense of Conscience Behold the reason why even the best and most learned amongst them being demanded the ground of their opposition do say commonly That they will neither give reason nor take reason and when they speak their mind at full do now at last only censure the intention which the Council and their Adherents had in the concluding the Cessation because they find no other cause and yet would seem not without some cause to reject it which they are engaged for so many unworthy causes to oppose But who sees not in our Answers to the first and second Querie the false imposture of this last refuge Yet by reason they make hereof more use than of any other we briefly propose the ensuing considerations First That the Declaration and Censures of the Lord Nuncio Congregation and Delegates in obedience to which they disobey the Council were not against such evil intentions but against the very substance of the Articles of Cessation as in themselves evil and unconscionable 'T is manifest to any that please to read and peruse the tenour of both Decrees which contain not a word importing other sense Bâ—n tract de Legib. disp 1. q. 1. punct 8. prop. 2. alii apud ipsuâ— ibid. and therefore cannot be extended to evil intentions though we granted such intentions to have been in regard a penal Decree or Law is to be restrained not extended according to the Maxim of Canonists Wherefore this recourse of theirs to evil intentions and their not shewing any other evil in the object that is in the Cessation it self or in the conclusion and observation of it concludes an Errour in the decree or sentence of Excommunication and consequently disannuls it and leaves them no reasonable pretence for disobeying the Council since their pretence is the supposed obligation of the Censures which even their own Answer takes away The second is Though it were granted that the Council or others who negotiated the affair of Cessation had such intentions at first or upon the perfection of it yet might they have changed such evil intentions into good during the Nine dayes given in the monitory Decree for deliberation and consequently if there be no other evil but of their intentions how could the Nuncio proceed to execute his Censures since they protested in their Appeal before the Ninth day and in other Printed Declarations that they had no such intention Nay how could he proceed to this execution though they never had made any such exteriour Protestation whereas without it they might have taken away the ground of the Excommunication to wit the supposed evil intentions The third That questionless our opposites will not deny but Thousands are of the Confederates who desired and embraced the Cessation not out of any such evil intention but for a just end and for their own preservation How then could such be Excommunicated since the ground of this Excommunication to wit evil intention is not to be found in them And if these be not Excommunicated is it not plain That none is Excommunicated whose Conscience tells him That he did not adhere to the Cessation with any evil intention How then doth the Nuncio proceed indifferently against them all as Excommunicated persons Nay how can he proceed against any of them as such but only against him or them whose naughty intentions are apparent and whose intentions can be apparent to him but either out of confession or secundum allegata probata by exteriour proofs for God alone is Judge of the interiour not the Church And who is it that was so convicted or confessed before him such intentions Nay who is it was summon'd to his Tribunal for such a business The fourth Consideration is of the
considering also their promise in their said Letter recited that the Bishop and Dr. Charles Kelly should clearly deliver unto Us their thoughts and good intentions and the declaration of their sincere hearts By all VVe have written VVe desire to let you see how unhandsomly to say no more VVe have been dealt withal by those Bishops that when upon Our observation of the backwardness of the Towns to give Us obedience VVe applied Our Self with so much freedom to them who VVe and VVe believe by this time you are satisfied obstructed it instead of dealing plainly with Us as VVe so often desired them they would have held Us on with promises of great endeavours on their part to procure Us obedience and so continued seemingly well satisfied with Us till unprovoked by any thing from Us they break forth with their dreadful Excommunication when both in the County of Lymerick and Athlone the Rebels were endeavouring to force a passage VVhat an invasion these proceedings of theirs is upon the Regal power is not now to the purpose to declare But whether in them there be any usurpation upon the freedom of the Nobility and Commons is fit for you to consider The injustice of this kind of dealing VVe suppose is by this time plain enough to you It remains to shew you even by their own actions That supposing them to have proceeded by full warrant and upon just ground yet their rashness is not excusable as appears in that as they hastily denounced their Excommunication on the 15th of September so was it more wisely suspended by the same men on the 16th following in the Lord Marquess of Clanrickard's Camp VVhether so dreadful a weapon as they make that sentence be thus to be play'd with to make Rebels sport VVe leave to the examination of those that are in some respects more concerned than VVe are But that their allegation of the Peoples aversion to Our government is but a Cloak to cover their own fond Ambition to govern them or rather to bring them to confusion is manifest For as by their Excommunication they are forced to confess against all their Protestations That indeed they labour to bring them to such an aversion so by being forced immediately unsought by Us to suspend it they acknowledge they have not fully compleated their work As is more evident by these following Letters from the Bishop of Clonfert and Dr. Charles Kelly to the Officers of the Army under the command of the Lord Marquess of Clanrickard and from the Bishops of Raphoe Killala and Fearnes to the Earl of Westmeath and other Officers Sirs YEsterday We have received an Express from the rest of our Congregation at Galway bearing their sense to suspend the effects of the Excommunication proclaimed by their Orders till the service of Athlone be performed fearing on the one side the dispersion of the Army and on the other having received most certain intelligence of the Enemies approach unto that place with their full force and number of fighting men and thereupon would have us concur with them in suspending the said Excommunication As for our part we do judge that suspension unnecessary and full of inconveniencies which we apprehend may ensue because the Excommunication may be obeyed and the service not neglected if People were pleased to undertake the service in the Clergies name without relation to the Lord of Ormond or any that may take his part yet fearing the censure of singularity in matters of so high a strain against us or to be deemed more forward in excommunicating than others also fearing the weakness of some which we believe the Congregation feared we are pleased to follow the major vote and against our own opinion concur with them and do hereby suspend the said Censure as above Provided alwayes That after that service performed or the service be thought unnecessary by the Clergy or when the said Clergy will renew it it shall be presently incurred as if the said Suspension had never been interposed And so we remain Your affectionate loving Friends in Christ Jesus Walter B. Clonfert Charles Kelly Corbeg Sept. 16. 1650. Our very good Lords and Sirs THE Colonels Mr. Alexander Mac Donnel Bryen O Neill and Randal Mac Donnel like obedient Children of Holy Church have offered themselves to put up for the Clergy and that before Publication of the Declaration and Excommunication God will bless their good intentions They go now to join with you on this side of the Shannon and by making one Body to put forward our cause This is the best way we can think of to encourage the well-affected and curb the malignant and obstinate The Lord Bishop of Killaloe being taken Prisoner by the Lord Lieutenant the Cavaliers would have had him forthwith hanged if his Excellency had given way thereunto His Excellency is giving Patents to as many Catholicks as are Excommunication-proof Ireland is an accursed Countrey that hath so many rotten members Though things go hard with us God will bring the work to a good end When you meet with those Colonels confer of what service to take in hand Est periculum in mora Praying to God to protect you in your wayes we remain Your very loving Friends Joan Rapotensis Fran Alâ—â—â—usis Nich Fernensis Galway Sept. 21. 1650. To our very good Lords the Earl of Westmeath the Lords Bishops of Leghlin Cloanmacnoise and Dromore Sir James Preston Knight Colonel Bryen Mac Phelim Colonel Lewis Moore Colonel Arthur Fox and the rest of the Commanders of the Leinster Forces By which expressions it appears That however their practises found Subjects fit to be wrought upon in the Cities and Towns and some loose people in the Countrey addicted to Rebellion and Rapine for such are all those they have still esteemed obedient Children of Holy Church yet had they not power to draw together any considerable Party to set up their new Government only they were able to hinder the established Government from opposing the Enemy To conclude this Head Would any man that had never so little care of a Peoples welfare or foresight of what tended plainly to their destruction have set them loose from all Government Civil and Martial at such a time when a potent Enemy was in the Field and never tell them when they should follow or obey If it be said they made provision for it in their Declaration it will readily be answered That they are only thereby directed to return to their Association and until a General Assembly of the Nation can be conveniently called together unanimously to serve against the Common Enemy But under what conduct they are to seek from a Congregation In the mean time if those with Us in the County of Clare and under the Lord Marquess of Clanrickard had obeyed this wild direction or taken occasion to disperse the Rebels had passed the River of Shannon at both ends and spoiled both Assembly and Congregation The grounds of their proceeding to an Excommunicating of
the Tridentine Fathers but also quite contrary to those Doctrines and Practises which are manifestly recommended in the letter sense and whole design of the Gospel of Christ in the writings of his blessed Apostles in the Commentaries of their holy Successors in the belief and life of the Christian Church universally for the first Ten Ages thereof and moreover in the very clearest dictates of Nature it self whether Christianity be supposed or not IV. That of those quite other and quite contrary Doctrines in the most general terms without descending to particular applications of them to any one Kingdom or People c the grand Positions are as followeth viz. That by divine right and immediate institution of Christ the Bishop of Rome is Vniversal Monarch and Governour of the World even with sovereign independent both spiritual and temporal authority over all Churches Nations Empires Kingdoms States Principalities and over all persons Emperours Kings Princes Prelates Governours Priests and People both Orthodox and Heterodox Christian and Infidel and in all things and causes whatsoever as well Temporal and Civil as Ecclesiastical or Spiritual That He hath the absolute power of both Swords given Him That He is the Fountain of all Jurisdiction of either kind on Earth and that whoever derives not from Him hath none at all not even any the least Civil or Temporal Jurisdiction That He is the onely Supreme Judge of all Persons and Powers even collectively taken and in all manner of things divine and humane That all humane Creatures are bound under forfeiture of Eternal Salvation to be subject to Him i. e. to both His Swords That He is empowred with lawful Authority not only to Excommunicate but to deprive depose and dethrone both sententially and effectually all Princes Kings and Emperours to translate their Royal Rights and dispose of their Kingdoms to others when and how He shall think fit especially in case either of Apostasie or Heresie or Schism or breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or any publick oppression of the Church or People in their respective civil or religious Rights or even in case of any other enormous publick Sins nay in case of only unfitness to govern That to this purpose He hath full Authority and Plenitude of Apostolical Power to dispense with Subjects in and absolve them from all Oaths of Allegiance and from the antecedent tyes also of the Laws of God or man and to set them at full liberty nay to command them under Excommunication and what other Penalties He please to raise Arms against their so deposed or so excommunicated or otherwise ill-meriting Princes and to pursue them with Fire and Sword to death if they resist or continue their administration or their claim thereunto against His will That He hath likewise power to dispense not only in all Vows whatsoever made either immediately or mediately to God himself nor only as hath been now said in the Oath of Allegiance sworn to the King but in all other Oaths or Promises under Oath made even to any other man whatsoever the subject or thing sworn be That besides Oaths and Vows He can dispense in other matters also even against the Apostles against the Old Testament against the Four Evangelists and consequently against the Law of God That whoever kills any Prince deposed or excommunicated by Him or by others deriving power from Him kills not a lawful Prince but an usurping Tyrant a Tyrant at least by Title if not by Administration too and therefore cannot be said to murther the Anointed of God or even to kill his own Prince That whosoever out of pure zeal to the Roman-Church ventures himself and dyes in a War against such a Tyrant i.e. against such a deposed or excommunicated Prince dyes a true Martyr of Christ and his Soul flies to Heaven immediately That His Holiness may give and doth well to give plenary Indulgence of all their sins a culpa poena to all Subjects rebelling and fighting against their Princes when He approves of the War That antecedently to any special Judgment Declaration or declaratory Sentence pronounced by the Pope or any other subordinate Judge against any particular person Heresie does ipso jure both incapacitate to and deprive of the Crown and all other not only royal but real and personal Rights whatsoever That an Heretick possessor is a manifest Vsurper and a Tyrant also if the possession be a Kingdom State or Principality and therefore is ipso jure out-law'd and that all his People i. e. all his otherwise reputed Vassals Tenants or Subjects are likewise ipso jure absolved from all Oaths and all other tyes whatsoever of fidelity or obedience to him That he is truly and certainly and properly an Heretick who misbelieves calls in question or even doubts of any one definition of the Tridentine Council or of any one that is of meer Papal Constitution or of any one of those Articles profess'd in Pius Quartus 's Creed That not only the Pope but any Patriarch nay any inferiour Bishop acknowledging His Holiness may if need be both excommunicate and depose their own respective Princes Kings or Emperours and may also without their leave or knowledge reverse the Decrees of their Vice-Roys or Lieutenants and even censure depose from and restore again such Lieutenants to their former dignity and charge That all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever both Men and Women Secular and Regular Patriarchs Primaâ—s Archbishops Bishops Abbots Abbesses Priests Fryars Monks Nuâ—s to the very Porter or Portress of a Cloyster inclusively nay to the very Scullion of the Kitchin and all their Churches Houses Lands Revenues Goods and much more all their persons are exempt by the Law of Nature and Laws of Nations and those of God in Holy Scripture both Old and New Testament and those of men i. e. of Christian Emperours Councils and Popes in their respective Institutions and Canons and are indeed universally perpetually and irrevocably so exempt from all secular civil and temporal Authority on Earth whether of States or of Princes of Kings or of Emperours and from all their Laws and all their Commands that is from both the directive and coercive virtue of either or which is the same thing in effect from sin against God and from punishment by God or man for only transgressing them That consequently if any Church-man should murder his lawful and rightful King blow up the Parliament fire burn and lay waste all the Kingdom yet he could not be therefore guilty of Treason or truly called a Traytor against the King or against the Kingdom or People or Laws thereof no nor could justly be punish'd at all by the secular Magistrate or Laws of the Land without special permission from the Pope or those deriving Authority from Him That nevertheless all Clergy-men regular and secular in the World from the meanest either Accolits or Converts to the highest Generals of Orders and greatest Patriarchs of Nations inclusively may be out of all Kingdoms and even contrary to
You may at the very first hearing of this Proposal plainly discover their design to be no other than by such indirect means of cunning delayes under pretence of filial reverence forsooth to hinder you for ever from professing at least to any purpose i. e. in a sufficient manner or by any sufficient Formulary that loyal obedience you owe to his Majesty and to the Laws of your Country in all Affairs of meer temporal concern This you cannot but judge to be their drift unless peradventure you think them to be really so frantick as to perswade themselves That from Julius Caesar or his Successor Octavian after the one or the other had by arms and slaughter tyrannically seized the Commonwealth any one could expect a free and voluntary restitution of the People to their ancient Liberty or which is it I mean and is the more unlikely of the two That from Clement the Tenth now sitting in the Chair at Rome or from his next or from any other Successor now after six hundred years of continual usurpation in matters of highest nature and now also after the Lives of about fourscore Popes one succeeding another since Hildebrand or Gregory the Seventh his Papacy and since the Deposition of the Emperor Henry the Fourth by Him in the year of Christ 1077 any one should expect by a paper-Petition or paper-Address to obtain the restoring or manumising of the Christian World Kingdoms States and Churches to their native rights and freedom or that indeed it could be other than ridiculous folly and madness to expect this And yet certainly thiâ— must be the natural consequent of the Popes or present Papal Courts giving you licence to sign such a publick Instrument as will do your selves and Religion right amongst his Majesties Protestant Subjects or as even amongst your selves will satisfie the more ingenuous loyal and intelligent Persons Thus at last in so many several Paragraphs in all eighteen I have given at large those farther and more particular thoughts of mine relating both to the proper causes and proper remedies of those Evils which as you so much complain lie so heavy on you as Papists to wit the rigorous Sanctions of the penal Laws c. And consequently I have given you those conceptions whereof I said also before not only That without peradventure you may find them to be right if you please to examine things calmly with unprejudicâ—d reading and coolely with unbyassed reason but also That beside your great concern above others in the peculiar Subject of the Book it was my desire to speak directly and immediately to your selves all that moved me to make this consecratory Address to you as esteeming the knowledge of such matters to be for your great advantage and withall considering a Dedicatory Epistle as the fittest place in which I might present them to your view A third motive yet and this the onely other if in effect it be another of this Dedication was my further desire of choosing you as the fittest Judges of such a Work seeing you are the only Professors amongst all those of so many different Churches in these Kingdoms who peculiarly derive your Faith from that of Old Rome which will still be famous throughout the World For although I thought it excusable not to importune you for Patronage to a Book whose Nativity is I know not which very hard or very easie to calculate nevertheless I held it but reasonable to submit wholly to your judgment the Book it self and the Subject therein handled or the Controversie 'twixt the persecuted Remonstrants of the year 1661 of one side and their persecuting Antagonists of the other In which judgment of yours I have the more reason to be concern'd for both That this and some other Books or Tracts of mine already printed and publish'd besides some other well nigh ready for the Press as well in English as in Latin do in that cause wholly decline the Authoritative â—udgment of His Holiness and consequently of all His suspected Ministers and all other suspected Delegates whatsoever as holding them in that Controversie not to be competent Judges but criminal Parties and knowing that not only in common reason and equity but also by the express Canons of the Catholick Church they cannot be Parties and Judges in the same cause with authority to bind others Therefore until His Holiness or His subordinate Ministers Officials or Delegates under Him in point of or in order to such Authoritative Judgment be pleased to proceed Canonically against me and other Remonstrants i. e. to proceed against us in a Regular Judicatory or Tribunal and in a Regular way that is by giving us indifferent Judges and a place of safety to appear in and both beyond all exception according to the Canons of the Universal Church I and my said Fellow-sufferers the few remaining constant Remonstrators must be in a high measure concern'd in that other I think more excellent kind of judgment which is common to you and to all judicious sober conscientious Men a judgment not of authority or power to bind others but of discretion and reason to direct your selves in order to that opinion you are to hold of and communication you may have with us after you have throughly and seriously ponderâ—d the merits of our Cause and the proceedings of those who would make themselves even against all the Rules of Reason and all the Canons too of the Christian Church our Authoritative Judges in that very Cause in which they are the principal Parties However though I cannot for my own part otherwise choose than be somewhat sollicitous for the succesâ— while it is a meer future contingency yet I hope and am almost confident That my integrity and constancy in the Roman-Catholick Religion shall be vindicated against all Aspersions and Misconstructions when I Appeal to you for Justification whose Censure would be the most grievous that can befall me For in truth I do so Appeal to you in this very passage most humbly and earnestly demanding of you 1. Whether in those two grand Controversies one succeeding another the former that of the Nuncio Rinuccini's Ecclesiastical Censures of Interdict and Excommunication in the Kingdom of Ireland (e) an 1648. against all the Adherers to the Cessation concluded by the Confederate Catholicks with the then Baron now or late Earl of Inchiquin who had then declared for the late King the later of the Remonstrance presented to His Majesty (f) an 1661 â— since His Happy Restauration in both which I have ever since continually engaged against the Roman Courts designs on the Supreme Temporal power of these Kingdoms Whether I say my Sermons or my Books my Doctrine or my Practice in the Concerns of either Controversie can be justly tax'd with so much as one tittle or one action against that Roman-Catholick Faith which you all together with the Roman-Catholick World abroad believe as necessary to Salvation 2. Or seeing there is not so much as any
one tittle or any one action hitherto alledg'd against me as such other than what is in effect and substance my Assertion or Vindication of the Supreme Temporal Sovereignty of the Crowns of these Kingdoms i. e. of their being in all Temporals and all Contingencies whatsoever independent from any but God alone and therefore in Temporals no way dependent from the Pope either by divine or humane right Whether any person may on such ground call in question the sincerity of my believing or professing as I ought all the undoubted Articles of the Roman-Catholick Faith 3. And seeing there was never yet any other matter not even by my greatest Persecutors at any time objected articled oâ— pretended against me beside that i. e. besides my former opposing the Nuncio's Censures and my later promoting the Remonstrance and my endeavours in both against the pretences of the Roman Bishops to the Crowns of England Ireland Scotland c Whether it may in any wise be said or thought by unbyassed learned men That I have given any real ground for the vile detraction of those who treat me every way as if I had been a desertor of the Church 4. Nay Whether considering first The nature of those two grand Controversies wherein I have so freely engaged against all the power of the Roman Court abroad and all the endeavours of the Nuncio's Party and Antiremonstrant Clergy at home secondly The most grievous manifold and continual persecutions I suffered in both Causes one while by Suspensions and Deprivations another while by Excommunications then by Imprisonment in a Forreign Countrey even as far off as Spain and then again by new Thunders of Ecclesiastical Censures and by scandalous Declarations and posting of my Name besides other frequent enterprizes on several occasions against both my Liberty and Life thirdly My continuing constant in both Causes even all along to this very day even also then and that not only once happening when I had no support in this World but my own Conscience of suffering i. e. my own certain knowledge of my suffering onely for Righteousness sake nay then also when some of my chiefest Adversaries laboured with all their powerful malice even here at London to compel me and spared not to speak openly that either they would compel me to renounce the Roman-Catholick Church and declare my self an Heretick or they would make me submit to the Roman Court in the latter of these two Causes viz. that of the Loyal Remonstrance it being the onely matter then prosecuted against me fourthly Their failing nevertheless to this present in obtaining their will of me in either the one or other Whether I say considering all this whereof besides many men I am sure the All-seeing God is witness it be not more likely That no kind of prejudice against the Roman-Catholick Faith or Church but a true and powerful zeal according to knowledge for the primitive Christian purity of both is it that hath set me against those opinions and practices flowing in the corruption of latter Ages from the Roman Court which have shaken Religion divided Christendom and brought a scandal upon Faith as if it were to be supported or advanced by the wrath and rage of men by Rebellion and Slaughter by Subversion of Government and Confusion of the World so making it a ground of jealousie to Magistrates and diverting peaceable and charitable Souls from that union which ought to be amongst the Disciples of Christ 5. Also whether it may not by rational men be at least charitably believed That I would not so often at several times and upon several occasions since first I engag'd in either Controversie especially in the last have refused many Preferments in my own Order have rejected many tempting proffers too even of Episcopal dignity in my own Countrey have also particularly and lately in the National Synod or Congregation held at Dublin anno 1666 and that in publick before all the Fathers refused to yield by any means to their pressing offer not only of all the best Commendatory Letters that could be drawn on Paper in my behalf both to His Holiness Himself who then was and the Cardinal Patron and the Congregation de Propaganda and all other Ministers of the Roman Court as many as were concern'd in the Affairs of Ireland but also of a yearly and very considerable Salary too by general Applotment amounting as they esteemed or computed it in Three years to Two thousand pound English money and in lieu of all these offers have deliberately chosen to run the manifest hazard of undergoing and accordingly since to have in very deed undergone all the vexatious infamy of Ecclesiastical Censures in my own Church Order and Countrey and all the further Evils not only of some at least consequential hardships but of many black Calumnies many bitter Reproaches yea and some yet more inhumane Machinations of cruel men even here in England these four last years since 1669 Whether I say it may not by rational men be and be at least charitably believed That I would not have rejected freely all those tempting offers and in lieu of them voluntarily chosen to lie under all these Sufferings for any thing less than the keeping a good Conscience and the preserving the honour of Christian Catholicism untainted at least in some Priests and Religious men of the Roman-Catholick Religion in these Nations and the justifying my self and those of my way the few Irish constant Remonstrants with such others who communicate with them Loyal Subjects to our Prince the King of England and the winning also for the good of Catholicks in general upon His Majesties Councils Parliaments and all good Protestant people by our peaceable Conversation and Faithfulness amidst all our Sufferings from every side notwithstanding any difference from the Protestant Church in some few Articles of Religion Whereas such other Church-men of the Roman Communion as by their practises or principles have formerly shewn themselves and still appear to continue Enemies to the Supreme Temporal Government of these Kingdoms may in all reason expect the severest Laws to be edg'd against them by Authority under which it will be sad to suffer as evil doers 6. Lastly Whether it had not been very much for the advantage of Roman-Catholicks in general and their Religion in this Monarchy That these last hundred years they had been indoctrinated onely and wholly guided as to their Consciences by such Roman-Catholick Priests and Church-men as are of my principles in relation to the Temporal Powers independence from Rome and the indispensable obedience of Subjects in Civil matters and both the injustice and invalidity or nullity of Ecclesiastical Censures pronounced against either Prince or People or Priests for maintaining these not onely Rational but Christian Principles or asserting any of all their necessary Antecedents Consequents or Concomitants And now my Lords Fathers and Gentlemen to your impartial judgment on all and each of these Queries I do with due
submission most heartily and freely appeal That you may determine for what concerns you of the truth or falsity likelihood or unlikelihood of that worst of Scandals viz. Desertion of my Order and Religion wherewith I have been frequently asperst on several occasions as in former times even Twenty years ago by some of the Nuncio's Faction so of late during all these four last years by others of the Anti-remonstrants especially by some Church-men who so little consider their holy Function that they seem to have lost all regard to Truth and Honesty and do not boggle at the shame of being daily found in manifest Forgeries so they may but do their work to serve themselves by it or to rid out of their way any person who they fear may obstruct their ambition i. e. their design of confounding all again if they alone cannot otherwise command all Onely I shall further beg as to this matter that before you determine of it you would be pleased to read over these following Appendages First Appendage relating to the Fourth Querie That in regard of the times places and occasions I lived in and employments I had and Books and persons I conversed with of every side and my own both curiosity and concern to understand matters aright and to see into their genuine causes I may without vanity say of my self That I have had more than common opportunities to know the Doctrines and Practises of the Roman Court what they are and how hurtful how pernicious to these Kingdoms and to the Roman-Catholick Religion And that ever since I came to see into these things at least ever since I gave my self to a serious and full consideration of those principles and wayes which was about Twenty seven years since upon occasion given me by that Faction I have most heartily abhor'd and at all times and upon all occasions protested against them and the more I have known of them still the more I have seen cause to detest and to protest against them as I do at this day Second Appendage relating to the Fifth Querie That I can and do appeal to God Himelf That next after the regard of not wounding mortally my own Conscience by a manifest desertion of Truth and equivalent profession of such Errours as I know certainly to be against the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and Gospel of Christ the chiefest motive I had for bearing up constantly so long a time against all Censures Precepts Monitories Denunciations Affixions Decrees and other grievous concomitant Persecutions in the often mention'd Cause of the Loyal Formulary was the regard of not doing you all the Roman-Catholicks of His Majesties Three Kingdoms the greatest injury that I could possibly do you or perhaps any man of my degree by confessing the grand Objection against you to be insoluble For I saw clearly That if either the temptation of preferment to Offices and Dignities or the tryal of punishment by Censures and Calumnies and all their Consequents at the pleasure of some Grandees at Rome should have had that influence on me as to make me in effect absolutely to renounce my Allegiance to the King by retracting the Subscription of my hand to that Instrument professing it in meer Temporal things onely the Argument thence derivable must have been obvious to any judicious knowing Protestant inclin'd to do you a prejudice as soon and as often as the Parliament sate and were moved in your Concerns Such an Argument I mean as urged home by a good Orator would even before indifferent Judges give much colour to that grand Objection viz. The inconsistence in these Nations 'twixt the safety of a Protestant Government and the giving of Liberty to Roman-Catholicks by repealing the penal Laws yet in force against them In substance it would have been alledg'd That the Roman-Catholicks at least for the generality of them would be alwayes right or wrong directed by their Priests That their Priests are most of them on the Popes side in this Controversie And if any of them be so hardy to oppose his usurpations there is no trusting of them for there is no reason to expect that any of them will stand to his principles and hold out For Example they might have instanced in unworthy me if I had fallen off after so long and such manifold tryals of my constancy for Twenty years past and after so many and so great obligations to persevere until the end of my life This and much more would in all probability I am sure might in all reason be alledg'd to make that great Objection hold against you had I hitherto submitted to the dictates or pleasure of the Roman Court in either Cause But it is not my business here to open more at large or press more home this Argument with all the aggravating circumstances both such as are fresh in memory and such as might be derived from the memory of former times My purpose was to hint it onely as believing this enough to shew you the reasonableness of that second Motive I had for holding out so constantly in such a Cause and in the very manner I did all along against so numerous and so dangerous Adversaries especially seeing that very manner of my holding out so or of defending my self the best I could against them was and is authorized not only by the Divine Laws of Nature and Christianity but also most expresly and clearly by the positive Constitutions of men even of Roman-Catholicks viz. the fundamental Laws of England and Ireland not to speak now of other Catholick Nations of Europe so many Hundred years since Enacted by the Roman-Catholick Princes and Parliaments of these Kingdoms against all Forreign Citations or Summons from a Forreign Power beyond the Seas and also the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Catholick Church throughout the World nay of the very Papal Canons themselves forbidding in express terms Judicia Vltramarina (a) Vid. S. Cyprian Epist 55. ibi Statutum esse omnibus nobis c. Concil Affrican Episcop 217. inter quos Divus Augustinus erat Can. 92. relatum pariter in Cad Can. Eccles Affric Can. 125. Synod ad Coelest Item 3. q. 6. haecce capita viz. Ibi. Vltra Si quis Clericus Peregrina Qui crimen q. 9. cap. Nec extra Item cap. Nonnulli de Rescrip Item Stat. General Barchinonensia Ord. Min. cap. 6. §. 1. num 1. 2. ubi Patres rationem habent illius naturalis Canonum aequitatis and expresly decreeing against many other special Injustices and Nullities on other grounds in the late procedure against me (b) If you would see more Quotations both of the Canon and Civil Law against every particular Injustice committed in Summoning me to appear beyond Seas and which do justifie in all respects my procedure in not obeying such Summons you may consult my Latin Epistle to Harold pag. 6 7. besides my Latin Hibernica Third Part and you will find a very great abundance of the
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
on the other side or even calling for them by Summons or otherwise at any time before such prejudgment given or made This I say is it that both obliges and warrants me in all reason to except against them as incompetent Judges of me or my writings in that Cause i. e. to except against their individual persons but not against their Authority placed in other men of less interested or byass'd judgment Nor certainly will this Exception appear strange or ill-grounded to such as shall be pleased to turn over in this Book not only to the many divers Letters of Roman Cardinals and Bruxel Internuncio's written at several times and upon several occasions since the year 1661 to Ireland against the same Cause and me and the rest of the Remonstrants but also to the Louain Theological Faculty's Censure * Dated at Louain 1662 Dec. 29. against it i. e. against the Loyal Irish Remonstrance and Subscribers of iâ— I pass oâ—er wholly in silence at this time the Bull of Pope Alexander VII * Dated at Rome 1665 Aug. 27. in the former cause of the Appeal made anno 1648 to Innocent X by the then Supreme Council of the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ireland from those wicked Censures of Interdict and Excommunication fulminated that year and in that Kingdom against them and all other Irish joining with or obeying them in the Cessation of Arms concluded with the Royal Party of Protestants I say fulminated therefore against them by the Archbishop and Prince of Fermo Joannes Baptista Rinuccinus Nuncio there from the foresaid Innocent X. though a very partial inconsiderate Bull grounded falsely and given directly against all the more Loyal Irish Catholicks and given so of meer purpose to make them receive absolution in forma Ecclesiae consueta and consequently to do publick Pennance for having return'd but onely so nigh their obedience to the late King of ever blessed Memory as a meer or bare Cessation of Arms in order to the preservation of His Majesties interest when their own could not subsist without it in that Kingdom And these being the Six Appendages of so many Questions going before concerning my own constancy or inconstancy in Religion you are now at liberty to determine as to that matter what you think fit So having by this time inlarged my self I hope sufficiently enough for the information of some conviction of others and satisfaction of all ingenuous lovers of Truth having discharged my Conscience and spoken my Mind touching all the three Motives that induced me to this Dedicatory Preface to you it remains that howsoever or whatsoever you judge of me or my carriage or my writings I nevertheless continue my due regard to your Benefit and conclude this Discourse as it almost begun and for the matter proceeded all along with re-minding you most affectionately of your own and your Posterities and your Religions great Concern both in the Loyal Cause I contend for and in those happy ends at which I drive Therefore in the Apostles words Before God and our Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom by all the desires you have of your own and your Posterities living comfortably in this world as free-born Subjects in your Native Countrey and by all the hopes you have conceiv'd of enjoying that better Countrey with eternal life and rest in the world to come by all your zeal not only for the vindicating of your Religion from the scandal of Disloyalty Perjury Cruelty Inhumanity Tyranny c. both in Principles and Practices but of inviting also by taking away the grand Rock of scandal those of other Churches to save their Souls in the communion of yours or of the Roman-Catholick Church if indeed you believe there is no salvation for them otherwise and by all your godly wishes of a true understanding reconciliation union peace between all Churches professing the Name of Christ and more especially between His Majesties Protestant Subjects and your selves en fine by all that is Sacred and by all that is according to reason and grace desirable I conjure you that your selves mind as you ought that great Concern of your own and mind it both effectually and speedily without further delayes I beseech you as Christians and as Catholicks by the onely adorable name of the Holy Jesus whose Doctrine you should desire to follow above all things consider That his Kingdom was not of this world (a) John 18.36 That surely he gave neither to St. Peter himself nor to any other of his eleven or twelve Apostles separately nor even to all the same twelve or thirteen with Peter and Paul collectively taken any other sort of Kingdom or the Lieutenancy of any other Kingdom than what himself had in the dayes of his abode in flesh or as he was a mortal man before his Resurrection (b) See â—â—lâ—â—â—ius himself lib. 5. de Rom. Poâ—â—tiâ— c. 4 â—itt D. That the Keyes of Heaven and the Crowns of earthly Kingdoms import very different things That as his Father sent him (c) John 20.21 22 23. so he sent all the twelve with equal and with onely Commission to remit and retain sins viz. by his Power and by his Word and by his Sacraments but not to give or to take away Scepters or Crowns (d) Non eriâ—â—â— mortalia 〈◊〉 regna dat â—â—â—lestia by any means whatsoever That he commanded what is due to Caesar to be paid to Caesar as well as to God what is due to God (e) Matth. 22 23. That Paul the thirteenth Apostle and Vessel of Election in his Epistle to the Romans * Rom. 13.1 5. plainly declares That subjection to the supereminent secular powers which carry the Sword of Justice and receive Tributes is due from every Soul and that not onely out of fear of their Sword but for Conscience sake and for fear of hell and damnation it is due from every Soul among you even from those who are the most spiritual in profession even from those who are the most high in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Function Priests Monks Bishops Archbishops nay were they Apostles were they Evangelists were they Prophets whosoever they were as Chrysostom spake * Chrysostom Hom. 23. in Epist Paul on this Text Rom. 1â— Omnis anima c. near Thirteen hundred years since on this very Text of the Apostle and in effect with Chrysostom all the Holy Fathers of the Christian Church before and after him for a Thousand years from the Apostles time until Gregory VII That Exemption from and much more Dominion over the said Powers ate inconsistent with Subjection to them in the same Temporal matters That other Divine right of Dominion either direct or indirect His present Holiness of Rome cannot justly pretend than what He derives from Christ by or through St. Peter nor other Humane right to any Kingdom than what the free consent of the Princes People and Municipal Laws
immediately before the foresaid Mauritius Aemulator sayes that Roman Pontiff (b) Agatio was chosen Pope or rather Bishop of Rome an 678. Agatho verae Apostolicae fidei piae memoriae Augustus Justinianus cujus fidei rectitudo quantum pro sincera confessione Deo placuit tantum Rempublicam Christianam exaltavit Et ubique ab omnibus gentibus ejus religiosa memoria veneratione digna censetur cujus fidei rectitudo per augustissima ejus Edicta in toto orbe diffusa laudatur Would Agatho have said so of an Heretick * To Agatho I might add Gregory II. in several Epistles nay and a far greater Authority too viz. the Fathers of the Sixth Oecumanical Sâ—nod besides many others after them See Baâ—â—â—s himself and his Epitomizer Spâ—â—danus confessing so much ad an 565. 3. That if the Truth were known it would be found that Baronius and the rest following him were willing to make use of any malicious ungrounded Fictions whatsoever against Justinian not that they believed him to have either lived at any time or dyed at last in any wilful or imputable Errour or in any at all otherwise than St. Cyprian of Carthage did but that his Laws in Ecclesiastical matters even those of Faith are a perpetual eye-sore to them because these Laws are a Precedent to all other good Princes to govern their own respective Churches in the like manner without any regard of Bulla Coenae or of so many other vain Allegations of those men that would make the World believe it unlawful for Secular Princes to make Ecclesiastical Laws by their own sole Authority for the government of the Church and all orders and degrees of Church men under them even to the very Patriarchs inclusively as Justinian did and you may see in his very many Constitutions to that purpose he did X. Although I do ingenuously confess I had on the Subject of Ecclesiastical either Exemption or Subjection very much light and help from those excellent Authors that writ before me so well on that Subject I mean both the Barclayes the Father and Son yet the learned Reader may see I have been very far from borrowing all from them or any other who treated before or after on Ecclesiastical Immunity Wherever I make use of them I have commonly added everywhere i. e. in every Section to their Answers Animadversions and Proofs my own both reasoning and reading elsewhere I have also raised against my self the strongest Objections I could imagine which they had not nor consequently the Solutions Nay Canons also viz. those Paâ—al ones which the Barclayes do not mention I have both objected and answered at large because I observed our later Casuists or Moralists Azorius and Bonacina c or chiefly or onely or at least partly to quote them though they do no more but barely quote the Chapters not the words or Text for their false Positions about Ecclesiastical Immunity as you may see in my whole LXXI Section from pag. 230. to pag. 241. Besides the whole Affirmative or Positive way against Bellarmine and his Disciples the Louain Divines in five intire long Sections from pag. 243 to pag. 374 where I assume the person of the Opponent to prove the Subjection of all Clergy-men to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate and prove it by Scripture Tradition Fathers Councils and as well by Ecclesiastical yea very Papal Canons as Imperial Constitutions and by Practice also and Reason is wholly from other Collections of my own neither of both the Barclayes nor Withrington nor any other seen by me having so much proceeded in this Affirmative or Positive way but mostly in that which I call Negative as it which hath for principal scope to deny and solve the Arguments of Bellarmine c. XI As for the two grand Objections framed by me against my self the one from the condemnation of Marsilius de Padua and Joan. de Janduno the other from the Martyrdom of St. Thomas of Canterbury or rather for my Answers and long material Discourses Sect. LXXVI from pag. 374 to pag. 436. nay to 462. upon and by occasion of each or either of the said two Objections I must no less ingenuously acknowledge that I was necessitated to be my self alone my own guide all along without either light or help from any Authour that handled either Subject For I never saw nor heard of any such Authour Which was the reason that I took more than ordinary pains to clear whatsoever might be alledged or pretended from either that Condemnation or this Martyrdom against the soundness of that Doctrine which maintains the Subjection of all Clergy-men whatsoever to the Supreme Temporal both directive and coercive authority even of meer Lay-Princes and States but more especially to clear the whole Intrigue of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel with Henry II and the Cause for which he suffered and to shew it was no Divine right nor even other Humane save only that of the Civil Secular and Municipal Saxon Danish and Norman Laws of England which he grounded himself on when he refused to deliver at the Kings pleasure the Criminal Clerks to be punish'd or judg'd by the Secular Judges and Officers XII The veneration I have as I am bound to the Roman-Catholick Church or that Communion in general wheresoever diffused throughout the World and my knowledge of their having in all their Calendars on the 29th of December the Festival of St. Thomas of Canterbury made me the First also that for any thing I know ventures in a singular and long Discourse by way of Appendix after my four several Answers given to the grand Objection against c. from the Martyrdom of that holy Bishop of set purpose to vindicate him from having been a Traytor to the King whether or no he was a Martyr in the Church through the merits of his Cause and according to the more proper and stricter Ecclesiastical sense of the word Martyr Three hundred years indeed after his death he was under Henry VIII in a very unusual manner both judicially summon'd to appear and formally condemn'd for a Traytor Then which judgment if woâ—â— grounded nothing can be more prejudicial to the practice of all Roman-Catholicks in the World in keeping his Festivity and honouring his Memory and begging his intercession for them to our Lord and Saviour Christ That it hath been in-grounded I do my devoir to shew and prove from pag. 439 to pag. 462. where I answer first all that hath been or could be alledged against him and then produce eight several Arguments even very strong Presumptions both in Law and Reason for him I mean as to this controverted Point Whether he could be justly said to have either dyed or even at any time lived or been a Traytor against the King People or Laws of England XIII Where I seem pag. 438. somewhat too severe on Matthew Parker the First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth you must not persuade your self I do at all
deny the King to be above His Parliament answer'd 46. and from thence to 53. Disparity shewn of one side between the Independency of the Royal Power from the Parliament and Dependency of the Papal from the Church and of the other between the Independency of a General Councils power from the Pope and the Dependency of the Parliaments from the King 50 51 52. The two last Paragraphs of their Paper at length concerning the Sixth Gallican or Sorbon Declaration which is against the pretended Infallibility of the Pope 53. In which two Paragraphs after first they had mistated the Question and after so many disguises and windings the sum of what the Congregation would say is That the foresaid Sixth Gallican Sorbon or Parisian Declaration viz. it denying the Infallibility of the Pope is impertinent odious unprofitable unfit to be disputed in Ireland relates to Jansenism is suspected to be under-hand furthered by some of that way and finally tends to the disturbance of both King and Countrey 52. This whole sum and every particular thereof answered in order from the said p. 53. to the last of the Treatise viz. p. 59. The five Propositions of Jansenius which are called Jansenism 77. Finally That to Father N.N. the Composer of the foresaid Paper of Reasons and by occasion of the very last words of that Paper viz. these to the disturbance of both King and Countrey the Procurator may answer what the Prophet Elias did to Achab Non ego turbavi Israel sed tu domus Patris tui qui dereliquistis mandata Domini sequuti estis Baalim Nay that the Catholick Church of Christ especially in Ireland as it comprises all both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks of either Sex hath already cause enough and will I fear have much more yet to say as well to him and the Congregation as to all other such preposterous Defenders of Her Interests what Jacob said to Simeon and Levi Turbastis me odiosum fecistis Chananaeis Pherezeis habitatoribus terrae hujus IMmediately after the end of the Fourth Treatise you may find the Fourteen Propositions * A further account of these Fourteen Propositions c. See Treatise I. Part II. pag. 752. of Father Peter Walsh or the Doctrine of Allegiance c. 80 81 82 83. WHat the Contents are of the First Appendix viz. the Kilkenny Book of Queries and Answers c you may easily guess by the Queries themselves in all Seven which are to be seen together Pag. 111. though falsely printed p. 11. which is immediately before the Preface OF the Contents of the next Appendix which in the Print is called by mistake the First Appendix but should be the Second and is indeed the Appendix containing Six Publick Instruments you need no Abridgment here because the very Title-page sufficiently gives one BVt of the Contents of the Third or last Appendix viz. the Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland His Letter c because that Letter contains One and thirty Leaves and a great variety of matters of highest importance viz. all the great differences and causes of them which happened 'twixt the Roman-Catholick Archbishops and Bishops nay and some refractory Cities and Towns in Ireland of one side and His Excellency on the other from the Conclusion of the later Peace or that of the year 1648 till His forc'd departure to France from Kilcolgan in the latter end of the year 1650. I have upon after-thoughts and for the greater satisfaction of the Reader given here some few and the more general Heads as followeth The cause why His Excellency writes against the Declaration and Excommunication of the Prelates at Jamestown Pag. 75. The obstinate Disobedience of the City of Waterford ib. By His Letters of the 27th of February 1649 S. V. He calls to Limmerick as many Bishops as were within any convenient distance ib. Eleven Proposals offered to His Excellency on the 13th of March 1649 S. V. as so many Remedies for removing the Discontents and Distrusts of the People and for advancing His Majesties service presented by such of the Clergy as met at Limmerick the 8th of March 1649. S. V. and the Commissioners of Trust 76 77 78. His Excellency finding no effect of their Promises but that the City of Limmerick continued in their refusal to receive a Garrison c. Adjourns that meeting from Limmerick to Loghreogh about the 19th of the said March whither also by His Letters He desires all the rest of the Bishops of the Kingdom to come promising to give them there an answer to their Paper of Remedies or Proposals 79. His Excellencies Answers in Ten Heads to the Proposals 79 80 81. A Declaration of the Bishops by way of Letter to His Excellency dated at Loghreogh 28th of March 1650 and Signed by John Archbishop of Tuam Walter Bishop of Clonfert Francis Bishop of Killala Robert Bishop of Cork and Cluam and Hugh Bishop of Kilmaduach 81 82. His Excellencies Reflections on this Letter And another meeting of all the Bishops together with the Commissioners of Trust besides divers others of the Nobility and many Gentlemen of Quality appointed by His Excellency to be held at the same Town of Loghreogh on the 25th of April then following 83. This Conventions Letter to His Excellency dated at Loghreogh ult April 1650 and Sign'd by Two and Twenty hands 84. His Excellencies Answer dated Loghreogh May 1. 1650. 85 86. The Conventions Reply by another Letter to His Excellency dated at Loghreogh May 2d 1650 and Sign'd by Eighteen Hands 87 By the reiterated professions of Loyalty and Obedience in all the precedent Letters his Excellency was induced to alter his purpose of quitting the Kingdom c. 88. Mayor of Limmerick's Letter the 12th of June 1650 to his Excellency inviting him thither to settle a Garrison And his Excellencies Answer with three particulars imparted by him to the Messengers that came from Limmerick 88 89. When upon the said invitation of the Mayors his Excellency came near to the City Gates the two Aldermen employed formerly to invite him thither were now sent out to let him know of a Tumult raised in the City by a Fryer one Father Woolfe * He was a Dominican and as it is said the very same man who in the year 1646 when the King's Herald at Arms even before the Mayor and Aldermen all standing by in their Formalities was proclaiming the Peace of that year raised a furious tumult of the Rascal-multitude and with them even himself also being in his Monastical Habit in the Head of them pelting a showre of stones at the Herald put an end to that Peace or rather obstructed all Peace in that City and by example of that strong City in the whole Kingdom and some others against his coming in Pag. 89. His Excellencies Letter of the 14th of June on this occasion to the Mayor in hope to bring the Corporation to a sense and performance of their duty ib. But
excuse their great dependence from the Ordinaries and Secular Clergy as to their future admission to the respective Districts or Diocesses and their establishment for houses in the Countrey Besides that they were but a very few and inconsiderable in respect of others That however their judgment affection or extraction lead them yet this cause alone might be sufficient for their excuse not to subscribe without encouragment by example from the Ordinaries And yet it is very well known that several of them as likewise of the other more ancient Orders laboured earnestly and mightily that there should be no such encouragment or example at all from Ordinaries or any other Whereof the reason is very obvious Because the later any religious Institution is and the newer in any Catholick Countrey the greater dependence it must have and the more support it wants from Rome Which those three last Orders amongst us were so far from putting to any hazard to be lost by subscription that they would assure themselves of it more and more by the greatest opposition they could make in favour of all pretences for the holy See and thereby also be sure to continue their yearly pensions of Missionaries such of them I mean as are pensionaries upon the account of mission as several are 9. That above all the Jesuits yet more particularly found themselves concern'd on this particular account that so many great and famous Writers of their Society and by consequence the whole Society it self had been all along these fourscore years at least throughly engaged to maintain the contrary doctrine and practises 10. That on the other side the Secular Clergy pretended there was no signing for themselves before the Regulars concurr'd who as being commonly the best Divines and Preachers and many in number and changeable from County to County and from one Diocess and Province to another at their Superiours will and in most parts in greater esteem with the lay people then the Secular Clergy would if not concurring with them cast such an aspersion on them as would be able to render them infamous and contemptible amongst their own Parishioners upon account of so specious a pretence amongst ignorant people as the renouncing the Papal power and acknowledging the King to be Supream Head of the Church would amount unto For so many and very many too of both Secular and Regular Clergy gave out to the common sort against their own knowledge and conscience the Subscribers mean'd and did by that Remonstrance of 61. representing it as the same thing with the Oath of Supremacy which Roman Catholicks generally have refused this hundred years and therefore lay under so many incapacities and other penalties Nay some of those Clergy-men did not stick to say and swear too they would sooner take the Oath of Supremacy than subscribe that Remonstrance And yet it is very clear those Gentlemen understand neither or if they do either that certainly they are out as to both in their explications of them as far as from East to West For in the sense wherein the sons of the Protestant Churches of England and Ireland take the Oath of Supremacy they acknowledge no spiritual Supremacy purely such or any such spiritual Headship or supream Government-ship in the King in any causes or things what soever even temporal so far are they from acknowledging such in causes or things Ecclesiastical or Spiritual not even in those which are by extrinsecal denomination only called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual but only a Supream Politick Civil or Temporal Head-ship or Government-ship in all things whatsoever by the power of the material Sword and this of this Sword over all persons generally as well Church-men as others Which sense is very Catholick and owned in relation to their Kings and 〈…〉 temporal Governours by all Catholicks in France Spain Germany Poland Italy 〈◊〉 wheresoever in the world Nor do they intend to deny by the 〈◊〉 Oath in the negative â—â—me any power purely spiritual to the Pope or other even 〈◊〉 Prelate 〈◊〉 that power only which 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—ugnant to that supâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 temporal or politick Government-ship be not said to be such as indeed it cannot justly And on the other side it is plain the Remonstrance o◠〈…〉 not a word or clause either defectâ—â—◠〈◊〉 directly or by any kind of consequence importing the 〈◊〉 wherein the Roman Catholicke have refused â—â—therto the â—â—nd Oath of Supremacy 〈◊〉 this sense is no other than 〈…〉 by the universality of the words or signs 〈◊〉 the affirmative and negative 〈◊〉 the Roman Catholick Vulgar understands ever also a spiritual Privacy or Supremacy purely such to be attributed to the King and denied to the Pope and other Bishops in those Dominions albeit this sense be plainly repugnant to the very Confession of Faith in the 〈◊〉 articles of the Prâ—â—estâ—â—â— Church England and Ireland and to those others of Queen Elizabeth in her Injuctions authorized and owned even by Parliament Now it is no less manifest and out of all controversie amongst such as do but even lead singly over the Protestation of 61. that there us not a word in it 〈◊〉 â—biâ—â—ting any such to the King or denying it to the Pope or intending at all any such thing nor indeed any thing else but what is allowed and approved by the doctrine and practice of all the Catholick world abroad iâ— peradventure the present Roman Court not the Roman Church be not excepted and the few sticklers for it although against the sense and inclination of all the wise and moderate Popes even I mean too such as governed that See in these latter times But however this be or be not such was the pretence of many for not concurring by their subscriptions albeit they confess'd withal the Remonstrance very catholick in it self And for this pretence or the scandal raised against the Remonstrance of renouncing the Pope or importing the same with the Oath of Supremacy besides the malicious or wilful stumbling of some at one word in it not construed or taken with the words immediatly following restraining that word as all men of never so little reason or sense must allow it ought to be I know not but the reprinting of the single sheet of that Remonstrance at London by some of purpose to gain by selling it when all the first Edition was immediately bought and the reprinting of it with a false Title cryed and sold so up and down the Streets which false Title imported the renouncing of the Pope by the Popish Clergy of Ireland whether I say this occasioned not at first that aspersion amongst some ignorant people I know not though I am sure it could not amongst the Clergy on Layety either that read the paper it self or what was therein contained 11. That some also of the leading men had a special pick to it only because advanced by the Procurator by whose means they would not even desire the freest exercise of their Religion because he had been all
compassing as yet any of his designs XXIII Likewise about the same time the R. R. Father in God Iohn Burk the Catholick Archbishop of Tuam very aged infirm and sickly and looked upon as not able to live one year longer came unexpectedly from St. Maloes and in my Lord Lieutenants absence arrived at Dublin privatly accompanied with father Thomas Quin the Jesuit and another of that Society in whose power and under whose directions this aged venerable Prelate wholy was The Procurator having done his first respects of visit to his Lordship desired to know his cause of venturing so confidently without acqainting first and having by some way addressed himself to my Lord Lieutenant and understood of some connivence for his return Minded him of the carriage and proceedings all along of the Clergy and especially of the Bishops of Waterford and Iames-stown That although his Lordship carried himself fairly and loyally in opposing the Nuncio even to his face at Galway and forced open the Church there which the Nuncio would have to observe his Interdict other Censures that he had sided all along with the Cessation supream Council at Kilkenny in that business and further too in concluding the second Peace yet he could not forget how he sullied all his former glory by his after unfortunate sitting and concurring at Iames-stown with other Bishops to those disloyal Declarations made there That he had not since by any publick or private application to His Majesty or Lord Lieutenant or by submission and repentance declared to either washed of the stain of that scandalous horrid transgression nor given any assurance of his more loyal carriage hereafter That yet both were of absolute necessity from a Prelate of highest rank such too as for example and for the satisfaction of God and men should be publick That he should therefore petition for himself and by his example induce the rest of the Irish Clergy to do the like and most humbly beg pardon for the time past and for the future sign that Remonstrance whereof to that end he had in France from London a sufficient account All which and much more to this purpose the Procurator humbly and earnestly minded him of even sometime in the presence of the above Father William Burgat Vicar General of Imly The good Archbishop heard him all out both attentively and patiently enough without sign of displeasure but return'd no other answer then That he was now so broken with age and many diseases of body that his mind also or understanding was no more of any kind of strength or capable to discern what he was to do in that or other things That he was for the matter dead already That he ventured this journey from France by Sea all along for otherwise he could not of purpose only to die and lye down at rest in his grave native soil That he would not have been to bold as to land at Dublin but that he supposed my Lord Lieutenant away thence in the Countrey at that time as it happened and that he might be carried away privatly to his own Province of Connaght without any further noise of his arrival or knowledge thereof given to my Lord Lieutenant And that being his Grace the Lord Lieutenant was now returned to Town he desired the Procurator should most humbly present his most submissive respects and make that true Apology for him of the design of his coming and desire of being connived at for so short a time as he had to drag a miserable life and end it by a death more welcome which he daily expected But the Procurator saw well enough that how infirm soever this good Archbishop was in body yet he had still sufficient apprehension and this excuse proceeded from the Fathers by whom he was led of late in all things perswading themselves his behaving himself so would give both countenance and authority enough amongst Catholicks not to themselves alone but to all others of the Clergy in denying or opposing a subscription which he had so declined That his name or extraction and his known affection sometimes formerly to the King and English Interest we 〈…〉 himself sufficiently of entertaining other scruples in that matter then those of religion and reverence to the See Apostolick And his quality of Archbishop and the only then of that Nation and Religion at home and the only moreover known to have formerly declared against the Nuncio would be a strong confirmation thereof at least might be a very probable excuse for all others of inferior degree until he had declared himself on the point All which and the use thereof notwithstanding the Procurator did well enough perceive and foresee yet he could not help having done his own duty But however advised this good Archbishop to retire as he did immediatly in a litter to Connaght where he remains ever since guided still by the same Fathers as wholly in their power The sequel whereof shall be seen hereafter in its proper place or second Part of this Narrative XXIV The Procurator therefore and by several other arguments seeing now certainly where the first obstruction to a further progress lay which should be removed and seeing that albeit the Fathers of the Society were but a very few in Ireland and most of them in or near Dublin yet their correspondency both at home and abroad especially at Rome was look't upon by most of the Pretendents in or Dependents of that Court and their own confidence withall in themselves was great partly because they had so dexterously behaved themselves in the Nuncio's quarrel that as they were perswaded much could not be objected to them on that account and partly for other causes and for that in particular of their extraction generally as for that also of some powerful Relations of some of them and albeit he saw well enough at the same time what influence the example of the Dublin Clergy in general both Parish-priests and Religious Orders of which Orders there he had only yet won the Franciscans and two of the Dominicans but none at all of the Augustinians Carmelits Cappuccins or Jesuits no more then he had none of the Parish-priests who were four or five and together with the said Regulars made fifty Priests or there abouts in that City albeit I say the Procurator saw well enough what influence the example of the Dublin Clergy in general would have upon the rest abroad in other parts of the Kingdom and that it would be to no great purpose but altogether vain to expect a concurrence from these if those had refused even there where the Lord Lieutenant and Council and Parliament sate and where notwithstanding the Dissenters had as much favour or freedom tolleration or connivence or whatever else you call it as the Subscribers and that on the other side the Dissenters had the advantage of the Subscribers at Rome and with the Generals of Orders beyond Seas of whose special favour
had no power in any contingency whatsoever to excommunicate him for continuing so in his loyalty Because that otherwise he binds himself against his own conscience to oppose a lawful power lawfully acting in some case which may possibly happen That on the other side if they did not mean really and conscientiously and sufficiently too as to the form of words to declare and oblige themselves as to matter of fact or in all contingencies whatsoever to to be loyal to the King notwithstanding any sentence of deposition excommunication or other declaration whatsoever c. then it was to no kind of purpose for the King or his Lieutenant to receive any Form at all from them That it should be argument enough to any States-men or other persons whatsoever of even but ordinary understanding that their meaning was not good just or honest if they pursued their design of leaving some starting holes for themselves or others as they had hitherto in in their several forms That finally no man that knew any thing of their School-divinity especially concerning the Popes infallibility and their maximes of extrinsecal probability was so blind as not to see their purpose in declining a declaration and protestation against the matter of right and that it was to no other then to have a sufficient reserve for themselves before the world in case his Holiness should point-blanck determine definitively for himself that question of right and upon that account condemn the printed Remonstrance of 61. and to no other at all then that they might be able then to speak confidently they had therefore even upon the contradictory question denied to declare against any such pretended power in his Holiness and to say consequently that now his Holiness having defined that power to be in himself and pursuant thereunto deposed the King or excommunicated his people for obeying him they also were quit of all obligation by any Remonstrance of their own which therefore they framed so as not to oblige them by its tenour in such a case But all these reasons were lost on the Fathers nay even on him that had as the Procurator thought very sincerely and faithfully promised so often to subscribe even the Remonstrance of 61. in terminis nay and after he had not only heard from the Duke 's own mouth so much of His Graces earnestness in that business but seen moreover within a while after His Graces Letter written all by his own hand to the Procurator on that subject which Letter I shall give presently upon another occasion XXXVIII This ill advised carriadge and strange obstinacy of those Fathers did not a little perplex and grieve the Procuratour both in respect of themselves and himself and the cause too For he had a particular kindness to some of them nay to their whole Order generally in Ireland for the great communication intimacy and frendship formerly betwixt their leading men and him at Kilkenny in the controversies of the Confederats and Lord Nuncio Which he manifested sufficiently in his panegyrick of St. Ignatius their Founder delivered by him in their Chappel in that town and at their own instance in the year 48. And therefore he was now so much concern'd in them for their own sakes because he foresaw that if they would pursue this obstinate resolution it would in time reflect heavily upon them all in Ireland and confirm those that managed the State there in as great prejudices as those were held generally in England these fourscore years against the Fathers of the Society in particular For his own too he was so much concern'd because when the Remonstrance was first at London graciously received by His Majesty and consequently not doubted of to prove in time by the subscription of it very instrumental to prevaile with His Majestie for some ease and some quiet and protection to the subscribers and when notwithstanding some talke was there about some Jesuits opposeing a great Minister of State bid the Procuratour not to trouble himself at all with any thoughts of perswading the Jesuits to it because said he of the wicked and perfidious principles of that Order generally in their Morals being such as they elude all tyes and duties and so elude such that there is no faith to be given to their subscriptions and because that notwithstanding so great prejudices against them yet the Procuratour singled out the carriadge and represented it of those in Ireland whereof he told the experiences he had from that was said to be of the Fathers of that Society in England in former or later times and hereby perswaded that Illustrious person to hope better of the Irish Fathers and lay all prejudices aside for some time against them until he had seen the issue For the cause in hand also because he foresaw what influence this example of their however unreasonable obstinate carriadge would have on the rest of the Dublin both Regular and Secular Clergiemen and these and those both joyntly and severally on all the rest of the Kingdom not that the Iesuits in Ireland have any thing singular in them either for number or learning being in both inferiour at present to several other Orders even of the Irish Religious men but for the repute of wariness had of them and for their more frequent correspondencies with their General at Rome to which they are tyed above all other Religions and for the great power their General is supposed to have with His Holines and consequently for the dependence many of the Irish Clergie who pretend at Rome have of the Fathers here who transmit their letters and recommend their pretensions XXXIX In January following 42. or 43. according the several stiles of England and Rome the Procuratour together with Father James Fitz Simons Guardian of the Franciscans at Dublin and Father Anthony Gearnâ—n of the same Order went to Multifernan in Westmeath and mett there with the very principal heads of the whole intrigue against the Remonstrance who came thether also from several parts of purpose to meet him These were Father Anthony Docharty then actually Minister Provincial of the Franciscans throughout the Kingdom Thomas Makiernan Brian Mac Egan Bonaventure Mellaghlin all three formerly since the troubles of Ireland begun haveing by succession borne at several times the same Office and Peter Gennor then Guardian of that place and Definitor Father Francis Ferral who was of late also Provincial of that Order and most earnest against the Remonstrance and as leading as any they had if not more and their chief Divine and should have been of that meeting came not because of a fit of the gout sorely upon him But as being within 8 miles to them they had his advice and mind These having been the men that lead all the dance and not of late in this matter only but many years before in all other affairs who had sent an express Agent over Seas to get the Remonstrance condemn'd at Rome and by forreign Vniversities
pray therefore that all proceedings in this matter be charitable religious deliberate and mature to the end scandals and greater dangers may be prevented protesting that we are most ready according to the Canons of the Church and light of reason to give Cesar what is Cesars due and to God what is due to Him and that both duties observed entirely your Paternity shall find us the children of obedience who are Your most Reverend Paternitie's most humble Servants Redmond Caron And the rest of the Subscribers now at London XLIX Immediatly after and in pursuance of his answer he sent a copy thereof and of the citation to Father Peter Walsh the Procurator then in Ireland Whereof the Procurator thought fit to take so much notice out of that respect due for himself also to the said Commissary General as to return both in his own name and in that of all other Subscribers of his Order at home in Ireland this long letter that follows rendred into English out of the Latin copie To the most Reverend Father James de Riddere Commissary General of St. Franci's Order in the Belgick Brittish and other annexed Provinces at Mechlin Most Reverend Father I have some twenty dayes past seen a copy of the letter which your Paternity gave the 18th of April from Brula to Father Caron at London and his answer both sent hether by the same Father And though it may not be certainly gathered either out of that your most Reverend Paternities letter or any other argument that I am my self any way concern'd therein yet because that Reverend Fathers conjecture in his foresaid answer seems not improbable to some that your Paternity intended by that very letter to summon to Rome or Brussels the Fathers of our Order and Province of Ireland who lately made to the King in a certain form or publick Instrument a profession of their Allegiance and subscribed the same and yet notwithstanding forasmuch as there are on the other side many considerations of no little force to perswade it can be no way likely that most prudent and most learned men such as without any question it is fit we should esteem the Minister General of the whole Order of St. Francis throughout the world and his most worthy General Commissary of the Northern Provinces should attempt or intend any thing against their own Sons upon the onely account of having complyed with all divine and humane laws by professing to their lawful King that fidelity in all temporals which they are otherwise bound unto and professing it also at such a time when doubtless it was both necessary and profitable to and the very interest of the Roman Catholick Church and no kind of disadvantage but a very great and known advantage to the true Orthodox Faith therefore and not in my own name onely or from my self alone but in all theirs too and from all of our Institute living now at home in the Province and these indeed are many both grave and sound men besides some Bishops and a considerable number of others amongst the inferiour Clergie not onely secular but regular also of other Orders learned conscientious and very zealous too for the Roman Faith and Papal Dignity who have subscribed that late Protestation of our Allegiance in temporals the rumour of which profession and subscription peradventure came to your hearing I very earnestly beseech your most Reverend Paternity may be pleased to signify out of hand whether you meaned them perhaps in that citatory letter sent Father Caron or whether you mean'd not rather some others accused peradventure of some kind of real faults defects or which God forbid of crimes And if the former that is the Subscribers whether such onely of them as yet are in England or live at London or even all those too residing at home dispersed in all parts of Ireland of all whose names or subscriptions the most Excellent Vice-Râ—y the Duke of Ormond hath at present the Original Catalogue as of such who have since my last arrival here subscribed the foresaid Instrument or profession of Allegiance Which about a year and a half since was first presented to His Majesty at London read and favourably accepted by him albeit then signed but by a very few hands in respect of the numbers that since have subscribed here And your most your most Reverend Paternity may be further pleased to certifie these living so at home as I have said now dispersed throughout all Provinces and parts of this Kingdom and certifie them by me or whom els you please what you think of the Reverend Father Carons exceptions given in his answer to the summons contained in that your Epistle supposing I mean that he hath so much as by guess understood aright your meaning whether they ought to be reputed probable lawful or Canonical To me indeed reading in Gratianus the Pontifical Canons or Decrees of the Provincial Councels of Carthage and Tarragona it appears manifestly out of cap. Placuit cap. Si Episcopus cap. Si quis Episcoporum d. 18. That notwithstanding any summons even I say the most legal and formal the parties summoned are excused when either by age or sickness or the Kings command to the contrary or any other corporal necessity of moment they are hindered from appearing I speak nothing at present of other Constitutions either of even the very Pontiffs of Rome or of the greatest Councels too of the Catholick Church those Canons to witt established by the authority of Synods not Provincial onely but National of the whole Affrican Church and Oecumenical of the whole earth and by that also of the consent and acceptation or submission of all the faithful of both Churches Greek and Latin even then I mean when That was reputed Orthodox and by that likewise of the concurrence of the chiefest and greatest Fathers amongst whom St. Augustine that light of Doctors was one Which Canons prescribe the judgment or tryal of causes to be held where no danger can be of wanting witnesses of either side or only where the witnesses may conveniently appear And therefore that judicial causes or the parties accused be not drawen or summond to any place where they may not come within a very few days not summond at all to appear without the bounds of the Province where they live nor forced likewise beyond the Seas whether commonly neither the accusers themselves nor the accused much less the witnesses either will or can goe For say the Fathers of that Synod of Affrick which is called Vniversal in their Synodical epistle to Pope Celestine speaking of the Fathers of former times specially of those who made the Canons of the great and first Councel of Nice it was most prudently and justly determined by them that all judicial causes should have their decision where they had their rise And verely whoever is of an other judgment and will rather fix on a judicatory beyond the Seas will scarce or not even scarce be able to
answer that Affrican Synod where those Fathers reprove the injustice of Celestine's demand of such transmarine judgments in the case of Apiarius requiring it to be transmitted out of Affrick to Rome and reprove I say that injustice in these very words which you may read in the now mentiond Synodical Epistle a few lines after the former words Or how can that kind of transmarine judgment be rational or legal whereunto the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought because either of their sex or infirmities of old age or of many other intervening impediments But that neither within the limits of the same Province nor even where the crossing of the Sea is unnecessary the parties accused be drawn too farre from their dwelling places and so molested too much by the Judges on pretence of a judicatory Innocent the Third has enacted even in a Councel Oecomenical of the whole earth cap. Nâ—nnulli Extra de Rescriptis But all this and very many other passages to this purpose I pass over at present as I have said before I pass over likewise that exception which the Canons allow against the unsafety of the place to which the summons are the unsafety of it I say if the nature of the controversy and present circumstances be considered Especially if we call to mind what several Religious men and of several Orders too that to clear themselves from calumnies in a Controversy not altogether unlike this and being not even summond in that or any other cause whatsoever nor convicted of any kind of crime the Judges themselves confessing both did venture hence to goe and appear at Rome or Madrit have suffered in our own days in our own late memory and suffered too without so much as any kind of even the very external formality of law or canons observed towards them and suffered so too most plainly against all the laws of God and nature And if we call moreover to mind those inhumane plots contrived in forraign Countries against the very lives of some even of our secular Nobility that having been formerly engaged with us in the same controversy were after in the ruine forced to shift abroad plots layd by some of those very men that now again endeavour to embroyle all anew commixe heaven and earth put all things out of frame the second time into the most horrid confusion they can of purpose partly to asperse and be revenged of us In fine I pass over the greatest exception of all The quarrel against us and the controversy in all parts to be such as concerns the temporal rights of all supream lawful Magistrates or Governours Kings and States Kingdoms and Common-wealths that acknowledge no dependency in temporals but from God alone whether they be Christians or Pagans Orthodox or Heterodox believers And consequently such whereof the Minister general or Commissary National of St. Francis's Order is so farre wide from being judge I mean as to any effect of being able and I speake onely here of ability in point of conscience to oblige their Inferiours to determine in any part against the right of Princes or silence the truth of the Gospel of Christ in this matter chiefly where the declaration of such truth is needful amongst Sectaries that are partly for want of such declaration made to them by Catholicks known to continue their separation walke in darkness and have a most strange aversion from the Church of Rome that neither is the great and most blessed Pontiff himself alone reputed a competent much less infallible Judge in this controversy not I say reputed so even by most celebrious and most excellent Catholick Divines though earnest renowned Champions for the Roman Faith in all its tenets and latitude Which manifestly abundantly appears not onely out of the late Decree of the Theological Faculty of Paris of the 8. of May this present year 1663. and many other decisions not of that Faculty of Paris alone but of all other Vniversities of the Kingdom of France and of the Gallicane Church too in general since the horrid murthers of Henry the Third and Fourth even of National Councels of the Bishops of the same Church against the several attempts of Boniface the Eight and Julius the Second but also out of the carriadge books actions of the Divines and Prelats of the Venetian Republick and Church against Paul the Fift in the year 1606. out of the sense and sentence of the Archbishops Bishops and Abbots of the Catholick Church of England in the Raigns of Edward the Third and Richard the Second above 300. years since Gregory the Eleventh and Martin the Fift strugling to the contrary but to no purpose as you may read even in Polydore Virgil in his life of Edward the Third out of the German Italian and other Churches truly Orthodox of several Nations of Europe their Prelats and Clergie who adhered to the Roman Emperours where the temporal rights were concernd against Gregory the Seventh and some other great Bishops of the Roman Sea lastly and yet more particularly our of our own William Occam in the cause of Lewis of Bauier and out of Iâ—â—nnes Parisiensis Gerson Major Almain Cardinal Cusan c. most famous writers and Doctors too both Catholick and Classick nay if any credit be given to Aventinus in his Seventh book of his Boiarian Annals where he relates the Decree of the foresaid Emperour Lewis of Bauier out of that General and celebrated Chapter of the whole very Order of St. Francis held at Perusia in Italy or out I mean of the famous Appeal they all that is their General Provincials and Doctors of Divinity made therein from Iohn the two and twentieth Pope of that name to a future Oecumenical Council of Christendom although I do not deny but the most immediate occasion of their appearing so as is related in that History against the Pope and appealing from him was his condemning the Franciscans for teaching That neither Christ nor his Apostles had any temporal right or property in earthly goods but onely simplicem usum facti Whom therefore in shew but really for an other cause that is for their siding against him with the Emperour and maintaining by their pens and Sermons the Emperours temporal rights he tearmed foolish animals pernicious foxes that by a seeming strictness of religion and hypocrisy abused the world and seduced the people having first set forth those Extravagants which you may read in the Canon law against the Order it self All which I say and very much more of this kind I pass over at present Nor least I exceed the measure of an epistle do I at this time alledge either those other arguments derived from the intrinsick nature or as they speak commonly from the very bowels of the cause it self or those which may be brought from or out of Canonical Scriptures or the monuments of holy Fathers who in a continual succession for nine hundred years compleat nay till the eleventh age of Christianity delivered
to following ages the true â—â—â—se of the Gospel without contradiction from any in this matter Nor do I alledge those others which indeed are very many out of the clear light of nature it self the known principles or articles of Catholick Truths manifestly revealed in the Gospel being once supposed For I have resolved to abstain in this letter from treating of the principal controversie What I say now is That such of our Institution as have subscribed the foresaid Remonstrance are ready according to their rule and regular vowes according to the Statutes also of our Order nay and if your most reverend Paternity please not only according to the substantial course prescribed in the Canons of the Roman Church for judicial proceedings but even according to the nicest puntillioes formalities and rigour too of them to obey that is to answer and give account or the reason or cause of our engagement or other proceedings even in this very principal matter of our said Protestation and that not only to the most blessed Father Alexander the Seventh chief Pastor of the Universal Church but also to the Minister General of the Friars Minors and his Commissary too of the Belgick Nation your most reverend Paternity provided only that you proceed not against us by violence subreption pre-occupation or any other injurious manner but in a regular lawful way according to the Canons What I say also is That neither your most reverend Paternity nor the Minister General may according to those Canons of the Roman Church in any manner summon so great a multitude of old sickly or indigent persons from a Countrey so farr distant as Ireland to undertake so long so dangerous a journey for so many hundred leagues by sea and land to appear at Rome or Bruxels and this I say whether the King countermand them or not But with more confidence I say it where or when it is manifest That not only the King forbids them positively but the very law of the Land expresly a law in force in England from the very dayes of St. Anselme when we find it enacted in the raign of William Rufus a Roman Catholick King of England about five hundred years since Which law soon after enacted also in this Kingdom of Ireland so many other after-laws of the following Catholick Princes Edward the third Richard the Second made likewise in for both Kingdoms which laws go by name of Provision or Praemuniri as your Paternity may likewise read in the same Italian of Vrbinum Polidore Virgil in his life of Edward the Third have so extended guarded fenced with so many additions of rigour and penalties that justly it is feared as Polydore sayes like that of death whereas besides manifold other punishments one is that the transgressor lose all his Goods if he have any and withal suffer all the evils of perpetual imprisonment That your Paternity cannot according to the Canons give any such kind of summons or citations I averr Whereas the Canons are in the very letter of them clearly against you and that besides the Church is according to the ordinary maxime a Pious Mother and consequently that even according to the general assertion of modern Divines and Canonists Her commands oblige none to undergo such grievous inconveniences or any manifest hazzard of them nor oblige even Regulars notwithstanding any vows whatsoever made by them if peradventure you except not the Jesuits Discalceat Carmelits or such if any such be either these or any others as vowed by a fourth kind of solemn vow or some such special one to be ready in all kind of contingencies whatsoever even that of life or death to obey And whereas moreover that passage of the Apostle is made use of by all Divines for the deduction of many consequents inferred thence as out of a maxime doubtless of absolute certainty both in Faith Reason There is no power to destruction but to edification and that that other passage likewise of another Apostle is no less clear and certain We must obey God rather then men And finally that we cannot but see manifestly the positive absolute command of God unto us for obeying in all temporals the King next to God alone or which is the same thing more then any other mortal when he commands nothing against the law of God What I say moreover and notwithstanding that I now immediatly said is That whensoever it shall appear legally or certainly and authentickly that in your Paternities foresaid letter to Father Caron the Subscribers were intended that is admonished or summoned or indeed shall be hereafter in any other way or by any other paper and that neither your Paternity nor General Minister will be satisfied without some one appear for them and in their name on your side of the Sea I will my self petition earnestly and use all my best endeavours that it may be lawful for at least my self as well in my own behalf as in that of all the rest of the Subscribers to appear there give the best satisfaction I can Though verily what the reverend Father Caron in his answer to your Paternity desired seems without any question farr more equitable to wit that you would be pleased rather to send a Commissary to the Province it self that is to Ireland where according to the Canons all debates and causes or their merits may be far better inquired into and more uprightly judged Which his either demand or counsel seems by so much the more reasonable by how much it cannot be unknown to your Paternity that the third year of our Provincial is now very near wherein your self ought according to the Statutes of our Institution to visit the Province and view in person the several faces of those under your charge and not by Delegates at least not by such Delegates who against all laws and not so much out of custom as corruption and even to conceal from you the true state of things are desired and further desired only for the continuing still a petty tyranny of some few persons and yet further desired with the shame and loss of the Order and who are and have been notwithstanding the great evil of such a precedent or the worse consequents of so evil an example granted by you and your Predecessors now for fifty years at least And hence Good Father so many tears But if your Paternity be resolved or have any mind to send a fit Commissary that is a man worthy of that imployment and a man too qualified according to our laws one not of the same Province but of some of the next adjoyning or if which would be yet more expedient you intend in person yourself to visit now at last the Irish vineyard as you must resolve on either to what end a citation of so great a number and of such persons to appear out of Ireland on your side the Sea Truly before even such of them as are young strong and healthy if any
pretence or even true real only cause of Warr so declared and prosecuted by the Pope against our King is purely and solely for unjust laws made and executed against Catholicks and against as well their temporal as spiritual rights and only to restore such rights to the Catholick Subjects of great Brittain and Ireland and be it further made as clear and certain as any thing can be made in this life to an other by Declarations or Manifestoes of the Popes pure and holy intentions in such an undertaking and of his Army 's too or that they intend not at all to Usurp for themselves or alienat the Crown or other rights of the Kingdoms or of any of the people but only to restore the Catholick people to their former state according to the ancient fundamental laws and to let the King govern them so and only disinable him to do otherwise and having put all things into such order to withdraw his Army altogether let all this I say be granted yet forasmuch as considering the nature of Warr and conquest and how many things may intervene to change the first intentions so pure could these intentions I say be certainly known as they cannot to any mortal man without special Divine revelation what Divines can be so foolish or peremptory as to censure the Catholick Subjects for not lying under the mercy of such a forraign Army or even in such a case to condemn them either of Sacriledg or of any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith only for not suffering themselves to lye for their very natural being at such mercy Or if any Divines will be so foolish or peremptory as these Lovain Divines proved themselves to have been by this second ground of their Censure I would fain know what clear uncontroverted passage of Holy Scripture and allowed uncontroverted sense thereof or what Catholick uncontroverted doctrine of holy Tradition or even what convincing argument of natural reason they can alleadg in the case And as I am sure they cannot alleadg any so all others may presume so too being their said original long Censure wherein they lay down all their grounds and likely too their best proofs of such dare not see the light or abide the test of publick view And if all they would have by this ground or pretence of ground or by the bad arguments they frame to make it good were allowed it is plain they conclude no more against a Remonstrance which assures our King of his Roman Catholick Subjects to stand by him in all contingencies whatsoever for the defence of his person Crown Kingdom and people and their natural and political or civil rights and liberties against the Pope himself then they would against such a Remonstrance as comprehended not such standing by against the Pope but only against French Spanish or other Princes of the Roman Church or Communion For the Pope hath no more nor can pretend any more right in the case to make Warr on the King of England then any meer temporal Prince of that Religion can being if he did Warr it must be only and purely as a meer temporal Prince for as having pure Episcopal power either that wich is immediately from Jesus Christ or that which is onely from the Fathers and Canons of the Church or if you please from both he is not capacitated to fight with the sword but with the word that is by praying and preaching and laying spiritual commands and inflicting spiritual censures only where there is just cause of such And I am sure the Lovain Divines have not yet proved nor will at any time hereafter that the non-rebellion of Subjects against their own lawful Prince let his government be supposed never so tyrannical never so destructive to Catholick Faith and Religion or even their taking arms by his command to defend both his and their own civil and natural rights against all forraign invaders whatsoever and however specious the pretext of invasion be is a just cause of any such spiritual Ecclesiastical censure Nor have proved yet against them or can hereafter that such censures in either of both cases would bind any but him alone that should pronounce them and those only that besides would obey them Yet all this notwithstanding I am farre enough and shall ever be from saying or meaning that Subjects whatsoever Catholick or not Catholick ought or can justy defend any unjust cause or quarrel of their Prince when they are evidently convinced of the injustice of it Nor consequently is it my saying or meaning that Catholick Subjects may enlist themselves in their Princes Army if an offensive Warr be declared against the Pope or even other Catholick Prince or State soever and had been declared so by the Prince himself or by his Generals or Armyes and by publick Manifesto's or otherwise known sufficiently and undoubtedly to be for extirpation of the true Orthodox Faith or Catholick Religion or of the holy rites or Liturgy or holy discipline of it Nor doth our Remonstrance engage us to any such thing but is as wide from it as Heaven from Earth It engages us indeed to obey the King even by the most active obedience can be even to enlist our selves if he command us and hazard our lives in fighting for the defence of his Person Crowns Kingdoms and People amongst which people our selves are but only still in a defensive Warr for his and their lives rights and liberties but engages us not at all to any kind of such active obedience nor ever intended to engage or supposed us engaged thereunto in case of such an offensive Warr as I have now stated What obedience the Remonstrance engages us unto in this later case is onely or meerly passive And to this passive obedience I confess it binds us in all contingencies whatsoever even the very worst imaginable But therefore binds us so because the law of the Land and the law of God and the law of Reason too without any such Remonstrance bound us before The Remonstrance therefore brings not in this particular as neither indeed in any other any kind of new tye on us but only declares our bare acknowledgement of such tyes antecedently Even such tyes as are on all Subjects of the world to their own respective lawful supream politick Governours Which bind all Subjects whatsoever to an active obedience when ever and where euer they are commanded any thing either good of its own nature or even but only indifferent and where the law of God or the law of the Land doth not command the contrary or restrain the Princes power of commanding it And to a passive obedience when he commands us any evil or any thing against either of both laws That is to a patient abiding suffering or undergoing without rebellion or any forcible resistance whatever punishment he shall inflict on us for not doing that which he commands and is truly evil in it self as being against the laws of God or is
inconsideratione aliqua violent sed una cum ipsis Principibus debitam sacris summorum Pontificum et Conciliorum constitutionibus observ antiam praestent Decernit itaque c. 2. It is also clear enough these words ordinatione divina or the Councils saying that Ecclesiastical Immunity was constituted by divine ordination imports no more of necessity then that it was Gods good pleasure and special providence and care of the Church and Churchmen that disposed affairs so and moved the hearts of Princes and people to give such exemptions to the Church and Churchmen as they indeed have For so we say that by Gods ordination or divine ordination this or that is as it is Which yet argues no positive law of God nor any law at all of God for it to be as it is As for that of Colen besides that it is but a smale Provincial Synod never yet canonized by any general Synod nor even by any Pope and therefore in Bellarmine's own principles of no authority out of that Province not even were the Decree in a matter of Faith as it is not certainly it is manifest enough the Fathers there or in that ch par 9. quoted by him speake not a word pro or â—â—n of our present dispute or if they do any way indirectly or by consequence that all is against Bellarmine forasmuch as they determine Ecclesiastical Immunity to consist chiefly in two things The one that Clerks and their possessions are free of all imports tributs and other lay duties The other that criminals flying to Churches be not forced thence Now where is a word here of Clerks being exempt even from the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes and even the most haynous crimes imaginable and committed too in meer temporal things These Fathers of Colen did not as much as dream of any such matter At least no rational Divine is to judge or conclude out of their words or expression here that they did For the onely word here whence any such thing might be any way pretended are these aliisque maneribus laicis But who sees not there are other lay duties besides customs oâ— taxes from which by the civil constitutions of the Roman Emperours at first and after by that of other Kings who succeeded them Clerks are and have been exempted nay that their exemption from other lay duties was the first exemption they had and even that which above all other was most convenient they should have as for example from all civil offices of Collectors Bayliffs Constables from the Militia c. Why then should any Divine be so unreasonable as to derive from a position so general so proper and so true of those Fathers of Colen a conclusion so particular so improper and so false as Bellarmine doth in our present case As for those other words of this of Colen jure pariter divino humano I have already said what we must rationally think they understood by jus divinum though only applied here to other exemptions then that from the supream civil power For both the Lateran Councils I confess Bellarmine and some others with him give them both equally the name of General But I am sure withal that according to all truth the latter which he considers first or that under Leo the X. does not merit as much as the name of a General Council truly such nor even of an Occidental Council truly such and that Bellarmine himselâ— elsewhere confesses it is not esteemed as such by many great Catholicks and that moreover whatsoever he thinks the whole Gallican Church many others reject it as not esteeming it such for many reasons which I shall give hereafter in this book upon another occasion As I am sure also that all the Canons of discipline reported to be of the IV. Council of Lateran or of that under Innocent the Third which Bellarmine quotes here in the next place are doubtful though for the present it matters not much whether these Canons be or be not genuine or whether this which is called the great Council of Lateran Concilium Magnum Laterananse was or was not a general Council truly such or whether only a very great Occidental Council but not for all that a Council oecumenical or General properly and truly such of the universal Church As the same for the point of being truly oecumenical or General of the whole Church is disputed by some concerning the Tridentine Synod albeit now of greatest authority with us of all General Councils truly and unconvertedly such Neither doth it matter any more one jot whether the other Lateran under Leo the X. be admitted or not for a General Council truly such For albeit this latter in the IX Session and decreeing somewhat of Ecclesiastical Discipline sayes in general and by way of supposition that by divine and humane law there is no power attributed to Lay-men over Clerks c. and the former under Innocent cap. 24. say that some Laicks endeavour to usurp too much of divine right when they compel Church-men that receive no temporal benefit from them to swear Allegiance or take oathes of fidelity to them yet no understanding person no good Divine or Canonist may therefore conclude that certainly these Councils intended thereby to signifie as much as it to be their own bare opinion much less to declare it as the Catholick Faith which indeed is not pretended of them by Bellarmine himself or any other That Clerks are by a pâ—sitive law of God exempt even in all criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of temporal Princes And my reasons are 1. Because it is a maxime of both Divines and Canonists that priviledges and laws that speak of priviledges are stricti juris or strictae interpretationis when the priviledges are to the prejudice of any third's right as also when out of any other kind of more ample interpretation some either absurdity or falsity or any great inconvenience or any errour and gross mistake attributed to the laws or Law-makers or givers of such priviledge must follow 2. Because it is a maxime too very well known and granted that where a Law or Canon dwells in Generals only we must not understand particulars or such specialties as are not specially express'd and whereof there is or may be a grand controversie whether the power of the Canon-makers could reach unto them and which moreover are such that it is not likely the Law or Canon-makers would comprehend them if expresly thought upon and specially debated 3. Because it is manifest this position of Bellarmine concerning the exemption of Clergy-men in all criminal causes whatsoever c. is such a specialty and such a priviledge And therefore it must follow that whereas these Councils of Lateran do not in specifical express terms discend to it no Divine or Canonist may in reason conclude they mean'd it But on the contrary ought rather to expound them in any other probable and rational
it is ordinary with all kind of people to speak so of all things happened to themselves or others sin only excepted God will have it so or God hath ordained so And yet no man will be so foolish as to gather out of such expressions that people mean to say there was a positive law of God or law of his known to us for the doing or being of things so or so Otherwise what a numberless infinity of positive laws of God must we assert which the world never yet heard of and such as never any one of all have been yet in Scripture or Tradition For Symmachus finally that which is alledged out of him or his Roman Synod concerns not the present dispute and at most and at best signifies no more then the sense of that Provincial Council speaking to Symmachus and their sense too delivered only in an ordinary way of speech not in any Canon and even this very speech against only the pretence of the Praetorian Praefect of Odoacer to make a law yet without the consent of the Church-men or of the Bishops and other Priests though with a good intention for the preservation of the Church-lands and Revenues and Goods or to hinder any Sale or Mortage of them by the very Bishops of Rome it self even for what concern'd them or their own peculiar See in that City In this case it was the Fathers of that Council spoke thus after they had caused the Instrument or Law of the said Praetorian Praefect or of Basilius to be read by Hormisda the Deacon Licet secundum prosecutionem venetabilium fratrum nostrorum Laurentii Eulalii Cresconii Maximi vel Stephani nec apud nos incertum habetur hanc ipsam scripturam nullius esse momenti verum tamen etiamsi aliqua posset ratione subsistere modis omnibus in Sindali Conventu provida Beatudinis Vestrae sententia enervari conveniebat in irritum deduci ne in exemplum remaneret praesumendi quibuslibet Laicis quamvis religiosis vel pâ—tentibus in quacunque ciuitate quolibet modo aliquid decernere de Ecclesiasticis facultatibus quarum solis sacerdotibus disponendi indiscusse a Deo cura commissa decetur Where it is plain 1. That nothing is said or mean'd of the exemption of the persons of Church-men from the supream temporal power 2. That they neither signifie as much as their Goods or Lands to be exempt from that same power supream but only secundum subjectam materiam to be exempt so far from the subordinat Magistrate that no disposition could be made of the Church-lands or Goods or no provision either for the Church by such inferiour Magistrates how powerful or even religious and well meaning soever without the consent of the Bishops and Priests themselves 3. That much less do the Fathers of this Council signifie their lands or goods not to be subject to any publick taxes or which is it I mean do not signifie that God hath appointed their lands or goods should be exempt from all publick taxes tributes customs c. For the disposing of the Revenues or other goods of the Church to be indistinctly committed by God to Priests and that Priests should be notwithstanding lyable to publick contributions out of such Revenues or Goods for the publick necessities of the common-wealth are things very compatible in reason And here is nothing said by these Fathers to the contrary Besides we know that whatever may be said of that law so published by Basilius the Pretor or whether by the express command of Odoacer no man will deny that both the Pope and other Italian Bishops had reasons sufficient to move them not to regard it much as being made either by an Usurper or an enemy to the Emperour and who yet dared not take on himself the name of Emperour and moreover forasmuch as at that time that very same Usurper or Enemy Odoacer with whose authority it was made or published by Basilius was devested by Theodorick nay dead when the Fathers held that Synod and forasmuch too as in the same law that same Odâ—acer would have usurped also the election of the Pope to himself as Baronius and Spondanus have ad annum Christi 457. But however this be or be not it is evident here is not a sâ—llable for the exemption of Church-men or Clerks as to their persons and in criminal cause and that too by the positive law of God from the supream civil or coercive power And it is no less evident although my present purpose require not my animadaversion hereof That meer Lay-men Kings and Lords and Knights and Burgesses and Squires and Boores and even all masters of Families whatsoever in such contreys as have the laws of property might in a like or unlike controversie 'twixt themselves and the Clergy if the Clergy alone should attempt to make laws for disposing of their estates without their own consent might I say with very much right truth answer the Clergy as the Fathers did the Layety here or thus I mean mutatis mutandis verum tamen etiamsi aliqua c. provida Majestatis vestrae sententia eneruari conveniebat in iâ—ritum deduci ne in exemplum remaneret quibuslibet Ecclesiasticis c. aliquid decernere de laicis facultatibus quarum solis laicis disponendi indiscussè a Deâ— cura commissa dâ—cetur And yet none of them would be therefore constrained or necessitated in point of reason to prove or to suppose a positive law of God for their own exemption as much as to their goods from the Clergy The civil or municipal laws or customs of men and which indeed are those only that make meum and tuum in the world in such a case would be ground enough for them to say that God committed the disposing of their own estates to themselves alone and not to the Clergy To wit for as much as by his general or special providence he had such or such civil laws made and for as much as he commands generally in holy Scripture as natural reason also tells us we must observe all kind of humane Ordinances of the supream civil Power and States we live in which imply no sin Therefore Symmachus and his Council are as vainly alledged by Bellarmine for a positive law of God for the exemption of Clergymen c. as any of those other Popes or Councils And therefore too from first to last I conclude against this most eminent Cardinal that indeed there is not any such positive law of God at least in our case that is for the exemption of the persons of Clergymen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of supream temporal Princes no such positive I say as yet revealed unto us either by holy Scripture or by any Tradition For these arguments which I now have so answered are all he doth or can pretend for such a positive law of God from either albeit I confess he speaks not expresly of Tradition nor also
or body at pleasure according to the end this rational commandress hath prefixed to her self and on the other side we see that the flesh hath no empire no command over the spirit nor can direct or judge or restrain it in any thing Ergo sayes Bellarmine a paritate it must follow or be That in the same wise the Ecclesiastical power which is spiritual and therefore naturally superiour to the secular may when it is necessary direct judge and restrain or use coercion towards the civil power but never be it self directed judged or restrained by the secular Third argument thus As well in holy Scripture and other writings of holy Fathers as by the common custom of Christians Priests are adorned with the names or titles of Fathers and Pastors But nature teacheth that children are bound to obey their parents and willingly abide correction from them but never to think that they on the other side may themselves command correct or judge their parents And much more doth the same nature teach that sheep are directed and govern'd by their Pastours and when they straye are by the whistle or stick of their Pastors reduced again into their right way and pasture Which is so true that it would be plainly against nature that a sheep should direct or govern her Pastour Fourth argument thus Ecclesiastical persons are the Ministers of God consecrated for his onely service and for this very purpose offered by all the people to God Whence it is that they are called Clerici or Clerks from the greek word Cleros that signifies a lot as if by that name of theirs it were given us to understand that they belong specially to the lot of our Lord Which St. Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus But certainly in such things as are offered and consecrated to God and so in some wise made as if they were the property or peculiar of God no secular Princes can have any right Which both the light of reason doth shew and God himself delivers not obscurely in holy Scripture where he sayes in the last of Leviticus Quicquid semel Deo fuerit consecratum sanctum sanctorum erit Domino Fift and last argument thus God hath not seldom punished miraculously the prophaners of Churches and such as presumed to violate the immunities or privileges granted to sacred places Whereof much may be read with Tilmannus Bredenbachius l. 5. sacrarum collationum But that is a very notable testimony which is read of Basilius Porphyrogenitus Emperour of the Greek apud Balsamonem in Nomōca-none Photij in commentario canonis primi Synodi Constantinopolitanae primae secundae quam nos Latini Octavam appellamus For the said Basilius attributs the cause of the calamities of those days to a certain law made by his predecessour Nicephoras Phocas against the liberty of the Church Ex quo inquit lex ista robur habuit nihil boni penitus in hodiernum usque diem vitae nostrae contigit sed potius ê contrario nullum omninò genus calamitatis defuit From the time sayes Basilius that law of Nicepherus was observed no kind of good fortune happened in our life but rather on the contrary no sort of calamity was wanting And therefore this Emperour Basilius did with much reason abrogat wholly that law And these are the five arguments of Bellarmine The first grounded on his pretended custom of all Nations second on his similitude betwixt the Ecclesiastical power and lay and that of the soul and body third on the titles or names of Father and children and sheepheards and sheep fourth on the title or name of Clerks derived from the greek word Cleros and on the signification thereof and the fift on signs and prodigies as he speaks or calamities which pursued the infringers of Ecclesiastical Immunity liberty or Exemption And these arguments I have given all of them as neer as I could in his own words and form that the Reader may the more clearly judge of my answers and of the controversy in it self for what concerns my present purpose in this Section which is onely as I have often advertised the Exemption or not exemption rather by the law divine natural or law of nations of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream lay civil and coercive power in criminal causes And consequently also judge whether I wrong this most eminent Cardinal if I say as I do say That he hath by his doctrine here or in and as to this particular of such exemption and of such laws extreamly abused his Readers and not his Readers onely but his Religion and reason and Layety and Clergie and Church and State and even all mankind And that for this he pretends a custom of all Nations which never hath been yet of as much as any one Nation in the world both holy and prophane Scriptures neither of which have one word to the purpose a similitude that is lame titles or names latin and greek that to conclude his purpose are no less vain and finally the justice of God and saying of an Emperour that never executed nor this at all pronounced in our present case or dispute LXVII For and for what concerns his first argument and I mean still as he intends it to conclude not some kind of exemption Immunity or priviledge either local or personal given to Churches or Churchmen but even that plenary Exemption of his own or which he pretends of all their lands goods houses and persons too and in all kind of causes spiritual and temporal civil criminal mixt and this also not from the inferiour lay or civil Judges onely but also from all the very supreamest civil both directive and coercive powers on earth it is plain enough That his Assumption or Antecedent is false because he hath not yet nor any other can for him hereafter instance as much as any one single Nation in the world wherein they ever yet had or have at present such Exemption That for all those nations known to us we see dayly the quite contrary both taught and practised amongst them in relation to the supream civil power and as well to the persons of Clergiemen in some cases for what concerns judgement and punishment as to their goods and lands for that of taxes when the Commonwealth is necessitated to laye taxes on them That not one of those places he quotes either out of holy Scripture or other books or Histories prove that Antecedent of his or his Allegation of the custom of all nations in the point or even which is less of any one nation Though if he did or could prove it for some one nation yet he could not therefore be thought to have said any thing for the proof of that antecedent or of his grand position unless he did withal instance it generally That therefore likely it was that he onely quoted the books and chapters without giving the words or contents of those books or chapters whereby the Reader might be
Valentinian and with his Arrian Mother about the giving up a Church in Milan to thense of the Arrians did not I say this so great and so holy and so knowing Ambrose tell the Emperour that indeed the lands of the Church were under his power and therefore payed him tribute but that the Church it self was not for such an impious use Therefore our learned Cardinal is much out in his collection here from this Canon of the Apostles when he sayes that by natural reason because the goods or lands of the Church are called Dominicae therefore the cannot in any wise or for any use or in any case be subject to the supream lay Jurisdiction To his fifth and last argument I need not say much because it so little requires other answer than That it is the very worst sort of argument he could use for his Ecclesiastical Immunity and for the being of it as such from the very law of Nations and Nature For to pretend or alledge even true miraculous extraordinary judgments or punishments from God on the Profaners of holy places or even too on the tyrannical Oppressors of holy or Ecclesiastical Persons as also on a Prince or People for having made first or observed after out of covetousness hatred envy pride ambition or any other sinful end such laws as naturally must lessen the holiness or esteem or reverence which must be due to either such places or such persons what hath this to do with the religious worshippers of such places and with the careful protectors of such persons or with either Prince or People that for a just and holy end make a wholsome law which being observed by Church-men will make them more holy and more reverend Besides how often have we read of extraordinary judgments of God pursuing presently the injustice committed by either Prince or People against meer lay men and against such as could pretend no such exemption and against such too as had no right of their side but from the positive civil Institutions or Laws made by other meer lay-men If our most eminent Cardinal had alledged and proved but one only miracle wrought in the case that is wrought by the invocation of God and either expresly or even tacitly for the confirmation of his Thesis or the being of Clergymen so exempt as he would have them in all cases and all respects from the supream civil jurisdiction of lay Princes then indeed he might have had some colour to amuse the Reader with that his fifth Argument Albeit yet such miracle would not be home enough unless withal it appeared wrought to confirm their being so exempt by the law of Nations and Nature But neither for Churchmen or Church doth he as much as pretend to any such material miracle or any such extraordinary punishments from God And good God! what is it to prove such exemption as he pretends That the sacrilegious robbers or any other wicked prophaners of a Church dyed presently That a passionat wicked Prince who did without any form of justice without any just cause at all and who did even against his own laws and his own conscience persecute to death a Religious Prelate or Priest onely for having been a good Prelate or good Priest in reprehending wickedness that I say such a Prince had an evil or strange and suddain end Certainly were it acknowledged of all sides did God himself now expresly and intelligibly and evidently reveal it to all the world that notwithstanding any pretence or even any positive laws of men hitherto all kind of Churchmen and Churches and their persons goods lands houses c. were as other men in all kind of temporal matters subject to the disposition and coercion of not only the supream but also of the inferiour civil Magistrate yet from the providence and goodness and justice also of God we might rationally expect sometime and pray sometime also for such extraordinary and exemplary miraculous punishment of such as would abuse that right or that power given them by God to govern well questionless to govern holily and justly the Church of God and Ministers and lands and revenues of it Besides how often have such extraordinary miraculous punishments seized on the very Ecclesiastical Governours themselves and even on the very supream Ecclesiastical Governours who have oppressed the inferiour Clergie And yet there was no exemption of this inferiour Clergie from them concluded thence Lastly how knows for what injustice in particular did those extraordinary punishments from God and let us suppose them still truly miraculous and from God in a special way which yet will be hardly proved of most of them seize upon such as were said to have violated Churches or Churchmen against that which this learned Cardinal pretends to be Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty Did God reveal it was particularly for infringing that or infringing any part of all that which Bellarmine understands or pretends to be of true and due Ecclesiastical exemption and was moreover to shew by a testimony from Heaven That this Ecclesiastical Immunity of his must be admitted to be such by the law of Nations and Nature Or did God reveal it was not perhaps for some other indeed more unquestionably exorbitant wickedness of those very men so punished miroculously Or must the single conjecture of Basilius Porphyrogenitus be to us a certainty that indeed those evils happened at that time to the Constantinopolitan Empire by reason or because of that law whatever it was made by Nicephorus Phocas and further yet a concluding argument for the being of Bellarmine's such pretended Ecclesiastical Immunity from the law of Nations and Nature which onely is our present business or dispute Nay must we not rather according to reason attribute those very plagues or judgments from God at that time to other causes that is to the undoubted uncontroverted injustices and wrongs done by Nicephorus Phocas in using ill and abusing very much the supream power he had over the Clergie if I say there was any thing extraordinary in those plagues or if they were such as the like or farre worse did not fall on that people or Emperour of Constantinople very often before that law was made and after that law was again abolished and when Ecclesiastical Immunity was as strictly and religiously observed as ever or when the supream civil power as rightly used as ever for the veneration of holy places and holy persons Do not the Greek Historians of those times Curopolates and Cedrenus Zonaras and Glycas do not Baronius and his Abbreviator Spendanus ad Annum Christi 962. 964. confess with those Greeks That Nicephorus Phocas though otherwise an excellent and victorious Prince had been charged with several other exorbitances as with having suffered himself after the death of Romanus to be chosen Emperour by the Army notwithstanding that Basilius and Constantinus both lawful Sons to the deceased Emperour Romanus were yet alive and lawful Heirs of the Empire and
is Ecclesiastical Judges given them in such exempted causes both criminal and civil but given them so by the supream authority civil and proceeding in so much against them to a meer civil determination execution and coaction by vertue onely of the power derived from the civil laws and supream civil Magistrate and not by vertue of any spiritual power or other whatsoever derived from the Church as purely a Church Because the Church as such hath neither territory nor sword consequently no external criminal or civil Judicatory with any external or temporal power of coaction or coercion properly such but onely a spiritual power of meer spiritual censures which is but secundum quid or diminutively and improperly called coercion or coaction for what belongs to our purpose here But however this be or be not it is clear enough First that by no civil law of the Roman Emperours Clerks have been ever yet at any time exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat or from the supream civil coercive power of his laws Which I take to be so absolutely certain That Bellarmine himself for proof of his third Proposition which he hath cap. 28. l. 1. de Cler. in these general words Non possunt Clericiâ—a Judicâ— seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent had not the confidence to alleadg any other imperial or civil constitution but onely those of the Emperour Justinian's Novells 79. 83. and 123. where yet Bellarmine confesses this Emperour decreed no more but the exemption of Clerks and Monks from secular that is laye judicatories in civil causes onely and not in criminal Nay confesses that for criminal causes the same Justinian particularly and expresly decrees in these very Novels that Clergiemen be subject still to the lay or civil Pretors Jurisdiction with this caution only that judgment of death be not pronounced in the Pretors Court against a Clerk before he be degraded by the Bishop So that by the very concession and confession of Bellarmine himself it is not only clear enough that no civil constitution can be produced for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream lay power but also clear enough that no such can be pleaded for their exemption in such causes from all subordinate inferiour lay Courts being the Pretors Court was a subordinate one at least unto the Princes own supream Tribunal and being that Bellarmine having confessed this much of this law of Iustinians finds no other civil Institution for his purpose in criminal causes to alledge but flyes presently to his Ecclesiastical Institutions in that point saying that albeit the civil law did not so exempt Clerks in criminal causes from the civil Judicatories yet the Canons of the Church did as sayes he appears clearly out of the Epistle of Cains the Pope to Felix and out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and also out of the XI book of Gregory the Greats Register epist 54. ad Joannem Defensorem and saying further that the civil law must yield to the Canon Law cum possit summus Pontifex Imperatori praecipere in iis praesertim quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent whereas sayes he the supream Pontiff or Pope may command the Emperour especially in such things as concern the Church Where it is evident that Bellarmine confesses plainly there is no civil Institution or Law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the civil or lay Courts For the Reader is to take notice here that by the civil law in this matter no other civil law is understood but that only of Emperours From which indeed originally and only all the exemption of Clerks proceeded even in those Christian Countreys which have shaken off the yoke and even in those too which never yet were under that of the Imperial Power or Laws but have made themselves peculiar municipal laws Which yet albeit they be meerly and properly civil laws yet are they not the civil laws whereof Bellarmine treats and his other Associats contend as we are sure they give more exemption to Clerks either in criminal or civil causes then those of the Roman Emperour did But forasmuch as many of our Clerks are ignorant of that spring of their exemption whatever this exemption truly groundedly be as others are no less ungrateful for not acknowledging it I will oblige those and check these by laying here before their eyes the very first laws the several degrees of them whereby they came by the meer favour of the Roman Emperours to that exemption from Secular Courts which they have truly ever since enjoyed more or less in Christendome according as these laws were continued practised or even by other Princes not subject any more or at all to the Roman Emperours and Laws enacted a new or allowed of Therefore and that we may not erre hereafter in this point the Reader is to know that all these several priviledges liberties or exemptions either of persons lands or other goods which the Clergy hath now in Christian Kingdoms and States have not been granted at first by any one Emperour or at any one time The very first exemption ever yet granted to Clerks was that of Constantine the Great whereby after this good Emperour had formerly published his edicts of liberty for Christian Religon in general he particularly gave this priviledge by law to those of that religion were called Clerks that they should not be obnoxious to nominations or susceptions that is that if they were named or elected for any civil office of Magistracy or Wardship or of gathering of Taxes Tributes c. yet they should not be bound to undergo any such whereas before that law or priviledge Christian Clerks being named or elected were bound to undergo all such offices without any such excuse at all But eight years after this law so made the same Câ—nstantine made another whereby he gave a general exemption to such Clerks from all kind of civil offices l. 1. 2. Cod. Theod. de Episcop Cleric l. 16. wherein he gives the reason of this priviledge least sayes he Clerks sacrilego livâ—re quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur may out of the sacrilegious envy of some be called away or diverted from their divine imployments And indeed it is very observable against the ungrateful temerity of some Clerks who are loath to acknowledge the spring of their Immunity to be from the secular power that the same most Christian Prince calls those exemptions priviledges For so he calls them in express tearms Haereticorum factiâ—ne comperimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Clericos ita vexari ut nominationibus seu suceptionibus aliquibus quas publicus mos exposcit centra indulta sibi privilegia pregraventur we have found sayes he that by the faction of Hereticks the Clerks of the Catholick Church are so vexed that they are forced to submit to nominations and susceptions which publick use requires against the priviledges granted them In reference to and
also 3. That the very same Constantine had in many other places and many other much more authoritative speeches even in his own very imperial laws expresly declared how much he would have Clerks exempt and how much remain still subject to the common law As in Cod. Theodos. Tit. de Episcop l. 3. l. 6. Cod. Iustinian Tit. de Episc Cleric l. 1. l. 2. l. 3. l. 4. Therefore neither did Constantine mean or intend by that saying That Clerks were exempt from his own immediate tribunal not even by the law divine nor in that History of Ruffinus is there as much as a word whereby it may be gathered That Clerks were set free of or exempted from the supream imperial power As for that seaventh law de Episc Cleric in the Code of Theodosian where it is said thus Lectores divinorum apicum Hypodiaconi caeteri Clerici qui per injuriam Haereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt absoluantur de caetero ad similitudinem orientis minimé ad Curias devocentur sed immunitate plenissima potiantur how sees not also Bellarmines intollerable errour in his understanding of the word Curia and of those other Devocari ad Curiam as if curia imported a judgment judgment seat Judicatory Tribunal or Court of Justice and as if Devocari ad Curiam the same with to be called or convened or summond to a Court of Justice or before a Judge whereas indeed Curia signifies precisely and onely especially in these laws either the place where the Tribes Wards or publick Officers as Collectors Constables tribute gatherers Mayors Bayliffs c. did meet or those very offices of publick care for from the word eura in Latin which imports care in English curia is said as it is derived And Devocari ad Curiam signifies properly and onely to be called upon to undergoe these publick offices of care which relate to the Commonwealth to Villages and Burroughs and Citties c whence it was that such as were appointed for such employments were called Curiones and Decuriones and were commonly rich able sufficient men and were not suffered at all to refuse or quit those employments not even under pretence of Clerk-ship or of their being Ecclesiastical persons or Church-men nor even under pretence or by vertue of their being priviledged persons of the very Emperours own house or family For Constantine himself commanded by law eod tit de Episc leg 3. nullum decurienem vel ex decurione progenitum vel etiam instructum idoneis facultatibus atque obeundum publicis muneribus opportunum ad Clericorum nomen obsequiumque confugere c. sed illos qui post legem latam obsequia publica declinantes ad Clericorum numerum confugiunt procul ab eo corpore segregatos curiae ordinibusque restitui civilibus obsequiis inservire That no Decurion nor any begott by a Decurion nor also any of sufficient riches and fit to undergo publick charges should flye to the name and service of Clerks c. But that all such as after the law was made to decline publick charges or offices had fled to or put themselves in the number or calling of Clerks that is of Churchmen should be wholly segregated again from that body and restored to their curia wardships orders and civil employments And after him the Emperour Valentinian l. 21. eod tit ordained That Hi qui Ecclesiae juge obsequium deputarunt curiis habeantur immunes si tamen eos ante ortum Imperij nostri ad cultum se legis nostrae contulisse constiterit caeteri revocentur qui se post id tempus Ecclesiasticis congregarunt That such as had deputed themselves for ever o the Church should be free from the curia that is from publick charges or offices of publick care Provided they have done so or been so deputed before the beginning of our Empire And let them be revoked that have after that time aggregated themselves to Ecclesiasticks Gratian also and Theodosius l. 39. C. de Decur decreed that Curiales qui sesâ— privilegio domus nostrae defendi posse crediderint ad curiam revocentur propriis sunctionibus mancipentur That Curials that is men in the law capable and lyable to undergo publick cares charges or offices as in a City rich able freemen Aldermen c. who believe they can defend themselves by the priviledg of our house be revoked notwithstanding ad curiam to the Assembly house or place where publick offices are imposed and there constrained to undergo such offices And yet the degree of Curials hath no title or name of Honour l. 1. C. de Decur and some immunities are bestowed on them l. 21. ibidem Quoniam sayes that law satis est si civitatum munera per eos congruè compleantur Because sayes it it is enough for them to discharge well the offices which they undergo in the Citties But frighted by the labour and as it were continual servitude of such employments they fled away from them a curia refugiebant For being employed in such it was unlawful for them to relinquish the Town Corporation City and go to the Prince's Court or elswhere to take their pleasure or even to go to the warrs or turn souldiers They must have continually kept their station at home to attend their publick charge or when they should be called thereunto Whence it is that the title of that law was thus conceived in the Code De Decurionibus filiis eorum qui Decuriales habentur quibus modis a fâ—rtuna curiae liberentur And that Princes beleeved they had highly priviledg'd the Clergie when they had freed them from wardships guardianships collectorships and all other such publick civil offices or which is the same thing from all nominations and susceptions from all curial employments whatsoever Behold here that most plenary exemption immunitatem plenissimam which Constantine would have the Clerks enjoy And who sees not moreover that Theodâ—sius and Valentinian or that law of theirs alleadg'd by Bellarmine out of Theodosians Code l. ultima de Episc Cleric where the words are these Clericos quos indiscretion ad seculares Iudices debere deduci infansius praesumptor dixerat Episcopali audientiae reservamus Fas enim non est ut divini muneris Ministri temporalium potestatum subdantur arbitriâ— who sees not I say that Bellarmine labours in vain in quoting these Emperours or this law of theirs For if even our learned Cardinal himself did but consider That that law was onely for confirming and asserting those priviledges which the Emperours themselves gave the Churches as is evident out of this other passage and those other genuin words of that very law ut quiâ—quid a Divis Principibus constitutum est vel quae singuli quique Antistites pro causes Ecclesiasticis impetrarunt sub paena sacrilegii jugi solidata aeternitate serventur himself also could not but be perswaded that those former words fas non est spoken
an ordinance in such general or rather indefinit terms for the exemption of Clerks in a criminal question from the civil-Judicatory or being it is but a command or law That none should presume to call or draw an Ecclesiastical person in a criminal question or even civil to a secular judgment against the Imperial Constitutions and Canonical Functions and whereas there was never yet any Imperial Constitution or Canonical Sanction either made before his time or in his time or after his time that exempted Clergymen in either of both sorts of questions civil or criminal from the supream civil and absolute power of the Emperour themselves or of other Kings that acknowledge neither Emperour nor Pope nor any other above themselves in their temporal government who sees not that out of this Constitution of Frederick nothing can be concluded for such exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power but only from that of subordinat inferiour and ordinary civil or secular Judicatories Besides we know Fredericks laws were only for those few Cities or Provinces that remain'd in his time which was about the year of Christ one thousand two hundred and twenty and therefore could not pretend nor did pretend to prescribe laws to other Kingdoms or Kings for the exemption of Clerks either in civil or criminal causes or even to the inferiour Iudicatories of other Kings And that we know also that that law of Frederick was not imitated by the like in other Principalities not subject to him not imitated I say generally as to the exemption of Clerks in all either civil or criminal causes whatsoever from the very subordinat inferiour civil Iudicatories nor even in prima instantia So that I must conclude that Bellarmine was put to a very narrow strait for an imperial or civil law wh◠〈◊〉 pitch't on this of Frederick which was not known nor as much as 〈◊〉 of in other parts of even Europe it self as owning no subjection to Frederick And yet a law not to the purpose were it of the same authority those Imperial Constitutions were when the Orient and the Occident South and North as far as the Roman Empire was ever spread at any time or even in great Constantins days were under one Lord. An imperial or civil law in those days or of such others for some ages after which wâ—e received in the wide christian world consequently generally retained might have been to purpose if it had clearly expresly on particularly enacted any thing to our present purpose But conceived in such terms as this of Frederick coâ—lâ— not be to such purpose For it is one thing to be exempted from the subjection due to Emperours or Kings and another to be exempted a forâ— secuilâ—i from a secâ—â—â—â— Iudicatory The Emperours had under themselves and established by themselves and by their own civil laws two sorts of Iudicatories The one termâ—â—â—g meer civil or meer secular Iudicatory where peculars onely or meer â—ay men were Judges And the other termed 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Iudicatory where Ecclesiastical Persons only or persons depâ—â—â—â— by them were Iudgeâ— whatever the cause or question was civil or criâ—â—nal temporal or spiritual or mixt of both And both had their power which as coercive or a 〈…〉 with any coerciâ—â—â— from the Emperours and from their civil law 〈◊〉 So that the Emperours exempting any from the secular Iudicatory 〈…〉 leave or put such under the subordinat pâ—â—er of the Ecclesiastical Judges deputed by the same Emperours or by their laws Which they might have done in favour of meer lay men 〈◊〉 some lay-men and in some or many or all case whatsoever made had it been their Imperial pleasure as often they did by instances grant Epise 〈◊〉 And entiam to meer lay men and in meer lay crimes or lay causes 〈◊〉 civil and criminal at leaâ— in civil Would Bellarmine conclude therefore that those were exempted or should be in such a case and by the Emperours themselves or their laws exempted from their own supream civil coercive power in criminal causes or indeed in any whatsoever Or must it follow that because by the law of England a Lord for example 〈◊〉 be condemned or tryed in a criminal cause but by his Peers that therefore in England a Lord is exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the King himself Or that it is not by a power derived from the King thâ—â— Peer 〈…〉 condemn or free another Peer Or even that by the supream power of the King which formerly established such a law of priviledge for Peers the same law may not be justly again or upon just grounds repealed and a contrary law made in Parliament if at any time it were found by manifest experience that the Peers did manifestly and manifoldly and even to the ruine of the King and Kingdom and against the very primary intention of all priviledges and laws make use of or rather abuse such a former law or former priviledge Or finally and consequently that whatever priviledge of exemption though only from Inferiour lay Judges was so granted as before to Clerks by the supream civil power of Emperours Kings and other States was such that in case of manifest and manifold abuse even to the ruine of the publick and without any hope of amendment it could not be revoked again or moderated by another law and equal power to that which gave it before Therefore from first to last I think it is now clear enough that by the civil law no Clerks are exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of such temporal Princes or States under whom they live LXIX That neither by the Canons of the Church I am now to prove Wherein I find so little difficulty that notwithstanding the general errour so wide spread or supposed amongst as well Divines as Canonists to the contrary but introduced at first and continued after out of some passages of Councils very ill understood considered or examined I dare say boldly that not onely none of all those Councils or Canons of Councils alledged for such exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power but not even any of them alledged for their exemption from as much as the subordinat civil power of inferiour Judicatories hath any such matter at all Though my purpose here be not other then to prove this truth for what concerns the supream power only To which purpose I affirm that no where in any Council is it found that the Fathers attributed such authority to themselves as by their own sole power to exempt Clerks from lay Tribunals â— or which is the same thing to deprive secular Judges or Magistrates of power empire command judgment coercion or Iurisdiction over Clerks or which also imports the very same to prohibit the secular Judges not to take cognizance of or give sentence in the causes either civil or criminal of Clerks brought unto their tribunals or finally and it is still in effect the same
of the rest none at all The first Council then which decreed any thing concerning this point was the third Council of Carthage held Anno Domini 307. St. Augustine being one of the Fathers and subscribers of it Whereof the 9. Canon is of this tenour and very words Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum Praesbyterorum Diaconorum seu Clericorum cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commota si relicto Ecclesiastico judioiâ— publicis judiciis purgari â—â—luerit etiamsi pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia locum suum amittat hoc in criminali judicio In civili vero perdat quod evicit si locum suum obtinere voluerit Cui enim ad eligendos judices undique patet authoritas ipse se indignum fraterno câ—nsortiâ— judicat qui de universa Ecclesia male sentiendo de judicio seculari poscit auxilium cum privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri atque ibi determinari praecipiat Also we have ordained that if any Bishop Priest Deacon or other Clerk being charged in or before the Church with a crime or having but even a civil suit commenced against him shall decline Ecclesiastical Judgment and choose rather to have his cause tryed in publick Courts or Judicatories though he have sentence given for him yet he shall loose his place and this in a criminal judgment But in a civil that he forgo what he hath wonn if he desire to hold his place For he that is at full liberty to choose his Judges where he will shews himself unworthy of the fellowship of his bretheren when judging ill of the whole Church he sueth to secular judicatories for help whereas the Apostle commandeth that the causes of private Christians be brought to the Church and there determined Is there I beseech you any word here out of which may be gathered by any probable consequence That this Council intended to exempt Clergie-men from the jurisdiction of secular Magistrats or to declare that no Laicks are lawful Judges in any causes of the Clergie So little of any such matter that on the contrary the whole tenour shews plainly enough those Affrican Fathers beleeved that Laicks were always very legal and competent Judges in the politick or temporal causes of Clerks And shews plainly enough those Fathers endeavoured onely by this Canon to bridle the stubborness and restrain the giddiness of such Clerks as when their causes were already begun to be debated in the Church before Ecclesiastical Arbiters did nevertheless without any cause and before sentence renounce them and run to the secular Judges for a determination In which case yet this Council disallows not the sentence given by the secular Judge nor pronounceth him to be no competent Judge but onely for punishment of the levity and improbity of such a Clerk prescribes him to quit the benefit of such a sentence or els to loose his place But that those Fathers at the same time acknowledg'd the civil Magistrats to be lawful Judges of Clerks may hence be sufficiently evicted that they restrained this decree to that case onely wherein a crime is in the Church that is before an Ecclesiastical Judge charg'd on a Clergieman or a civil suit commenced against him in the Church quo crimen Clerico in Ecclesia fuerit intentatum aut civilis causa commota Out of these two cases therefore it was lawful for a Clerk notwithstanding this Canon to have recourse to lay Judicatories and secular publick Judges How clear soever this matter be yet Bellarmine would needs argue against it in his book against William Barclay cap. 34. where he tels us that himself sees in this canon many things for the exemption of Clerks Primum enim sayes he aperâ—è damnant Patres recursum ad judicia secularium Magistratuum quod certe non facerent si seculares Magistratus omni ex parte legittimi judices Ecclesiasticorum fuissent c. For first sayes he the Fathers openly condemn a recourse to secular Magistrats which truly they would not have done if the secular Magistrates were in all respects lawful judges of Ecclesiasticks For what sin or fault had it been to appeal from the judgment of the Bishop to the judgment of the President of the Province or of the Prince himself if the President or Prince were a lawful Judge not onely of the Clerk but also of the Bishop Next this Council rescinds the sentence of the secular Judg pronounced against a Clerk forasmuch as the canon decrees that a Clerk absolved in a criminal cause by a secular Judg shall loose his place and in a civil cause shall loose that which was adjudged to him and so shall in neither of both causes reap any benefit by a sentence pronounced in his behalf by a secular Judg. For albeit the Fathers decree so by way of punishment yet the punishment had been unjust if it had not been a crime for and in a Clerk to acknowledg any secular judgment Lastly because Barclay sayes this Council doth reprehend onely those Clerks that after a cause begun to be discussed before an Ecclesiastical judg transferre it to a secular which may seem to be injurious to Ecclesiastical judges let him see what the Council of Milevi of the same age and celebrated in the same Affrick sayes For thus it speaks in the Nineteenth canon Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitinem judiciorum publicorum petierit Honore proprio privetur si autem Episcâ—pale judicium ab Imperatâ—re postulaverit nihil ei obsit It hath been our will that whoever shall of the Emperour demand the cognizance of publick judgments shall be deprived of his proper Honour but if from the Emperour any demand Episcopal Audience that such demand shall not disadvantage him Where we see the Fathers do not treat of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical but absolutely prohibit Clerks under a most grievous penalty that they shall not have recourse to the Emperour to demand any secular discussion and yet do licence the recourse of Clerks to demand Episcopal Audience to wit for avoiding secular judgments Hetherto Bellarmine Notwithstanding all which it is always clear enough that not onely nothing at all is decreed in this canon of Carthage for the exemption of Clergiemen from secular Iudicatories but even very much against it if the canon be considered without prejudice For if it had not been lawful even I mean in point of conscience for the secular Magistrate or judg to here the causes of Clerks wherefore did not the Fathers in this Council of Carthage forbid under censures the secular Iudges themselves not to admit Clerks to their Courts or not to give judgment in their causes But here is not a word against the judges that do so Besides when the Fathers give the reason of their said decree forbidding Clerks to go spontaneously of themselves to try their causes in secular Iudicatories they
said not they decreed so because Laicks were not lawful judges in the controversies of Clerks but quod ipse se indignum fraterno consortio iudicat cui cum possit per Ecclesiastices judicari de universa Ecclesia male senâ—iendâ— de judicio seculari poscit auxilium because he renders himself unworthy of fraternal society who whereas he might be judged or have his case determined by Ecclesiastical judges men of his own fraternity entertains an ill opinion of the whole Church when he desires help of the secular judges I say therefore it is clear enough these Fathers believed that the secular Magistrate or judge might without sin and for what concern'd himself or his own person lawfully determine of the causes of Clerks whereas condemning Clerks who leaving their Bishop go to the lay Court or Bench they do not therefore or at all for any other reason condemn the secular judg himself admitting such Clerks nor condemn the Clerks themselves upon account of having recourse ad judices nonsuos to judges that were not their judges but on this other account onely that whereas they might be judg'd by Ecclesiasticks yet would not they did thereby render themselves unworthy of Ecclesiastical Society For it was by the laws in the power of a Clerk in controversy with an other Clerk to sue him before the Bishop or before the judg which was it these words of this canon did mean Cui enim ad eligendos judices undique patet authoritas c. And Clerks might be convented before the judg Ecclesiastical but yet so as a Laick Plaintiff was not bound to make use of the Court Ecclesiastical Which is it we read enacted also by Martianus the most Catholick Emperour some few years after the date of this Carthage Council in his law Cum Clericis 25. Cod. de Episcop Cleric where it is said that if the Actor will not convent a Clerk before the Bishop he may convent him before the Prefect of the Praetorium And yet the Fathers of Carthage had reasons enough to forbid Clerks to choose spontaneously this way of secular Iudicatories videlicet that they should not be thereby made rocks of scandal to seculars who as the manner is would from the pleas and contestations of Clerks take occasion often to fall into vile detraction of the very order of Clerks and that such as should be exemplars of charity to others should not fall into such contentions as they would not suffer to be taken up or composed amicably or peaceably and without noyse by their own Ecclesiastical brothers or superiours Which were the very genuine reasons moved the Apostle when he either commanded or advised the Corinthians 1. Cor. 6. to forbear sueing one an other in the publick Iudicatories of Heathens In imitation of which these Carthaginian Fathers themselves declare they made this canon Cum say they privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri atque ibi determinari praecipiat But it is very certain the Apostle did not forbid the Corinthians to appear in publick Courts and before the lay Heathen Imperial Judges when summond by these judges or called before them by any other nor did either command or advise the Christians not to obey the sentence of these very Heathen judges in any temporal cause whatsoever civil or criminal Which not onely St. Thomas and Lyranus do expresly teach in their Commentaries on that passage to the Corinthians but our most eminent Cardinal himself is forced also expresly to confess in his foresaid Book against Barclay cap. 20. Therefore neither do the Fathers of Carthage forbid Clerks when so called upon to appear before and stand to the sentence of the lay Judges albeit they forbid Clerks to go of themselves freely or spontaneously to secular Iudicatories or to sue one an other in such Courts But let us examine yet more particularly what the Cardinal objects He sayes first that these Fathers openly condemn the recourse of Clerks to the judgments of secular Magistrats They do indeed but then onely when a Clerk may without any such recourse have his cause decided by an Ecclesiastijudg And in such case they condemn the contumacy of such a Clerk in relinquishing and contemning also thereby all his own brethren collegues and Fathers but in no case condemn the lay Plaintiff or Actor that draws a Clerk to the forum seculare or lay Court nor in any case at all condemn the lay Magistrat or Judg that pronounceth judgment either against or for a Clerk As for the sin or fault which Bellarmine desires to know what it should be committed by a Clerk who relinquishing his own Bishop goes freely of himself to the secular President for Justice if the President be a lawful judg of the Clerk or of his cause I have already said it was the sin of contempt of the Church and of scandal to others c. That I may pass over in silence the sin of disobedience and contumacy against this very Council whom other Clerks should observe as their Fathers and consequently their canons too as the most religious commands of their Fathers In the second place he sayes The Fathers rescind the sentence of a secular judg pronounced against or in the cause of a Clerk Nothing less But onely punish Clerks transgressing their canon and punish them onely too in wayes or by means or penalties sutable to their own jurisdiction For it is proper to the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical to judg whether a Clerk be worthy of that place he holdeth in the Church This canon therefore punisheth the disobedient Clerks but rescinds no sentence of the secular Judg. For it sayes onely thus Si pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia locum suum amittat hoc in criminali judicio If he have the sentence for him let him loose his place and this in a criminal judgment Behold how they call not in question the sentence of the Iudge nor command that it should be retracted or revised or that it should be discussed again in the Court Ecclesiastical whether the crime was justly charged or no after it was determined by the secular Court But only depose the Clerk that in contempt of this Canon made choice to be tryed and purged rather in the secular Court then in the Ecclesiastical In civili vero perdat quod evicerit si locum suum obtinere voluerit But if it be a civil action let him loose what he hath wâ—n by such a sentence if he will hold his place Is this to rescind the sentence of the secular Iudge Certainly even the most privat lay person may to his gifts or legacies add the like conditions as for example that the Legatee or Heir shall not sue before a Iudg for the legacy or inheritance Can such a private man therefore be said to have rescinded the sentence of the judg¿ If to private men it be lawful to bereave such as they think fit of the benefit of their own free
bounty how much more in reason must we not deny the Church a power to deprive such of her own favours as will not perform the conditions enjoyn'd by her for the continuance of such favours Thirdly against that which is said by Barclay and which I too have said above that this canon was made by the Fathers to restrain the giddiness and rashness of such Clergiemen as would appeal from the Church to a secular Judge after the cause had been begun to be discussed in the Church against this I say of a provision made here for such a case only of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical and nevertheless before any judgement given transferr'd by a caprichious Clerk Bellarmine argues by objecting the Council of Milevi Concilium Melevitanum and it must be the second of Milevi under Arcadius and Honorius where it is prohibited in the ninth canon not that Clerks transfer to secular Courts a cause begun already in the Church but absolutely prohibited that by no means they go to the Emperour to demand of him secular Judges But the answer is obvious 1. That divers canons may be made by divers Councils And that it is most evident that whatever the Fathers of Milevi ordained in the case those of Carthage ordained no other then what William Barclay said and what I too have after him said without any kind of interpretation or paraprase of the Council but in the very words of the Council or Canon it self For these are the words precisely of that Canon Cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum vel civilis causa fuerit commâ—ta Let any one say now for Bellarmine that ought else is decreed by the Canon then what is against such Clerks as transfer a cause already begun in the Church 2. That for that Council of Milevi albeit the Fathers prohibit in the Canon cited out of it that Clerks desire no secular judgment of the Emperour yet they prohibit not the Emperour himself to assign lay Judges to a Clerk if his Imperial Wisdom think it fit to assign such Nor even prohibit Clerks to answer if called upon by such lay Judges and obey their sentence as binding them So that both Councils that of Carthage and this of Milevi say the very same thing in this matter without any other difference but only that this of Milevi extends the prohibition further that is not only to the transferring of causes already begun before or in the presence of an Ecclesiastical Judge but even to causes not so begun For it simply or absolutely prohibits Clerks to transferr as much as in them lyes any civil or criminal cause whatsoever whether so begun or not so begun to secular Judges Where yet it is apparent there is nothing at all for the Immunity of Clerks from secular Judges being the command is only to Clerks not to demand such lay judges and no command to no restriction at all of the lay Judges to proceed ex offiâ—iâ— when the causes of Clerks are brought before them The second Council that prescribed any thing in this matter was that truly Oecumenical or General of Chalcedon for the former of Carthage though of very great authority was but a National Council of Affrick however canonized after by approbation of truly General Councils held in the year 451 under Martianus the Emperour and Pulcheria the Empress who were both present and often sate in it Wherein the ninth canon made for discipline and regulation of Church affairs or those of Clergymen was this Si quis Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non derelinquat preprium Episcopum ad secularia judicia non concurrat sed prius negotium agitetur apud proprium Episcâ—pum vel certe si fuerit negotium ipsius Episcopi apud arbitros ex utraque parte electos audiatur negotium Si quis vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diaecesis Primatem aut certeâ—ad Constantinopolitanae Regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur If any Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk let him not leave his proper Bishop nor run to secular Iudicatories But first let the matter be agitated before his proper Bishop or certainly if the controversie be with this Bishop himself let it be heard by arbiters chosen by both sides But if any Bishop or Clerk have a controversie with or against the Metrapolitan of the Province let them go to the Primate of the Diocess or certainly to the See of the Constantinopolitan Royal City that the business may be ended there And this is all this canon sayes Where it is plain enough 1. That the Fathers direct their speech to Clergiemen only prescribe a rule to them only but none at all to lay Magistrats or Iudges not even to the subordinat inferiour Iudges so little do they meddle with or ever as much as thought to meddle with the supream That although they bid Clerks not to go first to secular Iudgments yet they do not bid them not to go at last or in the next or second instance to such if they cannot agree That even to the Clerks themselves they prescribe only in such cases as a Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk but not in case a Clerk have a quarrel with a Laick or a Laick to him 2. That they declare not here enjoyn or prescribe that it was not is not of shall not be in the power of a lay Judge to determine of the causes of Clerks one against another or of that of a Clerk against a Lay-man or of a Lay-man against a Clerk when either voluntarily and by the parties themselves brought before him or when by his own authority or by due course of law or by summons from him to either or both parties they appear in his Court. So that this Canon meddles not at all with the power authority or jurisdiction of the lay Magistrates or Judges but only prescribes a rule to the Clerks themselves that themselves should not freely or voluntarily sue one another at least in prima instantia in secular Judicatories and as we may justly presume upon the same grounds and for the same ends we have before noted the Fathers of Affrick did in imitation of St. Paul or of his advice or command as you please to all Christians in general to abstain from suing one another in heathen Judicatories least otherwise they would questionless betray their religion and belye it before the haters and persecutors of it 3. That in case there were as there is not any word or matter in this canon of Chalcedon restraining any way the Jurisdiction of even inferiour lay Magistrates or Judges yet it would be to no more purpose alledged against me or against any thing I have said before in this Section concerning even the very same inferiour lay Magistrates and their Jurisdiction over Clerks in politick or temporal
other annexed not only necessary but holy but Apostolical and Evangelical Truths which the ignorance or interest of so many late Schoolmen hath so much obscured I would as an humble Son of the Church and as a concern'd member of that most sacred body of Churchmen with all due respect admonish them not to be ungrateful to their so great so good and true and proper benefactors the secular Princes who only were they indeed that bestowed on them originally continue still what ever true exemptions they have how great soever as without question they are very great and I from my heart wish they may be greater so as not abused but all used to the glory of God and the more holy exercise of their sacred function For being it appears evidently out of what I have hitherto said since I begun this particular of exemption and shall yet farther out of what follows till I end it that secular Princes were and are the only true Donors Patrons Defenders and Protectors of the said exemptions liberties and other worldly priviledges and that the canons of the Church in such matters had no subsistence but in the former laws or good pleasure of Princes certainly it must follow that the Clergie is everlastingly bound to acknowledge the Princes as such and with all gratitude all hearty submission reverence and obedience to acknowledge their supream temporal power and Lordship even over themselves as well as over the Layety and even also as continuing still over both the very same it was in the beginning over both and never to deny from whence or whom they had their freedom or that it was from the secular Princes they had and have it still Which yet some do attributing their whole Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty as they call it to the canons that is to the constitutions of Popes and Councils Then which indeed nothing more ungrateful can proceed from ungrateful hearts being it is so clear and perspicuous to any that will not willingly shut his eyes at least to all men of learning such as Clergymen especially Bishops and Priests ought to be That it is not from the Pontiffs but from the Princes nor from the canons but from the laws the Clergy have received all the temporal exemption they have whatever it is they truly have Which to be so certainly true that it could not otherwise be or that not only it is not the Pontiffs or Canons or any power of the Church that hath de facto given such exemption to Churchmen as they have but also that de jure no Pontiff or Pontiffs not even the very Prince of Pontiffs himself the Pope of Rome nay nor even the universal Church it self as properly and purely the Church could by any proper Pontifical Sacerdotal or Church-power or any whatsoever without the consent of the secular Princes and supream civil power give and grant this very exemption which the Clergy enjoys in some cases or many or most or even all cases whatsoever as you please to think or say from only the subordinate inferiour Judges will the more evidently yet appear out of what I am to say further now LXIX For by this time having throughly declared all Bellarmines arguments grounded by him on either holy Scriptures imperial Constitutions or Church-canons no more remains now of my particular proofs or grounds for my defiance to the Doctors of Lovaine above LXII Section but that I clear also the arguments pretended only from natural or Theological reason for the expediency and necessity of such exemption or of such a power in the Pope or Church to grant such exemption of Clergymen from the very supream civil power even in all kind of temporal causes whatsoever and even without nay against the will of secular Princes Wherein truly however over and over again considered by me I find so little difficulty that I dare again repeat here that very last passage of my defiance LXII Section which was and is That I defied those of Lovaine or any other Divines or Canonists in the world to shew as much as one convincing or even probable argument of natural reason to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergymen from the cognisance and coercion of the supream civil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or live at least as reputed Citizens or Subjects But now to draw near my said particular grounds or reasons of this last part of my general defiance in the above LXII Section I believe the Reader will be perswaded I shall give sufficient if I produce here all the very choicest natural or Theological reasons which all the very best Divines and Canonists of Bellarmines way have yet alledg'd where of set purpose they handle this subject and if withal I give them every one such clear solutions as will leave no place for any material reply And I suppose still that Bellarmine hath for his own sake fixed on the very best Divines and Canononists of his way where he gives a list of such of both professions as maintain this power in the Pope It is not in his great Works of Controversie or any edition of them or of his books there de Clericis but in his foresaid latter little book de potestatae temporali Papae in temporalibus cap. 34. that he gives a list of those he found most to his purpose even of those very Divines and Canonists who as he himself there both rightly and materially notes maintain Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not de jure divino but de jure positive humano For that all such other Divines or such other Canonists as maintain on the other side that Ecclesiastical Exemption is de jure divino do and must consequently hold that even the Pope hath either such a power to exempt Clerks so or at least hath a power to declare them so antecedently exempted by God himself no man doubteth and Navarre expresly teacheth cap. Novit de Judiciis notab 6. n. 30. But that the very same of the Popes power is taught also by the former who hold the exemption of Clerks not to be de jure divino is manifest sayes Bellarmine ubi supra out of Franciscus Victoria Relect. de Potestate Eccles q. 6. prop. 5. Dominicus Soto in 4. dist 25. q. 5. art 2. Martinus Ledesma in Quartum parte 2. q. 20. art 4. Dominicus Bannes in 2. 2. q. 67. art 1. and Didacus Covarruvias pract quaest cap. 31. conclus 3. 4. And it is not unworthy our observation to note the very words of Dominicus Sotus and Did. Covarruvias's assertion hereof in the places now quoted Papa potuit sayes Dominicus conclus 6. inconsultis Principibus debuit Clericos ab eorum exactionibus foro excipere cui quidem exemptioni Principes contravenire nequeunt And sayes Covarruvias conclusione 4. Quamvis exemptio Clericorum a jurisdictione secularium jure tantum humano sit introducta Princeps tamen secularis
withal that if they had stated or supposed it otherwise as they do not or if we did suppose even all the civil or temporal power in the world conferr'd by the world it self on the great Pontiff or on the Church or Churchmen to make what laws he or they pleased in all civil things and for all mortal men and by themselves to govern the world as the onely supream civil Governours yet my judgment would be still that even in such a case according to natural reason there could be no power at all in the Pope or Church as indeed none is at present nor can be at any time in the Princes or people themselves or both or even together with the Church to exempt Churchmen from the supream civil Magistrat in whose Dominions they live And yet in the case which is now in being of the Popes being at present the supream civil Magistrat in Rome and in the whole temporal Patrimony of St. Peter in some tracts of Italy for so at least he is in effect or by actual possession of the rights of such a supream civil Magistrat he cannot by any argument of natural reason exempt the Clergie of those tracts from his own said supream civil power of them unless he at the same time devest himself wholly of that very same supream civil power and quit it absolutely to some other Whereof more hereafter in the following Sections where it will appear that the exemption of Clerks from the supream power of Kings under whom they live and whom they acknowledg to be also their own Kings implyes a most plain and manifest contradiction In the mean time let us now to the onely arguments remaining those natural or Theological reasons of the other side for such a power in the Pope or Church These reasons such as they be I find to be in all seven or eight six whereof are fram'd by Dominicus Soto and the other two by Franciscus Victoria Albeit five of those fix are onely to prove the said exemption as to the persons of Clergiemen but the rest to prove it not onely as to their persons but as to their goods also And besides these eight reasons I see no other in these or other Authors of their way nor indeed any thing els not even in Covarâ—â—vias himself but some few authorities of other Canonists which are not worth the while nor at all proper to repeat heer being such as they neither belong to reason nor have on other account any power of perswasion The first general reason of Dominicus Soto proveing this exemption as well necessary as congruous and both as to the goods and as to the persons of Clergiemen Ecclesiastical power sayes he is per se that is of it self or by its own nature sufficient and independent from the civil power Therefore it may of it self make all such laws as are either necessary or convenient for its own administration quae suae administrationi sunt necessariae vel congruentes But the law of exemption of Clerks both as to their goods and persons from all kind of Secular Magistrats even the very most supream is either necessary or at least very congruent that is to say is at least convenient or agreeable or meet or fitting or expedient for Church administration Now to prove this assumption first as to the persons or to prove it to be even necessary That the persons of Churchmen should be so exempt Soto gives four specifical reasons as immediately after he gives also a fifth to prove it necessary as to their very goods The first specifical reason or medium of Soto to prove it necessary as to their persons For sayes he whereas the Ministers of the Church are constituted according to divine law it must seem in the next degree of proximity to the said law divine that they may not be called upon or commanded by the secular Judges Second specifical reason as to the persons It may happen that amongst Ecclesiastical causes whereof lay â—en cannot be Judges some civil matters do intervene And therefore if Clergiemens persons were not exempt from all kind of secular Iudicatories they must be in such cases perplexed not knowing which tribunal to obey when called upon by both Ecclesiastical and secular Third specifical reason of Soto as to the persons It would not be decent nor have any decorum that the Ministers of Churches who are Pastours of even those very Judges themselves nay and of Kings too should be as criminals or guilty persons called upon by those Iudges or bound to appear as such before them Fourth specifical reason of Soto as to the persons Whereas the civil power and Ecclesiastical are in their own natures wholly distinct or different it is necessary that as each hath its own proper Ministers so the Ministers of each have their own proper Superiours Hitherto this learned Schoolman as to the persons But as to the goods of Clergiemen his onely reason is which is in order the sixth of those reasons That whereas tributes and customs are paid to Kings in lieu of or as a recompence for the labours they undergoe in ruleing the Commonwealth and whereas Clerks undergoe no less in discharge of their own duty or towards the maintenance of the Church it seems but a due recompensation that their goods be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Seventh reason but given by Franciscus Victoria to prove the necessity of a power in the Church to exempt both goods and persons The Ecclesiastical Republick is perfect in it self and sufficient in it self Therefore it hath power to make such laws as are convenient for the administration of the Church And therefore also if the exemption of Clerks from the civil power even supream be convenient for such administration it hath power to enact such exemption by law Eight and last reason and it is of the same Franciscus Victoria but as to the persons onely The Pope may by his own proper authority choose fix on or design and actually appoint and iustice to Ecclesiastical Ministers notwithstanding any contradiction of the civil power Therefore he may also â—â—on the same ground or for the some reason exempt those Ecclesiastical Ministers from the secular power And these are all the arguments grounded on reason or which as grounded purely or chiefly on reason the common principles of Faith or of the existence of a Christian Church being once admitted ouâ— adversaries bring But whether any of all be sufficiently convincing or whether any of all be as much as probable I mean intrinsecally probable the indifferent judicious Reader is to give his judgment when I have done my devoire in answering For I remember what I have undertaken Section LXII to shew not onely that no convincing argument of natural reason can be produced but not even as much as any probable argument of such reason meaning still by probable that which is intrinsecally such Though I do withall advertise here That no even intrinsick
first are to prove it necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen as the last is to prove it necessary in reference also to their goods Soto's first medium or assumption to prove Ecclesiastical Exemption necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen Whereas Churchmen are divino jure by the law divine ordained Ministers of the Church eidem juri proximum esse videtur vt nequeant a Judicibus secularibus evocari it seems in the very next degree to that law that secular Judges have no power to summon or proceed against them And this he further proves out of that saying of St. Paul Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus No man warring to God intrigues himself to secular businesses 2. ad Timoth. 2. But Soto will give me leave here first to distinguish necessaries that we may understand one another then I will answer directly to his proposition For of necessaries as to our present purpose some are per se et ex rei natura of themselves and of their own nature and at all times such to attain the end of such Ecclesiastical Power and all that are necessary in this sense are likewise de jure divino warranted by the law of God For all such necessaries or all power means rules necessary of themselves or of their own nature for that end the Church hath received from God himself not from any sanctions of Popes or Councils And others are now and then for a time or only by accident occasion or supposition necessary that is are to be necessarily observed because they happen to be commanded by the Church and freely submitted unto by the people as for example Fasting-dayes Holydayes c. Now if Soto mean the exemption of Clerks and I mean too here any kind of exemption of them in temporal matters or of their persons goods lands or houses nay or of even the very sacred Churches to be necessary in the former sense he contradicts himself for he holds Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not of divine but of humane institution If in the latter he touches not the question For at present we dispute not whether now that Clergymen have by either the Sanctions of Princes or Canons of the Fathers or both many Exemptions and if from the Princes only whether now when the Church also layes heavy injunctions on us to observe the laws of Princes in this matter it be necessary for salvation and only during such laws not to violate the true priviledges or exemptions whatever they be of Clerks given them by such laws But the question we dispute here is whether it be necessary or whether it hath been alwayes necessary for salvation that Clerks should have been so exempted at any time or by any law at all either of God or man of Prince or Church for that exemption which is pretended to be now from even the supream civil power or even for that exemption which is from inferiour lay Judges Which distinction and animadversion premised I answer directly to his proposition and absolutely deny that it seems so as he sayes or that the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the civil power seems to be eidem juri divino proximum in the next degree of proximity to that divine law whereby Clergimen are appointed by God to be Ministers of the Church For I demand how that proximity appears by this argument which yet must be the only argument to prove it Clerks are de jure divino by the law of God Ministers of the Church Ergo by the same or other law of God they cannot in civil causes be accused before or judged by the civil Judges For even so will I argue for a proximity of divine law in behalf of the civil Magistrats exemption from the Church in spiritual matters The civil Magistrats are divino jure by the law of God appointed Ministers of temporal things Ergo in Ecclesiastical or Spiritual things they cannot be judged by Ecclesiasticks Besides we have sufficiently shewed before that neither can the Pope himself or Church lay binding commands in all matters which have such or as much proximity or affinity as this of Ecclesiastical exemption hath to the law divine For his allegation of St. Paul's saying That none warring to God intrigues himself in worldly affairs who sees not the impertinency of it Did Paul speak or mean this of Clerks meerly It 's plain he mean'd it of all Christians generally If then to any purpose of Exemption alledg'd it must be necessary that all Christian Laicks be exempted as well as Clerks from the civil power Much different God knows was this divine Apostles sense exhorting that in as much as lyes in us we estrange our selves from worldly cares to the end we may the more simply and perfectly attend the will of God Besides it s also clear enough that by these words he no more interdicted the Clergy from civil Judicatories then from honours possessions moneys all which do no less highly and extreamly involve the lovers or earnest pursuers of them in secular businesses And yet amongst all Clerks in the world who will be found that will believe St. Paul did ever mean it as necessary to salvation that Clerks should not in any circumstances and observing all other commandments modestly and moderatly endeavour to attain honours possessions riches intending still to make good use of them To Soto's second argument in reference to the persons which is that it may happen that amongst some ecclesiastical causes whereof lay-men cannot be Judges some civil causes be mixed and therefore if Clerks be not exempt from the secular power it must follow that in such cases they must remain perplexed as called upon by both tribunals the civil and ecclesiastical not knowing which to obey the answer is facile enough and clear That hence no necessity of their being so exempted follows but only some greater vexation or trouble in such cases of Clerks whose fortune it is to be involved in them For we see Laicks also and not seldom contending about such matters as are partly of spiritual cognizance and partly of civil so that they are forced to appear before both the Judges Ecclesiastical and the temporal Magistrats And yet no man will therefore say it to be necessary that Laicks be exempt either from the one Court or other To Soto's third medium in reference to the persons Quod non esset decorum ut Ministri Ecclesiae qui pastores sunt etiam Iudicum Regum tanduam rei coram ipsis sisterentur That it would not be honourable that the Ministers of the Church who are Pastors even of those lay Judges even of the very Kings should be obliged to appear before them as criminals or guilty persons I answer first that to be honourable or decent is one thing and to be necessary is another Secondly that neither is it undecent As on the contrary it is neither dishonourable nor undecent that the King who in
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
purpose Nothing but against oppressive taxes contrary to law and former customs and taxes too imposed by the Consuls only and Rectors of particular Cities Nothing in specie against even any such oppressive taxe tallies exactions collections laid or made by an absolute order law or constitution of the supream civil power or of Kings Emperours States who certainly are not understood by the names of Consuls and Rectors of Cities And however this of taxes of Clerks be nothing at all for the exemption of the persons of Clerks from the supream civil power in all other civil and criminal causes whatsoever which only is it we dispute of here Nothing besides but what was convenient for the Government of the people within the Popes own temporal Patrimony for which only the additions of Gregory were unless it pleased other Countreys and of themselves to receive his said additions Finally nothing but what the Pope Innocent might as justly have decreed in case he believed certainly that Clerks had their exemption whatever it be from the sole civil power as if he had believed they had it only from the Church or from himself or some other of his Predecessors in the See of Rome 3. For although cap. Ecclesia sanctae Mariae de constitutionibus be a meer papal constitution of Innocent the Third only and hath indeed an expression which imports some such thing as the exemption of Churches and of the persons too of Churchmen from the power of Laicks yet forasmuch as this expression is not specifical or not in specie relating to or comprising the very supream lay power it self but so generical only as these words which are the words there concerning this matter Nos attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super Ecclesiis personis Ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa potestas and consequently forasmuch as these words may have a very true and rational sense notwithstanding the subjection still of the persons of Clerkes to the supream lay power because the civil laws or customs which prevailed at that time under Innocent the Third or which is the same thing because the Emperours themselves had given or permitted under themselves to the Church and Churchmen proper Ecclesiastical Judges for all their own both civil and criminal causes how ever still subordinat Judges in such causes to the Emperours and the same must be said of other Kings who had granted the like Ecclesiastical Judges and moreover forasmuch as this canon or chapter of Innocent is only a decision of a particular controversie in matter of a possession controverted betwixt a certain Church called here the Church of S. Mary and a certain Convent termed likewise in this canon the Convent of St. Sylvester which possession was adjudged by a certain lay judge called Senator against the said Convent without previous confession conviction or examination of the same Convent and those words above or meaning of them no part of that which was intended or decided by the Pope in this canon but assumed only and that also transiently as in part importing his reason or motive to remand that possession back to the said Convent and that we know the reasons motives or suppositions expressed in a sentence or canon are not therefore defined by the Pronouncer of the sentence or maker of the canon and further yet because those words neither distinguish nor determine by what authority or law that is whether by divine or humane civil or ecclesiastical authority or law it was so enacted that lay-men could have no power in the causes of Church-lands or Church-men and because too they say nothing at all of any Pope's having made such a law whether by a true or only pretended power as did incapacitat all kind of Laicks even the very supream civil Magistrate himself or indeed as much as the very subordinate inferiour lay Judges from having any judicial authority over Churchmen finally because those words of themselves take away no such authority from Laicks but only at most signifie the not being of such authority attributed to Laicks whatever those Laicks were and by what means soever it came to pass not to be attributed to them therefore it is plain enough this canon Ecclesia sanctae Mariae is to no purpose alledged for Bellarmin's voluit that is for the matter of Fact of any Pope's having done so or having exempted so by his own Power all Clerks from the jurisdiction of even supream lay Princes or even of having declared them so exempted by the law of God himself 4. That albeit also cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto and cap. Clericis de Immunitate Ecclesiar be two meer Papal canons as made by the sole authority of Boniface the VIII and although it be confessed this Pope did challenge all the both spiritual temporal power on earth in Church and State to himself alone as likewise consequently to his Predecessours and Successours in the See of Rome which his extravagant Vnam sanctam De Majoritate obedientia and his other proceedings against a King of France besides the later of these two canons here quoted the said cap. Clericis can prove abundantly yet I dare confidently averre that neither of these canons of his however otherwise too too exorbitant at least the later of them comes home enough to prove that any Pope hath de facto by his own meer Papal authority exempted Clerks in all civil and criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of Lay Princes or hath de facto as much as declared or defined that Clerks have been so or are so exempted by the law of God in such causes from the said supream power of temporal Princes That for the former canon seculares de foro competenti the case is clear enough out of the very words and whole tenour of it Which being but short I give here altogether not omitting one word Seenlares judices qui licet ipsis nulla competat jurisdicto in hac parte personas Ecclesiasticas ad soluendum debita super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur litterae vel probationes aliae indueuntur damnabili praesumptione compellunt a temeritate hujusmodi per locorum Ordinarios censura Ecclesiastica decerninus compescendos where you see first there is not one word directly or indirectly of criminal causes but only of a civil in matter of debt Nor secondly any specifical comprehension no nor any comprehension at all of Kings States or Princes but onely of those inferiour persons whose peculiar office it is to be judge twixt party and party Nor thirdly is there any word here declaring by whose law or authority that is whether by that of the Pope or that of the Church c. it came to pass that these very inferiour Lay Judges have no jurisdiction in hac parte in a civil cause of debt challenged on a Clerk or declaring how it came to pass that the proceeding judgment or determination
of a Lay Judg in such a cause of debt challenged on a Clerk should be tearmd heer damnable presumption and temerity Yet reason tels us that Boniface supposed a former law or priviledg exempting Clerks in such a cause the breaking of which law or priviledg most have been it which he calls heer damnable presumption and temerity But who made this law or gave this priviledg whether Emperours and other Kings or whether the Pope alone or even with other Bishops or also whether God himself immediately this canon of Boniface determines not at all And though Boniface therein commands the Ordinarie to proceed with Ecclesiastical censures against such Lay judges as would presume to give sentence in a cause of debt against a Clergieman yet so might Boniface have done nay and justly too have done if such a law of exemption had been formerly made by the supream civil power and onely by this power Because even in this case Clergiemen had acquired a civil right not to be proceeded against by such inferiour Lay judges And consequently the Bishops might use the censures of the Church for defence of it as they might for defence of any other civil right in either Clergie or Layety until the same supream civil power did repeal such law or transferre again such right For so long and no longer should this law of Boniface for excommunicating such Lay Judges by the ordinaries continue So that out of so many heads either joyntly or severally taken it appears this cap. seculares de foro competenti in 6. is no sufficient proof at all that ever any Pope hath as much as de facto exempted Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power though I confess it must have supposed them formerly exempted by some power in some civil causes from inferiour Lay Judges But what 's this to purpose 7. That for the later of these two canons or cap. Clericis de Immuniâ— Eceles in 6. though it cannot be denyed that Boniface flew so high therein excommunicating all Rectors Captains Powers Barons Counts Dukes Princes Kings Emperours c. who imposed on or exacted or even received from Churchmen or Churchlands or goods any kind of burdens tallies or collections and halfs tenths twentieths hundreths or any other portion or share whatsoever of their profits or revenues as likewise all Prelats and Ecclesiasticks whosoever both secular and Regular who should pay any such under what pretext soever without express permission from himself or other Bishop of Rome succeeding him though I say all this cannot be denyed to have been so notoriously done by Boniface that it was necessary to correct so great an extravagancy of his and correct it even in a general Council which soon after his death followed under Clement the V. at Vienna in France and to revoke it wholly as may be seen by Clementina Quoniani de Immunitate Ecclesiarum yet I say withal that Boniface decreed nothing in this very chapter Clericis that may be alleadged with any reason for Bellarmine's voluit that is nothing for a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of very meer temporal Princes nay nor for a power in either to exempt Clerks from such payments Not for the former power because he speaks onely here of such payment and such payments are very different from other causes criminal or civil also Nor for the later because albeit he proceed so vigorously against all such as would either exact or receive such payments how freely soever made otherwise or would submit or consent to such payments without his own express consent yet all this he did as supposing the lands and other goods of the Church and the Churchmen themselves before exempted from all such payments and yet determines not here nor else where it was by the power of either Pope or Church they were so before exempted And Boniface perswaded himself that by what power soever they had been so exempt or by what law soever divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical those of Emperours or Kings or those of Popes or other Bishops it was his own part to see an exact observance of such exemption and that he might to this end make use of his Ecclesiastical or spiritual censures And questionless had his supposition been true in the whole latitude of it concerning an exemption so general from all kind of tributs taxe c. in all contingencies whatsoever and by what power soever even the highest supream civil on earth laid on or received from Churchlands Goods or Persons he might observing due moderation command under meer and pure spiritual censures the due observance of such exemption though granted only by the meer temporal power and civil laws But this supposition was not right and he exceeded therefore and therefore too this Decree of his was totally annulled in the above Clementina Quoniam as I have said already 8. That for the Bull which is commonly called Bulla caenae as being yearly and with so great solemnity published and renewed at Rome on Maundy Thursday when the last Supper of our Lord is specially remembred whence it is that name of the Bull of the Supper is derived nothing at all can be concluded from it for any such voluit of Bellarmine For albeit amongst twenty special excommunications contained therein against several sorts of persons or delinquents there are at least four large ones with a huge variety of clauses particularly against so many sorts of infringers or presumed infringers of Ecclesiastical Exemption Immunity or as that Bull calls it Ecclesiastical Liberty videlicet XIV XV. XVI XVII XVIII Excommunication yet as the Pope assumes not pretends not in this Bull that himself thereby gives that liberty so he determines not therein who gave that liberty immunity or exemption to Churchmen whether God or Man And if man whether the Popes themselves or Church or whether not the Emperours and Kings As neither doth he there determine that in truth they had formerly from either God or Man or Pope or Prince or State or Church all those liberties or even any in particular of those liberties against the infringers of which he proceeds in that Bull with so great severity The Pope therefore only supposes that Churchmen had by some law or some fact of God or Man of Church or State or of the lay Princes and people these liberties But from which he sayes nothing in the Bull. Now we know that suppositions are no arguments of a determination in the case For so our own School-Divines and Bellarmine himself elsewhere de Concilior authoritat and truth it self do teach us whereof I have before given the reason Whence it appears evidently this Bulla caenae is to as little purpose alledged as any of those former papal canons for the Popes having been he that gave de facto Ecclesiastical Exemption from either supream or subordinate secular Judicatories in temporal matters whatsoever
Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption by such his proceedings What therefore might be the cause of his desiring or accepting such a Bull if the story of it be true we may easily conteive to be of one side King Philips inexorable rigour I will not say cruelty first in excluding so many thousand religious and sacred men from all pardon and grace and next in pursuing and destroying them as irreconciliable enemies when he might have made them very tractable Subjects and on the other the Popes pretence of even the temporal Soveraignty or supream Lordship of the Country and Kingdom of Portugal as having been made tributary to the Church of Rome by Alphonsus the first Duke and King thereof according to Baronius ad annum Christi 1144. and the proceedings after of several Popes against some Kings of Portugal upon that ground by excommunicating and deposing some instituting others in their place and by exacting of them yearly at first agreed upon under Lucius the II. four ounces of Gold and after that four Marks of Gold under Alexander the IV. as an acknowledgement of his being the supream Lord of it or of its being held in Fee from the Bishops of Rome King Philip therefore to establish himself against the titles of so many other pretendents to that Crown thought it the safest way when he had done his work to make all sure with the Pope for after-times and get himself acknowledged King of Portugal even by him who pretended to be supream Lord of the Fee Though otherwise it be apparent also in Baronius that the Kings of Portugal did acknowledge so much dependence from the Kings of Castile as being bound to appear at their Court when called upon and give them three hundred Souldiers to serve against the Moors amounts unto But this could be no prejudice to a former independent and supream right of Popes to Portugal if there was any such especially whereas the same Barnius makes Castile it self feudatary to nay all Spain (a) Baron ad an Christiâ—â—â— â—01 〈◊〉 1703 the property of the of See Rome as likewise he doth in several places of his Annals all the Kingdoms of Christendome not even France (b) ad an 702. it self excepted And therefore nothing can be concluded from King Philips admission of this Bull but either his remorse of having abused that power God gave him over those religious men or used it in so much more like a Tyrant then a King unless peradventure he perswaded himself upon evident grounds they would never be true to him or his wariness in seeming so the more observant of the Pope in all things according to the maximes of Campanella while he drove at the universal Monarchy But however this be or not its plain enough out of his so publick refusal in the face of the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile and in that publick Assembly of all the Estates amongst which the Ecclesiastical was the chief and out of his so long and severe prosecution and persecution of those Monks for three whole years till he destroyed them all and out also of the silence even by the Ecclesiasticks themselves of that argument of exemption when the occasion to alledge it was the greatest might be offered at any time and finally out of his receiving continually the most holy Sacraments of the Church all that time without any reprehension or objection made to him by the Church of so publick and so scandalous and so bloody and sacrilegious violation of her pretended nearest and dearest laws I say it is plain enough out of all that whatever the story be of that Bull or whatever the true or pretended motives of King Philip to accept of it neither his own Subjects of Spain or Portugal Clerks or Laicks nor those of other Churches or Kingdoms either Princes or people nor even the Prelats or Pope himself that was then did any way so regard the suppositions or even admonitions comminations nay or even actual censures of other Popes in their Bulla caenae or otherwise as to think perswade themselves that a true obliging canon or law either of God or Man of the State or Church or even as much as of the Pope himself could be concluded thence for any real or true exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power in criminal causes And so I have done with Bellarmines voluit As for his other saying above That hitherto only Hereticks have contradicted this kind of Exemption even this so extraordinary and extravagant exemption of all Clerks in all temporal causes whatsoever civil or criminal from the supream civil and coercive power I remit the Reader to the next following Section saving one where he shall see a farr other sort of Doctors then Hereticks to contradict it even Austins and Hieroms and Chrysostoms and Gregories nay the whole Catholick Church in all ages until these later and worser times wherein the contest was raised first and again renewed by some few Popes and their Partizans against the supream temporal power of Emperours Kings and States Only you are to take notice here Good Reader That 't is but too too familiar with our great Cardinal to make Hereticks only the opposers of such private or particular but false opinions or doctrines of his own as he would impose as the doctrines of the Catholick Church on his undiscerning Readers as on the other side to make the most notorious Arch-hereticks to be the patrons of such other doctrines as himself opposes and would fright his Readers from how well and clearly soever grounded in Scriptures Fathers Councils Reason Which is the very true genuine cause wherefore he gives us where he treats of such questions so exact a list of those chief and most notorious Hereticks who held against him on the point and gives them also in the very beginning of his chapter or controversie whatever it be As in this of Ecclesiastical Exemption besides what I have quoted now out of his book against Barclay cap. 35. he tells us l. de Cleric c. 28. First in general that very many Hereticks contend that all Clerks of what soever degree are de jure â—â—vin by the law of God or by the same law ought to be subject to the secular power both in paying tributes and in judicial proceedings or causes Secondly that Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno though Catholick Lawyers to Lodâ—uick of Bauer the Emperour but esteemed Hereticks by Bellarmine because some tenets of theirs were condemned by Iohn the XXII Pope of that name taught that not even our Sauiour himself was free from tribute and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the didrachme or tribute money he did not freely without any obligation to do so but necessarily that is to satisfie the obligation he had on him to do so Thirdly that Iâ—hn Calvin l. 4. Institut c. 11. Parag. 15. teaches that all Clerks ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of secular Magistrats excepting
were bound to stand or conform always or in all causes Ecclesiastical or even in any at all purely such to the sole decision made by the secular power of what was to be believed in point of Divine Faith or of what was to be acted in point of a good conscience they erre most grossely in this as they did in so many other tenets in other matters And yet all sides must confess that in such causes or in such manner Ecclesiasticks are no more exempt from the civil power then meer laymen For both equally have the same Doctors and Judges of their Faith and of their conscientious or lawful actings in relation to the laws of God or Christianity as both have the same supream civil Judges of temporal corporal and civil coercion LXXI Behold Reader in these eight last Sections which are from LXIII to LXX both inclusively taken the particular proofs or particular reasons of the Procurator's defiance to the Divines of Lovaine by his first general reason for his second answer given LXII Section to the fourth ground of the Lovaine censure For albeit as he noted before in that LXII Section he needed not have given that second answer to the said fourth ground of the Lovaine Divines the first answer which he created at length in the LXI Section immediately foregoing having sufficiently destroyed this fourth pretence of the Lovanians to witt their charging the Remonstrance of 61. and consequently all Clergiemen subscribers of it with renouncing or disclayming in Ecclesiastical exemption yet he would ex superabundanti give that very second answer you have seen in the said LXII Section videlicet That granting the Remonstrance had c. even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity on exemption of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream civil or temporal coercive power of the Prince or Magistrat provided still it did not declare as verely it does not against that which is indeed the real true and well grounded exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour civil Judicatories according to the respective civil laws or customs of several Kingdoms and as farre as the respective laws or customs do allow such exemption from such inferiour Judicatories yet neither the Divines of Lovaine nor any other could justly censure it therefore And the Procuratour would also give this second answer of meer purpose to dilate himself at large and at full on this subject of Ecclesiastical exemption and to ravel the whole intrigue of such tenets and arguments in this matter which have so often occasion so much trouble confusion in Christendom Which was the reason too that of meer sett purpose also he gave those two general reasons in the above LXII for this second answer of which two general reasons the first was that he defied those of Lovaine or any other Divine or Canonist in the world to shew any law divine either positive or natural or any law humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for such exemption or which is the same thing to shew any one text of holy Scripture or any one tenet of Apostolical tradition or any canon at all of the Catholick Church or even as much as any kind of passage out of the civil laws of Emperours nay as much as any one convinting or even probable argument of natural reason to prove power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream evil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects or literal at least reputed Citizens or Subjects And the self-same purpose of ravelling that whole intrigue was the cause he spent so much time and took so much paâ—â—â—â—â—ther too in eight long Sections to descend to and give so many particular proofs of the reasonableness of this defiance by answering for fully and clearly as he thinks he did all sorts of arguments hetherto alleadged by Bellarmine or any other against that second answer or against the subjection of Clerks to the supream civil coercive power of Princes or which is the same thing alleadged for the exemption of Clerks from this power But forasmuch as the Procuratour not onely so defied the Divines of Lovaine by that his first general reason for his second answer to their fourth ground but also by his second general reason for the same second answer confidently said writ LXII Section that on the contrary he durst undertake against the Divines of Lovaine to prove there is no such exemption nor can be and with much evidence to prove this even by clear express texts of holy Scripture in that sense the holy Fathers generally understood such texts even for a whole thousand of years I therefore now proceed to those particular proofs also of this second part or of this so confident undertaking whereby the Procuratour in his discourses of that Remonstrance more directly assumed when occasion required the person of an Assailant as in the former he did that chiefly of a Defendant And because these particular proofs or reasons given by him for this second part and the confutations of Bellarmine's replyes to some of them for some also there are which either Bellarmine saw not or if he saw them did neither well or ill replye unto will take up some few sheets more I will observe the same method I have hetherto in answering Bellarmine's arguments for his own assertions that is will treat them in several Sections apart for the Readers more easy finding and understanding what I would be at For my next Section which is in order the LXXII shall give my first three arguments whereof two are out of Bellarmine's own concessions as I shew also by further argument that in point of either Theological or Philosophical reason such concessions and even as inferring my conclusions must be made by him and all other men that will speak according to natural reason or Christian Religion And the third argument I take to be a general maxime granted by all Statists Canonists Philosophers Divines nay by all men on earth though Bellarmine hath not a word of it but tranfiently answering it as ridiculously My LXXIII Section gives at large the fourth argument which is purely Theological and is that grounded on the 13. to the Romans according to the general and unanimous exposition of that passage by the holy Fathers until the age of Gregory the Seventh My LXXIV immediatly following shall give some instances of their practices according to this their doctrine and some canons too of Popes and Councils And my LXXV some few remaining objections and answers to them But my LXXVI and last of all on this subject of Ecclesiastical Exemption or as relating to it or to the fourth ground of the Lovaine Censure shall inferr my finall conclusion out of all that is out of these next following five and out of the former eight Sections shall withal consider the meaning of the word Sacriledge of these
his lawful Procurator to answer such crimes as were objected to him by the said Clergy and Academy and in the mean time to innovate nothing but to restore all things were innovated into their former state And therefore that they will find in Spondanus that this Emperour summon'd this Archbishop even as an Archbishop and consequently did not only summon and proceed against him as a Prince of the Empire but as a very Archiepiscopal Clerk and even too in a meer cause of Religion For this last particular also of the being of the cause for which the Emperour summon'd him a cause of Religion and Faith the same Spondanus hath expresly in the same place where he tells us that it was therefore the Pope Paul the III. who then sate in the See Apostolick thought fit by his own Letters of the 18. of Iuly immediatly following in the same year to summon to Rome the same Hermannus giving him sixty dayes for appearance before himself to wit least otherwise his Holiness might be thought to let go his own challenge of peculiar right in the See Apostolick only to proceed against so great a Clerk especially being the cause was properly Clerical and properly too a cause of Faith and reformation of the Church in religious tenets and rites and least consequently he might seem wholly to quit the quarrel of external coercion of either Clerks or Laicks where the crime was Heresie and by his own want or neglect of proceeding by his own proper Apostolical Authority against Herman whereas the Emperour had begun and proceeded already upon account or by virtue also of his own pure or sole imperial civil and lay power might be esteemed to acknowledge in lay Princes that supream external coercive right of even all sorts of very Clerks and even too of such in the very meerest and purest causes of Faith and Religion The testimony of Spondanus to this purpose is in these words Quod ut Pontifex audivit he means the summons sent by Charles from the Dyet of Worms for the Archbishop parum prohare visus quod Cesar in causa Fidei reformationis Ecclesiarum Iudicis authoritatem sibi sumeret die decima octava Iulii eundem Coloniensem ad sexagesimum diem citavit ut per seipsum vel per legittimum procuratorem coram ipso Romae se sisteret To that also which Bellarmine hath of crimina privilegiata and for as much as he sayes that in France those are call'd priviledg'd crimes whereof that Clerks may be accused before a lay Judge in the secular Court the Pope hath indulged I say it is farr otherwise And that Bellarmine could not shew nor any other can for him any Sanction or Law nay or any other authentick writing wherein it is recorded to posterity that such a priviledge was given by the Pope to Kings or Republicks Though I confess many Popes have been free enough of granting priviledges where they had no right to grant any and where only the ignorance or injustice of pretenders gave them some kind of bad excuse for attempting to give any and would willingly have all both Princes and people to desire of them priviledges for all they could themselves do before of themselves nay and were often bound to do without any priviledge Whence also it may be sufficiently evicted that it is no way probable this ordinary jurisdiction supream of Kings over Clerks was granted to them by the Pope but on the contrary certain that whereas anciently the very most Christian Kings and Emperours made use of all their both directive and coercive power to govern Clerks in all civil matters whatsoever nay and in spiritual matters too for what I mean concerns the external regiment of the Church by external direction of laws and by external coercion too of the material sword and to govern them also either immediatly by themselves or mediatly by their subordinat lay Judges and whereas the civil laws wherein and whereby afterwards the same Emperors and Kings exempted Clerks in many causes or most or if you please to say or think so in all whatsoever from the ordinary subordinate lay Judges have not a word of any exemption from the Prince himself the supream civil Judge of all both lay and Ecclesiastical Judge of his own Kingdom in the external coactive regiment therefore it must be concludent it was only from and by the free will of the Princes themselves that ordinary jurisdiction supream temporal or civil over Clerks was reserved still to themselves who remitted or bestowed away of their own right all whatever they pleased as they did that in the present case of deputing lay men for the ordinary subordinat Judges of those causes of Clerks which are not common but priviledged and retained also what they would Of all which the late and most learned Milletus may be read who in that choice and elegant Tract of his which he inscribed de delicto communi casis privilegiato shews very learnedly and clearly 1. That all such priviledges of Clergiemen had their whole and sole origen from Kings 2. And therefore that such crimes as Clerks are accused of and judged in foro civili in the ordinary civil or lay Courts are properly to be called delicta communia because to be tryed by the common law and before the common or lay Magistrate and those only which are remitted to the Bishop are by a contrary reason to be tearmed privilegiata to wit because it is by a priviledge granted by Kings or indulged by them to Bishops that bishops may take cognizance of and judge them As for Clarus and Ausrerius whom Bellarmine alledges for that his own sense of what is a priviledged crime of Clerks or for any other Canonists soever I regard not much what they say or not say in this matter Because they all commonly and without any ground not only bereave Princes of this supream right of either coeâ—cing or directing Clerks but also teach that all kind of meer temporal Principality flows and depends from the Papacy As that Legat did who in a Diet of the German Princes had the confidence to ask or querie thus A quo habet Imperator Imperium nisi habet a Domine Papa For so Radevicus hath related this Legats folly And so having throughly destroyed all the replies of Bellarmine to the grounds or any part of the grounds of my second grand argument and of the proof of it which second argument and proof of its Minor I derived partly from and built upon his own principles of Clergiemens being Cittizens and parts of the politick commonwealth I am now come to My third argument of pure natural reason which shall end this present Section Though I withal confess the grounds of this third argument are already given in my illustration of the former second But however for the clearer methods sake because too the medium is somewhat different from that in the form of my foregoing second I would give
maximes of other concessions of Bellarmine himself and partly of pure and clear dictats of natural reason and such as reduce all Adversaries to plain contradiction not onely of their own concessions but of the very notions of Superiority and Inferiority Prefection and Subjection Obedience and Government nay and of the very ends and essence of a commonwealth nay and also of the very nature of Relatives and Correlatives which require that both be at least together understood or neither be as a Father cannot be understood without a Son be also understood LXXIII My fourth grand argument shall take up this whole Section because it is my grand argument indeed as that on which as a Christian I relye more then upon any other however seeming otherwise the clearest demonstration may be in natural reason or the most convincing proof from either Theological maximes of Schools or other concessions of Adversaries For this fourth is wholly and purely grounded on the revealed word of God himself in holy Scripture taken in that sense the holy Fathers delivered it unanimously from hand to hand all along down at least eleven ages of Christianity until the days of Gregory the Seventh Then which it is very sure there can be no surer argument in Christianity for theory or practise of any tenet Therefore upon this ground also I confidently affirm that Clergiemen are by the very positive law of God so farre from being exempt from supream secular Princes in whose Dominions they live that they are universally and absolutely subject to them that is even to their coercive power in all temporal matters To prove which assertion I shall not make any use of either of the Barclayes the Father or Son as I have sometimes made some use of them hetherto nay often too in some or perhaps in most of the former Sections which treat of Ecclesiastical exemption although not in all nor even in any for all parts But I will take an other method and from my own reading elswhere treat this argument at leingth as likewise what shall be given in the following two or three Sections more which end this whole dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity pretended to be quitted and renounced by the Remonstrance of 61. or at least by the Clergiemen subscribers of it And yet I will neither to prove my assertion make use of that no less true then common doctrine of France and of all other the very best Divines and Catholick Churches vz. That earthly Principalities are immediately instituted by God himself and the supream civil power of Kings as immediately from him as from the sole efficient cause and from the people onely even when they elect their Kings tamquam a conditione sine qua non and no less immediately from him then the spiritual power of Popes can or is by any said to be Nor will I for the same end insist upon that command of our Saviour in St. Matthew 22.21 Reddite quae sum Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo or on that precept of St. Paul to Titus 3.1 Admone illos Principibus potestatibus subditos esse or on that other of Peter 1. Pet. 2.13 Subjecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum sive Regi quasi praecellenti sive Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis or finally on the 8. verse of Judas in his general Epistle where he recounts it amongst the most enormous crimes of some wicked persons that they despise Dominion And I will as little insist on what is repeated concerning this in the Apostolical Constitutions l. 4. cap. 12. lib. 7. cap. 17. whoever was Author of the said Constitutions As also I will pass by for this time without insisting on That supream earthly Princes are within their own Principalities and in all earthly or temporal things the very onely true and proper Vicars of God even by as true at least and well grounded title as the very Popes themselves are said to be the Vicars of God or Christ in all heavenly or purely spiritual matters throughout all Principalities and States of the Earth Albebeit there is no man of reason but sees that this very true title of supream temporal Princes would be enough to evict my purpose However because I would take the shortest way Therefore what I insist upon solely now is that of St. Paul in his epistle to the very Romans themselves Rom. 13.1 Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let every soul be subject to the more sublime powers And besides what I insist upon is the whole discourse following of the same Apostle in the same chapter along consequently to the eight verse if not further For sayes he giving the reason of his former precept in the former words let every soul be subject c. there is no power but of God The powers that be are ordained by or of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation For Rulers are not a terror of good works but to the evil Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise for the same For he is the Minister of God to thee for good for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil Wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake For for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Render therefore to all their dues tribute to whom tribute custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour Owe no man any thing but c. And finally what I insist upon is the necessary sense of these very passages of St. Paul and of the like or to the same purpose and is that very sense I mean as delivered to us in the doctrine and practice of the most holy and most eminent Fathers of Christianity all along as I have said before until the enemy of man oversowed tares among the wheat in the dayes and Popedom of Gregory the VII And yet without any peradventure those very Scripture-passages alone that is the very and only letter of them would be sufficient to perswade the general power of Princes over all men both Laicks and Clerks without further help or addition of the sense and practice of holy Fathers if some late Divines or Schoolmen were not far more pervicacious then became either Christians or even any sort of rational men not to speak at all of Christian Divines Which is the cause that being this sort of men that is some late Scholasticks among whom Cardinal Bellarmine is at least one of the chief have strangely endeavoured to distort the said Scripture passages as rudely to the end they might deprive all even the most Christian and Catholick Princes of this power or that the
indeed a tye of conscience Though I confess withall it be not altogether improbable that Mauritius about the latter end of his raign was not so acceptable to Gregory For Gregory as greatly joyed writes to Phocas l. 11. indic 6. ep 43. immediat Successor to Mauritius That the yoake of sadness being now removed the Church was come to the dayes of liberty and that in the latter times of Mauritius he kept no Agents in the Imperial Couâ—t because the Ministers of the Roman Church with fear declined and fled from those burdensome and sharper times And writing to Leontia the Empress ibid. ep 44. he gives God thankes that such heavy burdens of so long a tract of time were removed from his shoulders and that now under Phocas he underwent a light easy yoak and such as he was willing to bear and that till now the Church of Peter was layed for in wait or ambushments And yet I say also here that Gregory writing thus to a most impious cruel Parricide oâ— his very own supream Lieg Lord and of his wife children altogether and both to a trayterous rebellious Vsurper of his Crown such as all Histories acknowledg Phocas to have been and praysing and soothing him so as peradventure carrying himself popularly at first and remitting or forgiving to Gregory some of those regalities or of those imperial duties which Mauritius as lawfull Prince found himself have no cause to remit but which Usurping Tyrants do commonly remit and see cause enough to remit to such as at first or last can make opposition to them it cannot be denyed that herein Gregory was surprized with somewhat humane And therefore we must not wonder if perhap if I say at any time though in a different or unlike matter the same Gregory lying under those ordinary weaknesses of men and not seldome of the very best or holiest men expressed some little passion against Mauritius himself without contradiction of any side or person the lawfull Emperour and expressed himself so because Mauritius in defence and for neâ—essary preservation of the Imperial rights looked narrowly to the Bishops kept them to their duty and the very chief Pontiff himself the Roman Patriarch in due subjection to the Empire Be it therefore so and this is a second Answer to Baronius here let us grant those complaints of Gregory were against Mauritius let them be against whomsoever Baronius will of all those Emperours lived in the dayes of Gregory yet whereas they are onely against the either true or pretended Simony of such Emperour as I have shewed before and may be seen at large in the Authors and places quoted by me and whereas they neither contain nor hint any thing as if such Emperour had hindered the Sacerdotal jurisdiction or vsurped or encroached upon it it is also plain enough that all this labour of Barâ—nius is in vain For in the election or confirmation of the Bishop of Rome the Emperours of those times would and did exercise their own Imperial authority That Gregory took extreamly to heart And these Emperours exacted money for such election or confirmation But this seem'd alltogether intollerable to this good Pope as in his opinion implicitly containing or involving the very first heresy sprung up in the Church that I mean which from Simon Magus is called the Simoniacal heresy And this was the very greatest nay all the cause Mauritius gave to the complaints of Gregory And this was the grand nay and sole and whole Simoniacal excess of that Emperour whoever he was of whom Gregory so complains as is manifest out of those very expressions which are most ardent in Gregory where nothing is read of any vsurped or tyrannical dominion over either the Priesthood it self or the Priests Nor was this unknown to Baronius himself For speaking of those Emperours whom those complaints of Gregory might have touch'd thus he sayes Tom. 8. an 590. nu 6. Hac parte tantùm damnandi quòd confirmationem electi in Romanum Pontificem sibi vindicarent Imò adde ita vindicarent ut ex ipsa electione confirmatione pecuniam etiam aliquam vellent acccipere But let us here this learned Annalist making a little further progress Ibid. tom 8. an 593. n. 18. Quibus imprimis sayes he vides sanctum Gregorium definire non solum non esse subditam Regibus aliquo modo Ecclesiam verumetiam firmiter asseverare non habendum esse Mauritium inter Imperatores dum adversus Dei Sacerdotes Regiam potestatem exercet What do you say Baronius Is this indeed your candour will you amuse and abuse your Readers so That the Church as such purely is not subject to secular Princes is very certain but as certain also that Churchmen as men or as parts of the civil common-wealth are in all humane things subject to the Politick Head of the same civil commonwealth And no less certain too that such Politick Heads Kings or Princes have even by the very law of nature a special peculiar and royal but still political interest and right in the election and confirmations of Bishops within their own dominions though it be not hence consequent that they have a power over the Church as a Church or that the Church as a Church is subject to them Nay it is certain and clear enough to any disinteressed and learned person that for the temporalties annexed to a Bishoprick the Prince may at the election or confirmation of the Bishop and may without any kind of Simony require exact and receive such a sum of money as by the written laws or custome is or ought to be paid though it be confessed those laws or customes would be damnable which should set Bishopricks or any Churchlings to sale or should exact even from such as are worthily and canonically elected and confirmed such a sum as in reason should be too grievous a burden to the Church or hinderance to the service of God there unless peradventure the manifest necessities of the Republick either Ecclesiastical or civil or both did require otherwise Now whether or how grievous or how contrary to law or how much hindering the service of God or not that exaction was whereof Gregory complains I know not But I am sure of this that Gregory never said nor dreamed that that Emperour of whom he complains should not be esteemed an Emperour upon this account that he exercised royal power towards over or against the Priests of God but upon this other that he destroyed rather then governd the Empire Therefore Gregory observed some defects in that Emperour as to or concerning the very temporal regiment of his Empire But what this defect was let others enquire as also whether Gregory said well or no that for any such or other defect whatsoever he should not be esteemed Emperour For neither belongs to my purpose here That which is more directly to my purpose is to observe what follows in Baronius Rursum sayes he ejusdem Gregorij sententia reddi
of the communication of the Church and even of that of his own subiects in spiritual things or which is the same thing might have declared him to be thenceforth or until he did hear the Church no better then a Heathen or a Publican and that all the rest of the faithfull should hold him for such until he submitted But it is plain enough that neither Publican or Heathen as such or for being such were by any law deposed from their principalities or deprived of any other temporal rights especially when our Saviour gave that rule being the Roman Emperours their under Governours and Garrisons in Ierusalem and Iury and the Collectors of their publick taxes there were heathens and publicans and held as such by the Jews and by the Apostles and consequently excommunicated evangelically or excluded from their religious rites and yet were not held by either Jews or Christians at least not by the Christians to have forfeited any temporal dominion over them or other right amongst them And it is plain enough for any thing may be known out of this chapter Novit ille de Major obed that Innocent prescribes no more therein for his said Legats or himself but to proceed to an Evangelical censure against that King of France in which censure that as we have now seen of deposition from or deprivation of his Crown or of that see of Poitiers is not involv'd Wherefore then do the said Irish Divines relye on this canon to their said purpose And yet withall I confess that because I know Innocent was elsewhere of their opinion or seem'd at least so cap. per Venerabilem Qui filij sint legittimi and that moreover he certainly practised according to such opinion and practised also as highly almost according to it as any Pope and more frequently then any sate in St. Peters chayre and that he scarce left one King of his time in all Europe but he vexed and shaked by his sentences either of formal deposition or of that which in his doctrine was virtual for the matter although not such according to sound doctrine by excommunication I mean which was praeliminary to the other and which he as many other Popes would have to have other effects then the Gospel annexed to it and that Henricus Spondanus that Catholick Bishop Continuator of the Annals of Baronius is in the long life of the said Innocent a witness beyond exception in this matter of the too too many menaces and actual thunders too of this good Pope against all and singular the said very supream Princes of Europe though in effect he held none supream not even in temporals at least in some cases but himself alone and because it is manifest that however this matter be of his opinion or practise of a power in himself direct or indirect or casual as he phrases it cap. per Venerabilem Qui filij sint legittimi for deposing Princes what he held concerning the exemption of all Ecclesiastick persons at least all Priests appears without contradiction or controule in that epistle of his to the Constantinopolitan Emperour in the foresaid cap. Sollicitae benignitatis de Major obed and because that exemption might be without the other pretension and finally because our present maine purpose requires onely to instance the change in the doctrine or practise of Exemption therefore it is I have thought fit to instance here and annex Innocent immediately after Pope Nicholas though in the mean time I omit Gregory the VII and some others with him whose Histories are so famous especially because this Innocent gives the very same corrupt interpretation of St. Peter's epistle which Nicholas gave before him And yet also I confess there may be very much observed on and very much said against that fine artifice that misterious hook of Innocent which you may discover plainly under that subtle distinction of his in the above cap. Novit ille de Major Obed. Non enim intendimus judicare de feudo c sed decernere de delicto cujus ad nos â—pertinet sine dubitatione censura quam in quemlibet exercere possumus debemus A misterious hook indeed whereby if once swallowed all the meerest temporal causes in all Christian Kingdoms and States in the world nay and I mean too in all kind of trades handecrafts or other callings whatsoever must of necessity be decided in the external consistories of the Pope and of his Legats whensoever it shall please his Holiness to erect such Courts either at home in his own country or abroad in all other Countries for his Legats For it is clear enough there are sins whereof for example the Marchant and the Taylor the Lawyer and the Clerk the Councellour and the Client the Statesman and the Souldier the Baker Brewer Shoomaker c may be accused or sins of them or of each of them and at least pretended injustices of the particular laws rules customes of every kind of secular Corporation which may be denounced evangelically to the Pope or to his Legats And therefore it is also clear that by this subtle interpretation made by Innocent of Evangelical correction or of the power of the Church and of the Pope by vertue of it he may were it true hook into his own proper Ecclesiastical consistories all the temporal causes in the world and consequently render all the lay judicatories in the world unsignificant evacuat them all every one among Christians especially if his other text in cap. Per Venerubilem Qui filij sint legittimi were admitted as a rule where he sayes Verum â—â—man in alâ—s Regionibus non solum in Ecclesiae Patriâ—â—nio super quo plenam temporalium gerimus potestatem certis causis inspectio temporalem jâ—â—isdictionem casualiter exercemus and further also consequently might without much difficulty make himself de jure and de facto the sole supream Prince indeed both spiritual and temporal among Christians But forasmuch as it is not my business here to examine this matter any further then to shew the change or difference of opinions and practises betwixt some of the later Popes and the former as to that of acknowledging and yielding obedience or not to the supream lay Princes I proceed and anâ—â—â— to Nicholas and Innocent the â—â—ird Boniface the VIII And I am sure if I had annexed also Innocent the Fourth in particular many others with him whom I do not mention at all I should not do it impertinently But to avoyd too much prolixity I content my self at this present with Boniface the Eight With him above others I end this comparison that it may be rendred the more conspicuous Paul the Apostle said Rom. 13.7 Cui tributum tributum cui vectigal vectigal The succeeding Fathers taught by word and confirmed by deed what Christ himself had taught also by word Matth. 22.21 viz. that what was Cesar's should be paid to Cesar and what he moreover confirmed by deed that is by actual payment
supream temporal Prince in any of the Citties or territories which he either actually possesses or challengeth to himself as such an absolute or supream independent temporal Prince To enquire into any such intrigue is not material nor any part of my purpose And all I say of it because I mention'd it accidentally is that if the Pope be not so I could heartily wish he were so provided all Popes made that good use of it and onely that good use which some blessed Popes have For I am farre enough for envying the Apostolical See or even present Roman or Papal Court any even worldly greatness which may be to the glory of God and general good of Christian people was verily such even worldly greatness not onely of the Popes of Rome but of other Bishops and of other Priests too may be without any peradventure if regulated and applyed well And I am also farre enough from perswading my self that no Christian Priest can be found who may for natural parts and gifts of God be among Christians and if it please the Christians themselves such an other as Hermes Trismegistâ—s was among Heathens a great Priest great Prophet and great King withall Nay I confess that many Clergiemen have many excellencies and advantages for government above most Laymen Yet I say withall that if in elective Kingdoms or States they were by the people put at the Helme of supream temporal government or if in hereditary Kingdoms any of them came by succession to it their being Priests Bishops or even Popes would not could not enlarge their temporal power in any kind of respect nor give them any more temporal exemption as from any pure law of God or Christian Religion then they had before they were Priests c. It is not therefore against any power Ecclesiastical or even Papal as such I dispute here but onely against the unwarrantable extension of such and as onely such by those two most eminent writers Cardinal Baronius and Cardinal Bellarmine Yet I will say this much for Cardinal Bellarmine albeit shewing 〈◊〉 this also his contradiction of himself that in his great work of controversies de Concil Eccles l. 1. 〈◊〉 13. I know lot how but by the too great power of truth he confesses in very express worth that even the very Popes themselves have been subject and even too subjected themselves in temporal affairs to the Emperours and consequently that their Pontifical or Papal office or dignity did not exempt them from subjection to the lay supream power For considering there how the foâ—â— first general Councils of the vniversal Church had been convoked by the Emperours and fearing least such convocation might prejudice that authority which he ascribes to the great Pontiff and consequently bringing four causes or reasons why the Popes then were necessitated to make use of the power Imperial as he sayes for the convocation of those four first general Councils he delivers thâ—â— his fourth Reason Quarta ratio est sayes he quia to tempore Poâ—â—tyex eâ—si in spirituâ—libus essex caput omnium etiam Imperatorum tamen in temporalibus subâ—â—citbus se Imperatoribus ideo non peterat invito Imperatore aliquid agere cum tantum â—â—bâ—isset petere ab Imperatore auxilium ad convocandum Synodum vel ut permitteret Synodum convocari tamen quia Dominum suum temporalem cum agnoscebal supplicabat ut jubereâ— Synodum convoâ—â—i At post illa tempora ista omnes causae mutata sunt Nam neo illa lex viget he means that old Imperial constitution which prohibited all Colleges and frequent or numerous Assemblies without the Emperours licence to prevent seditions designs Vide l. 1. ff de Collegiis illicitis l. Conventicula ff de Episcopis Clericis noc Imperatores in â—oto orbe dominantur nec sumptibus publicis fiunt Concilia nec sunt Gentiles qui impedire possint Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus cum etiam ipse in suis Provinoiis sit Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij id quod divina providentia factum est ut Pontifex libere manus suum exequi possit So Bellarmine cleerly and expresly to a word Therefore by this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself the Pope hath no freedom no exemption at all in temporal matters from the civil power of the Emperour by virtue I mean of his Pontificat or Papal office But hath all his exemption in such matters by vertue onely of the supream temporal Principality which he acquired after as Bellarmine's sayes and which he possesses yet And consequently Bellarmine confesses also that this temporal Principality being removed or lost as by a just conquest and many other legal wayes it may be the Pope will be no more exempt in temporals from the Emperour or King of Rome but subject to him wholly in such Which is that onely I contend all along in this dispute of the Pope And therefore it must also follow evidently out of this doctrine and confession of Bellarmine himself that all other Priests Bishops and Clerks whatsoever even Cardâ—nals who have no supream earthly power and Principality of their own must be throughly and entirely subject in temporal matters to those supream lay Princes in whose dominions they live and whom they acknowledge to be their own very true Soveraign Lords Which is that moreover which I contend for in all the Sections of this whole and long dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity against the Divines of Lovain And I am extremely deceaved if Bellarmine yeeld it not fairely and freely in this place however he coyned a new faith for himself after in his old age and in his little books against Barclay Widdrington and some others But forasmuch as nothing more confirmes the rightfull power and authority of Kings in all humane things over also their subjects even all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever then the most ancient custome and perpetual practise in the Christian Catholick Church this very Church her self not onely not resisting but consenting also and approving such custome and practise therefore it is that to those particular Instances already given of such practise or matter of fact in the persons of those two most holy Bishops Athanasius and Eusebius and in the persons also of those other two and not onely most holy but even the very Head Bishops of the whole Earth in their own time as being the great Pontiffs then of the Roman See to witt Gregory and Constantine I must now moreover add those other particular Instances in such matter of fact which I promised of Princes Wherein if I be somewhat prolix in bringing not a few examples down along throughout almost all ages of Christianity from the days of Constantine the great and first Christian Emperour the profit will yours good Reader and the labour mine For you may cull out and pause on such as you find the most illustrious the rest you may read over cursority on pass by
in it self purely or as abstracting from matter of fact we say two things here to clear all the fog which many of our late School Divines do raise without any cause at all to loose themselves and others in it The one is that in this cause of Caecilian and such others of Church-men wherein Constantine or other Christian Emperours interposed their imperial authority and carried themselves properly as Judges that wherein they did so was pure matter of fact whereof questionless the lay Emperours when judicious and just were secundum allegata probata as competent Judges as any Ecclesiastick And the other is that whereas the Emperour and the same we must say of every other supream or Soveraign Prince within his own dominions is of supream absolute independent power within his Empire he must consequently have sufficient authority from God himself to promote all that may be for the publick good peace or safety of his people in this life and of their happiness too in the other according as he is directed by the law of God and therefore also must have sufficient power from God himself to see and take effectual care and such effectual course as is necessary that the very Ecclesiastical affairs within his Empire be duely carried on Therefore albeit he be not the competent Judge in a doubtfull case what was or was not the Faith delivered once in such or such a point controverted yet he is a competent Judge to see and determine as to matter of Fact whether the Ecclesiasticks of his Kingdom duely observe the uncontroverted Faith or that part of Faith which all men which even themselves confess acknowledge to be that which was once so delivered or whether they duely observe the known and holy canons of the Church made for preservation of that Faith And he is a competent Judge also or hath a competent sufficient absolute independent power to force the very Ecclesiasticks themselves to keep that Faith entire and sound even also I mean as to the very Theory of it and to all questions of divine right especially where and when he sees that by reason of controversies arising about such very questions or Theory the publick external peace of either Church or State may be endangered or that the publick tranquillity depends of the unity of his people in such matters according to what was from the beginning taught By which very consideration that Constantine himself was very much induâ—ced â—o interess himself in these matters of Faith even himself also writes apud â—arrâ—nium tom 3. an 313. n. 37. least otherwise he should have seen dangeâ—ous troubles and commotions in his Empire and thence have suffered also very much in his reputation as not governing well or prudently or also as haveing imprudently embraced that religion whose professours he could not keep in peace or unity amongst themselves Of which consideration and judgement of Constantine or rather of which power and authority of Constantine or indeed of both the one and the other St. Augustine speaks ep 162. where he writes thus Quasi verò ipse sibi he means Felix Aptungitanus â—â—c comparavit ac non Imperator ita quasi jusserit ad cujus curam de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset res illa maximè pertinebat But of this authority and superintendency in general of Emperours Kings Princes and other supream temporal or politick States in and over the Church or the spiritual or Ecclesiastical both Superiours and Inferiours of the same Christian Catholick Church this is not the proper place to treat at large It sufficeth at present to say that forasmuch as Constantine did so and so often too interess himself in this cause of Caecilian and deputed Judges to hear and determine it he did all this by the true proper genuine authority of an Emperour and even of a Christian Emperour whose duty it is when the Ecclesiasticks themselves alone cannot end or compose their own dissentions that he by his own supream authority assist and promote their agreement and even force them to a just and equitable agreement Which the Milevitan Council approves in effect canone 19 and ponitur xi q. 1. c. 11. and in these tearms Placuit ut quicumque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum petierit honore proprio privetur Si autem Episcopale judicium ab Imperatore postulaverit nihil ei obsit But that Constantine did in aftertimes adorn and magnifie the Church or Churchmen with most singular and most ample priviledges concerning civil judgments or judgments in civil affairs this he did not as Baronius tom 3. an 314. n. 37. would make us believe he did to correct or by way of correction of those former judgments of his own in the said or like affairs of Ecclesiastical persons which judgments our great Annalist sayes were unduly and unjustly usurped by the Emperour but did so or gave such priviledges out of his meer liberality and piety alway nevertheless reserving his own proper supream and general and imperial authority to provide upon emergencies by himself or by such others as he should think fit to depute for the necessities of the Church and Churchmen as often as he saw need However let us proceed in the matter of fact which is our proper subject here For notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment also of the Council of Orleance the Donatists yet appeal even from it and the second time to the Emperour himself against and in that cause of Cecilian and the Emperour admits again their appeal judges the matter himself absolves Cecilian and condemns the Donatists St. Augustine is my author and witness ep 48. and epist 162. where yet he neither accuses nor reprehends the Emperour Nor doth Cecilian except but obeyes and freely presents himself to be judged by the Emperour For it was a criminal judgment that is the matter debated was a crime charged upon him Nay St. Augustine openly sayes and avers that neither the accusing or appealing Bishops themselves were to be reprehended on this account that they drew or brought the affairs or causes of or accusations against other Bishops to a lay secular Judicatory For thus he writes ep 48. Si autem sicut falso arbitramini vere criminosum Caecilianum judicandum terrenis potestatibus tradiderant quid objicitis quod vâ—strorum praesumptio primitus fecit he speaks to the later Donatists quod eos non arguerimus sayes he quia fecerunt si non animo inuido noxio sed emendandi corrigendi voluntate fecissent Therefore St. Augustine sayes that where and when the dispute concerns the correction and amendment of Ecclesiasticks to demand the judgment or sentence and to appeal to the power of earthly Princes is not reprehensible if the accusers proceed not in such or indeed any other application out of envie or malice Concerning this second admission of Constantine or indeed rather concerning his whole procedure in this affair by admitting any appeal at all or
restored them back Severus hystor l. 2. in fine Nor doth Baronius himself tom 4. an 381. n. 110. reprehend him in this matter or at all upon account of usurping on Ecclesiastical persons rights or judgments but onely upon account of having favoured hereticks to wit forasmuch as he restored those three Bishops whom himself had before so lately banish'd Ex quo quidem facinore sayes Baronius sibi necem comparavit But this is a most vain judgment of Baronius For the said Instantius and Priscillianus soon after appealing to Maximus the tyrant Emperour Vsurper and murderer of Gratianus were by him as being or at least pretending to be an earnest Catholick called to his own presence to be judged again by his Imperial authority the Catholick Bishops who accused them desiring this of him most earnestly and were at last condemned by him the one to have his head cut off and the other to be carried to a place of perpetual banishment Several other Bishops also the very same great Catholick Hypocritical Zelot Maximus punish'd in the self same manner some by death and some by banishment Prosper in Chron. Severus l. 2. observing still the Catholick Praelats with much respect and above all St. Ambrose himself notwithstanding he saw very well that Ambrose could not be drawn to approve of his treacherous usurpation but stood still firm to young Valentinian the lawfull Emperour though an Arrian profess'd and consequently an Haeretick Emperour Against whom on that specious pretext of heresy Maximus rebelled and usurped the Empire as being himself a Catholick and pretending onely or at least chiefly to maintain Catholick religion against Arrianisme which infected the young Emperour Valentinian and his mother And yet Baronius might know that this very Maximus who so put even those very heretick or Schismatick Bishops to exile and death whom Gratian restored a little before and was himself therefore and by Gods special ordinance or just permission most cruelly murthered by Maximus if we may believe Baronius for what concern'd the cause of Gods permission of the untimely death of Gratian I say Baronius might know that this very Maximus saw suddenly after as violent and fatal an end of his own Empire and life together by the victorious arms of Theodosius Now to observe that heer which is more to our purpose I confess that Severus reproves the inconstancy of those Catholick Bishops who charg'd Priscillian in that they sufferd him to provoke that is to appeal to the Emperour or that they sufferd the causes of the Church to be judged or determined by a Secular Iudg. But to me it seems plainly that the cause of Priscillian and of the rest was not purely Ecclesiastical For that Priscillian himself was charg'd also with meer lay crimes and that having confess'd his own obscenities he was condemned the same Severus tells And that of such crimes nay indeed of all crimes whatsoever so they were found to be real crimes much more when they disturbed the publick peace or endanger'd it the more sublime the meer Secular powers were the Judges and avengers by strict coercion and corporal punishment or by the material sword and pure force S. Paul teacheth and the perpetual custome in all Christian Kingdoms and States confirmeth Arcadius an Emperour also very orthodox received the accusations against John Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople and thereupon having first ordered a judicial procedure against this great and holy Bishop at last condemned and sent him with a guard of Souldiers farr off to exile Socrates l. 6. c. 16. Pallaâ— in Dialâ—g And certainly Pope Innocent the first of that name who then govern'd the See of Rome where he inveighs bitterly against Arcadius and against Eudoxia his Empress as against most grievous persecuters of so great and so holy a man doth not at all object that Arcadius being a meer lay man usurped a judiciary power in Ecclesiastical matters or so against his own proper Bishop nor that he proceeded so against him out of or by a tyrannical power and not by any legal authority over him in the case but onely reprehends Arcadius in that he had not proceeded justly against Chrisostome or in that he had not made right use of the power which he had in the case and in a word in that he expelled Chrisostome from his Episcopal throne before his cause had been legally and throughly sifted or judged as it ought and consequently without observing the due formalities or even substantial or essential procedure in such case required by the law Ejecisti sayes he ê throno suo rerum judicata magnum totius orbis Doctorem Nicephor l. 13. c. 34. Nor doth Chrisostome himself any where complaine of the Emperour as having usurped a power of judging condemning or banishing him And yet we know he writt to several especially to Pope Innocent many letters fraught with complaints of the Emperours unjust judgment and proceedings against him acknowledging Arcadius or at least supposing him still a legal Judg though unjust as to the sentence in the case Theodosius the younger Emperour known likewise to have been still a most zealous and pious Catholick Prince clap'd in prison Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria Praesident of the General Council of Ephesus and together with him Memnon an other Catholick Bishop albeit this good Prince was in the merit of the cause abused by the false informations of John Patriarch of Antioch and of those other Bishops of his faction who met in a private Council amongst themselves at Ephesus too and separated or absented themselves from the rest or from the publick session house where the said Praesident and generality sate And though after by the great Council of Ephesus to wit when all the Bishops met there the second time the cause of Cyril having been examined he was and all of his way declared innocent and John and his complices condemn'd by their Ecclesiastical sentence yet or notwithstanding all this could not the said great Catholick prisoners Cyril Memnon c be set at liberty out of prison not even I say by the authority of this very great and true Oecumenical Council All this great Council did and all they could do as to this of the liberty of these prisoners was to write and petition to the Emperour by their Legats sent of purpose and in this behalf to his Majesty and petition him by this very tenour and forme of words Nunc verò his scriptis per hos Legatos â—ientissimos Episcopos vestra pia genua pretensia manibus attingimus ut quae â—i lenter acta sunt cum sanctissimis pientissimis Episcopis Cyrillo Memnone nullumque canonibus robur habentia prorsus irrita sint c. Relat. Syn. Ephes. apud Cyril in Apologetico And then soon after conclude thus Oramus igitur Vestram Majestatem soluite nos illos a vinculis vinctis enim fratribus ac Praesidibus sancte nostrae synodi etiam nos quodammodo
vincti sumus Where you see a General Council and a Council truely General with their armes or hands wide spread bowing down humbling themselves touching as their phrase is the knees of the Emperour and beseeching him to set free to them out of prison the Patriarchal Praesident of their whole Council And you may see them in some passages going before complaine indeed but with all modesty to the Emperour that his Majesty was deceaved by sinister information But that he oppress'd or infring'd Ecclesiastical Immunity they neither complaine of there nor elsewhere so farr were they from any thoughts of proceeding to excommunications Interdicts or monitories or minatories of either and consequently so farr from the practise of some later Ages The same Theodosius and by the Ministers of his Pretorian Presect exiled Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople who was by the said great Ephesme Council condemned of heresie as may be read in the Acts of that Council And truly Cyril of Alexandria epist 6. writing to Iuvenal Bishop of Ierusalem advises that the extermination of Nestorius should be desired and expected from this Emperour only and from his subordinate civil Magistrates Necessarium autem erit sayes he ut Christi amanti ac religiosissimo Regi universis Magistratibus scribamus consulamusque ne pietati in Christum hominem praeponant sed largiatur orbi rectae fidei firmitudinem ac greges Domini à malo pastore liberent nisi universorum consiliis obtemperaverit Pursuant to which desire this very Theodosius afflicted most grievously several other Bishops for being only suspected of Nestorianism Amongst whom let Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus albeit in himself otherwise a very true and sure Catholick tell how the Emperour punish'd him upon suspicion only let us observe whether he complain that a Laick should take cognizance of judge and sentence and confine a Bishop or whether only be complain of the injustice of the proceeding against him as having no crime at all whereof he was convicted or which he had confessed or that was objected to him at least upon any kind of even but a probable ground Cum enim sayes he himself Theodoretus epist 81. apud Paron tom 6. an 440. num 11. ad Nomum consulem semel iterum scripserim litteras nondum accepi Imperatoris decreto Cyrenssum regionis terminos praeterire prohibeor Nulla vero alia causa hujus damnationis videtur praeterquam quod Synodos Episcoporum congrego licet neque accusatio ostenderetur neque actor appareret neque reus convictus decretum tamen editum fuit c. And then adducing the example of Festus with Paul Act. 25. he adds Et haec quidem dicebat homo qui Christo non credebat sed idolorum erroribus serviebat Ego vero neque interrogatus An Synodes congregem nec ne quorum causa congregem quid mali afferam vel rebus Ecclesiae vel publicis ac si in maximis deliquissem ab aliis arceor civitatibus Quin immo aliis quidem omnibus omnis aperta est civitas non solum Arrii Evnâ—mii sectateribus sed Marcionistis illis qui Valentini Montani morbo laborant nec non Ethnicis Iudaeis Ego vero qui pro dogmatibus Evangelicis pugno ab omni excluder civitate Moreover it was Theodosius commanded Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be not only deposed from his Episcopal See but also degraded of Sacerdotal Order as was actually done in obedience to his command Acta Concil Ephes edit Pelt tom 5. c. 29. And further yet it was this Emperour Theodosius that notwithstanding the foresaid great General Synod of Ephesus deposed the before mentioned Iohn from his Patriarchal See of Antioch as appears in the Acts by his own imperial authority interceded and hindered the execution of that sentence nay commanded it should not be executed and who also by his own self same and onely imperial authority though for a very just end or least otherwise great troubles should arise licenced the said Iohn to return to his former See of Antioch And finally it was this Emperour Theodosius that called both Iohn and Cyril to himself to Nicomedia and forced them to agree among themselves and Iohn also to agree with the Catholick Church wherever by renouncing Nostorius Martianus a no less Catholick Emperour even he who together with Pulcheria the good Empress convoked the fourth General Council or that great one indeed of Chalâ—dâ—n this very Martianus I say was he that by his own Imperial authority removed from the Patriarch of Antioch the cause of â—â—as and brought it to his own cognizance and this too at the Instance of the Priests of the Diocess of Edessa Subjects to and accusers of the said Ibas their own Bishop and because they alleadged that the Patriarch of Antioch to whom the cognizance of their accusation against Ibas immediatly belong'd in the Church was suspected of partiality and committed it to other Bishops to be judg'd by them joyning also to these other Bishops for an assistent Damasium Tribunum Nâ—tarium a meer lay officer Concil Chalced. Act. 9. But that which herein or in this cause of Ibas and in this Imperial cognizance and commission of it is more notable yet is that the complaint of the said Priests his accusers was purely Ecclesiastical as wholly concerning an excommunication which he had pronounced against them But I have elsewhere noted that the Prince hath an external superintendence over and power of the external regiment of even meer Church affairs especially in two cases viz. 1. when manifest injustice is committed or innocency oppressed or whether it be so or no in rei veritate when complaints are made to the Prince that matters are so carried in the Church or by the spiritual or Ecclesiastical Governours of it 2. when he sees that by the carriage however this be of Churchmen or of the spiritual superiours of other Churchmen or laymen the publick peace or tranquillity of either Church or State politick is any way disturbed or hazarded or that any other publick spiritual or even temporal good which implyes no sin is hindered Pursuant to which it was also that Leo Magnus Primus the first and great Pope of that name writ to an other Leo the Emperour and writ in his 81. epist to coerce the Clerks of the Constantinopolitan Church as favourers of hereticks In quibus sayes this holy Pope deturbandis si frater meus Anatolius cum nimis benigne parcit segnior invenitur dignamini prâ—fide vestra etiam istam Ecclesiae praestare medicinam ut tales non solùm ab craine Clericatus sed etiam ab urbis habitatione pellantur Where this Pope desires the Emperour to exercise his own Imperial power not delegats any Ecclesiastical to him though he desires the Emperour not onely to banish those Clerks from the City but also to have them degraded from their order And pursuant to the same
opinion or rather certain and true judgment of such a power in the Emperour as properly and essentially belonging to his Imperial office it was that the orthodox Bishops of Syria writ also to the same Emperour Leo for punishing by his own Imperial power according to the laws of the civil Commonwealth Timotheus Elucus Bishop or Patriarch of Alexandria as by the same laws and against both the same laws and Princes too being guilty of various crimes but in particular of adultery and murder De delictis autem say they post Câ—ncil Chalced. praesumptionibus quas nefandê commisit Reipublicae legibus corum praesulibus judicio competenti subdetur Where you see a meer secular judgment called or said to be a competent judgment of criminal Bishops And indeed that the banishment of the said Timotheus which soon after followed by the decree of this Emperour Liberat. Brevi c. 13. proceeded onely from his own proper Imperial power not from any Church power or from any commission or delegation from the Church we may gather sufficiently out of the 100. epist of the above S. Leo the Pope wherein he writes thus to Gennadius Dilectio tua eniti elaborare debit ne redeundi integram capiat libertatem de quo jam Edictis suis Princeps Christianissimus judicavit Finally pursuant to the same knowledg of the Imperial power and authority from God for judging and sentencing the criminal causes and inflicting corporal punishments in such criminal causes and on such Clergymen as were found guilty Pope Simplicius epist 9. 11. beseecheth the Emperour Zeno Vt quod per nos sayes he Ecclesia seriò postulat imô quod ipsi specialiùs supplicamus Petrum Alexandrinae Ecclesiae pervasorem ad exteriora transferri piissima praeceptione jubeatis But to leave this judgment of Popes or other Bishops of the power and authority Royal in the case which Judgment as such of the power is not the proper and primary subject of this section or at least of this part of it and to return to matter of fact onely and this of the Princes themselves acting by particular Instances The next Prince I offer to the Readers consideration is Theodoricus King of Italy For this Prince albeit an Arrian as to his beleef of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ yet in all other points of Christian religion and in his veneration and observance of the Church and Churchmen and of their priviledges and exemptions in general and this without any distinction of Arrians or not Arrians he was precise wary and strict enough nor is there any reprehension or complaint of him in History as not being so And yet he is recorded to have admitted of and discussed the accusations drawn and presented to him by the very Catholicks themselves both Layety and Clergye against Pope Symmachus Of which matter Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes thus in Symmacho Post annos vero quattuor aliqui ex clero zelo ducti aliqui ex Senatu maximè Festus Prâ—binus insimulaverunt Symmachum subornarunt falsos testes quos miserunt Ravennam ad Regem Theodoricum accusantes beatum Symmachum occultè revocarunt Laurentium post libellum Romae factum fecerunt Schysma divisus est iterum Clerus nam alij communicaverunt Symmacho alij Laurentio Tunc Festus Probinus Senatores miserunt relationem Regi caeperunt agere ut visitatorem daret Rex Sedi Apostolieae quod canones prohibent And albeit upon debate this King at last remitted this cause of Symmachus to a Council of Bishops and that by the same King's licence several Councils of Bishops convened at Rome to sift it throughly which Councils I have amongst others and upon an other occasion quoted in the marginal note of my introduction to this first Treatise pag. 1. yet no man can deny that he admitted the accusations and thereupon and as judg of them and of the whole cause exercised several judiciary acts as having a legal power or Christian authority to do so Nor did Symmachus except or resist nor did any for him or in his behalf or in behalf of the Church or of Ecclesiastical Immunity reprehend Theodorick for doing so Nay we have seen before in this Treatise Sec ... this very Symmachus himself openly professing that he himself would yield to God in the Emperour's person to wit by obeying him in humane things as we saw him desiring on the other side that the Emperour should likewise revere God in the person of the Pontiff doubtless for what concern'd spiritual or divine matters The Catholick Emperour Justinus proceeded yet more imperially in the criminal cause of Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica For this Bishop being accused of sedition and of several murders too and particularly of the murder of Iohn who was one of the Legats of the See Apostolick and the rest of the Apostolick Legats being his accusers before the Emperour and being so also by express command from Hormisda the Pope whose Legats they were and he too that was murdered and this Pope himself pressing hard that the said Bishop Dorotheus the supposed murderer of his Legat should either be deposed by the Emperour from his Bishoprick and sent to banishment farr from his place or See and Church or certainly be sent to Rome with all fit prosecution of his cause Iustin indeed proceeded to a judicial tryal and sentence of the criminal Bishop but with so much regard of his own imperial power in the case that he neither did the one nor the other which Hormisda so earnestly pressed for Of all which the Suggestions amongst and after the epistles of Hormisda and these epistles themselves particularly the Suggestion which is after the 56. epist and the second Suggestion after the 64. epist and the 57. epistle in it self may be read Promittit say the Legats writing to the Pope Sancta Clementia for so they stile the Emperour vindicare citare Dorotheum quia nos contestati sumus pietatem ejus c. And Hormisda himself the Pope epist 57. writing to the said Legats Nam eumdem Dorotheum sayes he Constantinopolim jussu Principis didicimus evocatum adversus quem Domino filio nostro Clementissimo Principi debetis insistere ne ad eamdem civitatem denuo revertâ—tur sed Episcopatus quem numquam bene gessit honore deposito ab eodem loco ac Ecclesia longius relegetur vel certè huc ad urbem sub prosecutione congrua dirigatur But wherefore doth not this Pope command his Legats to insist upon the delivering of such a criminal a criminal Bishop into their own proper custody hands and power to proceed against him to judg and punish him as they shall find cause being they alone and not the Emperour were his competent Judges in the case if we believe our Bellarminians and Baronius wherefore do not these Legats wherefore doth not this Pope himself being denied what he desired fulminat excommunications against Iustine
and this barely too crimen Ecclesiasticum it is declared that if any charge a Clerk with the former sort of crime the secular judges shall determine the cause but if with the later that the Bishop onely shall have power to judg it Quod si de criminali causa litigium emerserit tunc competentes judices in hac civitate scilicet Constantinopolitana vel in Provinciis interpellati consentaneum legibus terminum imponant c Sin autem crimen Ecclesiasticum est tunc secundum canones ab Episcopo suo causae examinatio paena procedat nullam communionem aliis judicibus in hujusmodi causis habentibus Which although it was first or originally a meer civil constitution or Novel of Iustinian yet was after made a canon of the Church by being inserted in and received by the Church amongst her canons in corpore Iuris canonici or in Gratian. Sixt canon as to pure Ecclesiastical crimes and to their punishment in case of disobedience to the Bishops was long before and not a Papal canon onely but a canon of the third Council of Carthage which was that is called the Vniversal Council understand you of Affrick and is that also in Gratian XI q. 1. c. Petimus where it is declared that intruded Bishops contemning the admonitions of the Church belong in such case to the lay judicatory Seaventh canon distinguishing likewise in effect sufficiently and clearly enough as the above fift hath done betwixt lay crimes or at least some lay crimes that is crimes which are common as well to lay-men as to Clergie-men and both Ecclesiastical crimes or such as are proper onely to Ecclesiastical persons and other crimes too which are strictly civil but not criminal is that of the first Council of Matiscon held in the year 582. under King Gunteramnus and Pope Pelagius II. wherein and in the 7. chap. the Fathers decree Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque Iudex cujuscumque Clericum absque causa criminali id est homicidio furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum suerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur Whence appears evidently these Fathers held it no breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity that Clerks accused of murder theft or maleficium what ever they understood by this word or whether witchcraft onely according the special acception and restriction of this word or sense of it by some authors or generally all kind of lay evils or wickedness according to the general or etymological sense thereof should be subject to the meer lay coercive power of even inferiour lay judges whereof I have said more at large before And therefore by this canon Princes were to the end of the fift age of Christianity in possession of their own proper supream civil power of punishing Clerks in their own lay and princely Iudicatories tribunals or courts and even by their own inferiour proper and meer lay delegated or commission'd judges when I say the cause or accusation was purely criminal and of such crimes in specie as are murder theft or witchcraft Eight canon is that still in Gratian 23. q. 5. cap. Principes For though Isidorus de sum bon c. 35. be the original Author of it yet as in Gratian it is now allowed and accounted amongst the canons of the Church And that indeed not unworthily For thus it speaks Principes seculi non numquam intra Ecclesiam potestatis adeptae culmina tenent ut per eamdem potestatem disciplinam Ecclesâ—asticam muniant Caeterum intra Ecclisiam petesta es necessariae non essent nisi ut quod non fraevalet sacerdos efficere per doctrinae sermonem potestat hoc impleat per disciplinae terrâ—rem Saepe per regnum terrenum caeleste regnum proficit ut qui intra Ecclesiam positi contra fidem disciplinam Ecclesiae agunt rigore Principum conterantur ipsamque disciplinam quam Ecclesiae humilitas exercere non praevalet corvicibus superborum potestas principalis imponat ut venerationem mereatur virtutem potestatis impertiat Cognoscant Principes saeculi Deo debere se rationem reddere propter Ecclesiam quam a Christo tuendam accipiunt Nam sive augeatur pax displina Ecclesiae per fideles Principes sive soluatur ille ab eis rationem exiget qui corum potestati suam Ecclesiam credidit Here you see that not out of or by vertue of any commission or delegation from Bishops or Popes Princes do exercise the distriction of their power even within the Church that is against Churchmen and even too in Church affairs but out and by vertue of their own proper authority which they received from God And you see also that the Church as such by reason of its humble and essential constitution may not exercise or make use of any penal discipline as belonging to her self but for such coercion must have recourse to the power of Princes Nor let any think to evade by saying that Princes are in so much or as punishing such persons or as determining correcting or amending such affairs but Ministers of the Church and executors of the sentence or power of the Church pursuant to that which Innocent III. and the Glosse upon him say or determine cap. ut famae de sent Excom extracted out of the said Innocent's answer to the Bishop of London For I have before already in several Sections proved by reason Scripture tradition of the Fathers and practise too both general and particular and of both Fathers and Princes and Pontiffs and people that Princes have hethertoo proceeded and de jure proceeded against such persons and even too in such matters by their own proper authority without any commission had from the Church As likewise that they received from God himself such their own proper universal authority and right to proceed so against all persons whatsoever laymen or Clergiemen guilty of any crimes and in all causes too whatsoever temporal or spiritual forasmuch or wherein they relate to the external peace of the Commonwealth and to the meer external government of the Church by the power of the material sword And we have seen too already that the power of inflicting corporal punishment by way of coaction and force is absolutely denyed to the Church as a Church Which being so who will be so unreasonable as to attribute a power to Her of deputing commissioning or delegating Ministers or executors to inflict them so But what this canon or Gratian or rather Isidore who was the original Author sayes here is very observable I mean where it sayes that Princes have the height of their power within the Church and that God himself hath committed his Church to their power even as Leo Magnus the Pope writing to Leo the Emperour ep 81. sayes Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non
solum ad mundi regimen sed maxime ad Ecclesiae praesidiuâ— esse collatum At most therefore what is in this matter granted to the Church is that Ecclesiasticks be not by Princes proceeded against coercively to punishment if their transgression be onely or meerly Ecclesiastical and the punishment be corporal I say be not so and in such case punished corporally unless or until the Church do her own duty first by depositions or censures or both Except you always still such extraordinary cases wherein the Superiours of the Church should or would themselves also peradventure be too refractory or too contumacious against reason as guilty of the same crimes or for any causes whatsoever countenancing or favouring the criminal Clerks and therefore refusing to proceed at all or at least onely against them For when a degraded Clerk is given over to the secular Court he is not delivered so by the Church to the secular Magistrats as if the Church did mean or intend these Magistrats should proceed by vertue of a power derived from her or be the Ministers or executioners of her own sentence which if capital she hath no power no authority at all from God or man to pronounce or decree as if any other way it be purely civil or forcible at all corporally for example to corporal restraint or imprisonment she hath for so much all her power from man and from the civil laws onely but he is given over so by the Church as meaning and intending onely that such a criminal Clerk be thenceforward under the ordinary power of even the inferiour lay Magistrats and Judges and by such delivery or giving over signifying unto them that they may now proceed if they please and think fit either to absolve or condemn him For even Caelestinus III. himself a Pope of the later times confesses c. Non ab homine de judic that Ecclesiastical punishment is of a quite other nature then that which is lay and that the Church hath no kind of power or authority to inflict such punishments as are in their own nature lay punishments or which is the same thing that she hath no power no authority at all of her self as a Church to inflict any punishment but purely Ecclesiastical but suspension deposition excommunication the lesser and greater and finally degradation when the criminal Clerk is delivered over or left under the secular power let the crimes of such a Clerk be ever so great and ever too such pure lay crimes even perjury theft and murder c and even heightned also by incorrigibleness A nobis fuit ex parte tua quaesitum sayes the above Caelestine utrum liceat Regi vel alicut seculari personae judicare Clericos cujuscumque ordinis sive in furto sive homicidio vel periurio seu quibus cumque fuerint criminibus deprehensi Consultationi tuae taliter respondentus quod si Clericus in quocumque ordine constitutus in furto vel homicidio vel periurio seu alio crimine fuerit deprehensus legittime atque convictus ab Ecclesiastico Iudice deponendus est Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit excommunicari debet deinde contumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri postmedum verò si in profundum malorum veniens contempserit cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat ne possit esse ultra perditio plurimorâ—m per secularem comprimendus est potestatem ita quod ei deputetur exilium vel alia legittima paena Where you are to observe singularly as to our present purpose of distinction betwixt Ecclesiastical and secular punishment and of no power at all in the Church to inflict corporal secular civil or lay punishments what Caelestinus sayes in these words Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat As you are also to note that he answers not directly or rather indeed not at all to the main question whether the King or other secular powers could punish Clerks guilty of or manifestly deprehended in perjury theft or murder but declines that of the authority of Kings or of other secular powers acting of themselveâ— in such cases without relation to the desires of the Church that they should act so and onely prescribes to the Ecclesiastical superiours how they themselves are to proceed by degrees aâ— becomes them against such criminal Clerks For otherwise it hath been seen before and in the very laws of Iustinian submitted unto by the Church that in such criminal causes the civil Praetors proceeded immediately against Churchmen though execution of the sentence was suspended until degradation was by the Bishop And it hath been seen that in a very auncient Council of Bishops long before this Calestine the first of Matisconum I mean the cases of theft murder and malefice were still expresly and particularly supposed or rather declared to have no Ecclesiastical exemption but to be still under the cognizance of even the inferiour lay judges And reason it self and the necessary preservation of both State and Church tell us that Caelestine's answer here cannot be otherwise understood in all the formalities of it and as relateing to the power supream of Kings who acknowledg none but God above them in temporals and who recieve not or incorporat not by their own proper power and into their own civil law this canon of Caelestine in any other sense or any other Church canon at all either like or unlike to it exempting Clerks in such crimes and in the first Instance from their supream legal cognizance or even from that of their subordinat ordinary secular and lay judges For I confess that in such Kingdoms or temporal States if any such be wherein the Princes or people or civil Governours and civil laws or customs have recieved such Ecclesiastical canons for the exemption of Clerks in such crimes until such Ecclesiastical formalities had preceeded it is fitting they be obserued and ought to be observed while the civil laws which onely gave them force or a binding virtue remain unrepealed and if the litteral observation of them strike not at the very being or at least peaceable and well being of the Commonwealth But observed so that is by virtue of the civil reception and incorporation of them into the civil laws and by the civil power they make nothing at all against my main purpose or against that of those other canons I alledg for the power of Kings from God to punish delinquent Clergiemen with civil and corporal punishments where and when they shall upon rational grounds judg it necessary and expedient for the publick good of either Church or State and where and when it is not against the laws of the land that they punish them so either by themselves immediately or by their subordinat lay judges either extraordinary or ordinary The Bishops of Affrick acknowledging this power in temporal Princes write in this manner and stile to the Emperour Vt novellae praesumptionis scandalum quod adversus fidem nostram attentatum
Ex his omnibus datur intelligi his own conclusion is in general tearms only importing that a Clerk is not either in a civil or criminal cause to be convented in publick that is in lay or secular Judicatories Quod Clericus sayes he ad publica judicia nec in civili nec in criminali causa est producendus not descending to the particular or specifical case of the regal power and regal cognizance intervening by special commission or special warrant or in a special emergency nor descending also to or considering the special case of times or Countryes when or where no such canon of the Church or Pope no such priviledge imperial at least in that latitude is in use or perhaps hath ever yet been received or if once received hath been again repealed Therefore Gratian may be rationally expounded to mean by his judicia publica in this Paragraph those ordinary Judicatories only which are of inferiour lay Judges and those too but only where such Canons are received or such priviledges allowed by the supream civil powers and laws But if any must needs press further yet or in any other sense the conclusion of Gratianus then I must say three things The first is that as I have proved already elsewhere in this work if a Clerk sue a Layman for any temporal matter or in a meer civil cause that is not criminal he must sue him in a lay Court and before a lay Judge and this lay Judge albeit only a subordinate inferiour and ordinary Judge shall give a binding sentence against this Clerk if the law be in the case for the Layman So that neither is it generally true not even by the very Canons I mean that Clerks in all civil causes are totally exempt from the jurisdiction of as much as the very inferiour lay Judges For the very Canons not to speak of the civil laws now in force throughout the world have ordered so Quod Actor sequatur forum Rei let the Actor be ever so much a Clerk or Ecclesiastick The second is that generally for criminal causes of Clerks Gratianus hath not produced as much as any one either imperial constitution or even any one Church Canon sufficiently either in particular or in general revoking or anulling or sufficiently declaring that revocation of the 74. Constitution of Iustinianus whereby this Emperour appoints and impowers the lay Judges for those within Constantinople and for those abroad in the Provinces the lay Pretors in the same Provinces to iudge the criminal causes of Clerks nay nor hath at all as much as attempted to answer or gain-say it albeit this very 74. Constitution was the very last chapter saving one which himself produced immediatly as a canon before the foresaid last paragraph Ex â—is omnibus Thirdly that for those Church Canons or those more likely authorities or passages true or false of some Popes or some Councils alledged by Gratianus in that his eleventh cause and first question or those in him which may seem most of any he hath to ground another sense then that I have said to be his sense I have before sufficiently nay and abundantly too cleared and answered them at large in my LXIX Section of in my answer to Bellarmine's aâ—legations of the Canons for himself and for the exemption of criminal Clerks from the supream royal coercive power of Kings where I have also noted some of Gratian's either voluntary or unvoluntary corruptions of the Canons Fourthly and consequently that whether Gratian was or was not of a contrary opinion it matters not a pin It is not his opinion and let us suppose he had truly and sincerely declared his own inward opinion for I am sure many as good and as great and far greater then he dared not declare their own when he writ his Decretum or declare any at all but in the language of the Papal Court It it is not I say his opinion but his reason we must value for sin he did not himself nor any for him does pretend to infallibility And I am sure he neither brings nor as much as pretends to bring any Scripture at all or any Tradition of the Fathers or even as much as any argument of natural reason for the warranty of any other sense And I am certain also that my judicious and impartial Readers will themselves clearly see and confess that he brings not for himself or for such a sense as much as any one Canon true or false to confront these I have alledg'd for my self and for that sense I intend all along or any one Canon true or false that denyes that which I have given for the coercive power of secular Princes to have been and to be the sense of Paul the Apostle Rom 13. or to have been and be the general and unanimous sense of the holy Fathers in their commentaries and expositions of it or finally any one Canon true or false that particularly and either formally or virtually descends to the specifical debate 'twixt the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius or their followers the present Divines of Lovaine and me concerning the supream royal and external Jurisdiction of Kings to punish criminal Clerks by their own immediate authority royal and by virtue of their own royal commissions and delegations extraordinary in all cases and contingencies wherein the preservation of the publick peace and safety of either Church or State require it and by their mediat authority also in their inferiour Judges and by vertue of their ordinary commissions or delegations to such Judges or of the ordinary power which the civil laws of the land give to these Judges in all cases I mean wherein the same civil laws or the makers of such laws have not received or admitted of the more or less ancient constitutions of Roman Emperours or of the more or less ancient Canons of the great Pontiffs or of other Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Councils for what concerns the exemption of Clergie-men in criminal causes from the meer civil and ordinary Courts and lay inferiour or subordinate Judges and their subjection to Ecclesiastical Judges only and the Prince himself who must be without any peradventure and even in such causes too of Clerks above all Iudges in his own Kingdom whether lay or Ecclesiastical Judges For I have before sufficiently demonstrated that all Ecclesiastical Exemption in temporal matters or in all both civil and criminal causes is only from the supream civil Power as from the only proper and total efficient cause and I have also before demonstrated that no exemption to any persons or person whatsoever could be given by that Power from it self or at least for the matter of coercion and when the publick good required it unless at the same time it freed such persons or person from all kind of subjection to it self and I have likewise demonstrated before that such exemption from it self in any case at all whatsoever cannot be rationally supposed as given by
this definition of Iohn the XXII against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever For these two positions have no contradiction 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal and civil too if you please in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church 2. This coactive power humane corporal and civil too or not civil as you please is not altogether independent in it self but is subordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes That they are not contradictory or inconsistent we see by the example of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals For the inferiour tribunals notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively are subordinat to the superiour And so I have done at last with this long discourse occasion'd by the fourth objection or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church I have proved to be very false as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church Which Catholick doctrine or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently nay abundantly demonstrated by reason Scripture and Tradition Therefore now to The fift and last of all these objections which I call'd remaining for the reason before given that objection I mean built upon the contrary judgment or opinion as t is pretended of St. Thomas of Canterbury and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore and of his canonization also therefore and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious martyrized Saint therefore This objection I confess is very specious at first as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Divine or Canonists or both it appears to and works so T is onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death but what they read in their Breviary which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me though peradventure enough to solve any T is onely amongst those who do not consider duely nor indeed have the knowledg or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely what it amounts to in point of Christian Faith as to others or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto that any one Bishop how otherwise holy soever in his own life should have especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in general or of this or that Immunity in particular or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust I care not which made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities or those were onely pretended I care not also which T is onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion or of moe perhaps and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obedient humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently represented to them because they had other sufficient manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving though I do not averr any such prepossession here nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material T is onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposition to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen and on his exile death miracles canonization invocation appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes who are supream themselves to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoever living within their dominions Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance as you have that Censure of theirs page 120. of this first Part be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines I leave to the Reader 's own better consideration when reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it he observes moreover particularly the day of the date of it so signally express'd by them in these tearms Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die â—9 Decembris gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis Angliae quondam Primatis mortyrio consecratae Anno Dominae Incarnationis 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canterbury as most proper for such a censure I know not certainly but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy glory martyrdom and how that 29. day of December of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal signal date of theirs made me ever since now and then reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground Though to confess all the truth I never met any that fram'd it methodically or put it into any due or undue form of argument for them or of objection against me but onely in general objected that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second Which is the reason and that I may leave nothing which may seem to any to be material unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self I put all which my adversaries would be at in this concern of St. Thomas of
upon his landing all the Ports being by the Archbishop of York Bishop of Lendon and Bishop of Salisbury's directions beset with Souldiers his baggage was narrowly search'd of purpose to seize on all his Bulls and letters from the Pope it is manifest I say that presently after this affront when or assoon as he was come to Canterbury the Kings Ministers sollicited by the said Bishops of York London and Salisbury who were then also come to Canterbury of purpose to vex Thomas declared unto him in the Kings name that he should absolve the Bishops who were suspended and excommunicated by the Pope because what was so done against them redounded to the Kings injury and to the subversion of the customs of the Kingdom That to this declaration or demand Thomas answered first Non esse judicis inferioris soluere sententiam superioris that it was not the part of an inferiour judg to solve the sentence of a superiour And secondly answer'd when others more urgently press'd him and threatned him in the Kings behalf that for the peace of the Church and reverence he boare to the King he would run the hazard of giving absolution to those Bishops so they would swear in forma Ecclesia in the then usual form of the Church to obey the commands of the great Pontiff That hereupon when the rest of the Bishops began to yield as not thinking it safe to oppose themselves to the Church and impugne the Apostolical sanctions for the preservation of the customs of the Kingdom the man enemy of peace sayes Spondanus out of Baronius and author and propagator of all dissention from the very beginning of the troubles the Archbishop of York disswaded them advising that they should rather go to the King without whose consent sayes he such an oath could not be taken That following this advice they all immediatly crossed the Sea to the King then as yet in France and adding sin to sin sayes Baronius or his Epitomizer Spâ—ndanus sent messengers back to the young King in England â—â—o should perswade him That Thomas had sought to depose his Majesty That finally with the Father King Henry the Second himself having been otherwise before ill enough affected to Thomas though lately so as we have seen reconciled those ill advisers wrought so much by their accusations that wholy transported with rage he was heard often to let fall those fatal complaints and curses of all who had been bred with him whom he had so favoured and advanced that none of all would riâ— him of one Priest who so troubled the Kingdom and sought to despoyle him of his Royal Dignity And therefore also what is the scope of this fourth observation is manifest viz that notwithstanding the grand quarrel which continueâ— so long was about those 16. Heads of laws or customs yet the more immediat motive of the Saints death was onely that his refusal of giving absolution to those censur'd Bishops after the King was reconciled to him without any condition of tying him to the observation of the said Heads nay rather with express promise made by the King to the Pope and his said last Legats that he would no more urge their observance For as the said Baronius and Spondanus tel the particulars of this last motive out of the often mention'd Acts of his life and out of the 73. epistle of S. Thomas himself which was his last to Pope Alexander as they relate also out of the same Acts and other Historians and epistles of the Saint all other particulars given by me in this fift observation so they tell us out of the same Acts wherein as to this now all other Histories agree how the Courtiers being much moved to indignation against Thomas by these words of the King four of them conspiring the death of Thomas and immediatly therefore sayling into England and being come to Canterbury and with their swords drawn on the 29. of Dec. 1170. scarce a month after the Saint was return'd from his long exile then there broke violently into the Church when and where the good Archbishop was at evening prayers with his Monks and other Clerks and furiously calling for him by his name and the Saint hereupon being come towards them mildly and after reproving the Sextons for endeavouring to shut the Church doors and to keep out these murtherers saying that the Church was not to be kept or defended after the manner of camps non esse Ecclesiam castrorum more custodiendam telling the murtherers he was ready to suffer death for God and for asserting justice and the liberty of the Church and commanding them under excommunication not to hurt any other of his either Monk Clerk or Laick and lastly bowing down his head as in prayer and recommending himself and the cause of the Church to God to the blessed Virgin to the holy Patrons of that his own particular Church of Canterbury and to S. Denis by name and in this Christian posture expecting the fatal strokes he received them withall constancy whereby in an instant his bloud and brain mixed together with his dead trunk covered the sacred pavement Whence appears undoubtedly that whatever the former differences were twixt the King and our Saint the sole immediat later difference and onely cause of those fatal exclamations of the Kings which made or occasioned those four unfortunate gentlemen to commit so prodigious a Sacriledg was his above recited refusal of absolution to York and the other censur'd Bishops unless they would promise in forma Ecclesiae consueta to stand to the judgment of the Pope Fiftly you are to observe how it is so farr from appearing out even of Baronius or Spondanus that S. Thomas of Canterbury did break or would breake with the King or have any difference at all with him upon every of the above 16. Heads individually separatly taken as it is certain on the contrary 1. That even Pope Alexander himself even in a publick consistory where also Thomas himself was present allowed of the six last as tollerable 2. That the same Pope writing in the year 1169. epist 11. and epist 30. to the said King Henry the Second and his Bishops of England even then when the contest was in the very height took notice onely of two points in as much as he onely therein admonish'd the King most earnestly to suffer that the vacant Churches might be provided for by canonical election of Bishop and commanded the Bishops to excommunicate all both receivers and givers of lay investitures and to see that all such persons should be effectually shâ—nned by all the faâ—â—â—â— 3. That Polydore Virgiâ— in Henric. 2. â— XIII Histor Angl. tels us expresly and pâ—ainly that the grands or chief caâ—â—e of S. Thomas of Canterburys so great and long contest with his King Henry the second was that he observed this King daily advancing such Priests to Ecclesiastical dignities and even Bishopricks as were leâ—â— deserving and doing so as the King pleaded
debetur compensationem intra terdenos aggrediatur dies ab omni legis commoditate destitutus habetor So one of his laws But another thus concerning criminal Priests guilty or accused of murther or other hainous crimes Si quis sacris inauguratus rei capitalis obnoxius extiterit comprehenditor atque ut tandem Episcopo criminis admissi paenas dependat asseruator And a third yet thus concerning homicides whether Laymen or Clergiemen failing in their purgation either that which was canonical by fire or water c. or by any other way whatsoever Si quis alium trucidarit palam perempti cognatorum in potestatem detor Sin caâ—dis insimuletur tantummodo atque in excusatione afferenda ceciderit Episcopum penes esto ejus rei judicium Now for St. Edward the Confessor's laws which indeed were chiefly or above all other the laws for which the people of England were so often at variance with some of the Norman Kings or William the Conquerors Successors and which too Ingulphus and the Chronicle of Lichfield tell us were first enacted by King Edgar and but only revived with some amendments or additions by his said grand child Edwardus bonus its likewise plain the first of them is in these words Omnis Clericus aliter Clerus etiam Scholares omnis eorum res possessiones ubicumque fuerint pacem Dei sanctae Ecclesiae habeant And the Fift in these Quicumque de Ecclesia aliquid tenuerit vel in fundo Ecclesiae mansionem habuerit extra curiam Ecclesiasticam coactus non placitabit quamvis foris fecerit nisi quod absit in curia Ecclesiastica de recto defecerit And the seventh also in these Si quis vero sanctae pacem Ecclesiae violenter infregerit alias violaverit Episcoporum est justitia Quod si nocens sententiam eorum diffugiendo vel arroganter contemnendo despexerit clamor de eo ad Regem deserator post XL. dies Regis justitia mittet eum per vadimonium plegios fi habere poterit usque dum Deo primitus Ecclesiae postea satisfaciat Quod si infra XXXI dies sive per amicos notos sive per justitiam Regis inveniri non poterit utlegabit id est omni legum protectione excludet eum Rex verbo oris fui Si vero postea repertus fuerit retineri possit vivus Regi reddatur vel caput ejus si se defenderit Vulpinum enim gerit caput quod anglicè vulfesherfod dicitur Et haec est lex communis generalis de omnibus utlegatis As for William the Conqueror it s no less plain that amongst his other laws he in the last year of his raign gave this for one and for a general rule Hoc quoque praecipio ut omnes habeant teneant Legem Edwardi Regis in omnibus rebus adauctis his quae constituimus ad â—utilitatem Anglorum And it s as plain too that in all those he calls his additions or amendments of St. Edwards laws there is not one derogating to the jurisdiction which Bishops formerly had by those laws of King Edward or any other former laws or customes of England for punishing criminal Clerks or for the exemption of such criminals from the Secular Judicatory or their subjection in the punishment of their crimes to the Court Ecclesiastical only Nay it is further plain also that in the begining of Henry the firsts raign the same Henry understanding the general dissatisfaction murmurs and grievances of both Clergie and People of England in that under William Rufus his immediate Predecessor their rights ancient laws and wholsome customes were intrench't upon and infring'd so generally by the Judges and other Officers of the Crown obliged himself by publick Charter and by laws of his own to maintain the said former rights laws and customes especially to the Church and to reform as well in the point of jurisdiction of Bishops in the criminal causes of Clergiemen as provision for vacant Churches and other matters whatsoever relating either to Clergie or Layety all the abuses so lately crept in as accordingly he declared by the same Instrument all such actually taken away and abolished All which may appear sufficiently out of these following Records and laws of his own which may be seen in my Authors Abraham Whelocus and Roger Twisden For thus begins the first head or chapter of his laws extracted out of his said Charter or epistle ad omnes suos fideles at his coronation testibus sayes himself Archiepiscopis Episcopis Baronibus Comitibus Vice comitibus Optimatibus totius regni Angliae apud Westmonasterium quando coronatus fui Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum Omnibus Baronibus fidelibus suis Francis Anglis salutem Sciatis me Dei misericordia communi consilio assensu Baronum regni Angliae ejusdem Regni Regem coronatum esse quia regnum oppressum erat injustis exactionibus ego respectu Dei amore quem erga vos omnes habeo sanctam Dei Ecclesiam imprimis liberam facio Ita quod nec vendam nec ad firmam ponam nec mortuâ— Archiepiscopo sive Episcopo vel Abbate aliquid accipiam de dominio Ecclesiae vel hominibus ejus donec successor in eam ingrediatur omnes malas consuetudines quibus regnum Angliae opprimebatur inde aufero quas consuetudines hic pono c. And thus after he proceeds in his LXVI law or chapter expresly and particularly home to our present purpose Si quis Minister altaris hominem occidat vel malis actibus supra modum differatur ordine simul dignitate privetur peregrinetur sicut ei Papa injunget opus emendet Et si se purgare velit tripliciter hoc faciat nisi infra triginta noctes hoc incipiat erga Deum homines utlaga sit And in his LXXIII law or chapter thus also Si Episcopus homicidium faciat deponatur paeniteat duodecim annis in pane aqua quinque ieiunet tribus diebus in hebdomada aliis communi eibo utatur Si Presbyter hominem occidat vel Monachus ordinem perdat peniteat decem annis sex in pane aqua quartuor in hebdomada ieiunet tres dies caeteris utatur cibâ— suo c. And those were the laws to our purpose of Henry the first third Son to the Norman Conqueror Though I confess that neither he himself I mean this Henry the first who made them nor his Successors did at all keep to them exactly how specious soever and great his promises were and his charters too at his coronation Whereof Polydore Virgil speaks thus in his life and XI book of Histories Deinde summa ope intendit hominum studia in se vertere partim dando partim grandia pollicendo sed quia leges quas tulerat Pater ejus Gulielmus neutiquam aequas populus judicabat illas imprimis tollere promittit And a little after
Leges quas Edovardus tertius utendas dederat in pristinum usum revocat quae tamen sensim absoluerunt Normaâ—â—s pro commâ—do Principis ad incommodum Anglorum leges a Gulielmo primo conditas constantissime usurpantibus And again about the end of his life Tulit initio sui Principatus aliquot leges quas nec ipse nec Reges qui secuti sunt hine servaruaâ— However those I have given were his laws not repealed after by himself in Parment for he began Parliaments in England or otherwise by any publick Instrument declared as a law to the people albeit I deny not but those 16. heads controverted after twixt Thomas of Canterbury and King Henry the Second were first conceived in writing by this very Henry the first but never as a law published by him To all which I will add those further laws yet which were to our purpose also made by King Stephen Henry the First 's immediat or next Successour in two several Parliaments one at Oxford and t'other at London in that of Oxford abolishing quite that kind of tribute or assessment which other Kings had formerly often exacted from every hyde or acre of ground and promising too that neither Episcopacies nor other Ecclesiastical Benefices or Sacerdotal Prefectships should be kept vacant as much as for any the least time and in this of London or Westminster enacting for the Clergy's sake because they had liberally contributed for the warr in hand that whoever should strike any Churchman in holy orders or should without licence from the Court Ecclesiastical or Bishops lay hands upon or seize any criminal Clergymen whatever his crime were should be held excommunicat impious and accursed and should not be restored at all to the communion of the Church or absolved but by the Roman Pontiff onely Of which laws of King Stephen albeit there be no Parliament Records preserved of them as neither indeed are of all or any of those held before King John's days Polydore Virgil tels us expresly and particularly in his 12. book of Histories and life of the said Stephen For these are his words concerning the first Stephanus autem ex sententia summum consecutus imperium Oxonium proficiscitur atque ibi Principum conventum facit quo in Conventu inter caetera ut suorum animos sibi devinciret illud tributi genus quod alij Reges per singula jugera terrae saepe exigere a populo solebant prorsus sustulit atque promisit se curaturum ut deinceps Episcopatus aliae Prefecturae sacerdotales ne puncto quidem temporis vacarent c. And concerning the second these Interea Rex Londinum venit ubi celebrem Principum ac Antistitum conventum peregit in quo talia verba fecit Cum Principes fidelissimi c His dictis cuncti praesidium salutis ac libertatis defendendae se laturos pollicentur At Episcopi cum suis sacerdotibus quia pugnare fas non est pecuniam conferre promittunt quibus ut aliquid gratiae referretur in eodem Conventu constitutum est ut quicumque deinceps sacris initiatos percuterent aut alicujus criminis reos Episcoporum injussu caperent impii importunique haberentur nec ab aliquo praeterquam a Romano Pontifice in piorum caetum restitui possent quemadmodum jure Pontificio iampridem sancitum esset sed apud Anglos ante id tempus minus servatum And so I have given at large whatever I would have the Reader observe in this Seventh place of the proper civil or municipal laws of England before Henry the seconds time concerning our purpose especially the exemption of criminal Clerks even in case of murder from the lay Judges Eightly and in the last place you are to observe but onely out of this present book of my own which you you read now that is out of all said by me formerly in so many Sections from that place where I first began to dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity what my doctrine is against which the objection is made for and to come to the answering of which I have premised so long a discourse in so many observations And you are to observe well that my said doctrine is no other in effect but what I now repeat heer briefly viz. 1. That neither by the law divine positive or natural nor by the canons of the Catholick Church which are properly those are and are called Canones universalis Ecclesiae nor even by those other canons which are more properly and onely stiled Papal Canons Clergiemen living within the dominions of any Supream lay or secular Prince are exempt in criminal and temporal causes from his supream civil even coercive power 2. That not onely they are not so already exempted by any such law of God or man but also that they cannot be hereafter by any pure law of man not even of Pope or Council exempted from the said supream civil even coercive power without the consent of the Princes themselves 3. That neither can the supream secular Princes themselves grant any such exemption to Clerks living still within their dominions and remaining Subjects to them because this implyes a plain contradiction or to any Clerks at all but to such as are at the same time wholly set free from all kind of subjection or acknowledgment of their Principalities 4. That on the other side both by the natural and positive law of God and especially by the 13 of the Romans by the letter and meaning and scope or end of that whole text of St. Paul there all Christian Clerks not even the Popes not even the Apostles themselves exempted are subject in temporal matters and criminal causes even to the coercive power of the supream secular Magistrat 5. That by the doctrine also of the holy Fathers generally until Gregory the VII and by their exposition or understanding of that text of Paul all Churchmen whatsoever were and are so in the dominions of the respective supream temporal Princes whom these Clerks own to be their own legal Princes 6. That by the practise also of so many Christian Bishops Popes and Princes they were and are so 7. That even by the testimony of clear even Papal canons they were and are so that by no argument hithertoo alleadged out of reason scripture tradition Fathers Councils Papal Canons Histories by any of our adversaries the contrary is as much as any way convincingly deduced 9. And finally and in a word that all their true exemptions from either inferiour or supream secular judicatories in any temporal or criminal cause whatsoever as to the coercive punishment of them by the civil power force and sword is originally from and wholly still depending of the supream civil power In all which or in any discourse or clause said thereupon by me you are also to observe that I never said or say or intend to say that Clerks have not a true right to those exemptions from lay judicatories which the
municipal or civil laws of the land wherein they live or the approved customs thereof do give them until the same exemptions be legally repealed by an equal authority to that which gave them nor said nor do say nor intend to say but it is as lawfull for them to maintayn in all just and legal ways their own such immunities as it is for lay subjects in such ways to maintayn their own against the encroachments or usurpations of the Princes themselves or of their Ministers and consequently did not say nor do nor intend to say that they are bound to obey the pleasure of the Prince by subjecting themselves to his lay Judges in such criminal causes or any other wherein the law of the land doth free and exempt them from such judges But say and averre still the quite contrary of all these three sayings because the sublimer civil power which is in the law of the land for them in such case doth warrant them from transgressing in so much that Praecept of Paul 13. to the Romans Those eight observations being so premised and considered it will now be easy enough for me to answer fully and satisfactorily the before given fourth and last of all the remaining objections viz that so specious grand objection built as t is pretended on the contrary judgment or opinion c. of S. Thomas of Canterbury and it will be as easy for my Reader to understand that my answers which I now give are full and satisfactory Therefore My first answer is in general by denying positively plainly and flatly that there is any as much as the least truth in the pretence or supposition or in that I mean which pretends or supposeth that St. Thomas of Canterbury was of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine or to any part or proposion of my doctrine hitherto of the subjection of Clergiemen to the supream coercive power of secular Princes in criminal causes or which pretends or supposeth that because he was so of a contrary opinion in theory or practice or both to any part of my said doctrine he opposed his King fell into his disfavour was exiled by him at first suffered death at last was accounted a Martyr canonized as such and invoked too ever since by the universal Church All which and every particular of which I deny both positively and plainly and flatly Neither do I doubt at all but that in my several observations hitherto taken altogether or if the seven first out of History be compared exactly to or taken together with what is given in my eight and last out of this very book of the particular heads of my doctrine in it concerning ecclesiastical exemption I have given sufficient proofs that I do upon very good very justifyable and unanswerable grounds deny so positively plainly and flatly this whole pretence or supposition and every part thereof For I have shewed what the immediat cause of his death or why he was so cruelly murthered was and that this was no other but for having answered that he would not absolve the excommunicated Bishops unless they had first promised to make satsfaction for the injury done by them to his Church or at least abide or submit to the judgment of the Pope in that case and that his Clerks who came with him from beyond the Seas should not take any oath but such an oath as were just And I have shewed also what the intermediat cause the grand long contest indeed 'twixt him and his King was and that this was no other but of the 16. Heads of customes of Henry the First or of his Grandfather as Henry the Second called them avitas which heads also I have given at length And the judicious Reader may himself clearly see that amongst all those causes or occasions either immediate or intermediat final or original proximate or remote there is nothing at all concerns or which may well or ill be said to concern our dispute or my doctrince but only the second head of those 16. customes as they were called and that of the Saints not delivering up to the secular justice the two criminal Clerks or the Priest and Chanon And the Reader also may clearly see that my doctrine no where teacheth formally or virtually or consequentially any thing contrary to what St. Thomas did either practice or must have held in theory as to either his not assenting to that second Head as neither indeed to any other of all the 16. or as to his not delivering up to secular justice those criminal Clerks For any rational man may very well understand that St. Thomas of Canterbury might without any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety to himself or to these two actions of his nay indeed or to any other opposition made by him to Henry the Second might I say have held or have been at the same time of the very self same judgment or opinion with me hitherto concerning the exemption or subjection of Clergiemen or which is the same thing that he might at the same time have held even positively formally and expresly that by no law of God or Nature or Nations or of the Catholick Church or of Roman Emperours or Pontiffs Clergiemen were or are exempted from the supream civil even coercive power in criminal causes but on the contrary that by Reason Scripture Tradition of the Fathers practice of both Fathers and Princes and even also by the very Canons of as well Popes as Councils they were and are subject to the supream civil coercive power nay and to the subordinate civil or lay inferiour Judges also in all criminal causes whatsoever as far as the civil or municipal laws of the land do subject them or wherein the said temporal or municipal laws of the land exempt them not from the coercion of lay Courts I say that any rational man may very well understand how St. Thomas might have held all this and yet at the same time and without any change in his judgment or opinion or any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety have practised justly conscientiously and holily all that he did in opposition to Henry the Second and particularly that of not delivering up to secular justice the two criminal Clerks and that also of not assenting to the second head of those 16. which were pretended by by the said Henry to be his Grandfathers customes St. Thomas of Canterbury had the very municipal and politick laws of the land or of England for himself in both these Instances as indeed he had them for himself in all other particulars wherein he opposed that King albeit his own proper undoubted Soveraign And that he had them so for himself in all his differences and particularly in these two I have clearly shewed and proved at length in my former seventh observation wherein the Reader may see that by the municipal laws of England still in being or in force as not legally repealed by a contrary law not even till after
the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury and by the Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along till Henry the Second himself 's own raigne and until after this controversie happen'd criminal Clerks even guilty of murder were to be judg'd and punish'd only by the Court Ecclesiastical â—ay that not only by the same laws all Clergiemen 〈…〉 all crimes whatsoever to be judg'd only by the Bishops but that all the very 〈◊〉 of the Church were â—â—all causes whatsoever to be adjudg'd only in the Church of Ecclesiastical Tribunals nor should have recourse to those were by way of distinction commonly called the Kings Courts but only in default of justice done according to law in the Courts of the Church Which being in or as to both differences the law of England contrary to which iâ— both differences oâ— cases Henry the Second would have forced St. Thomas and no other law of God or Man commanding St. Thomas to submit to the King in either as the case stood not even that of St. Paul 13. to the Romans because St. Thomas had in both as in all his other differences the sublimer â—oâ—â—ers in the law of the land for himself who sees not that St. Thomas needed not for his own justification in either differences pretend either the positive law of God or the natural law of God or the law of Nations or the Imperial law or even any Church law or Papal law or Canon for the exemption of criminal Clergiemen from the secular Courts when he denyed to deliver up the two criminal Clerks or when he refused to sign or seal that second Head of Henry the Second's customes which second head was such as subjected all Clergie-men in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt spiritual and temporal to the cognizance of the Kings even ordinary lay Judges and Courts as you may see by turning to and reading over again in my fourth Observation that second Head of those 16 And who seeâ— not but he might at the same time without any contradiction inconsequence oâ— contrariety maintain that still it was true that abstracting from the laws of England then as yet 〈◊〉 because not legally repealed all Clerks in England were by the laws of â—eason and laws of God and doctrine of the Fathers and many Canons too of Popes and Councils subject in all temporal causes both civil and criminal to the lay civil Courts and Judges of Henry the Second Nay who sees not but for any thing alledg'd or known out of the Histories of either his life or death or martyrdome or canonization or miracles or invocation of him after as a glorious martyrized Saint and even martyrized only too if you please in meer defence of the Church liberties and immunities who sees not I say but that notwithstanding any thing hitherto so alledg'd out of all or any of those Histories he not only might be but was rigidly and constantly of this judgement and opinion especially being these Histories tell us in one instance that when he was so much pressed to sign to those 16. Heads as the royal customes of Henry the First he doubted they were no such customes of Henry the First or were no customes at all and therefore chiefly and only fell off after swearing them and would not sign or seal them at all as was desired and expected from him albeit his Cross-bearer's check did forward his repentance for having sworn Sed cum descriptas consuetudines sayes Parker himself in the life of our Saint perlegisset Thomas for when he swore to observe them he did not see them in writing nor were they digested at all into heads and therefore he only swore in general to observe those customes which Henry the Second called â—nitas consâ—â— tudines his Grandfathers customes and royal customes â—ulâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 an ill â—um quaedam inter consuetudines essent habendae itâ—â— diem deliâ—â—◠〈…〉 sigillum chirographum adhiberet petiit and whereas also he could not be ignorant of the laws both Imperial which he had studied and of the laws of England where he lived and judged so long as Chancellor Or who sees not briefly that that there is no contradiction that a most rigid 〈◊〉 Bishop should dye for the rights of the Clergie and be therefore a Marâ—â—◠〈◊〉 yet acknowledge all those rights or at least many or some of them 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ch he dyed as for example that of exemption came to the Clergie from the meer civil or municipal and politick just laws of the land and only from such laws of the land and not by any means immediatly from any other law divine or humane of nature or Nations or of the Church Pope or Emperour if not in so much only as the laws of God and nature approve all just laws of every land 〈◊〉 they be repealed by an equal authority no that which made them Finally who sees not also that notwithstanding all this or notwithstanding the municipal laws of England were for St. Thomas in every particular of his said manifold opposition to his King or that by the same laws the English Clergie had such exemptions from secular Courts yet St. Thomas might have been of this opinion also and perswasion at the same time and was so too most rigidly and constantly for ought appears to the contrary out of the Acts of his life or other Historians that as by no other laws of God or man or reason so neither by those very laws of England either himself or any other Clergieman was exempt from the supream civil coercive power or even could be exempt during their being subjects or their acknowledging to be so or their living in the quality of subjects 1. Because the very name and nature of subjection draws along with it and either essentially or at least necessary implyes this which is to be subject to the supream coercive power at least in some cases and some contingencies 2. Because that if both himself and all other Ecclesiastical Judges and Bishops taking the Pope himself too in the number did fail in their duty of punishing Clerks notoriously scandalously and dangerously criminal or that if the criminal Clerks themselves would not according to the law of the land submit to the sentence and punishment prescribed into them by the Bishops or if even also the Bishops themselves were altogether guilty of the same crimes or patronizers of the criminals and would not amend or satisfie of themselves without any peradventure t is evident that the supream civil coercive power might and ought in such cases to proceed against them by plain force and corporal coâ—rcion cuia salus populi suâ—rema lex esto 3. Because the power whereby S. Thomas himself and all other Bishops and Ecclesiastical Judges proceeded in a compulsory way to any civil or corporal coercion of criminal Clerks against the will of the same Clerks as to seizing their persons imprisoning them whiping them taking away their temporal goods confining them
to a perpetual cloyster'd life c was derived unto them and wholly depending of the supream temporal or civil coercive power residing originally and independently in the Prince and in his laws for the very Papal canons even Pope Caelestine the III. himself cap. 〈◊〉 homine de judicijs as I have quoted him in the former section confesseth that after and besides suspension excommunication and deposition or degradation the Church hath no other nor any more punishment for any 4. Because the very self same supream civil coercive power which as Legislative authorized the Bishops to be the onely ordinary Judges of criminal Ecclesiasticks and did also both prescribe and warrant that kind of punishment which they inflict on such Clerks and did ordain there should be no other punishment but that for such persons and the very self same supream civil power that made those municipal laws for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Judges may again unmake them upon just occasion or may lessen or moderat that exemption as there shall be cause and consequently criminal Clerks are still in so much under the supream civil coercive power as de facto de â—ure they are indeed and were indeed always for so many other respects and in so many other cases and contingencies notwithstanding the most ample municipal laws for exemption that are or have been 5. And lastly because there is no contradiction inconsistence or contrariety betwixt S. Thomas his being of this opinion and perswasion and the being of the laws of England such as I said they were then Which yet we may easily understand by the example of the priviledge of Peers For certainly the Peers of a Kingdom will not pretend themselves exempt from the supream coercive power of the Prince albeit they cannot by the laws of the land be judg'd or condemned but by their own Peers Therefore an exemption from one sort of Judges doth not argue an exemption from the supream power that is above all sorts of Judges And therefore nothing can be alleadg'd out of the life or death or sanctity or martyrdom or canonization or invocation or even miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury nor out of all these joyntly taken with the laws of the land for which he stood to prove that he was of a contrary judgment or perswasion to my doctrine All that is alleadged of any such matters do onely evidence the purity of his Soul and justice of his cause neither of which my doctrine doth at all oppose but allow approve and confirm But if any should replye that the laws of the land as to our controversy were chang'd by the swearing of those 16. Heads of customes by all the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons Abbots Priors and whole Clergie and even by St. Thomas of Canterbury himself first of all as Matthew Paris tels us in these tearms Hanc recognitionem consuetudinum libertatum Deo deâ—estabilium Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Priores Clerus cum Comitibus Baronibus Proctribus cunctis juraverunt se observaturos Domino Regi heredibus ejus bona fide absque malo ingenio in perpetuum Inter alios etiam his omnibus Thomas Cantuariensis consensit and should replye that after such change by such swearing S. Thomas of Canterbury did fall into his own former opposition of or differences with Henry the second even as to the second head of those customes and in prosecution of his former refusal to deliver up to secular justice those two criminal Clerks and should therefore conclude that S. Thomas must have pretended for himself at such time not the former laws of the land which were so repealed by a contrary law of Henry the second but either the laws of God Nature or Nations or the Canons of the Church or Pope c if I say any should make this objection here the Answer is at hand very facile and clear out of my former observations viz that such swearing alone was not enough without further signing and sealing as it seems the custom then was of the Bishops and Peers in making of laws nor all three together whether signing and sealing was necessary or not without a free consent in those or of those who swore so or sign'd or sealed so and that there was no free consent but a forc'd one by threats of imprisonment banishment death appears out of my said observations and all the several Historians especially Hoveden who treat exactly of this contest Now it is plain that such laws are no true laws or have not at all as much as the essence of laws which are not freely made without such coaction And therefore consequently it is plain that such repealing was no true legal repealing of the former laws Whereof also this was a further argument that Henry the second himself did in the end of the contest wholly quit his challenge to those controverted customs which he did so for a time constrain the Bishops Clergie and people to submit to against their own will and their own true laws Yet as it must be granted by such as are versed in the antiquities of England that there was a time and some ages too of the Christian Church in England even after the conversion of the Saxons before such municipal laws were enacted for such favourable and ample immunities to Clergiemen and before also the Clergie did as much as pretend by custom or otherwise to any exemption in criminal causes from the lay courts so I confess there have passed several ages of the very Roman Religion professed by law in England after the same great immunities and exemptions in criminal causes were in some part or for the greatest part legally repealed by law or custom or both and free consent or submission of the very Bishops and Clergie themselves upon new occasions and grounds being weary of contesting with the lay judges and Kings and that immediatly too or very soon after the days of Henry the second himself the very Popes also themselves at least many of them either consenting or certainly conniving at this change in the laws customs and practice of England in order to Clergiemen Whereat we are not much to wonder being that Roger Hoveden so faithfull an Historian as he was as he was also contemporary to Alexander the third and St. Thomas of Canterbury and was moreover so extraordinary an admirer of this Saint as may be seen by reading his Annals of him being I say this Roger Hoveden tels us in plain tearms ad an 1164. that the said Pope Alexander the third himself before his going to Rome out of France sent express directions to Thomas of Canterbury when the great difference began about the 16. Heads to submit himself in all things to his King and to promise to receive observe and obey without any exception those very customs or laws controverted Deinde sayes our Annalist Hoveden venit in Angliam vir quidam Religiosus dictus
Philippus de Eleemosyna missus a latere Alexandri summi Pontificis Cardinalium omnium ad pacem faciendam inter Regem Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem per quem summus Pontifex omnes Cardinales mandaverunt Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo ut ipse pacem cum Domino suo Rege Angliae faceret leges suas sine aliqua exceptione custodiendas promitteret Nor are we much to wonder that either Popes of Rome or Bishops of England for peace's sake and upon new occasions should after the days of St. Thomas of Canterbury either connive at or concurr to or at least not oppose the legal repealing of the former municipal laws of England and of their own Ecclesiastical canons too if any had been in that point of jurisdiction or exemption of criminal Clerks from or subjection of them to even the ordinary secular judicatories at least in some cases and criminal cases too being they had and had in the very case of such enormous crimes of Clerks as murder theft malefice a precedent so auncient and of such great authority in the Catholick Church as that I have given in my LXIX Section out of the first Council of Matisconum held in the year 532. where the auncient Fathers and Bishops who composed that Council do in express tearms and in their 7. canon leave such Clerks or rather suppose them still left to secular justice as were guilty or accused of murder theft or malefice For that 7. canon is in these words Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi suia seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque Iudex absque criminali cuasa id est homicidio furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum fuerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur Besides that they had the precedent of all the Bishops of the world both in the Eastern and Western Church under the Roman Empire who all for so many hundred years of Christian Religion established by law submitted to the civil laws of the Roman and Christian Emperours by which laws until Frederick the Seconds laws Clerks were subjected in all criminal causes to the very inferiour lay judges As for the case of treason against the person of the Prince or rebellion against the State or Commonwealth it was never in any Country not even England nor at any time as much as thought on to be exempted from lay cognizance or punishment at least when the King pleased to proceed by extraordinary commission And yet also I confess that such repealing Statuts Customs or both whatever they were under Edward the Second or any former or later King from Henry the Second to Edward the Third made so a municipal law of England suffered again some chang or some amendment in favour of the Clergie in the year 1344. under King Edward the Third in a Parliament held by him at Westminster For so Matthew Parker tels us expresly in his Antiquitates Britannicae pag. 236. in his life of Ioannes Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury Rex Gallum sayes he feroci Marte expilans postquam biennio bellum gessisset exercitu in castris relicto in Angliam reversus est Westmonasterii Parlamentum tenuit In eo Clerus ei concessit decimas triennales Rex Clero vicissim concessit quod nullus Archiepiscopus vel Episcopus coram Iusticiariis Regis judicium subeat nisi Rex hoc nominatim specialiter praeceperit Tum quod nullus Clericus coram Iusticiariis Regis judicium sustineat sive ad ipsius Regis sive alicujus partis instantiam si se submittat Clericatui dicat se membrum Ecclesiae sanctae nec debere ipsis Iustitiariis respondere Quod si quis Clericus de bigamia accusetur de eo non fore permissum Iustitiariis inquirere sed mittatur curiae Christianae Which same Author Matthew Parker tels us further thus pag. 244. in the life of Simer Istippe Archbishop of Canterbury that the same Archbishop Islippe obtained further from the same King Edward the Third and in an other Parliament held by him at Westminster in the five and twentieth year of his Raign and of Christ an 1351. a more ample redress of the grievances of the Clergie from the oppressions of the lay Judges and other the Kings Ministers Archiepiscopus deinde a Rege proceribus in Parliamento obtinuit ut legum ac libertatis Ecclesiasticae oppressiones quibus Clericorum status diu afflictus fuit statuta tollerentur Quo impetrato cum Clerici permulti privilegio Clericali abutentes quam plurima flagitia perpetrarent Rege proceribus id flagitantibus ab Archiepiscopo suisque Suffraganeis statutum est ut Clerici de capitalibus criminibus testibus probationibus suave confessione convicti Episcopalibus perpetuò carceribus mancipati ad pristinum locum aut ordinem numquam restituantur ne ordini Clericali scandalum generetur sed perpetuam agentes paenitentiam quarta sexta feriis in sabbathis pane doloris aqua angustiae semel in die caeteris diebus pane tenuissima cerevisia dominico autem die pane cerevisia legumine tantummodò nutriantur And further yet the same Author Matthew Parker pag. 279. in the life of Henricus Chicheley Archbishop of Canterbury tels us how the Clergie holding a Synod under the said Chicheley in Edward the Fift's Raign an Dom. 1420 and having granted that King a Tenth Clerus a Rege vicissim impetravit Ne hospitii sui pro victualibus provisores Clericorum bona aut possessiones attingerent Deinde ut Clerici in foro Regio capitalium crimmum postulati datis fidejusseribus judicio sisti carceribus liberentur Tertio ut Presbiteri castrati felonum id est homicidarum paenis afficerentur And finally the same Author and Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker tels pag. 298. in the life of Ioannes Mortâ—n Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry the Seventh an Dom. 1487 how upon occasion of a Rebellion in England against the said Henry the Seventh and of the abuse of Sanctuaries of the priviledg of Sanctuaries especially of that of Colchester by some of the Rebels who for a time sheltering their lives in them yet when they found a fit opportunity started out often to do mischief then return'd again how I say upon this occasion the former priviledg of the very Sanctuaries was lessened by law before which law a Bull also was procured from Pope Innocent who then sate declaring that such criminals should be by the lay power extracted out of Sanctuary Lataque ex illa Papali Bulla lex est sayes Parker ut asylis inscripti si homicidia furta incendia sacrilegia depopulationes agrâ—rum Regni aut Regis proditiones postea commiserint inde ejecti vi laica ducantur ad supplicium All which several changes of or concerning the Immunities of Churchmen and Churches in England
are so many strong confirmations of that which is and which I gave already as in effect my first Answer in general to the fourth the grand and last of all the remaining objections as it is made in general For if I be not very much deceived they strongly confirm not onely the rational probability but the moral certainty of what I have answered so that is that Thomas of Canterbury was not of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine concerning the exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour lay tribunals and their subjection to the supream civil coercive power notwithstanding any true or pretended exemption but that he held as I do that all true Ecclesiastical exemption of either Churchmen or Churches and of the lands or goods of the Church is meerly and onely proceeding from the civil power of the municipal laws of the land not from any other law divine or human and held that by no such even municipal law Churchmen either have been or might be universally in criminal causes exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the supream Magistrat while otherwise they acknowledg themselves or indeed remained subjects And yet for exemplifying this I do not insist on that out of Parker concerning the Asyla because though he sayes 't was made a law yet I do not find it clear in him it was so by authority of Parliament but of a Synod in pursuance of the Popes Bull though for any thing I know it might have been so also by Parliament or otherwise by custom without any relation either to that Synod or that Bull. My Second answer to this grand fourth last objection is more particular cause it is to it as it is framed into a Syllogisme against me and is to each of the particular premisses a part Therefore to the Major which in effect is in these tearms whatever doctrine condemns of opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel with Henry the Second c is false I answer that for my own part and for any thing may be deduced thence I admit it or this Major and admit it simply and absolutely without any distinction and even admit it so not onely as to the immediat cause for which he suffered but as to the intermediat or grand and long quarrel concerning the 16. customs and also as to the very original or that other complex of those antecedent five differences and as to a sixt original too if you please to add a fixt whereof hereafter and which might have been the very first spring or occasion of all that followed if we believe Parker For I confess it is my own judgment whatever judgment some contemporary Catholick Authors though otherwise both true Historians and good Ecclesiastical regular Monastical persons were of to the contrary on the whole matter and for what I can judg of matter of fact in relation to those dayes of St. Thomas and to the laws were as yet then legally unrepealed in England and to that King Henry the Second I confess I say that takeing all these relations together it is my own judgment plainly that Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side in all these several following instances 1. In changing the pomp and vanity and pleasures and delicacies of his former life while he was high Chancellour of England and how splendidly pleasantly and delicatly he lived before in that office and in his other high employments of warr and peace and embassies abroad may be seen in Parker though Parker tax him not even for that time with any injustice sinfulness or viciousness but with a courtly and wordly pleasant and pompous life to the height and to humour the King and Court and in changing all I say into a life devoted wholly to God above all humane esteem and yet also unto the austerities of a most rigid Monk and Hermit as to his own body Which if Parker guess aright was the first cause or rise of the Kings alienation ever after from him before any other difference happen'd Quod he means the Archiepiscopal Pallium simul atque Thomas accepisset sayes Parker in the life of Thomas of Canterbury tam dissimili atque immutato genere vitae a priori illa curiali fuit ut Monachalem superstitionem so Parker cals it sub vestitu Clericalitexerit Nam ut scribit Trivetus and he quotes also in his Margin Roff. Hystor Arch. Nich. Trivetus Will Canter all of them ancient Catholick Historians post susceptum Pastoris officium supra humanam aestimationem factus est Deo devotus Consecratus enim cilicium clam induit femoralibus usus est usque ad poplites alicinis sub vestis Clericalis honestate habitum colens monachalem Et Wil. Cant. Paucis consciis sub lorica fidei militabat gaudens quia in triplici veste triplicem personam gereret exteriori clericum exhiberet interiori monachum occultaret intima Eremitae molestias sustineret Ex quo quidem existimare facile est quamvis Monachorum sibi studia hac dissimulatione this of dissimulation is Parkers own addition and not what he read in his Authors adjunxerit quantum tamen Regis Praesulum atque Procerum animos abalienaverit si quis ea quae de communi omnium voto de Monachis ab Episcopali dignitate deinceps repellendis in Rodolphi vita antea scripsimus animadverterit Atque haec prima esse poterat offensionis dissensionis Regiae causa quod cum antea politius urbaniusque vixisset jam odiosam illam Monachalem institutionem susceperit sive sponte sua sive quod illam obsoletam Papalis excommunicationis sententiam in Elphegi vita antea descriptum timuerit 2. In discharging himself of the Chancellours place especially being that he had no command from the King to the contrary 3. In recovering to his Church of Canterbury and by due course of law those lands which some of his Predecessors had against law alienated to lay persons and secular uses 4. In using his best endeavours that the fruits or temporal revenews of vacant Churches should not be swallowed by the Kings Exchequer 5. In declaring his judgment frankly and compassionatly for the ease of the people according to law in that case wherein the Kings Officers against law extorted from them Hyde money or accridg money and extorted it as a duty whereas it was or should be but a free benevolence at the pleasure of the people and this too but in certain cases whereof none was then 6. In not delivering the two criminal Clerks to secular justice 7. In not swearing first at the Kings demand to receive and observe the 16. customes and when he had through too much importunity and fearfull apprehensions of others and at the entreaty and perswasion and tears also of the Bishops of Salisbury and Norwich and of the Earls of Lester and Cornwal and of those two Templars Richardus de Hastings and Tâ—stes de St. Homero all
stretch'd along on the ground at his feet weeping and beseeching him and at their representing to him how the King had threatned him and all his with exile with destruction and death unde Rex sayes Hoveden ad an 1164. plurimum in ira adversus eum commutus minatus est ei suis exilium alias exilium mortem and I say when by such means he had sworn in retracting at last on better advise so rash an oath and refusing to confirm those pretended customes by his seal or subscription 8. And lastly in refusing either to absolve the excommunicated Bishops but in forma Ecclesiae consueta or consent that his own Clerks which came with him out of France should take any unjust or unlawfull oath contrary to the two material demands or commands to him in behalf of Henry the second by his four murtherers Willelmus de Traci Hugo de Mortvilla Richardus Brito and Reginaldus filius Vrsi For to their third which was that he should go reverently to the young King and do him homage and fealty by oath for his Archiepiscopal Barony as Parker relates it its plain enough he never refused that not onely because he did so at the time of his investiture to Henry the second himself the Father King but also because that upon his return from exile which was but a month before his death he was on his journey as farr as London to the young King's Count to do and pay this young King also all the respects and duties becoming but was by the Queens Brother Gocelinus as Hoveden writes commanded in that very young King 's own name not go to Court nor proceed further whereupon he return'd back to Canterbury In all which eight several Instances as also in all their necessary Antecedents Concomitants and Subsequents I confess again ingenuously it is my own judgment that St. Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side because in some he had all the laws of both God and man for him and in the rest he had for him the very just and politick municipal laws of England as yet then not legally repealed these very laws I mean rehearsed by me in my seventh observation and because there was not any law of God or man against him in the case or in any of those Instances being the laws of the land were for him in all and because the design of Henry the second to oppress the people of England both Clergie and Layety but especially the Clergie and to render the Sacerdotal Order base and contemptible as we have seen before observed out of Polydore Virgil required that the Archbishop of Canterbury should stand in the gap as farr as it became a Subject by denying his own consent as a Peer and as the first Peer too of the Realm and by proceeding yet as a Bishop and as the Primate also of all Bishops in England and by proceeding so I say in a true Episcopal manner against such as would by threats of death force oppressive customs for new laws on both Peers and people Clergie and Layety against their own known will and their own old laws And therefore also consequently do acknowledg my own judgment to be that the Major of the Syllogistical objection against me or this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c against Henry the Second is fals may be by me admitted simply and absolutely without any distinction Though I add withall it be not necessary to admit it for any such inconvenience as the proof which I have given before of that Major would inferi or deduce out of the denyal of it In which proof I am sure there are several propositions or suppositions involved which no Catholick Divine not even a rigid Bellarminian is bound to allow As 1. that neither Church nor Pope can possibly err in matter of fact or in their judgment of matter of fact though relating to the life or death or precise cause of the death of any Saint or Martyr which matter of fact is neither formally nor virtually expressed nor by a consequential necessity deduced out of holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For Bellarmine himself confesses that even a general Council truly such may err in such matters of fact And the reason is clear because the judgment of the Church in such matters is onely secundum allegata probata depending wholly on the testimony of this or that man or some few or at most of many mortal and sinfull witnesses or of such of whose veracity in that the Church hath no authentick or absolutely certain revelation from God but humane probability or at most humane moral certainty which is ultimately resolved into the humane credit or faith we give an other man or men or to their veracity who possibly may themselves either of purpose too deceive us or be deceived themselves however innocently And the case is clear in the famous and great controversy about those heads were called the Tria Capitula all which concern'd matter of fact of three great Bishops in the fourth and fift general Councils under Pope Leo Magnus and Pope Vigilius And is yet no less clear in the controversy about Pope Honorius which was of matter of fact whom two general Councils condemn'd for a Heretick for a Monothelit so long after his death and out of his own writings and yet Bellarmine defends him from being such and on this ground defends him that those Councils were deceived in their judgment of matter of fact by attributing to him that doctrine which he held not 2. That the infallibility which Catholicks believe and maintain to be in the Church necessarily implyes her infallibility of judgment concerning this or that fact of any even the greatest Saint whereof we have nothing in holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For the Infallibility of the Church is onely in preserving and declaring or at least in not declaring against that whatsoever it be matter of fact or Theory which was delivered so from the beginning as revealed by God either in holy Scripture or Apostolical Tradition 3. That St. Thomas of Canterbury could not be a holy maâ—tyr or great miraculous Saint in his life or death or after his death at his tomb were his quarrel against Henry the second not just in all the essential integral and circumstantial parts of it from first to last were it not I say just according to the very objective truth of things and of the laws of God and man though it had been so or at least the substantial part of it whereon he did ultimately and onely all along insist had been so according his own inward judgment and though also his Soul had been otherwise both in that and all other matters ever so pure holy religious resigned to follow the pleasure of God and embrace truth did he know or did he think it were of the other side in any part of the
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
great strictness in his own way I mean according to the judgment of the Prelats and Nobles of that Assembly at Paris But for a judgment also given of purpose on that whole controversie and given by a contemporary Historian a Catholick by religion a Monk by profession and writer of very good repute Gulielmus Neubrigensis and a judgment given by him of this matter even after Thomas had been both martyrized and canonized you have it in his third Book cap. 16. and in these words Sane cum plerique soleant in iis quos amant laudant affectu quidem propensiori sed prudentia parciori quicquid ab iis geritur approbaâ—e planè ego in viro illo venerabili ea quae ita ab ipso acta sunt ut nulla exinde proveniret utilitas sed feruor tantum accenderetur Regius ex quo tot mala post modum pullulasse noscuntur laudanda nequaquam censuerim licet ex laudabili zelo processerint sicut nec in Beatissimo Apostolorum Principe arcem jam Apostolicae perfectionis tenente quod geâ—tes suo exemplo Judaizare coegit in quo eum Doctor gentium reprehensibilem deciatat fuisse licet eum constat laudabili hoc pietate fecisse Third reason That he might possibly be imbued with the doctrine which was growing then of the exemption of Clergiemen either by divine immediate right of the positive or even natural law of God or by that which is pretended to be mediatly divine and immediatly canonical or humane from the Canons of the Church or at least from the bad or false interpretation of those Canons or by some prescription and will and power of those Popes who so mightily in his dayes and for almost a whole age before his dayes immediatly and continually contested with the very Emperours themselves and all other Bishops for both the spiritual and temporal soveraignty of the world and this too by a pretence of divine right And that we must not wonder that even on so great a Saint as Saint Thomas of Canterbury himself the authority of the first Apostolick See and the numbers of her admirers adorers and followers then in what quarrel soever and the specious pretence of piety in the cause and education in such principles or amongst such people should work a strong pre-possession of zeale as for the cause of God being it was reputed the cause of the Church however that according to the veritie of things or true laws divine or humane as in themselves nakedly or abstractedly it might peradventure not have either the cause of God or the cause of the Church Fourth reason and it is a confirmation that is a very probable argument though nor perhaps throughly or rigidly demonstrative of the truth of the Third That in the speech or words of St Thomas of Canterbury in the time of his banishment to his King Henry the Second at Chinun which Honeden ad an 1165. calls Verba Beati Thomae Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun we find this sentence of his Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere c. Wherein I am certain this holy Bishop was point blanck contrary to the sense of ten thousand other holy Bishops before him in the more primitive ages of the Church and contrary to plain Scripture and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for at least the ten first and best ages of Christianity Fift reason That it is not so clear in all respects that those sixteen heads of customs passed not legally and long before the Saints death into a just municipal law of the land or of England notwithstanding that St. Thomas denyed and even justly too denyed his own hand and seale or even justly also retracted his own former consent by oath yea and notwithstanding that it was meerly out of fear that the rest of the Bishop did at first consent or gave their own consent by oath likewise For it may be said first and said also upon very probable grounds out of the several ancient Catholick and even Ecclesiastick Historians who writ of purpose of those dayes and matters that they all freely after consented And secondly it may be said that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament having the consent royal whether one Bishop or moe peradventure or even all the Bishops dissent And thirdly yet iâ— may be said that all laws most commonly or at least too often may be called in question upon that ground of fear of the Prince Sixt and last reason That we must rather give any answer that involves not heresie or manifest errour in the Catholick Faith or natural reason obvious to every man then allow or justifie the particular actions or contests or doctrine of any one Bishop or Pope how great or holy soever otherwise or even of many such or of all their partakers in such against both holy Scriptures plain enough in the case and the holy Fathers generally for the ten first ages in their explications of such Scriptures and consequently against that universal Tradition which must of necessity be allowed Nihil enim innovandum sed quod traditum est observandum Behold here six reasons which taken at least altogether may justifie my giving the two last Answers or my adding them to the other two former As for the rest I leave it to the Readers choice which of all four he will fix on though I my self and for my own part and out of a greater reverence to the Saint himself and to the Pope that canonized him or to that Pope I mean in as much as he canonized him for a martyr in such a cause if he did so or intended so taking the name of martyr properly and strictly whereof what we read in our very Breviary of the cause for which the Pope sayes he suffered may perhaps give some occasion of scruple being it is there said of those Laws of Henry the Second and only said that they were leges utilitati ac dignitati Ordinis Ecclesiastici repugnantes but not said that they were laws against the laws of God though I say I could wish for these reasons that all my Readers did fix as I do my self rather on the first and second Answer then on the two last But on which soever of all four they six I am confident none may infer that they or I question Thomas of Canterbury's sanctity in this world either in his life or at his death or his glory in heaven after his death or question the Bull of of his canonization or question the holy practice of the Catholick Church in her veneration or invocation or finally question as much as those miracles which I suppose were sufficiently proved in the process form'd for his canonization or even those which as wrought after that time at his Tomb or elsewhere are alledg'd upon sufficient grounds if any such be so alledg'd Though I cannot here
threatned and prepared also to interdict the Kings Dominions Let it be so as indeed Historians confess it was so And let it be so too that he prepared to publish both a local and personal interdict and which is more yet to excommunicate the Kings own Person for I confess also this very last of preparing to excommunicate the King though nothing out of History of what quality the interdict was to be or whether not only local but also personal And though reason tells us and we are not without reason or History to presume otherwise then that if personal also it was only to be against such persons as gave cause for such interdict however it was not reason either by the law of the Land at least then or by the nature of even such interdict the most general could be Not by the Law because none such is alledged nor indeed can be being it is very certain that Ecclesiastical Discipline Jurisdiction and censures were allowed then by the Law or Custome of England to be exercised in all the formality of the Canons Nor by its own nature because it is a pure spiritual penalty depriving only of Divine Offices and Ecclesiastical Burial and of some Sacraments viz. Eucharist Order Matrimony and in some cases of that of Pennance too As for the Saints preparing to excommunicate the King I have said enough of that already or of the nature and effects of the excommunication which he was resolved to pronounce had the peace not been made And I am sure we have example enough in St. Ambrose interdicting the great Roman and Christian Emperor of the World Theodosius from entring his Church at Millan that Ecclesiastical censures as such pronounced against a King by his Bishop however otherwise in temporals his own subject render not the Bishop a traytor against his King or Countrey And if you say that such general interdicts of a Kingdom are sometime causes or occasions of the peoples rising in armes against the Prince what then they are not so by their own nature nor commonly so as much as by accident or by the mallice or folly or impatience of such as abuse them The pure preaching of the Gospel hath been sometimes through the malice of men an occasion of armes and wars and slaughter of subjects and of Princes too And the holiest things and best means and wholsomest Physick may be abused Must this hinder the right use of them or must it render Christian remedies treasonable among Christians that even some Popes or some Prelates or some other Clerks or some people have either actually made evil use of them or intended to do so But for such intention it cannot be fix'd on St. Thomas of Canterbury and I shall give presently sufficient arguments that it could not be so fixed on him nay that really he had not any such And yet in the mean time I confess I am not my self in my own judgement nor ever was since I understood any thing in Theology for the practice nay or Theory of such general interdicts of a Kingdome either local or personal much less of any mixt of both nor even of a Province Diocess City or University But this is not my work now whether my own private opinion or judgement herein be right or not as I do not absolutely averr that it is right nor is it requisite I should here give my self or others the trouble of discussing the grounds Pro or Con. 7. But Pope Alexander threatned by his last Embassadours or Legats and bitter express Letters to King Henry the Second that if he did not receive Thomas to peace and without prosecution of the 16 Customes he would proceed against him as he had lately against the Emperour Frederick that is to a sentential deposition of him from his Crown and Kingdome or to the actual raising in War of both his own Subjects and of those were not his own Subjects against him Thomas of Canterbury had no hand in contriving such an Embassy or in procuring such Letters as to these particulars He solicited indeed by his own Letters from France to Alexander at Rome and so did the King of France and some of the Bishops of France most earnestly that the Pope would be pleased to recall his own late Papal suspension of the Legatine Commission and his own late Papal exemption given to King Henry the Second at the same Henry's earnest suit by his Embassadour from Thomas's both extraordinary power of a Legat and Ordinary of the Archbishop of Canterbury over King Henry and licence him to proceed Ecclesiastically against this King And no more appears out of History that Thomas solicited the Pope in if not peradventure that the Pope himself would immediately by himself proceed against Henry in the same manner was uncontroulably allowed by all the Christian Church then and all the Christian Common-wealth that is to a pure spiritual excommunication and pure spiritual interdict If the Pope exceeded both the desires of Thomas and power of Alexander what was that to Thomas For I confess that if Henry the Second did not acknowledge himself Alexanders vassal in temporals or his Kingdome tributary or to hold it in fee from Rome or that it was so then indeed by some kind of true humane right then certainly it must follow that Alexanders threats were not well grounded nor just but very injurious and very erroneous too though not treasonable in him because he was no Subject of Henry's I say if because I do not certainly know what the conscience of Henry or well or ill grounded opinion of English men generally was at that time I see that this very same Henry a little before took such a Bull for the invasion of Ireland from Adrian the fourth Pope of that name an English man who sate immediately before this Alexander that gives much ground to think that either he was perswaded the Pope had a supream even I mean temporal right to all the Christian Islands at least in the West or that he would make use of any the most improbable and ridiculous title what soever to invade and possess other mens rights And I see that he trembled at the very mention of the Popes interposition But however this matter be nothing appears out of History or ancient Records of the Saints Letters and whence should we know or should Henry the 8th after 300 years know but from History or such Records that our Saint had any kind of hand directly or indirectly in procuring or intending such a message from Alexander the III. to Henry the II. And we know Alexander was his own Master and that being setled at Rome and having humbled Frederick whether by lawful or unlawful means he little cared for Henry whereever the controversies touched or concerned his own whether true or only pretended supream Pontificial power in the exemption of Clergy-men from secular powers or in any other such whatsoever Though in other matters wherein his own interest
was not so neerly concerned he could not but retain still kindness enough for Henry albeit the King of France as nearer him and of greater use could not but sometime cross that very kindness 8. But the former Cardinal-Legats come the first time from Rome to compose the difference 'twixt Henry and Thomas where they had a conference with him betwixt Gisortium and Trie amongst other things objected to him in the behalf of Henry and after they had been with Henry that he had perswaded the King of France to war upon him Adjecerunt etiam querelas sayes Hoveden ad an 1169. injurias quibus Rex Angliae se ab ipso lasum esse conquestus est imponens ei etiam inter caetera quod ei excitaverat guerram Regis Francorum But in these words you see Hoveden sayes that this was an imposture or that Henry imposed on Thomas in this particular And immediately after the same Author tells that Thomas refuted this and all other objections by true and probable reasons Cantuariensis autem sayes he in omni humilitate mansuetudine spiritus post gratiarum actionem Domino Papae illis debitam respondit ad singula rationibus veris probabilibus querelas Regis evacuans injurias Ecclesiae damna intollerabilia patenter exponens You will say that however this be of such actual treason or treason in fact against his Prince by setting on the King of France it cannot be denyed that he held treasonable Principles that is such Principles as were suitable to such practise or such treason in fact because such as lessen the Majesty of the King and Kingdome if not wholly subject it to others forasmuch as his opinion and judgment was that Kings receive their power from the Church as himself declared in his own words to the King at Chinun Is there any man would think so but would also think at the same time that the Church might take away again or transfer the power of Kings But I say that as he cannot in act or fact be accused of treason so neither in habitude or aptitude or inclination or true meaning or natural sequele of that word saying opinion or judgement of his at Chinun may he be charged with any as much as speculative treasonable Principles however otherwise abstracting wholly not only from fact but even from intention or even also from being rendred any kind of way or framed into practical dictates 1. Because it is one thing to say that Christian Kings receive their power from the Church and another to say that after they have once received their power so the Church may either revoke it again wholly or any way lessen it As it is one thing to say that from the people as a civil society of men and not from them as a Church Kings especially in elective Kingdomes receive their power and an other that the people having once conferr'd it and so transferr'd the Majesty from themselves may revoke it againe either at their pleasure or in any case whatsoever without the King 's own consent And because the first or the assertion of receiving such power either from Church or people is no way treasonable either by the nature of such reception or such assertion in it self considered or by any positive law in any Country for ought we have heard not even in England nor certainly was treasonable in the days of Thomas of Canterbury However perhaps it be an errour against the truth of things in themselves to say that Kings in hereditary Kingdomes receive their politick royal power either from the Church or from the people or even in elective Kingdomes otherwise from either then as from bare instrumental or conditional causes or such as Philosophers call conditiones sine quibus non c. not at all from either as from the true proper efficient cause of the power For this efficient is according to the sounder doctrine in Christian Religion and in reason too God alone As even according to the Doctrine of Bellarmine God alone is the onely true proper immediate efficient of the Papal power albeit he had not been Pope if he had not first been elected by the Church or by their Representative now the Colledg of Cardinals or formerly by the Emperours or before that by the Roman Clergy or before that also by the Clergy and people of Rome both joynd together 2. Because that although we find this entire passage Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere non ipsam ab illis sed a Christo salva pace vestra loquor non haberetis Episcopis praecipere absolvere aliquem vel excommunicare trahere Clericos ad secularia examina judicare de decimis de Ecclesiis interdicere Episcepis ne tractent de transgressione fidei vel juramenti multa alia quae in hunc modum scripta sunt inter consuetudines vestras quas dicitis avitas I say that although we find this entire passage amongst those which are called in Hoveden Verba Beati Thoma Cant. Archiep. ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun nay although we did admit it as truly such and admit all the rest of that Speech in Hoveden as words spoke by St. Thomas himself whereof yet I have this ground to doubt that I find not in the whole series of the History of matter of Fact either in Hoveden himself or any other when or how or that at all St. Thomas ever met that King during his banishment but twice once in Paris and in presence of the King of France and another time in the fields abroad when they were at last reconciled by the mediation of the last Legates Where then was Chinun here or any such words However admitting those Words and that entire passage of or amongst those Words as really spoke by St. Thomas and at such a place and Councel I see nevertheless partly in some former passages of that very speech at Chinun and partly also and more fully perhaps in his long and second Letter which no man doubts to be his own true letter to Gilbert Bishop of London and see in both ground enough to answer and say that in this passage I have already given the Saint mean't not at all that from the Church Kings receive so their true civil or politick Royal power or their power of the material sword at least as to the essentials or even as to the necessary appendages of it in pure civil or temporal matters that without such reception as he mean't of it from the Church they had had none at all or that without such reception as he mean't neither their birth-right in hereditary Kingdomes nor election of the people in elective Kingdomes nor any other Title whatsoever in either could be sufficient to give them as man can give true civil and politick Royal Power or to give this I mean antecedently to their receiving what they use to
the guilt of Sacriledge to refix their signatures which can be no less even formally than to say That the Remonstrance in it self is sacrilegious But that virtually and consequentially they judge it also to be either Heretical or Schismatical no other proof is requisite besides that where they say That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Religion For whoever sayes so of any form must virtually and consequentially say the same form is either Heretical or Schismatical or both because all judicious learned persons know very well That no things are repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion but such things as imply Heresie or Schism or both Secondly You are to consider That in their first and long original unpublish'd Censure the Louain Divines gave these four chief grounds which I have hitherto impugned in well nigh a Hundred sheets and gave them I say for their own grounds of alledging those two pretended Causes or Reasons and of their consequent Censure so as above of our Remonstrance as unlawful detestable sacrilegious c. And consequently you are to consider That being those four chief grounds of theirs are so clearly and utterly and universally ruined by me hitherto their said two pretended Causes or Reasons which had no subsistence but in those grounds must also be no less universally clearly and utterly ruined and by further consequence so likewise no less universally clearly and utterly must their said Censure be being this depends wholly on those two Reasons or Causes and these on the four grounds Thirdly You are to consider yet more particularly the grand Temerity against Prudence Falsity against Truth Injury against Justice and Scandal against Charity of this Censure by reflecting first on those Reasons or Causes given in and for it and secondly on the sense of each of those words adjectives or epithets of it and by comparing both these epithets and those causes to the several parts clauses or propositions of the Remonstrance it self analyzed into propositions or even to the whole Remonstrance as comprising all together without any such Analysts understanding now by the Remonstrance that part of it which only is in dispute the Act of Recognition with the Declarations Renunciations c. therein contained and the Petitionary address thereunto annexed To which purpose I desire the judicious learned Reader to look back to the 7 8 and 9th page of this First Part and read there once more attentively that our Remonstrance from first to last and then analyse or resolve it I mean resolve those Recognitions Declarations Renunciations Promises c. and Petitionary addresses all therein contained and analyse or resolve all into so many particular distinct propositions as they are fit or may be resolved into and after this to apply those two Reasons or Causes and each and all those adjectives or epithets of the above Louain Censure to each proposition severally nay and to all at last jointly taken And to the same purpose I desire him to consider that in no part of the Remonstrance nor in the whole taken together any obedience is promised or acknowledged or confessed to be due to our Sovereign Charles the Second or any other Temporal Prince but that which is in Civil and Temporal Affairs only and none at all in spiritual things nor in any kind of spiritual thing For so is the obedience it promises acknowledges or confesseth as due to our gracious King in His own Dominions by all his own Subjects whether Protestants or Catholicks and as due to all other absolute Princes and Supreme Governors within their own respective Dominions also and by their own respective Subjects so I say is that obedience most signally expressed and determined in formal words and in two several passages of this Remonstrance to all Civil and Temporal Affairs adding further yet and in signal formal words too that it be in such meer Civil and Temporal Affairs not universally or absolutely in all cases according to the arbitrary will or pleasure of the Prince Charles the Second but as the Laws and Rules of Government in such things in this Kingdom do require at our hands and to other such Supreme independent Princes or Magistrates according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively Whence any judicious Reader may conclude at least if he have read what I have hitherto so diffusely writ of the subjection of all even Clergy-men to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate in Temporal things That the Divines of Louain did most rashly falsly injuriously and scandalously suppose their first Cause or Reason of their Censure viz. That our Remonstrance contains a promise of a more ample Obedience than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects or their Subjects make unto them For I have demonstrated at large before that by the Law of God and Nature and by the Laws of man as well these are Ecclesiastical as Civil all men are bound to pay such obedience to their respective Kings or Supreme Magistrates And if they are so bound to pay it sure the Prince may especially when he sees Reason for it require a promise or an acknowledgment or confession or declaration of it from them and they make such promise acknowledgment c. And I am sure too that our Prince had much Reason then when that Remonstrance was made and hath yet still to expect such even a most formal promise and declaration from the Romish Clergy of Ireland and they no less to make it to Him To the same purpose yet of seeing further into the Temerity Falsity Injury and Scandal of the said Louain Censure the Reader may be pleased to reflect again once more and no less particularly on their abovesaid second Supposition Cause or Reason of it as you have seen that Louain Faculty in this their short Censure which we now handle express that second Cause viz. That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion and I desire the good Reader to apply this and compare it either to all the propositions jointly taken or to every one severally of our Remonstrance and then judge whether I have not just Reason to complain of them and tax them as I do that this which they suppose in the second place is most rashly falsly injuriously and scandalously supposed or alledged by them as a Cause or Reason of their Censure For what can be more rash false injurious and scandalous than to condemn or censure a pure and meer Acknowledgment Confession Declaration or promise of Loyalty or of Allegiance Fidelity and Obedience to our Rightful and Supreme Lord and Sovereign and a promise of such in meer Temporal things made to Him by His own natural Catholick Subjects and made in a publick Remonstrance wherein those of England as well nay antecedently to as those of Ireland joyn'd than I say to condemn or censure such a publick Instrument of such a great Body containing of the
Supremacy of the Pope whatever this be which the Catholick Church allows him For a pure Supreme Temporal in one and a pure Supreme Spiritual in another and over the same persons and causes are very truly certainly and evidently consistent The second Period or Clause being this And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal Affairs as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands and consequently being only and wholly of the obedience due by Catholick Subjects to Hâ—s Majesty and being it doth in formal express words determine this obedience to all Civil and Temporal Affairs as you see it doth there can be therefore no dispute of this Period The third Period also containing only in effect an acknowledgment of their resolution to acknowledge evermore and perform their Loyalty and true Allegiance to the King notwithstanding any contradiction by or from the Pope or by or from any other deriving power from the Pope or See of Rome for the words are these And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against Your Majesty or Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our Abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty I say that being the third Period hath no other words or matter it 's very evident that the whole entire Subject of it is nought else but obedience in Temporals because the Loyalty and true Allegiance of Catholicks to their at least Protestant Prince can be no other but obedience and fidelity towards Him in all Temporal matters and because that by these words Our Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty neither His Majesty Himself nor other Protestant nor any indifferent and judicious Catholick ever yet understood nor indeed ought to understand any other Loyalty or Allegiance but that which is in meer Temporals Nor can it be said upon any rational ground that because the Remonstrants do here acknowledge That notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope c. or any sentence c. or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal c. it must follow That they either deny the true spiritual Authority of the Pope over any Christians or any part of the world or even his Temporal within his own temporal Territories or within those Territories I mean which are His uncontroverredly even also as to the temporal Government or that they are resolved or that they promise or declare that they will disobey or oppose any just sentence or declaration of his obliging themselves or any other Nothing less then either doth follow by any kind of consequence whereas indeed no more but that they are persuaded that the Pope hath neither any true Spiritual nor any true Temporal power from God or man to devest the King of his Temporals or to hinder them from being His loyal liege men in such Temporals and that if he pronounced any sentence or gave any command to the contrary though it were even by Excommunication such sentence and such command and even such Excommunication would be as to all effects and purposes null and void because against the Laws of God and man and nature and not proceeding from any true power he had from God or from the Church of God but only from a vain and false presumption of power or authority in the case and a clave errante from a Key errant or which is the same in effect at most and at best from such an abuse of his authority as invalidates and annulls his sentence in all respects whatsoever They do not therefore at all hereby or in this Clause as neither in any other not even as much as virtually or consequentially in any manner soever deny or oppose his true and pure spiritual power of judging or binding or that which truly and really is in him to judge and bind spiritually or in a spiritual manner both King and Subjects or to pronounce even Excommunication against either themselves or the King if or when there shall happen any just cause thereof But they only deny 1. That he hath no kind of Temporal power acquired either by divine or humane Right that reaches to the King or his Crown People or Dominions 2. That the spiritual power which he truly and really hath either from God immediately or from the Church and which the same Catholick Church acknowledges to be so in him or which the Subscribers admit to be in him can have no such effect by Excommunication or other sentence or means as is the bereaving the King of his Temporals or as is the hindering the Subjects to obey or making it lawful for them in point of Conscience and Religion not to perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to His Majesty And that this third Period or Clause or words or meaning of them import no more but this or that such Clause or Subscribers of it cannot be rationally said to deny or declare against any true power of the Pope or any true or just or legal or even as much as only valid sentence of his I shew evidently thus by two several examples of the like expression used in another matter For without denying or opposing the Popes true power or any true just or valid or binding sentence of his his Sons may declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against their natural Father or his Fatherly Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their natural duty and filial obedience to their said Father And without denying or opposing the Kings true power or any true just or even any valid or binding sentence of his the very Subscribers themselves may declare as I for my part do here declare and I am sure all the rest are ready to declare that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the King or of His Crown or Kingdom or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by His Majesty His Predecessors or Successors or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from Him or His Kingdoms against their spiritual Father the Pope or his true Papal Authority they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their Canonical fidelity and all that true obedience they are bound unto by
Dispensation Absolution or any other pretence or cause shall alter or make us recede from the same Fourth Paper and it given the DUKE by James Dempsy late Vicar Apostolick of Dublin and Capitulary of Kildare April 1. and same Year also 1664. present Lord Dillon and Milo Power FOrasmuch as we cannot own any Authority whatsoever that may be pretended in any wayes neither Spiritual nor Temporal derogatory from the right Power and Authority of His now Majesty CHARLES the Second and His lawful Successors we do therefore engage our selves to expose our Lives if and as often as occasion shall require in defence of His Majesty and His lawful Successors their Persons Crown Authority and Dignity against any Prince Potentate or power Spiritual or Temporal whatsoever who shall by force of Arms or any other way invade any of His Majesties Rights or Authority or Dignity in any of His Dominions and particularly we shall oppose to the utmost of our power all Attempts whatsoever tending to the depriving of His Majesty of any of His Rights Kingdoms or Dominions or the lessning of His Dignity Right or Authority in the Government thereof A fifth Paper yet and far more formal and material too than any of those four was given the DUKE in the month of May the same Year and given his GRACE as from or to be Subscribed by the Clergy both Secular and Regular of the City and Diocess of Dublin as in order also to and with promise of their endeavors and hopes it should be Subscribed by all the rest of Ireland so his GRACE would prevail with His MAJESTY to accept of it and be content with it in lieu of that subscribed and presented at London in 1661. But forasmuch as this Paper was not sign'd by any as neither was any of those other four only Daly's excepted but in that form wherein it was given the DUKE was disown'd generally even by the very Dublin Clergy and no man at all of them would own it as to the most material passages I say no more of it nor will trouble the Reader with a Copy here Yet this much I will advertise the Reader That if he be taken with the first perusal of any of the said Papers or Formularies he may be pleased to suspend his judgment till he first read also not only my observations on the Franciscan Formulary which he shall find in the last Section of this First Part of the First Treatise but also the Second Part of this same First Treatise which Second Part is of bare matter of Fact in the general Congregation held in 66. and read moreover my Second and Third brief Treatises following which declare the meaning of the Remonstrance framed and exhibited by that Congregation and likewise the meaning of the three first Sorbon late Propositions as applyed subscribed and presented by them also and lastly read the fifteen Propositions of the Doctrine of Allegiance which follow immediately the Fourth Treatise in this same Book And then let him judge in Gods Name according to Reason and Conscience and circumstances too of the place and persons whether any such Formulary as you see here be sufficient as from such a Clergy LXXX ABout this time being June 1664. the chief opposers of the Remonstrance of 1661. were grown too too insolent and not insolent only but extremely injurious to those who had subscribed and constantly maintain'd it as both expedient and necessary To such insolency and injuries they were encouraged by several Accidents of the last six or seven Months 1. That when the DUKE was to send with a Guard of Horse a certain Churchman of their Religion and Combination Prisoner from Dublin to Carrigfergus and for an Example to the rest albeit he was not made Prisoner upon account of not subscribing his GRACE upon Letters from the QUEEN or others at Court in behalf of the said Churchman did not command him so away as was intended but permitted him to enjoy all freedom at Dublin 2. That much about the same time another certain person whom I will not here name and a Churchman too by his calling as a Gentleman by his birth and one moreover who not only had some interest in several persons of Quality at Court and a power to persuade them but was ingenious and inventive enough to find out new pretences for any intrigue upon and for a promise made to him by some other Irish Churchmen of Five hundred pounds for his pains wrought so at Court and by his specious pretences that having to this purpose gone thither from Ireland he procured a Letter from one of the Secretaries of State to his Grace the Duke of ORMOND LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland to suspend his farther prosecution of any endeavours for getting that Remonstrance of 1661. sign'd or pressing any other such on the Irish Clergy Albeit I confess the DUKE soon after receiving this Letter having replyed got it revoked again And that the Gentleman who procured it came so short of his expectations of the Five hundred pounds promised him that being return'd those who promised him that Sum finding all his endeavours were suddenly thwarted by a later Letter did not give him as much as Five pounds nor Five pence of it For so himself told me as he told me the particulars of his own Acting to procure the foresaid Letter but told me then only when he failed of the money and not before 3. That notwithstanding the Jesuites Dr. Daly and James Dempsy were sent for appeared and refused to sign that Remonstrance of 1661. or come home in other words to it yet they were dismissed again and both they and all other even the most violent opposers of it were as free or had as much liberty to exercise their Functions both in Countrey and City as any of the most Religious and most Affectionate Subscribers of it 4. That some of the Catholick Lawyers their own Countreymen and Friends assured them They could not by Law suffer either Banishment Imprisonment or other penalty for not subscribing it because it was a Declaration which was not yet Enacted by any Law and therefore they could not by any kind of penalty be forced to it 5. And lastly That my LORD LIEUTENANT was then forced to go for England and consequently none to look much after that business till his return besides that his return at any time in the former capacity was uncertain These five several Accidents of the last six or seven Months taken all together jointly with the general persuasion grounded on former experience that if any of the opposers of that Remonstrance of 1661. should peradventure on that pretence or other whatsoever warranted by the Laws chance to be restrain'd or imprison'd the rest abroad at liberty would get and send them for such their opposition and constancy or rather obstinacy therein sufficient contributions to maintain them in Prison and that too much better than if they were at liberty and cry them up
Ecclesiasticos quam Saeculares praesertim Nobiles congruis admonitionibus sedulo continere satagat in sincera perfecta erga Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem observantia rejectis commentis novae formulae fidelitatis Valesianorum Illud enim est quod Ecclesiam Dei majori damno ac pernicie afficere potest quam quaevis anteacta Haereticorum persecutio In eo autem munere obeundo non est quod Paternitati Vestrae suggeram utpote ubertim in hujusmodi materiis instructae ex propria eruditione ac prudentia praeter ea quae nuper ipsi viva voce insmuavi signanter ut sic refutetur arguatur illud Juramentum ne tamen Regii Ministri ansam accipiant in Catholicos saeviendi eosque tanquam Regiae Dominationi quia ab Ecclesia defecerit infestos persequendi De omnibus porro quae in causa fidei at statu Ecclesiae digna notatu compererit gratissimum mihi erit Paternitatis Vestrae Litteris identidem edoceri Illas autem inscribat absque operculo A Monsieur Monsieur Francois Rossi-Bruxelles ita enim secure ad me perferentur Denique Paternitatis Vestrae Sacrificiis me animitus commendo Bruxellis 7. Octobris 1663. Paternitatis Vestrae Studiofissimus Hieronymus Abbas Montis Regalis In English thus Reverend Father in Christ YOur Paternities most friendly Letters dated at Paris the 20th of the last month I have received wherein you signifie that you are now again upon thoughts of your Journey to Ireland Wherefore I wish you a most happy Journey and send you the Faculties of an Apostolical Missionarie As for that which you mention of danger of Confusion in that Kingdom by occasion of the Visitor now suddenly to be Commission'd he meant the Visitator of the Franciscan Order in Ireland who was then to be sent or at least Commission'd from beyond Seas I could wish you did particularly inform me on that Subject that understanding fully the whole Affair I might timely take my measures Nothing occurs to me which at present I may recommend But the sum of all consists herein That rejecting the Comments Lyes or false Device of the new form of Fidelity of the Valesians you labour diligently by congruous Admonitions to contain your Countreymen especially the Nobility and Gentry in a sincere and perfect observance of the See Apostolick For that Formulary is it which can do more harm unto and bring more ruine upon the Church of God than all the forepast persecution of Hereticks In order to the discharging of that Duty incumbent on you its needless that I suggest any other thing to your Paternity being a man throughly and abundantly instructed in such matters by your own eradition and prudence besides those which I have lately by word of mouth insinuated to you signally That the said Oath be refuted and reproved so as that notwithstanding the Royal Ministers may not thence take occasion of severity against Catholicks or of persecuting them as people studiously and maliciously undermining the Royal Dominion on account of its having fallen from the Church As for the rest know it will be most grateful unto me that by your Letters I be frequently advertised of all Note-worthy matters concerning the cause of Faith or State of the Church which shall occur to you Your Letters without cover you may superscribe A Monsieur Monsieur Rossi-Bruxelles for so they will securely be brought to me To conclude I commend my self heartily to your Paternities sacrifices Bruxels 7. Octob. 1663. Your Paternities Most Affectionate Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal On either Letter though you need no Animadversions because they are of themselves plain enough as it is also plain that as well by these as other you have Sect. vii this Internuncio begun that which his Successors ever since more vigorously pursued viz. to have the Remonstrants esteemed both Schismaticks and Hereticks yet I cannot here but give some few Observations First Observation is How these men would pull out our eyes and make us believe the Pope would have all kind of Duty Faith and Obedience paid by us to our King to be exemplars of these vertues even to Hereticks and in a place of darkness the lights of the world in such matters and yet at the same time and by the same Letters to condemn us in effect as Schismaticks and Hereticks for any way acknowledging our King to be King and promising to obey Him as such and at the same time also to procure a publick University Censure of the Louain Divines to condemn our Subscription of such acknowledgment and promise and no less solemnly than formally or in express words to judge both to be unlawful detestable and sacrilegious yea and consequentially or virtually to be also Schismatical and Heretical For that our very such bare acknowledgment and promise c. were so condemn'd by them is manifest because our said Remonstrance and Subscription neither contain'd nor imported any more than such bare acknowledgment and promise c. being they contain'd and imported only this much That we acknowledge the King to be Supreme in all Temporal and Civil Affairs and that we promised to be faithfully and unchangeably obedient to him in such that is only in all Temporal and Civil things leaving out of purpose all mention of any kind of Spiritual things or causes Now who sees not that if we be condemn'd for only acknowledging the King to be Supreme in Temporals we are consequently condemn'd for the bare acknowledgment of his being at all or in any way or sense our King For there are but two or at most three wayes or senses wherein any can be truly said to be King The one that he be Supreme both in Temporals and Spirituals The other that he be in Temporals only and the last that only in Spirituals either purely and essentially or only by extrinsick denomination such But we have not Remonstrated nor have we Subscribed our acknowledgment of the King 's being our King either in the first or last sense but have been as to the words of our Formulary as far from either of both these two senses as Heaven is from Earth And therefore have only in the second Whence is further most evidently consequent That being we are condemn'd for Remonstrating or Subscribing in that sense we are also for the very barest acknowledgment can be of the Kings being any way King For how can we acknowledge him King if ever also as to very Temporals we deny his Kingship And therefore it is not only a meer Cheat and Imposture but Folly Non-sense and even plain contradiction to say That his Holiness would have us to be and continue still in our duty faith and observance to any person as to our King and yet at the same time to tell us That our profession of fidelity and obedience in Temporal things is unlawful detestable and sacrilegious nay Schismatical and Heretical upon this account that by such profession we both promise a more ample obedience to
Accounts I have said before further'd in a high manner by the same Padre Oliva and others of that Society as a matter conducing mightily to their interest c. And yet withall I am not wholly ignorant how by whom to whom when and for what other ends quite different or disparate that promotion was here at London so lately as the year 1668 or 1669. earnestly recommended to be at Rome effectually and speedily granted Much less am I so forgetful as not to remember the manifest Arguments given to my self by the said Prelate himself about four or five years before he was made Prelate i. e. in the year 1664. that he was not called by God as Aaron was but by his own Ambition being he could not then however too early and unseasonably abstain from coming of purpose to my Chamber to importune my self as he did to take off a certain Nobleman from hindering his said promotion So early to my own knowledge did he for himself sollicite that dignity And consequently so Vn-Aaron-like was he called to it if not peradventure to melt the Ear-rings and frame the Golden Calf and lead the people back to Egypt But of this good Prelates engaging so violently and maliciously against the Remonstrants more at large and of purpose elsewhere in due time and place And so I have done my occasional Animadversions upon as well this late Letter of Oliva as upon those former of Internuncio de Vecchiis Whereupon as I have questionless by Anticipation said some things here so you good Reader are to take notice that I write this present Section now in the year 1672. when I resumed the continuation of this Work or First Treatise thereof from page 442. where at the command of others I stopt the Printer in the year 1668. And therefore you are not to wonder if in some passages of this Book you are given to understand it had been written and printed four or five years sooner than by matters here or elsewhere related you find it has That indeed of finishing and publishing it in 1668. was my design nor was it my fault that it was not compassed But for your further satisfaction herein you may turn back to my Preface LXXXV NOW if you please I will give what was consequential to Internuncio de Vecchiis message to Caron and Walsh by Gearnon For there viz. in the perclose of my Lxxxiii Section I broke off the Thread of my Discourse to insert those matters you have now immediately read in my last or Lxxxiv Section De Vecchiis not content with his said verbal message by Gearnon suddenly after writes to my Lord Aubigny the Queens grand Almoner entreating him to work at least with Caron to go to Bruxels and withall enclosing another Letter to Caron himself This to Caron you have here Reverende in Christo Pater INtelliget Paternitas Vestra ex Patre Gearnono causas propter quas confirmatio vestra in Commissarium Visitatorem Hiberniae redditur difficilis Ego tamen qui multum defero officiis Illustrissimi Domini de Aubigni voluntati Excellentissimi Pro-Regis Hiberniae optarem difficultates supradictas amovere Ad quod faciendum puto esse unicum medium si scilicet Reverentia Vestra vellet huc ad me venire tunc enim possetis conferre cum Superioribus vestri Ordinis cum aliis Theologis super vestra illa Formula quae est lapis scandali amicabiliter convenire ac in gratiam Superiorum vestrorum redire Contribuam ad haec omnem operam meam cum fructu ut spero dummodo Reverentia vestra ex parte sua velit ad eumdem finem collimare Intelligetis plura super hoc proposito a Praefato Patre Gearnono ad quem me refero unum hoc addens Reverentiam vestram posse absque timore alicujus molestiae aut ex parte Ordinis aut cujusvis alterius huc accedere prout vobis fide publica polliceor in praesenti ac spondebo etiam Dominis de Aubigni Duci Ormoniae Precabor interim Deus ut vobis inspiret illud consilium quod ad salutem vestram incrementum Orthodoxae fidei magis conduit Bruxellis 9. Januar. 1665. Paternitatis Vestrae Ama nâ—ssimus Hieronymus Abbas Montis Regalis POSTSCRIPT Cum in Martio proximo hinc Romam versus discessurus sim optarem quantocius adventum vestrum The Letter Superscribed thus Reverendo in Christo Patri Patri Red nundo Caronio Ordinis S. Francisci Londini In English thus Reverend Father in Christ FRom Father Gearnon your Paternity will understand the causes wherefore your confirmation as to the office of Commissary and Visitator of Ireland is rendred difficult Yet I who have a griat regard both unto the good offices of the most illustrious Lord Aubigny and pleasure of the most excellent Vice-Roy of Ireland could wish those difficulties removed To the compassing of which I think the only medium is that your Reverence would come hither to me For then you might confer with the Sureriours of your Order and other Divines upon that Formulary which is the Rock of Scandal and you might agree amicably and so return to the good grace or favour of your Superiours Hereunto I shall contribute all my endeavours to good purpose I hope provided that your Reverence do of your side aim at the same end Of these matters you shall understand more from the foresaid Gearnon to whom I refer my self adding only this That your Reverence may without fear of any trouble either in behalf of or from the Order or of or from any other come hither as I do on publick Faith promise you at present and will also promise to my Lords Aubigny and Duke of Ormond In the mean time I shall pray that God may inspire that counsel to you which most conduces to your salvation and increase of the Orthodox Faith Bruxels the 9th of January 1665. Your Paternities Most Loving Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal. POSTCRIPT Whereas I am next March to go hence towards Rome I could wish your speedy Arrival here The Superscription thus To the Reverend Father in Christ Father Redmund Caron of St. Francis's Order at London To both i. e. to that verbal message by Gearnon and this Letter by Aubigny however Caron demurred yet he answered civilly by Letter excusing himself to the Internuncio The truth is he was at that time not only employ'd in writing and near finishing his Latin Folio Work bearing Title Remonstrantia Hibernorum contra Louanienses but was also unwealdy and very unable for a Winter journey over Seas And yet withall I confess he declared positively several times then to my self that had he been as healthy and strong as ever yet he would not go upon any such invitation because he foresaw very well and certainly there was nothing intended but deceit and circumvention and that the Court of Rome whose slavish servants not only the Internuncio Minister Apostolick and Commissary General of
Subjects though it be evident that neither of these positions can be deduced from the words of that Oath or their true genuine plain natural and proper sense or any sense but strain'd by a malicious or at least erroneous interpretation nor even from the intent and end of the Oath even extrinsecal end I mean or that given it by the Legislators as far I say as is possible for any other man to know and after all since 't is manifest that there has not been so much as any rumour spread that any one or more determinate and individual Proposition or Propositions is couch'd in ours which can agree with that one or more in the Oath of King James which Paul the V I do not say censured but which He but intended desired or willed so to censure which intention nevertheless desire or will He did not express in any manner sufficient to condemn any determinate Proposition and consequently either to inform the faithful what was just what unjust what holy what wicked of the matters contain'd in that Oath or to oblige any of the faithful although other conditions had not been wanting to reject any particular or individual Proposition nay peradventure not so much as in general and indefinitely or undeterminately and confusedly and farther because 't is equally and most evidently manifest that the power of the Pope is not touch't so much as afar off either directly or indirectly or by any consequence nor any truly spiritual power of any other one or more Bishops or Ecclesiasticks that is that no such power is either wholly or in part deny'd by our Form much less either the Primacy of the Pope or his power of making any properly Ecclesiastical censure against any whosoever even Kings lastly because t is manifest that that Brief of Paul the V. is in truth purely declarative and no way constitutive of new right and that declaratory Letters Bulls or whatever Papal Laws do not oblige in conscience if they relie upon a false doubtful or only probable ground and that the aforesaid Brief relies upon a doubtful at best or only probable if not plainly a manifestly false reason to wit that which is given above since I say the truth of all these things is abundantly manifest I do not see how your Lordship can without injury to our Holy Father Alexander the VII write every whither as for these three whole years you have done that such is His judgment and that He answered as above That t was needless for Him to censure our Protestation of new the censure given by Paul the V. c. being sufficient However this be i. e. whether your Lordship have in this particular done well or ill whether his Holiness said so or no in or out of Consistory whether He writ in his own hand or in another hand with his name to it or only caus'd his mind opinion and judgment to be intimated to your Lordship or neither writ nor caus'd such intimation to be given the matter is not great because as I said before your Lordship produces no Original or Copy of such Letters by which the oral judgment of the Pope Vivae vocis craculo as they call it may appear And because besides it may be reasonably presumed from the allegation it self especially if the circumstances be weigh'd with it that our Holy Father Alexander was deceiv'd by the like bad interpretation as well of the sense of the words as of the intention scope and end of our Form made by the Divines of his Court to whom he committed the business as Paul the V. was by his eight Divines who blasted the Oath of King James Lastly because that judgment of the Pope supposing it true as is alledged did not proceed ex Cathedra From the nature of which last exception I confess it follows that although in this or the like Controversie you should produce some private Letter of his Holiness himself even under his own hand we should yet think it free for us to put in our exceptions For however we should respect and kiss the Seal of his Holiness yet in such a private Letter we should acknowledge the judgment of Alexander as a private man not as Pope and should take it for the opinion of a particular Divine or Canonist not for a determination of the Judge of the Universal Church giving sentence in his sacred Tribunal and consequently should deny any manner of prejudice could thence arise to our cause Neither can your Lordship wonder at this For if the Briefs themselves of Popes though directed to a People Kingdom or entire Nation so they be not directed to all the faithful of Christ over all the world pass for private Letters of the Pope as Eudaemon-Joannes himself in the Preface to the Parallel of Tortus confesses otherwise a keen maintainer not of the Rights only but of all Pretensions of Popes or if as is in some manner touch't before such kind of Apostolical Letters that is Briefs and likewise Bulls directed to some one Province or Kingdom whether they be called private or publick are not esteemed of themselves alone to oblige any body to assent to the matters declared upon which ground amongst many others the Catholicks of England now for these Fifty years and more are not moved by that above-mentioned declaratory Brief of Paul the V. though dated at Rome and under the Seal of the Fisher why should your Lordship think that in the present Controversie any one should be moved by Letters without comparison more private and less inducing certainty as being written by the Pope to a single person and that his own Internuncio And I confess besides that to this t is consequent that although it were wholly certain that He had so judged and judged with truth that is that certain Propositions of King James's Oath had been condemn'd by Paul the V. and that the same were contained in our Protestation and it were no less certain that such censure of His were directed by an Apostolical Brief either to the English alone or Irish or both but not to all Christians over the world lastly that it were likewise certain that these Apostolical Letters in form of Brief or Bull had not been procured by concealing any thing true or alledging any thing false or by any other fraud nor granted out of anger hatred ambition fear c. nor any way extorted but proceeded from certain knowledge and the proper motion of his Holiness and that all usual formality and all solemnity of publication and promulgation according to custom had been observ'd we should yet think is free likewise for Walsh and the rest of the Subscribers and any other Divines vers't in the present Controversie so they preserve the reverence due to his Holiness and the first See to dissent except expostulate unless his Holiness or some body else should happen in those or other Letters or some other way to convince by irrefragable Reasons the
Bishop that a little before or after for I remember not exactly which at a set meeting in Galway with the then new pretended Provincial Francis Suillevan whom I acknowledg'd not canonically nor validly chosen as neither did I the Provincial Chapter of Kilconel whereby he was chosen to have been legal or canonical or at all of force and a meeting held also in presence of the Archbishop of Dublin Thomas Flemming and the Bishop of Cluanmacnoise Antony Mageoghegan besides himself the said Imly and after his demanding of me whether I had not written in my Book of Queries That even in case the Pope had given sentence against the Appeal of the Supreme Council yet it might and should be lawful and just for them to oppose such a sentence and proceed as if it never had been given and after I had acknowledg'd this passage to be in my Book rose up presently and retorting only in a furious manner That surely the Devil was in me when I writ those lines departed immediately without staying for answer though I often pray'd him to stay and hear patiently what I could say for answer nay without coming any more to that meeting But now to return to my discourse of the sufferings abroad and to conclude it for the present with one instance more I could in the last place very particularly and singularly name Edmund O Duyr Bishop of Limmerick who not even after his death at Brussels no not even for the point of Christian burial there could be secured against the eternal malice of those no less ignorant than inhumane Nuntiotist zealots They would have hinder'd his dead Corps and labour'd mightily for hindring it from being buried in Church or Church-yard or any consecrated ground at all pretending forsooth he had formerly fallen into the Nuncio's Excommunication and Interdict fulminated in Ireland in the year 1648. against all those adhered to the Cessation of Arms concluded with the Baron of Inchiquin and that he had never been in his life absolved from those Censures Whereby you see 1. That neither quick nor dead could scape their malice 2. That no other expiation of so great a crime as they pretended in that opposition though in it self both Loyal and Christian made to the Nuncio could prevail to asswage their malice but onely such expiation as they themselves would prescribe viz. to acknowledge at the Bar and to be absolved in forma Ecclesia consueta And what this would amount unto few are so ignorant as not to know For if any other expiation might surely that should which the Bishops formerly adhering to the Supreme Council in that opposition gave sufficient testimonies of in concurring at Jamestown in the year 1650. with the other Bishops that had been alwayes of the Nuncio party and concurring with them both in their Declaration against the Kings Lieutenant and their Excommunication too against all Roman-Catholicks obeying him any longer And it was and is manifest That the foresaid Bishop of Limmerick had been one of the five Bishops remaining or continuing at or come to Galway when or after the Congregation of the rest at Jamestown was held who in that very Town of Galway and on August 23. 1650 sign'd both Instruments dated before by the rest at Jamestown on the 12 of the same Month. 3. How ignorant also in the Canons of the very Pope those fiery Zealots were in this matter against the said Bishop For by those Canons no Ecclesiastical censure of either Excommunication or Interdict generally fulminated comprehends or touches any Bishop unless Bishops be in the sentence specifically expressâ—d as concern'd and commanded in such censure or sentence and under it to observe it But it is manifest out of the very form of that sentence of the Nuncio and of his few associate pretended Delegates of Irish Bishops there was no such specifical extension therein Nor can it be alledged That participatio in crimine criminoso as the Canonists and Summists speak not even I say albeit such participation were granted in the case could excuse their said enormous fact against the dead Bishop Because it is too well known that neither he nor indeed any other at least any other of all the Bishops had ever been nominatim denounced excommunicate and because that with any whether living or dead not so denounc'd nominatim it is lawful ever since the extravagant of Martin the V. in the Council of Constance that which begins Ad evitanda scandala to communicate even in all divine Things Rites and the very Sacraments too So that of necessity it must follow That those fiery Zealots have been in that barbarous inhumane Act either shamefully ignorant of the very known Laws of their own Church or which is yet far worse even to a prodigious excess superlatively both malicious and impudent in pretending Conscience though a cruel hideous savage one where themselves knew there was no cause at all to pretend any I could further add one memorable instance more of the enraged malice of those hypocritical Irish Nuntiotist Zealots at Rome against even Father Luke Wadding himself Even I say against that very Wadding who had been for so many years before continually at Rome and both for his writings and prudence besides other Books he writ eight Tomes in fol. of the Franciscan Orders History which are call'd Annales Minorum the most famous the most esteem'd and honour'd Ecclesiastick of the Irish Nation and that both by Cardinals Embassadors of Princes and States and by the Popes themselves Who had been so long the onely chief man that above any other in the Affairs of Ireland was consulted by them Who had so often even in former times excused himself from accepting not only any titular Bishoprick or Archbishoprick of those in his own Countrey Ireland but not even any of those other really and richly beneficed and endowed which were offered him elsewhere Who at least for Thirty years had been in the vogue of the Papal Courtiers as having both highly merited and been designed for a Cardinalship And which is above all who in his own dayes and at least continually for Thirty years of them had seen and heard his own Annals with so much esteem daily read during that long extent of time in the publick Refectory Pulpits of above Forty thousand Franciscan Monasteries throughout all Parts of the Christian world Good God! that the hoary hairs of so venerable so great and good a man should be led to the Grave in grief aspersed even with the blackest of Calumnies which the malice of those ungrateful Nuntiotists even of those also I mean who had otherwise been educated by himself bred in his own bosome and lived by his industry care and study and labours could invent Yet so it was Witness the wicked Troop of some Irish Franciscans of his own Colledge of St. Isidore others young others old but all headed by Francis MaGruairck who placing themselves on their knees in a publick way
in the late Rebellion or civil War which you please to call it or even to speak one word for so much as a general Petition to be exhibited to his Majesty imploring His Majesties gracious Pardon No there was no crime at all committed by all or any of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland not even at any time nor in any occasion or matter happened since Octob. 23. 1641 if we must believe the Bishop of Ardagh Patrick Plunker pleading for them so in express terms and the tacit approbation of his words by the Universal silence of that Assembly nam qui tacet consentire videtur according to the rule of the Canon Law But who can believe either and not rather be hence convinced that God in his just indignation had suffered those Fathers to be for their punishment so strangely infatuated against all reason common sense the knowledge of all People and their own interest too For certainly and too too notoriously so they were all along in all their affairs during the fifteen days they sate but in this particular above any other even to astonishment However the Congregation being that evening adjourned to the next morning as soon as it was late and dusky having first prepared his way I went along with the Primat to the Kings Castle where my Lord Lieutenant received him privately in his Closet none being present besides me After salutes his Grace having first placed this greatest Roman Catholick Preâ—â—â—t of Ireland by him on a seat using him also with all other civil respect which the difference of Religion and reason of State could allow entertain'd him with a short but pithy material excellent Speech or rather lesson indeed It continued about a quarter of an hour And I must confess that in my life to my remembrance I never heard so much to the purpose said either so short or so well with so much weight and gravity not only not from any Lay-person to a Church-man but not even from an Ecclesiastick to any even Laick Nor was my judgement herein single The Primat himself confessed so much even openly too next morning before the whole Congregation as soon as they were sate and some occasion was offered him to speak before them of what the Lord Lieutenants Grace had recommended to them Nay he confessâ—d it also in these very Latin words Tanquam Angelus Del loquutus est mihi rendred in English Like an Angel of God he spake unto me What the heads were may be easily guessed out of what is said before both of the Primat himself and other matters hitherto in this Second part And the words I have lost because the Paper which contain'd them Yet I remember 1. They began exactly thus You know very well it was not for your good deeds the Pope created you titular Primat of Ardmagh 2. That all the while the Lord Lieutenants Grace continued speaking the Primat never as much as once lifted up his eyes but bare headed as the Lord Lieutenant also was held them still immoveably cast down and in truth behav'd himself because so conscious to himself as like a guilty penitent Transgressor admitted to the presence of his Lord as any could 3. That when His Grace the Lord Lieutenant either asked or minded him of what conditions I had proposed for his safe return and writ to himself to France he denied again that he had received that Letter 4. That I repeated thereupon in that presence of both the same Arguments I had the day before to the Primat alone to shew the unlikelihood of this excuse or at least my extream wonder at such a chance having nevertheless let fall some other words of purpose to lessen all I could before his Grace the Lord Lieutenant this weakness of the Primats answer 5. That his said Grace notwithstanding he saw clearly enough it was a meer story yet seemed not once in the least moved not as much as to reply one word on that or other subject to contristate or afflict him more but with much civility and obliging kindness recommended to him to improve the present opportunity in the Congregation for his own and Clergies and Countries best advantage and endeavour not only to rectifie but in some measure to satisfie for whatever had been not well done at any time before and so dismissed this Prelat very much satisfied with his gracious reception These are the heads of what I remember occurred or passed betwixt His Grace and this Primat then being the only time they conferred or saw one another And yet I must here take notice to the Reader That soon after the Congregation had been dissolved the Primats own Vicar General Doctor Patrick O Daly together with an other Priest of his Diocess lately then come from Paris told my self each of them at the same time with me at Dublin they had themselves severally heard from the said Primats own mouth That indeed he had in Paris before he came away thence received that Letter of mine which he so lately denyed both to me and to the Lord Lieutenant to have received but that he dared not acknowledge it either to the Duke or me or any other should tell because he then might be justly called in question for other matters if he signed not the controverted Remonstrance which yet partly through fear of the Court of Rome and partly too for other causes he neither dared nor would sign XV. THE next day being the fifteenth of June and fifth of the Congregations sitting the Lord Lieutenant having sufficiently understood their little sense of the only end for which he permitted them to meet and further how some of them had endeavoured to highten a false report of his intentions to depart suddenly out of Town of purpose to pretend they wanted time to consult or deliberate and so excuse themselves if they gave not full satisfaction it being consequently alledged they could not with safety continue their sitting when his Grace were so departed and for this reason they were better immediately sign the Instrument prepared to their hands viz. the insignificant one of which before and which you shall see in the next Section and then without further hazard of themselves Dissolve his Grace therefore thought fit to send them by Richard Bellings Esq a second Message to be read as it was this day read to them out of a written paper publickly and exactly word by word as here followeth after the Title The LORD LIEUTENANT's Second Message to the Congregation THat I understand it is reported I intend in a few days to leave this City and that it is thence apprehended by those of the Romish Clergy now met here that they may not have time to consider of and conclude upon the business for which their meeting is permitted namely for Subscribing to the Remonstrance and Protestation subscribed and presented to His Majesty in January and February 1661 by divers of the Nobility Gentry and Romish Clergy Whereupon I think
that I my self had been much against the trouble of either presenting or writing it because I had clearly seen all along the stubborn unflexible resolution of the Demagogues and most of the inferiour Multitude who would hear no reason and consequently that it would have no effect upon such men of byass And yet after all that pressed by the reasons and importunities of many of those Loyal Subscribers of the former Remonstrance I drew that Letter for them and subscribed it too as one of them which I now give you here The Expostulatory Letter directed to the Chairman of the Congregation by such of the Ecclesiastical Subscribers of the former Remonstrance or of that of 1661 as were at Dublin and not Members of the Congregation delivered and read publickly a little before that National Meeting Dissolved Right Reverend and our very good Lord IT is notoriously known to the whole Kingdom That the present National Representative of the Irish Roman-Catholick Clergy is now convened in this Capital City of Ireland in order to their Signing a Remonstrance or Declaration and Promise of their future Loyal fidelity and obedience in all Temporal things whatsoever according to the Laws of the Land to our Dread Soveraign Charles the Second to the end That not only His Majesty nor only His Councils of State and Parliaments but also all other His Majesties Protestant Subjects of whatever different Religion Perswasion or Opinion as to the way of truly and rightly worshipping God may be throughly satisfied That the Roman Catholicks of Ireland even the most Reverend and Sacred Representative of all their Ecclesiasticks do now at last freely and conscientiously under their own proper hands in a publick Instrument profess themselves to be and even according to their divine Faith or true infallible Principles of right Christianity and of the Catholick Church to be as much obliged if not more in point of conscience to continue evermore faithfully subject and obedient in all such Temporal matters and according to all such Laws of the Land to His Majesty and lawful Successors in all contingencies that may happen as any other even of whatever Church or Sects either hold themselves bound or indeed by the Laws of God are otherwise bound to His Majesty or to any other their respective Soveraign Princes or States on Earth Nor is it less manifestly known how great and urgent the very special causes are which even of necessity require such a Remonstrance or Declaration and Promise or Protestation from this present Ecclesiastical Assembly For who is he can be ignorant of those just suspitions of an inclination to return again to disloyal both Principles and Practices under which the generality of Irish Catholicks Clergy and People do lye yet continually amongst their fellow Subjects of the Protestant Religion Or who indeed but knows the true source of those very great and not to be wondred at jealousies especially that which cannot be dried up in our days even the fresh memory of all that hath been so lately acted in Ireland against the Protestant Church and People by the Confederate Roman Catholicks of that Nation in the last unhappy Wars Nay who is not sensible of the miserable condition even at present of so many Thousands of our unfortunate Countreymen Or who sees not this condition is one fatal effect of that suspicion or rather as I should say of that firm perswasion amongst Protestants of the Disloyaltie of the Roman-Catholick Irish in general besides is it not as generally known How that to allay for the future that very suspicion lessen hereafter that very perswasion which hath even so lately i. e. since His Majesties happy Restauration blasted the hopes of so many thousands of our ancient Proprietors and so to vindicate their holy Religion from bearing any share in the blame of those unholy irreligious Practices of some however too too many Professors of it and consequently to obtain the ceasing of that severe Persecution commanded and effectually for some time continued by the Triumvirat in Ireland Anno 1660 a considerable number of Roman-Catholick Irish Ecclesiasticks then at London headed by a Bishop of the same Religion and Nation had in the same year thought it becoming their duty to God Allegiance to their Natural Prince Piety to their Countrey and the Character also of those who as the Sons of Peace desire Christian Peace and a fair friendly and faithful correspondence betwixt all His Majesties Subjects of whatever Church or Nation yea and not only thought it so becoming but after a serious debate conceived it both expedient and necessary To sign as accordingly they did sign a Remonstrance and Protestation of indispensable fidelity and obedience in all temporal matters whatsoever c or a Declaration and Promise of Loyalty indeed so full as might answer in all respects the end above mentioned And is it not likewise known That with the same Irish Ecclesiastick Subscribers of that Remonstrance the greatest and most considerable part by much of the Nobility and Gentry of our Nation at that time in London did joyn themselves and concurr even by the like subscription then or soon after in that very place besides many more also of the rest of the Nobility and Gentry at home in Ireland who next Winter and since have followed the same good example given first at London And to pass over at present how not only several more of the Irish as well Bishops as other learned Clergymen then abroad have much about the same time approved of that very Formulary of professing our Allegiance even some of them by their manual Subscriptions to it and how not only the English Noblemen advised and consulted with by the Irish Nobility at London concerning it have professed publickly in a great Assembly of the aforesaid Irish both Nobility and Gentry That were the case of the Irish theirs they and all the rest of the English Nobility and Gentry of the Roman Communion would willingly sign that Remonstrance in terminis and even sign it with their blood were this necessary but also how the English Chapter of the Roman-Catholick Secular Eeclesiasticks have in a Letter written on purpose by their command signed by their Dean Humphrey Ellice alias Doctor Waring and superscribed to the Bishop of Dromore signified clearly so much in effect of their own approving likewise the same Formulary or that very individual Remonstrance of ours We say that to pass at present all this over Is it not further as manifestly apparent how graciously that Instrument after the signature of it was received by His Majesty How immediately the Persecution in this Kingdom ceased by His Majesties express Command Nay how ever since both People and Clergy of our Communion have enjoyed the great tranquility and freedom in point of exercising our Religion and Functions which we have so gladly seen and which we so thankfully acknowledge to be still continued to us yea in a higher measure enjoyed by us at
conveniently be However bid him be ready and let him know we shall be ready for him within two or three days Thus my Lord Lieutenant Much about that same time Father Finachty sent and came also himself to let me know he had now stayed six whole weeks in town expecting that Licence and occasion adding that he could stay no longer for it but would depart to Connaught if not suddenly granted He withal soon after and early in the morning sends me word that he would say Mass privately in my lodging and accordingly comes and says in a private Oratory I had there my self serving him at Mass When he had done and was come down and sate at a fire for 't was Winter and cold weather ready to drink his mornings draught with a toast which was a preparing for him there he complaining of weakness and drowth by reason of the continual sweat every night whereunto he had been for some days before and then subject in comes to that same room unexpectedly Sir William Petit Knight a learned acute Physitian and great Traveller and with him an other ingenious young Gentleman Mr. Robert Southwel * * He is now Sir Robert Southwel Knight and one of the Clerks of the Council at White-Hall hath been moreover lately Envoy Extraordinary both to Portugal Castile as last of all to Flanders likewise for some years a Traveller in other parts of Europe both of them Protestants and both of my acquaintance I having known nothing of their coming or cause thereof did think they only came to see my self as at least Mr. Southwel used sometimes to do But it appeared after that Sr. William Petit was commanded by the Lord Lieutenant to go together with one Doctor Yarner an other Protestant Physitian and find me out and tell me how the sick persons were now in town and all other matters ready of their side and bid me therefore give notice thereof to Father Finachty that he might fix his day his place and company he would have present of his side Now because Sr. William could not meet then with Doctor Yarner he brought along with him Mr. Southwel who both could shew him the way to my Lodgings and was willing enough to come upon such an occasion which suspended the thoughts of many This was the cause of their coming as my Lord Lieutenant himself told me after at night for they did not as being surprized with a suddain curiosity when they saw one with me and that to their question asking me aside who it was I answered he was a person they would perhaps desire to be acquainted with even the famed Wonder-working Priest Father James Finachty For I had no sooner told them so then without any further reply or Ceremony they both go to the fire where he sate and sitting down by him who seemed at first to take no great notice of them Sir William Petty being next him begins to speaks to him in this manner or at least I am sure to this purpose Father I have of a long time heard much of you and lately much more than formerly For my own part I am on this occasion and for what concerns Religion as a piece of white Paper You may write in my Soul what you please as to the way of worshipping God if you attest that way by plain Miracle And therefore if you do by your Prayer remove this Wart which you see on my finger and thereupon shewed that finger of his hand and the Wart thereon I will presently declare my self of your Religion So soon as I had heard Sir William out I thought it high time for me to interpose as knowing his acuteness in Philosophy and Father Finachty's dulness even in matters of Divinity And therefore I desired Sir William to consider better of what he proposed and how unsutable it was to the ordinary custom we read of Saints invoking God and applying themselves immediately to him for a favour above nature to such as desired their intercession This was or only or doubtless customarily to ease them and cure them of some disease or evil which was an affliction to them and could otherwise have no help for it in their own power That this Wart could not be said to be such because either he could easily remove it by many sorts of natural applications known well to himself or if he could not that yet it brought neither pain nor deformity nor other inconveniency with it And therefore such demand of his side and such attempt of Father Finachty could be no less in either than a manifest temptation of God even that kind of sin which Divines with much reason teach to be very mortal in it self and abominable to God Besides let me tell you Sir William said I adding to what I now immediately related that unless you bring along with you a great Faith in God and very pious disposition of your Soul you can expect no Wonders to be done for your sake not even there where otherwise the subject matter could not be denyed to be fit enough Read St. Mark the Evangelist * * Et non polerat ibi virtutem ullam facere nisi paucos infirmos impositis manibus curavit mirabatur propter incredulitatem eorum Marc. 6. vers 5. 6. c. 6. and you shall find that not even our Saviour Christ himself could work Wonders in his own Country where the people were incredulous and that he therefore admired their incredulity to be such as hindred him This I added purposely because I would forestall his further tempting of that weak man Father Finachty and obviate his consecutions to be drawn from any failure he should peradventure see And it indeed together with what I said before made Sir William so considerative that he not only quitted insisting on the removal of his Wart but desired to read that Chapter and passage in Mark which I alledged and accordingly did presently read it even in the Protestant English Bible which I called for of purpose to satisfie him Which being over he recollects himself again and attacks anew Father Finachty telling him That he had in truth an infirmity was very troublesome to him I am purblind Father says he I can read at such or such a distance very near my eyes but cannot a word at any other wherein others do If you will cure me of this troublesome infirmity I shall humbly and religiously acknowledge as I ought Gods both merciful and wonderful hand therein I had by chance walked over towards the Window on the other side of the room when and as soon as Sir William had ended these few words of his later proposal But sooner then I was half way returned back I saw Father Finachey first standing up then saying to Sir William Let us try and then also immediately advancing a few steps and kneeling his back being turned to them and his face to the wall and consequently by private prayer to
the other as I told before under an easie confinement i. e. to that of the whole City of Dublin till further orders if the Reader will know what I have to answer and first as to Kilfinuragh is 1. That as Kilfinuragh when he was told of the Lord Lieutenant's desire to speak to him departed suddenly and privately out of Dublin so he likewise soon after no less privately in some remote Harbour some said Cork ship'd away for France 2. That for my own part I could not imagine any other cause of his flight if not either the check of his own Conscience for his carriage in the Congregation or his great hopes of both a Home Insurrection and Forreign Invasion or his little care of his own peculiar little Flock or Diocess being also as pitifully poor and ungainful to him as it is indeed little in extent i. e. eight Parishes onely or finally his far more gainful pretence abroad of banishment or of being forced to flie for Catholick Religion forsooth a pretence yielding him at least 300 Pistols a year in France ever since that year 1666 as it did also before since the year 1652 or thereabouts 3. That I am sure he had no cause given him by the Lord Lieutenant and as sure that His Excellency intended not to give him other than only to speak and expostulate with Ardagh and him together in presence of five or six others as I have before related 4. That if the fear of such bare speaking and expostulation could be a sufficient cause or motive for a Bishop to flie away from his Flock and never look after them since any thing may be 5. That besides he knew very well that of all the Bishops of the whole Province of Munster or Archiepiscopal Province of Cashil he alone was alive that there were nine Diocesses vacant in that Province that for so many years before since Cromwel's Arms and Intrigues of the Bishops forced the Kingdom to submit to the Parliament of England there was no Episcopal Confirmation administred in that whole Province and that as consequently the whole Episcopal care of the whole Province and every Diocess therein viz. the charge of Confirming the Baptized of Ordaining Priests of Consecrating Altars c. yea of calling Provincial Synods was devolved upon him until other Pastors were provided so it must have followed that doing his duty therein he could not come short by staying at home in any respect of whatever even Temporal emoluments he reaped by his flight into France 6. That I may therefore here rationally ask What made or moved him then to go away nay and to go so as if he had been forc'd to flie for his life 7. That his continual stay in France for so many years after the Kings Restauration until 1666 yea notwithstanding my own several Letters and Messages to him during those very years both from London and Dublin praying him to return home to his Diocess and look to his Flock as others did in other parts of the Kingdom to theirs and assuring him of all permission to do so and now again since the Duke of ORMOND's removal from the Government of Ireland i. e. since the year 1669 to this present 1673. during which latter time even Thirteen or fourteen new Bishops and amongst them four Archbishops all created by the Pope do publickly and freely live and exercize their Functions at home in Ireland must plainly evince it was no true fear of the Duke of ORMOND the KING's Lieutenant in 1666. nor of any persecution from His GRACE then made him the said Bishop of Kilfinuragh flie away so as he did immediately after the foresaid Congregation of 1666. 8. That nevertheless I will not here deny but I have known of late how 't was possible the same Bishop might have had then some remembrance of his own having formerly been one of or amongst the Jamestown Committee of Bishops at Galway in the year 1650 who on the fifth of November the same year delivered unto the Commissioners of Trust the disloyal Answer to the rational Proposals for accommodation made to them by the same Commissioners of Trust I say of late because then or in the year 1666 I knew not so much as having not then nor indeed at any time after until this very last Month of May 1673 perused throughly and seriously the Marquess of Ormond's long and excellent Letter in the year 1650 to the General Assembly at Loghreogh By which Letter it appears as you may see hereafter pag. 135. of the Second Appendix to this present Work Kilfinuragh alias Kilfenora had been one of those very Jamestown Committee Bishops at Galway yea one of the very six Bishops that delivered the aforesaid Answer For these six Bishops were Killala Ferns Kilmacduogh Clonfert Kilfenora and Dromore as appears by the attestation of the above Commissioners of Trust who also were six viz. Lucas Dillon Richard Barnwall Richard Everard Gerald Fennel Richard Belings and Geoffry Browne who received the said Answer from them 9. But withall I do affirm he might have very well and clearly seen That none of all those old matters or transgressions how high soever did reflect on any even of the chief Authors i. e. were not so much as thought of by the Duke of Ormond the King's Lieutenant in order to any such purpose as the taking away any one 's either life or liberty or to hinder his free living where he pleased in the Kingdom Witness not only the Bishop of Dromore who was one of the above six Bishops and yet when he return'd to Ireland in 1663 was by the Duke both civilly received and with much respect also treated alwayes after until he dyed in 1664 but even the Bishop of Ferns another of those six and one also that soon after the year 1650 had even abroad in France and particularly by his Printed relations and I think unjustly both reflected on and exasperated the Marquess of Ormond and yet in the above year 64 was by the Duke of Ormond the King's Lieutenant heartily forgiven all and with His Grace's express permission invited home to Ireland by me yea and assured both of protection and favour though Ferns himself would not make use thereof because he would not correct the error of his late Letter in justifying anew the old proceedings of Jamestown Witness moreover the Archbishop of Tuam John Burk living then i. e. an 1666. at home in Connaught with all freedom notwithstanding he had formerly sign'd the very Declaration and Excommunication too of Jamestown and never made by Retractation or otherwise any satisfaction therefore Nay witness several other persons in particular whom I could name were it necessary as I my self introduced them to His Grace in the years 1663 1664 1665 and 1666. some of them Subscribers of those disloyal Acts of Jamestown and the rest known violent Nuntiotists all along formerly against Him yet received civilly by Him without seeming once to remember
's name to the Clergy he viz. Father Peter Walsh no way lowr'd his Sail but remained obstinate and insolent I likewise saw a great Man's Letter I mean a Roman termed him and Caron Apostates But I hope as it hath appear'd manifestly before in the former Sections that I have not used in any manner not even in the least degree whatsoever any kind of either fraud or force in that Congregation so by what I have said hitherto in this present Section and third Appendage therein it doth no less now appear that I kept no Anti-Congregation at all much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Congregation For to pass over now as not material that the foresaid Colledge of Divines was not held at the same time with but first assembled after the Congregation had dissolved and four parts at least of five departed to their own respective dwellings in other parts of Ireland neither can it be said 1. That that Colledge was of my faction being it had from the beginning even the first day thereof almost one moyety of Anti-Remonstrants and was free and open for ten times so many of that sort to enter it after at any time they pleased Nor 2. That it was called either to determine any thing contrary to what the Congregation had professed or as much as to debate on that which they had concluded Nor 3. That it did in truth determine or debate any such matter No nor 4. can it be said that any such was the design or scope of calling that Colledge whereas interessed Members of the Congregation were to compose it and that after all nothing was to be therein carried by the greater vote but by the stronger reason and clearer conviction and full concurrence at last of every individual person And therefore as that Colledge ought not to be nay could not in any reason or with any truth be called an Anti-Congregation so ought it be said 1 To have been composed not only not of those of my faction or not of them more than of those of the contrary but not of any persons whatsoever that might in any wise according to their own rule proceed factiously if otherwise they would And 2 To have been kept for a much better end than to vex them or than that could be of vexing the Congregation Unless peradventure any can shew That to secure His Majesty of the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland as much as hand or subscription can and thereby to answer home and fully refute the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion and by consequence of the toleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State be not a much better end than that of vexing the Congregation Or at least can prove That to secure so His Majesty and to answer so that grand objection was not the end which Peter Walsh proposed to himself in calling or keeping that Colledge Which yet can never be proved being so directly even against the very so long since printed Title of those Fourteen Propositions which he prepared and presented to be as they were indeed the only matters to be agreed on by the Divines of that same Colledge Now if out of all it doth not appear that I kept no kind of Anti-congregation much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Congregation I know not how any thing can appear For the often mention'd Colledge of Divines held upon the Fifteen Propositions being cleared of that scandalous name of an Anti-congregation there was no other held by me or by any other besides me to be charg'd with it because neither I nor any other hold any kind of other Colledge Congregation or Meeting while that National Congregation sate besides it self nor after it dissolved but only the foresaid Colledge of Divines upon the Fifteen Propositions A Letter indeed and but that one Letter you have before pag. 696. address'd to the National Congregation it self yea address'd by way of humble desire and Petition was during the Session subscribed by Eighteen of my Friends or of those who had formerly subscribed the Remonstrance of 1661. and delivered to the Speaker and read in the House But I assure the Reader That the Fathers who sign'd that Letter kept neither Anti-congregation nor Congregation because neither Colledge nor any Meeting at all in any house or place or time or upon any other business or even upon that very Letter whereas only some of them first and others after met some by chance and some perhaps of purpose walking in a Garden hard by the House where the National Assembly sate as they were desired and they themselves thought also good did singly sign that Letter And yet after and notwithstanding all such known manifest Truths I believe my Lord of Ferns did see as he sayes he did that false relation sent over to Flanders out of Ireland and those severe lines also of a great Cardinal to that purpose But who can hinder either the lying of Lyars or even the severe lines of an interested Cardinal on such a Subject As for the other friendly advertisement given me in the same paper and next place therein by my Lord of Ferns viz. How it was taken ill by all that after Cardinal Franciscus Barberinus c because it doth not properly or indeed at all concern my present third Appendage and that I have elsewhere at large in a more proper place answer'd it I will only say here 1. That as you may see before in this Treatise viz. pag. 632. that Letter of Cardinal Francis Barberin which the Bishop means here so you may see also there pag. 636 637 638 and 639. my brief animadversions both on that same and other Letters too as well of the said Barberin as of the three Bruxels Internuncio's immediately succeeding one after another these ten years past Hieronymus de Vecchiis Jacobus Rospigliosi and the last of all ........ Airoldi 2. That if I had lowr'd my Sail in any kind of way or sense the said Cardinal desired I had by doing so renounced the Catholick Faith as to one essential or at least material and necessary point thereof and even betrayed my Countrey to boot and consequently by doing so or complying with the Cardinal in any way must have at the same time profess'd my self an impious Rebel against the Church and a perfidious Traytor against the King Crown and Kingdom 3. That refusing to do so is so far from remaining either obstinate or insolent that without any doubt it is on the contrary remaining constant and resolute in the very best cause I could and was in Conscience obliged to undertake and maintain against the corrupters both of Loyalty and Christianity 4. That being it appears now more than manifestly more than abundantly as well out of the Louain Vniversities Censure which I have given pag. 102. and the Franciscan Belgick Declaration pag. 116. as out of
determining at all whether the King or his inferior Courts or Judges may or may not justly and by their own proper supream or subordinat civil authority and expresly against the Popes decrees proceed against such criminals according to the present municipal lawes of the land nor determining whether such Ecclesiastick criminals may in conscience where they may or can choose subject themselves in such cases as wherein by the Canons of the Roman Church they are exempt from the power and punishment of the secular Magistrat and his lawes unless or until they be delivered over to him by the Church albeit the subscribers of that Remonstrance of 61. were then are now and will so continue principled in conscience and doctrine that by the lawes of God no Canons of the Church may exempt any Church-men of what rank or degree soever no more then they can meer Lay-men from either the directive or coercive supream temporal power of such Kings as have not any other superior in their temporals but God alone nor against their wills or lawes from their courts or subordinat Judges though it be most conformable to the law of God and nature that Princes should for the reverence of the sacred function exempt them generally from the power of inferior or subordinat judicatures and leave them to be punished by their own Ecclesiastical superiors if not in such cases or contingencies as they shall find their said Ecclesiastical superiors to be unwilling or unfitting or to be involved themselves in the same crimes or the chief Patrons of them But however this be in truth and whatever the subscribers of 61. think or think not of this matter and whether the foresaid two lines which finally conclude their said sequel petition and resignation imply formally or virtually or any way at all such renunciation of Ecclesiastical immunity or implye it not in any kind of manner yet for as much as upon many occasions great use has been made as I have said before of the above objections though as often cleerly and throughly solved as made against the Remonstrance of 61. and that in this other of 66. the contrivers and promoters of it have intirely omitted that passage both as to the words and sense and I mean that sense which they themselves conceive or certainly would have others conceive of purpose to render that passage and by and for it the whole foresaid Remonstrance of 61. odious and scandalous and for as much also as from persons so principled in that point of Clergie mens exemption there can be no assurance to the King by general words and notions or by such too too general acknowledgements protestations declarations and promises of any real true and significant subjection intended or promised by them but such only as leaves them alwayes at liberty that is free from the supream temporal Coercive power of the King and his laws and leaves them not so much as under an inward obligation of sin to conform outwardly or submit as much as to the direction or directive part virtue or power of any kind of Temporal or civil Magistrat or laws but only under such an unsignificant obligation as these words ex aequo et bono import and for as much further as until they declare sufficiently that is cleerly expresly and particularly against this dangerous false and scandalous doctrine it must in reason be to no purpose for them to offer or for His Majestie to receive any kind of Protestation of Allegiance from them therefore I found this alteration and omission of the said two lines nothing equivalent as to that sense how injuriously or invidiously soever conceived by them being in their own Remonstrance given in lieu thereof I say I found that change a most material exception and if not a greater at least as great as any of all the former Leaving to the judicious Reader to be considered soberly and coolely what according to such doctrine of the exemption or immunity of Clergy-men signifies any word acknowledgment protestation declaration or promise as from such Clergy-men in their Remonstrance even in case there had been no other Exception to it What those words which are their very first beginning of it We your Majesties Subjects the Roman Catholtck Clergy of Ireland c Or whether from such men so principled in this matter these words must be construed or understood to import any more then that they profess themselves verbally not really equivocally not univocally Subjects Or do not they withal and at the same time perswade themselves and stiffely maintain that however in word they complement yet in deed they are not Subjects either in soul or body not even in any kind of case to any civil or temporal power or law on earth as barely such Or doth the Kings Majesty pretend his own to be other then barely and only such that is temporal and civil And so I conclude all my four Instances Which especially the second and fourth or this last I confess might be comprized in a fewer Lines But I chose this method of purpose to make the weaker sort of capacities to understand at large the causes of dissatisfaction my Lord Lieutenant and Council have in this Remonstrance of the foresaid late Assembly how specious soever it may appear at first reading to such as are not throughly acquainted with the intrigues And now to those Instances and Exceptions will only add in brief two Observations more Which especially the first of them confirm evidently enough to any indifferent man that is not a fool how little how weak and frail and false the assurance is the King can derive from such a Remonstrance of such men and in such a country and time as this First Observation That upon the sole account of their express refusal on the contradictory publick debate in the Assembly to petition his Majesty as you have seen at large in the Narrative whlch goes before the Exceptions for pardon of those crimes or offences chargable on them as committed by them or any of them or any else of the Irish Clergie by reason or occasion of the first Insurrection 23. Octob. in 41. or of the after conjunction of the rest of the Irish Catholicks the same or following year in a social war with the first Insurrectors or by reason or occasion in particular of the Clergies general Congregation at Waterford under the Nuncios Authority and their Declaration therein and those other actings afterwards in pursuance thereof in the next general Assembly of the three Estates in Kilkenny against the peace of 46. or of the total breach and publick rejection of it in all parts of the Kingdom or by reason or occasion also of the Declarations of the Bishops at Jamesstown against the second Peace or that which followed in 48. and of the consequent breaches thereof by so many other persons and parties and in so many other Provinces and Counties of the Kingdom I say that upon the sole account of
that We know what Innocent the Tenth and his Congregation have decreed against the three Negative propositions of the Catholicks of England We know moreover the brief of Paul the Fifth against the Oath of Allegiance Finally we know many other decrees and Canons made by several former Popes against all kind of Oathes and obligations of Allegiance to Schismaticks Hereticks or excommunicated Princes and even I say to all such as they deem such whether they be such or no indeed I could add that we know also what the Doctrine or Maximes of the Court of Rome is in particular concerning Clergie-mens exemption from the secular power and how they hold it unlawful for such men to Swear any Allegiance contrary to their own Canons or their own interpretation of the Canons And yet the Congregation would make the world believe they have by those their three additional propositions supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance But let fooles and ignorant persons believe them I am sure no wise man acquainted with the business will No nor would be induced to think that although they had come throughly home in express words as they did not at all nor any way neer and came home so as to all particulars and to the very points both in their Remonstrance and propositions added yet that only denying at the same time and with so little reason and so much passion preoccupation and obstinacy to sign those other three of Sorbon applyed to His Majesty and themselves in the case would be argument enough to evict even from themselves a confession of this certain truth that they were obstinatly resolved to give no real assurance to His Majesty of their future obedience or faith to him either by their Remonstrance or propositions or both or any other sufficient manner and that accordingly they gave none The third argument is ab intrinseco properly or from and grounded on the significancy or rather unsignificancy of the very propositions in themselves as such and without relation to the two former arguments which are though otherwise convincing enough derived from and grounded on circumstances more extrinsecal It is from the bare words and sense or meaning the leading persons or chief Divines of the congregation have conceive or would or intend only to express by these words It is from and on their distinctions of and specifical exceptions from the too too great generality of what the words may to some import though not to others And in a word it is further derived from and grounded on their abstractions exceptions distinctions reservations and equivocations in these very three propositions no less then in their Remonstrance Albeit they would impose on such as they thought fit and whilst they thought it fit that by these additional propositions they supplyed all the defects of their Remonstrance as at the same time they would let others know and shew them cleerly too they signified nothing at all as to the points controverted that is signified nothing or brought no obligation on them or others to the King in such cases wherein they would be free by force of Arms to maintain any quarrel or cause against him Which to evince I will here again repeat the propositions or declarations as they are subscribed by them 1. Wee the undernamed do hereby declare that it is not our Doctrine that the Pope hath any authority in Temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second yea we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in civil and temporal affairs 2. That it is our Doctrin that our Gracious King Charles the Second is so absolute and independent that he doth not acknowledge nor hath in civil or temporal affairs any power above him under God and that to be our constant Doctrine from which we shall never recede 3. That it is our Doctrine that we Subjects owe so natural and just obedience to our King that no power under any pretext soever can ever dispense with or free us of the same Now to pass by that Negative manner of expression in the former part of their first proposition and how unsignificant such must be from them who sees not their obvious equivocation in these words It is not our Doctrine on such as they list they will thereby impose and to others they tell that it is not indeed their Doctrine but the Doctrine of so many great and holy Pontiffs of the See of Rome and very expresly too and in many instances these five or six hundred years the Doctrine of Gregories the Seventh and Ninth and of Pascehals and Urbans and Innocents and of Boniface the Eight even in that publick extravagant Vnam Sanctam inserted in the body of the Canon law and of Sixtus's and Pius's yea and of Alexander the Seventh that now governs that See the Doctrine of all their Courts for so many ages and of so many Bishops Cardinals and other Prelats and Doctors of Nuncius's Internuncius's and other Ministers and messengers of Popes that in several Countries and in several occasions taught and maintained it by word and writing amongst whom as Bellarmine and Baronius and Peron and Lessius and Becan and Gretzer Fitzherbert Weston and Parsons have in their own dayes after those Seventy two other writers whom Bellarmine quotes against Barclay some sixty years agoe been very eminent so in ours and very lately nay and continually too any time these four years past Cardinal Francis Barberine at Rome and the two immediatly succeeding Internuncius's at Bruxels De Vecohys and Rospigliosi and the Divines of Lovayn have shewed themselves no less vehement by censuring as much as in them the protestation of 61. of the Catholick Bishop of Dromore of Fa. Peter Walsh and other Irish Divines and after them of others the Nobility and Gentry of that Nation So that our Gentlemen of the Congregation of 66. will by this gloss or explication of their word Our where they say it is not our Doctrine or by that equivocation or distinction elude at pleasure this Declaration as to any honest meaning They will say they have declared it is not our Doctrine that is It is not a Doctrine whereof we are the Authors or it is not a Doctrine proper particular and peculiar to us alone or which only we do teach or maintain or which we have broached or set on foot And will say nevertheless nay rather the more that for as much as it is the Doctrine of so many great men nay and of so many great and Holy Bishops of Rome at least these full six hundred years and that expresly and clearly too even in their very Canons it is consequently the Doctrine of the Church for they account the Pope and Church the same thing And therefore must not be disavowed or opposed by the faithful when there is occasion to follow or practice it So that they will say that in one sense they may
this Kingdom and in that particular too that the Pope could not depose Bishops in Ireland against the same Canons for that their third allegation I say it appears already out of all hiterto said to be even as to both branches of this fourth proposition or in relation to the said branches more than positively more than abundantly false especially if we understand by the Kings authority rights c. what honest men without Sophistry understand For if we do not the allegation must be to no purpose though it should relate only to the first branch as appears manifestly out of what is before said to their first and second allegation And for the second branch or part of the said fourth proposition they have not as much as any kind of colour to say that in their Remonstrance or three first Propositions they have as much as glanced at it Which the Reader may see with his own eyes and of himself without any further proof of mine conclude evidently by comparing together this fourth Proposition and their said three former Propositions and Remonstrance What ground then had they for this third Sophistical allegation of a more positiveness I confess that notwithstanding I have read and read again ten times over and over their said Remonstrance and three Propositions signed by them and compared both to this fourth I see none at all but that very vnsignificant and sorry one which is by a little inconsiderable change of the first Proposition which the Congregation was absolutly necessitated unto if they would not be convinced by every Soul that knew their former actions of a manifest untruth and lye For the first Proposition of Sorbone declaring in the second part that the said Faculty had always or at all times thitherto resisted or opposed even such as attributed to the Pope as much as an indirect authority or an indirect authority alone over the temporals of the most Christian King it is manifest our Congregation could not imitate Sorbone as to that part or I mean for what concerned the time past or could not have said as those of that Faculty did in these words immo semper obstitisse Pacultatem eriant ijs qui indirectam tantummodo voluerunt esse illum authoritatem Which was the reason that forced them to change the Precerpâ—â— perfect tense of the infinitive moode which tense the Sorbonists did and justy could make use of as they framed that first Proposition and change it to the future tense of the Indicative moode and put it into this form we promise that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any power either direct or indirect over him in Civil and temporal affairs Now what more positiveness hath this of the future tense argued I would fain know of any man And other argument than this sorry though necessary change I see none if not peradventure the words natural and just added to obedience in the third Proposition Epithets not made use of here by Sorbone be not thought by Father N. N. to be arguments of more positiveness But if he do and shew himself herein less than a Sophister every understanding man can tell him presently that where Sorbone sayes and declares in the said third Proposition their doctrine to be quod Subditi fidem et obedientiam Regi Chriâ—â—tae nissim it a debent ut ab ijs nullo praetextu dispensari possint it was needless to add those or any other Epithets to that faith and obedience which they profess there to be so due from his own Subjects to the most Christian King that under no pretext soever they may be dispensed with therein For certainly every man knowes there is no faith or obedience due from them to him but natural and just as neither can be from us to our own King So that albeit those Epithets be good yet they and nothing to the French proposition much less more positiveness in the declaration And whither the word faith which the Sorboniâ—â— have in this their third Proposition and yet is omitted in the same by our Congregation whither purposely or not I know not certainly do argue a less positiveness of less â—ye or obligation I leave it to others to determine Having done with their second Paragraph we are now come to their third Which I give likewise at length and in then own words As to the 5th they mean the 5th Sorbone Proposition as here in terminis that it is noe the doctrine of the Faculty but applied to the Congregation That it is not our doctrine that the Pope is above the general Couneâ— We thought it likewise not material to our affaire to talke of a School-question of Divinity controverted in all Catholick Vniversities of the world whether the Pope be above general Councils or no whether he can annul the Acts of a general Council or no dissolve the general Council or whither contrary-wise the Council can depose the Pope c. Secondly we conceive it not onely impertinent but dangerous in its consequence and unseasonable to talke of a question which without any profit either to the King or his Subjects may breed jealousy between the King and his Subjects or may give the least overture to such odious and horrid disputes concerning the power of Kings and Common-wealths as our late sad experience hath taught us Where I observe two Specifical reasons and no more given by them for the applicableness to their present purpose here of their above first general pretence The first is that whether the Pope be above a general Council or no is disputed in all Catholick Vniversities The second that their subscription to the fifth Proposition of Paris or to their resolve on this question would give others to understand it must consequently follow it is not their doctrine that the King is above the Parliament It seems they were put to very narrow shifts when they stuffed their Paper with such weak arguments But the illness of the cause afforded them no better and their resolution not to subscibe having been so unalterable as it was they must have pretended the most specious they could not certainly out of any hope to render by such pretences their obstinacie excusable with any judicious knowing men much less to impose on the Lord Lieutenant for whose immediat satisfaction they would have others believe these reasons and arguments were so digested but for a quite other design which was to abuse the multitude or vulgar by pretences of reasons and arguments whereof the common People could not understand the weakness whom therefore I have thought paines-worthy to disabuse by these following answers And first to their first argument which sayeth it is disputed in all Catholick Vniversities whether the Pope be above a general Council or not and therefore concludes the immaterialness and impertinency of their subscription to that 5th of Paris or to this It is not our doctrine that the Pope is above a general Council it is answered That those of
of so many former abroad in other parts of Europe since Gregory the 7th so manifest in History force not a confession of all this from F. N. N or if the very nature of the positions in themselves and the judgment of all judicious and ingenuous men of the world prevail not with him to confess that a general decision and resolve of the Roman Catholick Clergy in Ireland as well against the Popes pretence of infallibility as against his other of a power for deposing the King and raising at pleasure his Subjects in rebellion and against both absolutely and positively be not one of the most rational wayes to hinder the disturbance of King and Countrey as from such Clergie-men and others of their Communion and Nation and if the denyal of such decision and resolve against either pretence especially against this of infallibility since it is plain that if the Pope be admitted infallible his deposing power must necessarily and instantly follow because already and manifoldly declared by several Popes if I say this denyal convince not the denyers and such denyers as the said Congregation in this Country and Conjuncture of a design or desire or pleasure or contentedness to leave still the roots or seeds of new disturbances of both King and Countrey in the hearts of their beleevers and if I say also F. N. N. himself will not upon more serious reflection acknowledge all this to be true and â—â—ident I am sure all other judicious and knowing men even such as are â—iâ—interested wholy in the quarrel and not his partisans will That finally what I have to say is That whosoever is designed by him to be per stringed in or by this last pretence of furthering this dispute to the disturbance of both King and country may answer F. N. N. what the Prophet Elias did Achab on the like occasion Non ego turbavi Israel sic 〈◊〉 demâ—â— Patris tui 3 Reg. 18.18 qui â—ereliquistis mandata Domini secuti estis Bealim And 〈◊〉 that nâ—â— such person alone who ever chiefly perhaps intended nor his few other associates only perstringed likewise by F. N. N. and congregation in this perclose of their Paper but the poor afflicted Church of Ireland generally as it compriseth all beleevers of both sorts and sexes Ecclesiastical and Lay-persons of the Roman Communion nay but the Catholick Church of Christ universally throughout the world hath cause enough already and will I fear have much more yet to say as well to him and the Congregation as to all such other preposterous defenders of her interests what Iacob said to Simeon and Levi Gen. 34.30 upon the sack of Sichem Turbastis me â—diosum fecistis me Chananaeis Pherezaeis habitatoribus terrae hujus And more I have not to say here on this subject of infallibility But leave the Reader that expects more on that question or this dispute in it self directly and as it abstracts from the present indirect consideration to turn over to the last Treatise of this Book Where he shall find more at large and directly to that purpose what I held not so proper for this place Though I confess it was the paper of those unreasonable reasons the answers to which I now conclude here that gave me the first occasion to add that sixth and last piece as upon the same occasion I have the fifth also immediately following this fourth Only I must add by way of good advice to F. N. N That if he or the Congregation or both or any for them will reply to these answers or to what I have before said in my second or third Treatise on their Remonstrance and three first Propositions or even in my first though a bare Narrative only and matter of notorious fact related and if they will have such reply to be home indeed it cannot be better so than by their signing the 15. following Propositions Which to that purpose I have my self drawn and had publickly debated for about a moneth together in another but more special Congregation of the most learned men of this Kingdom and their own Religion held even in that very house where the former sate and immediatly after they were dissolved The Fourteen PROPOSITIONS of F. P. W. Or the doctrine of Allegiance which the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland may with a safe Conscience and at this time ought in prudence to subscribe unanimously and freely as that onely which can secure His Majestie of them as much as hand or subscription can and that onely too which may answer the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion and by consequence of the toleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State 1. Prop. HIS Majestie CHARLES the Second King of England is true and lawful King Supream Lord and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland and of all other His Majesties Dominions and all the Subjects or people as well Ecclesiastick as Lay of His Majesties said Kingdoms or Dominions are obliged under pain of sin to obey His Majestie in all Civil and Temporal affairs 2. His said Majestie hath none but God alone for Superiour or who hath any power over him Divine or Human Spiritual or Temporal Direct or indirect ordinary or extraordinary de facto or de jure in his temporal rights throughout all or any of his Kingdoms of England Ireland Scotland and other Dominions annexed to the Crown of England 3. Neither the Pope hath nor other Bishops of the Church joyntly or severally have any right or power or authority that is warrantable by the Catholick Faith or Church not even in case of Schisme Heresie or other Apostacy nor even in that of any private or publick oppression whatsoever to deprive depose or dethrone His said Majestie or to raise his Subjects whatsoever of His Majesties foresaid Kingdoms or Dominions in Warr Rebellion or Sedition against him or to dispense with them in or absolve them from the tye of their sworn Allegiance or from that of their otherwise natural or legal duty of obedient faithful Subjects to His Majestie whether they be sworn or not 4. Nor can any sentence of deprivation excommunication or other censure already given or hereafter to be given nor any kind of Declaration dispensation or even command whatsoever proceeding even from the Pope or other spiritual authority of the Church warrant His Subjects or any of them in conscience to rebel or to lessen any way His said Majesties said Supream Temporal and Royal rights in any of his said Kingdoms or Dominions or over any of his people 5. It is against the doctrine of the Apostles and practice of the primitive Church to pretend that there is a natural or inhere at right in the people themselves as Subjects or members of the civil common-wealth or of a civil Society to take arms against their Prince in their own vindication or by such means to redress their own either pretended or true grievances
think the adhering to such Agreements were a sin Landorpius 1598. And though at the commencement of the Peace 'twixt Matthias Caesar and the Protestants there was some opposition at first made by Melinus the Nuncio Apostolick and by the Bishop of Vienna yet publish'd they no Excommunication nor other Censures which notwithstanding they should if none could in Conscience adhere to a Peace giving so much power and liberty to Protestants Whereas therefore the Supreme Council and Confederate Catholicks have in a miserable condition articled more honourably and securely for the Faith even in a Cessation than Caesars and Monarchs who commanded Mines of Gold and had vast Armies at their beck have done concluding either Cessations or Peace and whereas great utility arising thence to the Catholick cause besides the extream necessity of the affairs of the Kingdom pressed your Honours to it either of which to wit profit or necessity is sufficient to make conscionable a Cessation Peace or League with Hereticks as the Lord Nuncio himself admitteth in some of his Letters to your Lordships and no man of Learning hath ever yet denied nor can deny with reason and whereas likewise the Articles contain nothing evil of its own nature or present circumstances but rather much to the advancement of Religion and Virtue how can the said Cessation for the whole or any part be against Religion unless peradventure we admit a truth of contradictories in point of Cessation and Religion How in it any just ground for Excommunication since this ground is not but where sin is and these Articles are so far from being sinful as no Confederate Catholick can reject the Cessation without mortal sin both that of disobedience against the Supreme Civil power in a civil business of so great weight and of perjury against his Oath which binds him to obey their orders nay nor these who embraced it can without a third mortal sin which is that of breach of fidelity even with Sectaries in a matter of moment and where the object implies no evil Shall they then be excommunicated for not committing so many mortal sins for practising the acts of virtues opposite It is an untollerable Errour to think it Neither do they weaken these our grounds who object the Declaration made by the Lord Nuncio and Congregation against the Cessation and before it was concluded as though it were unlawful after that Declaration which before was conscionable for who sees not but the said Declaration as is manifest in the words of it did presuppose unlawfulness in the nature of that agreement which was then to be made and that therefore it was issued to admonish the people and divert them from it which was in it self thought evil not evil by reason of any protestation or manifestation made thereof by the Clergy who certainly by no means would confess it was their own Declaration that made it unlawful Whence further is consequent That since we have proved it implieth no evil in it self or before the Declaration issued so it cannot by vertue of the Declaration Besides this Declaration was no command and therefore in case the Prelates had a just ground for it could not make that unlawful which before was lawful Moreover it shall appear in our answer to the next Querie That the Cessation concluded was not the same against which the Declaration issued and consequently could not be made unlawful by it Neither likewise is it worth the regarding what is unreasonably objected of two Counties given by the Council and by vertue of this Cessation to Inchiquin namely Waterford and Kierry It is manifest to all Ireland there was nothing left him but far less by two whole Counties than he commanded or had under contribution before this agreement was made For the Confederates have gotten from him the Counties of Limerick and Tipperary both which were wholly over-run at his pleasure and contributed lower Ormond only excepted The Second Querie answered THat by what we hitherto said is proved That your Honours for disannulling the said monitory Excommunication and Interdict needed not at least in foro poli to have made any appeal since they were altogether groundless and hence not only unjust but also invalid even of their own nature and in themselves before any appeal Which briefly may be declared out of the two plain Errors contained in the sentence of these Censures and in the proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and Delegates as we humbly conceive and with reverence to their Lordships One is that in the sentence of Excommunication and Interdict there is relation to the former Articles against which the Declaration was made at first but were after mended with better in their place as we have already touched and yet as if the Cessation had been concluded on such rejected Articles the Censures proceed against it Which is an Error in the substance of the matter prohibited or commanded And consequently disannulling it if there had been no other cause forasmuch as it might be said to concern the Cessation actually now in being The second is an Error properly called intollerable though not juris but facti not patenter expressus according to the phrase of the Law in words but too too evident in effect and in that which the sentence both commands and prohibits which by the consent of Canons (z) c. Venerabilibus §. potest quoque de sentent excom in 6. cap. Per tuas §. Nos igitur ext cod tit Tol. l. 1. c. x. Candidus disq 22. a. 24. de Cens dub 3. ubi citat Sotum in 4. d. 12. q. 1. a. 2. Sua. in tom 5. de Cen disp 4. sect 7. n. 32. Ubi etiam habet quod quando Censura est sic nulla in utroque foro now est necessarjuin petere absolutionem ad cautciam hic etium Heniq l. 13. de excom c. 15. Sayrus l. 1. de Cens cap. 16 c. and Doctors renders the sentence of no force yea in case it were only an intollerable Error of fact specially when it enjoins the commission of sin 'T is That the said Sentence and Censures prohibit in effect and against the Laws of God Fidelity in lawful Promises Religion in Sacred Oaths and Obedience to the Supreme Civil power in matters concerning the Temporal government and of their own nature and by all right depending of Civil Jurisdiction and in which as we have sufficiently manifested in the first Querie no sin is implied That likewise they commanded breach of Faith Perjury and Disobedience yea we may boldly say it as we wofully feel it Sedition and Rebellion against the Kingdom and Confederacy Whence it is manifestly consequent that the Censures were invalid even before the Appeal But in case we admitted these Censures to have been valid until the Appeal or that they would be valid and binding after the ninth day which was the last of the dayes given for admonishment and deliberation if within the term prefixed by the
for such proceedings and Censures cannot be either justly or validly but from persons who are Judges in the case and whose Jurisdiction is not suspended in the same cause Hence is manifest That the Lord Nuncio â—s renovation and confirmation in his Apostles refutatories of his former sentence his execution of the Interdict and all other his proceedings against any of the Confederates on this ground and since the Appeal are unjust and invalid for what either concerns Conscience or the Canons do determine Which is further proved out of cap. Dilectis filiis 55. de Appellat § Quia vero Where Innocent the III. decreed against the Dean of Altisiodorum for having proceeded to the execution of an Interdict notwithstanding and after an Appeal made to Rome The reason of which Decree the Pope gives in these words Cum Appellatione ad fidem Apostolicam interposit a nihil debuerit innovari Where likewise he declares for the same reason That the Excommunication pronounced by the Archbishop of Sein or Senonensis against the same Dean and denunciation made to have been of no force from the beginning and that the said Archbishops Canons did without guilt notwithstanding the denunciation communicate with the Dean so censured and lastly that all proceedings attempted after the Appeal were in themselves void as he does by his Decree disannul them yielding for reason that the accessory is of the same nature with the principal which we have before touched Can we desire any more Canons more pertinent or fitting our purpose it's needless we alledge them though many more we have But because peradventure besides these Tears of Law the sense of Doctors may yet be expected let the Authors seen in the opposit margin (e) Candidus disq 22. art 39. dub 4. ubi citat Lopez par 2. tr de clavibus cap. 12. Pal. in 4. d. S. q. 1. art 4. con 2. Sayrum lib. 1. de Censur cap. 16. n. â—3 Bonac too 1. tract de Censur d. 1. q. 2. punc 2. numer 3. Diana P. 5. T. 3. R. 30. Silvester verb. Appellat Hieron Rodriq ibi Porte eod verb. be read and it will be found that the common Doctrine of Summists Divines and Canonists hath hitherto been That a just Appeal of it self and presently when 't is made devolves the cause to a higher Tribunal suspends the sentence given and withal hinders the inferiour Judge from proceeding any further All which the Doctors comprehend in the double effect which they say is necessarily annexed to a just Appeal to wit devolving and suspending Now for a just Appeal (f) Cand. supr disq 3. reliqui apud ipsum Candidus Boâ—acina Sayrus and others commonly affirm two only conditions are necessary The first that it be made with expression of sufficient probable or likely causes or such as the Appellant thinks bona fide are just probable likely or sufficient motives for appealing but that no other expression or of any other causes is acquired And truly with the Doctors herein the very Canons and Glosses do concur cap. ut debitus (g) Cap. Bonae memoriae §. Praemissâ—s extr de Appel Praemissis igitur diligenter inspectis praedictoâ— Aâ—batem Monachos in eum statum in quo tempore Appellationis lactae ex versimilibus probabilibus ad nos legitime interpositae nostuntur proprietatis parti uttilibet salvo Jure decernimus reducendos ac fructus mediâ— temporis perceptos câ—nsuimus parâ—â—r assignandos eisdem verb. ex rationabili ext de Appellat cap. Dilectis filiis 55. verb. Legitime eod tit cap. Cordi nobis eod tit in 6. often in the case of the Glos and c. Bona memoria § Praemissis ext eod tit where Innocentius III. clearly determines the Appeal to be just and the causes of the Appeal to be sufficient when it is made ex probabilibus aut verisimilibus that is when they are probable or seeming true though indeed they be not in themselves true It sufficeth therefore sayes the Glosse (h) Glossa ibid. Sufficit ergo quod sit probabilis causa Appellationis licet non sit vera vel necessaria Talis videlicet debet esse quod si esset probata legitima esset tunc valet Appellatiâ— further declaring this matter that the cause of Appeal seem probable though it be not certain or true It is enough it be such as being proved may seem lawful for then the Appeal is valid The very same in effect is affirmed by Glossa in cap. Cordi nobis (i) Glossa in cap. Cordi nobis de Appellat in 6. Causa rationabilis ad appellandum aâ— interloquutoria vel gravamine aliquo illa est quae si esset vera deberet legitima reputari aut quae si esset vera necessario inferret appellantem fuisse gravatum de Appellat in 6. as may be read in the margin The second condition necessary and which accomplisheth a just Appeal is that it be made and tendered to the Judge from whom before the dayes prefixed for admonishment or the condition be fulfilled when the Appeal is from a conditional Excommunication Censure or sentence as that against the adherents to the Cessation was or at least within the time limited for entring Appeals That both conditions have been observed punctually in the Appeal made by the Council in their own and in the name of all the rest of the Confederates is apparent to all have read it who have weighed the motives therein expressed and noted the dates both of it and of the sentence against which it was interposed this having been of the 27th of May 1648. and that of the last of the same month dispatch'd away presently to their Lordships the Nuncio and his Delegates But of the second condition there is no controversie All the question is of the first that is Whether the causes or motives of the Appeal were sufficient Yet even herein we see no difficulty Doubtless the Council and many Thousands more of the Confederates were persuaded bona fide that the Nuncio proceeded with due observation of his Lordship may it be said unjustly and that they had expressed before his Lordship most just motives to appeal from his Censures and complain to his Holiness of such proceeding Which bona fides alone would suffice us for securing our own Consciences in opposing his sentence and in hindring to our power the execution of his Censures and all his other proceedings on the same ground yea though the motives were only just in the opinion of the Appellants Which is the doctrine of Authors now cited and must be of all Divines who generally teach and it is in it self most certain and taught us by natural reason That the immediate and next Rule according to which we must square our actions in matters of Fact and cases of Conscience is our own proper bona fides and opinion However this be of our bona fides whether we had it or
no yet doubtless even the Lord Nuncio and Delegates will not deny but the causes expressed in the Appeal are probable or likely or such as if they can be proved to be true will be thought sufficient There is no man of judgment hath ever yet seen or will see the Appeal that can or will deny this And if so how could it be rejected in foro exteriori as unjust whereas it hath the conditions prescribed by the Doctors Canons and Glosses for a just Appeal the one to have been made in due time and the other to have expressed in it motives which may seem in facie Ecclesiae to be probable likely or such as being proved would be thought lawful For that of bona fides mentioned by some of the Divines is not required by them but only for securing the interiour Conscience of the Appellant and not for any thing might concern the exteriour Tribunal wherein judgment is not given of the interiour opinion or bona fides of the Appellant but of that which appears exteriourly as of the causes expressed in the Appeal c. which if secundum allegata probata they be found true the Judge ad quem to whom only it belongs will give sentence for the Appeal whether in the mean time the interiour opinion of the Appellant was a bona fides or no. For of the interiour God alone is Judge not the Church And this is the reason why the Canons and Glosses speaking of the reasonableness and justice of the causes which being expressed makes the Appeal just require only such motives as seem probable or true though in themselves they be not true or such as being proved to wit before the Judge ad quem would make the Appeal lawful and say nothing of the bona fides conceiving this to be impertinent and not belonging to the external Court of judgment which they do chiefly regard Yet because the bona fides of the Appellants may be sufficiently conjectured out of the probability likelihood or evidence of the motives expressed in the Appeal who can doubt that knows the state of Ireland and looks on our condition with an indifferent eye but the Council and Confederates had not only probable motives but even reasons in themselves and before the World most evidently just which necessitated them to make their address to His Holiness and throw themselves into His protection though for point of Conscience this was needless from the violent proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and his either Delegates or Sub-delegates as being for private ends opposite to the advancement of Religion and of the common Cause destructive of the Kingdom and illegally thwarting the Supreme Civil power of the Confederates by drawing the people in as much as in them lie to Sedition and Rebellion All which motives and many more your Honours expressed at large in your Appeal and their truth may be manifestly inferred out of our sad condition the great necessity the Countrey stood in of a Cessation and the no less utility might be derived from it for the Catholick Cause as your Honours of the Council declared in your said Appeal and we have shewed in our answer to the first Querie Unto which motives may yet be added according to the power for adding your Lordships reserved to your selves in your Appeal what is consequent out of them and out of other particulars expressed in the Appeal videlicet That your Honours and the rest of the Confederates were commanded on pain of Excommunication and Interdict not to adhere unto a Cessation concluded upon actually and from which neither you nor they could fall without omission of most vertuous acts Fidelity in performance of Promises Religion in sacred Oaths and Disobedience to Authority nor without commission of sinful acts unfaithfulness in Contracts Perjury in Oaths and disobedience to Authority From which likewise you could not fall without extremely endamaging and hazarding the Commonwealth by reason of the strength and multitude of enemies which that Cessation rejected would on all sides come upon us besides the judgments of God would hang over us for our perfidiousness (k) See both in Sacred and Prophane Histories the dreadful punishments that attended alwayes the breach of Publick Faith and Perfidiousness See in the 2d of Kings 2â— how Heaven pursued with vengeance the King and whole Kingdom of Israel for having broken Faith with the Gibeonites though no less than a Hundred years since the Covenant made with them Josh 9. yea and though in that Covenant the Gibeonites used subtlety and were by profession Infidels Were not the chosen people and Nation of God for this breach of Faith scourged with an universal Famine even in the dayes of holy King David propter Saul domum ejus sanguinum quia occidit Gabeonitas And notwithstanding so many Thousands starved to death by this Famine was the Divine wrath appeased until Seven of his Sons who brake the League were resigned over by King David to the pleasure of the offended Gibeonites and were Crucified alive by them upon a Mount before the face of God Et dedit eos in manus Gabaâ—nitorum qui cruc fierunt eos in monto coram Domino repropitiatus est Deus torrae post hac See in the 36 of Paralipâ—m the deplorable fate of the unfortunate King Sedecias and of his Kingdom for having contrary to promise made renounced his Allegiance broken League with and taken Arms against Nabuchadnezzaâ— the Monarch of Babylon A â—ege quoquo Nabuchadâ—â—sâ—â— recesserat qui adjuraverat eum per Deum Was not his Kingdom therefore utterly destroyed the holy City râ—zed the Temple of God burn'd the miserable King deprived of those eyes wherewith before he beheld the Covenant broken finally his Countrey planted with Aliens and both himself and the remainder of his people translated to Babylon for to lead the life of Slaves in a long Captivity of 70 years Yet Sedecias was drawn to this breach of Peace through causes no less specious than Nebuchadnezzar's Idolatry in Religion and Tyranny in his Government of the elect Nation of God See in Gregory Sceidius and in Knolls's Turkish History the formidable event of a Cessation or Ten years Truce broken formerly concluded 'twixt Vladislaus the Christian Catholick King of Hungary and Amwâ—ath the Turkish Monarch but broken by the Christian King soon after 't was published by the persuasions and overmuch importunity of part of the Clergy specially of Julian the Florentine Cardinal then Legate Apostolick in the Kingdom of Hungary who needs would dispense in the Oath interchangeably taken by Christians and Turks for observing the Cessation Alas how late came repentance when the poor Hurgâ—rians beheld their valiant and good Vladislaus slain before their faces in the Battel of Varra their Nobility slaughtered â—â—lian himself with oâ—her Authors of this misfortune all naked covered only with blood and yielding the ghost their Army ever before this faithless dealing victorious totally destroyed and
are to be alledged (o) This only and no more for what concerns this matter can be deduced out of c. Pastoralis §. verum de appellat cap. Legitima eod Gloss § Legitima in 6. c. Romana eod §. quod si objiciatur Glossa ibid. §. Vera Nota insuper c. cum appellat eod See all this confirmed by c. Interposra de appellationibus extr where it appears sufficiently though it be for the contrary opinion produced that the validity of an Appeal is to be proved before the Judge ad quem For the case of the said Chapter is One appealed who expressed only a probable cause in his appeal The question was whether it were sufficient for the Appellant to prove before the Judge to whom that his cause was probable although perhaps not true And it was resolved That he ought to prove it to be both probable and true unless he offered of his own accord to prove this truth before the Judge from whom and yet was not heard for in this case it is enough he prove before the Judge ad quera that the cause of his Appeal was probable though not true In which question and answer made by the Pope there is not a word for the adversaries but much to our purpose as appears by the Glosse partly and partly by these words nisi hoc se offerens probaturem c. Whence is gathered that he had no obligation to prove it before the Judge a quo but what was done by him was of his own accord not by any tye of the Law At least we may confidently say that nothing may be inferred against us out of this Chapter Nay this Text speaks in case the Appellant even before he enters his Appeal do offer to prove his allegations to be true and not after the Appeal is made as appears in the Glosse there and by the Glossa of cap. Si a Judic verb. teneris de appellat in 6. ibi per Dominic which the common pâ—actice proveth Whence further is manifest that there is no obligation by this Chapter to prove before the Judge a quo the truth of the appeal since questionless before in given in there can be no such obligation therein and before the Judge from whom though not their truth to be proved before him or that when the Judge is refused or excepted against or to speak the terms of the Law when there is a recusation of him not an Appeal that then the recusatorie exceptions are to be proved before Arbiters given by the Judge and chosen by common consent of the Plaintiff and Defendant It is in this case of recusation that cap. cum speciali de appellat extra and cap. Legitima eod tit in 6. speak and not in case of Appeal which is far different from the former It is true that the Judge a quo hath so many dayes allowed him by the Canons to consider what kind of apostles he is to give and that in admitting or rejecting the Appeal he doth in so much ex animi sui opinione out of his own private opinion judge of its probability or improbability yet followeth it not hence that he giveth any juridical or binding sentence or judgment of the Causes obliging either before God or the World the Conscience of the Appellant For the giving of the apostles is nothing else but a bare answer to the Appeal which the Law permits him to give either dimissory or refutatory that is either admitting or rejecting the Appeal either right or wrong but at his own peril if he give not a right answer and admit the Appeal when it is from a just and probable grievance and hath in it expressed probable Causes the Law providing likewise for the liberty and safety of the Appellant that whatsoever answer this be he is not bound to conform himself to it if it be to his disadvantage since he hath once lawfully appealed or with expression of reasonable Causes and since this Judge from whom hath no power to summon him nor to examine Witnesses nor to form any Process concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Causes expressed which power notwithstanding for to summon examine form a Process must be supposed in him that is the proper Judge and can give a binding sentence of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Appeal Whence followeth that they say nothing to purpose who object That the Lord Nuncio and Bishops did not conceive such pressing necessity for concluding the Cessation or such great profit to arise thence which are the prime reasons alledged in the Appeal for excepting against the Censures but rather that it was fixed on with intention to bring in the late rejected Peace and for other consequences following that business and consequently that they conceived no truth in the Causes alledged For in case we did grant their suspitions to be true before God as they are not yet nothing hence may be inferr'd for disproving the lawfulness of the Appeal in foro exteriori wherein only they proceed since they cannot deny but the Causes alledged are such as if they can be proved they ought to be thought lawful and since they are not to be Judges herein as hath been now seen by so many Canons Glosses and Reasons and lastly since we are bona fide persuaded of the probability if not evidence of our motives nay though we had no bona fides interiourly but only seemed exteriourly to have it And verily this Answer satisfieth (p) This great opposition and seeming alteration of judgment in the Lord Nuncio must be very strange to such as know that it appears out of Letters and Messages from his Lordship to the Council which are on Record how his Lordship about the first of March when there was but a bare report of a Cessation to be made with the Parliamentary Scots desired the Council that business to wit the Cessation with the Scots should go on for that he expected a blessing thence not only to this but also to other Kingdoms Nay a little before Inchiquyn was declared for His Majesty did not he approve a Cessation to be made even with him What is the reason of so much desire expressed for making a Cessation with the Parliamentary Scots rather than with Inchiquyn or others or why with I chiquyn himself when he was for the Parliament and not much more now when he is for the King Neither doth the Lord Nuncio's answer seem in any wise to satisfie where he sayes in another of his Letters to excuse this that his intention in his former Letters or Messages was to have an accomodation or league made with him not a Cessation For who is it conceives not that a Cessation of Arms with Sectaries must be conscionable even by the Lord Nuncio's own concession and no just ground for Excommunication if an Accomodation or League be lawful since the Cessation of its own nature brings along withâ—t less communication with
give their own way any other than extrinsecal probability even this extrinsecal probability now ceasing where the reasons to the contrary are so manifestly insoluble and an Errour with reverence still to their dignities proved in their proceedings and sentence for what concerns Conscience since they have no power to make it an Article of our Belief that the Cessation is against Conscience Nay this Controversie being wholly or principally depending on a question of Fact cannot by any power on earth be so defined Vid. Bellarm. supra but that it may be lawful to follow the contrary opinion which defends it to be conscionable The Third Querie answered TO the Third That your Lordships printed Answers to the Propositions of the Lord Nuncio are not so short or unsatisfactory in any point as they might afford just ground for an Excommunication The reasons of which resolution are apparent in our Answers to the two former Questions and likewise hence That the Lord Nuncio in his Propositions inserted nothing but what did meerly belong to the Civil Government wherein notwithstanding if any Errour could be declared to have been committed your Lordships were content upon manifestation thereof to amend it or else what was provided for sufficiently before those Propositions were offered The Fourth Querie answered THat whereas the Oath of Association tyes all the Confederates to be dutifully obedient and observant of your Lordships just Orders and Decrees and whereas in our Answer to the first Querie it is sufficiently proved That the present Cessation is most just and lawful and by consequence your Orders and Decrees commanding the Confederates to accept and obey the Cessation must be just it follows That disobedience to such your Lordships Commands in not adhering to the Cessation is Perjury The Fifth Querie answered THat if it shall be found that the Excommunication and Interdict of the Lord Nuncio is against the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and which the Prelates have sworn by the Oath of Association to maintain it is not lawful for them to publish or countenance the said Censures contrary to your Lordships positive Orders Neither do we see how can any of the Prelates otherwise answer if they condemn not the Oath of Association of injustice and themselves of having done ill in taking or approving it The Sixth Querie answered Bonac tom â— d. 4. q. 1. pun ultim n. 8. citans Suar. c. 41. Sanch. l. 1. de Matr. dis 32. Filluc tra 23. c. 9. q. 10. nu 279. IT being the common sense of Divines that in an Oath lawfully taken for the good and profit of another none can dispense without his privity and consent unto whom it was sworn but in certain cases exprest by the Authors cited in the margent and the Oath of Association being in it self lawful and sworn to the Kingdom for the publick good of the Nation and of each Confederate in particular certainly a dispensation cannot be given to any person or parties of the Confederates to break the said Oath or to take away the obligation of it without the consent of the Assembly unto which by a special clause of the said Oath and this is to be well noted the alteration or dissolution of the Oath is reserved none of the cases excepted by Authors having place in this matter Wherefore if any other of what power soever though it were His Holiness did otherwise attempt to dispense with any of the sworn Confederates both the Dispenser and dispensed would hereby transgress the Law of God and incur the guilt of a mortal and most heinous crime Besides that such a dispensation would be of its own nature invalid void and no way securing for the future the Conscience of the dispensed and consequently this party dispensed withall must of necessity as often as he makes use of such a dispensation so many times commit a mortal sin the Dispenser likewise and without question participating by his first action of the same evils All and every branch and particular of which resolution followeth by necessary inference out of the common and certain doctrine of Classick Authors who without controversie teach That the obligation of a lawful Oath is in a weighty matter under mortal sin and de jure divino by the Law divine natural and positive and that even His Holiness cannot without a manifestly just cause Vid. Bonaci tract de legi disp 1. q. 2. pu 3. prop. 2. nu 14. 15. uâ—i citâ—t Reginal Sanch. Sal. Valeâ— Toâ—e Vasq Cajet Sylv. Nava Sotum c. dispense in any obligation of the Law divine and that if he should otherwise his dispensation would be in it self void sinful and no way securing the Conscience of the party dispensed withal Which doctrine they make evident with many strong and perspicuous reasons unnecessary to be now rehearsed and specially declare it out of Holy Scripture 2 Cor. 13.10 where St. Paul tells That Christ consigned his power unto the Prelates of the Church non in destructionem sed in aedificationem not for destruction but for edification But who sees not that this power would be abused for destruction and not for edification if on pretence of it and without a manifestly just cause dispensations should be granted in the Law divine positive and natural And who is it that looks on the Confederates and their present condition with an impartial eye but will conceive that there cannot be a just cause for dispensing with them or particulars of them in their Oath of Association or with them in their obedience due by the said Oath to the Government established First In regard the sole cause pretended is the Cessation made and observed with Inchiquyn which we have notwithstanding proved to have been lawful necessary profitable and much to the advancement of the Catholick cause were it obeyed by refractories and per consequence of the glory of God How then could it be a just cause for dispensing with any in the Oath of Association or in the obedience due by the said Oath to all Orders of the Supreme Council or all such Orders as do not manifestly appear to be sinful Secondly Because such a dispensation breeds Sedition stirs Rebellion commenceth a Civil War and divides the Confederates into Parties throws fire and blood into their very entrals and by their own hands finally weakens them so by these wayes of mutual enmities and hostilities as hereby in reason they should be thought to be exposed as a prey to the common enemy of our Religion specially their disability when they were entire being considered and the prime scope of their Confederacy which is the propagation and glory of Catholick Religion very unlikely to be attained but rather despaired of Is there any one knows Ireland but should in reason have persuaded himself That all these evils should have followed such a dispensation if God did not prevent them by a miracle and on miracles we are not S. Tho. Val. Sanch. Lessi
strong motives and moral certainties produced before in our Answer to the second Querie and which we may have to persuade us that the Supreme Council who are chiefly aimed at in this business had no such evil intentions Which together with all hitherto said being duly pondered by them who now seem so adverse to us in opinion but by them discharged a little of passion retyring into their Souls and looking with an eye of indifferency upon this difference we doubt not but they will acknowledge before God the truth of our Assertions and with how little reason but great hazard of eternal salvation they disobey the Commands of the Supreme Council on pretence of the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and we hope as we most heartily desire with all our Souls that they or at least such of them as have an affection to Loyalty and a true zeal of Gods cause will by their unfeigned and repentant submission to the Supreme Authority established by the Kingdom make happy these Answers labour'd as the shortness of time did permit for their conversion and satisfaction of all good Patriots by DAVID Bishop of OSSORY F John Roe Provincial of the Excal Carmelites Nicholas Taylor Doctor of Divinity William Shergoli Professor of Divinity Prebend of Houth and Vic. For. of Fingal Fr John Barnwall Lector of Divinity Fa Simon Wafer Lector of Divinity F Peter Walsh Lector of Divinity Luke Cowley Archdeacon of Ossory and Protonotary Apostolick Laurence Archbold Vic. For. in the Deaneries of Brea Tawney and Glandalagh F Christopher Plunket Guardian of St. Francis Convent in Dublin Fa John Dormer Guardian of St. Francis 's Order at Castle-dermot Fr Bonaventure Fitz-Gerald Guardian of Kildare F Laurence Matthews Preses of Carmel Kilken F Laur. a sancto Bernardo Paul Nash Prebend John Shee Prebend of Main James Sedgrave FINIS THE FIRST APPENDIX CONTAINING Some of those PUBLICK Instruments related unto PARTLY IN THE QUERIES AND PARTLY In several places of the precedent WORK or in the Four Treatises of this FIRST TO ME. VIZ. I. The Oath of Association or that which was the essential tye of the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ireland as such according to that Form wherein it was taken or renewed in the year 1644. II. The Lord Nuncio's Excommunication and Interdict by him and his Fellow Delegates or Sub-Delegates fulminated on the 27th of May 1648. against the Adherers to the Cessation made with Inchiquin III. The Supreme Councils Appeal interposed on the 31 of May the same year to His Holiness Pope Innocent X. from the said Censures Nuncio and His Fellow Delegates c. IV. The Articles of the Second Peace or of that on the 27th of the following January same year 1648. according to the old English computation but the 7th of February 1649. according to the new Roman stile concluded betwixt His Majesty CHARLES I. and the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ireland by James Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Special Commissioner for His Majesty in treating and concluding that Peace V. The Declaration of the Archbishops Bishops and other Irish Prelates at Jamestown 12 Aug. 1650. against the said Marquess Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of Ireland wherein they assume to themselves the Regal Power restore again the Confederacy declare the said Marquess devested of all power c. VI. The Excommunication of the same date fulminated by the same Irish Archbishops Bishops and others against all persons whatsoever obeying any more or at any time thenceforth the said Marquess however the King 's Lieutenant Printed in the Year M.DC.LXXIII The Preamble to the Oath of Association WHEREAS the Roman-Catholicks of this Kingdom of Ireland have been enforced to take Arms for the necessary defence and preservation as well of their Religion plotted and by many foul practices endeavoured to be quite suppressed by the Puritan Faction as likewise of their Lives Liberties and Estates and also for the defence and safeguard of His Majesties Regal Power just Prerogatives Honour State and Rights invaded upon and for that it is requisite That there should be an unanimous Consent and real Union between all the Catholicks of this Realm to maintain the Premisses and strengthen them against their Adversaries It is thought fit by them That they and whosoever shall adhere unto their Party as a Confederate should for the better assurance of their adhering fidelity and constancy to the Publick Cause take the ensuing Oath The Oath of Association I A. B. do profess swear and protest before God and his Saints and Holy Angels That I will during life bear true Faith and Allegiance to my Sovereign Lord CHARLES by the Grace of God King of Great Britain France and Ireland and to His Heirs and lawful Successors and that I will to my power during my life defend uphold and maintain all His and their just Prerogatives Estates and Rights the power and priviledge of the Parliament of this Realm the fundamental Laws of Ireland the free exercise of the Roman-Catholick Faith and Religion throughout all this Land and the Lives just Liberties Possessions Estates and Rights of all those that have taken or shall take this Oath and perform the Contents thereof And that I will obey and ratifie all the Orders and Decrees made and to be made by the Supreme Council of the Confederate Catholicks of this Kingdom concerning the said Publick Cause And that I will not seek directly or indirectly any Pardon or Protection for any Act done or to be done touching the General Cause without the consent of the major part of the said Council And that I will not directly or indirectly do any Act or Acts that shall prejudice the said Cause but will to the hazard of my Life and Estate assist prosecute and maintain the same So help me God and his Holy Gospel By the General Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks of Ireland Kilkenny July 26. 1644. Upon full debate this day in open Court Assembly it is unanimously declared by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Knights and Burgesses of this House That the Oath of Association as it is already penned of Record in this House and taken by the Confederate Catholicks is full and binding without addition of any other words thereunto And it is ordered That any person or persons whatsoever who have taken or hereafter shall take the said Oath of Association and hath or shall declare by word or actions or by persuasions of others That the said Oath or any Branch thereof doth or may admit any equivocation or mental reservation if any such person or persons be shall be deemed a breaker of his and their Oath respectively and adverse to the General Cause and as a Delinquent or Delinquents for such offence shall be punished And it is further ordered That the several Ordinaries shall take special care that the Parish-Priests within their respective Diocesses shall publish and declare That any person or persons who hath or shall take
said Articles and before the said Publication shall not be accompted taken or construed or be Treason Felony or other offence to be excepted out of the said Act of Oblivion Provided likewise That the said Act of Oblivion shall not extend unto any person or persons that will not obey and submit unto the Peace concluded and agreed on by these Articles Provided further That the said Act of Oblivion or any in this Article contained shall not hinder or interrupt the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them to call to an account and proceed against the Council and Congregation and the respective Supreme Councils Commissioners General appointed hitherto from time to time by the Confederate Catholicks to manage their affairs or any other person or persons accomptable to an account for their respective Receipts and disbursments since the beginning of their respective employments under the said Confederate Catholicks or to acquit or release any arrears of Excises Customs or Publick Taxes to be accompted for since the Three and Twentieth of October 1641. and not disposed of hitherto to the Publick use but that the Parties therein concerned may be called to an account for the same as aforesaid by the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them the said Act or any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding XIX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That an Act be passed in the next Parliament prohibiting That neither the Lord Deputy or other chief Governour or Governours Lord Chancellor Lord High Treasurer Vice-Treasurer Chancellor or any of the Barons of the Exchequer Privy Council or Judges of the Four Courts be Farmers of His Majesties Customs within this Kingdom XX. Item It is likewise concluded accorded and agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That an Act of Parliament pass in this Kingdom against Monopolies such as was Enacted in England 21 Jacobi Regis with a further Clause of Repealing of all Grants of Monopolies in this Kingdom and that Commissioners be agreed upon by the said Lord Lieutenant and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them to set down the Rates for the custom and imposition to be laid on Aquavitae Wine Oyl Yearn and Tobacco XXI Item It is concluded accorded and agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That such persons as shall be agreed on by the said Lord Lieutenant and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them shall be as soon as may be authorized by Commission under the Great Seal to regulate the Court of Castle-Chamber and such causes as shall be brought into and censured in the said Court XXII Item It is concluded accorded and agreed upon and His Majesty is graciously pleased That Two Acts lately passed in this Kingdom the one prohibiting the plowing with Horses by the Tail and the other prohibiting the burning of Oats in the straw be Repealed XXIII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased For as much as upon application of Agents from this Kingdom unto His Majesty in the Fourth year of His Reign and lately upon humble suit made unto His Majesty by a Committee of both Houses of the Parliament of this Kingdom some order was given by His Majesty for redress of several Grievances and for so many of those as are not expressed in the Articles whereof both Houses in the next ensuing Parliament shall desire the benefit of His Majesties said former directions for redresses therein that the same be afforded them yet so as for prevention of inconveniencies to His Majesties service that the warning mentioned in the Four and twentieth Article of the Graces in the Fourth year of His Majesties Reign be so understood that the warning being left at the persons Dwelling-houses be held sufficient warning and that as to the Two and twentieth Article of the said Graces the Process hitherto used in the Court of Wards do still continue as hitherto it hath done in that and hath been used in our English Courts But the Court of Wards being compounded for so much of the aforesaid Answer as concern warning and process shall be omitted XXIV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That Maritime Causes may be determined in this Kingdom without driving of Merchants or others to appeal and seek Justice elsewhere and if it shall fall out that there be cause of an Appeal the Party grieved is to appeal to His Majesty in the Chancery of Ireland and the Sentence thereupon to be given by the Delegates to be definitive and not to be questioned upon any further Appeal except it be in the Parliament of this Kingdom if the Parliament then shall be sitting otherwise not This to be by Act of Parliament And until the said Parliament the Admiralty and Maritime Causes shall be ordered and setled by the said Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being by and with the advice and consent of the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunry Alexander mac Donnel Esq Sir Lucas Dillon Knight Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight Sir Richard Barnewall Baronet Geoffery Browne Donnogh O Callaghane Tirlagh O Neil Miles Reilly and Gerald Fennel Esquires or any seven or more of them XXV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom be eased of all Rents and increase of Rents lately
Navigation the great support of Ireland quite beaten down his Excellency disheartning the Adventurers Vndertakers and Owners as Captain Antonio and others favouring Hollanders and other Aliens by reversing Judgments legally given and indefinitely concluded before his coming to Authority By which depressing of maritime affairs and not providing for an orderly and good Tribunal of Admiralty we have hardly a Bottom left to transmit a Letter to His Majesty or any other Prince ANSWER Here again VVe are charged in general with disheartning Adventurers Undertakers and Owners and no man named but Captain Antonio nor the particular wherein he was disheartned set down We are further charged with reversing of Judgments legally given and definitively concluded before Our coming to Authority but no particular Judgment so reversed is or indeed can be instanced So that all VVe can answer to this part is That it is not true and for what remains That VVe placed the power of Admiralty in this Kingdom according to the Assemblies instance and from time to time gave Commissions to such persons as the Commissioners desired in several parts to hear and determine maritime causes Sixth Article of the Declaration The Church of Cloine in our possession at the time of making the Peace violently taken from Vs by the Lord Inchiquin contrary to the Articles of Peace no Justice or Redress was made upon Application or Complaint ANSWER For Answer to this VVe refer you to Our Answer to the first Article of the pretended Grievances which Article and Answer are as followeth Article viz. The first of those called the Grievances First They have not been suffered to enjoy the Churches and Church-livings which in the time of the perfection of the Articles of Peace they possessed but were after the said Articles made and perfected put forth expelled and still kept out of possession of divers Parish-Churches and their Tythes and Livings and even of some of the Cathedral Churches and many of the Prelates and Pastors hindred from exercising of their respective Jurisdictions and Functions amongst their Flocks and Grants made of some of their Bishopricks and their Livings which sithence the War or the greatest part of it hath been and yet is in the possession of the Catholick Bishops to Protestant Bishops and notwithstanding the Prelates and Clergy in the Counties of Cork and Waterford where chiefly those Grievances happened have made suit for remedy yet have they obtained no redress in their suits nor have they say the Commissioners of Trust in whom the last General Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks of this Nation which concluded the said Peace put their confidence for procuring an effectual compliance with the said Articles and seeing in no point they should be violated or broken in this so important a point concerning the Church given effectual furtherance for recovering their right to the said Prelates and Clergy Answer viz. To that first Article of those called the Grievances First We deny that they if thereby be meant the Roman-Catholick Clergy were not suffered to enjoy the Churches and Church-livings which at the time of perfecting the Articles of Peace they possessed or that by the Articles of Peace they ought to possess And as to the instances made in the Margent the composers of this Article do very well know That their possession of those Churches and Church-livings were flatly denied by the Protestant Clergy And it is very well known to the Commissioners who followed that business with diligence and earnestness enough That We never refused nor delayed to afford them any just means of bringing that Controversie to a final end till at length by Treachery and the Rebels power the Things controverted were lost to both Parties Nor was there any Complaint made unto Us since the conclusion of the Peace till now that the Romish Prelates or Pastors or any of them have been hindred from exercising their respective Jurisdictions and Functions amongst their Flocks except one Complaint made of the Governour of Dungarvan wherein We were ready to have given such Redress upon hearing all Parties as should have been found fit if the said Complaint had been prosecuted We know of no Grant made by His Majesty of any Bishoprick whatsoever since the conclusion of the Peace nor can We find any Article of the Peace that restrains His Majesty from making such Grants so the Roman-Catholick Bishops be not thereby dispossessed of what they were possessed of upon conclusion of the Peace until His Majesty declare His pleasure in a Free Parliament in this Kingdom And whatever His Majesty might intend to declare the making of Protestant Bishops could be no anticipation thereof to the prejudice of the Roman-Catholicks since Bishops are held essentially necessary to the exercise of the Religion of the Church of England Seventh Article of the Declaration That Oblations Book-monies Interments and other Obventions in the Counties of Cork Waterford and Kerry were taken from the Roman-Catholick Priests and Pastors by the Ministers without any redress or restitution ANSWER For this We answer That it was conceived by the Ministers herein mentioned that where they had possession of the Church-livings the Obventions here mentioned were also due to them But whether it were or not sure We are there was never any Complaint made to Us in this particular till Our coming to Tecroghan after the loss of Droghedagh and that within a very little time after before the truth of the Allegation could be examined the Towns of Munster revolted and the business was so decided at least if any difference of this kind continued in the County of Kerry which was longer held We never after Our being at Tecroghan heard of it that We remember Eighth Article of the Declaration That the Catholick Subjects of Munster lived in a slavery under the Presidency of the Lord Inchiquin those being their Judges that before were their Enemies and none of the Catholicks Nobility or Gentry admitted to that Tribunal ANSWER To this VVe answer That no complaint of any such slavery imposed by the said Lord President or Presidency was made to Us but on the contrary That upon his Lordships instance VVe directed Our Letters to him to swear and admit of the Council of that Province the Lord Viscount Roch of Fermoy the Lord Viscount Muskery Major General Patrick Purcell Lieutenant Colonel Gerard fitz Morrice and others all which were written unto by the Lord President to come to him to be sworn accordingly whereof the Lord Muskery Major General Patrick Purcell and Lieutenant Colonel Fitz Morrice were sworn but the rest not coming according to the Letters could not be sworn Ninth Article of the Declaration The conduct of the Army was improvident and unfortunate nothing happened in the Christianity more shameful than the disaster at Rathmines near Dublin where his Excellency as it seemed to ancient Travellers and men of Experience who view'd all kept rather a Mart of Wares a Tribunal of Pleadings or a great Inne of