there by Theodâ—sius and Valentinian signifie no more but an unlawfulness of or by their own human civil Emperial laws and where or in such cases onely as by these laws it was unlawful to subject Ecclesiasticks to the judgment of temporal powers And that these other words temporalium pâ—testatum arbitri as there and as per materiam subjectam restrained have relation solely to and onely import or signifie such temporal powers as all inferiour Magistrats are but in no wise the supream of the Emperours themselves Being so that those Emperours themselves Theodosius and Valentinian by this or any other law nor any other Emperour before them had ever granted such a priviledg to any Clerk or Church as to be wholy exempt from their own proper supream civil and imperial power Nay how farre Clerks were under the Empire of this very Valentinian from such an imaginary priviledg or Exemption from the supream imperial power may be learned out of his welfth law eod tit Novel Valentiniani De Episcopali Judicio diversorum saepe cansatio est Ne ulterius quaerela procedat necesse est praesenti lege sanari Itaque cum inter Clericos jurgium vertitur ipsis litigatoribus convenit habeat Episcapus licentiam judicaâ—di praeeunte tamen uinculo compromissi Quod laicis si consentiant authoritas nostra permittit Aliter eos Iudices esse non patimur nifi â—â—â—â—tas juâ—gantium interposita sicut dictum est conditione praecedat Quoniam constat Episcopos praesbyteâ—os fâ—rum legibus non habere nec de aliis causis secundum Arcadii Honorii Divalia constituta quae Theodosianum Corpus ostendit praeter Religionem posse cognoscere Si ambo ejusdem officii litigatores nolint vel alteruter agant publicis legibus jure communi Sin vero Petitor laicus seu in civili seu criminali causa cujuslibet loci Clericum adversarium suum si id magis eligat per authoritatem legitimam in publico judicio respondere compellat Quam formam etiam circa Episcoporum personam observari oportere censemus c. Where it is plain this Emperour acknowledges no judicial power in Bishops not even over their own very Clerks at variance amongst themselves either in criminal or civil causes nor as much as permits licences or suffers any such judicial power in the Bishop over Clerks but onely when it shall please the Clerks themselves to fix on him and besides shall make a compromise to stand to his judgment quâ—niam constat Episcopos Praesbyteros forum legibus non habere c because sayes that law sayes Valentinian who made that law it is manifest that by the laws Bishops and Priests have no judicatory nor according to the divine constitutions of Arcadius and Honrius can take cognizance of any other causes but of those of Religion And therefore decrees that if the parties at variance being both of the same profession refuse Episcopal audience that is the Bishops judgment or if either of them refuse it they are in such case to try their quarrel by the publick and common laws And further decrees that if the Plantiff being a lay person whatever the cause be against a Clerk civil or criminal shall rather choose this way of publick judgment acccording to the laws that then such Clerk be forced by lawful authority to answer And yet further particularly decrees the same form or method to be observed concerning the persons of Bishops To this law of Valentinian may be added an other long after of those other no less Orthodox Emperours Leo and Anthemius L. omnes 33. c. de Episc Cleric omnes qui ubique sunt vel posthae fuerint Orthodoxae Fidei sacerdotes Clerici cujus cumque gradus fint Monachi quoque in causis civilibus ex nullius penitus majoris minorisve sententia Iudicis commonitoria ad extranea judicia pertrahantur aut Provinciam aut locum aut Regionem quam habitant exire cagantur nullus eorum Ecclesias vel Monasteria propria quae Religionis intuitu habitant relinquere miserabili necessitate jubeatur sed apud suos Iudices ordinarios id est Provinciarum Rectores in quibus locis degunt Ecâ—lesiarum ministeriis obsecundent omniumque contra se agentium excipiant actiones Let not any whoever at present are or hereafter shall be Priests of the Orthodox Faith or Clerks of whatever degree or even Monks be at the pleasure or by a monitory sentence of any greater or lesser Iudg drawn to forraign Iudicatories or forced out of the Province place or Region where they dwell Let none of them be commanded by miserable necessity to relinquish the Churches or Monasteries which for Religions sake they inhabit but in such places as they inhabit in the Ministery of Churches let them before their own ordinary Iudges that is the Rectours of Provinces receive the actions of all such as act against them See Clerks of all degrees whatsoever not subjected to Emperours onely but to the Rectors of Provinces who also are in this law said to be their ordinary Iudges Now whereas the priviledges of Clerks are not read to have been any way lessened or recalled by any laws of former pious Emperours from the times of Theodosius and Valentinian until that of this very Leo and Anthemius but rather by little and little daily enlarged by new indulgences or exemptions given to the Church and notwithstanding such daily enlargement the Rectors of the Provinces were yet under the same Leo and Anthemius the ordinary Iudges of Clerks it is sufficiently evicted that those words before in the foresaid law of Theodosius and Valentinian fas enim non est ut divini muneris Ministri temporalium potestatum subdantur arbitrio were spoke or writ in that same sense we have said already whereas I say the Emperors then held it fas or lawful for themselves to encrease the priviledges of Clerks and also at their own pleasure or when they held it fit to leave them to the common law And who sees not further yet that Bellarmine concludes out of Iustinians 83. Novel quite contrary to the express letter of that very Novel Iustinian there expresly orders That as to such Clerks as should be convened in criminal causes at Constantinople where himself lived and the Imperial Court was then the Iudges there should determine the matter but as to other Clerks that lived in the Provinces abroad the President or Judges of those Provinces Si de criminibus conveniantur siquidem civilibus that is if the crimes of Clerks were civil or lay crimes crimina laica and not pure crimes of Religion or Faith hic quidem nempe Constantinopâ—li competentes Iudices in Provinciis autem earum praesides sive Iudices How then may Bellarmine conclude out of this Novel that Politick or lay and meerly civil even subordinate Judges such as questionless the Presidents and Judges of Provinces were under Iustinian could not Judge Clerks in
probability how great soever so it retain still the true ond onely nature of probability and arrive not to evidence and consequently be no more that which is meer probability but a quite other thing can serve our adversaries to quarrel against my doctrine which maintains no exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat For if their arguments or reasons whatsoever be but probable or should I admit any of them to be probable how intrinsecally soever yet admitting them but as onely such and not convincing and further shewing clearly they are not convincing the consequence of my admitting them for such onely that is for even intrinsecally probable and no more must be also that the tenet grounded on them cannot be certain And therefore that by the common doctrine of Divines and Lawyers Princes cannot be deprived of their supream power over Clerks whereof they are and have been alwayes in possession Because upon or for an uncertain title or uncertain allegations and all reasons which are onely probable are uncertain as to us none may be justly thrown out of a long continued possession and a possession which was bona fide such and a possession too which in the case and according to reason must have at least the same or as much even intrinsick probability for it in point of natural reason as is pleaded against it from pretences of the like natural reason This being the nature of meer probability of reason if understood to be such to inforce by a necessary consequence the like probability of reason producible for the other side of the contradictory Which advertisement I premise for the less acute or less discerning Readers sake not that I do my self apprehend any such true intrinsick probability in the propositions or assumptions of any the above reasons of Soto or Victoria as inferring their intended consequence nor that I fear any other judicious uninteressed or unbyassed person will apprehend any such in them whereas on the contrary I doubt not my solutions or answers to them will no less clearly in the point also satisfie the Reader then my former to Bellarmine's Scriptures Laws and Canons have Therefore to pass by at this time what I could answer in general to all those arguments both of Soto and Victoria and to all other such of others if any other such be which is that learned men would in such a matter of so great weight and consequence and of such infinit prejudice to Princes and the State Politick universally expect a demonstration if not a pure Philasophical one of both Premisses and conclusion at least a Theological one and not such pittifull aequivocate Sillogismes or rather ill assuming and ill concluding Parologismes to which there are as many clear and convincing answers as there are propositions or even almost words And that it very ill becomes so great Clerks to lay so weak a foundation for so vast a fabrick as they would build thereon a power in the Pope to exempt all Clerks nay to exempt so many millions of men and women subjects and free them all from that subjection which they all owe to Kings by the laws of God and nature I say that to pass by now this general animadversion and To answer first in particular to Soto and to all the particulars of his argument I distinguish the Ecclesiastical power which he sayes to be per se that is of it self or of its own proper nature self sufficient and independent from the civil For if thereby Soto understand that the spiritual authority given to the Apostles and Church viz. that of preaching the word administring the sacraments interpreting of scriptures absolving from sins excluding contumacious sinners out of the Church receiving them again when they are penitent and of doing or discharging all such other functions which are purely spiritual and are sufficient for eternal salvation of mortals I confess that Ecclesiastical power so taken is per se of it self or of such its own nature sufficient to attain its own true proper ends that is to lead people to salvation or which is it I mean can without any help from the civil power lead unto this great end And consequently may enact such proportionable laws and sanctions as are necessary in circumstances to attain this self same happy end But withall I say that as it is one thing to say as it must in truth be said That Ecclesiastical power so taken and so sufficient for such end is in such respect independent from the civil power because the civil power can neither give it nor take it away and a quite other thing to say that the persons who have this Ecclesiastical power are not or may not or ought not to be in other respects dependent from the civil power and civil Magistrats so it is perspicuous That a law for the exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power and this law of exemption made also by the very Clerks themselves of themselves and by vertue onely of a pretended power in themselves and without any consent nay with manifest reluctance of the said civil supream power and Magistrat I say t is perspicuous that such a law of such exemption so made nay indeed or any way made either without or with the consent of the said supream civil Magistrat or even by either spiritual or temporal power or even by both powers together cannot be numbred amongst such other laws or sanctions as are necessary to lead unto or attain salvation For who ever yet doubted that Christians whatsoever Clergie and Layety can or could be saved notwithstanding that all Clergiemen were subject still to the civil jurisdiction of even the subordinate lay Judges and were in all politick or temporal matters or causes whatsoever both civil criminal or mixt of both convened in civil courts tryed by the common laws and received sentence from the lay Judges as formerly it hath sometimes been a long time been under not onely Heathen but very Christian Emperours Or whatever others answer how can Soto in particular say otherwise then that such a law or such exemption cannot be necessary For upon one side he teacheth as we have seen before that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino and on the other no man in the world and consequently nor Soto himself will deny nor can deny That all kind of things provisions laws c whatsoever accounted necessary for salvation must be confess'd to be de jure divino But forasmuch as Soto adds That the power Ecclesiastical may not only enact such laws as are necessary for its administration but such laws also as are congruent I would fain know of him what he means by congruent If laws so agreeable meet fitting or expedient for the due exercise or execution of the same true genuin pure Ecclesiastical Power that without such laws no such due exercise or execution may be of such power then indeed or understood in this sense he
their Votes in Parliament until such time as they shall afterwards acquire such Estates respectively and that none be admitted into the House of Commons but such as shall be estated and resident within this Kingdom XII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That as for and concerning the independency of the Parliament of Ireland of the Parliament of England His Majesty will leave both Houses of Parliament in this Kingdom to make such Declaration therein as shall be agreeable to the Law of the Kingdom of Ireland XIII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That the Council Table shall contain it self within its proper bounds in handled matters of State and weight fit for that place amongst which the Patents of Plantation and the Offices whereupon those Grants are founded are to be handled as matters of State and to be heard and determined by His Majesties Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours for the time being and the Council publickly at the Council-Boord and not otherwise Titles between Party and Party grown after these Patents granted are to be left to the ordinary course of Law And that the Council Table do not hereafter intermeddle with common business that is within the cognizance of the ordinary Courts nor with the altering of possessions of Lands nor make nor use private Orders Hearings or References concerning any such matter nor grant any Injunctions or order for stay of any Suits in any Civil cause and that Parties grieved for or by reason of any proceedings formerly had there may commence their Suits and prosecute the same in any of His Majesties Courts of Justice or Equity for remedy of their pretended Rights without any restraint or interruption from His Majesty or otherwise by the chief Governour or Governours and Council of this Kingdom And that the proceedings in the respective Presidents Courts shall be pursuant and according to His Majesties printed Book of Instructions and that they shall contain themselves within the limits prescribed by that Book when the Kingdom shall be restored to such a degree of quietness as they be not necessarily inforced to exceed the same XIV Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further pleased That as for and concerning one Statute made in this Kingdom in the Eleventh year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth intituled An Act for staying of Wool Flocks Tallow and other necessaries within this Realm And one other Statute made in the said Kingdom in the Twelfth year of the Reign of the said Queen intituled An Act _____ And one other Statute made in the said Kingdom in the Thirteenth year of the Reign of the said late Queen intituled An Explanation of the Act made in a Session of this Parliament for the staying of Wool Flocks Tallow and other Wares and Commodities mentioned in the said Act and certain Articles added to the same Act all concerning Staple or Native Commodities of this Kingdom shall be repealed if it shall be so thought fit in the Parliament excepting for Wool and Wool-fells and that such indifferent 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 Dillen 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 authorized by Commission under the great Seal to moderate and ascertain the rates of Merchandize to be exported or imported out of or into this Kingdom as they shall think fit XV. Item It is concluded accorded and agreed by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That all and every person and persons within this Kingdom pretending to have suffered by offices found of several Countries Territories Lands and Hereditaments in the Province of Vlster and other Provinces of this Kingdom in or since the first year of King James's Reign or by attainders and forfeitures or by pretence or colour thereof since the said first year of King James or by other Acts depending on the said offices attainders and forfeitures may petition His Majesty in Parliament for relief and redress and if after examination it shall appear to His Majesty the said persons or any of them have been injured then His Majesty will prescribe a course to repair the person or persons so suffering according to justice and honour XVI Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That as to the particular cases of Maurice Lord Viscount de Rupe Fermoy Arthur Lord Viscount Jueagh Sir Edmond Fitz-Gerald of Cloungliffe Baronet Charles Mac Charthy Reagh Roger Moore Anthony Moore William Fitz-Gerard Anthony Lynch John Lacy Collo Mac Bryen Mac Mahon Donnel Costingen Edmond Fitz-Gerald of Ballimartyr Lucas Keatinge Theobald Roch Fitz-Myles Thomas Fitz-Gerald of the Vally John Bourke of Loghmaske Edmond Fitz-Gerald of Ballimullo James Fitz-William Gerald of Glysnan and Edward Sutton they may Petition His Majesty in the next Parliament whereupon His Majesty will take such consideration of them as shall be just and fit XVII Item It is likewise concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That the Citizens Freemen Burgesses and former Inhabitants of the City of Cork and Towns of Youghal and Dongarvan shall be forthwith upon perfection of these Articles restored to their respective Possessions and Estates in the said City and Towns respectively where the same extends not to the indangering of the Garrisons in the said City and Towns in which case so many of the said Citizens and Inhabitants as shall not be admitted to the present possession of their houses within the said City and Towns shall be afforded a valuable annual Rent for the same until settlement in Parliament at which time they shall be restored to those their possessions And it is further agreed and His Majesty is graciously pleased That the said Citizens Freemen Burgesses and Inhabitants of the said City of Cork and Towns of Youghal and Dongarvan respectively shall be enabled in convenient time before the next Parliament to be held in this Kingdom to choose and return Burgesses into the same Parliament XVIII Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That an Act of Oblivion be passed in the next Parliament to extend to all His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom and their Adherents of all Treasons and offences Capital Criminal and Personal and other
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
godliness piety zeal what they believed to be their own proper goods how much more would they have abstained from usurping on those of the Church and to which they had known themselves to have no kind of right Secondly forasmuch as depends of the testimony or authority of the civil Law it self it is clear enough that Clergiemen have not only been originally or sometime but have continued alwayes or at all times since the very first of christianity are at present stil subject to the supream civil Power therefore not exempt from it For being it appears by these laws that Clergiemen were so first indistinctly in all kind of politick matters subject or not exempt in any either from the supream civil or subordinate civil and being further that none of these laws nor altogether exempt them but in some politick things or some such causes from the subordinat only and in none at all from the supream in any such cause and being moreover that it was from and by virtue of or by a power derived from those very civil laws and consequently from the supream civil Magistrate Prince Emperour that Ecclesiastical Judges were so appointed for other Clerks in any civil or criminal cause whatsoever or in those we call meer lay crimes it must follow that forasmuch as concerns the testimony of those civil laws which Bellarmine quotes here Clerks are still subject to the supream civil power though not in some cases or not even in very many cases to the subordinat civil but in such have other Judges that is Ecclesiastical ones appointed them by the same laws For by the testimony of these laws they are not exempt wherein they were not exempted by those very laws And those laws do not exempt them in any case at all from the Legislator Himself or from the supream civil power nor even from the subordinate indistinctly and universally in all cases but in some only Thirdly it is clear enough also by the testimony authority and warranty of these civil Laws and forasmuch I say as depends of such warranty if joyn'd together with the allowed doctrine of all christian both Lawyers and Divines generally that in such Christian Kingdoms as never have been govern'd by those laws of Roman Emperours or which in after-times did legally shake off the yoke both of the Empire and imperial laws generally and are govern'd only by municipal laws of their own Clerks are not exempt at all in politick matters from either supream or subordinate lay Courts or Judges no further then such municipal peculiar civil laws do exempt them And being that in no such Countrey at all for any thing we know yet or is alledged yet by Bellarmine or by our Divines of Lovaine Clerks are not exempt by such laws from the supream civil power and being at least that whatever may be imagined of some one or other Countrey with or without ground we know certainly there is no such law in England or Ireland nor hath yet ever been it is no less clear that Clerks are not at all exempt in England or Ireland in politick matters from the supream civil power of the Prince or of his Laws forasmuch I say still as depends of the testimony of the civil laws or even of the doctrine of either Christian Lawyers or Catholick Divines Which doctrine is that laws of men when meer laws of men and in politick matters depend not only of public tiâ—â—â— but also of legal reception and hereof also that they be not abrogated again by a contrary establishment or by a general opposition abrogation or disuse in any particular Kingdom or State especially if such as have the supream civil Legislative Power approve of or concurr to such abrogation or disuse Fourthly and Lastly and as a corrollary out of all it is perspicuous that as the very civil laws of Roman Emperours and such other municipal laws of other Christian Princes giving such or some certain and special exemptions and other priviledges to Clergiemen and giving them freely and out of devotion only for the greater decency and reverence of the Church do convince any rational person that secular Princes are still continually as they have been originally Superiours in temporal power to the Clergy even to all Priests and Bishops whatsoever living within their Dominions so they also convince that not even the great Priest and Bishop the very chief and spiritual Prince both of all Priests and of all Bishops too the Pope himself not even this so Oecumenical Vicar of Christ in all spiritual matters throughout the whole earth can be truly said to be at present upon any other account exempted from secular Powers in temporal matters but on this only that he also himself is now as he hath been for some ages though not from the beginning a temporal or secular Prince too and that now he represents a double Person that of the Successor of St. Peter at Rome which undoubtedly he hath from Christ and from the Church purely taken as a Church and that also of a secular Prince with independent secular civil or temporal power which latter he hath no less undoubtedly and even only and solely from the meer devotion benevolence bounty and gift of other Princes and people even I mean of meer lay Princes People But to the end learned men shall not say I take advantage of Bellarmine's not having so throughly examined this matter in his great work of Controversies nor even in his very last edition of that work which yet is the edition I have hitherto answered and shall not object at any time that Bellarmine sifted yet more narrowly the question of the civil laws in a latter book of his when he was in his old age forced to it by Doctor William Barelay's answers and solutions of all the Church-canons whereon chiefly or rather indeed only Bellarmine relyed till then as we have seen and we shall further see yet in the next Section for his so general exemption of Clergiemen from even the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes whatsoever least I say any should object this I will give at large and in Bellarmines own words but Englished all that he replies in that his very last piece on this subject we have now in hand of the civil laws against the same William Barclay and my own rejoynder also though in effect and for the most part made before I confess by another that is by Iohn Barclay the Son in his Pietas and to justifie the quarrel of his then dead Father LXIX Bellarmine therefore seeing by the said William Barclay's work De Potestate Papae in Temporalibus against him that all his former pretences of what law soever civil or ecclesiastical for the exemption of Clergiemen from the supream civil Power could not perswade any judicious Reader of that book of William Barclay regards no more what he had granted before in his great Works of Controversies and even in the very
extended them to other Kingdoms and that besides they were after approved of and received by the Bishops of such other Kingdoms That neither Gratian's insertion of them into the body of his Decretum nor the publication of his Decretum as such by the approbation authority or command of Popes makes them hoc ipso to be extended or of more binding authority in the nature of laws then they were before such insertion publication or approbation command or authority or makes them hoc ipso to be laws for the Catholick Church but onely to be more authentick whereas we know there are a thousand authorities alleadged by Gratian which are not therefore binding laws to the Church Thirdly that whatever may be said of Inferiour lay Judicatories judgments or Judges nothing at all can be with any kind of colour inferr'd hence against the supream of the Emperour himself in any matters whatsoever laws or canons whereby his power may be conceived whether right or wrong to be any way limited Because the supream extraordinary and absolute judgment of the Prince is never understood never signified by or comprised under the general notion or common use of these words secularia judicia as the Prince himself is not understood by the general or common name of a Judge or of a secular Iudge being these words or the like according to the common use or meaning signifie onely such as are such by special office and not him at all who by a supereminent power creats both these and all other even much higher Officials For it is a rule among both Civilians and Canonists That the words of any Canons Institutions or other laws whatsoever though Canons or laws of priviledg must be stâ—â—cti juris and strictae interpretati nis where otherwise a very great inconvenience must follow or where they derogate to a former uncontroverted right of any third person and much more when by any other interpretation they derogate to the supream authority either spiritual in the Pope or temporal in the Emperour and most of all when they ruine and quite destroy either in relation to their subjects being that in so much they are purely odious though in other points where no such prejudice is they are purely favourable And Odia restringi favores autem convenit ampliari is a rule of the very Canon law in Sexto Now who sees not there can be nothing more inconvenient in it self and more odious to Princes then that so vast a number of both men and women living within their Kingdoms and going under the name and title of their Subjects should yet be exempted wholly from their even supream royal power and in all cases whatsoever civil or criminal Pursuant to the former rule is that other which Felinus hath cap. uit de sanâ—nia Quoties species a â—â—â—it aliquid generi numquam appellatione generis venit species Now Iu â—ex secularis and judicium seculare is a genus Rex Imperator c. and judicium supremum Regium or judicium supremum imperiale is a species And pursuant also to both rules is the doctrine of that celebrious late Doctor of Paris Andreas Duuallius de suprema Rom. Pontif. in Ecclesiam potestate part 2. q. 4. p. 264. where notwithstanding his being so great and known a stickler against the ancient School of Paris for the Pope in too many things yet he writeth thus Notum est nomine Cleric rum c. It is manifest that in any odious matter Bishops are not comprehended under the name of Clerks nor sometimes in the same matter â—ther Religious men under the name of Mâ—nks neque similiter nomine Dominorum Reges nor likewise Kings under the name of Landlords Govern us or Lords in regard of the height and Majesty of the Royal dignity c. And finally pursuant to the said rules and their meaning or scope it is that we read the same or the like other exceptions and of several other particulars from a comprehension under general notions in Armilla verb. Abbas n. XI verb. Clericus n. 2. verb. sacerdos n. 1. Sayrus tom 1. l. 3. c. 33. Navarr tom 2. commentar in cap. Finali de simâ—nia n. 5. Silvester verb. excommunicatio 19. n. 82. Parag. Quadragesima tertia Innâ—centius in can sedes Apostolica de Rescriptis Moreover as it is a general maxime That in a general concession or priviledge how general soever the words be such things are not to be understood as granted which evident reason tell us that in all probability the Prince or Pope or other Legislator or graunter of such concession or priviledge would not grant by any means if he had reflected or thought on it in particular so it must be as general a rule That in a general prohibition of any law or Canon and how general soever the words be such things are not prohibited which if reflected on in particular right reason tells us that in all probability it could not have been the intention of the makers of such a law or Canon to prohibit them Out of all which it is evident enough that no Divine or Canonist may conclude from the prohibition of this Council of Agde or of this Canon of it or of this second part of the said Canon that the Fathers comprehended or intended to comprehend the supream absolute and extraordinary judgment of Kings or Emperours under the general notions of secularia judicia but onely such as were commonly understood by such those I mean of subordinate inferiour Iudicatories and from which there might be upon rational grounds and by the concession or permission of their Prince or custom of the Country even at that very time wherein these Fathers lived an exemption of Clerks For who is so bereaved of common sense as to say that the Councils of Christian Bishops in those days would be so high or unreasonable or rather so mad as to prohibit Clerks not to appear at all before the King Emperour or other supream Magistrate though called upon and expresly commanded to appear before them which yet these Fathers must be said to have decreed in this Canon or second part of it if Bellarmines allegation of it be to his main purpose here of Exemption of the Clerks by this Canon from even the supream civil coercive power or if it be against mine here also which is that no Canon hath ever yet so exempted them not even this of Agde or which is the same the same thing if secularia judicia in this Canon reach even to the very supream of the Emperour or other King and in all cases and causes temporal civil or criminal whatsoever But if Bellarmine or any other for him see no absurdity in granting this to have been the meaning of this ancient though onely Provincial Synod of a few Bishops of Guien onely he must pardon me for not joyning with him in so hard a censure or opinion of such scandalous consequence of any Catholick Coucil especially so
against this instance I say moreover against Bellarmine and for Barclay that to conclude thence as our Cardinal would is nothing else but to conclude Sophistically And that Bellarmine himself were he alive again and being he is not that his defenders must acknowledge so much is very evident hence that Barclay's argument as mine here or his assuming this maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo as this very maxime in it self proceeds onely and is understood onely or certainly should be amongst Christian Divines of meer natural civil or politick rights or such as are not by that law of Christ expresly or tacitly but certainly however spiritualized or made properly and purely spiritual and supernatural by the proper signification of a Sacrament of the new law to which they are elevated by Christ himself who is questionless the onely Institutour of such Sacraments and who might rayse any otherwise natural thing whatsoever as he pleased to this Sacramental dignity spirituality and supernaturality both as to signification and effection too or production of what effects he had thereby designed Now who sees not or at least what Catholick Divine or Canonist sees not that Matrimony or the matrimonial contract ordained for every Christian that would choose that course of life however amongst Heathens it be onely a meer natural and civil contract yet as engaged in by a Christian it is raysed by the law of Christ himself to that purely spiritual and supernatural notion And therefore who sees not that Matrimony and all the rights acquired thereby being now it is in Christian Religion a true and proper Sacrament of that Religion and consequently a spiritual matter and of pure Ecclesiastical notion as such must be dispensed and ruled by and according to the peculiar law of Christ and his peculiar precepts for it given either by himself immediately or by his Apostles and appearing to us either in the written word or even in that which is called unwritten but universally in all ages and amongst all true believers received as such And who moreover sees not that not onely in that case of an unbelieving husband nor also in that other case which Bellarmine instances of Matrimony contracted onely by words or consent betwixt a believing both man and woman but not consummated which kind of Matrimony they call matrimonium ratum but also in other almost innumerable cases in this matter of matrimony the right of a Christian husband or wife is taken away or lost which yet would not have been lost to or taken away from a Jew or Infidel in the like case It was lawful for for a Jew or Infidel to marry his Uncle's or Aunt 's daughter By the common laws and canons of Christians this is now prohibited to Christians It was lawfull for them in many cases to give a Bill of Divorce In the self same cases this is unlawful for us even Christ himself and by his own express command or Declaration enjoyning as not to do so Behold how this maxime The law of Christ deprives none of his right is not to be understood of Sacramental and purely Ecclesiastical matters or of such wherein that very law made express or undoubted provision Therefore to speak yet further no less truly then precisely we must say that albeit the law of Christ deprive no man of his right in any case whatsoever yet this law by its own proper true genuine right and power by that of Christ himself who as the natural Son of God had all right and all power in himself as Lord of all ordered this particular matrimonial right so as to be of spiritual and Ecclesiastical notion amongst Christians and therefore to depend in many or most cases not of the temporal but of the spiritual power not of the state but of the Church What hath this to do with other meer civil natural or politick rights or such as have not been at all spiritualized or supernaturalized by their elevation to the nature of a Sacrament or otherwise nay concerning which there hath not been any express or tacit provision made in the law of Christ for their being of Ecclesiastical notion at all or subject to the power of the Church but rather the contrary most expresly To prove that such remain still untouch'd unaltered in Christian Princes notwithstanding their submission to the law of Christ and remaine the very same that they were in these self same Princes or in other before they were Christians or even in any other Princes still as yet Heathen that so commonly applauded and generally received maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure suo was insisted on by William Barclay and by his Son after him against Bellarmine in this matter of Ecclesiastical exemption as intending onely to prove thereby that Christ did not by his law alter or abolish the meer political rights of any Prince or Subject but left them still in their former state so farre from being abrogated that they were absolutely confirmed unto them as will appear evidently in my next Section they were and were so even by express decrees of that very law And that amongst those meer political rights that of a coercive power in Princes and in all temporal causes of and over all Clerks whatsoever living within their dominions is not one or that the exemption or subjection of Clerks in such matters hath been spiritualized or supernaturalized by the law of Christ or that in the same law there is any express or tacit provision or caution that Clerks should not be subject so to secular Princes I make no question the intelligent Reader understands by this time that Bellarmine hath said nothing yet here to move the least scruple to any rational man And therefore to proceed to the rest of his Instances the Reader is to observe 3. That what our learned Cardinal sayes heer of a natural Father's loosing his Fatherly power over his Son when this Son of his is created Bishop must be alike erroneous with that of his depriving the Prince of his Princely power of any persons when ordered Clerks For it his meaning be that Bishops are freed from that Fatherly power which is of divine right both natural and positive I say that sentence must be very Blasphemous because expresly against the known law of God and Nature Wherein to dispense no creation nor elevation to what dignity soever even Papal or Imperial no law of man nor power on earth spiritual or temporal or both together can be alledged But if his meaning be that a Bishop hoc ipso that he is made Bishop is freed from that fatherly command over him which meerly and only depends of the civil laws I say this very commanding power authority Jurisdiction or whatever you call it cannot be taken away or that the Father cannot be deprived of it without permission from the temporal Prince to whose care and will the keeping strictly to or dispencing in the civil laws is
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
Ecclesiae conterendos Where though he insinuate some Authority of power received also from the Church to allure some by fair and sweet means others by sowr severity yet after he tells the King That besides that Authority he hath the Office of the Sword also gladii officio and carries it for the crushing and cutting off Malefactors but sayes not that he received this Sword or the Office or Power or Authority of it from the Church nay sufficiently insinuates by the placing of his words That Kings receive not this at all from the Church And therefore also insinuates clearly enough that they receive not at all at least otherwise than I said their true civil or politick Royal power or the true Essentials or necessary Appendages of it from the Church for this is the same with the office of the Sword And secondly out of that whole passage of his to the Bishop of London where he makes the whole Regal power to be the immediate institution of God and derived from Him alone and no less immediately than the Sacerdotal is and in the perclose most significantly shews the difference 'twixt them by saying That God ordained the one Authority to which he gave the power but the other to which he would have reverence done Vnam cui potentiam concessit alteram cui reverentiam exhiberi voluit as meaning earthly power and signifying that no such was given by God to the Church and consequently that the Church could not give it to any other for nemo dat quod non habet but onely and wholly to earthly Princes Therefore from first to last the natural and genuine meaning of St. Thomas of Canterbury in that passage of his at Chinun which I alledgd against my self out of Hoveden must be that whereas it is certain it was from the Church your Majesty received that extraordinary power you have in some Church affairs and that she hath her own proper supreme purely spiritual and properly Ecclesiastical from Christ alone and not from you or any other Prince and whereas either she hath never given you that power you challenge in so many other Church affairs or if she hath to any of your Predecessors she hath again upon rational grounds revoked it therefore pace vestra loquor you ought not to command Bishops to absolve whom you will and when you will or to excommunicate whom and when you please or draw or send Clerks to Secular Courts both against the Laws of the Land and her Canons nor ought you to interdict Bishops or command them that in their own Ecclesiastical Courts and Ecclesiastick manner they handle not the breach of Oath or transgressions against Faith c. For albeit that in some other matters which St. Thomas objected here to the King the Church peradventure had nothing to do with the cognizance of them as to the determination of Right but what she had from humane Laws and the very municipal Laws of the Land I mean yet once she had that Right given her by such Law there is no question but that until such Law were legally again Repealed by an Authority equal to that which made it she might proceed by her own spiritual Authority Supreme and Independent from any but Christ alone and in a pure spiritual way proceed against any Prince whatsoever that invaded even such her Rights however acquired humanely or by humane Laws as all other Temporal Rights are by all sorts of people acquired For even to preserve the only humane Rights of meer Lay-men to their Goods or Lands c She may use her spiritual power when it is necessary and seasonable against any Invader or Usurper And consequently St. Thomas having the Law of the Land on his side where there was nothing positively determined pro or con in the Laws of God or Nature he might even as to such matters very justly have said to Henry the second Pace vestra loquor non haberetis Episcopis praecipere c. And might have said so and all the rest either consequent or antecedent of the Authority received from the Church and said all without any kind not only not of Treason but of as much as the least Treasonable principle in pure speculation abstracting from all fact and intention of fact which could entrench upon the Majesty of the Prince or safety of the people And I am sure there can be neither Treason in fact nor in habitude either by the nature of things or interpretation of Laws but against either As I confess that all Treason properly such as Treason is taken here i. e. Legally and not Etymologically or as it is taken for that which we call in Latin Crimen laesae Majestatis must be only against the person or persons in which or in whom only the Supreme civil power is or in which only or whom that we call Majesty is And therefore that in an absolute Monarchy where we know that Majestas non est in populo there can be no such crime as this Treason committed against the people but only against the Prince Whereof Bodinus may be read in his Books de Republica 3. Because it is no Treasonable principle by it's own Nature or by Law at least in Speculation or Theory That such Authority as is not essential or necessarily annexed to the Supreme civil or temporal power but accidental and accidentally annexed or permitted to it by or at the pleasure of another or others not subject at all to such Supreme power civil or at least not subject in such matters especially if such Authority be not in its own Nature purely politick or civil at all that I say such Authority so hitherto accidentally annexed or permitted may even at least in some cases be either suspended or prohibited or lessened or altered or even totally revoked and even also totally transferred by those which so annexed or permitted it formerly to the Supreme civil Magistrate And the reason is because it can be no Treasonable principle which dictates not nor inclines not to actual Treason that is to an unlawful or injurious hurting or lessening or endangering of Majesty or of that which is the essential or necessary Appendages of Majesty in this one or in these more persons wherein it is placed according to the several Forms of Government And this principle neither dictates nor enclines to any such unlawful or injurious hurting lessening c. Now if this principle be not Treasonable which sayes That such Authority so given by the Church to the King may be again Revoked from the King at least in some cases how can that other be Treasonable which only sayes That he received sometime such Authority from the Church Nay and I add now or how can that be Treasonable which only sayes That Christian Kings originally or some-time past received whatever Authority you please or even their whole very politick or civil and temporal Authority from the Church in whatever wise the Church was able to
hisce subscripsimus Kilkenniae 28 Januarii 1648. Jo Archiepiscopus Tuamen Fran Aladen Ed Limericensis THE ARTICLES OF PEACE Made and Concluded by his Excellency JAMES LORD Marquess of Ormond LORD LIEUTENANT GENERAL AND General Governour of His Majesties Kingdom of Ireland on the behalf of His Majesty WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY of the Roman-Catholicks of the said Kingdom on the behalf of His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects of the same Re-printed in the Year M.DC.LXXIII BY THE LORD LIEVTENANT GENERAL AND General Governour Of the Kingdom of IRELAND ORMONDE VVHEREAS Articles of Peace are made concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between Vs JAMES Lord Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of His Majesties Kingdom of Ireland by vertue of the Authority wherewith We are entrusted for and on the behalf of His Most Excellent Majesty of the one part and the General Assembly of the Roman-Catholicks of the said Kingdom for and on the behalf of His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects of the same on the other part A true Copy of which Articles of Peace is hereunto annexed We the Lord Lieutenant do by this Proclamation in His Majesties Name publish the same and do in His Majesties Name strictly charge and command all His Majesties Subjects and all others inhabiting or residing within His Majesties said Kingdom of Ireland to take notice thereof and to render due Obedience to the same in all the parts thereof And as His Majesty hath been induced to this Peace out of a deep sense of the miseries and calamities brought upon this His Kingdom and People and out of a hope conceived by His Majesty that it may prevent the further effusion of His Subjects Blood redeem them out of all the miseries and calamities under which they now suffer restore them to all quietness and happiness under His Majesties most gracious Government deliver the Kingdom in general from those Slaughters Depredations Rapines and Spoils which alwayes accompany a War encourage the Subjects and others with comfort to betake themselves to Trade Traffick Commerce Manufacture and all other things which uninterrupted may increase the wealth and strength of the Kingdom beget in all His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom a perfect unity amongst themselves after the too long continued division amongst them So His Majesty assures Himself that all His Subjects of this His Kingdom duly considering the great and inestimable benefits which they may find in this Peace will with all duty render due Obedience thereunto And We in His Majesties Name do hereby declare That all persons so rendring due Obedience to the said Peace shall be protected cherished countenanced and supported by His Majesty and His Royal Authority according to the true intent and meaning of the said Articles of Peace Given at Our Castle of Kilkenny the Seventeenth day of January 1648. GOD SAVE THE KING ARTICLES of Peace made concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between his Excellency JAMES Lord Marquess of Ormond Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of His Majesties Kingdom of Ireland for and on the behalf of His Most Excellent Majesty by vertue of the Authority wherewith the said Lord Lieutenant is intrusted on the one part And the GEMERAL ASSEMBLY of the Roman Catholicks of the said Kingdom for and on the behalf of His Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects of the same on the other part HIS Majesties Roman Catholick Subjects as thereunto bound by Allegiance Duty and Nature do most humbly and freely acknowledge and recognize their Sovereign Lord King Charles to be lawful and undoubted King of this Kingdom of Ireland and other His Highness Realms and Dominions And His Majesties said Roman Catholick Subjects apprehending with a deep sense the sad condition whereunto His Majesty is reduced as a further humble Testimony of their Loyalty do declare That they and their Posterity for ever to the uttermost of their power even to the expence of their blood and fortunes will maintain and uphold His Majesty His Heirs and lawful Successors their Rights Prerogatives Government and Authority and thereunto freely and heartily will render all due obedience OF which faithful and loyal Recognition and Declaration so seasonably made by the said Roman Catholicks His Majesty is graciously pleased to accept and accordingly to own them his loyal and dutiful Subjects and is further graciously pleased to extend unto them the following graces and securities I. IMprimis It is concluded accorded and agreed upon by and betweeen the said Lord Lieutenant for and on the behalf of His most Excellent Majesty and the said General Assembly for and on the behalf of the said Roman Catholick Subjects And His Majesty is graciously pleased that it shall be Enacted by Act to be past in the next Parliament to be held in this Kingdom That all and every the Professors of the Roman Catholick Religion within the said Kingdom shall be free and exempt from all Mulcts Penalties Restraints and Inhibitions that are or may be imposed upon them by any Law Statute Usage or Custom whatsoever for or concerning the free exercise of the Roman Catholick Religion And that it shall be likewise Enacted That the said Roman Catholicks or any of them shall not be questioned or molested in their Persons Goods or Estates for any matter or cause whatsoever for concerning or by reason of the free exercise of their Religion by vertue of any Power Authority Statute Law or Usage whatsoever And that it shall be further Enacted That no Roman Catholick in this Kingdom shall be compelled to exercise any Religion Form of Devotion or Divine Service other than such as shall be agreeable to their Conscience and that they shall not be prejudiced or molested in their Persons Goods or Estates for not observing using or hearing the Book of Common Prayer or any other Form of Devotion or Divine Service by vertue or colour of any Statute made in the second year of Queen Elizabeth or by vertue or colour of any other Law Declaration of Law Statute Custom or Usage whatsoever made or declared to be made or declared And that it shall be further Enacted That the Professors of the Roman Catholick Religion or any of them be not bound or obliged to take the Oath commonly called the Oath of Supremacy expressed in the Statute of Secundo Eliz. cap. 10. or in any other Statute or Statutes and that the said Oath shall not be tendred to them and that the refusal of the said Oath shall not redound to the prejudice of them or any of them they taking the Oath of Allegiance in haec verba viz. I A. B. do truly acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World That our Sovereign Lord King CHARLES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of other His Majesties Dominions and Countries and I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to His Majesty His Heirs and Successors and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my
or whoever else indoctrinated Him there have been of the other side and of the same Church as there are even at this present day many Thousands or the most Learned most Zealous most Godly Prelates and Priests and Doctors besides Laicks who have cryed them down as not only false wicked impious heretical unchristian but as absolutely tyrannical and as plainly destructive of all Government and Laws and of all Property and Peace and of all whatsoever is or can be the felicity or comfort or even freedom of the children of men This hath sufficiently appear'd in the mighty oppositions made as well from the Pulpit and by Writing as by Arms in all Countries of Europe to so many fulminating so many King-deposing pretended universal Monarchs of the World in all things both Spiritual and Temporal to these only Vicars of Christ on earth to these onely infallible Judges of his Faith Witness the Concordates of Germany the Sicilian Monarchy the Pragmatical Sanction of France the Laws of Provisors and Premunire in England and Ireland and the two Oecumenical or at least Occidental Councils of Constance and Basil and many more National Synods both before and after them held some in Italy others in Germany and others in France and held in plain contradiction to those high claims and usurpations Witness also of very late dayes the Third Estate of France in the General Assembly (t) Jan. 1614 5. of the Three Estates held under Lewis XIII Jan. 1614 3 yea notwithstanding Cardinal Perron's Oratory and of later yet all the eight Universities of that Kingdom in their sentence of Sanctarellus (u) 1626. ann 1626. and of others too before and after besides the known practice all along of their Parliaments and â—â—st of all the Theological Faculty of Sorbon and the rest of the Paris (x) 1663. Divines in the year 1663 May 8. headed by the Archbishop of that See and presenting their siâ— Declaration against the Pope to the present French Monarch Lewis XIII All which are certainly manifold clear undeniable demonstrations of what I said immediately before viz. How of the fame Roman-Catholick Church or Faith and Communion there have been all alone as there are at this present many Thousands of the most Learned Zealous 〈◊〉 Godly 〈◊〉 Priests and Doctors as well as Laicks who never approved of the foresaid either Practices or Principles but alwayes reproved condemned abhorred detested and protested against them both as not only heretical but tyrannical c. IX That consequently since the owning of such intollerable Maximes and wicked Actions or the not disowning of them cannot be justly said to be any of the peculiar Notes or characteristical Marks of a Roman-Catholick in general but only of a certain Sect or 〈◊〉 or Party amongst them whom some call Papalins others Puritan Papists and others Popish-Recusanta and since none of all the undoubted either Articles or Riâ—â—â— which all Roman-Catholicks universally without any distinction of Party or Faction do and must espouse have been hitherto reputed accused or suspected of being in themselves abstractedly and purely taken in any manner dangerous to any Government Temporal or Spiritual or to any persons either of Princes or Subjects or to the property or liberty of any Man or Woman or to the peace or quieâ— or security or conteâ—â—â—f any humane Creature however in the mean 〈…〉 â—â—al or some of them do or may seem erroneous to the learned 〈…〉 Protestants and further since King Henry VIII and the Protestant 〈…〉 Parliament of England Ireland and Scotland after him a◠〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 could not 〈◊〉 throughly understand both these things which I have now mention'd so on the other hand they could not but observe how ever since the Oath of Supremacy though framed only by Roman-Catholick Bishops Abbots and Doctors of the English Nation and defended by the Principal (y) Bishop Gardiâ—er in his Book de â—eâ—a Obedienâ—â—â— and Bishop â—oâ—â—â—r in his Preface before it of the same occasioned the first Separation or Schism amongst the Subjects of England and Ireland the far greater part of such as continued in the Communion of the Roman Church did seem also to adhere to the foresaid dangerous Doctrines and Practises i. e. to all the pretenses and actings of the Roman Court forasmuch as they generally refus'd to disown them either by that Oath of Supremacy or by any other and moreover by consequence since the same Princes and Parliaments could not but manifestly discern all their own very being as also that of all the People under their Government to be singularly marked out and even devoted to utter extirpation by a party of men so madly principled and furiously bent living amongst them out of all that has been said it must follow That the onely original and the onely true principal causes which moved them to proceed with so much severity of Laws Proclamations and Executions against all Roman-Catholicks in general of these Dominions could be no other of our side than our Fathers and our own very great neglect and folly or contempt and wilfulness not to disown and renounce for ever publickly as we ought all such whatsoever wicked Positions and Practises nor any other indeed of their side than their firm persuations of our being therefore so desperately both principled and inclined nay resolved also and ready to give the greatest possible evidences of fiery Zeal whensoever the Commands of His Holiness from abroad shall meet with a fair opportunity at home X. That it is unreasonable to think and incredible to believe That so many judicious Princes Parliaments and Convocations who had themselves gone so far and ventured so much as they did only because they would not suffer themselves or the Protestant people govern'd by them to be imposed on against their own reason in matters of Divine Belief Rites c should at the same time be so concerned to impose on others in the like i. e. in Spiritual matters purely such in those I mean of Religion and Rites no way intrenching on the Jurisdiction or other Temporal or Spiritual Concern either of King or Bishop or other Subject whatsoever as to Enact Laws of so many grievous punishments yea of Death it self in some cases of meer purpose to extort from them a complyance or submission in such matters It is no to be believed that they would Enact those Laws against their own flesh and blood and some their nearest Relations too only for not renouncing such harmless and meer Religious Tenets or Rites which all their Predecessors before them had for so many Ages held without disturbance to the Publick or inconvenience to private Persons or hindrance to Virtue or countenance to Vice if the testimony of all Christendome for so long time be of any weight and to Enact those Laws intentionally or designedly against those things which at the very worst in all possible and conditional Contingencies are but erroneous Tenets and insignificant unprofitable Rites not
of his Majesties Kingdoms that the belief of Transubstantiation amongst English Irish and Scottish Catholicks is no more a Sign or an Argument of a Puritan Papist than it is at present amongst the French XII That we have no cause to wonder at the Protestants Jealousie of us when they see all the three several Tests hitherto made use of for trying the judgment or affection of Roman Catholicks in these Kingdoms in Relation to the Papal pretences of one side and the Royal rights of the other I mean the Oath of Supremacy first the Oath of Allegiance next and last of all that which I call the Loyal Formulary or the Irish Remonstrance of the year 1661 even all three one after another to have been with so much rashness and wilfulness and so much vehemency and obstinacy declined opposed traduced and rejected amongst them albeit no other Authority or power not even by the Oath of Supremacy (z) Art 37. of the Church of England And Admonition after the Injunctions of Queen ELIZABETH it self be attributed to the King save only Civil or that of the Sword nor any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power be denied therein to the Pope save only that which the general Council of Ephesus (a) In the year 431. under Theodosius the Younger in the Case of the Cyprian Bishops and the next Oecumenical Synod of Chalcedon (b) In the year 451 Can. 28. under the good Emperour Martianus in the case of Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the two hundred and seventeen Bishops of Africk (c) In the year 419. whereof Saint Augustine was one both in their Canons and Letters too in the Case of Apiarius denyed unto the Roman Bishops of their time and albeit the Oath of Allegiance was of meer purpose framed only to distinguish 'twixt the Loyal and disloyal Catholicks or the honest and Loyal party of them from those of the Powder-Treason Principles and albeit the Remonstrance of 1661 was framed only at first by some well meaning discreet and learned Roman Catholicks of the English Nation and was now lately signed by so many and such persons of the Irish Nation as we have seen before and was so far from entrenching on the Catholick Faith or Canons or Truth or Justice in any point that saving all these it might have been much more home than it is though indeed as from well meaning honest men it be home enough nay and albeit neither of these two later Tests the Oath of Allegiance or the Irish Remonstrance promiseth to the King any other than meer Civil obedience and this obedience too in meer civil or temporal Affairs only according to the Laws of the Land nor denyes any canonical obedience to the Pope in either Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters purely such nor indeed in any matter at all wherein the Canons of the Catholick Church impower his Holiness and wherein his Key does not manifestly err How much more may it provoke them to see the few Ecclesiastical approvers of the said Tests especially of either of these two last to have been therefore persecuted amongst and by the foresaid generality of British and Irish Catholicks yea to have been look'd upon as Outcasts Excommunicants Schismaticks Hereticks and what not And that excellent man that most loyal and learned English Monk Father Thomas Preston for having formerly both under his own name and that of Roger Widrington so incomparably defended the foresaid Oath of Allegiance to have been forced nay content and glad at last to shelter himself in a (d) In the Clink at London prison from the furious persecution of the Opposers And after him so lately again Father Peter Walsh of Saint Francis's Order only for having promoted the said Loyal Irish Formulary of 1661 and for having Subscribed it himself and refused to retract his Subscription to have been reduced to a far worse condition than Preston even that of a Bannito or an Out-lawed man by publick denunciation and affâ—xion of him as an excommunicate person to be shun'd by all former Acquaintance except a very few and to be left alone at last for the matter one single person to maintain the justice of that Formulary and of his own defence and cause and carriage all along and consequently to grapple with a numberless number of subtle and powerful and implacable Adversaries How much more to see so many Books of Roman Catholick Doctors Italian Spanish German Dutch Candian English of Bellarmine and Becan and Suarez and Singleton and Sculkenius and Tortus and Eudamon Johannes and Gretser and Parsons and Fitzherbert c to have been written printed and published against the foresaid Oath of Allegiance enacted by King James And amongst the generality of the Roman Catholick Readers so many practical Students to have been indoctrinated by those very Books or some of them Although Books in truth wholly composed of lying Sophistry i.e. of very false Doctrines in point of Religion and very treasonable and pernicious in point of subjection as it hath been sufficiently proved concerning all the above mentioned Doctors by the foresaid indefatigable Writer Thomas Preston who has not left his Antagonists either place or possibility of saying a word to his last Pieces wherewith he so incomparably baffled all their Answers Replies Rejoinders c. How much more after all this and even since his present Majesties Restauration to see so much wrath and rage against so innocent a Formulary of their own and of professing Allegiance in meer temporal things only So many forreign Censures of Divines and forreign Letters of Inter-Nuncio's and Cardinals to have been procured And so many forreign both Citations and Excommunications to have been issued forth against the Subscribers of it with professed design both to suppress it utterly and either to silence them eternally or to destroy them for subscribing it yea so many Missionaries to have been employed and Commissaries authorized and for a dead lift and when opportunity served at last in the year 1669 besides Provincials instituted and Vicars Apostolical made even so many Bishops and Archbishops on a sudden to have been created in Ireland by his Holiness for that end chiefly And all this strange and late procedure against so harmless a profession of Allegiance to have been hitherto look'd upon by the generality of British and Irish Catholicks I mean by such of them as knew thereof not only with indifferent eyes and thoughts but by the far greater part of them received with complacency and by all for ought appears submitted unto with a perfect resignation of their Souls to the good pleasure of his Holiness and his Ministers I say it is not to be imagined that all these matters concerning those three several Tests one after another should have been and happened thus even publickly before the Sun and to the full Knowledge not of Catholicks onely but of Protestants but it must of necessity give very much ground to the more considering persons
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
which were it his draught it had not been albeit in the main dispute it be fully sufficient the answer waâ— That it became not Priests nor Christians nor even moral or rational honest men although neither Priests nor Christians to obstruct the common good out of private animosities much less to obstruct it to the prejudice of the Religion and Worship of God and obstruct all too by sinister wayes by calumnies and forgeries and a false pretence of Religion where there was nothing less then Religion intended but rather the quite contrary That in relation to his former actings in the controversies with the Nuntio if they had considered things rightly they would rather acknowledge admire with thankfulness adore the Providence of God which had inspired him then to do as he did and as became a good Patriot Subject religious Man Christian Priest and Catholick Divine to the end he might be after so many revolutions some way instrumental to save them again That they have found his endeavours even in forwarding that Remonstrance and in many other Instances very useful and very advantagious and profitable too for all both Catholick People and Clergy of Ireland And therefore he might in some measure and sense though with infinit disproportion answer such of them as traduce or maligne him as Christ did the Jews when at the instigation of some both of the envious Priests and wicked Scribes and Pharisees too that religious but hypocritical Sect of those ancient people of God the multitude taking stones to throw at their Saviour of purpose to kill him he told and demanded of them as the Gospel relates multa opera bona ostendi vobis Ioh. â— 32. c. propter quod eorum opus lapidatis me That for his exposition of the said Remonstrance in his More Ample Account if it did not convince them as he believed it did or whether it did or no yet were not they desired to subscribe it nor was it ever intended by him or any other they or any else should either subscribe or approve otherwise of it but as they pleased to read or lay it by That he alone was to answer for that Book if there was any thing amiss in it And from them no more was expected but to sign the Remonstrance in it self barely considered according to the true obvious and sincere meaning of all the several passages And if they taking it so could otherwise rationally expound it than the Procurator did in his said little book themselves were to satisfie their own consciences in that behalf and leave his book to stand or fall to the Authors cost or profit That however he found it a tye of duty on himself for many respects and particularly for that of acting by special Commission for the Catholicks both Clergy and Lay-people of Ireland and to obtain for them some liberty ease or connivence in the exercise of Catholick Religion To let them know they could not by other expositions answer or arrive at the ends of that exposition nor shew themselves to be truly sincerely loyal or faithful to the King in those contingencies wherein their allegiance might be for their former actions prudently suspected 12. And for the general objection of all their allegation of the laws still in force c. they were desired to consider 1. How happy they would have thought themselves immediatly before the Kings Restauration and for so many other foregoing sad years under usurping Tyrants if they had found a suspension only of those laws and that connivence at the exercise of their Religion they now enjoyed under His most Sacred Majesty and ever since or immediatly after the Remonstrance presented in their names or behalf to Him That they had far more assurance than they yet deserved being they demurr'd so long on professing under their hands a dutiful subjection and no other certainly than without any such profession they were bound to by all the laws of God under pain of Hell or Damnation and by all the laws of the Land under the severest punishments of Treason That they were not to expect capitulations from the King for their being Subjects but neverthess had cause enough to see if they were not wilfully blind He was and would be to them all a good merciful gracious compassionat and indulgent King blotting all their former iniquities or those of so many of them as had been unjust to Him and his Father and Lieutenant and other protestant People quite out of His remembrance evermore if they did shew themselves true penitents and converts and sincere performers of their duty hereafter That they were no indifferent no competent Judges of those Articles they pleaded whether they were broken or no by the King or his Ministers or if broke in any part or to any person whether such breach was lawful and necessary or no in the present conjuncture of affairs after so great a change or alteration of the case That reason might tell them considering the condition of their Country and Inhabitants thereof which requires other laws and other proceedings and another kind of use of laws at least in matter of Religion than England does at present they could have no ground to fear any forcing of them to other Countreys for want of protection at home if and whiles they demeaned themselves peaceably provided they gave generally and cheerfully that assurance expected from them of such peaceable demeanour hereafter That in case of the very worst imaginable of evils the comfort of a good conscience were to be preferred by them to any earthly emolument and the conscience of having done their duty by washing the scandal of unholy tenets from their Religion would be a portable theatre to them whethersoever they should be forced and the assurance of suffering only in such case for a pure holy and undefiled Religion and Communion for justice and the Catholick faith only not for suspicion or conviction of treasonable maximes and practices condemn'd in all other Kingdoms and States in their own cases as impious uncatholick unchristian and even I say condemn'd by the professors of their own Church every where out of the small temporal Principality of the Pope And therefore they needed not apprehend any such attempt scorn prejudice or persecution abroad for having performed such a christian duty at home but on the contrary to be praised and cherished if not perhaps such as through vanity and folly would esteem no other refuge but where they might withal expect titles and miters which they very little deserved if not by such deserts as would untitle and unmitre them wholy if they were sifted narrowly according to the Gospel of Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church though perhaps they would hold them fast enough according to those other late ones made by Papal authority alone But that if the very saddest they could by Chymeraes frame to themselves did happen in such case as well abroad as at home it became
them who by special function are Preachers of the Gospel of Christ and of all the promises and rewards of it to others to apply those also to themselves make use of them and remember that saying of our Saviour the eight and last and most comfortable of all the Beatitudes taught by this heavenly Master on the Mount to his Apostles Disciples and others and to all Christians by them Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam Math. 5.10 quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum whether they suffer by Prince or Pope For from both many holy men have often suffered persecution for justice and some that are at this present glorified and invoked in the Roman Calendar as Saints possessing actually that Kingdom of heaven so promised them for suffering for justice have been persecuted on that account in their life and to their death by Popes alone as for example St. Ignatius sometime Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated by Iohn the eight of Rome 13. That other no less general objection viz. That the Subscribers Lay or Ecclesiastick reaped no advantage by their subscription more then others who had not subscribed the Lay Proprietors not their temporal Estates nor Ecclesiasticks a liberty or freedom to exercise their spiritual function without fear or danger albeit the most powerful to render the Remonstrance unsignificant amongst such as either look only on the present and see no further or such also as value nothing but by temporal advantages yet was more then sufficiently more then abundantly solved by those other considerations offered to the Objectors 1. That the design of that Remonstrance and subscription of it was not thereby to be restored to their temporal estates because if such it had infallibly designed an unsettlement of the whole Kingdom since it was clear enough there is no Roman Catholick but on condition or certainty of being restored to his Lands or other temporal pretences would sign it and no less evident on the other side they could not be all restored without infallible disturbance of the publick peace and hazzard of all sides in a second bloody war there being so numerous and stubborn a party which must have been in such case dispossess'd of all their livelyhood for ever how justly or unjustly soever acquired at first 2. That nevertheless very many or most of those Remonstrants or Subscribers had been already or were to be one way or other provided for some upon title of Innocency others by special provision As indeed we have seen effected and not Remonstrants only c. That if the opposers both of Clergy and Laity had not delayed so long their own concurrence and thereby rendered themselves and their Catholick Nation suspected a new but taken time by the sore-lock and throughout the Kingdom generally cheerfully and heartily manifested their firm unalterable resolution whatever the former carriage of any was to stand inviolably firm to the King hereafter in all contingencies whatsoever according to that Remonstrance and as the first Subscribers had in their own behalf and for their sake also done they might with some colour have made this objection But being the Subscribers were so few and they almost so innumerable that opposed still with headiness and rashness it was too soon to expect those favours which are commonly given by a State upon good grounds of considerable advantage to it self such as would be in the present case the assuring of all the Catholicks in Ireland to stand firm and loyal in all kind of dangerous contingencies whatsoever 3. That all generally of that Religion ever since that Remonstrance was exhibited and graciously accepted by His Majesty had much ease connivence and liberty for publick meetings and publick exercise of their Religion throughout all the Kingdom without any considerable molestation therefore in any place if some very few walled Towns only and within the walls only or close by them be not excepted and that favour done at first continued ever since by reason only of that Remonstrance and for the sake of those who had given and subscribed it and in expectation of the concurrence of the rest to the same or like dutiful manifestation of their Allegiance That although some numbers of poor Catholicks in some few parts Town or Counties had been three or four several times taking one place with another molested by presentments in some Bishops Courts Inditements and Capiases by the civil Officers of Judges of the Assize and of Sheriffs yet upon application made they found themselves presently at ease and rest from any further prosecution 4. That albeit the indiscretion of too great a multitude of Catholicks and too publickly and boldly convening and thronging in the streets from about twelve a clock at night on Christmass day till at noon even at the very door of the Parish Church or St. Owens in Dublin where those of the contrary Religion warranted by the laws and where also the very guards did meet to serve God in their way occasion'd that disturbance and hurry objected yet they might visibly see the favour done the Remonstrant Clergy whose Chappel that was For notwithstanding their indiscreet carriage in that matter they were all set at liberty within three or four dayes and only because they were known to be true and faithful Remonstrants as besides their subscription to that paper they had all along in the former quarrel of the Nuncio and other differences of the Consederats in the late wars approved themselves to be men so loyally religiously and conscientiously principled 5. That for the Proclamation whatever the cause of it was they had no cause to complain of its execution Lastly that they were blind if they did not see ungrateful if they did not acknowledge the vast difference 'twixt the condition then of both the Lay Proprietors as to matter of estate and of Ecclesiasticks as to that of liberty and of both in all respects and that they could not but remember they were in all of them generally a little before and for so many years together without scarce any humane hope to see any end of their miseries 14. Their objection of some words and these were no more but two or three only Pope renounce Papal was answered by desiring them to shew by reason or argument how the naming of the Pope or of his Papal power or pretence or renouncing of that power in him which they confessed was not in him could argue any irreverence or disrespect especially where and when it was so necessary to use that expression or an equivalent and no other would or could do the work or compass the end they so vehemently and rationally desired That surely the Catholicks of England then which there are none in the world more observant of all respect and reverence to the Pope who were the authors and framers of the Protestation who worded it throughly knew very well these words were not irreverential in any wise That they should find
certain that ever since the chief leading men of that Order conforming themselves further to all such directions as they receive from their Colledg or Convent of Irish Dominicans at Lovain as those of that Colledg to what they themselves procure from Rome and transmit to Ireland have been in all parts of this Kingdom very insolent and violent all of them in private discourse amongst all sorts of men decrying the Remonstrance and Subscribers of it if not as unlawful and heretical yet certainly against the Interest of the Pope Country and Religion and some of them preaching publickly at altars against both in the vilest and impudentest manner telling the people they should rather abide all evils suffer death it self then approve of such a form pursuant to the late Priour of Dublin but now of Naas Father M. Fullam's attestation under his own hands writing in a letter to one of his own Order Father John Scurlog that he would for his own part sooner take the Oath of Supremacy To such a degree of folly and frenzy their malice to the Subscribers drove them Which was the cause that especially in Connaght and Vlster they spared not to asperse the whole Order of Franciscans as well those had not yet subscribed as those did amongst the common people with defection from the See Apostolick because the Procuratour and greatest number of Subscribers and maintainers of that form are Franciscans and those tollerated by and countenanced or at least not proceeded against by their chief Superiours and to the end they might by such scandals raised of the Franciscans be themselves esteemed the Champions of the Great Pontiff in Ireland and both lessen the credit of others and gain to boot their benefactors Which was next that of pretensions at Rome and distractions at home against the peace of the Country and establishment of the King the only marke they shott at XX. Wherein they had the Augustinian Order who are twixt threescore and fourscore in this Kingdom but most of them in Connaght their unalterable and no less in so much unconscionable Associats I mean as to the generality of them For I do not involue every individual of them in such unworthy intrigues though I can say that not as much as one of this Augustinian Order hath for so many years since 61. though several of them very home reason'd with by the Procuratour himself any way declared his or their moderation in this matter so farre they were all from subscription excepting only that one Gentleman of theirs Father Gibbon who subscribed at London amongst the other 25. there And can say this much too of them that Father Martin French their late Priour at Dublin hath acknowledg'd there some 3. or 4. years since they were the Order of all others that ledd the Van of opposition by common consent or decree in a chapter held by them in 62. and in Connaght a little before those others of the Dominicans or Franciscans were held which was to them as it proved since like the laws of Medes and Persians irrevocable untransgressable without any regard of any other laws either of man or God positive or natural XXI About the same time the Procuratour had the above answers of the Dominican and Franciscan Chapters or Provincials he received from England by letter from the Bishop of Dromore bearing date the 18th of October the said year 62. another letter therein enclosed which was to the said Bishop from the Dean and in behalf of the Chapter of the English secular Clergie For those have a certain select number how many they are I do not exactly remember but I think about 28. composing their Chapter which represents and gives orders to all that Clergie wherever dispersed in England and Wales making a farre greater number for they were about 600. in Cromwels time sufficient learned and loyally affected all of them to the King Which enclosed letter of the English Dean and Chapter the Bishop sent the Procuratour as it was of purpose written to answer without place of reply an other pretended scruple of some of the Irish Clergie that they had not seen any approbation of the Remonstrance or concurrence from the Clergie of England though specially and by name invited to it by the Procuratours printed Advertisement annexed to the Remonstrance and by his book or The More Ample Account which he soon after publish'd amongst them at London The original being shewed by the Procuratour convinced all that would be convinced by reason for it was that you have here in the copy For the Right Reverend Father in God Oliver Lord Bishop of Dromore Right Reverend Father in God c. ALthough it be a chief point of Christian duty to be passive even in injustices without reply yet is that patience scarce profitable though with the gaine of private vertue where the publique receives prejudice And for this reason do I give your Lordship this trouble for understanding from persons of Quality that I and the rest of my Brethren of the Chapter are reported to obstruct the subscriptions of the Irish Clergie to the Declaration of Allegiance here exhibited to His Majestie as upon this score that being desired to joyn with you in it we refused it as both imprudent and unjust and by that refusal of our concurrence gave occasion to divers of the Irish Clergie to do the like by which we seem to be a block in the way to that freedom of Conscience which we would gladly purchase with our blood We humbly begg this favour of your Lordship that as you are best able to cleer us in this point that our concurrence was never required nor were we privy to your business the circumstances of our conditions being different from yours so your Lordship being assured of our judgment would please to signifie it where it may undeceive the over-credulous My Lord I have spoke with our Brethren concerning this business and find them so farre from censuring your draught or proceed in that protestation that as we know it destructive to Soveraign Majestie to be dependent in Regalities so we take it derogative to good Subjects to deny him the power Absolute in Temporalities And therefore being taught by the law of God to give him obedience indispensable we cannot but judge in that you runn along with your duty As for the expressions passing a censure upon the contrary tenets as some peradventure may think them too severe we could wish the circumstances of affairs in these His Majesties Kingdoms could have declared them impertinent but considering this age overrun with disloyaltie and even amongst those of our Holy Catholique Faith some to our great grief have been too active under colour of bad principles it cannot but be necessary to declare those principles no other then the Cockle of wicked doctrine sowed by the Enemy of mankind to the prejudice of Christianity which being a law of an absolute Rectitude in setting right our duties to God and
Caesar we are tyed to clear if from imputation and professing it also a Rule that we will follow in our affections it seems altogether inexcusable if we startle at any engagement within the verge of Regality wherein our Allegiance is payable And therefore in the Circumstances you seemed to stand in to free the Holy Catholique Faith on one side from obloquies and redeem your selves from calumnies and on the other to relieve the Layety under your charge from heavy pressures and further to open a dore to your liberty of Religion we must needs judge you have performed the Office of good Pastours both in framing and subscribing your Allegiance to the Prince to hold forth to the whole whole world your Religion pure and spotless your Allegiance built on a basis immoveable and your selves well resolved Subjects For our parts we would be glad to runn into those occasions even with the hazard of our lives or the loss of our last drop of blood to worke out our freedom from the severity of our penal laws much more would we think it happy to gain it with the renounce of an Opinion which justly brings a jealousie upon us from our Prince and fellow Subjects and in the judgement of the chief Assertours of it of no greater note then to bring along with it the pains of Damnation to those of their party that speak preach or print it as appears by a written paper have published by themselves Wherefore that you may see how we stand affected were this Declaration of yours tendred us by Authority in lieù of what otherwise we lye under we should willingly embrace it considering it as well singles out the loyal Subject from those of the bad Principle as reduces the erroneous into the number of penitents My Lord The Apostolical advice to give none the least offence in our Ministry but to preserve our selves blameless to all sorts of people and the Church of God is the sole pardon I can plead for this entrench upon your patience well knowing your imployments speak you a follower of the Apostles by being a Servant to all persons in all things not seeking your own but the Countryes profit that they may be saved in which common concerne I shall be ever ready to runn your Lordships ways being subject to the laws of the same holy Church and Dread Soveraign whom God long preserve whose most loyal Subject I will ever remain and My Lord Your Lordships most humble servant in Christ Iesu Humphry Ellice Dean of the Chapter London October 18th 1662. XXII Much about this time also William Burgat Vicar General of Imly and Custos as they call him of the Diocess of Limerick came from the Province of Munster to Dublin of purpose to speak to the Procuratour about his own and the common affairs of all the Clergie both of that and the Province of Connaght For this Gentleman hearing in August before that the Procuratour was arrived from London writt him presently a very civil letter expressing much loyalty to the King and affection to the Lord Lieutenant And his letter was seconded with a good character given of him then to the Procuratour by persons of Interest and knowledg in that Province of Munster the Earl of Clancarty and Iohn Walsh Esq By that letter the said Father Burgat let the Procuratour know himself had been deputed some three or four years past in the Protectors tyranny and by the Clergie of that Province as entire Agent for themselves to Rome about their Ecclesiastical affairs and by those of the Province of Connaght also joyned in commission with an other one Doctor Cegan for themselves That money to bear his charges could not be had until about that time of His Majesties most fortunat Restauration That seeing the great and happy change he demurr'd on the matter until the Earl of Clancarty's first comming to Ireland That having communicated unto his Lordship what he intended he was advised by the said Earl not to stirr till he had seen and been advised by Father Walsh the Procuratour And that therefore he vehemently now desired to meet him about Kilkenny or where else he would appoint But the Procuratour having answer'd with desires of his comming to Dublin and meeting there Father Burgat came at last along to Dublin Where notwithstanding the Procuratour spent much time informing him for 6. dayes consequently of the causes and ends of the Remonstrance and that the said Father Burgat averred constantly that he neither found any thing in it could not be justly owned nor heard any in his own Province hitherto speaking otherwise or one word against it yet whether perverted by such obstinate persons of the Dublin Clergie as he conversed with daily then or whether byass'd by his own former intrigues and principles received at first and retayned still after from his Bishop when alive Terlagh O Brien a Prelate of too much violent zeal for the Nuncius's quarrel and further yet by his pretensions at Rome and his entended journey thither he would not sign at all then or there at Dublin pretending for excuse that being he came from the whole Province of Munster to be informed he would have the greater power to perswade them all generally if he returned back without preingagement and the less if otherwise Desiring nevertheless the Procuratour to write by him to the chief Vicar General or Apostolical as they call him Iohn Burk of Cashil to be communicated to the rest concerning that matter of the Remonstrance and their subscription Which the Procuratour did but never had answer from either For it seems Mr. Burgat who by all means declined nay expresly refused to be presented to my Lord Lieutenant though invited often to it by the Procuratour because my Lord so lately had seen his letter and heard that good character of him given by my Lord Clancarty and Mr. Iohn Walsh and was commission'd as above by two Provinces judg'd it better for his own private ends to have nothing to do in that business at least not to appear for it Which was the reason also he did not acquiesce to so many pregnant reasons given him by the Procuratour against his undertaking such a journey to Rome at least as an Agent or publick person representing both or either of those Provinces Albeit he was so farre convinced by such reasons as to promise the Procuratour he would only go as farre as Paris to leave there some youths at School and thence return immediately with purpose to alleadg new and probable difficulties met with and so excuse himself to the Clergie that had employed and given him money which otherwise he must have restored back and yet not so neither or by only restoring their money without going over Seas excused himself with any colour being they so long depended of him But in this promise also he failed For he went along to Rome and there sollicited ever since and lost both his money and time without
the authority or passage alledg'd out of St. Bernard the answer is 1. That it is curtail'd by the Quoter the words immediatly following part of the same sentence and last period of that passage being purposely omitted That period being thus concluded by the Saint Séd sanè ad nutum sacerdotis jussum imperatoris Where he manifestly shews the difference betwixt the direction of the Priest and command in the Emperour over the temporal or material sword 2. That St. Bernard never mean'd to impose any any necessity of conscience on the Prince to draw his sword whensoever and as often soever as the Priest or Bishop would becken or nod or which is the same thing would advise counsel or endeavour to perswade him But mean'd only that the material sword should indeed be drawn by the Emperours command in such controversies or quarrels as the Priest might and ought in conscience to justifie according to the laws of God And that temporal Princes in undertaking war or in matter of publick or private justice where they must use the sword or force should if their be any doubt whether the undertaking or execution be according to the law of God or no and if themselves cannot resolve themselves should I say in such cases advise with or consult the Priest in that which belongs to conscience The Saint without any question supposing what the Prophet Malachy speaks That the lips of the Priest shall preserve knowledge and others shall demand of him the law of truth 3. That were St. Bernard speaking to the Bishops of Milan Constantinople Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem or to him of Paris London Toledo or Triers or to any other particular Bishop in the world that had a temporal Prince or General of War within his Diocess he might and would have said so much to him nay to the Priests that are no Bishops at all I mean the Ghostly Fathers or Spiritual Directors of Princes 4. That this very Saint himself doth abundantly clear all scruples in this matter For not to take notice of those words tuo forsitan nutu to quit the advantage of these other jussum Imperatoris both in this very passage quoted against me that other in his first book of Considerations to the same Pope Eugenius c. 5. is abundantly sufficient Non monstrabunt puto sayes he ubi aliquando quispiam Apostolorum Iudex sederit hominum aut divisor terminorum aut distributor tèrrà rum stetisse denique ego Apostolos judicandos sedisse judicantes non lego c. Ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus potestas vestra quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistis claves regni caelorum praevaricatores utique exclusuri non possessores Quaenam tihi major videtur dignitas potestas dimittendi peccata an praedia dividendi sed non est comparatio Habent haec infima terrena judices suos Reges Principes terrae Quid fines alienos invaditis After all which he gave in the same paper of his answers that is in the skirt of it this Advertisement The Reader may be pleased to take notice That however this be or whatever may be thought of this doctrine yet the Subscribers to the Protestation are not any way engaged either in the affirmative or Negative it being manifest that the protestation in it self abstracts from either part and consequently both from these Answers and the Queries too XXVII That besides and after sending the foresaid two or three Quaeries to the Procurator the Jesuits now I remember not which of them or by whom sent him this other of one single Quaerie and reasons for the Affirmative Which because it and the former were the only papers and indeed only Quaeries and Reasons either by paper or without paper insisted on seriously by them or any others in Ireland ever since this dispute concerning the Remonstrance began And none else but those Fathers of the Society and in this manner only insisted on them so I give wholly and exactly as in the original given me without any subscription Whether a temporal or corporal punishment may be inflicted by virtue of a spiritual power Some reasons offered for the Affirmative First it is a maxime of Aristotle and allowed of by all Statists Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law and by all Divines that frustra datur potestas directiva sine coerciva The spiritual power is directiva Therefore in all reason we must allow potestas coerciva or a coactive power I know the answer of such as hold the negative is that potestas directiva hath a coactive power intra eandem sphaeram that is to say when the potestas directiva is spiritual it must have potestas coerciva or a coactive power ejusdem generis of the same kind and therefore spiritual punishments are allowed to the potestas directiva spiritually as Excommunications interdicts c. but no temporal punishments To this I reply that they can scarce produce one Classick Author of any note that giveth this exposition and they that hold the affirmative may produce as many as ever wrote ex professo of this matter for the contrary teste Basilio Pontio one of the most eminent men of this age who expressis verbis saith haec est communis omnium Catholicorum opinio Secondly omitting many other proofs it is the opinion of two General Councils that of Lyons and that of Lateran though perhaps not enacted per modum decreti But because General Councils are undervalued by some that believe that only the diffusive Church is infallible I will stand to the general practice of the diffusive Church which is the surest way to know its opinion When any person is nominatim Excommunicatus he is not only put from Mass and deprived of the suffrages of the faithful but also he is forbidden any civil commerce and conversation with the faithful he must not eat or drink with them he must not discourse nor be saluted by them besides they are whipped and commanded to undergo austere penances But all these are corporal punishments Therefore the opinion of the Diffusive Church is that a spiritual power can inflict corporal punishments And this being once granted it must be also allowed that the corporal punishment may be the greater pro qualitate delicti and consequently when the crimes are great it is in the power of the Church to inflict great punishments corporal and temporal Thirdly It is recounted 2. Machab. cap. 2. that Antiochus being King of the Jews the Priest Mathathias seeing a Jew by the Kings command ready to offer sacrifice to the Idols killed both the Jew and him who by the Kings command did compel the Jews to sacrifice Is it found in Scripture that this act is reprehended or doth any of the holy Fathers condemn Mathathias of unlawful murther in this case The same Mathathias being ready to depart this world and give an account to God of all his actions exhorteth his Sons to take arms
Church for these are the very words of Gerson that such a Prelate in such proceedings be resisted to his face provided it be done with that moderation which an unblameable defence requires as Paul resisted Peter For as Origen sayes on Joshua Hom. 22. where no sin is we cannot eject any out of the Church least peradventure endeavouring to root out the cockle we root up also the very wheat Which eradication of the wheat St. Augustine in his 3d. book 2 chap. against Parmenian post Collator c. 20. so desired the Prelates of the Church to beware that he teaches there expresly the very cockle must be often let lye still as often to wit as he that otherwise deserves to be so eradicated hath a great multitude that go along with him in his delinquency And teaches consequently that to attempt the separation of such a person or in this case when the Prelates cannot without the loss or destruction of the wheat also would be most grievous sacriledge Whence it is that many Catholick Writers and those too most religious and learned have thought according to this rule of St. Augustine that upon such account Gregory the VIII Boniface the VII Innocent the IV. Iulius the II. and many other great Pontiffs who govern'd the See of Rome after and betwixt their several Popedomes have been guilty of most horrid sacriledge as such that by their excommunications of Kings and Princes their Interdicts of Kingdoms and Republicks have done nothing else but rend the Church into fatal Schismes The blame and sin whereof those writers also think ought to be charged upon those very Popes abusing so their power by unjust excommunications and other censures not on the Princes defending justly themselves and their people But as for my self and for all other true Catholick and knowing Patriots of Ireland and not of Ireland only but England too it must seem to us without doubt very certain that the greatest evils of both Nations and greatest miseries under which the professors of the Catholick Faith amongst them have so long groaned to this present had first their very fatal origin from the sentences censures and depositions pronounced by Clement the VII Pius the V. Sixtus the V. and some other great Pontiffs of the Roman See now again at last their very prodigious encrease from the more then temerarious Interdict and Excommunication of Iohannes Baptista Rinuccini late Nuncius Apostolick extraordinary from Innocent the X. in our our own dayes to the Catholicks of Ireland And these passages I give here so many and so at large on this subject of caution thaâ— your most Reverend Paternity may the better perswade your self throughly that Father Carons either advice to you or desire from you hath been very prudent For when your Paternity shall consider that to condemn a Protestation Declaration or promise of Allegiance in temporal affairs to the King must be an intollerable errour because expresly repugnant to the Gospel of Christ Matt. 22. and to the clear precepts also of the most blessed Apostles Peter and Paul Rom. 13. and 1. of Peter 2.3 and 4. chap. when you must consequently judge there can be no sin at all to be proceeded against in such a necessary subscription or if there should according to the sentence of some few seem to be any kind of transgression therein yet in the judgment of others even the greatest Doctors of the Catholick Church there can be none but rather a degree of merit as the necessary concomitant of a laudable vertuous action so farre is that Protestation from implying in the judgment of moderate Divines any kind or even smack of heresy or schysme when however your Paternity think of this I said last you must undoubtedly acknowledg the cause of those subscribers of your Order to be such as has a multitude involved therein nor of those onely of the Seraphical Order nor of others too of the secular and regular Clergie alone but of the lay people also of the Gentry and Nobility the most honourable and most remarkable of the Kingdom and those likewise in very great numbers who questionless will assert that Doctrine or the Sanctity equity and justice of that Protestation or of that our Form to which they also by a particular Instrument of their own have subscribed and will assert it with their blood and life as their predecessors have before them done these 500. years under the Kings of England when lastly whatever be the crime or cause which is either objected to or presumed of those the Subscribers of your Order if indeed your Paternities quarrel be to them at all or to that their subscription or to that Form of theirs when I say your Paternity shall understand or consider that they are not as yet contumacious and I hope they will never be against the Church or against their Prelats being they have not been ever yet called unto or summond to appear for ought appears to them not once twice thrice nor peremptorily or by any one peremptory citation sufficing for three nay not as much as once barely admonish'd in any wise and when you therefore consider that a sentence pronounced against them the case so standing with them must be extreamly unjust even for want of due procedure according to the substantial or essential form of law and reason albeit no intollerable errour as to matter of right or fact could be alleaged when I say your most Reverend Paternity shall consider seriously all these particulars I doubt not you will entertain a very serious thought also of the prudence and reasonableness of that of Father Carons either advice or desire That you take good heed to carry your self with deliberation matureness and charity in this debate which our emulous Antagonists have raised against us least otherwise more scandals and evils and such as will draw long repentance after them do follow then may be hindered taken away or ended at any time by your Paternity or by the Minister General and his perswaders or indeed by any other And so most Reverend Father I conclude this Epistle which the shortness objected by your most Reverend Paternity to Father Carons former letters which I have not yet seen hath made thus prolix For I am not without some apprehension that you will take the like exceptions to his later also which I have seen As for other passages which concern a yet more perfect account to be given by the Subscribers specially by Father Caron me and the rest of our Institution to the great Pontiff to whom next to God according to the Canons of the Catholick Church and the rule moreover of our Seraphical Father St. Francis which God willing we shall endeavour alwayes to observe we profess all reverence and even absolute obedience in spiritual affairs due from us or as to passages yet wanting if there be any such that relate to the satisfaction expected from us by as your Paternity sayes and to be given to
this great Prince And so we are at least throughly quitt even for matter of example And so I have also done with my sixth and last of all those considerations or of all those points on which I have said before in the beginning of my animadversions of or answers to the third ground of the Censure it had much better become our masters of Lovaine Doctors of Divinity and of so grave and so judicious a Faculty as that of Lovaine should be to reflect seriously before they had precipitated so temerariously and injuriously and even erroneously to boot to censure that Remonstrance of 61. on this ground of its pretended promise or tye on Confessors to break the Sacred Seal of Confession The nullity and falsity of which pretence or ground although I knew that my very first consideration of all the six had sufficiently evinced yet I would ex superabundanti and to clear this matter in all particulars and to instruct others more fully give all the rest albeit unnecessary amongst men of reason to vindicate in this behalf or any other that Remonstrance LX. I onely to end all whatever I intended to say on this occasion further add it is a confirmation of what I have said before in my first consideration that if our sticklers at home for the Lovaine Censure in this behalf or if the opposers of the said Remonstrance of 61. on account of obliging Confessors to break the Sacred Seal of Confession will continue still their malicious clamours against it on this account finding all other accounts to stand them in no stead though I be sure they find this very same to stand them in as little as any of all they must confess themselves consequently obliged to clamour no less nay more against the Remonstrance of 66. whereof hereafter I will treat at large even that of the Dublin Congregation of that year even that of the general Representatives of the whole Clergie of Ireland even that of their Archbishops Bishops Provincials Vicars general Divines altogether For if the former of 61. be quarreld at for expressing onely the readiness of the subscribers of it to reveal c. and for expressing such readiness without any express engagement or any at all in other express tearms then these two words being ready words of their own proper strict signification not engageing at all the subscribers to reveal or that they will discover actually but at most a present preparation or disposition of mind to discover c certainly this passage of the Remonstrance of 66. wherein there is an express engagement or one in express words that they will or shall discover c. must be in reason as much at least if not more quarreld at on that account Wherefore pursuant c. we do engage our selves to discover unto your Majesty or some of your Ministers any attempt of that kind rebellion or conspiracy against your Majesties person Crown or Royal authority that comes to our knowledge For here is the same general notion of knowledge without any express distinction of it without any express reservation or exception of that knowledge which is had in confession as indeed there should not be any either express or tacit thereof more then is in the former Remonstrance of 61. LXI To the fourth and last ground of that Censure of Lovaine against this Remonstrance of 61 their pretence of its renouncing Ecclesiastical Immunity or of subjecting Clergiemen against Ecclesiastical Immunity to the cognizance and punishment of the civil Magistrate The Procurator and other subscribers answer'd 1. That there is not a syllable in that Remonstrance which may seem to any man of reason to say either formally or virtually expresly or tacitly That Churchmen have not or ought not to have either by the laws of man civil or Ecclesiastical or by the laws of God positive or natural any such immunity or exemption either for their goods or persons from the cognizance or punishment of the subordinate inferiour civil Courts Magistrates or Judges I mean any such immunity or exemption as the Catholick Faith or Catholick Church teacheth as out of Scripture or out of Tradition or even as by virtue of any canon or custome obliging as much as the very Churchmen to assert or maintain it or not to renounce or disacknowledge it not even in some cases or some Countreys where the civil or municipal laws are contrary to such canon or such custome as for example England and Ireland where this last century of years the laws and customs are known to be so much altered from that they perhaps have formerly been in this matter That the acknowledgment of the King to be our King and our supream Lord too or the acknowledgment of his absolute independent supremacy in all temporals within his own Dominions concluds neither formally nor virtually a disacknowledgment or even the least renunciation of any kind of real true pro-per Ecclesiastical Immunity acknowledg'd by other parts or people or Churches or Churchmen in the world even in the most Catholick Countries No more certainly then doth the like acknowledgment known to be made by word and by writing by all Catholick French Spanish Venetian German c Clergiemen to their own respective Kings Emperours States conclude that they disacknowledg or renounce thereby or by any other means that which they call or acknowledg to be Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption amongst themselves That as little doth the acknowledging our selves bound under pain of sin to obey His Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as any other of His Majesties Subjects and as the laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom require at our hands that I say as little doth this acknowledging such obligation draw along with it by either formal or virtual consequence our disacknowledging or renouncing our right or pretence to any true real or proper Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption If we have indeed or can have or ought to have any such right or pretence of right in the case For such obligation and such acknowledgment of it can and does very well consist evermore with a challenge or claim to all kinds of true and proper Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption whether that challenge or claim be well or ill grounded in the case being it is very well known that other His Majesties Subjects are not bound under pain of sin to obey His Majesty by an active obedience always not even in all civil and temporal affairs but either by an active or passive only And being it is no less known that the laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom require no more at their hands even in all civil and temporal affairs then to be so obedient as either to do that freely which they prescribe or patiently and without resistance to abide the penalties of the same laws and of His majesties pleasure And being moreover it is evident of it self that a Priest can without making any resistance patiently christianly
as I have done here but only quotes the books and chapters especially for the two former Which yet is not his custom when he finds the places home to his purpose As for that no less unconcluding and that too but onely one out of the new Testament you have it in the 17th of Matthew verse 23.24.25 and 26. where it is related that our Saviour being at Capernâ—â—m and the tribute gatherers demanding of Peter whether his Master would pay the tribute money or didrachma and Peter having answered yes our Saviour presently knowing of the matter and preventing Peter and questioning him in this manner what thinkest thou Simon of whom do the Kings of the earth take custom or tribute of their own children or of strangers and Peter answering of strangers our Saviour inferr'd instantly Ergo liberi sunt filij Then are the children free Adding further thus notwithstanding least we should offend them or give them cause to be scandalized at us go thou to the Sea and cast a hook and take that fish which shall first come up and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a stater that take and give it them for me and thee Of all these examples and places of Scripture Bellarmine frames his first proof to inferre his foresaid Thesis or fift proposition which is That the exemption of Clerks in all politick or civil affairs and as well of their persons as of their goods from all even the most supream temporal Magistrate for that too he means all along was introduced amongst Christians for this also was and must have been his purpose both by divine and humane law And for humane law he supposed that proved before as himself notes and alleadges these Scripture examples and passages to prove onely that his fift proposition for what concerns divine right or divine law Notwithstanding all which I say the case is clear enough still if we but consider these very testimonies passages either out of the old or out of the new or out of both Testaments For whatever may be alleadged pretended or inferr'd though nothing can be but with very little colour out of any or even all these places taken together for the exemption of the lands goods or persons of Clergiemen from paying tribute customs polemony or other taxes whatsoever yet I am perswaded that no rational man much less any consciencious able Divine can be so blind as not to see the unsignificancy of these Scripture testimonies or examples to prove the persons of Clergiemen exempt in criminal causes by divine right and by the positive law of God from the supream civil coercive power Which onely is that I dispute here with Cardinal Bellarmine or rather with his disciples or defenders in this particular controversy the Divines of Lovain And I am perswaded so 1. Because that of the Egyptian Priests signifies no kind of exemption of their persons from laye Indicatories not even from such as are inferiour and subordinate onely nor in any causes whatsoever either criminal or civil or mixt of both Nor signifies as much as the exemption of their lands or goods from all kind of taxâ—â— or from any at all but onely from the forfeiture or sale of their lands or from paying a fift part of the increase And this exemption too from such forfeiture sale or fift part not to have been made by any positive law of God but by the laws of man that is of Ioseph or Pharao 2. Because That of Artaxerxes concerning the Mosaycal Clergie at Ierusalem signifies no more but that Kings command to his own inferiour officers not to laye any imposition of toll taxes c. on them but not a word that himself had no power to taxe them much less any syllable which might import that those Ministers of that holy Temple were exempt either in other civil or criminal causes from his own cognizance or punishment or even from that of his inferiour subordinate civil Judges or from the Lieutenant that govern'd Palestine under him Besides we know the positive law of Artaxerxes cannot be said to be the positive law of God 3. Because that of Leviticus though confessedly sometime the positive law of God signifies no more also but that the whole tribe of Levi were put under the subordinate care and jurisdiction of Aaron and of his Sons the Priests and of their successors and onely as to the Ministery of the Tabernacle whereof he had charge according to what was expresly decreed in all such particulars by God himself in the law given by him to Moyses and rest of Israels descendants Not a word at all exempting either Levits or Priests or as much as the High Priest himself in other affairs or in either criminal or civil matters from the supream civil Temporal or politick Iurisdiction of Moyses or other succeeding Generals Judges or Kings nor as much as exempting them from tribute or taxe or other imposition if at any time the necessities of their countrey or people or weal publick or kingdom were such as the supream civil Governours should judge it necessary to taxe them proportionably for the publick good or safety as well of themselves as of all the other tribes It is true that although not here yet elswhere God left the tribe of Levi exempted from being bound to be listed for War Nay expresly ordained Numb 1.49 that they should not be listed so but should be exempted from that charge or duty as being there appointed for and applyed wholly to an other special duty that is to carry still and serve and keep and watch the tabernacle which could not well consist nor at all with that of warfaring But what hath this particular exemption from one onely duty to do with a general exemption from all other civil duties whatsoever and from the very supream power it self which was to take care that this duty also as well as others should be discharged Those amongst the Romans who by the laws were priviledged not to serve in the warrs were they exempted therefore in all other matters from the supream power of the state or Empire or exempted generally from the supream Coercive power in criminal causes or must Bellarmine abuse his Reader with such quotations and such implyed but unconcluding arguments Nor certainly does that iterated expression of God in that place of Leviticus or elswhere mei sunt they are mine import any more then a special designation of that tribe for that most special Service of His about the tabernacle For he hath often elswhere in holy Scripture said of all the twelve tribes together that they were his own chosen peculiar people And yet never mean'd to exempt them thereby nor by any other expression from the power of their earthly either supream or subordinate Governours or exempt them at all from such power in either civil or criminal matters or in any whatsoever but in such religious matters onely as himself expresly had reserved for the
earthly Princes and in all criminal causes whatsoever LXIV And let the Reader be also himself Judge betwixt me and this most eminent Cardinal or his defenders the Divines of Lovaine of the strength or weakness of his second proof which is the only remaining of his arguments for a Position so temerarious I say so temerarious in as much as it exempts by any law whatsoever and specially by the positive law of God all Clerks from the supream civil coactive power of supream temporal Magistrates Princes or States and that too in meer temporal matters What I would therefore say further is 4. That the case is still clear enough on my side as to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture notwithstanding all or any of his allegations of Councils or Canons for himself in his said second proof and whereof only that proof consists I admit that the Council of Trent Ses 25 cap. 20. de Reformat speaks thus Eccelesia et personarum Ecclesiasticarum Immunitas Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus instituta est That the Council of Colen held a little before the Tridentine Synod speaks also thus par 9. c. 20. Immunitas Ecclesiastica vetustissima res est jure pariter divino et humano introducta quae in duobus potissimum sita est Primum ut Clerici eorumque possessiones à vectigalibus et tributis aliis que muneribus laicis libera sint Deinde ne rei criminis ad Ecclesiam confugientes inde extrahantur That the Council of Lateran held under Leo the X. and but a little too before that of Trent speaks further thus in the 9. Ses Cum a jure tam divino quam humani Laicis potestas nulla in Ecclesiasticas personas attributa sit innovamus omnes et singulas constitutiones c. That another of Lateran also under Innocent the III. hath this language cap. 43. Nimis de jure divino quidam Laici usurpare conantur viros Ecclesisiasticos nihil temporale obtinentes ab eis ad praestanda sibi fidelitatis juramenta compellunt That Boniface the VIII in cap. Quanquam de censibus in 6. speaks of Ecclesiastical Immunity as if it had been certainly granted to be of divine right That John the VIII also hath these words or expression can si Imperator dist 96. Non a legibus publicis non a potestatibus siculi sed a Pontificibus et sacerdotibus omnipotens Deus Christianae Religionis Clericos et sacerdotes voluit ordinari et discuti That Symmachus with his whole third Roman Synod long before John the VIII affirmed That solis sacerdotibus disponendi de rebus Ecclesiae indiscusse a Deo cura commissa est That finally Innocent the IV. though as Bellarmine himself confesses here not as Pope but as a particular Doctor in his Commentaries upon cap. 2. de majoritate et obedientia after he had taught that Clerks were by the Pope with the Emperours consent exempted from the Lay-power adds moreover that forasmuch as this kind of exemption seems not to be a plenary or full exemption therefore it must be said that Clerks have been exempted so by God himself I admit I say these Councils either Provincial or General as they are or as they are called such respectively and these Popes likewise have in the places quoted these expressions or this manner of speech where they have somewhat to enact or treat of concerning the exemption of Clerks and that consequently in these places they dog in general terms speak of that exemption in general so as to attribute it in part to Gods ordination as the Fathers of Trent or to the Divine right or law as those of Colen of both Laterans Boniface the VIII or to the will of God as Iohn the VIII and for what concerns to particular the disposing of the Goods of the Church Symmachus too in that his Roman Synod As for Innocent the IV. it matters not at all what he sayes on this subject in the place quoted being its confessed by Bellarmine himself that he writ these Commentaries before he was Pope and therefore in so much is but as another private Canonist of whom we are not bound to take notice where he brings no proof For we confess there is a number of such Canonists and some Divines too that without any ground in holy Scripture or Tradition hold with him in this point but whom therefore all other sound and great Divines who examine the matter throughly and strictly charge with errour both against express Scripture and Tradition But for these Councils either General or Provincial and for these Popes also who being Popes did speak so so all and every of whom we must observe that reverence due respectively to them the answers are 1. That none at all of these places or authorities alledged out of them are home enough to our present case or dispute of the exemption of Clergy-men by the positive law of God in holy Scripture from the supream civil co-active power of Kings or States Nor as much as one word hereof And therefore did we grant as we do not nor can by any means that these Councils or Popes intended by such expressions or by these or such other words Dei ordinatione jure divino omnipotens Deus voluit a Deo cura commissa est to signifie that such exemption of Clerks even in the whole height and latitude or sense of it in Bellarmines way had been ordained immediatly and expresly by God himself or by some express immediat positive law of his delivered unto us by Revelation and by the tenets of Catholick Faith to be by us believed yet should it not follow that therefore these Councils or Popes did signifie this positive law of God for it was or is in holy Scripture Because there may be positive laws of God come to us by Tradition though not a word of them in Scripture And because it is evident these authorities alledged have no distinction at all nor any intimation of Scripture 2. That being it is plain enough out of what is said before to Bellarmines arguments out of Scripture that these Councils or Popes could not pretend to any such positive law of God in holy Scripture and no less plain out of Bellarmine himself and others of his way that they could as little pretend to any such as delivered us by Tradition for himself doth not in all this matter as much as once pretend the least Tradition unless peradventure some body will misconster him or his second proof here and say he mean'd it as a proof of Tradition in the point which cannot be laid to his charge at all for he could not be so grosly overseen as to give us only such sayings of these late Councils of Trent Cullen Lateran or of these three Popes for a Catholick Tradition and we know very well and confess he makes other kind of arguments for any particular tenets being of Tradition arguments composed of
been delivered and declared unanimously by the Fathers therein from the beginning as of divine Faith or as the doctrine of Christ or of the Apostles as received from Christ or that the contrary is heretical c. Non enim sunt de fide sayes Bellarmine ubi supra disputationes quae praemittuntur neque rationes quae adduntur neque ea quae ad explicandum et illustrandum adferuntur sed tantum ipsa nuda Decreta et ea non omnia sed tontum quae proponuntur tamquam de fide Interdum enim concilia aliquid definiunt non ut certum sed ut probabile c Quando autem decretum proponatur tamquam de fide facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilij semper enim dicere solent se explicare fidem Catholicam vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt vel quod est communissimum dicunt anathema ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt Quando autem nihil borum dicunt non est certum rem esse de fide Whence it must follow evidently and even by an argument a majori ad minus that neither the words or epithets used even by the most general Council may be in their decrees of Discipline Reformation or manners nor the suppositions or praevious or concomitant bare opinions which occasion'd the use of such words or epithets in such decrees bind any at all to beleeve such words or epithets were rightly used or fitly applyed or that those opinions were well grounded or certain truths at all Whereof the reason too is no less evident and obvious To wit that the Fathers or Council had not examined or discussed this matter it was not at all their business to determine it nor did they determine it And that we know laws of Reformation and even the very most substantial parts of such Canons are grounded often on or do proceed from meer probable perswasions or such as onely seem probable nay sometimes from the meer pleasure of such law makers All which being uncontrovertedly true where is the strength of Bellarmines grand or second argument framed of such bare words or epithets did we grant his sense even in the whole latitude of it were that of these Popes and Councils Or how will he seek to establish a maxime of such consequence or of so much prejudice to all supream civil Governours and even to the peace of the world to all mankind it self and a maxime for so much or for what hath reference to the exemption of Clerks as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power so clearly as will be seen hereafter in some of the following Sections against express and clear passages of holy Scripture and against the universal Tradition for a 1000. years at least how will he I say have the confidence to endeavour the establishing of such a maxime upon so weak a foundation which every man can overthrow at pleasure or deny with reason to be a foundation at all for that or any other maxime as I mean asserted to be declared such in the positive law of God either in holy Scripture or in undoubted Tradition For the positive law of God appears not to us but by either of these two wayes of the written or unwritten word of God himself 4. And lastly that besides all said in these three answers to this second argument of Bellarmine if we please to examine further what the places alleadg'd import we shall find that whatever the private or peculiar but indiscussed opinion of these Popes or Councils was or was not concerning our present dispute of the exemption of Clerks and that by the positive law of God as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil or temporal coercive power nay or whatever such words as jus diuinum ordinatio Dei voluntas omnipotentis c. abstractedly taken may import yet the places alleadged or these words or epithets used in them by these Fathers must not by any means be thought therefore to have comprehended our present case or extended to it at all And the reason is 1. That all Divines and Canonists agree that all expressions words or epithets in any law whatsoever must be understood secundum subjectam materiam or must be expounded by and according as the matter which is in debate or is intended requires and further so as no errour inconvenience or mischief follow and yet the law and words thereof maintain'd still in a good sense and to some good use especially according to former wholesome laws 2. That the matter unto which there was any reference in these places or authorities quoted so by Bellarmine was either Ecclesiastical Immunity in the most generical sense abstracting from the several underkinds true or false or pretended onely of it or was it in a less generical sense taken for that of their persons but still abstracting for any thing appears out of these places quoted from that pretended species of exemption of Clerks as to their persons from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes especially when the crimes are high and so high too as they are subversive of the very State it self and are besides in meer temporal matters and no remedy at all from the spiritual superiours And in truth for what concerns the Council of Trent which as of greatest authority amongst us as being the very last celebrated of those we esteem general Councils Bellarmine places in the front 1. it is clear enough to any that will please to read the whole tenour of that twentieth chapter Ses. 25. de Reformatione which he quotes That that Council did even there so much abstract from this matter or so little intended it that on the contrary the Fathers much rather seem to speak onely there of the Ecclesiastical exemption of Clerks as to their persons from onely inferiour secular Judicatories or onely from the inferiour Courts Judges and Officers of Princes but not at all from the Princes themselves or from their supream civil power or that of their laws Which I am very much deceived if this entire passage whereof Bellarmine gives us but a few words do not sufficiently demonstrate Cupient sancta synodus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam in Christiano populo non solum restitui sed etiam perpetuo sartam tectam a quibuscumque impedimentis conservari praeter ea quae de Ecclesiasticis personis constituit saeculares quoque Principes officij sui admonendes esse censuit confidens eos ut Catholicos quos Deus sanctae fidei Ecclesiaeque protectres esse voluit jus suum Ecclesiae restitui non tantum esse concessuros sed etiam suâ— ditos suos omnes ad debitam erga Clerum Parcchos et superiores ordines reverentiam revecaturos neâ— permâ—ssuros ut officiales aut inferiores magistratus Ecclesiae et personarum Ecclesiastisarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione et Canonicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu
way as by saying they understood not by divine that which is properly and strictly divine but that only which is in a large though somewhat improper acception such and by lay-persons understand only such inferior Lay-persons Judges or Governours as in certain cases haue not from the supream power and civil laws any cognizance of Church-men Which indeed is the only rational and natural exposition of these authorities without any erroneous absurdity falsity inconvenience or prejudice as the very Canon alledged above by me at large out of the Tridentine Synod seems expresly to intimate for as much as it expresly and signally desires or confides for so it speaks that Emperours Kings and Princes will not suffer that their Officials or inferior Magistrats or Judges violat the Immunities of the Church or Church-men out of any covetousness or inconsiderancy confidens c. nec permissuros ut officiales aut inferiores Magistratus Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiasticarum immunitatem Dei ordinatione canâ—nicis sanctionibus constitutam aliquo cupiditatis studio seu inconsideratione aliqua violent Besides the Reader is to observe two things for that of the fourth Lateran 1. That where 't is said there that Laicks usurp too much of divine right c. by divine right here we ought not nor indeed can if we will not make the Fathers to speak improperly understand the law of God but only the right belonging to God whether that right be derived immediatly from the law of God or law of man 2. That it cannot be truly said that any Clerks receive no temporal thing or benefit from the supream civil Magistrate whereas all Clerks receive from them temporal protection at least And therefore in reason owe Allegiance to such their protectors For Boniface the VIII although his authority or judgment alone without a Council be amongst very Catholick Nations or Universities of no great value or esteem in this or any other which concerns the difference or controversie For we know well enough how his extravagant unam sanctam de Majorit obed is reputed in the Gallican Church and what his Letter Brief or Bull was to a King of France where he declared them all Hereticks that would not acknowledge himself to be supream in that Kingdom and as well in all temporals as in spirituals and that the same esteem indeed and as to our main purpose may be and also truly and groundedly may be entertain'd of Innocent the Third no judicious Divine that will read in Spondaâ—uâ—s Contin his proceedings against most of all the Christian Kings not in Europe only but in Asia will deny I say neverthess that for what concerns only our present purpose of the exemption of Clergymens persons in criminal causes from the supream civil coactive power under which they live and are protected our learned Cardinal alledges this very Boniface to no purpose albeit he alledge him in cap. Quamquam de Censibus in 6. Where indeed there is no such thing For in that place as it is manifest enough out of the whole chapter and purpose or matter treated therein which was only of and against Guidagia that is a kind of toll custome or exaction to be paid for the safeguard of High-wayes and out of the very words which Bellarmine would not quote because not to his general purpose or to that of proving generally all the parts of his Fifth Proposition Cum igitur Ecclesiae Ecclesiasticaeque persâ—nae ac res ipsarum non solum jure humano quin etiam divino à saecularium personarum exactionibus sint immunes it is I say very manifest hence that Boniface in that place and no other is alledged out of him doth not as much as touch upon our controversie or say as Bellarmine imposes on him that Clerks and their goods are exempt from the secular power For be it well or ill said of Boniface here that as well by divine right or law as by humane Churches and Churchmen are free or exempt from all publick exactions of secular persons whereas by such exactions all Divines and Canonists understand only tributes tolls customes or taxes whatsoever of money or other things imposed as payable to the publick and whereas the very matter treated of and determined by Boniface in that Chapter is only that of guidagia or pedagia which was a duty as it seems payable then in Italy by all travellers and for their safe convoy or safe travelling whereas he commands only there that in prosecution of a certain decree made by Alexander the IV. his Predecessor Church-men pay no such guidagia or pedagia for their own Persons or Goods which they carry along or cause to be carried or sent non causa negotiandi who sees not it is a very great inconsequence and meer abuse of the Reader to conclude that therefore Boniface the VIII supposed generally nay says it to be de jure divino positivo taking this jus divinum strictly and properly that Clerks are wholy exempt in all criminal causes and all matters whatsoever from the supream civil coercive power of Lay-Princes Certainly neither doth Boniface teach any such matter there nor must any such follow out of what he either supposes or dedetermines there Because it is clear enough that certain persons even meer lay-persons may have a priviledge from all kind of taxes and yet be subject in other causes and other matters both criminal and civil to such as impose taxes For Iohn the VIII That who ever please to consider that whole chapter Si Imperator quoted by Bellarmine will be convinced this Pope intends no more but that as it is fitting the Emperour himself should for what concerns Religion learn from and not teach the Church so in Ecclesiastical matters it was Gods pleasure that Clerks should be ordered and examined and if they chanced to fall into an errour should be also reconciled on their return not by the Lay-powers but by the Pontiffs and Priests Which these words omitted by the Cardinal recipique de errore remeantes do sufficiently insinuat Besides that any man knows it is a very weak and sensless argument of a positive law of God for any thing or any duty or any priviledge that either Iohn the VIII or any other even a whole General Council should speak in this manner Omnipotens Deus voluit it was the will of God unless they had withal and on the debate or controversie it self made of purpose an express Canon declaring that thereby or by such manner or by these words it is or it was the will of the omnipotent God they mean'd to signifie not the general or special providence of God or his good will or pleasure known only to us for example in the present matter of Exemption because we see the Clerks as to many things are exempted so by the laws of Princes and that we know this could never have been done by Princes if God had not moved their hearts to do so For
is requisit but onely that simple or natural ratiocination or discourse which all men can have Such for example sayes he thirdly are all the precepts of the Decalogue For out of that first principle imprinted in the hearts of all men That God is to be worshipped must follow that Idols ought not to be worshipped and that we ought not to swear God in vaine As likewise out of that other first principle what you would not have done to your self you must not do to an other must follow that you must not kill you must not commit adultery you must not steal c. It is true indeed sayes our learned Cardinal and perhaps truly too in so much that some such precepts as these of the second degree or some such conclusions have been sometimes and in some nations blotted out of the hearts of men by too great a blindness which did seize their understanding faculty as appears out of Caesar lib. 6. de Bello Gallico where we read that amongst the Germans theft was esteemed no vice but a vertue and out of St. Hierom l. 2. in Iovinianum and of Theodoret l. 9. ad Gracos who relate many vices against nature which have been approved as lawful in some countries not onely by the people but by their laws and law-makers And yet notwithstanding this ignorance or blindness of some concerning the precepts of nature in such matters it is also and alway true that such precepts do truly and properly belong to the law divine natural as St. Thomas of Aquin teaches 1. 2. q. 94. art 5. q. 100. art 8. where he holds that no dispensation can take place or be given at all in the precepts of the Decalogue or in such as we commonly call the ten commandements because these are properly of divine natural right or law The third degree of natural precepts is of such others as are deduced indeed from the principles of the law of nature but not by a consequence absolutely necessary nor altogether or any way evident and therefore do want humane institution And these are they which the Divines properly referre to jus gentium the law of nations This being the doctrine of this great Cardinal and his division or distinction of the several degrees of the law divine natural and his Resolve of the above Quere being that which a little after he gives in these words His ita explicatis dicendum videtur Exemptionem Ecclesiasticorum non pertinere ad primum vel secundum gradum naturalium praeceptorum nec tamen esse juris tantum positivi sive canonici sive civilis sed referendam esse ad tertium gradum praeceptorum juris naturae seu quod idem est ad jus gentium that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks belongs not to the first or second degree of natural praecepts and yet is not from any law positive onely either canonical or civil but must be referr'd to the third of those are praecepts of the law of nature or which is the same thing sayes he to the law of nations I leave it now to the judgment of all judicious men whether he do not abuse the name of the law of nature or law divine natural and of precepts of such a law and consequently his undiscerning Reader by attributing that name to those dictats which are not indeed any such law or any precepts at all of such law not even I say according to his own doctrine here For a law divine natural hoc ipso that it is such a law or indeed any true law at all and precepts of the law divine hoc ipso that they are such precepts or even any true preceps of any true law must be of necessity binding this property or quality of binding as it is confessed of all sides being essential to a true law and true precept of such law I mean still according to that proper sense wherein I must be understood to speak here of laws and precepts that is as they are distinguished from other free unobliging rules of direction council or advice which not a superiour onely but every conscientious and knowing Inferiour also may give And yet Bellarmine here confesses in effect that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks was not obliging any nor binding by the sole vertue of any pure dictate of natural reason or not at all antecedently to an institution made by man forasmuch as it is onely of the third degree and therefore positive and consequently not a conclusion that follows any way at all evidently or necessarily out of any evident or certainly true principle of natural reason And what is this els but the dictat thereof not to be binding at all by natural reason and therefore consequently no law no precept of that same reason For if we see it doth not follow certainly out of any evident or allowed principle as our natural reason will not suffer us to be bound by it upon the bare account of such an uncertain false illation so will not our natural reason suffer us to esteem it upon that same bare account a law of meer natural reason and consequently nor a law divine natural Whence also it must be evident enough that Bellarmine seeks without any sufficient ground to impose again on his Readers credulity where he sayes in his said Resolve that this Exemption is not onely juris positivi sive canonici sive civilis For if it was not at all as his own doctrine here confesses it was not before the institution or determination of men however this determination was made by custome onely or otherwise how can it be true that it is not onely from or by a positive law institution or determination of men and this law either civil or canonical or both being there is no other way of a positive determination Behold the reason partly wherefore this learned Cardinal seeing well enough his doctrine and Resolve or both together could not but argue him of absolute contradiction if he would be understood so as to speak properly or even to speak sense at all flyes immediatly from the name or title of law divine natural to that of a law onely of Nations or rather confounds both together that is the law of nations and his third degree of the laws divine natural But so he might have without any authority to impose new names confounded together and comprehended under the self-same appellation heat and cold and vice and vertue or at least as many different species's of qualities as have no contrariety in the same subject However allowing him this priviledge or passing by this shifting of names or appellations and his attributing in some sense though an improper abusive sense the titles of a law of nature and of a law of nations to the exemption of Clergiemen in his own greatest height extent or latitude of this exemption or as it imports even that exemption which he maintains to be of the persons also of Clergiemen and even in all temporal causes
judge of all without further trouble to turn those monuments either sacred or prophane That in the former Section I have already shewen at large the impertinency or unsufficiency as to his general Assertion of his quoting the 47. of Gen. and 1. of Esdras 7. for what concerns the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes and therefore need not say any more of these two Scripture places here That for his other two Scripture places the first out of the thirtieth of Exodus and second out of the first chapter of the book of Numbers neither of both has a word importing as much as a bare exemption of the Levits from all kind of tributs or from any at all but onely from the half ficle which was to be payed for the use of the Tabernacles by all the children of other tribes who came to 20. years So that I cannot but be somewhat troubled when I see this great man alleadge Scriptures after this rate 1. Because this very exemption of the Levits from paying that half ficle is by consequence onely concluded out of the second of these places or both together forasmuch as in the late or in that 1. chap. of Numbers verse 48. God commanded Moyses not to muster the Tribe of Levi and that in the former place or 30. of Exodus 12. v. we find that each one mustered was to pay to the Lord or for the use of the Tabernacle half a sicle ten of our pence 2. Because these very places tell that all the children boys and youths of what ever tribe who were under twenty were as well exempt from that payment because from the muster as the Levit were not to speak besides of the female Sex 3. Because it were certainly most ridiculous to conclude hence that all those young men besides all the women young and old were in all things whatsoever exempt from the supream civil Magistrate from the supream lay Judges and Kings that succeeded those Judges Nay and extreamly ridiculous to conclude from even a general exemption of the Levits from all kind of tribute did such appear as it doth not to conclude I say their personal exemption and in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt from those supream lay Captains Judges Kings whom yet God himself appointed to rule all the Tribes aswell of Levi as others That for his other citations out of Aristotle Caesar and Plutarch for what concerns other nations and Priests of Gentils either Greeks Romans or other soever I took the pains to find these Authors and turn the places quoted and read those whole books quoted by him that is that whole second book of Aristotles Oeconomicks and that whole 6. book of Caesars Gallick warr and that whole life too of Plutarchs Camillus but found all against our learned Cardinals exemption or his latitude of it That Aristotle hath not a word of Priests either in that second book or in his first which are all the books he hath of Oeconomicks or de Cura Rei familiaris as the Latins entitle them but onely in one place of the second where he tells that when on a time Taos King of Egypt was to march his Army and wanted money Chabrias the Athenian gave him Council to tell the Priests of both Sexes that for the charges of the warr he found it necessary to lessen their number That hereupon the Priests every one for himself to be continued gave the King money And that again after this money so received the same Chabrias the second time advised the King to command the same Priests to spend thenceforth but the tenth part on themselves and sacrifices of that they had till then and give him the other nine until he had ended the Persian warr If this import any thing out of Aristotle for Bellarmine's purpose or not rather directly against his purpose of a law of nature or nations for the exemption of either as much as Priestly Clerks or Gentil Priests from the supream Civil power it imports all things els he please That Caesar indeed hath somewhat more likely of the Druides of Gaul Druides à bello abesse consueverant neque tributa unà cum reliquis pendunt militiae vacationem omniumque rerum habent immunitatem And yet here is no more but vacation from warr exemption from tributs and immunity for all their goods Not a word of their being exempt from the supream Civil Magistrat generally in all kind of things or causes or indeed in any thing at all from his supream power And still whatever is said here is said onely of the Druides of Gaul Not a word in all that book of Caesars of the Priests or customs of all other nations or of any in exempting so generally their Priests if peradventure Caesars telling That the Druides of Gaul had their discipline from the Druides of Brittain be not a testimony of such Custom of other nations which cannot be said That for Plutarch in Camillus he tells there I confess how after the Gauls had possessed Rome for seaven months the Capitol onely excepted which the holy Geese of Iuno's Temple by their gagling preserved and after the violence of a great plague and the power of Camillus had beat them away and forced them back to their own territories the Romans nevertheless were in such fear of their return that they made a law for the exemption of Priests from warr so it were not against the Gauls For these are the very words of Plutarch there and all the words he hath in that whole life of Camillus of any such matter or of Priests at all 'T is improbable therefore that Bellarmine ever troubled himself to read Plutarch when he quoted him for his purpose here of a law or custom amongst the Romans for the general exemption of as much as their own Priests in all things or even too in any thing from the supream civil power of their State Here they are not exempted in some cases as much as from the duties of warr That for what concerns that priviledg of Constantine and for what appears out of that his Epistle to Anulinus recorded in Euseb l. 10. cap. 7. I elswhere shew as I bring that Epistle at length in the next Section that Constantine was farre enough from granting thereby any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends either of the persons of Clergiemen from asmuch as the most subordinate inferiour lay-Judges or of their goods from taxes but onely an immunity or freedom from publick offices as those of Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs Constables Collectors c. That finally for those words of Iustinians law who sees not they are to no kind of purpose alleadged certainly how subject soever any Divine or other person on earth will say Clerks are to either supream or subordinate civil Magistrats in all kind of temporal causes yet will the same Divines and all other persons and at the same time freely acknowledg with Iustinian the equity of making a difference twixt divine and human things
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
with marrying Theophanes Augusta or the widdow Empress notwithstanding his own former legitimate wife was still alive and no other cause to divorce from her and that besides he had received her or the said Theophanes's Son as a Godfather out of the Sacred Font and with too much liberty given to his army to oppress against all right and reason as well the Layety as the Clergie indulging them whatever they fancied and without any punishment and with robbing the very Churches of their donaries and with laying grievous excessive tributs on both Churchmen and Layemen against the law and with assuming to himself entirely the elections of Bishops and taking to himself also all the spoils of the dead Bishops and finally with endeavouring to have all the Souldiers killed under him in his warr against the Sarracens to be accounted and invoked as martyrs Do not the Greek Historians charge this Nicephorus with all these particulars and not with that law onely And if so as questionless it is so how could Basilius Porphyrogenitus or Bellarmine or we out of either perswade our selves with any certitude it was for a bare law revoking some former priviledges of the Clergie in case I say that law was such that Empire suffered in after days and not rather for some of those other undoubted exorbitancies against undoubted either divine or humane laws or suffered not for that law in it self but for the evil end or evil execution or use of it For a law may be good in it self and yet the intention of the law maker and his use of it very wicked And after all whether it was so or no what proof I beseech you is that bare saving conjecture opinion or judgement of Porphyrogenitus That Bellarmines pretended Exemption of Clerks in all both civil and criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil power hath been established either by the law divine natural or by the law of Nations That saying of Basilius Porphyrogenitus doth not touch this matter at all So that from first to last I dare conclude That for such Exemption and by such law of Nature and Nations Bellarmine hath not brought as much as any one argument which may seem to have the least colour of even probability itself nay nor even of that very worst sort of probability or that which our late Schoolmen call extrinsick onely Which himself did know so well that after having laboured so much to impose on us such exemption by such laws in a whole chapter yet in the chapter immediately following which is his 30. chap. l. 1. de Cleric he dares not give this doctrine of his own any better title or any better assurance not even for the being of it as much as by the divine positive law but onely the title or assurance of a bare probability of consequence And which further yet he knew so well that as he never once thought of the least Exemption of Clerks either as to their goods or as to their persons in politick or temporal affairs criminal or civil causes from any civil power whatsoever supream or not supream not even from the most inferiour civil Courts or Judges or of any kind of Exemption at all established for them in temporal matters by any law divine either natural or positive that I say as he never thought of any such Exemption by such laws in all or any the former editions of his Controversies or not until the very last edition of them by his own commands so it must be confessed he was in this point a very great changling to wit after he had seen all his other arguments out of human law or out of the civil and Canon law for his exorbitant exemption answered home by Doctor William Barclay in his accurate though little book de Potestate Papae particularly in the 15. and 32. chapters of the said book For in those former editions himself taught in express tearms against the Canonists Exemptionem Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona jure humano introductam esse non divino That the exemption of Clerks in politick matters as well concerning their persons as their goods was introduced by humane law not by divine Nay also as Barclay well notes de Potestate Papae c. 15. made it his business to wit in those former editions besides which the foresaid Barclay the Father knew of none to prove the truth hereof by three several sorts of arguments 1. by that of Paul Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit according to St. Chrysostome's exposition and understanding of it to be a command as well for Clerks as for Laycks 2. by other testimonies of holy Fathers in the point 3. because sayes he nullum prâ—ferri potest Dei verbum quo ista exemptio confirmetur there cannot be any word of God alleadg'd for this exemption From which doctrine he was so farre in his last edition that seeing he was left no other argument undissolved no other way unblocked for maintayning or carrying on his Exemption or that of Clerks in his exorbitant latitude of it and yet would not yield to victorious Truth he would needs in his old age trouble himself and others with a new invention or pretension rather nay rather too a meer aequivocation in effect of not onely a positive law divine per quandam similitudinem but even of a natural law divine and further confound the law of nature with that of nations and yet in the end of all pretend no more cap. 30. in solutione primae objectionis but a meer probability of consequence for his positive law of God nor for his natural but such a third degree c 29. as by his own explication of the third degree is no kind of degree at all of any true law of nature Whether this be not to abuse both Clerks and Layicks Princes and Subjects the State and Church being the controversy is of so high concern to all for the peace of the world I leave the indifferent Reader to judge For I have done my part and proceed now to shew by the solution of his other arguments LXVIII That for what concerns human laws too either civil or Ecclesiastical the case is also clear enough of my side both against him and our late Doctors of Lovaine That by neither law Clerks have ever yet been exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power nay nor in any kind of meer temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil from that supream civil power were it necessary for my present purpose to add this as it is not Though I confess they have been exempted and very justly too by several both imperial and other municipal and Royal laws from inferiour civil Judicatories in many civil causes and in some Countries by the peculiar municipal laws of such Countries exempted also in some criminal causes in prima instantia from the inferiour subordinate civil Judges and other Judges that
in pursuance of those priviledges so generally granted by this pious Emperour Constantine to all Clerks of the Catholick Communion it was that he writ to Anulinus the Prefect of Affrick that letter whereof I treated before but whereof I have shewed also that Beliarmine made other use then he should or could which Eusebius hath at length in his Ecclesiastical History l. X. c. VII and I give here now wholy out of him to this end also that the Reader may himself be Judge with how little reason our learned Cardinal did quote it for a proof of a law of Nature or Nations for his exemption or in his whole latitude of the exemtion of Clerks from the supream civil coercive power even in all kind of criminal causes whatsoever albeit this consideration belong properly to the former Section Ave Anuline carissime nobis Cum ex multis rebus constet religionem illam in qua summa divinae majestatis reverentia custodituâ— spretam quidem maxima reipublicae impâ—rtasse discrimina eandem verorite susceptam ac cust litam nomini Romano maximam prosperitatem cunctis mortalium rèbus divina id tribuente beneficientia proecipuam felicitatem contulisse placuit ut homines illi â—ui cum debita sanctimonia assidua hujus legis obseruantia ministerium suum divinae religionis cultui exhibent laborum suorum mercedem repâ—rtent Anuline carissimâ— nobis Quocirca eos homines qui intra Provinciam tibi creditam in Ecclesia Cathâ—lica cui Caeciliarus praeest huic sanctissimae religioni ministrant quos Clericos vâ—care consiteverunt ab omnibus omnino publicis functionibus immunes volumus câ—nservari wâ—errâ—re aliquo aut casu sacrilego a cultu summae divinitati debit â—abstral â—ntur sed ut pâ—tius absque ulla inquietudine propriâ— legi deserviant Quispe his summam venerati nem divinâ— numini exhibentibus maximum inde em sumentum republicae videtur accidere Vale Anuline carissunt ac desideratissime nâ—â—is Thirty six years after this letter and the former priviledge of Constantine the Sons of this great Emperour Constantius and Constâ—ns the one an Arrian the other a Consustantialist governing the Roman Empire their father being dead Arbitiâ— Lâ—llâ—â—nus being Consuls gave yet a further priviledge to Bishops and only to Bishops not to other Clerks that it should not be lawful to accuse them of crimes before Secular Judges And so decreed by an express law L. Mansuetudinis 12. eâ—d tit For as for other Ecclesiastical Persons Priests inferiour Clerks or Monks they remained still as they were in all both civil and criminal causes under the jurisdiction of the civil I mean subordinat lay Magistrates until Iustinians time And therefor it was that Leo and Anthemius both and together Emperours about some threescore years before Iustinian to favour somewhat more yet the Clergy and that they might not be drawn too farr by the lay Judges enacted Ne orthodoxae fidei sacerdotes Clerici cujuseumque graâ—us aut Monachi in causis civilibus extra Provinciam aut lâ—cum aut regionem quam habitant ex ullius penitus majoris minorisue sententia Judicis pertraâ—antur sed apud suos Iudices ordinarios id est Provinciarum Rectores omnium contra se agentium excipiant actiones That no Priests oâ— Clerks of what degree soever nor Monks of the orthodox Faith be in civil causes drawn at all out of the Province place or Countrey where they dwel by any higher or lower Judge whatsoever but be left to answer before their own ordinary Judges that is the Rectors of Provinces the actions of all Plaintiffs against them Behold how these most pious and Catholick Princes declared the Presidents of Provinces to be the ordinary Judges of the Clergy Whom yet none of all the holy Fathers or great Pontiffs of those times did rebuke herein or taxed with any errour or with having declared or spoken in such matters and in their publick Institutions or Laws any thing at all less truly less piously or less orthodoxly Whence it appears how injuriously they speak of Iustinian that charge him with usurping any jurisdiction over Ecclesiasticks whereas on the other side they should acknowledge themselves infinitly bound to him for as much as he was the very first of Emperours that in civil causes exempted Clerks from secular that is lay Judicatories to which till his time they had been subject in all such causes Which exemption or priviledge given so by him is to be seen in the before-mentioned law of his Novel 83. but still with the also fore-mentioned caution that in criminal causes of Clerks the Pretor have cognizance however with this other caution also to see them degraded by the Church before he give definitive sentence or at least before he proceed to execution when their crime is found by him to be such as deserves the Gallies or Mines or Exile or Death or any other infamous punishment All which being so or this which I have now related being the true origen and progress of Ecclesiastical Immunity given so by several Emperours and at seueral times from the conversion of Constantine until Iustinian made this law in his 83. Novel First it is clear enough by these very laws without relating to or depending at all of Bellarmines concession that Clerks have been originally subject in all politick matters not only to the supream power of secular Princes and consequently subject in criminal causes to their said supream civil coercive power but also in both civil and criminal causes to the subordinat lay or civil power of inferiour Judges Otherwise certainly neither could those Emperours grant those priviledges at least as priviledges nor would so many learned virtuous and holy Fathers Bishops and Popes as were then in the Roman Empire advise so ill in their own concern and in that of truth also and Christian Religion that they would own such exemption as from the benefit concession or priviledge of such lay Princes if they had believed to have had it formerly and originally from the very essence of Religion For by owning such priviledges from those Princes they confessed themselves to have been subject to such as could give them this exemption being it is manifest that nothing can be freed or exempted which was not bound and subjected before in such matters wherein after the exemption is Besides the very Emperours themselves are sufficiently known in History to have been so pious that if they had been taught by the Bishops or at any time had been of themselves otherwise perswaded that Clergy-men were exempt from their power by the law divine they would have declared so much presently and generally in their own laws edicts without mincing without reserving stil a power even to their inferiour Judges to proceed against Clerks in most or many or some matters For if those good Emperours and other Christian Kings in their dayes bestowed on the Church so profusedly and only out of
last edition and after so many recognitions l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. but retracts that and puts on a new face and amasses together all his reading ever since that Edition and all his veteran strength and wit to prove that not only by other arguments but also by the very civil laws of Roman Emperours all Clergiemen are wholly and generally exempt and in all causes both civil and criminal from all even the very supreamest civil coercive power on earth even from that of those very Emperours who made those laws To the fourth proposition sayes he Tractatu de Potestate Papae in rebus temporalibus cap. 35. which was that no writer hath recorded to posterity that Princes have exempted Clerks from their own power but only from the power of inferiour Magistrates I answer that whoever sayes so doth seem either to have read nothing or to have purposed to abuse his Reader For Ruffians writen l. 10. Hist c. 2. That Constantine the Emperour pronounced in express words It was not lawful for him to judge Priests but rather to be judged by them Whereby he declared openly enough that Priests were exempted not only from the power of inferiour Judges but also from that of the very supream To which declaration that law of the same Constantine which is the seventh in Theedosius's Code de Episcopis Clericis is consentaneous where it is said that the Readers of the holy Bible and the Sub-deacons and other Clerks qui per injuriaâ— Hereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt who by the injustice of Hereticks are called to Court shall be absolved and henceforth as in the East shall not be called to Courts minime ad curias devocentur sed immunitate plenissima petiantur but enjoy a most plenary freedom So he Whence being it is clear enough that he absolutely prohibits that Clerks be called to Courts and will have them to enjoy a most plenary freedom and that he excepts nothing at all it must be also manifest his mind was that neither shall they be called upon to the very Princes own supream Courts for it would not be a most plenary exemption if they were obnoxious as much as to the very principal Power it self Such an other is that law of Theodosius and Valentinian Cod. Theodos. l. ultima de Episc Clericis where we read thus Clerks whom without any distinction the unhappy presumer commanded to be lead to the secular Judges we reserve to Episcopal Audience For it is not lawful that Ministers of divine duties be subjected to they pleasure of temporal powers In which law where nothing is excepted all things do seem to be comprehended unless peradventure the Princes power may not be said to be temporal And even Iustinian himself in his 83. Novella so often quoted by our Adversaries as if therein Clerks did not seem to be exempted in criminal causes from the secular Court hath these words That he must be first degraded from his sacerdotal dignity by the Bishop and so be put under the punishment of the law Where we see Clerks as long as they remain Clerks not to be under the power of the laws but onely after they are by the Bishop deprived of their Clerical honour and therefore while they remain Clerks to be not onely exempt from the power of inferiour judges but even from the very laws of Princes for what belongs to coaction And this is it which the Council of Constance did say in the 31. Session That laymen have no jurisdiction or power on Clerks And certainly under the name of Laicks it comprehends even supream Princes whereas these are Laicks Finally that I may pass over many other arguments the Emperour Frederick the second speaks generally in his first constitution where he sayes We also enact that none presume to draw any Ecclesiastical person to a secular judgment either in a criminal or civil question against the imperial constitutions and canonical sanctions So much there But by secular judgment are not onely understood the judgments of inferiour judges but also those of the supream whereas all are equally secular And we see it so observed indeed where the reverence of sacred canons bears the sway Behold here good Reader the very last essaye of a dying cause Our great Cardinal having been unwilling but to say somewhat however himself so knowing a man as we must presume he was could not but know he said nothing at all in all this discourse to perswade any other even but meanly knowing or judicious Adversary That any Roman Emperour did ever yet by any of these laws or other whatsoever exempt or intend to exempt or that otherwise they or any els understood Clerks to be exempt by any other law from their own supream imperial power in temporal matters either criminal or civil though I dispute not at present of civil causes but onely of criminal For 1. who sees not That were the testimony of Ruffinus's being home in any point a convincing argument yet this which is here alleadged is not in any wise to the point or question Ruffinus tells indeed that Constantine said it was not lawful for himself to judge the Priests but tells not that Constantine ever said himself had exempted them so from himself or that they were so by any law of man Albeit therefore Constantine said so to the Bishops of the first general Council of Nice yet is it plain enough out of the very series of that History in Ruffine when they offered 〈◊〉 petitions to him one against an other that as this was said by an ordinary manner of speech onely and by way of complement so the words must not be taken strictly or scrupulously at all but onely as extolling the dignity of Bishops and as intending to deterre them from litigiousness and chieftly 〈…〉 purpose to free himself from the trouble of judging their hateful differences That this was the mind of Constantine appears by these manifold and manifest arguments 1. That for that his saying he gave this reason that Bishops were Gods and received power from God to judge of him de nobis qâ—â—que pudicandi But neither can relate to human constitutions Nor even to those are divine least otherwise it must follow that Constantine farre better understood the law of God when he so refused to judge the Bishops then those very Bishops themselves who in that holy Oecumenical Synod of Nice did repaire and complain to him as to their Soveraign Judg as may be seen in that very History of Ruffinus 2. That otherwise no Clerks Priests Bishops themselves can be Judges of other Clerks sed ille solus de quo scriptum est Deus stetit in Synagoga Deorum in mediò autem Deos dijudicat For so said Constantine to the Bishops on that occasion and consequently if you take his words strictly or scrupulously he said that Clerks were not onely exempted from his own tribunal or that of Princes but from that of Pontiffs
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
not to summon Clerks to their tribunals and judge their causes whensoever such causes were meerly temporal and not properly or strictly spiritual or of a purely spiritual nature And I affirm also that before Iustinians Empire which was from the year of Christ 527. wherein it was begun to the year 565. wherein he dyed no Council nor canon of Council did ever as much as declare or even as much as only suppose that Clerks were by any other authority or by that I mean'd of the very Emperours themselves exempted generally from lay tribunals not even I mean still from those of inferiour Judges And O God of Truth how can any knowing Divine any conscientious Historian Canonist or Civilian be so preoccupated as not to acknowledge or so blind as not to see it cannot be any way probable that the Fathers of those primitive and purer ages should attribute any such power to themselves as by their own proper authority to exempt others or even themselves from that subjection to which as well themselves as all other Clerks were antecedently bound by the positive law of God himself as not only St. Augustine teaches in his exposition of the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul to the Romans but all other Fathers generally who treat of this subject or expound that chapter But to clear this matter throughly we must observe Those ancient Fathers with whom Ecclesiastical Discipline whereof now there is so great neglect did sincerely and severely nourish used their utmost endeavours that Ecclesiasticks should not onely by their doctrine instruct the people but also by their probity of manners and innocency of carriage in all things And therefore admonish'd all Clerks nay enjoyned them in their own conciliary Canons and sometimes also under heavy Ecclesiastical Sanctions or Censures That none of them should presume to convene or charge an other Clerk in any cause either criminal or civil before a secular judge but either by the intervention of friends should compose all their own differences or certainly if they would not or could not do so that they should at least suffer all to be determined by Episcopal Iudgment acquiescing therein And both advised and ordained so in imitation of St. Paul himself and for the very self-same reason or certainly not unlike to it this great Apostle had when writing to the Corinthians 1. Cor. 6. and forbidding them to sue one an other before heathen Iudges he gave therein a rule to all Christians generally for that time as well Laicks as Clerks Which reason appropriated to our present purpose of Clerks onely is That if or when it should happen that Clerks should fall out of human frailty into such imperfections or sins as other men are subject to and yet are scandalized at mightily when committed by Clergie-men they might be with farre more secrecy and much less scandal corrected by their own proper Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Superiours and consequently that such deviations of Clergiemen should not come to the knowledge of the vulgar which commonly judges of the doctrine by the life or conversation of the Doctors and is apt enough upon such occasions to laugh and scorn the persons themselves and not seldome too their very sacred function it self Besides that Clergiemen who by their calling should be in a very special manner above others careful to cherish peace and concord and be themselves by word and deed paterns of charity and patience to others should not by their own example or by their own sueing of others or of one an other in the secular and publick Courts rather shew the way to contention and strife then lead to christian peace and patience Whereby as it may be easily understood the Fathers did not by such admonitions or by such decrees lessen or intend to lessen as indeed they could not if any of them would and certainly none of them have willed so to lessen the proper civil power of the secular Iudges to heare and determine the temporal either civil or criminal causes of Clerks when brought to their tribunals and brought so either by the free access of the Clerks themselves or by their constrained or commanded appearance when called or summoned by the same Iudges For to have done so or intended so would have been to take from Princes and Magistrats that right and authority which the law of Christ doth not permit any admonitions or any decrees of the Fathers not even in or by their most solemn Councils whatsoever to take from the said Princes or Magistrats The Fathers therefore by such decrees did partly forbid that Clerks should not sue one an other and partly too that neither should they sue a meer layman before a secular Iudg. For this also of not sueing laymen some Canons have And the Fathers by those decrees ordained Episcopal punishments against all Clerks that would not observe those decrees And this is all that may be gathered out of any or all the Canons of Councils alleadged by our adversaries Now who sees not that all this might be justly and lawfully ordained by the spiritual Fathers of the Church by their Ecclesiastical Councils and Canons without any the least diminution of the former civil power of the lay Iudges over Clerks For so a good natural Father in the civil commonwealth that hath many children may command them all and also forbid them under a private domestick punishment nay even under that of disinheriting them that they contend not or sue one an other before a publick Judg about any quarrel amongst themselves but leave all such differences to himself their Father or to the private domestick judgment of their other Bretheren And may command this without any prejudice at all to the publick authority of the publick or legal Judges And therefore so too may the spiritual Fathers of the Church command those who are in a special manner and by a special tye and calling their spiritual children such as all Clerks are and may command them too under such punishments or penalties as are proper to their said spiritual Fatherhood not to the one an other or even any at all before a secular Judg. And yet by no means thereby lessen or intend to lessen the power of such Judges over Clerks or their causes whensoever convened or brought either by election or coaction before them but onely to abridgâ— the Clerks themselves of their former liberty of going so freely unto them as they used to do Which any rational person may easily judg not to be an Exemption of Clerks from secular Judges but a provident course to keep them in better order and as well as may be to avoid scandal And that my bare assertion may not be given for this my interpretation I thought it worth my labour to set down here and at length distinctly those very Decrees of Councils which Bellarmine l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. Prop. 3. pleads against us though he gives there some few words onely of some of them and
is plain enough that if any pretend the Fathers of Agatha intended ought else it must consequently be granted this canon of theirs was not formed by them as of any matter in their opinion belonging to Catholick Faith or Laws of God or in their opinion also as much as enacted formerly in other parts by any civil or imperial or general institution or constitution made by the Christian Emperours of Rome or Constantinople but only formed by them that is by these Fathers of Agatha in pursuance and by virtue only of a local custom of Guien introduced by the command or connivence of the politick Magistrates of that little Kingdom or Countrey as regarding only the external politick administration direction or government of Churchmen which external politick government of the Church varies not seldom according to the variety of Times Kingdoms and Provinces And my reasons for saying so or for saying this to be plain enough are I. That at that very time it was otherwise by law and practice of the great Roman world or Empire in all other places generally being we know out of the imperial laws then in force and out of Ecclesiastical History that Clerks being summon'd to the civil Courts did generally in other Provinces both answer and appear without any reluctance or prohibition from Councils For this Council of Agatha was not held within the bounds at that time of the Roman Empire but under Alarick the Gothish King who at that time held Guien by hereditary and as formerly by concession too of Roman Emperours dismembred from the Empire and conferr'd on his Predecessors without any supremacy reserved to the Empire Which was the reason that in the beginning of the acts of this Council we find no mention at all of the Emperour but of the King Cum Dei nomine ex permissu Regis in Agathenscm civitatem sancta Synodus convenisset c. Ibique flexis genibus in terra pro regno ejus pro longaevitate populi Deum deprecaremur c. 2. That the above first part of this 32. canon of Agatha as likewise that whole one and twentieth canon of Tribur if construed to put a stop to Clergymen from following or acting in the forum of the lay Defendant is now at this time and hath been these many ages past abrogated by the common consent or custom of all people and nations Whereas the common law is now and hath been so long that a Clerk at difference with a Lay-man if he will be righted by law must commence his suit in the lay or civil Judicatory As we may see expresly declared to have been still the law cap. si Clericus 5. de Foro competenti where the Pope Alexander the Third hath thus decreed Si Clericus Laicum de rebus suis vel Ecclesiae impetierit Laicus res ipsas non Ecclesiae esse aut Clerici sed suas proprias asseverat debet de rigore juris ad forensem Iudicem trahi Cum Actor forum Rei sequi debeat licet in plerisque partibus aliter de consuetudine habeatur Therefore if these words or first part of the canon of Agatha Clericus nec quenquam praesumat apud secularem Iudicem episcopo non permittente pulsare are neither according to the common law ciuil or canonical of the christian world nor otherwise ever yet have been observed but out of custom only in so me or even many places as at that time of the Council of Agatha it was in Guien how can we esteem otherwise of the following words or second part of the same canon Sed si pulsatus fuerit non respondeat c. being there is no difference made in this canon it self Or who can affirm this second part was more firmly enacted by this Council or more generally observed by the Faithful Or otherwise then out of a civil custom and in pursuance and by virtue only of the supream civil power authority approbation permission or connivence in that Countrey And consequently who can rationally make it an argument of the exemption of Clergymen by the sole pure Episcopal Authority from as much as the subordinat civil Iudges Nay or an argument of their general exemption by the civil authority it self in other parts of the world at that time which was before Iustinians So little doth any part of this canon argue the exemption at any time of Clerks either in other parts of the world or in Guien it self from the supream civil Magistrate by any kind of authority imperial or Episcopal The fourth Council alledged for this exemption is that which they call Concilium primum Matisconense held in the year 576. as Barclay thinks or 581. as Spondanus or certainly 532. as the printed Acts. A Provincial Council it was of one and twenty Bishops Priscus Archbishop of Lyons presiding And as the Acts do shew called it was at the desire of King Guntheramnus who was one of the three brother Kings grand children to Clodoveus that devided France amongst themselves and left Orleance to him for his seat And all the Canons of it were in matter only of Discipline Amongst which the eight is in these words Ut nullus Clericus ad Judicem secularem quemcumque alium fratrem de clericis accusare aut ad causam dicendam trahere quocumqu loco praesumat sed omne negotium Clericorum aut in Episcopi sui aut in praesbyteri aut Archidiaconi praesentia finiatur And the fift and last Council alleadged in this matter by Cardinal Bellarmine l. 1. de cleric c. 28. ut supra is that which in order is the third of the Councils of Toledo and was held in Aera 627. being the year of our Lord Saviour Christ not 589. according to William Barclays computation but 593. according to Baronius and his continuator Spondanus Bishop of Apamia It is the 13. canon of those of Discipline or external reformation of the Clergie and people made in this Council which is pretended by the Cardinal as to his purpose And I confess this Council is of as great authority as an universal of all Spain and not of Spain alone but of the Bishops also of the Province of Narbon in France subject at that time to the Goths must be which therefore in Spain and as to Spain was stiled Concilium Vniversale having also had 70. Bishops that subscribed although not therefore a General Universal or Oecumenical Council simply such or at all such even for Discipline as to other Catholick Churches but in as much as received by them however several of its canons be inserted in Gratian this particularly whereof our present controversy is related 11. q. 1. cap. Inolita praesumptio And I confess too that Gratian hath truly related word by word this 13th canon as it is in the Council it self being this which I give here at length Inolita praesumptio usque adeo illicitis ausibus aditum patefecit ut Clerici Conclericos suos relicto
Iustiniani Imperatoris Catholici quam probat servat Catholica Ecclesia constitutione c. XXIV cap. eccl 1. decrevit ut nemo Episcopus nemo praesbiter excommunicet aliquem antequam causa probetur c. In which law of Iustinian it is also very observable that he prescribes meer ecclesiastical punishments to be undergone by the transgressors of it Is autem qui non legittime excommunicaverit in tantum abstineat a sacra communione tempus quantum majori sacerdoti visum fuerit c. On the other side it hath been often seen that the Fathers themselves assembled in Councils made ordinances or canons in matters belonging properly to the politick administration as to wit being certain the Prince would by his own proper authority approve of such canons and consequently give them that force which the onely spiritual power could not or as knowing that by the civil laws or customs of countries such matters ought to be observed but wanted nevertheless for their more conscientious and careful observance the admonition of the Fathers and the severity also of Ecclesiastical censures threatned against the infringers Which to have been so indeed may truly and clearly appear even out of this very Council of Toledo where annuente consentiente Rege some politick canons were made by the Fathers and may appear also out of that former of Matiscon wherein the 14 canon is Vt Iudaeis a caena Domini usque ad primum diem pâ—st Pascha secundum edictum bonae Recordationis Domini Childeberti Regis per plateas aut fâ—rum quasi insultationis causa deambulandi licentia denegetur 3. That if we did absolutely grant without reserve that by the royal authority of King Guntramnus in this first Council of Matisconum and of King Recaredus in that of Toledo the jurisdiction of subordinate inferiour lay Judges over Clerks had been totally extinct in the respective Kingdoms of those two Kings yet nothing hence for the exemption of Clerks from the very supream royal power in it self and in all cases or causes Nor any thing to prove such exemption from inferiour tribunals whatever it was to have proceeded from any power of the Church or even from any temporal power of Kings before Iustinians time and Novels in favour of Clergiemen for both these Councils were held after Iustinians Raign 4. And lastly that Bellarmine was not wary enough in alleadging that first Council of Matisconum For besides that what he alleadgeth out of it hath not as much as any seeming argument for his purpose but that simple Quere which every novice could answer he hath moreover given his Readers occasion to tell him that of all Councils he should ever beware to touch on this of Matisconum being the seventh canon of it is so clear and express against his pretence of divine right or divine law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Magistrate or indeed rather of any law at all even meerly humane either civil or Ecclesiastical for their exemption in all crimes or in all those which are in the canons stiled lay crimes crimina laica that murther theft and witchcraft are by name excepted by this very Council and in the seventh canon from any such priviledge of Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption from the lay Judges however the criminal be a Clerk as may appear to any that is not wilfully blind out of this VII canon it self being as to the tenor of it word by word at leingth what I give here Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque judex absque causa criminali id est homicidis furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum fuerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur So at that time the Fathers of this Matisconensâ—â—â— Council thought it not against any law divine or humane civil or Ecclesiastical to acknowledg the jurisdiction of even inferiour Judges over Clerks accused of or as much as accused of murder theft or witchcraft and consequently nor to leave them in such causes to the punishment prescribed by the law And what think you then would these Fathers have any more priviledged such Clerks as should perchance be found guilty of or charg'd with sedition rebellion hostility or any other undenyable treason against the King State or People Or did these Fathers think you harbour at any time the least thought of a priviledge from God or Church or Prince or people to Clergiemen guilty of moveing subjects to take arms against the King himself and his laws And these being all the Councils alleadged by the learned Cardinal in his controversies de Cleric l. 1. c. 28. and those other Councils after added by him in his foresaid other last peculiar little book de potestate Papae in temporalibus against William Barclay undoubtedly because upon after thoughts he found the former in his controversies not convincing at all as no more will you those his additional ones being also already and at large both in my general Answers to them all together and in my particular answers to each a part cleared by me abundantly in my LXIV and LXIX Section where the Reader may turn to them back again if he please for those additional Councils are no other then Lateranense magnum sub Innoc. III. cap. 43. Constantiense Sess 31. Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X. finally the Council of Trent Sess 25. c. 20. de Reformat All which I have though upon another occasion considered in my said former LXIV LXIX Section therefore to perclose this present Section I find my self obliged onely further to take notice of what the Cardinal sayes nay indeed gives for the second main proof of his third Proposition l. 1. de Cleric c. 28. which third Proposition is as I have before noted in general tearms this Non possunt Cerici a judice seculari judicari etiamsi leges civiles non servent For after the Cardinal had briefly quoted the Councils of Chalcedon Agatha Carthage Toledo and Matisconum and of these five Councils had framed his first argument for that his so general third Proposition and then for a second argument pretended first the constitutions of Emperours Novel 79. 83. and 123. but immediatly after acknowledging these Imperial constitutions did not reach the exemption of Clerks at least in criminal causes from some even Inferiour or subordinate lay judges but expresly subjects them still in such causes to the Praetors and Presidents he at last for a second proof of his said Proposition to wit as it relates to criminal causes relyes wholly and onely on the authority of the canon law and for canon law in the point brings no other proof then a general and bare allegation of three Popes Caius Marcellinus and S. Gregory the Great without as much as giving us their words but telling us
onely that what he sayes of canon law in the point is perspicuous out of the Epistle of Pope Caius to Bishop Felix out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus and out of the XI book of the Register of S. Gregory ep 54. ad Ioannem Defensorem and lastly to compleat this his second argument assumes this other Proposition as a maxime That the civil law must yield to the canon law whereas sayes he still consequently the Pope may command the Emperour especially in such matters as concern the Church This strange way of argueing in a matter of such consequence out of authorities or quotations of books or chapters the words not given to the Reader which yet is familiar with this great Clerk especially where he finds the authorities or words of the text if seen at length not to be much to his purpose hath put me to more trouble then I would be and then I knew the argument deserved However I took the pains as I have also in all other material quotations of his to turn to the canons books or places quoted and see the words of those three Popes Which indeed concerning the two former as they are alleadg'd by Gratian XI q. 1. c. 1. I find to be these of Caius first Nemo unquam Episcopum apud Iudicem secularem aut alios Clericos accusare praesumat And these too ead Caus. and quest cap. 2. Nullas Iudicum neque Praesbiterum neque Diaconum aut Clericum ullum aut juniores Ecclesia sine licentia Pontificis per se distringat aut condemnare praesumat Quod si fecerit ab Ecclesia cui injuriam irrogare dignoscitur tamdiu sit sequestratus quousque reotum suum agnoscat mendet And next I find the words of Marcellinus to be these other ead caus quest cap. 3. Clericum eujuslibet or dinis absque Pontificiâ— sui permissu nullus praefumat ad seculdâ—am Indicem attâ—here neâ— Lâ—â— qâ—â—â— libet Clericum liceat accusare To which my answers are 1. That Caius having suffered Martyrdom in the year of our Lord 296. and Marcellinus being chosen the same year nay within eleven days after the passion of Caius they are both consequently of the number of those Popes whose Decretal Epistles or such as go in their names are not by learned men even of the Roman communion esteemed other then meerly supposititious or at least corrupted and therefore such as cannot be alleadged for good or certain proof in any matter 2. That these two Popes having lived and dyed before the first liberty of Christian Religion under Constantine were it certain they had really prohibited the lay Judges to proceed in any causes of Churchmen nay which is more expresly declared that such lay Judges had no kind of Iurisdiction over any Clerk in any matter soever and were it also granted that such their sole prohibition or sole Declaration were hoc ipso a canon of the Catholick Church or obliging it in general as much as any canon of even a general Council each of which particulars is so farre from being certain or being granted as in the opinion of great Divines none of all three is any way probable yet any judicious man will see plainly that by secular judges here we must not understand such Judges as were truly such by the publick authority of Emperours Princes and laws but onely such as were by a compromise onely or submission of the Christian Litigants and by the private authority of the Churches or Congregations according to that of St. Paul 1. Cor. 6. appointed to determine amongst themselves the differences of those of their own Religion and consequently such as were rather voluntary arbiters then Judges simply or properly such with coercive power For who sees not it had been most imprudently or rather indeed madly done to have prescrib'd meer humane and also unnecessary laws to those heathen Imperial Judges that put all to death whom they knew to observe as much as the very most necessary most divine law of God himself Or shall we attribute such madness to men farre less prudent then we must suppose the wisest men in the world those holy and great Pontiffs of Rome And being we cannot how then doth Bellarmine alleadg this prohibition of Caius and Marcelline Or must it follow that because these Popes commanded that none of the secular Christian Judges appointed by the several private Christian Congregations should presume to judg of Clerks without the Bishops leave therefore the same was intended or given as a rule to the publick heathen Judges commission'd by the supream absolute civil and coerecive power of Emperours The general persecutions against all Christians generally both Clerks and Laicks were continued long after the days of Caius and Marcelline throughout the Roman Empire which till Dioclesians surrender was heathen And so long the Popes could not make laws of Discipline for the Judges appointed by that Empire Nihil ad nos de iis qui soris sunt judicare sayes the Apostle himself who certainly had no less power then any Pope 3. That for the former quotation of that either pretended or true Epistle of Caius it is not material The jurisdiction of civil or Imperial heathen Judges over Christian Clerks and Bishops too might be very well acknowledged by Caius notwithstanding he had thought it convenient for avoiding scandal to forbid all Christians not to presume to accuse any Clerk before heathen judges St. Paul forbade all Christians generally and consequently the very Laicks not to accuse even other Laicks before such heathen Judges yet no man sayes that St. Paul thereby meant that Christian Laicks were exempt from the jurisdiction of those Judges And that for the later quotation also out of the same Epistle of Caius which Gratian gives in the second place or second chapter of his foresaid eleventh cause and first Question it is mark'd with a Palea in Gratian himself and therefore also is of no authority no valew at all according to the doctrine of many Canonists which doctrine must be disproved before any such allegation can be urged 4. That for Marcelline's canon whether false or true I have before observed how Gratian hath if not corrupted at least misquoted the text which is not as he hath it Clericum cujuslibet ordinis nullus praesumat accusare c. but as it is in Concil 3. Aurel. in Panormia Clericus nullum praesumat accusare And that being so read it concludes nothing to Bellarmine's purpose if not a generâ—l exemption of all persons generally as well Laicks as Clerks from secular Judges and for what onely would concern a suit commenced by a Clerk Which yet is not to Bellarmines purpose at all nor at all for any exemption of either Laicks or Clerks from the jurisdiction of secular Judges but onely for a restriction of Clerks from scandalous litigiousness as I have also before in other cases or in my answers to the canons of Carthage Chalcedon
tale aliquid sive ex scripto sive ex non scripto praesumpserit imperare post cinguli privationem XX. librarum auri poenam exolvere jubemus Ecclesiae cujus Episcopus produci aut exhiberi jussus est executorem similiter post cinguli privationem verberibus subdendum et in exilium deportandum Item post multa si autem a Clerico aut Laico quccumque aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam apud sanctissimum ejus metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas et nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum Patriarcham Diocesees illius referatur causa et ille secundam canones leges huic praebeat finem Finally but yet moreover after quoting the law of Gratianus Valentinianus and Theodosius out of the Code l. VII titu XLVII constit III. in the point of nullity of a sentence when pronounced a non suo Iudice and the laws of Arcadius Honorius C. l. IX titu I. censtit XX. in the point of accusation made by Servants or Slaves except only the case of treason or crime against Majesty and the judgment of Modestinus the Lawyer ad legem Iuliam Majestatis l. Famosi lib. Pandectarum XLVIII in the point of credit not to be given to such accusers even in such a crime if the life or esteem of the accused was not such before as might render him suspected and another Novel Constitution as he calls it which is Authent de testib Parag. Et hic vero in the point of not condemning any by or for testmonies of witnesses to near which he was not called and of not receiving the testimonies of vile persons sine corporali discussione as he begun with and proceeded all along only out of the civil laws so he concludes at last that whole epistle out of the same civil laws tit XLIV lib. Câ—diâ—is in the point of giving sentence in writing quia scriptis debuit judicaâ—i Nam ibi inter alia dicitur atque praecipitur ut sententia quae sine scripto dicta fuerit ne nomen quidem sententiae mereatur sayes Gregory putting a final perclose to this 54 epistle ad Joan. Defensor l. XI Registri And this being the whole tenour as to the substance of that letter of St. Gregory and not as much as any one Canon at all as much as related unto by him therein from the first word to the last but only those canons in general which concern the order of Appeals in a Bishops cause not in that of other Clerks from the Metrapolitan to the Patriarch and yet these Canons too related unto here not by Gregory but by Leo Augustus himself and this also according to former civil laws of other Emperours and with so many exceptions still particularly for the cases of treason against Majesty and of a special warrant from the Prince himself to a lay subordinat Judge who sees not that Bellarmine had no kind of ground in this Epistle to abuse his Reader with quoting it as containing some argument to prove that although the civil law or Novels of Iustinian did not generally exempt Clerks in criminal causes from all publick or civil Judicatories yet the canon law did exempt them so or in such causes from all such Tribunals even the very supream But as for that other proposition which to compleat his second argument he assumes as a maxime That the civil law must yield to the canon law and for that also which to prove this maxime he further sayes That the Pope may command the Emperour especially in such matters as concern the Church which say at present of each a part and both together and of this manner of arguing is that in all I see nothing alledged or proved I mean to his purpose here but ignotum per ignotius and that my following Sections will further shew that in his sense or as applyed to his purpose or at least is necessarily inferring his Thesis or grand proposition or assertion of his Ecclesiastial Immunity both maxime and proof are absolutely false and yet and moreover consequently that his ratiocination or discourse composed of both is nothing else too but falsum per falsius However because neither the truth or probability as neither the untruth or improbability of any thing before said by me in this present Section depends of the truth or falsity of either that maxime or that other proposition assumed to make good that maxime being the dispute hitherto hath not been whether the Church could heretofore make or hereafter can make such canons as Bellarmine would have for such exemption or consequently whether in such case the civil laws being contrary must and ought to yield and be corrected by the canons or whether in such case too that maxime and proposition assumed to prove it might not be alledged and ought not to be admitted as out of controversie but the dispute hitherto in this Section having only been of the fact of the Church not of the power that is having been whether indeed she hath either justly or unjustly right or wrong validly or invalidly made at any time already or heretofore until this very present any such canon and because I perswade my self that I have sufficiently enough and very clearly too solved all that ever Bellarmine alledg'd either in his great work of Controversies and even in the very last edition of that great work or in his little book writ after of purpose by him De Potestate Temporali Papae adversus Gulielmum Barclaium for any such canon hitherto made I will now finally conclude that wherewith I begun this Section which is that neither by the Canons of the Church there hath ever been yet any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends or his Schollars in this the Divines of Lovaine of any Clerks whatsoever Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs c. from the supream civil temporal or lay power or Magistrats under which or whom they live And I conclude also my two several Affirmations immediatly following that Assertion and given or made there so immediatly as further illustrations of my meaning And to this conclusion add only here That I have taken so much pains in examining the canons alledg'd by our great Cardinal not indeed out of any purpose desire or inclination to exagitat the priviledges of Clergiemen or that I do at all or would envy them such priviledges or endeavour to lessen the reverence or esteem due or the honours or favours done or bestowed on their sacred functions and persons which any one may easily believe that knows me to be one of them my self through Gods mercy and favour to me how otherwise undeservedly soever But that next to that of speaking all necessary truths as it becomes a man of my profession in defence also of this so certain and christian truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from the supream secular civil Power as likewise of so many
ut cumque summus sit non poterit huic immunitati aut exemptioni propriis legibus propriaque authoritate derogare So farr the learned Cardinal hath helped us on in this matter by giving us to our hand the authors and places quoted albeit only to shew against William Barclay that himself was not single in asserting such a power to the Pope But for these natural reasons or theological if you please to call them so which to solve is my business at present he hath left his Reader to seek Which makes me say that he hath not at all removed the cause of Barclay's admiration as he ought to have done Barclay admired that so learned and so judicious a man as Cardinal Bellarmine should maintain that the Pope could exempt the Subjects of Kings from all subjection to Kings and this without any consent from the Kings themselves adding as a further cause of his admiration how it was confess'd that before such exemption by the Pope those very persons so exempted by him or attempted to be so exempted to wit the whole Ecclesiastical Order of Clerks and even as well Priests Bishops Archbishops Patriarchs and the very Pope himself as other the most inferiour Clerks were all of them primitively originally and even by the very law of God subject to the secular Princes in all politick or civil and temporal matters and yet as a further cause adding also that the law of Christ submitted unto in Baptisme deprives no man of the temporal rights he had before baptisme and consequently deprived not for example Constantine the Great when baptized of the lawful power he had before he was baptized over the Christian Clergy Now that Bellarmine should go about to disswade Barclay from his admiration because forsooth he quotes five School-men that is four Divines and one Canonist who taught the same thing and produces only the bare words of the Assertion of two of them on the point but no reason at all of theirs or of any others or of his own for such assertion may seem to men of reason a strange way of perswading another man and master too of much reason As if Barclay should cease therefore any whit the less to admire so gross an errour in Bellarmine that some others also had fallen into the same errour before or after or together with him Nay if Bellarmine had not preposterously fixed on those very men for his companions or patrons who contradict themselves so necessarily that is at least virtually and consequentially in this matter or if he had only fixed on such Divines and Canonists who speak consequently however ungroundedly of the exemption of Clergymen as of divine right which I confess the generality of Canonists do then peradventure he might have seemed to have alledged somewhat though indeed very little to allay Barclays wonderment For truly those he alledges betray themselves and his cause manifestly whereas they hold also manifestly and at the same time that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino Which being once granted who sees not the main difficulties which lye so in their way as not possible to be removed for asserting a power in the Pope to make laws for that exemption independently of Princes Who sees not that the Pope cannot make or impose what laws he please to bereave either Prince or People of their temporal rights or of what part soever of such rights he thinks expedient or convenient And who sees not otherwise that he alone must de jure be ot least may de jure make himself to be the sole supream Prince on earth in all temporal things at least amongst Christians And therefore consequently who sees not that being the Pope is not so nor can be so nor can lessen the Princes temporal authority over his own Subjects where-ever the law of God doth not lessen it and what I say of the Pope I say too of the whole Church who sees not consequently therefore I say that neither Pope nor Council nor other authority of the Church if any other be imaginable can or could so exempt Clerks from the power of Princes being that before such exemption all Clerks were subject to Princes and by the laws of God and nature subject to them But for as much as it appears undoubtedly that Bellarmine was one that did not or at least would not see these either Antecedents or Consequents being he sayes in plain terms and in his own name also de Potestate Papae in temporalibus supra cap. 38. That whether the supream temporal Princes themselves have or have not or could or could not exempt ecclesiastical while in their Dominion from their own supream temporal power potuit tamen voluit summus Pontifex istos eximere aut jure divino exemptos declarare yet the supream Pontiff could exempt them so and hath exempted them so or at least could declare and hath declared them antecedently exempted so by divine right that is by God himself in holy Scripture or at least in his revealed word either written or unwritten Neque possunt Principes etiam supremi hanc exemptionem impedire That neither can the Princes even supream hinder this exemption and That all this is the common doctrine of the Divines and Canonists cui hactenus non nisi Heretiei restiterunt which none hetherto but heretick's have resisted and forasmuch also as not onely Franciscus Victoria Dominicus Soto Martinus Ledesma Dominicus Bannes and Didacus Covarruvias above particularly quoted but even the generality of Canonists and late School Divine Writers seem to be of the number of those that with Bellarmine did not or would see the same Antecedents and consequents and lastly forasmuch as we have already solved all they could say for their contrary assertions either out of Scripture or out of the laws and canons nay and out of not onely some other extrinsick authorities of other authors Philosophers and Historians I mean for what concerns matter of fact or the point of Clergiemens having been already exempted so by any whomsoever but also all the arguments grounded on or pretended from natural reason or which Bellarmine framed above for his law of Nature or Nations for the Clergie's being already so exempted now therefore to fall to that which onely is the proper subject of this present Section let us consider those other arguments pretended to be of natural reason or even of Theological reason if you please to call it so as it may perhaps be justly called because suppoâ—eing some principle of Faith which we find in other Authors as in Dominicus Soto and in Franciscus Victoria for the being of such a power in the Pope or Church or in either or in both together as purely such or as purely acting by a true proper certain or undoubted power of the Church as the Church or as a Church onely For thus it is they must state the question and that they do questionless suppose it stated Though I confess
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
sayes right and speaks truth for so much yet sayes no more by adding congruentes then he had before by the word necessariae But if by leges congruentes laws congruent he mean laws which many or most Churchmen conceive or perhaps others too esteem of as much conducing to the splendour of the Church and execution of her commands or of other former or after laws but not as necessary to either then without doubt or in such meaning of this word congruent the proposition universally taken is in it self absolutely or simply false Because neither Pope nor Church can on any such pretext make laws to the prejudice of the civil rights of others without their own consent albeit laws which may otherwise conduce very much to the splendour and majesty of the Church nay and also not seldom to the greater perfection of holiness amongst the people For as the spiritual power â— in its own kind ordained by God and obliged to provide carefully for the observance of all the laws of God so is the temporal power also in its own kind both ordained by the same God and likewise obliged to see a due observance of the same laws of God And as notwithstanding this equal tye on the temporal power you cannot conclude it may enact laws in meer and pure ecclesiastical or spiritual Church matters although beleeving at the same time nay knowing such matters and such laws in such matters to conduce very much not to the greatness only of it self in the nature of a temporal power and to a more effectual observance of its own proper laws but to the better observance also of the very known laws of God himself so neither can you conclude that for the like end the power Ecclesiastical may at pleasure enact laws in temporal or civil matters In the making of laws by either part there is no difference in that For though it be true the Power Ecclesiastical be not bound to obey the temporal when this commands any thing against the commands of God nay that in such case the spiritual power may substract all its own proper and purely spiritual commodities or benefits from the Temporal it is also true that in like manner the Temporal is not bound to obey the spiritual when by laws or edicts of the Pope or Church invaded in its own proper temporal rights nay and that if necessary it may deprive the Ecclesiastical of all temporal commodities during such invasion or until the errour be corrected effectually When therefore any law or rather canon Ecclesiastical entrenches on the temporal power though under pretext of a spiritual advantage as for example when it prescribes or circumscribes or lessens the temporal jurisdiction which by the law of God was allowed or when it prescribes in the point of politick affairs or civil customs or manner of living civilly such prescriptions must not be acknowledged as proceeding from the true spiritual power but onely from the pleasure and sanction of spiritual or Ecclesiastical persons not acting in so much by any kind of power in them Ecclesiastical or not Ecclesiastical other then a meer usurped power but acting so as the true temporal power the secular Princes and Magistrats may oppose and correct them whereas in temporal matters or in any matters purely civil which are not necessary to salvation at least where the civil rights acquired already to a third and acquired without any injustice are taken away without the consent of such third person or of the supream civil Magistrat and civil laws by which onely all civil rights are confirmed or infirmed given at first or changed after it is most certain the Church can do nothing oblige no man without the temporal powers concurrence Otherwise who sees not that if the power Ecclesiastical make a law for levelling estates amongst the Layety or a law commanding every secular person that hath any goods to bestow every year on the poor the one entire half of his profits nay actually the one entire half of his lands for pious uses who sees not I say but that such law must in conscience bind all men Nay and should it make an other law too for appointing holy devout Churchmen to be superintendents or Stewards under the Pope in every Parish to dispose of all the goods of laymen to more holy uses then the laymen themselves do at present But if neither Soto nor any other Divine or Canonist nor Bellarmine himself nor any sticklers for his opinions will have the confidence to attribute the power of making such laws to the Church notwithstanding that such laws if submitted unto duely executed might questionless be esteemed by some or many or most or all Churchmen and by most of other men also to be very congruent for the greater splendour of the Church and more holy perfect observation of the Gospel and if to the Church they will deny such a power and deny it on that account only which I have presently given how can they but consequently deny to the same Church a power of making laws for exempting all Clerks from Princes without the consent of Princes Is not this a law made in a temporal matter and a matter unnecessary to salvation Was not the temporal subjection of the persons of Clerks or their subjection to Princes in temporal matters a meer temporal duty which sometime at least they owed to Princes Was not the right Princes had to govern and punish them a meer temporal right Was it not formerly acquired and legally settled from the beginning in Princes How then could the Princes be deprived thereof without their own consent by any law of the Church Or if so why not also of their other temporal rights and of their other Subjects and of their Lands c Or could not the makers of such pretend motives of piety and of the greater glory of God and greater splendour of the Church of God for making them and for proving them to be congruent Nay do we not know they pretend such motives to assert the temporal Monarchy of the whole earth to the Pope as if having it de facto or de jure and even without any such laws Why therefore may not they proportionable motives for his making in every Kingdom Province County Barrony City Parish Village Lieutenants of his own Ecclesiastical Function and consequently motives of congruency to transferr all the very individual otherwise temporal or civil rights of lay-men to Churchmen and so further consequently exempt all kind of lay-men as well as Clergiemen from the Jurisdiction of meer lay Judge if not of such as the Pope himself alone would make Judges But forasmuch as Dominick Soto notwithstanding so much evidence against even the congruency of Ecclesiastical exemption from all kind of civil Power or rather against his ill consequences deduced from his congruency must also affirm such Exemption to be necessary let us consider his five mediums to prove this whereof the three
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
what power he determined it I would I say advertise here such of my Readers that not only not Bellarmine himself but no other whom I could hitherto meet or read hath brought us yet any proof even of this very latter part of his said confident assertion for his voluit that is I mean for as much aâ— any one Popes having by his own papal Power or pretence of such power de facto already whether right or wrong exempted so all Clergiemen from the supream temporal Magistrats in all civil and criminal causes whatsoever or as much as declared them exempted so by any law of God and for any Popes having done or willed so expresly or clearly and indubitably on the very question either by decretal Epistle or by Bull or other Constitution whatsoever defining the case and commanding all Christians or Catholick Churches to believe this Exemption in Bellarmines latitude as given so nay or even as granted by any power or law whatsoever ecclesiastical or civil That Bellarmine hath brought no such proof the matter is clear enough being he alledgeth no more to this purpose for either part but those sayings or decrees of Cajus Marcelline Gregory the Great Symmachus Iohn the VIII and both the Innocents all and every of which I have already answered as they occurr'd in their proper places and shewed that none of them is home enough to this purpose Beside that I have proved some of them either suppositicious or corrupt and others to no purpose at all either this we have here or that for which they were brought there where I treated them And that no other Doctors Canonists or Divines of Bellarmine's way have better arguments for his said voluit or that imported by it any one may perswade himself that please to read them where they of purpose treat the matter of Ecclesiastical liberty and yet more especially where they dispute of the several Excommunications in Bulla caenae pronounced at Rome yearly and with so much solemnity by the Popes against all infringers whatsoever even Princes Kings and Emperours of the said Ecclesiastical liberty Wherein yet the Reader will find no other of any Pope's having so by himself and by his own power exempted Clerks or having declared them so exempted by the law of God but either some of those I have already answered or some other as little pertinent if not far yet more impertinent some of them then some of these I have already given Ioannes Azorius's Martinus Bonacina's collections of such arguments or canons of Popes alledged by them and others to this purpose may serve to judge by of all For I have diligently observed all the chapters of the canon law whereunto they remit us for proof that by the canon law Clerks are so exempted Azor hath them in his fifth book of his moral Institutions cap. 12. And Bonacina who was a professed Canonist a Doctor V. I. as well as of Divinity and who seeks no other rule of truth or justice in any matter but some kind of meer papal determination hath also quoted them in several parts of his moral Theology as de Legibus d. 1. q. 1. pu 6. n. 29. and in oct decalog praeceptum and de Restit disp 2. q. 9. pu 2. and de contrac d. 4. q. 2. pu 1. Parag. 1. finally Bullae caenae d. 1. q. 19. pu 2. And yet besides those texts I have treated already I find no other but cap. non minus de Immunitate Ecclesiae cap. Adversus cod tit cap. Clericis de Immunîtate Ecclesiarum in Sexto cap. Ecclesia sanctae mariae de constitutionibus and cap. seculares de foro competenti in Sexto But none of all these canons have any such matter at all as a clear express and formal nay or as much as a virtual diffinition of the Popes in the point or as to the case of the persons of Clerks being so exempted by the Pope himself or being so declared by him to have been formerly exempted by the law of God from all even supream civil power in all cases or even in any temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil For besides that some of these canons are not sole and meeâ— papal canons out of General Councils also or of Councils at least reputed General and consequently no proofs of the Popes having by his own sole authority willed so or exempted so the Clerks or declared them formerly exempted so by the law of God it is clear enough 1. That cap. Non minus de Immunitate Ecelesia which is taken out of the nineteenth Chapter of the third General Council of Laterâ—n held under Alexander the Third Pope of that name and Frederick the Second Emperour and as such inserted by Gregory the Ninth into his Decretals speaks only against such particular Consuls and Rectors of Cities as contrary to both the civil laws and customs received amongst Christians oppressed the Church-lands and Church-men by laying more grievous taxes on them then Pharaoh did on the Children of Israel and besides did wholy evacuat the jurisdiction of Bishops and only decrees by this canon as by a canon of Discipline for such only it was that such oppressors should be excommunicated Where you see there is not a word to our purpose For who doubts but the Fathers of this Lateran Council or even the Pope alone might justly complain of and decree against such oppressors notwithstanding the perfect entire subjection of all both Clerks and Bishops in all criminal causes and even of the Church-lands too in other matters to the supream civil Power They might have excommunicated such Consuls and Rectors for oppressing only the Laicks against the civil laws and customs or otherwise against justice 2. That cap. Adversus eod tit which is also not a meer or only papal Constitution but according to the Decretals of another General Council that is of the Fourth of Lateran under Innocent the Third and the 46. constitution of those of this Council if indeed the printed Acts or Canons of this Council be true ones or be the canons of this Council or if indeed this Council made any canons at all and how ever it be is but as the former a canon of Discipline only That I say this cap. Adversus as inserted by Gregory the Ninth in his Decretals and under the above title de Immunitam Ecclesiarum l. 3. tit 49. declares no more but that the said Fourth Lateran Council prohibited likewise the particular Consuls and Rectors of Citties as the former did not to oppress the Church or Church persons with tallies collections and other exactions And besides this nothing else from the Pope himself but that neither should the Churchmen themselves of themselvs freely consent to any taxes imposed or desired by such consuls rectors without the Roman Pontiffs leave and that if any constitutions were made or sentences given to the contrary all should be void Where you see nothing yet is said to our
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
Scripture teacheth the truth of that maxime as I have taken it Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo For if there be a latitude or liberty once given to mince these temporal rights without an express or certain warrant in that law it self of Christ it must be consequent that according to the caprichiousness or wilfulness of any either ignorant or interessed person the beleevers may be deprived now of one and then of another and at last of all kinds of civil rights under pretext forsooth of their submitting all to the pleasure of the Church by their profession of Christianity being that without such express warrant caution or provision there can be no reason given why of one more then of another or even why of one more then of all Having thus laid and demonstrated my first proposition or major of this my first argument I assume this other proposition for my minor But there was a natural or meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority or dominion which amounted to a coercive power in all temporal causes in every supream temporal Prince for example in Constantine the Great over all Christians whatsoever Laicks or Clerks living within his or their dominions before he or they became Christian in re vel in voto or by a perfect entire submission to the laws of Christianity and there is no such formal or virtual caution or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks and after his or their such entire submission neither he nor they did expresly or tacitly and equivalently of their own accord devest themselves of or quit that power not even I mean in order to any Clerks whatsoever so living still within his or their dominions Ergo The same natural and meer civil temporal or politick jurisdiction power authority and dominion which amounts to a coercive power in all temporal causes over the same Christians whatsoever Laicks and Clerks living within his or their dominions remained in them and him after he or they were so become Christians The conclusion follows evidently the premisses being once admitted And of the premisses the minor only remains to be proved Which yet although having three parts into the first of Clerks to have been subject in politick matters to the supream coercive power of heathen Princes appears already and sufficiently demonstrated in my former Sections where I solved all the arguments of Bellarmine to the contrary from the laws divine either positive or natural and from the laws of Nations too and shall yet more positively and abundantly appear out of my very next immediatly following LXIII and LXIV Sections where by authorities of Scriptures and expositions of those very Scripture places by holy Fathers and by examples or practice according to such expositions I treat this matter and prove this first part of this Minor at large Nay and shall appear too most positively and abundantly out of my second and third arguments of reason either Theological or Natural either ad hominem or not ad hominem but abstracting from all concessions ab homine which follow in this very present Section And therefore to save my self the trouble of too much repetition I remit the Reader to those other Sections and arguments the rather that Bellarmine himself never scrupled in his first editions of his controversies nor ever until he saw himself in his old age beaten from all his other retreats by the writings of other Catholick Divines Canonists against him and consequently the rather that this matter of this first part of my foresaid Minor is now so little controverted that scarce any can be found of such impudence as to deny it notwithstanding Bellarmine's illgrounded chang◠or opposition in his old age whereof more presently And as to the second part of no such formal or virtual caution or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks the very self same Sections which demonstrate the first part do also this But for the third or last part of this Minor which was that after their conversion to Christianity Princes did not quit or devest themselves of this supream coercive power of or over Clerks c I need not say more here or elswhere then I have before in answering Bellarmine's arguments out of the civil laws of Emperours Section LX. And nothing els but alleadg the known general and continual challenge of all Christian supream civil Magistrats Emperours Kings Princes and States to this very day of that supream coercive power of Clerks in all politick matters and their actual practice accordingly at their pleasure and when occasion requireth Notwithstanding all this evidence Bellarmine strugles like a bird in a cage For though he had not this argument framed against him dilated upon at full as I have heer but onely pressed by that bare maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo objected to him by William Barclay he answers thus contra Barclaium cap. XXXIIII It is true sayes he the law of Christ deprives no man of his right and dominion proprié perise quasi hoo ipsum intendat nisi aliquis culpa sua privari mereatur properly and intentionally or that of it self or of its own nature it deprives no man so as intending to deprive him so if not in case of demerit when a man through his own fault deserves to be deprived of his right or dominion Yet when it raises laymen to a higher order such as that is of Clerks we must not wonder that consequently it deprives Princes of the right or dominion they had over such men whiles in a condition much inferiour Nor are there examples wanting in other things as well prophane as sacred 1◠The King rayses a private man till then subject to an Earl and rayses him I say to a Principality It must be confess'd this Earl is consequently deprived of his Lordship or dominion which till then he had over this man nay perhaps further even subjected consequently to this very man whose Lord he was so late The Pope rayses an ordinary or simple Priest to a Metropolitane a Priest subject otherwise to a Suffragan Bishop and by such creation without any injury to this Bishop or Suffragan places consequently such a Priest in a Metropolitical power of command over even the very Ordinary under whom he was immediately before A unbelieving heathen or infidel husband had the right of a her band to and dominion over his infidel wife she is converted to the Christian Faith he remaining still an unbeliever And the law of Christ doth without injury deprive him of all right evermore too that woman if she please Even so by a marriage done or contracted by words of the present time a Christian husband acquires a right to such a Christian wife and yet if she before consummation please to ascend to or embrace a higher and holier state of life or that of a Votress in a Cloyster within the tearm of
committed according as the respective civil laws or customs of Kingdoms are and who may consequently according to the same laws deprive this or that private man of some civil right enjoyed by him formerly if he find it so expedient for the publick And I grant also what Bellarmine sayes of a power in the Pope to make a Metrapolitane or Archbishop of a simple Presbyter and consequently to subtract him from his former Ordinarie's Jurisdiction and of the like or unlike and even more absolute power in the King to give the creation of an Earl to a private inferiour person and place him in authority above another Earl to whom he was till then subject in many things and perhaps even generally subject also to all his commands But it is therefore I admit both because that not only this simple Presbyter and this private person but this Ordinary other Earl too are subject respectively to the Pope King and that by the civil laws the King may for the publick good and by the canons Ecclesiastical the Pope also may for the like publick regard so and so dispose of such persons no law of God or man being to the contrary Is this to conclude the exemption of Clergiemen from the power of Princes and against the will of Princes and against all laws both divine and humane and against all reason too and given more over by a man who could not exempt himself but was himself as subject as any other Clerk and consequently by a man who had no power at all over either Prince or Clerk in such matters Or is this to prove that the law of Christ doth exempt them or impower the Pope to exempt them in temporal things because forsooth they have a new spiritual creation which yet reason tells us and the Scripture teacheth to be and that it ought to be very consistent both in the creatour and created with their subjection in such temporal things to the proper Rulers of the same temporal things Bellarmine therefore seeing this first answer of his own could not sufficiently defend him against the reasonableness of that maxime Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo not even for all his instances which I have now throughly canvassed as much as is necessary to my purpose found it his best way to have recourse to his Recognitions or last Editions of his great work of Controversies and particularly of his book de Cleric cap. 28.29 and 30. and briefly out of his said latter doctrine there to give a second answer to Barclay here cap. 34. con Barclaium which in effect must be also to that part of my second proposition or minor of this my first argument where also in effect I said That Infidel Princes during the time of their infidelity and before they became Christians had a coercive power in temporal things over all Christians whatsoever as well Clerks as Laicks or in all temporal civil and politick causes or which is that I mean'd and do mean had that power over Clerks not de facto only but even de jure Legis Christianae According to this second answer Bellarmine admits or at least sayes nothing to the first proposition or major of my above first argument but flatly denâ—es my second proposition or minor chiefly for the first part of it and sayes the law of God as well positive as natural exempted Clerks from all earthly secular Authority (a) Ad hoc respondeo Clericos non solo Privilegio Principum sed etiam decretis summorum Pontificum quod majusest divino jure exemptos fuisse antequam Principum privilegio eximerentur Bellae minuâ— contâ— Barel um cap. 34.1 from all meer worldly Principalities and Powers whether Christian or Heathen and exempted them so long before they had been in aftertimes exempted either by the laws of Emperours or canons of Bishops But yet further and most specially and particularly endeavours to mantain this second answer in his said 3â— chap. contra Barclaium for what concerns the Pope's own person or the exemption of the Pope himself what ever be said of other Clerks Priests or Bishops whatsoever For to William Barclaies argument pressing him thus or in this form besides whereas the Pope himself hath not obtained his own exemption or that of his own person only by other law title or right but by that of the bounty and beneficence of secular Princes for as our Adversaries confess he means Bellarmine in the first place and in his former editions which were those which only William Barclay saw the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to Heathen Princes as other Citizens were it is very absurd to say that he might free others from that subjection least otherwise it might be said to him Alios salvos fecit seipsum non potuit salvum facere I say that to this argument of Barclay Bellarmine answers cod cap. 34. contra Barclaium and answers also in these very tearms Respondeo Argumentum Barclaii duplicivitio laborat Nam antecedens habet falsum conâ—ecutionem viti sam Falsum imprimis est Pontificem non alio jure quam Principum largitate beneficio exemptionem suam nactum esse Qui enim Vicarium suum in terris eum constiâ—it is hâ—c ipso eum exemit ab omni potestate Principum terrae Sed etiamsi jure subjectus fuisset Regibus vel Imperatoribus Ethnicis non tamen sequeretur cum subjectium quoque esse debere Regibus vel Imperatoribus Christianis nisi ipsorum largitate beneficio eximeretur Nam cum sit ipse super omnem familiam constitutus Reges atque Imperatores ab eo in eamdem familiam coaptentur ut ab ipso regantur dirigantur certé nulla ratio patitur up ipse illis subjiciatur quibus jure divino praesidet It seems our great Cardinal was reduced to very great streights when he was forced to contradict himself so notoriously even for the matter to change his Faith and Religion if he would have as indeed he fain would have us to hold the exemption of Clerks and especially of the Prince or Chief of Clerks the Pope himself I mean to be a matter of Faith and Religion But however this be of his change or of his faith or of his religion or even sole opinion whether out of interest or out of conscience altered so strangely in his old age from that it was in the dayes of his stronger judgment when he had much less to by ass him and long before Sixtus the V. did threaten to burn his first Edition partly for opposing the direct power of the Canonists and even when first he appeared in the lists so gloriously bidding defiance to all hereticks of all ages in the world however I say this be or not be of his change that this second answer as relating first to the whole Clergy in general nay and to every individual of them of whatsoever eminency
he could use means to compel the Princes themselves to exempt them so de jure Or is it to command Princes under the prescribed penalties that they should suffer Clerks to be and live de facto at liberty whom he himself had already or de jure set at liberty And if this be the Popes design in fulminating such censures then is it also plain that this very allegation destroyes that vain pretence of any material diversity or difference in the cases For that I may omit what I said a little before viz. that Christian Princes may be found I should rather say that all Christian Princes are de facto such who would be no more effectually compelled or moved to manumise de facto such vast numbers of Cittizens or Subjects then the very meerest Infidel Princes certainly this allegation reason or cause must be wholy conversant in matter of fact not in that of right because thereby it is not proved that the Pope might rather de jure exempt Clerks from the yoake of Christian Princes then of Ethnick but only that he might the more easily from and by Christian Princes get them de facto exempted whom himself had before de jure exempted which is nothing at all to the question As for the rest or that which Bellarmine alledgeth in the former words viz. these Clericos absolvte exemit a potestate principum fidelium qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt that the Pope hath absolutely exempted Clerks from the power of faithful Princes who acknowledge his power I have already above observed both falsity and fallacy therein Falsity because the Pope is no where read to have ever yet made canons for such exemption but only canons after and in pursuance of the exemption before granted by Emperors which is not not the exemption we dispute of here For the truth is that both Pope Church received vindicated what they could that ecclesiastical exemption was bestowed on them freely by Princes vindicated it as given to them by others but not as having had it formerly of their own either de facto or de jure Fallacy because that although Christian Princes acknowledge the Popes power yet they acknowledge this power as such to be no other then purely spiritual or in spiritual things only And by no means acknowledge such a power in him as may set loose free in all things from their own regal and temporal power such a great number of their people and this absolutely too as Bellarmine thought fit to express himself For so much hath our learned Cardinal himself granted in effect nay alledged l. 1. de Cleric cap 28. for the only proof of his second proposition there which is Nâ—n sunt exempti Clerici ab obligatione legum civilium quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio Clericali And so much in effect is granted by him in that other book of his which goes under the name of Franciscus Romulus where he sayes in Responsiâ—â—te ad praec capita Apologiae pag. 114. That Bishops ought to be subject in temporal matters tâ— Kings and Kings to Bishops in spiritual Episcopi Regibus in temporalibus relâ—us Reges Episcopis in spiritualibus subjecti esse debebunt Yet after such concessions and notwithstanding such affirmations and allegations when the same are urged against himself to some purpose by William Barclay he flyes presently to his vain distinctions and reserved sense how inconsistent soever with any kind of rational or material sense First he tells â—od c. 28. l. 1. de Cler. That although he said in his above second proposition that Clerks are not exempti from the obligation of the civil laws which are not contrary to the sacred canons or Clerical Office yet as he meaned only those politick laws which direct humane actions in temporal commerce as for example when the Prince or lay Magistrate ordaines a certain price of vendible things or commands that none go abroad with armes at night or without light or that none transport or export corn out of the Province and the like so his meaning was not that by such laws Clergiemen are bound â—verciâ—ely obligatione â—â—actina for these are his own words but only that they are bound by that kind of obligation which is called and is solely directive sâ—lum directiva are his own words also if peradventure the same civil laws be not approved by the Church And that if the canons of the Church had ordered or disposed of the very same temporal things that is had ordained or prescribed how men should demean or carry themselves in the self-same temporal occasions or matters Clerks would then be obliged to follow the disposition of the canons whatever it were even in such matters and not be obliged as much as directively to observe the civil law that is would not be obliged to or by the very directive part or virtue of the said civil law and not only not to or by the câ—ercive sanctions of it which prescribe punishment tunc or nunc legem civilem ne directive quidem observare tenerentur sayes he in plain terms Secondly he sayes l. contra Barclaium cap. 24. That although Clerks be Cittizens and a certain part of the politick State or Commonwealth this proves no more but that they are bound viâ—rationis by the force or vertue of reason but proves not they are bound vi legis by vertue of the civil law it self And sayes he had no other meaning that is mean'd no other kind of bond or obligation when or where he brought in his book of Clerks cap. 28. that argument of Clerks their being Cittizens or certain parts of the politick State to prove his above second proposition or that Clerks were not exempt from the obligation of the civil laws which are not repugnant to the sacred canons or clerical Office Thirdly he sayes cap. 15. lib. contra Barclaium that Franciscus Romulus in the above quoted place speaks only of that subjection de subjectione quam habebant Episcopi alii Clerici ad observandos leges politicâ—s c. which Bishops and other Clerks had on themselves to observe the politick laws and not to disturb the politick order setled by Kings even as sayes he the Popes Gelasius and Nicholas do teach the one in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor and the other also in his Epistle to the Emperour Michael both whom Franciscus Romulus hath quoted But hence sayes our Cardinal it follows not that a Bishop may be forced by the King to obey or may be punished by the King if he obey not whereas the King hath no power at all over Bishops or Clerks which is most manifestly read in the Councel of Constance Behold here the very quintessence of our most eminent Cardinals final Reasons or doctrine of his continâ—â—al aequivocations and reservations in this matter In effect therefore his answer to my second argument would be were he to answer it in form that he would
in plain tearms deny the Major to wit for the last part of it and for the former distinguish the word Cittizens parts members and again the word Subject For he would say that albeit whoever are Cittizens or parts and members and not the civil or politik heads of the civil or politick common-wealth Empire Kingdom Principality as such or as a civil and politick society are subject to and not exempt from the politick head power and laws which is the first part of the Major yet he would deny that which follows as the second part of the same proposition to wit this nor consequently from the supream coercive power of it And he would in the former part distinguish and say that indeed whoever are Cittizens parts members c. are subject either coercively or directively or both and that lay Cittizens or lay parts or members are both ways subject in all temporal matters but Ecclesiastical members not otherwise but directively and by no means coercively and that such members I mean Ecclesiastical are then onely as much as directively subject when the canons of the Church do not order the same temporal things Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo For what els do you see in the writings of this great Clerk but a perpetual change from one doctrine to an other in this matter and some other such of the Pope and Clergie as of the King also and Layety one doctrine while he was young an other when he was grown old and in his old age it self so many distinctions and evasions or rather confusions and contradictions that we know not where to and him or what to learn from him He would have the Clergie as politick parts or members of the politick common-wealth to be called Subjects to Kings whom he confesses to be the Politick Heads and he would have Kings to be called their Kings too and not onely called Kings in relation to lay subjects and he alleadges and truly too alleadges that Clergiemen as well as laymen pray for them as for their own Kings and we know it must be confessed by him they are so prayed for being the very publick Liturgy in the mass book hath that publick prayer which all Priests and Bishops too mast say and sing publickly at the altar of God wherein they say and pray for the King as their own King Et pro Rege nostro c. nay and he confesses too there in really an obligation whereby they are bound and really a subjection which they owe to Kings and yet after all he renders doth the names unsignificant and things inconsistent For I beseech you how can the King be a King that is a supream politick head and Governour to the Clerks of his Dominions or how can these they be politick Cittizens parts members of his Kingdom or bound to him or be his subjects that is be under him as such if he have no power of and over them or to command them or tye them by laws and precepts or if he have not as much as a directive power to command them or if they be not bound by as much as a directive obligation that is by an obligation arising or proceeding from the directive virtue of the command given or layed upon them To be a King of or over any or to be such a Head or such a Governour of any implyes essentially a power to command him or them over whom he is such and a passive tye of obedience in or obligation on him or them who are subjects or truly or in any proper sense named subjects And yet Bellarmine sayes in effect and gives it for his final Resolution though in contradiction to himself elsewhere nay and every where that in order to Clerks there is no such power in the King in any case not even in the very meerest temporal whatsoever nor any such obligation or tye on Clerks For he sayes as you have seen a little before that Clerks are not bound to obey their Kings meer civil laws in meer temporal matters whensoever the canons of the Church order the same matters and sayes too they are not bound as much as by the directive virtue of such laws and therefore sayes they are not bound at all being there is no tye can be but either coercive or directive and consequently must say though again in contradiction to himself the King is not King at all of Clerks nor Clerks subjects at all to the King For as the case hath already been in many even meer civil or temporal things that the canons or commands of the Pope for both are the same and the same too with these of the Church as to Bellarmines purpose have been even contrary to the civil laws of Kings and to their civil commands so the case may soon be and very well be that is whenever the Pope shall please that the canons be contrary in all such things How then can the essence or essential nature of Kingship or of Prefection and Subjection 'twixt the King and the Clerks of his dominions be And for the case that is at present wherein some temporal dispositions or a disposition in some temporal matters is left to the civil laws of Kings or left I mean as yet untouch'd by Papal constitutions who sees not plainly but that according to the above other final doctrine and subtle distinction of Bellarmine I mean his viâ—rationis and vi legis there is not even in such things or in order to the civil laws or civil commands of the King any obligation at all on Clerks to the King or to his even such commands or laws nor consequently any power of Kingship in him even in such things or by such laws over Clerks and as even now at present the case is For he tels you plainly that Clerks are not vi legis sed vi rationis bound not even as much as directively bound by virtue of such law but onely by virtue of reason And yet here also he contradicts again both himself and reason too Being that if they be bound by the virtue of reason to observe such a civil law of the Kings that is by that of natural reason or of a practical dictate of such reason for I can understand nothing els by his vis rationis which tells them they are bound in the case to observe such a law then must it be that they are bound also vi legis or by the at least directive virtue of the law it self For it is plain that no otherwise do we conclude or gather or perswade our selves that Laymen are bound either by the directive or coercive part of such law or that indeed any humane law at all even Ecclesiastical or perhaps too any law that most immediately divine obligeth us obligeth any Laicks or Clerks vi legis but onely hence that natural reason or a practical dictat of our understanding even that light of Gods countenance or that which God himself hath imprinted on
and members of the common-wealth exempt from the direction or coercion from either or both together of the civil laws in meer temporal things or of the meer civil Head in such things even in such case wherein the Church made conform or not conform laws or canons in the fals-same things great troubles would arise in the common-wealth because one part of such members would draw one way and an other an other way and because that speaking humanely naturally ordinarily where the temporal interests of the several parts are divers and quite contrary as it may very well be nay and by experience is too always in all such cases and where every side pursues passionatly their own interest without any law or Head to direct or punish them in the case it is impossible but all sides should fall at last into factious and violences of one against an other For so hath the experience of all ages and all countryes taught us and taught us too most singularly in the very case of Clerks and Laicks divided so and driving different interests while the Clerks would neither be directed nor coerced in temporal powers by the civil Head or civil laws of the civil common-wealth whereof yet they pretended themselves to be as men civil members and hath also taught us in Characters of blood wherewith all Europe hath been so often dyed in grain To this argument or to that common place or principle of great disturbances to arise in the common-wealth if any of the parts or members were in the case exempted so from the civil Head or laws or if in particular the Clergie were so exempted Bellarmine answers when this place or principle of experience is retorted and made use of against himself and notwithstanding his own former use of it for himself answers l. cont Barcl cap. 35. by denying plainly that any such troubles or disturbance of the common-wealth would arise or follow the exemption of the cittizens parts or members Ecclesiastical from the direction or coercion of the politick civil Head because sayes he the Bishops or chief of Bishops the Pope himself would both direct and coerce them as much and where it would be neccessary or expedient for the publick peace or other good end But against this answer too there are such obvious and insoluble reasons that we need not say more on this subject First who sees not it is and must be a most miserable common-wealth politick such a one as can never be able to attain the proper ends of a true common-wealth therefore no true common-wealth politick that hath no other means to preserve it self but by the direction and coercion of Christian Bishops as such The power of Christian Bishops as such or laying aside that which is delegated to them by or derived to them from the civil Princes and civil laws and which therefore may be taken onely again at the pleasure of the same Princes and laws is not other but onely and purely spiritual or of spiritual commands or censures without any kind of bodily force or coaction annexed And we know and see by ten thousand experiences dayly that such commands or censures cannot hinder wicked men from even the very worst of wickedness not even from that which brings along with it all kind of wickedness not even from that which is diametrically directly primarily and of its own proper nature opposit and contrary to the true genuine proper ends of every true politick common-wealth Nay that very known and confess'd immediate commands and censures of God himself that even his peremptory comminations and positive Declarations of everlasting flames and of the life of Devils expecting infallibly the transgressor's are not able to hinder wicked men nor even worldly Churchmen from that which brings along with it all other evils from sedition treason and rebellion I mean from rayling arms against the laws and Prince I mean For we see that by so many deplorable examples verified in all ages which the Poet said of evil men Oderunt peccare mali formidine paenae And we see by no fewer that meer spiritual punishmâ—nts without corporal coercioâ—â— are of no force to keep the world in peace That not even the Pope himself notwithstanding his plenitude of spiritual power and notwithstanding all his spiritual commands and censures imaginable is able to keep in peace as much as that one very Town of Citty of Rome wherein himself resides without Garrisons and Guards and the assistance of the Corporal streingth of his whole Ecclesiastical Patrimony nay and often of other States Principalities Kingdoms to back him How then may it be said groundedly at all that the Bishops or Pope as such would or indeed could effectually either direct or coerce the rest of the Clergie of any Kingdom if once resolved on such mischiefs able to effect them having no other opposition or coercion but that onely of spiritual commands or spiritual censures Secondly who is so ignorant in History as not to know that both some Bishops some Popes themselves have not seldom been as guilty of the same most enormous crimes of sedition treason and rebellion or of raysing countenancing and abetting such in others as any other of the inferiour Clergie against the peace and quiet of the ciuil common-wealth Do not we know that even some of the very Popes have upon occasion that too not seldom given Cruzadas and other Bulls of Indulgence to rayse such commotions even the most horrid against lawful Princes and the peace of their Kingdoms and to the perpetual ruine of so many millions of their people And as concerning Ireland in particular being this controversy is with so much heat debated now in Ireland do not we remember what the Bishops did at Waterford in 1646 what at Iames-stown in 1649 what the Pope's Nuncio the most otherwise Reverend and Illustrious Joannes Baptista Rinuccini Archbishop and Prince of Fermo did what consequently the Pope himself Innocent the X. who sent him did Nay what also his Predecessour Urban the VIII who sent before that Nuncio Franciscus Scarampus did and what that Bull of Indulgence which goes under his name doth signifie And for other too too frequent examples of the like nature both in Ireland in other countries and both in this very present former ages wherein the Court of Rome great Pontiffs of the holy See disturbed mightily the peace of so many Kingdoms and States and ruined so many millions of other Princes Subjects and the Princes themselves that is the whole common-wealth politick both Head members are not the Annals of Baronius Spondanus witnesses beyond exception And was it not upon this onely ground and by occasion of this onely doctrine of Bellarmine and of the appendages of it that all such mischiefs happened Or how was it possible in nature to prevent such evils where the people were imbued by their Clergie with such principles That by the laws of Christianity
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
that every man as man whoever he be whether Christian or Infidel whether Laick or Clerk whether Priest Bishop or Pope by reason of his humane nature and notwithstanding the power Ecclesiastical of such as have this power is subject to the lay or civil power in temporal matters And this is it which the Apostle mean'd And as he spoke to all the faithfull not excepting even the Magistrate when he subjected them all to Superiours Ecclesiastical Heb. cap. 13. so doth he speak to all even by adding the word omnis or every which he did not in the case of subjection to Ecclesiastical Superiors when he subjects them all not even the very Pope excepted to the more sublime powers which were and are the lay Princes For in temporals there is no power in the world not onely not more sublime but not so sublime as that of the temporal Princes within their own respective territories and in spirituals none more sublime nor as sublime as that of Pontiffs And as in order to spiritual things the supream civil power doth not exempt the Prince himself from the power Ecclesiastical in concreto that is from the persons having that power even so neither doth the power Ecclesiastical exempt the person or man that is Priest or Pontiff as he is a man from the secular power in concreto Nor doth it matter a pinn whether in abstractâ— and in a different kind the one power be more sublime that is more excellent our divine in its own nature of a meer power then the other For persons more excellently more divinely qualified then others may be and are daily seen to be in concreto subject to those others in some things by reason of some office those others beare or even of some inferiour calling or art wherein they may instruct the former those otherwise more excellently and more divinely qualified persons Having thus examined confuted and retorted more then sufficiently our learned Cardinal's evasion and his two grounds of his evasion from the letter and both obvious and necessary sense of the letter of St. Pauls so general and so strictly universal injunction to all Christians both Clerks and Laicks for obeying and being subject to the civil power and having no less confuted the other two answers also of others that is having both out of the very text of St. Paul and out also of the motives and scope of St. Paul confuted abundantly all the before given three answers of all the several Adversaries old or new it remains now that to those my two ways of both refutation and confirmation I add yet a third Which is that I promised of the sense of the holy Fathers on the very controverted points here concerning what was mean'd by St. Paul in this command omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit what those higher powers are what the sword he speaks of after what subjection and obedience wherein And from whom due or by what persons to be paid For if I shew by clear express texts of the holy Fathers also my doctrine here is evinced then I have discharged fully what I purposed and what I promised or undertook either in this present Section or in my LXII Section against the Divines of Lovaine Therefore I say Thirdly I am likewise as sure of this third way of refuting the foresaid three answers and proving my own purpose or confirming my above fourth grand argument even as to both premisses and every part of them as I have shewn already that I had reason to be of the two former ways vz. the text it self and rational sense of the law and the chief motive and end of the same law or of that whole context of Paul wherein it was written and delivered to us For to begin with St. Augustine although he be not the first or ancientest of the Fathers I quote or who according to the ages of Christianity treated first to our purpose of this matter for in that I do not tye my self here to a method as neither in giving together all places or passages of the same or other Fathers without interposition of those of some other it is plain enough that he is home enough in Psal 118. conc 31. where he discourseth thus Principes persequuti sunt me gratis Quid enim Christiani laeserant regna terrena ut principes persequutionem in eos excitarent sine causa quamvis eis Regnum salorum promiserit Rex eorum Quid inquam laeserant regna terrena Numquid eâ—rum Rex milites suos prohibuit impedire exhibere quae debentur Regibus terre Nâ—nne de hoc sibi calumniam molientibus Judeis ait Matthaei 22.20 Reddite Cesari quae Cesaris sunt Deo quae Dei sunt Nonne tributum de ore piscis etiam ipse persoluit Mat. 17.23 Nonne praecursor eius militibus regni bujus quod facere deberent pro aeterna salute quaerentibus non ait Cingulum soluite armi vâ—stra proijcite Râ—gein vestrum deserite ut possitis Domino militare sed ait Lucae 3.14 Neminem concussâ—ritis nulli calumniam feceritis sufficiat vibis stipendium vestrum Nonne unus militum ejus dilectissimus Comes ejus commilit nibus suis quâ—dammodo Christi Provincialibus dixit Rom. 13.1 Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subditae sit paulo post ait Reddite omnibus debita cui tributum c. Et 1. Timoth. 2.2 praecepit ut pro ipsis etiam Regibus oraret Ecclesia Quid ergo eos Christiani offenderunt Quod debitum non reddiderunt In quo Christiani non sunt terrenis Regibus obsequuti Ergo terreni Reges Christianos gratis persequuti sunt And again what the Babilonical captivity signified in former times the same Augustine tels in this manner l. de Catechis Rud. c. 21. saying Hoc autem totum figurate significat Ecclaesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus qui sunt cives Hierusalem caelestis servituram fuisse sub regibus hujus saeculi Dicit enim Apostolica doctrina ut omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit uâ—â—reddantur omnibus omnia cui tributum tributum cui vectigal vectigal caetera quae salvo Dei nostri cultu constitutionis humanae Principibus reddimus Quâ—nd ipse Dominus ut nobis bujus sanae doctrinae preberet exemplum pro capite hominis quâ—erat indutus tributum soluere non dedignatus est Do you see this text or this precept of Paul omnis anima c. and all that follows applyed by St. Augustine to earthly Princes Do you see in him those earthly Princes to be those higher or more sublime powers of Paul Do you not read here that all the Saints were to serve those earthly powers and to be subject to them according to that command of Paul Do you hold that Churchmen are not to be ranked amongst the Saints Nay rather perhaps will not our Adversaries account Ecclesiasticks onely to be the Saints and all others
Ecclesiastical or a sin or charge of the sin of Schisme Qui potestati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit Illa regula sayes he terrenae potestates cum Schismatices persequuntur se defendunt An Apostolum delebimus To Augustine we may annex Theodulus Caelesiriensis who sayes the Apostle Paul in that passage of the 13. Rom. multa providentia monstrare Christi Evangelium non ad publicae bonae ordinationis subversionem datum esse eo quod satis esset hostium qui veritatis nomine sint nos oppugnaturi quod nos adversus tot hostes eoso superfluos cogitare oporteat And Ambrose the second time in epist 88. where he writes in these tearms to Eugenius Augustus though also if my memory faile me not a meer Vsurper of the Empire In his in quibus vos rogari decet etiam me exhibere sedulitatem potestati debitam sicut scriptum est Rom. 13.7 cui honorem honorem cui tributum c. Nam cum privato detulerim corde intimo quomodo ei non deferrem Imperatori Sed qui nobis deferri vultis patimini ut deferamus eâ— quem Imperij vestri vultis Authorem probari You see in Ambrose a Bishop and a most learned holy Bishop the distinction of his being a man and being a Bishop As a man he gives the Emperour all obedience in humane things according to the precept of Paul But as a Bishop who had the superintendency of divine matters he refuses to be subject in the same divine matters to the Emperour To all these holy Fathers who of purpose either expounded or expresly applyed to our purpose this text of Paul Rom. 13. we may also annex some other holy Fathers who have without any peradventure implicitly or virtually given the same exposition of it forasmuch as they having been Churchmen themselves professed themselves and all other Christians generally without any exception nay and some of them in particular or in specie professed the very Churchmen the very Priests of God to be subjected by God himself to worldly Princes For to pass by that sentence of Iustinus Martyr Apol. 2. ad Anton. Iâ—peratorem Nos solum Deum adoramus vobis in rebus alijs laeti inservimus Imperatores ac Principes hominum esse profitentes and that also of Athanasius in Apolog. ad Constantium where he speaks thus even to an Arrian Emperour who yet unjustly persecuted him Nequaqam restiti mandatis tuae pietatis Minimè gentium Absit Non enim ego is sum qui vel Quaestori civitatis restitero nedum tamen Imperatori Certâ— me profectioni adornabam Nam hujus qnoque rei conscius est Montanus ut litteris tuis acceptis si dignatus fuisset scribere statim decederem promptitudine obsequendi mandatum tuum antevenirem Non enim ita insanio vt istiusmodi praeceptis contradicendum putarim Ex decreto â—uae Majestatis voluntatem tuam cognoscere studebam Sed neque tum accepi quod jure postulabam jam impraesentiarum nulla alia de causa aecusor Non enim restiti decreto tuae pietatis neque Alexandriam ingredi conabor quamdiu id per tuam humanitatem non licebit And yet the controversy with Athanasius was about his very unjust banishment and of his very just restitution back again to his own Patriarchal See of Alexandria And yet also he confesses here it had been absolute frenzy or madness for him not to depart into exile from even that his own proper See at that very Arrian Emperour Constantius's bare command without any further violence or force of Souldiers to pull him out or carry him away expected as likewise to return back at any time before he had his Imperial Majestie 's gracious condescension to his return I say For notwithstanding that I pass by these sayings of Ignatius and Athanasius What is more cleer in the consequence then that even S. Gregory the Great himself a most holy Roman Pontiff though jealous enough too of and no less zealous for both all the just priviledges of the Clergie in general and all the honours of the Papacy in particular or the prerogatives due to his own See then I say that this very same so holy so concerned and learned Gregory is implicitly and virtually cleer enough to our purpose where l. 4. Regist ep 31. ad Mauritium Augustum and epist 64. ad Theodorum intimum medicum Mauritij he acknowledges the Dominion of the Emperour Mauritius as given by God himself overall the Priests of his Empire Sacerdotibus autem non ex terrena potestate Dominus noster citius indignotur sed excellenti consideratione propter eum cujus servi sunt eis ita dominetur ut etiam debitam reverentiam impendat for he speaks in the said 31. epistle writing to the Emperour himself And again writing to Theodorus the said Emperours intimate or chief Physitian epist 64. of an other matter Valde autem mihi durum videtur sayes he ut ab ejus servitio milites suos prohibeat qui ei omnia tribuit dominari eum non solum militibus sed etiam Sacerdotibus concessit And what is more clear too in the consequence to our purpose then what another ancient Pope I mean Gelasius writes in his tenth Epistle to the Emperour Anastasius Quantum ad ordinem pertiâ—et publica disciplinae sayes he cognoscentes imperium tibi superna dispositione collatum legibus tuis ipsi quoque parent Religionis Antistites c. where he confesses that the very chief Pontiffs of Christian Religion ought to obey the Emperours laws in matters belonging to publick discipline and gives for reason that it was from God he received the Empire And lastly what is to our purpose more clear in the consequence then that of those other most religious and godly ancient Fathers in history Ecclesiastical stiled Archimandritae Constantinopolitant the Abbots of Constantinople writing to Pope Agapetus in Quinta Synod act 1. tom 2. Conciliorum Licenter omnia accident say they non contra Ecclesiasticos solos sed etiam contra ipsum piissimum Imperatorem nostrum vestrum honorabile câ—put Where you see these very most religious Fathers of the Greek Church of such ancient times and of the same Catholick Communion with the Pope writing to the Pope himself do notwithstanding stile the Emperour nostrum vestrum honorabile Caput both their own honourable head and the Popes head too or our and your honourable Head Which I could wish the Catholicks both Layety and Clergie of England had well considered before they divided so unhappily about the title of Head given at the beginning or before the beginning of the change to Henry the 8. and continued after to some of the following Princes as I could also heartily wish the framers of the Oath which had that title in it had been more circumspect in using such words as would more to the understanding of the vulgar signifie the politick Headship only
of theirs to have been delivered by him most constantly and firmely and from the very bottome of his Soule Let Baronius teach or shew us that Gregory hath any where complained of any unlawfull oppression of himself or of other Priests by the Emperour that is of the Usurpation of rule power jurisdiction authority or dominion over the Clergie let Baronius shew this to the end it may from such complaint appear that Gregory did not speak from his heart or his own inward sense when he said that priests were granted and committed by God himself to the Emperours dominion but that by such words he mean'd onely that God permitted the Priests to be under him c I say let Baronius shew any such place in Gregory and we shall most willingly admit of his interpretation Let Bellarmine shew that any where Gregory comylains in particular of Mauritius as tyrannically or violently oppressing him or Usurping either spiritual or temporal jurisdiction or authority over him or as hindering him in any respect to execute his Episcopal office and we will then beleeve it appears out of Gregory himself that he obeyed and professes himself to have obeyed Mauritius constrainedly not freely and that he obeyed him onely de facto but not de jure But I am sure that hethertoo neither of both hath brought any thing to help these interpretations of theirs Indeed Gregory complained that the Emperour Iustinus held the Roman Church under Symoniacal oppression but that any Prince was injurious to his own person by Usurping jurisdiction over him he never said Nor must we wonder he should not whereas he knew well enough that he was himself not onely to expect his own confirmation being elected Pope from the Emperour Mauritius but also hoped that he might decline the great burthen of the Pontificat by Mauritius's refusal to confirme his election Besides long after he was admitted and confirmed by Mauritius he sayes openly and expresly that he paid to Mauritius what he ought and acknowledges and confesses that he ought him obedience where certainly no violence no coaction appears but a duty of obedience de jure The words of Gregory expressing this much you have l. 1. indic 11. epist 63 Vtrobique ergo quae debui exolui qui imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minime â—acui And there too he confesses himself subject to the command of the Emperour juffâ—oni Imperatoris subjectum Therefore it 's plain enough that Bellarmine's Glosse of Gregory is not to be admitted being it is so contrary to Gregory's words Baronius likewise brings indeed Gregory's complaints against Mauritius though without sufficient ground as if Mauritius had through Symony kept the Roman Church under oppression But that Mauritius had been at any time injurious to the person of Gregory or those of other Priests or that Mauritius had ever hindered him or them from exercising duely their Episcopal or Sacerdotal functions he had not a word to bring And yet we on the other side can produce most clear and manifest passages wherein and not a complaining but as affirming nor as upbraiding but as praising first that after he may the better object ingratitude Gregory l. 2. Ind. 11. ep 61. assuming the person of Christ reasons with Mauritius recounting particularly the mighty favours he had done and benefits bestowed upon him Ego te de Notasio Comitem Exeubitorum de Comite Excubitorum Caesarem de Cesare Imperatorem nec solum hoc sed Patrem feci Sacerdotes meos tuae manuâ— commisi in a meo servitio milites tuos subtrahis Behold the ingratitude after so many benefits And consider that as he is minded as of a benefit conferr'd upon him that of a Notary he was made a Count and of a Count made Caesar and Emperour so among the same benefits he is minded by Christ or by Gregory in the person of Christ that to his hands he had committed his own Priests All which doubtless import not represent not to us a bare permission of God but the good will and pleasure of God even that very will in God which Divines call voluntatem beneplaciti for they are all equally recounted as benefits and favours of God In the same stile and manner doth Gregory in his epistle to Theodorus commemorat the divine benefits of God to Mauritius and amongst others doth recount this of dominion over Priests that he may the better taxe his ingratitude Valde autem mihi durum videtur sayes he ibid. ep 64. ut ab ejus servitio milites suos abstrahat qui ei omnia tribuit dominari eum non solum militibus sed etiam sacerdotibus câ—ncessit Where I cannot but admire the confidence of our new interpreters that for concedere they give us permittere in the latin tongue and make us beleeve that a concession or grant of dominion over Priests made by God himself and made by him intending it as a special savour and benefit must be understood to be a bare permission onely or an effect onely of the permissive will of God and there too where it is in the same forme or stile recounted as the dominion over the Souldiers and the whole Empire is Who to witt God gave him to witt Mauritius all not permissively questionless but freely and willingly and granted him to have dominion over not the Souldiers onely but also over the Priests Had Mauritius dominion over the Souldiers by a just and lawfull title Or had he dominion over them not out of or by a bare permission onely of God but out of and by that which is truly and properly the concession or grant of God It must be too great folly to answer negatively And therefore if Gregory be a competent witness Mauritius by a lawfull and just title that is by the true and proper concession of God and not by his bare permission onely had dominion over the Priests also Which to have been the sence of Gregory we need neither Logick nor Theology but Grammar onely to teach us As we are also taught by this other passage of the same Gregory speaking to Mauritius l. 4. ep 15. Sacerdotibus non ex terrena potestate Dominus noster citius indignetur sed excellenti consideratiâ—ne propter cum cujus servi sunt eis ita dominetur ut etiam debitam reverentiam impendat Where you see again that Gregory acknowledges in Mauritius dominion as to Priests to witt as they are men and parts of the civil commonwealth for as they are Priests that is consecrated by holy orders he desires for his sake to whom they are consecrated that Mauritius shew them that reverence becometh Which passage of Gregory whether it may for that of dominion be restrained to the legislative power onely or onely import that Mauritius might oblige Priests by his bare civil laws and in such matters onely too however temporal wherein the Church makes no contrary laws and yet not oblige them but secundum
or in bringing these words to expound those other of Gregory in his foresaid two epistles to Mauritius and Theodorus To return therefore to those most true and proper words again of these two epistles of Gregory I say now that if you add to them the fact of Gregory whereof also before that is his actual and effectual obedience to Mauritius in promulging that law albeit Gregory thought it an unjust law and if you add also his notable profession of obedience and subjection in these tearms Ego quidem jussiâ—ni subjectus c and I say that if you take alltogether I see â—â—â—t how it is possible that you may doubt hereafter of Gregory's sense in this matter but be absolutely and firmely perswaded it was Gregory's doctrine that all Christians universally both Layety and Clergie not even the very great Pontiff himself or the Bishop of Rome excepted are bound in conscience and according to S. Paul's command to be most humbly obedient in all civil affairs to the sublimer powers of King Emperours or other supream politick States within their respective dominions And I say also that I do not see how any professing the law of Christ much less any Priest can have the confidence to say that Gregory's acknowledgement of his due subjection or submission and obedience to Mauritius hath any thing of a dejected Soul any thing flaccid or weak or any thing at all unworthy of the Apostolical vigour as Barenius very little piously excusing the expressions of Gregory speaks For even this great Annalist himself could not but know it was the perpetual custome of the Church in its spiritual Rectors and before the later and worser times of the too much worldly greatness and ambitious designes of some of them to treat with all humility and greatest submission could be with earthly Princes Kings and Emperours and to treat so with them even when they were evil and wicked Princes as Christ himself did and his Apostles did and as even very many of the most holy Pontiffs of Rome did before too much avarice and ambition seized some others that succeeded in that holy See of Peter and in many other particular Sees too parts and persons of the vniversal Church Which indeed is it and nothing else made Baronius give here his animadversions of fear on these epistles of Gregory least any pious Reader should cast down his brows eo quòd abjectè nimis visus sit tibi loquutus S. Gregorius But certainly the vigour Apostolical the nerves and strength which are truly Pontifical or Episcopal do not consist in vain worldly and proud ambition or desire of dominion or imprudent stiffness hardness or obstinacy against Princes and for any matters that are temporal but in the preaching of the Gospel in the propogation of the Faith and in sowing the seed of the word of God although it were certain that for doing so the Apostolical man or Bishop should be an object of scorn and a subject too of pain Ibant Apostoli gaudentes a conspectu Concilij quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine Jesu contumeliam pati Act. 5.21 Therefore Gregory is rather very much to be praised herein that in his own very Episcopal Patriarchal or Papal person which you please not in any comical or scenical he speaks to the Emperour withall respect and modesty For albeit he sayes in the beginning of his epistle to Mauritius that he writes not as a Bishop but as a private man this he sayes to the end he may the more easily prepare and obtain the benevolence of Mauritius with whom in a private quality he was long before both personally acquainted and in that quality held an especiall friendship when as yet neither Mauritius himself was other then a private man Besides he writes in this manner that he might give no cause of indignation or of supposition that he mean'd for the matter in agitation to deal with him as a Bishop or Pastour with his sheep or to correct or rebuke him with authority And therefore least Mauritius should think that which was to follow by way of reprehension of that law in it self proceeded from Gregory as pretending to have an authoritative power though onely episcopal to reprehend him and alter it but that he should rather take what followed in good and friendly part it was therefore I say Gregory protests in the very beginning of his letter that he writes not as a Bishop but as a friend to a friend Which is not to personat or assume an other person as in a scene according to the most vain conception of Baronius whom the due modesty and subjection of Gregory so contrary to that of our days did beyond measure gall Yet I would have the Reader observe that Gregory might justly as or when occasion required admonish and rebuke more severely the very Emperour himself and that he had from God authority to do so For I do constantly profess that even all Kings and Emperours no less then all other men are as faithfull men or as Christian believers subject to the spiritual correction of the Church where it is necessary or expedient And yet Gregory chose rather onely to insinuat the iniquity of that law as he conceaved it and this with the greatest modesty could be then to rebuke Mauritius with any kind of severity However Baronius cannot abide that Gregory should have obeyed the Emperour in the promulgation of that law albeit that at the same time or before he had so insinuated the iniquity of it What doth he invent to rid himself out of this labyrinth He makes Gregory not the censor onely but the corrector also and amender of this very law and so that Gregory gave thereby arguments enough of his sacerdotal vigour Pontifical authority and power too over the very Empire it self Dum accedens sayes Baronius tom 8. an 593. nu 21. censor arbiter constitutionis Imperatoriae admovens ad sacram quam vocabant tabulam stylum edicti illius quaedam addidit jungent ac minuens pro arbitrio ut ad rectam Catholicae Ecclesiae normam disciplinam aptaret nihilque penitus in eo quod Ecclesiasticae officeret libertati sacris canonibus contradiceret praetermittens intactum posteris egregium relinquens exemplum quicquid leges sanciendo delirant Imperatores ac Reges a Romanae Ecclesiae Pontificibus esse pretinus emendandum corrigendum sicque ab ipsis favendum eorum votis ut eos errantes cum mansuetudine ut vidimus Gregorium fecisse corrigant Pontificia potestate quod perperam factum nossent Apostolica censura castigent seque exhibeant eorum Magistros Doctores correctores juxta illud divinum oraculam Hier. 1. 10. non illi tantum Prophetae pronunciatum sed omnibus qui pro Deo ad populum divina legatione funguntur Constitui te hodie super gentes super regna ut euellas destruas disperdas dissipes edifices
wholly The first Prince therefore I bring to my purpose is that very same first and greatest of all Christian Emperours Constantine himself A Prince who as by the confession of all sides and all writers he was most pious and of all Princes deserved most and best of the Christian Catholick Churches so no man I think of all our Hieromonarchical sticklers will have the confidence to accuse him of having usurped any kind of authority over Churchmen or practised any at all over them but that was allowed him by the laws of God and nature and approved also by the State civil and Ecclesiastical But if any would be so impudent as to charge him in this matter I am sure he hath the general vote and patronage of all the ancient holy Church to clear him in it Theodoret. Histar l. 1. c. XI Sozom. l. 1. c. 16. And yet this very great and pious Constantine is he who in the Council of Nice or when it sate himself being present with them at Nice and often in the very Session Hall amidst the Council which was in his own Pallace there commanded the libels or petitions of accusations and criminations offered to him by Priests and Bishops against other Priests and other Bishops and as a Judge of them all of both sides and in such criminal matters commanded the said libels to be brought before him and receaved them albeit immediately thereupon having first brought all parties to a friendly attonement by his Princely wisedome and piety and by checking and rebuking severely both the accusers and accused for criminating and recriminating one an other with personal failings he cast before their faces all those libels into a fire as thinking it more expedient and pious that such humane imperfections or frailties of Bishops and Priests should be altogether hid and for ever unknown least otherwise or if their vices were known or publish'd the vulgar the lay people universally might be scandalized and corrupted as takeing from such examples a greater liberty for themselves to commit sin without remorse or shame Indeed Sozomen tells that Constantine said in this occasion It was not lawfull for him as being a man to take upon or unto himself the cognizance of such causes where the accusers and the accused were Priests But if Constantine said so at all without any kind of doubt he must be supposed to have said so partly out of some excess of reverence and piety to their Order which he would not have then and in the face of the world to be blemish'd publickly with such foule aspersions and partly must be understood to mean that part of the accusations which contained meer Ecclesiastical and not lay crimes to witt heresy and the like whereof he was not so competent a judg and above all said so that he might the more easily bring them to concord and for the more quick dispatch of the grand controversy that of Arrius's pestilent heresy in the Faith the debate of which was the great end of gathering that Council to which dispatch or even debate that of privat criminations of one another was a great delay and might be a farre greater if Constantine had not carried himself in this matter so prudently and piously For if Constantine had said so indeed and withall meand to be understood of even meer lay crimes or strictly or in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull in order to such crimes of Priests or even also to signifie that himself was not a competent judge nor the sole Iudge for the punishing of heresy in them by external coercion as by corporal or pecuniary mulcts by imprisonment exile death he had never receaved the petitions either of the accusers or accused but remitted them on both sides to their own proper judges and judicatories the tribunals of Bishops Nay the Bishops themselves at least such of them as were not particularly concern'd in such criminations had likely admonish'd him not to give eare or audience to the accusers of Bishops or at all receave their libels as not being their competent judge in any cause whatsoever at least to punish or coerce them And yet for any thing out of History none of them ever admonish'd much less reprehended him in this matter And do not we know it was that very Constantine who soon after and by his own Imperial authority proceeded with just coercive rigour against Arrius the Priest and for his most pestilent and most turbulent heresy sent him to banishment For although it was the said Council of Bishops at Nice that by their own episcopal censure condemned him for an heretick and separated him from the communion of the faithfull yet his corporal punishment was from the Tole imperial power of Constantine As when the question was again of his restitution it was neither that Council nor any other Bishops that revoked him from exile but Constantine alone and by his own Imperial power alone Athanasius de Synod Socrat. l. 1. c. 25. Sozom. l. 2. c. 28. And we know also that the same Constantine and by his own sole and proper imperial power banish'd many Bishops too that were accused to be complices in that heresy with Arrius the Priest as Constantine himself confesses of Eusebius Theognides and several others in his letter to the Nicomedians Theodoretus l. â— c. 20. Sed isti sayes Constantine honesti bonique scilicet Episcopi qui vera Concilij dividicatione ad paenitentiam agendam reservati sunt non solum eos admiserunt ad se secum in tuto collocarunt verum etiam illorum depravatis moribus communicarunt Quam â—â—rem erga istos ingratos aliquod supplicium censui statuendum propterea mandatum dedi ut asuis abrepti sedibus quà m longissimè religarentur So Constantine himself Where he expresly sayes that himself ordained their punishment and himself had given order for their being forced from their Episcopal Sees and carried exiles to the very remotest parts of the whole Empire But Cradinal Baronius cannot endure this Imperial stile And therefore in his tome 3. an 329. n. 13. endeavours to make us beleeve it was by the authority of the Nicene Council that Constantine sent these Bishops to banishment Caeterum sayes Baronius quod spectat ad Constantinum non novam in Episcopos depositionis exilij sententiam protulii sed quam sciebat olim latam a Niceno Concilio suis vero precibus revocatam voluit iterum val dari Depositos hos namo in Niceno Concilio constat tum ex ijs quae superius suo loco dicta sunt tum etiam ex ijs quae habentur in Epistola Synodali Concilij Alexandrini apud Athanasium in Apologia secunda ubi haec leguntur Postquam de Eusebio Theognide Arianis Episcopis depositis in Niceno Concilio plura Patres lâ—qunti fuerant c. So our great Annalist knows not how to distinguish or rather will not distinguish twixt a meer Ecclesiastical or meerly
against his will that he was as yet then a Novice in the Faith and that he â—â—mitted the matter to the Roman Pontiff I say this excuse is wholly vain For first who could constrain him next he was no late Convert and the matter of usurping jurisdiction over the Church was so great notable extraordinary among Christians and of such important consequence too that t is impossible he should not be instructed in it and especially in such an instance of it though he had till then been a meer Novice or even Catechumen And in the last place who sees not it is one thing to acknowledge himself an incompetent Judge and remit the parties to their own proper Judges and an other to assign and delegat Judges to the parties which Constantine did Nor was he reprehended herein or instructed either by those three French Bishops or by Melchiades himself not even although it was known that he was most pious and most ready both to heare and obey all divine instructions Nay so farre were these French Bishops was Melchiades himself from any such exception that in pursuance of this Commission or delegation from and by Constantine a Council was gathered together at Rome to the end this troublesome cause of Caecilian and the Donatist Bishops might be the more throughly and fully discussed Optatus l. 1. wherein yet onely they did sit as Judges who were so delegated by Constantine Melchiades Maternus Rhetitius and Marinus who also the matter having been heard and examined from first to last absolved Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists Augustinus in Brevic. coll di 3. c. 22. Nay Augustine insinuats no less then that the sole judgement of Melchiades had he undertaken any such himself alone in this controversie as it was then had been usurped or had been so if he had without the Emperour 's special delegation presumed to determine it but together with those other his French Collegues For Augustine treating of the pertinacy of the Donatists in their refusing to yeeld to so many former Judgements which absolved Caecilian and labouring to clear those former judgements from all opposition he objects to himself in behalf of the Donatists epist 162. thus An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare juditium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi primus Tifigitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum To this what doth Augustine answer Certainly he does not denye that such judgement of Melchiades might be justly thought in the case to be usurped but excuses the judgement of Melchiades which really de facto was not that which onely might be falsely supposed or bruted to have been and defends it that so was truly by saying again thus Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo viderent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent Hoc probamus Donatistarum precibus verbis ipsius Imperatoris So c. So Augustine above or in the foresaid epistle The appeall of the Donatists to the Emperour himself doth follow upon and against the foresaid judgement of the Bishops at Rome Optatus l. 1. cont Parm. And what doth Constantine then t is true he breaks out into this no less just then admiring exclamation O rabida furoris audacia sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerant Yet this imports not signifies not by any means that Constantine abominats the ignorance of the Appellants for having or as if they had against any divine or humane rule or canon had recourse to a laye tribunal For had it been so or had this been the motive of his exclamation he had dismissed them and remitted them back again to their own proper Episcopal Judges which yet he did not but admitted their appeal Therefore this exclamation of Constantine imports no more but his great wonder at the too great obstinacy of these Donatist Appellants and their too much want of Christian humility resignation simplicity and even of their too much want also of either peace or charity that they in professing themselves to be Christian Priests and Bishops would never leave of persecuting an other Bishop not acquiesce at all in such manifold Judgements of even stranger Bishops who sate so numerously on the cause both in Affrick and Europe but would rather as contentiously as even the meerest Gentils in the world by all the most odious and tedious advantages of secular laws and in so improbable a cause and even by such an appeal from the Emperours such Delegats continue then inveterat malice against an other Christian Bishop But however this be or whatever moved Constantine to this exclamation the matter of fact which followed cannot be denyed For sure enough it is that Constantine admitted this Appeal and not onely admitted it but would have it and had it discussed in an other Council of Bishops which he summond and convened at Orleance in France wherein too himself would be and was present to heare and see this cause again discussed and the late judgement thereupon of Melchiades the Roman Bishop and of the other three Delegats reviewed Euseb l. x. c. 5. Aug. epist 68. This admission of the appeal and this reexamination by Constantine and by his Councel of Orleance seems very harsh to Baronius tom 3. an 314. n. 35. And therefore sayes that Constantine was drawn against his will to admit so unjust an Appeal from the judgement or sentence of the great Pontiff But to that of being drawn against his will we have said before enough or that there was none could force him And for the fact in it self that is for his admission I am sure Augustine never once reprehends it how reprehensible soever the Appeal was in it self or on the behalf of the Appellants Nor did any other of the Bishops of those times reprehend Constantine's said admission of it But if Constantine however against his own will or rather inclination did so any way tyrannically or by usurpation extend his imperial power to Ecclesiastical matters or to such matters of the Church as by the law of God were out or beyond the proper sphere of his lay or civil power why were the Roman Pontiff silent Why did not Caecilianus except and not obey as he did Why so many other Bishops of greatest name and fame gathered together and celebrating great Councils and sitting as Judges to obey the command of Constantine Therefore it must follow that all the Bishops then were meer stupid brutes or certainly that Constantine was so a most cruel raging tyrant and trampler underâ—oot of all the liberties of the Church that they dared not gainsay him And whereas neither can be said that we allow Constantine to be a competent Judge of those affairs which are properly and strictly Ecclesiastical that is spiritual at least in such as are meer questions of right or of the spiritual doctrine
18. these Bishops had been precondemned in the Council I must again advertise the Reader that the Council never condemned any otherwise then by declaring him an Heretick and excommunicate or at most to be deprived of or deposed from his See That besides that pre-damnation especially to exile no where appears in Councils Nay that St. Hierom in Chron. ubi de Maximino Treuerensi not acknowledgeing these pre-damnations affirms expresly Constantinum quaesivisse ad paenam Athanasium that Constantine sought for Athanasius to punishment And certainly Felix the Aptungitan Bishop who was the Orderer that is the Consecrator of Cecilian about whom the great contest was was by the command or warrant of the same Constantine sent to his Proconsul in Affrick Helianus to be judged by him Augustinus post collat ep 33 ep 152. Opt. And Photinus condemned in the general Council of Sardica obtained new Judges from the very self same Constantine as Epiphan heres 71. tells The before often mentioned St. Athanasius was to the said pious and great Emperour Constantine accused as a homicide or of having murthered Arsenius And Constantine committed the cognizance hereof as we have toâ—ched before to Delmatiuâ—s the Censor of Antioch a meer lay Officer of the Empire that he might proceed therein as a Judge Delegat For verily so doth St. Athanasius himself in Apol. and for to defend his own innocency in that matter tell us And yet he doth not upbraid the Emperour nor at all object to him that his Majesty had herein usurped a power which he had not by the laws of God or canons of the Church or â—ules of natural reason over a Churchman From which objection he was so far as himself tells that his submission to Constantin's delegation in that and more to his own immediat imperial and personal cognizance in all such matters was ready and voluntary Behold hitherto Good Reader arguments enough of the practise to our main purpose of that very Constantine who notwithstanding all hitherto given is said to have said to the Bishops in the Nicene Council accusing one another to him Deus constituit vos sacerdotes potestatem dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis recte judicamur vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium Ruffin l. 1. c. 2. But but if it be true that Constantine said so at all as it is very true and certain that this saying whosoever's it be must either be expounded not rigorously or strictly according to the bare words but very benignly and gently or questionless must be rejected and condemned even by those who alledge it for themselves as appears at least out of the two later clauses viz. that Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari and that other Propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium yet I say if it be true that Constantine said so at all and even I say did say so also in any good sense whatsoever wherefore did not his following deeds agree with his words as much as in that very sense our Adversaries pretend Therefore if Constantine said any such thing or expressed himself in such words according to reason it must be said by us and by all whoever examine and weigh that expression or those bare words rightly that either he spoke them out of some excess of piety and reverence to the Bishops or certainly that for what concern'd the denying or not acknowledging a power in men to judge the Bishops and saying that they were reserved or rather desiring that they should be left to the judgment of God alone and in saying before that they received power from God to judge of himself the Emperour he must be understood to mean First that Priests had a spiritual power from God to judge even himself spiritually or in a spiritual way and by a meer kind of spiritual judgment or in relation only to his spirit to wit by declaring to him wherein he had sinned and by remitting or retaining his sins by their judicial absolution or censure in the confessional seat or penitential Court of conscience but not that they had a power external and temporal or coercive of him in his meer temporals or by any sentence at all transferring his temporal or civil rights or jurisdiction or able to bereave him of any such or obliging him to submit his said temporal rights to them Secondly That meer Lay-men could not judge of them in causes properly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual such as those of Faith and Heresie and religious rites are as to the questions of right Or if he mean'd any matter of pure fact especially of those are called lay crimes that then he understood nothing else by non potestis ab hominibus judicari but the same we do our selves commonly or in ordinary speech when we say we cannot do a thing this or that whatever it it be we have no mind to do or think not expedient to do We signifie therefore by such words not alwayes an absolute defect of either natural or legal power in us to do that we are desired but our own unwillingness to do it and our resolution not to do it for some unexpediency we conceive in doing it Constantine therefore cannot be concluded to have otherwise mean'd when he said to the Bishops and of their personal failings non potestis ab hominibus judicari but that it was so unexpedient to bring their private failings to the publick hearing of the world before the lay people by a judicial procedure that it should not be done nor would he suffer it especially in that conjuncture when a good repute of all and peace and charity amongst them all was so necessary to carry the matters of Faith in the Council against the growing heresie of Arrius For verily otherwise or if you take non potestis philosophically and rigourously or strictly as denying a natural or legal power and a power too either temporal or spiritual and take hominibus universally or even indistinctly for what this word of it self may import as not determined of it self nor by any other word here to lay-men more then to churchmen you must consequently fix that sense to these words of Constantine which neither Baronius himself nor Bellarmine will allow For so they will also signifie no legal canonical or spiritual power in the Pope himself nor even in a general Council of Bishops where the Pope himself presides to judge and censure condemn or punish not even in a spiritual way I mean the very most scandalous sailings of other Bishops And therefore thirdly Constantine must be understood where he sayes sed Dei sâ—lius judicium expectate that as he mean'd not thereby to deny a canonical power in a general Council of Bishops to censure and condemn other Bishops when their failings deserved it but only that he thought it more expedient as the case
sayes Theodorecus l. 2. c. 9. 10. maximè omnium caepit clamare orare Imperatorem ut de iniquo indignoque ejus facinore non Episcoporum Concilio sed pro tribunali judicium quaeratur seque pollicetus primum Episcoporum Clericos qui facinoris conscij erant supplicioÌ„ coercendos traditurum Stephani quoque ministros ait eodem medo puniendos esse At cum Stephanus petulanti ore illis contradiceret affirmaretque plagas non infligendas esse Clericis placuit Imperatori Magistratibus ut quaestio de facto in Regia haberetur Ad hunc modum ergo intellecta Stephani improbitate primum Episcopis qui tum aderant mandatum dant Judices ut hominem abdicent Episcopatu deinde illi ipsi eum Ecclesia penitus expellant Where you are to observe that not onely not the judgment of the fact of Murder but not even the judgment of this question of right whether the said Patriarch or Bishop Stephen of Antioch should be deposed or no is remitted to the Ecclesiastical court or to the Church or Council of Bishops but peremptory command sent by the lay Judges to the Bishops to depose him actually and by their spiritual judgment whom they the same lay Judges had already and by a civil judgment sentenced to be so deposed albeit these lay judges reserved to themselves still or to the civil power the real execution of both sentences that is the actual and corporal expulsion of Stephen from Antioch Nor is it material to object here that Constantius was an Arrian for the Arrian Bishops stood as much for the immunities of the Church and Churchmen and so did the Arrian Princes advised by them as any Catholick Bishops or Princes did when the crime objected was not diversity in religion And this crime of Stephanus was a meer lay crime and consequently a crime that by the very laws of even Constantine the great himself nay and of all other Catholick Princes after him and after Constantius his Arrian Son for many hundreds of years and even too by the very express laws of Justinian himself so long after Constantine and Constantins was even when committed by any Ecclesiastick whosoever to be tryed and judged by the civil Judg that is by the Praetor of the Province But however this matter be of Constantius whether he was then a down right Arrian or not albeit this be not material as I have now proved I am sure his brother Emperour Constans who ruled in the west was ever a zealous Consubstantialist and orthodox in all preciseness And yet our often mentioned Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed from their Sees by other Bishops and having their refuge to him that is to this Emperour Constance in the West he at their instance and earnest petition and even in a cause meerly Ecclesiastical but for the relief of innocency oppress'd wrongfully sends letters to his said brother Constantius wherein as Socrates writes l. 2. c. 12. and Sozom. l. 3. c. 9. he signifies his pleasure that three Bishops be sent from the East to give him an account of the causes why Athanasius and Paulus had been deposed nay and threatens otherwise or if the said Athanasius and Paulus upon account given were found to have been unjustly deposed and should not be restored again to make warr on Constantius Which to avoid Constantius sent him Narcissus the Cilician Theodorus the Thracian Maris the Chalcedonian and Marcus the Syrian four Bishops as after also when Constans was not satisfied with the causes which these four Bishops alleadged he actually restored Paulus and Athanasius though for a time onely for he again banished them In which procedure of Constance I believe our very Antagonists will not have the confidence to say there was any vsurpation being that such religious orthodox Bishops as this Paul and Athanasius and so rigidly observant as they of Ecclesiastical Discipline were his Authors and Petitioners to reassume the judgment of themselves albeit in a cause purely Ecclesiastical or which onely or at least chiefly concern'd a spiritual sentence of deposition of two Bishops from their Episcopal Sees pronounced against them by a Council of other Bishops But whether our said Antagonists will or no pretend therein any vsurpation I am sure the matter of fact is true as I am sure also that even natural reason it self will force them to confess there was a supream right in Constans to relieve by all due means oppressed innocy and that there was no other way so ready just and equitable as this which he took Valentinianus a Catholick Emperour also shall make up the fourth of those Instances of Princes to our purpose For he condemned by his own Imperial sentence Bishop Chronopius to the silver mines for having appealed from an Ecclesiastical sentence of 70 other Bishops L. 2. Quorum Appel C. Theodâ—s and forced him accordingly to suffer it by going to and labouring in the said mines The very same Valentinian punished by diverse banishments the Bishops Vrsicinus Gaudentius Vrsus Ruffus and several other Bishops too because their Schysmes troubled the publick peace and tranquillity Iure mansuetudinis nostrae sensibus sayes he vel divinitus damnarum est vel tranquillitate naturae ne cum delinquentium facinore legum severitate certemus ac speâ—emendationis futurae mitiorem esse vellemus correctionis injuriam quam provocat meritum nostrum Ampeli Pater charissime Augustorum Dudum Vrsicini inquietudine provocati faventes concordiae populi Christiani quâ—eti etiam Vrbis sacratissimae providentes uno interim loco intra Gallias dumtaxat perturbatorem tranquillitatis publicae statueramus jure cohiberi scilicet ne applicatione morum latae dissensionis incommodum spargeretur Verum naturae nostrae mansuâ—tudine levigati ita memorato abscedendi copiam dedimus ne ad Vrbem Romam vel certè suburbicarias regiones pedem inferat neque nequitiae suae cogitationem canetur infundere Idetiam de caeteris ervoris consortibus Gaudentio videlicet Vrso Ruffo Auxanone Auxanio Adiedo Ruffino sancimus c. Apud Baronium tom 4. an 371. n. 1. Therefore also by this instance and by this law too of Valentinian as it ought to be the chief care of Princes as incumbent on them by their publick office and duty and by the very nature of Principality or Government that the publick peace and tranquillity be preserved entire in and amongst their Citties Cittizens and other people subject to them so it must be consequently their charge to coerce the very Ecclesiasticks themselves if they disturb that peace or tranquillity Gratianus the Emperour likewise in all points Orthodox as the dareling of S. Ambrose however onely a Catechumen banish'd on the same account the Bishops Instantius Salvianus and Priscillianus and banish'd them not onely out of their episcopal Sees or Citties wherein and whereof they were Bishops but out of all countries subject to him Though after being ill advised he
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
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
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
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
being there was no law divine at all obliging him to the contrary nor any humane either civil or Ecclesiastical that could oblige him to the contrary and in the case where of one side he saw the three Estates of the Kingdom consenting to the King in those matters controverted and on the other the so powerfull and passionat a King fully resolved to ruine him and all his partakers But I say this onely as in relation to the objective connexion or being of things and laws in themselves not to that of the same things or laws as they perhaps appeared otherwise in that holy zealous Bishop's apprehension or misapprehension of them or of some of them or of all or of some circumstances which by an unerring judgment ought to be or would be considered And however I by no means say that either according to his own apprehension he was bound under sin to conform to that Kings will in any of all those Instances nor that abstracting from all then present circumstances he was so bound according to or by the very objective nature of the things or laws in themselves whatever they were subjectively in his conception For there is a great deal of difference betwixt saying that he might without sin have done so and that he was bound under sin to do so Second reason That very ancient and at least some of them contemporary Catholick and even some of them also Ecclesiastick persons and authors too of great esteem credit and faith seem partly in their relations of matters of fact and partly too in their own judgments delivered of purpose on such matter and seem also manifestly enough to condemn our Saints too much rigour in not submitting to what Henry the Second desired of him For during the Saints exile of what passed after that Lewis of France and Henry the Second of England were made friends for lately before they were at warr and that Henry went to see Lewis to Paris and that amongst other matters some overtures of reconciliation twixt the same Henry and Thomas of Canterbury were made by Lewis St. Thomas himself being then personally at the French Court though not appearing then before his own King but sending his desires in writing to him amongst which this was that his Majestie would restore him to his Bishoprick restore also the fruits or revenews of his said Bishoprick detain'd from him and received by whomsoever during his exile and moreover yet would restore him to all the other lands taken from him after he was made Archbishop and after that the King had answered to these demands that he could restore nothing to him who freely of himself without any compulsion had deserted his own Church by his voluntary flight and so had rendred it or made it to be accounted or held pro derelicta as forsaken and given him just occasion to make use of his Royal power in applying the vacant fruits to other persons according as the law and custom of the Kingdom was in such cases and yet that he was ready to give him all due satisfaction before either the King of France himself or the Parliament of Paris or even before the Vniversity of Paris wherein so many learned and disinteressed persons were out of many different Provinces and Nations and after that King Lewis and other of his Court present at this answer had been by it reconciled to Henry no less then they had till then and in relation to St. Thomas been extreamly prejudiced against and averss from him and that hereupon immediatly Thomas being admitted to the presence had prostrated himself at King Henry's feet saying these words Domine Rex totam causam unde inter nos orta est dissentio tuo committo arbitrio salvo honore Dei and after that King Henry being much troubled at thiâ— adâ—eâ—tion salvo honore Dei had called Thomas an unmindful ingrateful person for all his royal munificence favours to him and turning himself to the King of France had said as followeth I say that of what passed then in such a presence Abbas Theokesburiensis writes in these words Et ad Gallum conversus Quicquid isti inquit displicuerit dicet honori Dei esse contrarium Sed ne videar vel Dei vel suo honori in aliquo velle resistere hoc tantum postulo Multi in Anglia extiterunt Reges quorum quidam majori quidam minori authoritate atque ditione fuerunt quam ego sum Multi rursus Archiepiscopi Cantuarienses praeter hunc magni atque sancti viri Itaque quod officii suorum antecessorum maximus meorum minimo praestitit hoc mihi Thomas praestet acquiescam Quae cumdixisset Rex ab astantibus undique acclamatum est Rex satis se humiliat Cumque Thomas aliquantisper siluisset Gallus quid injuit Domine Archiepiscope vis esse major sanctis viris vel major Petro Quid dubitas Ecce pax pro foribus And writes moreover that to this question of King Lewis of France Thomas of Canterbury answered that the condition of those and these times or of the times of his Predecessours and of his own were not the same Illos sayes he as the same Author relates his words pedetentim Reges ad Christum obsequio allexisse cum omnia quae ad religionem spectarent uno memento perficere non poterant se ab his non esse recessurum quae jam Ecclesiae acquisita atque incrifacta sunt Praeterea lapsos illos in multis ut homines ipsumque Petrum singulos fuisse quorum exempla sequi necesse non haberet crevisse Ecclesiae facultates semper constantia Praelatorum quas suae jam acquisitas Ecclesiae ut diminuantur nunquam esse passurum And the same Author partly and partly Matthew Paris write that upon this answer of Thomas the Nobility of both Kingdoms France and England there present imputed to this extraordinary stiffness and rigour of Thomas that a perfect peace and reconciliation was not concluded 'twixt the King and him at that very time and place and said it was unfit that a voluntary fugitive from his own Countrey should be maintain'd in France That however so many and so powerful were the intercessors for him that questionless the King and he had then agreed if he had not so rashly added the Proviso salvo honore Dei that the King proffered him all kind of security preter osculum pacis but that the Archbishop refused all other conditions of peace Finally that when the Assembly was parting or breaking up the Bishops and other Peers who were mediators in the matter upbraided the Archbishop to his face Quod semper superbus elatus sapiensque in oculis suis fuisset propriaeque semper sectator voluntatis quod per ipsum ex parte jam destructa penitus cito destrueretur Ecclesia So these Catholick Authors as to their relation of some part of the matter of fact and as to their relation also of the Saints too
by whom or wherein Thomas of Canterbury after some ages and upon a review of his life or actions and knowledge of his nefarious turbulencies and tragedies and of his intollerable arrogancy in raising himself above the royal power laws and dignity as he sayes was so condemn'd It seems he was either ashamed to name the person or raign of Henry the eight in such a matter and in opposition to such a Saint or verely he would impose on his unskilfull Reader and make him think it might peradventure have been so by a King and so in a time that was not reputed Schismatical by the Romanist's themselves and thereby would wholly undermine the credit of a Saint who certainly could be no true Saint if Parker was either a true Bishop in the truth and unity of the Catholick Church or true Christian in the truth and integrity of the Catholick Religion And I give it moreover to take notice of his wilful imposture where he sayes that that nameless King found out what kind of man Thomas was what evilt he had raised c. and sayes also that that nameless King found out all this in a great Conneil of all the Prelats and Peers of the Kingdom meaning so to impose on his Reader as a truth without as much as the authority of any writer for he quotes none in this nor could but against all truth that the Bishops of England in that Kings time concurr'd with him in his judgment or condemnation of Thomas of Canterbury for a traytor viz. against the Kings person or people of England or their laws or all three For certainly he could not be on any rational ground declared traytor or even to have been such at any time in his life not to speak now of the instance of his death or of any time after his reconciliation to Henry the Second but upon one of these three grounds or as having acted either against the Kings own person or royal rights or against the liberties of the people or against the sanctions of the municipal laws of England And O God of truth who is that is versed in the Chronicles of England can imagine any truth in this sly insinuation of Parker concerning that of the Bishops to have concurr'd with Henry the Eight in the condemnation or prophanation and sacriledge committed against St. Thomas of Canterbury so many hundred years after his holy life and death and so many hundred years after he had possessed not England alone but all the Christian world with the certain perswasion of his sanctity attested so even after his death by such stupendious miracles at his tomb and wrought there at or upon his invocation and by such stupendious and known miracles I say that Parker himself hath not the confidence as much as to mutter one word against the truth and certainty of their having been or having been such Nay who is it can upon a a sober reflection perswade himself that either Henry the Eight himself or any other whatever and how even soever atheistical Councellor of his could pretend any as much as probable ground in natural reason laying aside now all principles of Religion to declare this Thomas of Canterbury so long after his death to have dyed a traytor nay I say more or to have lived so or to have been so at any time in his life T is true that in all branches and each branch of the five membred complex of those first original and lesser differences which preceded that great one of the sixteen customs he for some part did not comply with the Kings expectation and for other parts positively refused to obey the Kings pleasure or even command But so might any other Subject and might I say without being therefore guilty of treason nay without being guilty of any other breach of law or conscience had he the law of the land and liberty of a Subject of his side as Thomas of Canterbury had in each of these five original differences And that he had so the law of the land for him even in that very point of them which Henry the Second took most to heart that I mean of the two criminal Clergymen besides all what I have given before at large of those very laws to prove it this also is an argument convincing enough that Henry the Second was not where he had the law of his side a man to be baffled by any Subject whatsoever nor would be so ceremonious as to call so many Councils or Parliaments of Bishops and other Estates to begg that which by law he had already in his power without their consent And therefore certainly had the law of the land been at that time for him that is for the ordinary coercion of criminal Clerks in his lay Courts and in what case soever or even in case of felony or murder committed by Clerks he had without any further ceremony at least after he saw the Archbishop refuse to comply with his desire or obey his command and after he saw also the Priest was in the very Ecclesiastical Court convict of murder sent his own Officials to force him away to and before the lay Judges and sent his Guards too or Souldiers were this necessary Neither of which he as much as attempted to do And therefore had we no other argument who sees not that it is clear enough out of this very procedure that the Archbishop committed no treason in this very matter wherein of any of also the branches of that whole five membred complex he most positively and plainly opposed that King though by such a kind of opposition as might become a Subject that is by an opposition of dissent without any interposition of arms or force 2. T is true also that after this Thomas of Canterbury opposed mightily but with such a kind opposition as I have now said all those sixteen heads of Henry the Second pretended by him to have been the Royal Costoms of his Grandfather and that after giving a forced consent and taking a forc'd oath to maintain them he retracted again freely and conscientiously his said consent and oath and refused to give his hand or seal for introducing or establishing them But I am sure there was no treason in this not only because he saw or apprehended they were against the former laws and for an evil end too press'd by that King so violently but also because he saw or apprehended that the very pretence was false that is that some of them had never been customes Is it not lawful without treason nay or other breach of law for any Peer and so great a Peer as the Archbishop of Canterbury to deny his own assent in Parliament or even to revoke and for as much as belongs to himself his own former assent at least when otherwise his conscience is wounded and when he proceeds no further by force of arms and that the laws is yet only in deliberation to be establish'd but not
own King sent Embassadors both to Lewis of France and to the Pope to accuse him and pray them especially the King of France not to harbour him at all and partly also to be recommended by them or either of them to some pious refuge where he might serve God in a retired life and in safety from the power of his own incensed King and might not want necessary sustenance being he had nothing left him of his own to live upon Was there or could there be any treason in this He represented the quarrel so and those 16 Heads or customes controverted 'twixt his King and himself so that the Pope and Cardinals with one voyce condemnd them and consequently his King for contriving and forcing them on him and on the rest of England for municipal Laws and Customes But so did Henry also by his own Letters and Embassadours to the same Pope and Cardinals endeavour to get those Customes approved and Thomas in the same manner indirectly condemned for opposing them And as such application to the Pope and Cardinals by the Kings of England at that time was not unlawful not even I mean by the very Laws of England so neither was it as much as by the same Laws unlawful much less treasonable for the Archbishop of Canterbury to declare his Conscience before the Pope and in matter of such or other whatsoever pretended or intruded or forced Laws or Customes whatsoever or either treasonable or unlawful for him to be with the Pope and his Cardinals the cause or primary Instrument of such a condemnation as is proper to the Pope and Cardinals by a meer spiritual sentence or judgment or reprobation or not allowance for as much as belong'd to them or as their such opinion or sentence was desired of such Laws Besides we know that Histories make no mention at all of any Brief or Bull or other authentick Declaration set out by that Pope of his Cardinals or by any other Pope either procured by Thomas or not procured by him against those pretended Customes or against that King for them only and meerly Moreover we know it is no treason for any Bishop Subject to any Prince whatsoever to declare his own Conscience against whatsoever Laws which are desired by the Prince to be establisht for Laws and received especially when the Bishop sees there were no former Laws of the Land obliging him under pain of treason not to oppose such other Laws or Customes or pretended Customes as the Prince would establish for Laws Nay it is plain there could be nor can be in any Common-wealth or Kingdome such former Laws so obliging Bishops or indeed any other Subjects because such would be against the Law of God and Nature and would oblige men to consent to the making even of the most wicked and impious Laws imaginable or at least would oblige those who are in Parliament concern'd to oppose wicked Laws not to oppose them 5. He took a Legatine power from the Pope over England and the Kings person too even in the time of his exile or proscription We find no proscription of him but a voluntary yet for himself necessary exile though we find Edicts and Sanctions against those in England who would receive any Mandats from him or even from the Pope in his cause during that time of his exile And we know it was neither treasonable nor otherwise unlawful by any even Law of England at that time for an English Bishop especially the Archbishop of Canterbury to receive a Legatine power from the Pope over England The Archbishops of Canterbury were both before St. Thomas and after him some of them Legati nati and others Legati dati and other Bishops too in England were sometimes Legati dati and both those and these sometimes at the Kings desire made or with his knowledge and consent and sometimes also without the Kings previous knowledge or desire at all The Laws indeed of Provisors or Premunire obstructed the Custome of procuring or receiving such Legatine Commissions without the Kings permission and approbation But these Laws were made long after i. e. in the Reigns of Edward the Third and Richard the Second We know also the Legatine power was not of its own nature but in meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or in such as the Law and Customes of the Land then did allow it to be and to be without any derogation to the Kings Majesty or Peoples safety And that if at any time otherwise exercised it was the fault of the Legat and neglect of the Prince to suffer such exercise For so the very ordinary Episcopal power of even inferiour English Bishops might be abused by the Bishops Yet the Law did allow their power though not the abuse of it Nor was it treasonable nor otherwise unlawful not even by the laws of England then that a Commission of meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power and cognizance extending to the Kings own very Person should be received without his consent nay or against his consent from Rome however perhaps it might be imprudential in a subject to receive it so For the very ordinary power of a Bishop where-ever the King resides in his Diocess extends so also to the Kings own Person that laying aside some particular priviledge or exemption given by a superiour Church-power to the King from the spiritual cognizance or jurisdiction of such a Bishop he may if just cause be proceed spiritually against the King himself by name and so proceed that in case of necessity and expediency he may either interdict him from the Church or even also excommunicate him Evangelically that is declare him separated from the spiritual Communion of all the Faithful and may do all this without any treason at all For a pure Evangelical excommunication or such I mean as is grounded in the Gospel whatever be said of Papal excommunication or of excommunication taken with all its rigour extention or effects according to some Papal Canons or Constitutions entrenches not upon the temporal rights of any nor separates any from such civil Communion of the faithful as the same faithful or any or some of them are otherwise bound by the law of God or man or nature to pay to another And consequently pronounced by a Bishop against his Kings own Person by name cannot be any way a diminution of Royal Majesty being this requires not to be exempt from the power or even effect of such an excommunication which hath no temporal effect nor bereaves of any temporal power at all nor consequently can by any just law amongst Christians be made treasonable not even in an Ordinary Bishop who is the Ordinary of the Diocess and hath not his Episcopal power restrained by any Cannon or any command of a superiour Bishop But whether it can or no I am sure there was no Law then in England making it treason in a Bishop as I have stated the case much less in a Canterbury Archbishop Legat. 6. He
in his own Conscience and both before God and man confess it when he reflected on so many Texts of Holy Scripture especially on that of St. Paul 13 Rom. and on the Doctrine and Expositions of all the Holy Fathers and on the practice not only of the Primitive Church but of all ensuing Churches throughout the World and of both Laity and Clergy until Gregory the VII time some Ten entire Ages after Christ and all for the independency of the civil Power of Princes from the Church as also for the subjection of the Church in civil matters to earthly Princes Humane nay and daily humane Experience also forasmuch as we see it Taught by so many famous Divines and read in their Books That it is not alwayes safe in point of Conscience to follow that opinion in practice which in pure speculation seems probable to us nay or even that which so seems the more probable whereof I could instance a variety of Examples and see it taught and read in them consequently That some may have a pure speculative opinion as probable nay as the more probable to them for such or such a power to be in the Church in actu primo and yet not this other annexed consideratis omnibus That it is lawful for the Church to proceed at any time to the execution of it And forasmuch also as all Ghostly Fathers or the Judicious and who are of a timorous Conscience nay and others too besides Ghostly Fathers daily find it so in themselves at least in such cases wherein they know that if possibly they should err and transgress against the objective Truth of Things and Laws by following in practice such a speculation as upon some ground or other seems to them to be probable or even the more probable they may run a great hazard to undergo the punishment due in the justice of God for such breach whereas they are absolutely certain that whether their such speculation be true or false yet if they in practice follow the contrary opinion or speculation there is no Law at all as much as objectively taken which may be transgressed by them As for Example in case of such a pure speculative opinion of a power in ones self to force away his Horse or Purse or House or Lands or Lordship or Principality from another who both himself and Predecessors was and were ever till then bona fide in peaceable possession and were so if it was a Lordship or Lands c. for a Thousand years For in such a case there can be no sin no breach of any Law in not Conforming in practice to the speculation but there may be in Conforming And consequently common experience also in the daily regulation of our own Conscience tells us there must not of necessity be such a connexion of dictates Besides who sees not that whether so or no there was not in England at least in the dayes of Thomas of Canterbury any Law making it Treason to hold That the Christian Church in some extraordinary case might transfer the Right of that Crown from Henry the Second As for Example in case he had really Apostatized and not only from the true Papacy or from Pope Alexander to the Anti-Pope Victor but even from Christianity it self as some of his Ambassadors to Rome and the Bishop of London in some of his Letters extant in Hoveden seemed to Threaten either the one or the other T is true I am against the Doctrine which attributes any such power to the Church as a Church or to it at all de jure divino and much more against the lawfulness of putting such pretence in execution But hence it doth not follow That as much as in my judgment the Doctrine of such power or of such practick lawfulness is Treasonable at least in all Times and all Countries For the Church may some time and in some Countrey have such a power by meer humane Right And whether she have or no where the Law of the Countrey doth not make the practice Treason or the Doctrine or Dictate Treasonable neither can be so Each or both may be unconscientious erroneous injurious and wicked at least according to the objective Truth of Things and Laws of God in themselves but to be Treason or Treasonable is another thing I said That in the dayes of Thomas there was no such Law in England for I leave it to the Learned and Reverend Judges of England to determine Whether after the Laws of Praemunire by Edward the Third and Richard the Second were made and that Declaration in this of Richard the Second made by joint consent of the Bishops too That the Crown of England is subject to none but God it be Treasonable Doctrine in England to teach the contrary I am sure the like in France and of France though extremely and most justly too censured by all the Universities of France and the Abettors or Teachers of such degraded lately in Schools and otherwise punished yet Cardinal Peron's interposition in the time of Henry the Third of France by his fine speech in the Assembly of Estates hinderâ—d it from being then declared Treason or Treasonable or Heresie or Heretical and ever since from being accounted or punished as Treason or Treasonable though of late severely and I think justly proceeded against as at least false erroneous scandalous dangerous against the Word of God c. And yet I am sure also That whether it be so or no at this time either in France or England St. Thomas of Canterbury cannot be said to have been or to be concern'd You will say again perhaps objecting your very last and strongest reserve That whatever may be said to excuse his principles of Judgment or Doctrine from being Treasonable for that I mean which appears in any of his Epistles or in that Speech of his at Chinun or other extant nothing can be said to excuse him from actual Treason which is more and worse For you will say That the Archbishop of York and Bishop of London and Salisbury did so charge him when after his return he refused to absolve them but on such a condition as they would not lie under without the Kings consent and when therefore they having cross'd the Sea to the old King the Father to Normandy they sent an Express back to England and to the young King to persuade the said young King That Thomas had sought and endeavoured to depose him Qui ei persuaderent sayes Spondanus out of Baronius and Baronius out of the Saints own 73 Epist which was his last to Pope Alexander Thomam quaesivisse cum deponere But I answer That such a charge of his such publick and profess'd Enemies was not is not to be at all believed without other proof than their own such private suggestion of it by their own Messenger to the young timorous King That no Relation or History makes mention not only not of any proof but not as much as of any
credit given to this ungodly suggestion or of any kind of proceedings after in pursuance thereof by the same young King against Thomas That the ground or colour of this suggestion was no other but that Thomas held those Bishops for excommunicated who did use Pontificals contrary to the Popes command and custom of the Church and of England also in the Consecration of the said young King and use them so in the Diocess of another Bishop without his Licence That no man is so blind or was then so blind as to hold that the young Kings being King depended of his being Consecrated at all by any Bishops whether excommunicated or not excommunicated And therefore that albeit I grant as I do verily grant That St. Thomas had been guilty of Actual Treason if he had sought in any wise or at any time against the Law of the Land to depose either of both Kings the young or old the Father or the Son yet nothing material is alledged to prove that ever he did so Besides I answer That on the other side there are so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and in Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter to have been whereas no kind of proof hath been or hath been offer'd That I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of St. Thomas of Canterbury First Argument His wonderful austere holy devout life with so perfect a contempt of all that was pleasant gay or glorious in the world immediately upon his Election and ever after to the hour of his death and this life so devoted wholly to God attested even by the confession of Parker himself but seen particularly and exactly in all the contemporary Writers of the Saints own time as Hoveden and others whom I have before quoted Second Argument His having lived the most retired contemplative life could be in three several Monasteries in Flanders and France even all the time of his Exile first in St. Bertins at St. Omers in Flanders next at Pontiniacum in France and lastly in the Abby of St. Columb in another part of France when and after he was forc'd from Pontiniacum by the Threats of Henry the Second to the Abbot of this place to banish out of the Dominions of England all the Monks of his Order if he did any longer entertain or relieve Thomas In which Abby of St. Columb he for the four whole last years of his Banishment and until his Return to England led that life which merited as he was in prayer and after he was reconciled to his King to hear a voyce from Heaven saying to him Surge velociter abi in sedem tuam glorificabis Ecclesiam meam sanguine tuo tu gloriaberis in me Hoveden ad An. 1170. Third Argument That notwithstanding Henry the Second had Legates favourable enough to him and a Pope also yet neither before them nor in his Letters or Messages to the Pope himself he ever did for so many years of the Saints Banishment or after his Return during the Saints life as much as once insist upon any Treasonable practice of his against himself or Son or Crown or Kingdom nor even as much as once lightly charge him with any for ought appears out of History and that Histories tell how when the former Legates once lightly objected his raising the King of France c. whoever put that into their mouths The Saint answered so clearly and convincingly That there was not a word of proof or even as much as reply against him Fourth Argument That not even after the Saints death not even then when all Christendom with horrour and amazement looked upon and cryed against Henry the Second as a most impious Murtherer and execrable Tyrant thinking the Saint was murthered by his command or consent not even then when he was therefore taken for an excommunicated person and the worst of those excommunicated against whom as Actors any way or Authors of the Saints death Pope Alexander so formidably Thundered Curses and Anathems from Rome and this too at the passionate instance of both the King and Clergy of France That I say not even then or at any time after nor then when at his own earnest solicitation special entraordinary Legates came along from Rome to hear him plead his own excuse or what he could alledge for himself to extenuate the horrour of his guilt he or his Son did or the Bishops of their way did or any other for them or either of them did as much as once pretend any Treason or any other Misdemeanor at all of the Saint whereby as much as to extenuate the heinousness and hideousness of the Murther committed on him but only made it their work to justifie themselves by Oath That they never consented to nor as much as suspected his death upon any account whatsoever Fifth Argument That Henry the Second himself so great a King as he was and so passionately bent against the Saint in his life-time did for having been only unknown to himself or without design the occasion of the Saints death undergo such Pennance and perform'd it so devoutly and unfeignedly invocating the Saint at his shrine that 't is not any way probable the Saint was ever guilty of the least Treason or that the King ever entertained any such Thought of the Saint For what rational man much less so Royal and interested a person would have in such manner invoked a Traytor Sixth Argument That God shewed by so many prodigious signs and wonders incontinently and continually after the Saints death wrought above all the power of nature That he was no Traytor Amongst which though I do not rank those extraordinary temporal blessings poured from Heaven upon this penitent King and on that very day wherein he ended so devoutly his Pilgrimage and his Fasts and Watch and other corporal Afflictions endured first by coming in a penitent Weed and Bare-foot for Three whole Miles that is from the place where he first saw the Church of Canterbury where the Martyr was Enterr'd leaving the very print of his steps all bloody behind him the keen stones cutting his tender feet so that much blood ran from them all along continually and next in the Church of Canterbury by receiving there and on his naked shoulders so many sharp lashes of Disciplines as they call them from the hands of all the Bishops Priests and Monks present yet being those extraordinary temporal blessings were so signal as the overthrow of the whole Scottish power on that day and as the taking also of their King prisoner on that very same day too by his Armies in the North of England I cannot say but the Catholick Writers of that Time had Reason to attribute even these earthly favours of God to the Kings so exemplary and satisfactory Humiliation and to the Saints benign propitious and powerful intercession with God for
Kings Absolution by the Cardinals having this Title Charta Absolutionis Domini Regis and beginning thus Henrico Dei gratia illustri Regi Anglorum Albertus tituli sancti Laurentii in Lucinia Theodinus tituli sancti Vitalis Presbyteri Cardinales Apostolicae Sedis Legati salutem in eo qui dat salutem Regibus Ne in dubium veniant quae geruntur c. And so proceeds to signifie his said Purgation and their own Absolution given to him upon the fame conditions Now I demand Whether there be any kind of likelihood that so knowing and so great a King as Henry the Second was then for he had Conquered Ireland that very year and thence it was that he Sail'd immediately to Normandy of purpose to purge himself and be absolved so as soon as he heard those Legates were come thither from Rome And he had the whole Sea-side of France and far in to the Land all along to Navarre in Spain under his dominion and in actual possession and had Scotland also Tributary though it was Two years after before he took the King of Scots should have made so wonderful a submission and in such words and received Absolution on such terms if he could have alledg'd any thing or matter of Treason against Thomas of Canterbury And that he also performâ—d all and more than all this for appeasing God's wrath against himself for having only given without further design the unfortunate occasion of the Saint's death we have seen already and in part before in his extraordinary Pilgrimage to and Humiliation at the Saint's Monument And we may in part also gather hence That by actual instance he quitted the requiring of that Oath of the Clergy for the observation of the sixteen customs For so doth Matthew Parker himself confess in express terms and in his life of Richard a Monk of St. Benedicts Order Prior of the Monastery of Dover who was the next succeeded Thomas Becket in the Archbishoprick and Primacy of Canterbury and in a Legatine power Apostolick also being fix'd upon by this very King Henry the Second to succeed so and confirm'd and consecrated so by the same often mentioned Pope Alexander the Third at Anagnia in Italy Et paulo post sayes Parker Archiepiscopus Primas Romanae Sedis Legatus cum Pallio in Angliam rediit Hic electus Regi fidelitatem juravit salvo ordine suo nulla prorsus facta mentione de prioribus regni consuetudinibus observandis Behold eight several Arguments which if at least taken all together and especially if they be also taken together with all I have said before in this second Appendix to answer such Objections as my self framed against my self I must confess I cannot for my own part but judge them to be so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter as Treason possible to have been truly charged at any time on St. Thomas of Canterbury that I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of him And so I conclude this second Appendix against the unweigh'd Relation and very inconsiderate Censure of Parker and much more yet against the barbarous and impious judgment of those Judges who under Henry the VIII above Three hundred years after the death of the Martyr condemn'd him for a Traytor repeating here again what I said before against the grand Atheistical Counsellor of the said King Henry the VIII in this matter who ever he was That it was neither Treason nor even any other less or real and certain misdemeanor he saw or he read in the life or death of Thomas of Canterbury put him on so execrable an Enterprize Sed avaritia illa quae caâ—tivavit discipulum comitem Christi captivavit militem custodem Sepulchri as St. Austin said of Judas who betrayed Christ and of the Souldiery that kept the Sepulchre of Christ And so also I conclude whatever I intended to say principally or incidentally against the tacite Objection of the Divines of Louain of this glorious Martyrs Contests with Henry the Second and of his opinion or judgment in such Contests in relation to the Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Exemption from the supreme civil coercive power of temporal Princes or to my own Doctrine which I am sure is the Catholick Doctrine and whatever else I intended to say principally or occasionally of the sanctity of his life and glory of his martyrdom and of the consistency of both with some humane invincible errors of his side speaking according to the objective verity or being of things in themselves as we see that other great and undoubted Saints and even the very Princes of the Apostles have fallen into such humane errors without prejudice to the sanctity of their lives or glory of their martyrdoms that Peter erred so out of zeal to gain both Jewes and Gentiles in Judaizing among the Jews c. and who reprehended him in that did no less himself err so in another occasion in making himself a Nazarâ—te and in circumcising Timothy so much against his own Doctrine there Si circumcidamini Christus vobis nihil proderit and elsewhere And finally whatever I intended to say directly and of purpose to shew that indeed St. Thomas of Canterbury did not in any part of all his Contests with Henry the Second as much as err so that is not err at all as much as inculpably or invincibly or at all against the very objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves And yet I must tell my Reader that if Augustinus the first Archbishop of Canterbury had contested so or Reginaldus Polus the last Catholick in that See or many others after Austin for some Ages and before Cardinal Pool in other Ages intervening 'twixt his and that wherein Thomas Becket was Archbishop of that same See I could not justifie any of them for contesting so but plainly condemn them Because in their Times the municipal Laws of the Land were quite contrary in many points as they are at this day and have been so as to the punishment of criminal Clergymen in cases of Treason Murther Felony c. a long time and perhaps several Ages in England as well in those immediately after Henry the Second's dayes and notwithstanding the conditions of his Purgation Absolution and Satisfaction and then almost uninterruptedly till the change and after the change by Henry the VIII until this present as in those before the dayes of that Christian King of the Saxons who ever he was that first gave Clergymen those priviledges of Exemption in Criminal Causes from Lay Judicatories which I quoted before and proved to have not been repealed at any time after until Henry the Second's Reign And because they were the municipal Laws of the Land which only could warrant the grand Contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury at least in relation to the exemption of Criminal Clerks
people and that obedience also in Temporals which is in all other Subjects to their own respective Princes and States or an obedience which tyes them not to raise Tumults bear Arms c. against the Princes Person Royal Authority c Lastly Who sees not there was very much both expediency and necessity in these Kingdoms of England Ireland and Scotland but more especially in Ireland for Catholick Priests amongst such a world of Sectaries and under a Protestant King and State to make such a Remonstrance or one in such even formal words of disclaiming and renouncing in so much any Forreign power being the generality of Romish Priests in these Kingdoms or at least in Ireland have been these many Years and are as yet upon so many sufficient grounds suspected to own such a Forreign power both Papal and Princely Spiritual and Temporal as in their opinion at least may seem nay is able and may even justly pretend to free discharge and absolve them from all obligation of Loyalty even in the most Civil and Temporal Affairs whatsoever and give them leave and licence to raise Tumults bear Arms and offer violence to His Majesties Person Royal Authority and to the State and Government of both Ireland Scotland and England So that from first to last you see by this Discourse even the very grand Block of stumbling and chief Rock of scandal quite removed or rather see there hath never been any such at all in the Remonstrance being this fourth Clause or Period of it is free of any such and hath neither Block nor Rock in it self at all the Block and Rock being onely in false and even wilfully and maliciously false Representations of it by perverse Interpreters Fifth Period or Clause follows Being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to Your Majesty and to Your Ministers all the Treasons made against Your Majesty or them which shall come to our hearing but also to lose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person and Royal Authority and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what Forreign Power or Authority whatsoever But certainly here is nothing else Remonstrated but their being ready to perform their Duty in meer Civil or Temporal Affairs or which is the same thing I mean to perform a meer Civil and Temporal Duty and to perform it in a meer Civil way as all Subjects ought to their meer Civil or Temporal Prince To reveal Treason and defend the Kings Person Royal Authority and State even with the hazard of their Lives Are not both meer Civil and Temporal Duties As for that which some either too grosly stupid or too ridiculously malicious object 1. That Confessors who subscribe this Period or Clause of the Remonstrance declare they are ready and oblige themselves thereby to reveal in some case Sacramental Confessions and break the Sacred Seal of such Confessions made to them forasmuch as they say here They are ready to reveal all Treasons which shall come to their hearing And 2. That all sorts of Catholicks both Laymen and Clergymen subscribing this Clause bind themselves thereby to reveal that also which they cannot in Conscience reveal forasmuch as this Clause binds them to reveal all Treasons and we know 't is Treason by the Law at least in England 't is so to Reconcile any man to the Pope or to be Reconciled so to be made a Priest beyond the Seas by the Popes Authority and afterwards to return to the Kingdom of England as it is also Treason to deny that the King's Majesty of England is Supreme Governor in His Kingdom even in Ecclesiastical Causes and yet 't is plain they cannot nor ought not by any Law of Conscience as it stands not with the Laws of their Communion or Religion to reveal such matters To the first or that of Confessors I have already of purpose and at large answered in my LV Section where I Treated this Subject against the Third ground of the Louain Censure And to the Second or that of all Catholicks generally I say in brief here That Widdrington hath in his Theological Disputation Cap. 4. Sect. 3. upon the Oath of Allegiance most learnedly clearly and even diffusely answered this very Objection made in his time by some especially by Antonius Capellus Controvers 1. Cap. 2. pag. 30 seq against which or in answer to which the learned Widdrington or whoever was Author of those Works which go under his name in effect sayes That neither King James himself nor His Oath of Allegiance nor the Statute thereupon by the Clause of that Oath which tyes to the discovery of Treason did intend to bind or does indeed any way bind to the discovery of other Treason or Trayterous Conspiracy than that which is truly such by the Laws of God Nature and Nations even that which is truly such in all Catholick Nations against Catholick Princes but by no means to the discovery of such matters as are only of late by the peculiar Law of England called or made Treasons Treasonable or Trayterous Conspiracies and are not otherwise in their own nature against the natural Allegiance Truth Fidelity and Obedience of Subjects to their Prince And I say besides that neither any indifferent Catholick or even Protestant ever yet understood by the word Treason in such a Clause whereby Catholicks in an Oath or Declaration especially made by themselves oblige themselves to discover all Treasons any other kind of Treason but that which is such of it 's own nature or by all the Laws of God Nature and Nations or that which is such in all Catholick States and Kingdoms not that which is such by the positive Law of only this or that Kingdom or is only such by Laws made against even the very profession of the Roman Catholick Religion for such might be made Treasonable by an unjust Law of men were it left to the greater vote at least in some Contingencies and in some Countries And I say in the last place That words bind not against or besides the intention of such as speak or subscribe them not are by any Rule of Reason or Law to be construed so to bind whensoever the obvious and common sense of such words in all Nations or in the generality of Nations and Religions require no other intention but may subsist very well without any other intention and the Speakers and Subscribers of such words be thought to deal honestly and conscientiously and to be without fraud equivocation or mental reservation in such their speaking and subscribing Out of all which jointly taken with what I have said before on the other Clauses it is apparent enough That notwithstanding such capricious and foolish Objections the fifth Period contains no other than a promise or purpose of the Subscribers of being faithful in performing their natural Duty in Temporal matters without any kind
England or Ireland in temporal things as indeed I confess our said Remonstrance denies him to have any such 2. That albeit our Remonstrance denies the Pope any kind of power to dispense in our temporal or civil Allegiance yet it no way therefore or even for any cause or in any other clause whatsoever denies the Pope that binding or loosing power which is proper to the Church or which is any way given the Pope either by Christ himself immediately or immediately by the Church 3. That albeit our Remonstrance also tye even the Priestly Subscribers to reveal all Treasons which come to their knowledge as to be perpetrated hereafter yet it touches not on nor binds to the breach of the Sacramental Seal of Confession 4. That should it as indeed it ought not be expounded so as to renounce all Ecclesiastical both liberty and immunity of Church persons and places wherein either is contrary to the Supreme politick power of Princes in temporal matters over all persons and places whatsoever within their own respective Dominions and inasmuch as such power is necessary for the preservation of the Commonwealth either spiritual or temporal and is own'd by the municipal Laws yet it would not therefore nor doth for any cause or in any clause whatsoever disclaim in or quit in any wise the true Ecclesiastical Liberty or true Ecclesiastical Immunity And these being all the specifical grounds of charging our Remonstrance with Sacriledge in either sense of the word it must be consequential that these being overthrown as they are already and most clearly and most diffusely too the Censure of Sacriledge must be also overthrown as having no subsistence but in these four grounds or in some one of them For to ground a Censure of Sacriledge on the bare naming or mentioning at all the special Title of the great Bishop or on the word Pope expressed in our Remonstrance or on the words We disclaim and renounce all Forreign Jurisdiction be it Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal inasmuch as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from our faithful Loyalty and due Allegiance or to ground it I say on those two former words disclaim renounce of this clause as not Reverential enough or less Reverential than other words expressing the same sense is the greatest vanity and folly and nonsence can be Because Sacriledge either properly or improperly strictly or largely taken must be a sin and therefore against some true binding Law divine or humane and therefore also must be a violation of some Right belonging to divine persons or things and belonging to them by some Law divine or humane positive or natural and consequently too must be an injurious breach of their priviledge or right by some such Law But herein or in these bare words and sense of them as explained by the other following words is no sin because no such violation or breach being there is no Law to the contrary in the case nay being all Laws divine and humane positive and natural are for those words and senses of them as explain'd by the other words following Besides there was either an absolute necessity or at least very much expediency to use those very words Pope renounce disclaim as I have shewed before Now doth it matter at all that other words might be found more Reverential For as magis minus non variant speciâ—m or do not make that which is Reverential in the positive to be Irreverential in the negative So I am sure no rational man will say that we are under the sin of Sacriledge or other whatsoever bound to use at least in a doctrinal declaration and speaking of a third person the most or even the more Reverential words or even also any words at all of Reverence so we use none of Irreverence being there is no Law binding us in such a case to use such words but only words expressing truly and plainly such meaning as is lawful for us to express Lastly who sees not but that we commit no Irreverence if speaking of the King as a third person we call him barely the King Nor also any Irreverence if upon a just occasion we should say that we disclaim and renounce his Royal power as certainly we do inasmuch as it might seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from that obligation which we have on us by the general Canons or consent of the whole Catholick Church or at least of the Occidental or Western part of it to acknowledge and obey them in meer spiritual things and according to the true undoubted Canons of the same Church and in that sense wherein the universal Church understands the same Canons Or if upon a just occasion and being required we should renounce and disclaim in the King or in His Royal power inasmuch as he or it might seem able or should pretend to the preaching of the Word Ministration of Sacraments or to that spiritual power of binding and loosing sinners or of shutting and opening the gates of Heaven or of the Church which Christ gave to his Apostles and by his Apostles to the same Church that is to the meer spiritual Rectors and other meer spiritual Ministers of it And as I am sure this expression could not be at least in such case Irreverential much less Sacrilegious against the Sacred person of the King or His Sacred power Royal or against His Sacred unction so neither could that of ours in our Remonstrance and in that case which was really ours be any way Irreverential much less Sacrilegious or any way at all sinful or unlawful IV. My fourth and last Argument and Syllogism is against the virtual affixion of Schism or Heresie or both to our said Remonstrance by the often mention'd Louain Theological Faculty and Censure And I frame it thus No Remonstrance is either Schismatical or Heretical and much less both which contains not some proposition or some clause either formally or virtually Schismatical or Heretical for if it be both as it must contain both so consequently it must contain either Our said Remonstrance is a Remonstrance which contains neither that is which contains no such proposition or clause c. Ergo c. And because the Major of this last Syllogism is evident and even per se nota ex terminis amongst Divines and all men of Reason who understand the terms and withall consider that I take here Schismatical and Heretical or Schism and Heresie in the proper sense of the words or as they import a special sin distinct from all other sorts of sins and consequently because it needs no further evidence it s own native light abundantly sufficing I proceed to the proof of the Minor And first as to the first branch of it which is that of our said Remonstrances not being Schismatical In the deduction of which proof I will make even St. Thomas of Aquin himself 2. 2. q. 39. ar 1. ad 2. and
his power and authority And we know there may be many other pretended grounds powers authorities However these matters be I declare first It was not the homeness of the Irish Formulary against the Pope but rather defect of that full and perfect and unavoidable undistinguishable homeness thereof that troubled me Though withall how defective or unhome soever it may be said by some to be against the Pope and Church or for the King and Civil Magistracy yet no man will deny now but that the Roman Court esteems it too too home and full against their Interests and Papal Usurpations Secondly That had I been at first consulted with as to the framing or fixing on a Formulary of Allegiance to the King neither King nor Council nor Parliament or House of Commons nor other Protestant Subject or not Subject whatsoever should have any ground left for excepting against the shortness or defectiveness of it as to any point controverted hitherto in that which relates to indispensable Allegiance in all Temporal things whatsoever or to its being open to Evasions or lyable to any kind of Quibbles not even to that of the reduplicative or specificative sense Thirdly That nevertheless I should not have been moved hereunto out of other respect than that of redeeming the Roman-Catholicks from the severity of the Laws against them hitherto these 100 years And I mean that of redeeming them only by a Declaration of their future fidelity and obedience in all Civil and Temporal matters so full clear and positive as would be answerable in all points to their so long consultation about such a one this whole entire Age past wherein they have declined first the Oath of Supremacy next that of Allegiance and by their demurs on both rendred themselves not only obnoxious to so many Laws but also to so many jealousies and suspitions of their Loyalty to the Crown and Kingdom of England Ireland c. as if they inclined to the vain pretences of Forreign powers And what I pray you will judicious learned Protestants say or rather what will they not say now when they cannot but understand how the said Catholicks oppose now again even a very cautious Declaration of bare and meer Allegiance in Civil things only and such a Declaration too I mean as was framed not by any Protestant but by themselves Or will not such Protestants as please have hence a very specious and probable ground to alledge in Parliament and plead there openly against the comprehension of Papists in any Act of Indulgence to Tender Consciences should there be any such And to alledge and plead I say A manifest inconsistence betwixt the safety of a Protestant Prince or State and the Repeal of Laws heretofore made against People so principled or any absolute liberty or freedom of exercise of Religion to them whose Religion appears by so many Arguments to be destructive to the very fundamentals of any Civil State especially Protestant because denying still to acknowledge as much as the very essence of such a State this essence if not consisting in at least requiring for one part of its essentials to be absolutely Sovereign or Supreme and Independent from any but God alone in all Temporal and Civil things And may not consequently the same Protestants plead That such Roman-Catholicks as peremptorily refuse to acknowledge that absolute Sovereignty or Supremacy and Independency in such a form of Declaration or Oath as cannot be lyable to any Evasions in any kind of Contingency whaâ—soever have no Title at all to His MAJESTIES gracious promises in His Letters from Breda for Indulgence to be given to all Tender Consciences that hold not Principles destructive to the fundamentals of Government For surely if any Opinions be destructive to such fundamentals those of the said Roman-Catholicks or of such Roman-Catholicks I mean as hold them must be of necessity Let any one therefore judge now with what sincerity or knowledge or truth the foresaid Internuncio Hierom de Vecchiis writ as you have seen to Father Bonaventure Brodin That the Valesian Formulary is it which may do more hurt and mischief to the Church of God than all the foreacted persecution of Hereticks And judge you Reader whom he understands here by Hereticks What by the Church of God What by hurt or mischief or ruine to that Church But blessed be God we are not so mad yet as to confine the Church of God to the walls of Rome or Papal and Cardinalitial Consistory or to the small number of men wherever diffused that either out of ambitious flattery or cowardly fear or ignorance or other respect whatsoever maintain the Papal Usurpations over Church or State asserting them so in plain contradiction both to Scripture Tradition Fathers Canons and practice too of the Catholick Church and not only to natural reason Nor yet so mad as to think that whatever hurts annoys or ruines the wicked Usurpations or unjust worldly Emoluments of such men must be esteemed any way truly hurtful to the Church of God and not rather on the other side both highly and truly advantagious and profitable Nor further yet so mad as to hold all those for Hereticks whom the Roman Ministers Tribunals or even many of their Popes even or also Boniface the VIII himself held for such No nor yet so mad as to esteem that to have been a persecution in the bad sense of this word which was a just prosecution of so many Emissaries sent heretofore from Rome of meer and set purpose to overthrow both King and Kingdom here by plotting and raising or endeavouring to raise even bloody horrid Rebellions of Subjects against both that I may say nothing now of the Invasion of Eighty Eight against Queen Elizabeth or the Powder-plot Treason after against King James and both His Houses of Parliament or of the late Rebellion in Ireland in our own dayes and year 1641. Nor finally so mad as to account the Remonstrants a Sect in the bad sense of this word albeit de Vecchiis would fain have them reputed such not only by Nicknaming them Valesians but also by joyning them in a comparative manner with those he expresly calls Hereticks For certainly it is meer madness either of blind ignorance or extreme malice that should make any to esteem the Teachers of fidelity and obedience in all Temporal things to a lawful King of what Religion soever to be therefore a Sect in the bad sense of this word Although in the Etymological sense generically taken or in any innocent thereof and in opposition to the present Roman Court its Partisans in the grand Controversie and in that or like good sense consequently whether generical or specifical wherein St. Paul confessed himself to be of the Sect of Pharisees in the point of Resurrection the Remonstrants confess themselves a Sect and glory in being so But the Internuncio gains nothing hereby if not that himself and his Associates how great or numerous soever be really in the worst sense
not only by priority of place or honour of dignity or only vocation or age or sanctity but I speak with the generality of Divines by priority of an ordinary Pastor and Prelate that is of spiritual Jurisdiction received from Christ over the Rams as well as sheep of the flock as well over the Apostles universally as all the rest of the faithful And yet St. Paul reprehended St. Peter not with less but far greater liberty though in a case if I mistake not of less moment and this in a Publick meeting of the Disciples and not only reprehended but resisted him to his face reproov'd accus'd him of Judaism among the Jews Gentilism among Gentiles dissembling amongst both and that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel And this passage betwixt St. Peter and himself St. Paul would have testified to the Christian world in the Epistle which he writ to the Galatians although this dissembling of St. Peter was afterwards defended from sin by St. Austin against the Writings of the learned and holy St. Hierom. 'T is superfluous to rehearse what others have done in process of time and almost all ages of Christian Religion in imitation of St. Paul and with like liberty reprehending even Popes themselves the Successors of St. Peter what the holiest Bishops the most Religious Abbots most austere Monks the best Priests and the devontest Laity and Clergy almost of all degrees and all these united to the Roman Church and Bishop in the strictest tye of Ecclesiastical communion For the present and for a Letter let that one example of St. Paul suffice and let it suffice to excuse Walsh from too great a freedom in writing to an Internuncio of an Internuncio whom he does not acknowledge for his Superiour and to an Internuncio of a Cardinal whom he does acknowledge I complain or reproach or object nothing but that in the present Controversie you walk not according to the truth of the Gospel but that by that dissembling or flattery or at least wicked errour of yours you strive to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples the Christian world beyond comparison worse than that of the Mosaick Law and strive to impose this yoke of a kind of Papal Tyranny by arts truly bad A yoke which neither we nor our Fathers could bear a yoke plainly contrary to the yoke of Christ My yoke is sweet sayes our good Saviour and my burthen light That of yours is full of thorns and your burthens more than insupportable driving both body and soul even to Hell And shall it be thought a fault in Walsh after he has been provoked with much injury and urged with reproaches and slanders and that only for this cause That he writes more freely than becomes him not against the Pope himself Alexander the VII whom God long preserve to the good of his whole Church who for his own part is said to be so innocent in this matter that he has severely reprehended both Cardinal and Abbot not against those of his Court or Ministers universally but onely one inferiour though a commendatory Abbot and one Bishop though a Cardinal but two of the whole number of his Ministers Will they say That though the matter require freedom yet 't is not allowable in Walsh nor fit in an Inferior to and of a Superior¿ What then was not Paul inferiour to Peter and Bernard to Eugenius and Robert that holy Bishop of Lincoln to Innocentius So many other famous holy Catholick Writers were they not inferiour to Popes I say themselves to whom or of whom many even in this very Controversie have written and written with a liberty at least not less If you object again That Walsh is tyed by a particular vow of his Rule to render obedience to his Superiours Walsh will reply again That to this very day he never was commanded by any Superiour either under obedience as the custom is or censure nor in vertue of the Holy Ghost or by any formal so much as simple command not so much as by a single admonition either not to hold as he does or not to write or speak And Walsh will reply That the obedience he has vow'd is Canonical not Political and to be understood of spiritual not civil matters And he will reply besides That a Vow neither is nor can be a bond of iniquity as from the Canons themselves of the Popes even the very dullest of the Canonists teach Lastly he will reply too That a man is not less obliged by a precept of Divine or even Ecclesiastical Law receiv'd I mean and not repugnant to the Divine Law than by the tye of a Vow how solemn soever And that St. Paul St. Bernard Robert of Lincoln and the rest of whose greater at least equal freedom in expostulating with the greatest and holiest Popes I have spoken above were tyed to Canonical obedience by a precept of the Divine I speak according to the opinion of your Lordship without doubt and the most common amongst Divines or Ecclesiastical Law or both and that many of them had also upon them the tye of a religious Vow Why then should not that be lawful to Walsh which was lawful to them and many of them in this very Controversie or some other wholly like it If your Lordship say our Holy Father Alexander the VII who now sits in the Throne of St. Peter has written Letters to you by which it appears it is the judgment of His Holiness That this Form of ours contains Propositions which are all one with those condemn'd long since by Paul the V. and lately again by Innocont the X. If I say you object thus Walsh will answer First As for what concerns our Holy Father Alexander the VII that where a thing makes to the prejudice of a third person and this manifestly makes to the prejudice not only of one single third person but of a great Kingdom of many such Kingdoms nay of the whole World credit by the Canons is not to be given either to your Lordship or any other Minister whatsoever and howsoever dignified with Cardinalship or other Title unless he produce the Original or at least authentick Copy thereof You have yet produced none you have shew'd none either to the parties concerned or to any other as far as we can understand Besides that private Letters even of our Holy Father Alexander himself are not of force to oblige the faithful to a conformity of judgment or opinion much less of Faith which is Catholick and Divine unless some Rescript or Decretal Epistle some Bull or Brief which kind of writings you do not so much as alledge come out with due solemnity be publish't and promulgated and this not directed to any particular person or persons neither to one Clergy People or Kingdom or even more than one but to all the faithful of Christ wherever they be Otherwise that according to many eminent Divines even of those who are for the
Infallibility of the Pope without a general Council no writings of His whatsoever though under his own hand and with his own name induce not a certainty of Faith or such an one in which there can be no falshood or errour I say nothing for the present of the other conditions they require to this that a Declaration of the Pope though by such a Decretal Epistle or Brief so promulgated and so directed to all the faithful of Christ though definitive too and in a matter of Faith oblige not per se of its own sole nature to assent or what restrictions they put as namely that neither the proems nor motives nor suppositions nor any reasons alledged are defined And that whenever the Bull is declarative onely and not constitutive also or as far as 't is only declarative if it relie on false grounds or reasons or any way uncertain or apparent only or only opinative or probable so far of necessity it is subject to the danger of errours and that the constitutive part of such a Bull grounded only upon such a declarative necessarily wants all manner of force to oblige any whatsoever at least those who clearly see the errour doubt or uncertainty For the present likewise I say nothing that these Divines require besides to the Infallibility of a Papal definition or to this that none may dissent that the Pope declare in express or equivalent words that the Article defined is an Article of Catholick faith and the contrary or contradictory heretical All these things I say and possibly more to this purpose I pass over in silence Yet there is a certain errour deceit or at least supposition not well grounded I have read and observ'd in several of your Lordships Letters to several people both here and in Ireland which I cannot let pass without a short animadversion It is That our Holy Father Alexander the VII did not think it necessary to give a new censure of our Protestation that being sufficient which had been made by former Popes since it appeared ours contained some things which were the same with the Propositions condemn'd heretofore by Paul the V. and lately by Innocent the X. But my Lord it does not appear that Paul the V. has condemn'd any one or more certain and determinate Propositions of the Oath of Allegiance as they call it or Fidelity prescrib'd by a Law of King James and the Parliament and Kingdom in his time For in the reference which you make to the judgment of Paul the V. you allude to Propositions contain'd in that Oath Nay it appears on the contrary out of the Letters of Paul the V. which are extant in Print and in form of a Brief directed onely to the Catholicks of England I question not for the present whether they were subreptitious or ever publish't or whether the due Solemnities of Law were observed it appears I say he never condemned any one or more in particular but onely in general terms after other matters of not going to the Churches Sermons and Rites of Protestants or Heterodox admonishes the Catholicks of England not to take that Oath or the like as is manifest by the very tenour of the first Brief dated at Rome the 10th of the Calends of Octob. 1606. in which only first Brief he speaks directly and by design against that Oath of it self And in particular this is manifest by the words of the same Pope in the same Brief which give the onely reason why he admonishes them not to take that Oath and why he tells them it ought perspicuously to appear to the English Catholicks out of the words of the Oath that such an Oath cannot be taken with the safety of Catholick faith and of their souls Since sayes he it contains many things which are manifestly contrary to faith and salvation For after these words and for these alone as the onely ground and reason of his Declaration and Admonition it follows immediately Therefore we admonish you that you wholly beware of taking this or the like Oaths Wherefore since it appears sufficiently by these words which assign his reason especially joyn'd with the tenour of the rest of the Brief from the beginning to the end that Paul the V. did not condemn all that was containâ—d in that Oath I say did not condemn all so much as in these general or any other terms of these Letters or at least since it does not only sufficiently but evidently appear that to his Holiness Alexander the VII it can not be known by those Letters nor indeed can be known at all for no man in his wits will say he can be certain of this otherwise than by those words and that Brief which in particular or whether any such of the Propositions contain'd in that Oath of Allegiance made by King James were censured by that Declaration nay not so much as which he desired or intended to censure and because 't is no less plain to any that shall exactly compare that Form of the Kings with ours that the Propositions are far different both in words and sense and that in that there be many more Propositions but fewer in ours that in that there is contain'd a formal Oath largely expressed and an Oath without all doubt strictly taken in some places assertory in others promissory for thrice at least if not four or five times they formally swear in that manner in that of the Kings but no Oath at all contained in ours not so much as largely taken no where in no part or Proposition from the beginning of the form to the end that 't is affirm'd in that and peradventure with the sacred tye of an Oath that there is in the Pope no power to depose Kings whereas ours for what concerns that particular expresses onely an act of the will and renounces such a power determining nothing either with or without an Oath of the Position in it self and taken in its own nature whether it be true or false or probable or not that in that some things are abjured as heretical in ours none that that binds under obligation of a promise sworn to to discover all Treasons ours declares onely a readiness of mind to discover them I say since it appears that all these things are most true and farther out of Parson's Letters in Withrington dated at Rome when they consulted there of condemning that Oath of K. James and farther also out of several Books of Bellarmine though under counterfeit names against the said Withâ—ington and other defenders of the said Oath that Paul the V. was only or chiefly moved to frame that Brief by which the Kings Oath is condemned by this reason because He had been persuaded though without any either sufficient or probable argument by Bellarmine himself and those other seven or eight Divines at Rome whom He had deputed to examine it that by that Oath was likewise deny'd the Primacy of the Pope and his power to excommunicate either Kings or their
opposite opinion of errour and so convince it that neither Walsh or other Subscribers or Divines who would otherwise except against it could have left them any thing of moment which in their own conscience they judged unsolved In which case nevertheless not to assent would be unlawful not for such Brief or Bull consider'd precisely of it self or in its own nature but because the truth is rendered manifest and the mind convincâ—t by arguments unavoidable which 't is evident are not necessarily requisite in such Letters These things are said according to the sense of those who are Patrons of the Papal Infallibility For otherwise we might recur to other Authors no less Catholick and truly Learned who in this or the like Controversie would without more ado openly reject all definitions of the Pope whatsoever made without the consent of a general Council though declared by Bull directed to all the faithful of Christ in whatever part of the world and who nevertheless were are and in that case too would be most dutiful observant sons of the Bishops of the Roman See as united by the holy band of Religion and the strict tye of whatever other Ecclesiastical communion But because what is said above is abundantly sufficient to answer the objection drawn from the judgment of his Holiness whether only pretended or true makes now no matter as far as it concerns our present case that is the coincidence or identity to use the School terms of some Propositions in our Protestation with those which some mistakingly would have condemnâ—d by Paul the V. in the Allegiance Oath of King James it is not for the present necessary to have any recourse to them Now for what relates to a like conformity suppos'd in the judgment alledged of our Holy Father Alexander betwixt some Propositions of our Protestation with others said to be condemned by Innocent X. of happy memory namely the three Negatives signed as is said by some Fifty English Catholicks of Quality to Cromwel to obtain some liberty for those of the Roman Catholick Faith the answer is much easier partly from what has already been said and partly from what will presently be alledged For Innocent did not publish that judgment of his by any Bull or Brief either to the Catholicks of England or any other so much as one particular man anywhere as far as has been heard to this day so much as by rumour But if any Decree were either made or projected of that matter in a Consistory of Cardinals with the assistance or by the command of Innocent and afterwards sent to Bruxels or Paris to the Nuncio's as there is a report of its being sent to the Nuncio of Paris nothing has been heard more of its publication but remainâ—d suppressed according to that report in the hands of that Nuncio Now whether it were so or no is no great matter nothing to purpose since according to Divines generally and Canonists too such Decrees fram'd in that manner and no otherwise declared do not force consent nor reach faith nor oblige any of the faithful to submission at least out of the Popes temporal State no not in a Controversie of far less moment as where there is no question of faith but only and it may be a just reformation of manners And yet 't were much more proper to attribute the care of such a reformation to the Pope alone I mean without the intervention of a general Council than of declaring the truths of Faith by an infallible judgment and definition such as it were unlawful for any man in any case to contradict Besides 't is a plain case that Cromwel was an Usurper a Traytor and a Tyrant all manner of wayes both in administration and title according to the twofold acception or sense of that word found generally amongst Divines and particularly in Suarez against the King of England And therefore that wise Pope might neither imprudently nor unjustly condemn such Propositions in that conjuncture of things or looking upon the immediate though extrinsecal end then in view namely of observing fidelity to a Tyrant Although we are to judge quite otherwise and according to the common doctrine of Orthodox Divines it be lawful to judge so in case He had not respect to that end but minded only the intrinsecal or even extrinsecal end which is limited by the Law or took the Propositions bare in themselves and abstracting from all bad ends Wherefore it does not appear to the Church of Christ nay to any particular men nor ever did authentically and legitimately that those negative Propositions were any way either by word or writing condemn'd by Innocent the X at least by him as Pope and speaking ex Cathedra Wherefore my Lord since there is no other condemnation of Innocent or Paul the V. to which his Holiness Pope Alexander could relate than those here mentioned and your Lordship objects nothing else and since those old arguments so often brought by Bellarmine Suarez Lessius c. as well under their own as borrowed names from some places and facts of former Popes though in their own cause and some appearances if they be appearances of Councils and scrap't together from false Reason and the Authority whether of some later Doctors or the ancient and holy Scriptures have by other famous men of the Church of Rome long since been weakned answered overthrown there remains to Walsh the same liberty of expostulating which devout men and men no less learned than holy have by their example in all Ages so often taught May your Lordship therefore cease to persecute Caron or Walsh May his Eminence Cardinal Barberin cease May you both cease and I beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ who will judge both you and me at his terrible judgment Cease I say both of you to seduce the Clergy and People of Ireland You have laboured now these three years to corrupt them both You have endeavoured to tear again in pieces a Kingdom every way miserable You have bestirred your selves to your power to replant a most pernicious Errour but onely amongst either simple or mercenary people onely in one corner of the world with those of discretion and honesty you prevail not a jot In all Europe besides in Italy it self next the very temporal Patrimony of St. Peter which now for some Ages has been annex't to the Popedom onely by Humane not Ecclesiastical or Divine Right that is by the gift of Princes or favour of the People you lose your labour For the mask is now taken off and if I may conjecture of future things will be taken off more and more every day Which your Lordship himself if I be not deceived knows to be so true that you cannot be ignorant that in the rest of the world I mean those parts of it which are in the Catholick communion of the Roman Church this your or our question of the Popes pretended right over the Temporals of Kings whatever name it go
to acknowledge Charles the Second to be within his own Dominions either King at all or Supream Lord in Temporals independently from the Pope or to teach maintain assert or believe that his Roman Catholick Subjects are notwithstanding any Papal Power or pretence and notwithstanding any sentence either of excommunication or deposition from such Papal Power bound under pain of Sin as much as any Protestants to obey his Majesty in all Civil and Temporal affairs according to or as far as the Laws of the Land require obedience from them in such Temporal matters For this Doctrine or acknowledgment of the Remonstrance and only this in substance is all the danger and is only it also that made Caron Walsh and other Subscribers to lye under the infamous title of false Brethren And truly that nothing else or more in effect is in the Protestation or Remonstrance which so strangly allarum'd them at Rome you see demonstrated particularly and diffusely Part. 1. Sect. LXXVII from Pag. 462. to Pag. 487. That very Section which concludes the whole discourse against the Divines of Louain 8. That it is no less pleasant i. e. ridiculous to see the same Cardinal further tell the Irish he was commanded by his Holiness to admonish them seriously not to confound civil obedience with that other due to the Apostolick See and by civil obedience he means that which is or shall be paid in Civil or Temporal things to the King Now is not this a very wise admonition or rather pretty cheat of confounding words where the Cardinal dares not speak his mind plainly or sincerely at all Did ever Caron Walsh or other of the Subscribers or could they indeed by the Remonstrance intend to confound both obediences or that which is universally due in all Temporal or Civil affairs to the King according to the Laws and that which is to the Pope only in some Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters according to the Canons Nay doth not the Remonstrance profess only the former to the King leaving and that expresly too the latter as due to the Pope And were not therefore the Irish or the Remonstrants they that of one side perfectly distinguished those obediences but the Cardinal and his Associats they of the other that horribly confounded the Spiritual with the Civil Nay that made the Spiritual swallow up at one gulp the whole Civil that would have no kind of obedience at all not even in meer temporals or Civil things paid our King by us and consequently have him to be no King by our good will if not precarious and dependent for his Crown from the Pope otherwise why the Remonstrance so dangerous so pernicious so damnable so adverse to Catholick Faith so destructive to Eternal Salvation It only acknowledges Civil obedience due to him and consequently his Kingship only in Temporals If such bare acknowledgment be so wicked and uncatholick at Rome then it must be such also to say that Charles the Second is in any true sense at all our King But we must pardon the Cardinals phrasing his mind being he dared not speak all out plainly or clearly and must give him leave rather to speak meer nonsense all along now or at least nothing but false and ridiculous suppositions and even as such known to himself For I beseech what else doth the second part of his admonition here to the Irish import or signifie what this I mean neve in vestrum induet animum patiamini Regi partre non posse qui Romano Pontifici morem gerit As if Caron Walsh or any others had at any time or upon any account whatsoever or at least on some endeavoured to perswade the Irish they could not be obedient to the King while they acknowledge any veneration of dependence from or obedience to the Pope in such Spiritual matters as properly belong to his Holiness according to the Canons Then which supposition nothing can be more false Indeed it is very true and evident also that none can be truly or really faithful to the King who pays that obedience to the Roman Pontiff which Cardinal Barberin means here but not sufficiently expresses if not to his own Cabal by his morem gerit As for his reason or assertion added in these other words Cum immo nihil ad Regum Authoritatem firmandam magis conferat quam in subditis fidele erga Pontificiam Auctoritatem obsequium it is no less evidently fals then we manifestly know out of History That such faithful obsequiousness to the Popes as he means hath but too too often armed the Subjects against their even both Christian and Catholick Princes Kings Emperours nay the very Sons against their Loyal Fathers and again others against these very Sons though crowned with Imperial Diadems And for his two Queries immediatly following viz. these Et sane quae Lex Monarchico Regimini adeo favet quam Catholica Quae justam Regibus subjectionem precipit adeo arcte quam illa quae obedire Praepositis suis aperte jubet Certainly nothing could be more either fallaciously or impertinently demanded to his purpose The true Catholick i. e. Christian Law equally favours all kinds of lawful Governments where ever lawfully introduced and established whether Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And the Gospel of Christ delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul equally commands obedience to the Supream Civil Power without any distinction of the Power placed in one man or in many for the Apostles speak sometimes in the singular number and at other times in the plural Nay in the very place the Cardinal here alludes unto out of Paul which is Obedite praepofitis vestris subiacete eis Ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri is in the Plural And yet who sees not withal how impertinently this place is alluded unto here by the Cardinal Heb. 13.17 as making any jot for obedience to the meer Lay or Civil Power being the Praepositi spoken of in it by Paul are onely the meer Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Officers or Ministers Besides would not the Cardinal change his application if he were to speak on the present Subject to the State either of Venice or Genua or other Common-wealths in Italy And yet after all I confess that his pretended but very false Religion or Law Catholick I mean that of his Congregation and Court as to the controverted point favours more indeed only his Monarchical Government and his indeed only Independent Monarch both Spititual and temporal on Earth the great Roman Pontiff under whom in his Doctrine all other Princes and States are but petty precarious Vicars and favours that more I say then any other Law But can or ought therefore such a Mystery impose on us to perswade any against Caron or Walsh or their fellow-Subscribers or the Instrument it self which they Subscribed nay can it indeed lull a sleep Supream Temporal Princes or States 9. That hence appears I might with much reason
but many of their Superiours amongst them had also discountenanced nay to their power even vexed and persecuted such of their underlings who had signed it and moreover had understood all the other practices of their Agents beyond Seas how I say notwithstanding all this the said Lord Lieutenant had hitherto and for their sakes who signâ—d most patiently expected an amendment of such errours in the rest and in the mean time extended even to the most ungrateful of the Dissentors and opposers all those very favours of Indulgence and connivance of Publick exercise of Religion which the Subscribers enjoy And how the Procurator himself had no way lessened his Zeal to endeavour by all means he could the continuance of those favours even to the very most ungrateful and malicious of his Adversaries in the grand contest Sixth reflected on the great variety of pretences which the dissenting both Superiours and Inferiours pleaded for so many years to excuse their non-concurrence and amongst or rather above all other excuses their desire and expectation of Licence for a National Assembly to consult of the equity of the demand See those either pretences or true cause Tract 1. Part. 1. Sect. 9. from Page 21. to Pag. 27. Where you find the Sixteenth of them to be this of a National Congregation desired Seventh was wholly taken up in the Merits of the main matter in controversie or the only chief end of their meeting viz. the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof And here the Procurator shewâ—d and at large dilated upon the Lawfulness and Orthodoxness of it in point of Conscience and both Christian and Catholick Religion even I mean as to those very causes of the said Remonstrance which was the Rock of Scandal because denying and renouncing all and every the branches and appendages of the pretended Papal Authority either by Divine or Human Right to depose the King c. or dispence with or declare against the Allegiance of Subjects or by Excommunication or otherwise to raise them to a Rebellion against His Majesty c. His Arguments against any such Papal Power and consequently for the said Lawfulness and Orthodoxness he derived evidently 1. From so many plain Declarations and express commands of Holy Scripture 2. From the unanimous consent of Holy Fathers interpreting those passages of Holy Scripture so and not otherwise for a whole Thousand years until Gregory the VII's Pontificat 3. From the Practice also as well as Theory of the Christian Church Universally for those ten whole centuries of years and consequently even from true Catholick Tradition 4. From the general opposition made even in all European Nations Kingdoms States Schools Universities and National Churches to the contrary positions even also in every age since the said Gregorie's days until this very present 5. Particularly from the known Assertions of the Gallican Church and Decisions too of the eight present Universities of France all unanimously condemning those self same contrary positions as impious wicked against the Word of God Heretical and more singularly yet from the six late Declarations of Sorbon May 8. 1663. Not to mention how Cardinal Perron by his fine circumventing speech in the general Assembly of the Three Estates of that Kingdom after the Murder of Henry Le Grand only endeavour'd these Positions should not be declared in formal Words Heretical 6. From the Practice of the Parliaments of Paris and Sicilian Monarchy too 7. From the Statuts of Provisors and Praemunire made so many Hundred years since by the Roman-Catholick Kings and Parliaments of England and Ireland even all the Lords Spiritual assenting especially those Statutes under Edward the III. and Richard the II. which declare the Crown of those Kingdoms to be Imperial and subject to none but God only 8. From the eminency and multitude of most learned Roman Catholick Writers even Scholasticks who all along these 600 years have in every Age expresly condemned and even both specifically and abundantly confuted those vain and wicked pretences set on foot first by Hildebrand 9. From the pitiful silliness unsignificancy and absurdity of all Bellarmin's Arguments for the other side arguments proving either nothing at all or certainly that which neither himself nor any not even of his very beloved Popes themselves would allow 10. And Lastly from the clearness of Natural Reason also in the cases and that I mean too whether the Revelations of Christianity be presupposed or no. From all such Topicks of convincing Reason and Authority I mean as well Divine as Human the Procurator deduced his own arguments for the above Lawfulness and Orthodoxness viz. of the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof notwithstanding any Bugbear of Roman Letters or Louain Censures to the contrary The eighth advanced hence to the consequential both expediency and necessity of their unanimous cheerful Subscription without further delay or regret being there was no other way or means to redeem themselves or their Church or to satisfie or appease the King or his Protestant People for what had been so publickly and vehemently acted in former times partly by them or at least many of them and partly by the rest of the Irish Clergy represented by them and acted even all along either in or immediatly after the very first Rebellion of the Irish Nation in October 1641. and in the unhappy Congregation of Waterford Anno 1641 against the first Peace and further in the year 1648 against the Cessation with Inchiquin and for the Censures of the Nuncio Lastly in the year 1650. and most unhappy Congregation of Jamestown against the second Peace no other way truly in the first place but of humble Submissive Penitential Petition begging pardon for so many former grievous Errors against all Laws Divine and Human. Nor indeed any other in the next place to allay the just suspicions and jealousies of their future demeanour but that of a sincere hearty Loyal Recognition of His Majesties Supream Temporal Independent Power Protestation of Obedience and Fidelity according to the Laws of the Land in all Temporal matters and all contingencies whatsoever and Renunciation also of all pretended Powers and false Doctrines to the contrary The Ninth was the conclusion of all in wishes and Prayers beseeching the Fathers by all that should be dear or Sacred to them to consider That nothing was desired or expected from them in either point but what certainly was more consonant to pure Christianity i. e. to the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ and therefore doubtless more holy than the contrary was or could possibly be 2. The sad fate which had perpetually and universally attended all Rebellions of those of their Religion however at so many several times and places entred into either in England Ireland or Scotland since the first separation under Henry the Eighth 3. Whether wise men ought not even in point of Prudence not only bid at last an eternal adieu to such both Principles and Practices as proved at all times and in all Countries
Ludovicus Pius both very Christian Catholick Emperours deserve to be particularly remembred being they made so many good Laws for the Government of meer Ecclesiastical or Church affairs and persons as may be read in their own Capitularies though not in any of those Books which make up that now commonly called Corpus Juris Civilis That for what concerns the Testimony of others i. e. of those we justly call our Holy Fathers as whom in the next degree after the Apostles we look upon as our best Masters of Christianity St. Augustin alone may at present serve for them all the rather that no man in his right senses did ever honestly or conscienciously dispute this matter Let the Disciples of Bellarmine and admirers of Baronius think what they please In hoc Reges Deo servire in quantum Reges sunt si in suo Regno bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad divinam Religionem is the sentence of this great Doctor in several places of his Works (f) Aug contra Crosse Gram l. 3. cap. 51. Ep. 50. super Psal 2. That reason alone might perswade the truth thereof being reason alone without other help teaches all both Kings and Subjects there is a God whom all must worship and glorifie and reason alone shews that when they i. e. both Kings and People are once perswaded though but by Revelation only of the true way to worship God and Kings do moreover know themselves to be the Vice-gerents of God with the power of the Sword in order to the Government of the People entrusted to their charge and the People also believe the same of them it must consequently and even from the nature of Royal Authority follow That of one side Kings are empowred to command the People to worship glorifie and praise God for his mercy render him thanks for his bounty beg assistance in dangers his deliverance from the power of enemies c and therefore also to set apart some days and observe religiously those days already set apart for such holy duties as Preaching and Praying and Fasting and invokeing God even in publick Assemblies at Church humbling themselves before him relieving the poor and doing all other works of mercy corporal and spiritual and of the other side the people are bound to obey their Kings and other Supream Civil Governours in such commands how spiritual soever the matter or things enjoyned be Nay That reason alone yea without any help or illustration either of the more ancient holy Fathers or later Expositors must teach us That if all Subjects are by the general and positive Law of God in St. Paul 13 Rom. commanded under pain of Damnation or Hell to be subject to the Supream Civil Powers without any distinguishing note of the matter enjoyn'd unless that note which makes clearly for the matter of good works to be commanded by such Rulers it must necessarily follow That since according to the Confession of every side all Subjects are obliged by that very Law in St. Paul 13 Rom. to obey their Kings in all Commands at least which are not contrary to the Laws of the Land and which concern temporary or worldly things alone much more must they be obliged to obey them in all those other more excellent and holy commands which relate either immediately and principally or mediately and consequently to their eternal happiness in another life and therefore to the most excellent of Spiritual matters For all the Laws and Precepts of God either those delivered immediately by Christ or by the mouthes and pens of his Apostles regard if not only at least principally first as the due means a Spiritual life of Grace in this World and next as the final end of such means a Spiritual life of Glory in the other Lastly That such Authority in Kings of commanding Spirituals being not derived from the Keys of the Church given to Peter and rest of the Apostles but flowing naturally originally and necessarily too from the Supream Royal or Civil Power of Kings can be no more lost or forfeited by Heresie or other Infidelity nay nor by any kind of sin or misdemeanour whatsoever than their authority for commanding in meer Temporals especially being it is manifest enough That the Authority of commanding such Spiritual duties and Religious worship of God is often too too necessary in Kings for attaining even the very true politick Temporal or earthly and natural ends of a Common-wealth securing the Temporal Peace or happiness of the People and obtaining it of God from whom alone all both Spiritual and Temporal both Supernatural and Natural blessings come So much did the Procurator let the Fathers of the Congregation know i. e. to such purpose did he speak to them on the Subject of the first of those three heads before mentioned And they did seem in truth to have been fully perswaded by his discourse For they all assented and consented That all both Feasts and Fasts all days either of Humiliation or Thanksgiving commanded by the King should be accordingly observed in their way both by themselves and rest of the Roman-Catholick Clergy and people of Ireland XXI ON the second of those Three Heads or that concerning Father James O Fienachtuy the famed wonder-working Priest he spoke in the next place giving a large and very particular account of all he had either heard from others or by his own experience known of that good Father i. e. an account of those arguments which of one side cryed him up for a Wonderful curer of all Diseases and of the other discovered him at last to have never had any such gift of healing or at least to have lost it lately if ever at any time or in any instance formerly he had it But forasmuch as the Reader may be desirous to know more particularly such matters relating to the said Fathers James O Fienachtuy who made for some years so great a noise both in Ireland and England not only amongst Roman-Catholicks but even Protestants I think it worth my labour to give here to my best remembrance the very speech or at least substance of it containing that account given so by the Procurator i. e. my self to this National Congregation as followeth viz Account of the famed Wonder-working Priest c. MY Lords and Fathers it is no disaffection to nor prejudice against the person of Father Fienachtuy but the general concern of all our Church in the truth or falshood of Miracles reported these many years to have been wrought by him puts me now in the second place upon a large discourse and very particular account of him especially as to some later passages which cannot be known to you otherwise then from me or my relation to others The first place and time I heard of this Miraculous Priest was at London in the year 1657 or thereabouts under the late Usurping Power of Cromwel Then and there I
sense of them and moreover also their doctrine or perswasion of the exemption of Clergy-men in particular from the Secular or civil Power and Laws as will at large appear in the end of this discourse give just occasion to believe they do not mean any obligation under pain of sin by that theirs of conscience I say that not to take notice of these or of any more such of lesser moment or less appearing changes either in the words or sense I observe secondly the great and clear and most material change can be in four several Instances and this partly by a manifest and purposed omission and partly by equivocation First Instance That the former printed Remonstrance of 61. hath in clear express words Line the 2 3 and 4. a Declaration of a tye under pain of sin on the Catholick Subjects to be obedient in all civil and temporal things to his Majesty as much as the Laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom require at their hands For the words of the former as to this point are these And therefore we acknowledge our selves to be obliged under pain of sin to obey your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as any other of your Majesties Subjects and as the Laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands This later hath of set purpose and to evade the acknowledgment of of any tye of conscience what ever they mean by conscience from the Laws of the Land or rules of Government hath I say changed that clause and formed it thus Consequently we confess our selves obliged in conscience to be as obedient to your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as any Subject ought to be to his Prince and as the Laws of God and nature require at our hands Declining so of purpose the Laws of the Land or the municipal and humane politick Laws whether those are called common or those are termed statute-Statute-laws and all other rules of State-government by Proclamations or otherwise for the peace of the Country ordained by men whether ecclesiastical or civil And consequently declining the acknowledgment of any obligation of conscience on the Subscribers to this later form from such humane laws and rules For although according to the doctrine and conscience of the former Subscribers to the first Protestation or that of 61. the very laws of God and nature oblige them to be obedient to the King in all civil and temporal affairs even according to the humane laws and rules of Government of the Land albeit they had never expressed it in their Protestation which yet they did of purpose to avoid all jealousies of equivocation or mental reservation and to declare expresly against the ill grounded opinions or doctrines in that point of some late School-men and Writers of their Church whereof some vainly teach the civil Power and Laws cannot oblige any under pain of sin Others no less vainly that at least they cannot so oblige Clergy-men as being no way subject to the coercive part or power of them but at most and only ex aequo bono to their direction yet according to the publickly declared judgment and doctrine of these other Subscribers or the late Assembly subscribing this their own other form and according their judgment I say on the very point and contradiction of it they will have themselves so understood as that they conceive and believe that neither the laws of God or nature oblige them in conscience so to obey his Majesty either by an active or passive obedience in all civil or temporal affairs or to obey him as much as the laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at their hands but on the contrary speak and teach even many of them publickly and almost all universally in private that they do not oblige them in conscience to be so obedient which is the reason they found this change of this clause very material Second Instance is In the total change of the two next and most material clauses of all those contained in that former Protestation of 61. I mean those And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or See of Rome or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever given or to be given by the Pope his Predecessors or Successors or by any authority spiritual or temporal proceeding or derived from him or his See against your Majesty or your Royal Authority we will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of our abilities our faithful loyalty and true allegiance to your Majesty And we openly disclaim and renounce all forrain power be it either Papal or Princely spiritual or temporal in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to free discharge or absolve us from this obligation or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise tumults bear arms or offer any violence to your Majesties person Royal Authority or to the State or Government And this Instance further is in the clear omission not only of this passage in the next period of that Remonstrance of 61. line the 12. Be they framed or sent under what pretence or patronized by what forrein power or authority whatsoever but also in the like wilfull omission of the two intire periods immediatly following viz. And further we profess that all absolute Princes and supream Governours of what religion soever they be are Gods Lieutenants on earth and that obedience is due to them according to the laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all civil and temporal affairs And therefore we do here protest against all doctrine and authority to the contrary All which four intire periods besides that part here likewise noted of a fifth the only material clauses or declarations not only of that Remonstrance of 61. but which might or may be of any other home to the purpose this Congregation of Dublin in 66. wittingly and willingly and purposely and obstinatly would and have accordingly omitted in their Protestation and would have it so notwithstanding so many convincing reasons given them publickly and privatly for six dayes together and notwithstanding that both the expedience and absolute necessity was so declared unto them why they should and ought by such express clauses renounce the doctrines whence their own so well known so late and so fatal practises of the generality of the Clergie of Ireland since 41. but more especially since the congregations of Waterford in 46. and Jamesstown in 50. did flow and so refused to insert them and as well for any part as the whole of them either in word or sense in their own form which they framed or fixed on of purpose to decline both the words and sense and as well the sense as words of those four several periods as likewise of any other material expressions in the Remonstrance of 61. and so I say fixed on this form which now they call their own because signed by them although not framed
immediately succeeding Internuntius's of Brussels Hieronimus de Vecchys and Jacobus Rospigliosi determined the case as well in this particular point as in all others of the like nature against the former protestation of 61. and so reserved to themselves a latitude or liberty of telling all others and practising themselves accordingly That indeed although it be not their own particular Doctrine sense or Judgement yet for as much as it is Romes or at least the Courts there and for as much as they owe obedience to that See and must submit their Judgements to and receive commands from it specially whensoever his Holiness shall declare or if he hath so al-ready on the point declared an obligation of Conscience or that it is of necessity or that it is a command to them which cannot be transgressed Salvâ veritate fidei Catholicae or sine dispendio salutis aeternae they must for these reasons obey and conform themselves to the contrary Doctrine and practice flowing from it To pass by at present I say all this and that for these causes or motives besides divers others which I likewise pass over this time they would no way censure the contrary doctrine nor as much as seem to dis-allow it as they do not as much as simply averr what their own judgment on the point is or shall be hereafter at any time Who cannot but see out of all said already that by Subjects in this passage they understand only such as are and must or ought to continue Subjects alwayes De Jure and even De Jure Divino not such as are de facto only Subjects such as are onely Subjects by force or out of prudence onely that is until they see they prudently may in some cases of deposition deprivation Excommunication or without any such sentences in some cases of Apostacy heresy schysme or of publick oppression or tyrannical administration and that the people themselves by virtue of their own pretended inherent Civil and supream right in some cases declare themselves exempt and their king or the person until then their King now devested of that power and themselves freed of all kind of tye of subjection to him For even in such cases or contingencies they will say and may truely say according to their present sense opinion and general negative abstraction here That it is not their Doctrine that Subjects may be discharged absolved or freed from their obligation of performing their duty And yet they will and may say then according to their present meaning and that meaning too which their Remonstrance in the words contexture all other present circumstances affecting it necessarily imports that such as were until then Subjects are no more Subjects And if they be still in fact or by force or out of prudence till they find their time they are not so by right Or if by right of the lawes of the Land yet not by a right derived from the lawes of God nature And therefore that although this proposition of theirs be alwayes true then too shall be according to this their present meaning or explication which understands by Subjects none but such as are and ought by the lawes of God nature to continue such and according as they understand the said lawes yet in the cases or emergencies above such persons owe no more any duty of obedience or allegiance and consequently need no further discharge absolution or freedom by the sentence or declaration of any man or men from such duty which hath not nor can have a being or existence in such cases but they are discharged absolved and freed from any such duty on them by the very nature and contingencie of things and by the very consequent ceasing of the obligation of duty of it self I mean and without any further ceremonie They will also and may truely say without giving cause by this passage or any other in their Remonstrance to be up-braided with untruth herein breach of promise or falsity that however or whatever they or any of them may themselves or shall otherwise peradventure think of this matter or whatever their own private Judgement or Doctrine be or be not yet if the Pope shall declare or hath already unto them his or that of his Courts to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and with all command them by his Apostolical authority to follow it they must accordingly practise And that it is therefore they formed this Declaration as all the other several clauses of their remonstrance with so much caution and reservation as withal they framed them so that they might not seem to denie the common principle of Christian faith allowed by both sides as too evident in Holy Scripture though for my own part I believe those other they decline to be no less evident there That Jure Divino or by the law of God Princes are to be obeyed by their Subjects and yet by so many abstractions distinctions and explications render that very principle unsignificant and unbinding if and when they shall think fit Whence the ingenious Reader may also perfectly understand the causes or motives of the subtilty and fineness used in placing the words that compose the Proposition or Declaration immediatly following or which directly relates to and seems to condemn the doctrine of the lawfulness not of deposing or depriving Kings but of murthering or killing them by the hands of their Subjects Wherein it might be expected by vulgar judgments that if in any passage the Assembly would be more clear and ingenuous although to such as are fully versed in the controversie and positions of Suarez Bellarmine and such others whose doctrine as to this point or whole matter the Assembly would not by any means condemn it will not seem strange they be no more since the lawfulness of killing or murthering of Kings even I say by the hands of their own Subjects must be equal to that of a sentence of deposition or deprivation of them by Pope or People or of a Censure of Excommunication or other commanding the people to rebel or take Arms against them or to put any such sentence in execution As indeed Bellarmine in his answer to William Barclay and Suarez in his to King James and all others of that way on this subject plainly confess and averr as a consequence unavoidable So many experiences where and as often as any such attempt of deposition hath been made and the nature of man to preserve himself to his power shewing the moral impossibility or at least the very rare contingency of an effectual deposition of a King by his Subjects but withal he was murthered by them Whence it is necessarily consequent that whoever licences the one must the other And yet these late Remonstrants or Subscribers to this Protestation of 66. would by their dexterity seem but to such only as are not conversant in the dispute or do not strictly examine the placing of their words to condemn a doctrine of so
vary about the many particulars to which his Royal Authority could extend it self and out of error attribute some such particulars to the Pope That besides notwithstanding our being right in our judgment or doctrine of the Kings supream power in Temporals and his independency in all kind of cases from any but God alone as to his said Temporals we might erre about the Temporals themselves and think many of them spirituals that are not such at all and consequently out of that error deny the Kings Authority where we should not That of this kind are all benefices Ecclesiastical as to the Lands and Revenues and all other earthly Goods any way belonging to the Church Nay and of this kind too the very bodies of ecclesiastical Persons how spiritual soever by denomination That we might also and out of errour notwithstanding our attributing sincerely the supream independent power to the King in all Temporals think or teach peradventure against the native liberties of the Irish Church such an unlimitted spiritual power in the Pope over the spiritual things or spiritual persons in this Kingdom as might be not only against the ancient spiritual Canons received in the said kingdom but against equity and reason and Religion too and very enormously also though indirectly or by consequence only but that an infallible one against the King and Kingdom even in their Temporals purely such As for example a power of election to all kind of benefices even Episcopal and Archiepiscopal Sees as well as Parochial Churches and to all these as well as those And a power of translation at his pleasure And a hundred others which may be read at large in Monsieur Pierre Pithou's great and most accurat work intituled Les Liberties de l'Eglise Gallicane and more briefly in Father Redmond Carons second Appendix to his Remonstrantia Hibernorum that last and most learned work of his and all without the Kings consent nay contrary to his express will and the fundamental Laws of the Land That it was therefore the Sorbon-Faculty who are men understand very well what is superfluous and what not and whether the matter of this fourth Proposition contained or not any thing different from the three former or from any other consisting of a general acknowledgment of their Kings most absolute independent Supremacy in Temporals it was I say therefore they would give immediatly after the three former this fourth as specifically declaring against those injuries might be otherwise done by the Pope to their Church Kingdom or King under pretence of such a spiritual power and right only which could not be said to be of its own nature either ordinarily or extraordinarily inconsistent with the supream absolute and independent power of their King in all contingencies whatsoever and yet per se would be unquestionably most injurious and grievous to them and per accidens might prove their utter bane and even as fatal to them as Bellarmine's indirect power in temporals which they protested against in their first proposition That Finally an ordinary person may understand it is one thing and much less to declare our indispensable Allegiance to the King and his independent power in all temporals and an other and much more to declare we understand that Allegiance so as we ought to hold it an incroachment on the Kings said temporal rights and authority and on the both temporal and spiritual rights also of his Catholick Subjects that the Pope should attempt in many or any particular within his Kingdoms to dispose for example sake of goods or persons though by title otherwise Ecclesiastical or Spiritual against the Canons by them received or which is the example of Sorbone to depose a Bishop within his Dominions against the said Canons And therefore it must be clear that by Subscribing the said fourth proposition duely applied mutatis nominibus the Congregation might very well and truly and rightly too have conceived they had said more than they had already or before by subscribing the former three Propositions and Remonstrance even in case I say their said Remonstrance and three Propositions had a full cleer and sufficient expression as from them to obviat all reservations abstractions distinctions equivocations c much more when it is apparent out of my two former Tracts there is no expression at all sufficient as from them to obviat such delusions So much for their first allegation or proof Though as I have before noted if it be intended a proof of the applicableness of their first general reason to the particular of this fourth Proposition it be no new medium but idem per idem and a petitio principij To their second which is that they admit not any power derogatory to His Majesties authority the answers are That I could wish 't were so indeed That they have given as yet no sufficient proof they do not if we understand what they here say as plain honest sincere men would understand these words That understanding by His Majestie 's authority what they do indeed which in effect is a very pittiful authority an authority at best and at most subordinat to that of the Pope Church and People when either please to declare against it in any of those extraordinary cases of Schisme Heresie Apostacie Tiranny c. and an authority also which even out of such cases hath no power to hinder the Pope's absolute disposition of all Ecclesiastical benefices and persons at his pleasure understanding I say this kind of authority their medium is new indeed but vain and inconclusive For how doth it follow we admit no power derogatory to such His Majesties authority Therefore we have already by saying so attributed to our Gracious King whatever the Sorbone Doctors in truth and reallity have to their own in this fourth proposition Or therefore we shall never approve any propositions contrary to His Majesties authority meaning such as it is indeed not such as by fiction curtayled nor approve any propositions contrary to the genuine liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in the same Kingdom as for example that the Pope can depose Bishops against the same Canons Or therefore our second general reason for not subscribing the three last Propositions is specifically applicable to the first of them being in order the fourth of the six Which reason was that we thought we had already sufficiently cleared all Scruples If any of these consequences follow then hath Aristotle failed much in his Topicks As for their third allegation to prove this applicableness and consequently their subscription to this fourth to be not necessary but Superfluous which allegation is in effect as I understand it that they had already more positively declared themselves for the Kings authority rights c. and they should add too or at least mean if they would alledge any thing here to purpose that they had so declared themselves also for the true or genuin liberties of the Irish Church and Canons received in
of Nature Scripture Nations and Canons of Holy Church This is the sense of James Talbot Doctor of Divinity Kilkenny Aug. 4. 1648. The Approbation of the Fathers of the Society of JESUS THE ensuing Answers to the Queries being learnedly and laboriously performed replenished with variety of both Moral and Divine Doctrine as the many Authors Canons and places of holy Scripture therein cited do abundantly manifest containing nothing contrary to Catholick Faith and Religion we judge most worthy to be published as an efficacious mean to remove scruples to satisfie each one and to settle the Consciences of all sorts Hen Plunket Superior of the Society of Jesus at Kilkenny Robert Bath of the same Society Christoph Maurice of the same Society Will St. Leger of the same Society Will Dillon of the same Society John Usher of the same Society Another Approbation BY Order from the Supreme Council I have perused these Queries with their Answers and do find nothing contrary to the Catholick Religion or good Manners nay rather that they contain very solid Doctrine well grounded upon the Holy Scriptures and authorized by the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and are most worthy the Press whereby the World may be satisfied and the most tender Consciences resolved in their groundless Scruples and many dangers removed the which unsatisfied might threaten ruine on a Catholick Commonwealth James Talbot Professor of Divinity Sometimes Visitator of St. Augustin's Order in Ireland c. Another Approbation HAving perused this Book of Queries and Answers made unto them by the most Reverend Father David Lord Bishop of Ossory and several Divines of most Religious and exemplar Life and eminent Learning I see nothing contrary to Faith or good Manners nay rather judge it a very solid and profitable work grounded on the Laws of Nature of God and of Nations confirmed by Councils taught and preached by the Holy Doctors and Fathers of the Church and most worthy to be Printed forthwith That to the world may appear the just and most conscionable carriage of the Supreme Council and their adherents in this Controversie about the Cessation and the unwarrantable and illegal proceedings of the Lord Nuncio and others of the Clergy and Laity who for ends repugnant to their Oath of Association seem disaffected to the English Government as it was even in Catholick times and wholly averse from any Peace or Settlement whereby our dread Sovereign Lord and King might be relieved from his present saâ—l condition Kilkenny 12. Aug. Fr Thomas Talbot One of Her Majesties Chaplains The Approbation of Divines of Saint Francis's Order VVE have diligently read this Work and seen in all pages and parts thereof Truth enfranchiz'd Ignirance enlightned the Councils present proceedings for the Cessation and against the Censures vindicated from injustice as the opposers of their Authority are convinced of sinful Disobedience and Perjury Kilkenny the 10th of August Sebastianus Fleming Thesaurarius Ecclesiae St. Patricii Dublin Fr Thomas Babe Fr Ludovick Fitz-Gerrald Fr Paul Synot Fr James De la Mare The Supreme Councils Letter to the most Illustrious and Reverend DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory concerning the Assembling of Divines and returning his and their Result on the QVERIES FInding that to the great hinderance of the Publick quiet and the benefit of the Common Enemy the Lord Nuncio hath issued his Excommunication and thereby so far as in him lay distracted the Kingdom and divided the Nation notwithstanding that by our Appeal presented unto him the 4th of this Month his Graces further proceedings according to the Law are to be suspended Yet because it concerns the duty we owe the Kingdom to omit nothing that may remove the least scruple in any of the Confederate Catholicks by which he might avoid the visible breach of his Oath of Association by declining the Authority intrusted with us we have thought fit to let your Lordship know it is our pleasure and accordingly we pray your Lordship to assemble forthwith all the Secular and Regular Clergy and all other the able Divines now in this City together before you and to get their present Result upon the enclosed Propositions to be transmitted to us with all speed We know your Lordship so zealous a Patriot and so desirous of setling the Consciences of such few of your Flock as may haply be yet unsatisfied as you will use all possible expedition herein which is earnestly recommended to your Lordship by Kilkenny Castle 14. June 1648. Your Lordships very loving Friends Athenry Luk Dillon Rich Belling Patâ— Brian Joh Walsh Rob Devereux Gerald Fenell The QUERIES I. WHether any and if any what part of the Articles of the Cessation with the Lord of Inchiquin is against the Catholick Religion or just ground for an Excommunication II. Whether you hold the Appeal by uâ— made and interposed within the time limited by the Canon Law and Apostles being granted thereupon be a suspension of the Monitory Excommunication and Interdict and of the effects and consequences thereof and of any other proceedings or Censures in pursuance of the same III. Considering that the Propositions of the Lord Nuncio now Printed were offered by his Lordship as a mean whereby to make the Cessation conscionable whether our Answers thereunto likewise Printed are so short or unsatisfactory and wherein as they might afford just grounds for an Excommunication IV. Whether the opposing of the Cessation against the positive Order of the Council by one who hath sworn the Oath of Association be Perjury V. Whether if it shall be found That the said Excommunication and Interdict is against the Law of the Land as in Catholick time it was practised and which Laws by the Oath of Association all the Prelates of this Land are bound to maintain Can their Lordships notwithstanding and contrary to the positive Orders of the Supreme Council to the contrary countenance or publish the said Excommunication or Interdict VI. Whether a Dispensation may be given unto any Person or Parties of the Confederates to break the Oath of Association without the consent of the General Assembly who framed it as the Bond and Ligament of the Catholick Confederacy and Union in this Kingdom the alteration or dissolution whereof being by their Orders reserved only unto themselves VII Whether any persons of the Confederates upon pretence of the present proceedings of the Lord Nuncio may disobey the Order of the Supreme Council ANSWERS Made to the foresaid QUERIES BY THE Most Reverend Father in GOD DAVID Lord Bishop of Ossory and by the Divines The Preface in form of Letter directed to the Right Honourable the Supreme Council AS well in obedience to your Honours Commands as for satisfaction of our Consciences and guiding Souls committed to our Charge or clearing their Scruples and resolving such from Perplexities who come to us for their spiritual instruction We have seriously considered the Questions delivered us from your Lordships And having first proposed God before our eyes with firm resolutions
to have no other judgment of these or any of them but what should be wholly and purely conformable to the Doctrine of the Holy Roman Church to the inviolable Decrees of Sacred Canons to the common sense of most famous Divines to the known practice of other Catholick Nations and to the manifest Principles of the very Law of Nature and after diligent perusal of all the proceedings past between your Lordships and the Lord Baron of Inchiquyn and the Lord Nuncio and Congregation from the first day this Cessation was entertained by Treaty until the present having duly pondered all and each of the said Lord Nuncio's and Congregations Arguments against it with the satisfaction given them alwayes by your Lordships and withal after much labour taken by us for several dayes in turning Divines and Canonists and weighing the strongest Objections either made by the Lord Nuncio and Congregation which indeed with all submissive reverence be it said are but groundless and too too weak suspitions no way proved or which our selves could frame against our selves we have fixed unanimously and constantly on the following Answers without as we call God to witness the least scruple of swerving from Divinity Law or Reason And although we are not ignorant how the Dean of Firmo by authority from the Lord Nuncio published Commands Censures and Penalties against all Divines and Canonists who should deliver their opinions for the Cessation until or before they had accosted his Lordship and Congregation to hear from them the Reasons which oppose it yet in regard it appears unto us evidently after mature deliberation and exact debate That such Commands Censures and Penalties are not only most unreasonable and unjust but also invalid since they would take away from us that just liberty which throughout all the world is of right belonging to and absolutely requisite to be resident in Divines viz. to answer Cases of Conscience occurring or proposed it being otherwise impossible for them either to govern their own Consciences or direct others but all should often live in tormenting perplexities which is repugnant to the Law of God And since our going to the Lord Nuncio and Congregation would be to no other purpose than to hear and see his Lordships objections against the Cessation all which we have already to the least word perused in the Books given us by your Lordships directions for there can be no kind of likelihood that we should receive from his Lordship or Congregation any better or stronger Reasons than what he hath given your Lordships to whom questionless it was more material and for their purpose to give them and with whom they laboured so much for point of Conscience as they pretended to hinder the conclusion of this business since also there are such considerable difficulties in going to his Lordship neither day or place prefixed for any that would go the distance and dangers of the wayes being such as are known and which is above all his Lordship residing in a place and amongst an Army which stands in opposition to the Council and seeming to have made himself with these few Bishops about him a party to side with Refractories and open Enemies to the Kingdom besides no fafe conduct given or offered us and the setling of our own and of all other Souls committed to our charge admitting no delayes in so great a difference and so near concerning us since likewise it is manifestly consequent out of our Answers given to the first and second Querie That as the Lord Nuncio's Censures against your Honours and your Adherents in the principal cause are of no force as well by reason of the intolerable Errours which with much reverence and due submission we say they contain as of the Appeal interposed both which do jointly and severally disannul them so the Deans Censures and all others if there be any else issued hitherto or henceforth to be issued against us or any who should give their opinion for or approbation to the said Cessation are for the same Reasons throughly invalid yea should we grant that such persons as issued them had even in righteous causes a lawful power over every and each of us which is yet very questionable we are therefore so far from apprehending any unlawfulness in delivering freely before the World our Opinion in this matter that in the present circumstances specially being required by your Lordships we conceive it our duty to the Publick and a merit before God praying heartily to Heaven that the ignorant may find instruction the wavering settlement and the refractories that reproach of their unjust proceedings which may reclaim them in these Answers of Our very good Lords Your most devoted Servants David Ossoriens And the rest who subscribe to the Answers The First Querie answered SUpposing here as a Tenet undeniable by any Catholick That the Faithful may without breach of Conscience conclude and observe a Cessations of Arms yea constant Leagues (n) Vid. Bonacin tom 2. d. 3. q. 2. p. 8. Turrian de just jur d. 87. dub 2. Layman Becan infra citandos and Peace with Infidels and Hereticks whereof we see before our eyes most warrantable presidents even in holy Scriptures and practice of the Saints of God as that of Abraham (b) Gen. xxi ver 27. with Abimelech of Joshua (c) Josh ix ver 9 15. with the Gibeonites of Samuel (d) 1 Reg. 7. ver 15. with the Amorites of many faithful Kings of Judah (e) 4 Reg. 3.2 Paralip 16. ver 3. 18 3. 36. 1 Reg. 28.29 with the Idolaters of Israel or Samaritans and of the valiant Maccabees (f) 1 Maccab 10. ver 6.44 12.43 2 Mac. 11. ver 15. 14. ver 23 24 25. who in their time were the Champions of Religion and approved by God with the Romans Spartiats and some Successors of Alexander to whom they gave Donaries and whose Regality they acknowledged whereof also we have for so many Ages the alwayes allowed practice of almost all Christian Catholick Princes (g) Knowls Turk Hist and States of the Emperour of Constantinople and Germany the Kings of Hungary Poland France the State of Venice and many other Catholick Princes with the Turks of the Kings of Spain (h) Vindiciae Gallicae with the Moors of Sivil Granado Valentia c. of St. Gregory the Great Pope of Rome with the Arrian Longobards (i) Baron Spond ad an 598. of Charles the Fifth no less mighty than religious Emperor and of his Successors with the Lutherans (k) Auctar. Chro. ad annal Baron ad an 1547. Hist Turc in Achmat. of Germany with Henry VIII excommunicated and with Denmark Holland Scotland Swedeland c finally of the Most Christian Kings of France with Huguenots (l) Surius ad an 1567. Supposing likewise another undoubted Truth maintained by all Divines who ever yet put Pen to paper as Beacan (m) Becan in Opuscul Theol.
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
Appeal from suspending the sentence of the Lord Nuncio its consequences and his jurisdiction in this matter The Objections made by the Adversaries are all of straw and are partly dissolved already and the rest do here follow One is That the Judge doth not give way to the suspensive effect of an Appeal when he gives refutatory apostles as appears out of the Glosse in cap. Cordi nobis de Appellat in 6. § exhiberi All which we confess and is too manifest for to make any matter of dispute by reason that the very act of giving refutatories is a denial of giving way to the suspensive effect of the Appeal And therefore the Glosse very well and truly sayes That the Judge denieth inasmuch as in him lies to give way to this suspensive effect when he gives refutatories But neither doth that Glosse nor any other nor likewise any Text of Law or Doctor say That the Judge by his illegal denying to give way to this suspensive effect of a just Appeal can hinder or take away in rei veritate before God or man from the Appeal justly interposed this effect annexed to it ex natura rei by the Canons though indeed he do but unconscionably sinfully invalidly and at his own peril as much as in him lieth to hinder it Wherefore though he give not this way yet the Law giveth it when the Appeal is from a just or probable grievance as appears evidently out of all the forementioned Glosses Doctors and Canons and even reason too Another objection is formed out of c. cum speciali de Appellationibus 2. § Porro c. Romana Ecclesia eod tit in 6. § si vero § sententia quoque Glossa in cap. ut super Appellatione eod § nota insuper c. non solum eod cum clara Glossa c. cum Appellationibus eod cum Glossa § nota insuper § nota primo c. licet de senten excom in 6. Glossa ibid. § nota ex hoc whence they deduce That what the Judge a quo doth in prosecution of the cause after apostles refutatory given by him as answer to an Appeal made from him is of such force and effect in Law That the Judge ad quem or to whom the Appeal is made cannot recall the sentence given by the Judge from whom until the validity of the Appeal be proved or disproved before him and if disproved that he cannot proceed in the principal matter but must remit the whole to the first Judge but if proved that then he may absolve the Appellant from all Censures renewed after such an Appeal and so proceed to examine the principal matter And hence is further deduced That when such refutatory apostles are given the Appellant is not exempted from the jurisdiction of the Judge from whom otherwise the Judge to whom likely would presently recall the proceedings and all acts done by the Judge a quo after the Appeal made from him But this difficulty is easily cleared for all the said Canons and Glosse speak only and are to be understood of proceedings attempted by the Judge from whom after an Appeal made a gravamine concerning some emergent or incident Article not of his proceedings against the Appellant after the Appeal made from a grievance in the principal cause Moreover we say That even in case of an Appeal from a grievance in only an emergent Article though the Judge ad quem will not presently recall such proceedings until it appear unto him that the Appeal was justly made yet the Law doth suspend them as appeareth plainly by the often mentioned c. Si a Judice de Appellat by the Glosse of cap. Licet de senten excom in 6. and so many other places before rehearsed However this be though nothing be said in either branch of this Answer but what 's very true the matter is more plain in our case for your Honours Appeal is not a gravamine interloquntorio super articulo incidemi vel emergenti but from an extrajudicial sentence in the very principal cause Nay your Appeal in effect is ante sententiam because it was interposed before the fulfilling of the condition or dayes prefixed for deliberation were expired and consequently though no other cause might be produced all the following proceedings are void cap. Ad prasentiam juncta Glossa de Appellat extra with many other Canons Zerula in â—rax Episc verb. Appel reâ—p 1â— qâ—â—s 19. As for that which Zerula in his Praxis Episcopalis seems to say for maintaining the Judges jurisdiction when he gives only Apostolos refutatorios We answer That his bare assertion of a practice contrary to so many Reasons Laws and Doctors cannot be of weight specially when he doth not alledge one Reason Text or Author for himself Secondly That the practice of one place though it were just as this if there had been any such could never be binds not another And indeed the best Practitioners with us say the contrary practice is used in Ireland Thirdly That Zerula must be understood where and when the Appeal is in it self frivolous not where it is manifestly or probably just otherwise that practice would be most unconscionable most corrupt yea and against the express Letter of the Law specially if you join the Glosses and consequently not to be in any wise used Fourthly That he speaks in case of an Appeal made from a judicial interloquntorie or from decrees upon emergent or incident Articles for in this case we confess That the Judge from whom may proceed to the principal as not yet suspended from his jurisdiction Glossa in c. licet de seuten excom in 6. but not when the Appeal is from an extrajudicial sentence or grievance in the very principal cause as ours was in which last case the Law ordains that the Judge a quo can proceed no further as being suspended from his jurisdiction cap. si a Judice de Appellat in 6. cap. super eo x. eod tit extra Glossa in cap. Licet verb. convalescat de senten excom in 6. To that doubt which some others move That the Lord Nuncio hath a power to proceed Omni appellatione remota and consequently that though the Appeal be just and the Arguments hitherto produced would conclude against apostles refutatorie given by ordinary Judges yet when the power is so extraordinary they do not convince We answer That in case the Lord Nuncio had in his Commission such a clause which is very ordinary in the Popes Letters and Bulls yet no power thereby is conferred on his Lordship to hinder just or probable Appeals but only such as are in themselves not by his Lordships word or sentence meerly frivolous groundless and against the Law as expresly may be seen in the Canons here placed in the margent especially being joined with their Glosses Cap. Pastoralis de Appel junc Gloss verb. emendari cap. ut debitus eod junc Gloss verb. ante sententiam in verb. absque rationabili
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
or Governours for the time being all Treasons or Trayterous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear to be intended against His Majesty or any of them and I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of a Christian So help me God c. And His Majesty is further graciously pleased That His Roman-Catholick Subjects may erect and keep Free-Schools for education of youth in this Kingdom any Law or Statute to the contrary notwithstanding and that all the matters assented unto in this Article be passed as Acts of Parliament in the said next Parliament IX Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is graciously pleased That places of Command Honour Profit and Trust in His Majesties Armies in this Kingdom shall be upon perfection of these Articles actually and by particular instances conferred upon His Roman-Catholick Subjects of this Kingdom and that upon the distribution conferring and disposing of the places of Command Honour Profit and Trust in His Majesties Armies in this Kingdom for the future no difference shall be made between the said Roman-Catholicks and other His Majesties Subjects but that such distribution shall be made with equal indifferency according to their respective merits and abilities And that all His Majesties Subjects of this Kingdom as well Roman-Catholicks as others may for His Majesties service and their own security arm themselves the best they may wherein they shall have all fitting encouragement And it is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That places of Command Honour Profit and Trust in the Civil Government of this Kingdom shall be upon passing of the Bills in these Articles mentioned in the next Parliament actually and by particular instances conferred upon His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects of this Kingdom and that in the distribution conferring and disposal of the places of Command Honour Profit and Trust in the Civil Government for the future no difference shall be made between the said Roman-Catholicks and other His Majesties Subjects but that such distribution shall be made with equal indifference according to their respective merits and abilities and that in the distribution of Ministerial offices or places which now are or hereafter shall be void in this Kingdom equality shall be used to the Roman-Catholick Natives of this Kingdom as to other His Majesties Subjects And that the command of Forts Castles Garrison Towns and other places of importance in this Kingdom shall be conferred upon His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects of this Kingdom upon perfection of these Articles actually and by particular instances and that in the distribution conferring and disposal of the Forts Castles Garrison Towns and other places of importance in this Kingdom no difference shall be made between His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects of this Kingdom and other His Majesties Subjects but that such distributions shall be made with equal indifference according to their respective merits and abilities and that until full settlement in Parliament Fifteen thousand Foot and Two thousand and five hundred Horse of the Roman-Catholicks of this Kingdom shall be of the standing Army of this Kingdom and that until full settlement in Parliament as aforesaid the said Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governour or Governours of this Kingdom for the time being and the said Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloc 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 Thomas Lord Viscount Dillon of Costelloe Lord President of Connaught Donnogh Lord Viscount Muskery Francis Lord Baron of Athunrie 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 shall diminish or add unto the said number as they shall see cause from time to time X. Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That His Majesty will accept of the yearly Rent or annual Sum of Twelve thousand pounds sterl to be applotted with indifferency and equality and consented to be paid to His Majesty His Heirs and Successors in Parliament for and in lieu of the Court of Wards in this Kingdom Tenures in Capite Common Knights service and all other Tenures within the cognizance of that Court and for and in lieu of all Wardships Primer-seisins Fines Ousterlemaynes Liveries Intrusions Alienations Measne-rates Releases and all other Profits within the cognizance of the said Courts or incident to the said Tenures or any of them or Fines to accrue to His Majesty by reason of the said Tenures or any of them and for and in lieu of respites and issues of homage and fines for the same and the said yearly Rent being so applotted and consented unto in Parliament as aforesaid then a Bill is to be agreed on in the said Parliament to be passed as an Act for the securing of the said yearly Rent or annual Sum of Twelve thousand pounds to be applotted as aforesaid and for the extinction and taking away of the said Court and other matters aforesaid in this Article contained And it is further agreed That reasonable Compositions shall be accepted for Wardships fallen since the Three and twentieth of October One thousand six hundred forty and one and already granted and that no Wardship fallen and not granted or that shall fall shall be passed until the success of this Article shall appear and if His Majesty be secured as aforesaid then all Wardships fallen since the said Three and twentieth of October are to be included in the Agreement aforesaid upon Composition to be made with such as have Grants as aforesaid which Composition to be made with the Grantees since the time aforesaid is to be left to indifferent persons and the Umpirage to be the said Lord Lieutenant XI Item It is further concluded accorded and agreed upon by and between the said Parties and His Majesty is further graciously pleased That no Nobleman or Peer of this Realm in Parliament shall be hereafter capable of more proxies than two and that blank proxies shall be hereafter totally disallowed and that if such Noblemen or Peers of this Realm as have no Estates in this Kingdom do not within five years to begin from the conclusion of these Articles purchase in this Kingdom as followeth viz. a Lord Baron Two hundred pounds per annum a Lord Viscount Four hundred pounds per annum and an Earl Six hundred pounds per annum a Marquess Eight hundred pounds per annum and a Duke a Thousand pounds per annum shall lose
Assembly or until upon application to His Majesty He settle the same otherwise And we do fulminate the annexed Excommunication of one date with this Declaration against all the opposers of the same Declaration All ye good Christians and Catholicks that shall read this our said Declaration forced from us by the affliction and disaster of distressed Ireland be pleased to know that we well understand the present condition of this Nation is more inclining to ruine and despair than recovery yet will we relie upon the mercy of God who can and will take off from us the heavy judgment of his Anger War and Plague if we shall amend our wicked lives and lean like little ones upon the arms of his mercy As we cry to him for remedy let us confess with tears our sins saying with the Prophet Isaiah Cecidimus quasi folium universi iniquitares nostrae quasi ventus abstulerunt nos non est qui invocet nomen tuum Domine non est qui consurgat teneat te Abscondisti faciem tuam a nobis allisisti nos in manu iniquitatis nostrae This language from the heart will reconcile Heaven to us Et quiescet ira Dei erit placabilis super nequitia populi sui Though this Nobleman-hath left us nothing but weakness and want and desolation and that the Enemy is rich strong and powerful God is stronger and can help us and for his own Name-sake will deliver us Dominus Eliae the God of Wonders and Miracles erit etiam nunc apud Hibernos if our faith prove strong and our actions sound and sincere We will conclude with St. Paul that Ocean of Wisdom and Doctor of Nations Si Deus pro nobis quis contra nos quis accusabit adversus electos Dei Deus est qui justificat quis est qui condemnet quis ergo nos separabit a charitate Christi Tribulatio an angustia an fames an nuditas an periculum an persecurio an gladius sed in bis omnibus superamus propter eum qui dilexit nos Let nothing separate you from that burning charity of Christianity and God will ever preserve protect and bless you H Ardmacan Jo Archiep. Tuam Jo Rapotens Eugen Kilmer Fran Aladen Nic Fernens Procurator Dublin Fr Anton. Clonmacnocens Walt Clonfer Procurator Leghlinens Fr. Artur Dunens Connor Procurator Dromorens Fr. Hugo Duacensis Fr. Cul de Burgo Provincialis Hiberniae Ordinis praedicat Jac Abbas de Conga Commiss generalis Canon reg S. Aug. Fr. Thom Keran Abbas de Duellio Carol Kelly S. Th. Doctor Decan Tuam Fr. Bernard Egan Procurator R. admodum P. Provincialis Fratrum Minorum Fr. Ricar O Kelly Procur Vic. Generalis Kildar Prior Rathbran Ord. Praedicar Thad Aeganus S. Th. D. Praepos Tuam Lue Plunket S. Th. D. Proton Apostolicus Rector Collegii de Kilecu exercims Lagenâ—â— Capellan major Jo Doulatus Juris Doc Abbas de Kilmanagh 〈◊〉 ex Procuratoribus Capituli Cleri Tuam Gual Enos S. T. D. Protonot Apostolicus Thesaurarius Fernen Procurator Praepositi Ecclesiae Collegiaâ—â—e Galviens And we the undernamed sitting at Galway with the Committee authorized by the Congregation held at Jamestown 6. Augusti currentis do concur with the above Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates and Dignitaries in the above Declaration and withal do now make and firm the same as an Act of our own by our several Subscriptions this 23d of August 1650. Thomas Cashel J. Laonen Episcopus Edmun. Limiricen Rob. Corcag Cluan Fr Teren. Immolacen Jac Fallon Vic. Apostolicus Acaden The Excommunication mentioned in the above Declaration See the Latin Formulary of this Excommunication as likewise that of the fâ—rmer Declaration in Father Ponciu's Vindiciae Eversae the Excommunication pag. 253. num 149. but the Declaration before pag. 236. num 148. WHEREAS we the underwritten Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates and Dignitaries sitting in this our present Congregation at Jamestown with the consent and approbation of the rest through the dangers of these distracted times now absent upon the sad deplorable condition of this Kingdom brought unto the last ebb that may be imagined and after sad and serious consultations had of the desperate Affairs thereof seeing no other humane way possible to put some life unto this sad gasping Kingdom but by our Counsels Co-operation and Industry as is the common sense of all our Folks who look upon us as their only sanctuary and relief against the dangers hovering on them menacing no less than the total ruine of our Nation judging our selves thereunto obliged by the Laws of God and Nature and by our Pastoral charge and in pursuance of an Oath solemnly taken by all the Prelates Noblemen and Gentlemen that were of the Grand Committee upon concluding the Peace in case of not performing the Articles thereof to continue the Association and Union of the Confederate Catholicks and to do all Acts preservative of the same by vertue of which Oath the Prelates so sworn are authorized and bound to renew and maintain the said Union and Association therefore we have endeavoured to apply to those extreme Maladies the best Salves and Remedies to us now appearing and consequently therefore issued our Declaration Yet fearing as God forbid that any irrational perverse or misled person might give any rubs and disobedience to our said Declaration we have unanimously consented and assented to draw out and unsheath the most fearful Sword of Excommunication as we do by these presents against all such wicked Imps of Satan in manner and form as followeth BY vertue of the power given us by our Saviour Jesus Christ and by his Holy Catholick Roman Church and See Apostolick as Pastors and Fathers of your Souls having first invoked the Grace of the Holy Spirit of God and having his fear before our eyes so that we aim at nothing but his Honour and Glory the exaltation of his true Faith and the preservation of his forlorn Kingdom with his Majesties interest therein after mature deliberation and sitting together We have and do by these presents Anathematize and Excommunicate with the maior Excommunication ipso facto to be incurred without expecting any further sentence And we do hereby separate from the body and communication of the Faithfull and deliver unto the power of Satan any person or persons of what quality or preheminence soever that will presume by Words Writing Force or Arms privately or publickly by themselves or others to oppose or disobey our present Declaration or any part thereof We do likewise Excommunicate as above all the Advisers Relievers Abetters and furtherers of those that will directly or indirectly infringe violate or countervene our present Sentence or Declaration Furthermore We do Excommunicate and Anathematize all our unnatural Patriots and others of our Flocks that will adhere to the Common Enemy of God King and Countrey or will any wayes help assist abet or 〈…〉 by bearing Arms for or with them or
and for his own Names sake will deliver us Deus Eliae the God of wonders and miracles erit etiam nunc apud Hibernos if our Faith prove strong and our actions sound and sincere We will conclude with St. Paul that Ocean of Wisdom and Doctor of Nations Si Deus pro nobis quis contra nos Quis accusabit adversus electos Dei Deus qui justificat quis est qui condemnat Quis ergo nos separabit a charitate Christi Tribulatio an angustia an fames an nuditas an periculum persecutio an gladius sed in his omnibus superamus propter eum qui dilexit nos Let nothing separate you from the burning charity of Christ and God will ever preserve protect and bless you SIGNED Nicolaus Fernensis Procurator Dubliniensis Fr Antonius Cloanmacnoisensis Walterus Clonfertensis Procurator Laghlinensis Fr Arthurus Dunensis Connorensis Procurator Dromorensis Carolus Kelly S. T. D. Decanus Tuamensis Fr Bernardus Egan Procurator R. admodum P. Provincialis Fratrum Minorum Fr Ricardus O Kelly Procurator Vicarii Generalii Kildariensis Prior Rathbran Ordinis Praedicatorum Lucas Plunket S.T.D. Protonot Apostol Rector Collegii de Kilecu Exercitus Lageniae Capellanus Major Hugo Ardmaghanus Joannes Archiepiscopus Tuamensis Joannes Rapotensis Eugenius Kilmorensis Franciscus Aladensis Fr Gulielmus de Burgo Provincialis Ordinis Praedicatorum Jacobus Abbas de Conga Commissarius Generalis Can. Reg. S. Augustin Walterus Enos S. T. D. Protonotarius Apost Thesaurar Fernensis Procurator Ecclesiae Collegiatae Galviensis Thadaeus Eganus S. T. D. Praepositus Tuamensis Joannes Doulaeus Juris Doctor Abbas de Cilmanagh unus ex Procuratoribus Capitali Cleri Tuamensis And we the undernamed sitting at Galway with the Committee authorized by the Congregation held at Jamestown the 6th of Aug. currentis do concur with the above Archbishops Bishops and other Prelates and Dignitaries in the above Declaration and withal do now make firm the same as an Act of our own by our several Subscriptions this 23d of August 1650. Fr Terentius Imolacensis Jacobus Fallonus Vicarius Apostolicus Accadensis Thomas Casselensis Joannes Laonensis Edmundus Lymericensis Robertus Corcagiensis Cloanensis ANSWER This Conclusion of their Declaration is a general recapitulation of the miseries and desolation fallen upon the Kingdom and People in Tragical and passionate expressions endeavouring to infuse into them a belief that all those Afflictions are thorough Our means fallen upon them whereas We suppose We have made it evident That next to the good pleasure of God to chastise the Nation the reason thereof may most reasonably be attributed to the Sedition Disloyalty Pride Covetousness and Ambition to Rule of these Declarers whom VVe challenge to instance whom VVe have born down that would have fought for them or whom cherished or advanced that would or did betray them And where they say That some are inclining to submit to those they call the Parliament persuading themselves that there can be no safety under Our Government attended by fate and disaster as they express themselves more like Heathen Poets than Christian Bishops and Churchmen it is known to some there That to Our certain knowledge divers persons and places of consideration would have submitted to the Enemy if We had gone rather than live under the Tyranny and confusion of the Government projected by these Declarers which was the principal reason of Our stay as will We fear be too evidently verified when We are gone unless that Assembly prevent it by more prudent temperate and solid determinations than these men are capable of giving or receiving Next they say That for prevention of those evils and that the Kingdom should not be utterly lost to His Majesty and His Catholick Subjects they found themselves bound in Conscience to declare against the continuance of His Majesties Authority in Vs and accordingly in their own Name and in the Name of the rest of the Catholicks of the Kingdom they do declare against the continuance of His Majesties Authority in Vs having by Our misgovernment and ill conduct of the Army and breach of Publick Faith rendred Our Self uncapable of continuing that great Trust any longer To which We answer That to prevent the loss of the Kingdom to His Majesty they take the Kingdom to themselves and without so much as making any address to Him or pretending to have received any direction or Commission from Him they declare to the People that they are no longer obliged to obey any Orders or Commands of the person by Commission authorized from him but until a General Assembly may conveniently be called or until upon application to His Majesty he settle the same elsewhere to observe the form of Government the said Congregation shall prescribe Whereby is to be observed That as they take it upon them when they please and in the highest Temporal affairs in the world to declare the sense of the People without their consent a thing that We have never read or heard was ever till now pretended to by King Pope or Clergy so they evidently assume the power of dissolving and erecting the Temporal Government of the Kingdom And this they say they found themselves bound in Conscience to do Which being a pretence inscrutable and at all times readily to be taken up can only be answered by the Laws of the Land that will not allow the excuse of Conscience for taking a Purse on the Highway or to come home to this matter for Acts of High Treason For the Clause viz. or until upon application to His Majesty he settle the same elsewhere it is inserted with purpose to abuse the People with a belief of their Loyalty when they have first incited them to Rebellion Touching the complaint they say will make against Vs to His Mejesty it should in reason and justice have preceded their Declaration And if either His Majesty had refused them hearing and justice or if We had not submitted to His determination there had been some colour for their proceeding as they did In the last part of their Conclusion they prepare the People with an Apology of the desperate state the Kingdom is left in by Us to bear the more patiently the utter loss of it under the Government they would set up and with a touch indeed of Episcopal counsel to amend their lives and depend upon Gods providence and protection they dismiss them Wherein what example they have given them We leave to the judgment of God the Searcher of hearts and the impartial Judge of the thoughts and actions of men In the Order attested by the Bishop of Clonfert for publication of the Excommunication which publication was made at Laghreogh the 15th of September it is expressed that the Order given to the Committee of Bishops at Galway by the Congregation at Jamestown was That in case VVe would not depart the Kingdom upon their advice and depute the Kings Authority with persons of Trust or that We denied to depart