perspicacity in striking the nail in the head This indeed is that stumbling stone and Rock of offence This is the chief and I may say the only cause of that irreconcileable disunion of the Roman Church with us We know by certain and well authorized * Tortura torti Pag. 152. records that Pope Paul the Fourth offered Queen Elizabeth to approve of the Reformation if the Queen would acknowledg his Primacy and the Reformation from him and he being dead his Successor Plus the 4. prosecuted the same as appears by his letters written the 5 * Cambden Anno 1560. of * Twisden H. Vind. Cap. IX n. 5. May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia offering to confirm the Liturgy of the English Church if she would acknowledg his Supremacy This being told by Sir Roger Twisden as he relates himself to an Italian Gentleman versed in public affairs together with the grounds on which he spake it well said the Gentleman if this were heard in Rome among religious Men it would never gain credit but with such as have in their hands the maneggi della corte the management of the court affairs it may be held true And indeed suâ—h as know the spirit of that Court may easily believe that if this great point of the Supremacy the foundation of their power and grandeur were agreed upon they would easily wink at other dissentions Whereof we have a pregnant testimony from Bellarmin Lib. 3. de Ecclesia Cap. 20. asserting that even such as have no interiour Faith nor any Christian vertue are to be taken for members of the Catholic Church provided they do but outwardly profess the Faith of the Roman Church and subjection to the Pope tho it be only for some temporal interest So ready they are in Rome to embrace all sorts of men provided they acknowledg the Popes Supremacy This being established all is well being denyed the best of Men and soundest Believers in Christ must be damned Heretics by sentence of that Court. But I shall declare sufficiently in the 15. Chapter of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain the pretence of Suarez and his party is to make the Popes Supremacy an article of saving Faith how unjust and tyrannical an usurpation it is how far the best Popes in the Primitive Church were from pretending to it and more from pressing it upon Christians as an article of saving Faith And indeed it must appear strange to any impartial judgment that the System of articles contained in the three Creeds and four first general Councels which gained the name of Catholic to the Church first called so should not suffice to make a Church Catholic in all times Therefore the Church of England professing all those Articles is to be taken for truly Catholic tho denying the Popes Supremacy not contained in the foresaid System nor ever own'd by the Church first called Catholic as hereafter will be proved As to the second sort of Universality consisting in taking the Word of God for a common reason or rule of belief how can any pretend the Church of England to be deficient herein having ever protested that the Word of God contained in Canonical Scripture is the prime and only rule of its belief while the Roman Church denies to stand to this rule as unable to make out all the belief it would force upon us What Suarez pretends that the Church of England wants a rule infallible for knowing which is true Scripture and the true meaning of it which they conceive to have themselves in the Popes infallibility I shall declare in the eighth Chap. of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain it is we having in universal tradition and in the Writings of the Holy Fathers means sufficiently certain for knowing which is the true Scripture and which the true meaning of it in points necessary to Salvation As for others less necessary if there be obscurity and diversity of opinions among our Writers so is there among theirs nor could their pretended Infallibility ever make them agree Nay among the best and wisest Fathers of the Church there was alwaies a great diversity of opinions in points not fundamental without breach of Catholic and Christian union Now concerning the third kind of union or universality consisting in a hierarchical order of Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Suarez is much mistaken in saying that we have them not true and legal I will declare at large from the fifth Chapter following that we have all the security they have of a legal sucession and true ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons It s their concern we should not be found deficient herein for any defect conceived in our hierachy will reflect upon theirs Finally touching the fourth manner of Universality signified by the name Catholic that a Church or Faith so called should be extended over all the Earth Suarez exceeds much in denying this property to the Church of England or Faith professed in it saying it passes not the bounds of Brittish land To which is contrary that grave and modest testimony of King James related by Suarez in the same place chapter xv n 6. Nos Dei benesicio nec numero nec dignitate ita sumus contemnendi qui â—â—ono vicinis nostris exemplo praeire possimis quandoquidem Christiani orbis omniumque in eo ordinum inde à Regibus liberisque Principibus usque ad insimae conditionis homines pars propè media in nostram Religionem consensit We by the grace of God are not so despicable either for number or dignity that we may not be a good example to our Neighbours whereas neer the one half of the Christian World and all orders of People in it from Kings and Soverain Princes to the meanest sort of persons have already embraced our Religion I shall declare hereafter from the XIX Chapter descending to particulars that this saying of King James was both true and modest and that more then the one half of the Christian World agrees with the Church of England in unity of Faith sufficient to render them Catholic and that the Church of Rome may cease bragging of her extent being now come so short of that latitude which made her swell to the contemt of all other Christian Churches now far exceeding her in number and lustre of Princes and Kingdoms embracing the Faith professed in them Suarez preventing a check to his argument from this discovery in the XVI Chapter num 4. of his said Book premises that this general extension of the Catholic Church over all the World is to be understood of extension either by right or by actual possession and tho the latter be deficient the former of right cannot want Christ having commanded that his Gospel should be preached to all the World But how can Suarez pretend that this right should belong to the Faith of his Church rather then to that of the Church of England whereas this latter preacheth only for object of
ramble at this rate I confess plainly it seems to me intolerable and a sad task to dispute with a person of so irregular a style But if what I related of learned Protestants be so indeed which way comes it to be a Blasphemy to tell truth Now to know whether it be so let any that ever heard learned Protestants deliver their opinion upon that subject or did read their writings tell whether he knew any of them say that the Popish Religion in general and absolutely speaking is a sure way to Salvation or whether they could say it in consequence to their assertions ever accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry superstition impiety c. crimes certainly inconsistent with Salvation if Ignorance did not excuse or penitence heal the malady The Testimony of Learned †Chillingworth part 1. c. 2. n. 17. Chillingworth well versed in the Doctrine of both parties may serve for many to this purpose who relating that Franciscus à sancta Clara and the Jesuit his Antagonist among other Learned Romanists do assure that ignorance and repentance may excuse a Protestant from Damnation he dying in his error adds these words and this is all the charity which by your own confession also the most favorable Protestants allow to Papists Here we have witnesses of both sides affirming that Protestants do not allow Salvation to Papists if ignorance or repentance will not protect them how then comes it to be so great a Paradox in me to tell they say so a greater Paradox certainly to say it should be blasphemy to tell it CHAP. II. A Vindication of several Saints and worthy souls our Ancestors from the sentence of Damnation passed upon them by I. S. TO render me odious to my Lord Lieutenant to my own kindred and to all good men he pretends that I adjudg unto Hell his Excellencies Ancestors my own Ancestors St. Bernard Aquinas and other holy men The ground he alledges for fathering this severe sentence upon me is that I should say that in the Popish religion none may be saved and which is more intolerable that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church All men that know my Principles and Temper in writing and speaking will admire the impudence of this man imputing to me such desperate rude Positions That none may be saved in the Romish or Popish Religion I never said with that generality but with a limitation leaving a gate to Salvation for innumerable good souls and for the holy and renowned men he mentions as I shall now declare To declare for damned all the adverse parties of Christians without distinction is a rashness I ever abhorred and constantly opposed in the Romanists when I was on their side and which I would not imitate against my present adversaries much less did I or could I say that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church out of which I expect no Salvation for my self or others I have said indeed and proved with reasons which I. S. will never solve that the Roman Church according to the present profession and practice of it is not a safe way to Salvation generally and absolutely speaking that many of the Tenets and Practises of it are inconsistent with Salvation in such as understanding the error of them do continue to embrace them This I have said and will maintain at all times by the help of God and truth but how different this is from saying that in the Roman Church a man may not be saved and that there is no Salvation in the Catholic Church any man of common sense may easily conceive and withall judg how unpleasing a work it is to spend precious time in debating with a man of so confused brains and ill digested expressions Now therefore the foundation laied for the censure of Damnation passed against those Saints and renowned men not being from me but from the fancy or fiction of I. S. it remains that he is the Author of that malignant Censure my work will be to vindicate the persons injured from that cruell sentence by shewing that it is not a consequence of my opinion above mentioned own'd and confirm'd by many thousands of Learned and pious men The stress of his Argument and where he hopes to be more successfull is what concerns Thomas of Aquin. He sayes that the Sanctuary of ignorance which we allow to others for escaping Damnation can not avail him being well versed in Scripture and an eminent Master in most Sciences and so he conceives his Damnation unavoidable in consequence to my forementioned position and the common sense of all the reformed Churches and thence proceeds to sound a Triumph as to a manifest victory But if Mr. I. S. his Logic makes a Demonstration to him of this consequence it do's not to me nor will to any ordinary Logician that understands the terms and state of the Question If he do's not know how to save Aquinas and several other good learned men of the Roman Church from damnation in the opinion of so many thousands of Learnâ—d men of the Reformed Churches I can and will teach him I am not of those fiery spirits reproved by the Royal piety of King James who affirm that in the Popish Religion none can be saved as Mr. I. S. do's falsely and maliciously to his own knowledg impose upon me I incline with my study and wishes and more willingly deliver my opinion for the Salvation then for the Damnation of men when by the least probability induced thereunto And first for Aquinas and other learned men of his time I thus plead The errors and foul practices of the Roman Church were not so many then as now they increase daily They have not bin so known and cleared in the Crucible of public opposition none dared to check them and so they kept credit The impostures fallacies and absurdities of Mr. I. S. his book will not be so well known to his proselytes possessed with prejudices and to others that see it alone as to indifferent persons that will conferr it with my exceptions against it so it is with those erroneous tenets that began to be in use in Aquinas his time or somewhat before and were not opposed Secondly for many learned men even of our own time which seems more difficult I say invincible ignorance may be pleaded For which I advertise that invincible Ignorance according to the common use of Scholes and our present purpose is not that which by no means absolutely possible may be avoided but such as one may not remedy by means obvious to him according to his state and condition In this sense Shepherds and the like in Spain and â—taly that want instruction for knowing the Creed or Ten Commandments are commonly excused upon the account of invincible Ignorance and the fault laid upon their fathers masters or curates In like manner I say many professors of philosophy and divinity in Spain and Italy may be invincibly ignorant of the malice contained in
which I saw in the Records of that University are as follow Post susceptam itaque per nos quaestionem ante dictam cum omni humilitate devotione ac debita reverentia convocatis undique dictae nostrae Academiae Theologis habitoque complurium dierum spatio ac deliberandi tempore satis amplo quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia Justitiae Zelo Religione conscientia incorrupta perscrutaremur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super cisdem approbatissimos interpretes eos quidem saepe saepius à nobis evolutos exactissime collatos repetitos examinatos deinde disputationibus solennibus palam publice habitis celebratis tandem in hanc sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam jurisdictionem non habere sibi a Deo collatam in Sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Anglia quam alium quemvis Externum Episcopum We therefore after having taken in hand this question with all humility devotion and due reverence the Divines of our University being called together from all places and the space of many daies and time enough bein given for deliberating whereby with all diligence possible zeal of Justice Religion and upright conâ—â—ience we should search as well the Books of Holy Scripture as the most approved interpreters of them and they being very often turned over by us and most exactly conferred together review'd examin'd moreover having celebrated held public solemn disputes on this subject at last we have all unanimously agreed upon this sentence viz. That the Bishop of Rome hath not any more Jurisdiction given to him by God in holy Scripture in this Kingdom of England then any other foreign Bishop hath Having met with this religious and learned declaration of the University of Oxford I thought convenient to relate it here as well for the autority the opinion of this great University is apt to give to the matter as also that it may be to us an argument of the zeal and diligence wherewith the other Scholes Monasteries and Churches did proceed to deliver their opinion upon this subject And if it be true what the famous Canonist * Navar. cap. Cum conti gat de rescript remed 1 n. â—o qui unius Doctorâ—s eruditione ac animi pretate celebrâ—s autoritate dâ—ctus secerit al quid exâ—usatur etiamâ—â—d non esset justum alii contrarium tenerent Navar saies and now is more commonly said and confirmed by Casuists and Canonists that who do's any thing following therein the opinion of one Doctor of known learning and piety tho others be of contrary opinion is excused tho happily what he did should not be just in it self and if the authority of one Doctor of learning and piety can justify a mans proceeding shall not the opinion of so great a number of men famous for learning and piety that were then in the Universities Monasteries and Churches of England justify the proceedings of King Henry in freeing his Kingdom from the slavery it was in under the Bishop of Rome This indeed was to lay the axe to the root of the Romish usurpations and corruptions in this Land Their pretended authority in it being found and declared not to be from God nor grounded upon his divine word but illegally and fraudulently intruded upon the Nation it followeth that they were all at their own liberty to reform their Church by a National Synod of their own Prelats and Clergy under the protection and inspection of their Prince as in other times was don in this land in consequence to this the states of the Kingdom being congregated in * Stat. 26. Hen. 8. c. 1. begun Nov. 3. end Dec. 18. 1533. Parliament an 1533 have declared that his Majesty his heirs and successors Kings of this Realm shall have full power and autority from time to time to visit repress redress all such errors heresies abuses c. which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction may be lawfully reformed repressed ordered redressed c. And this was not to assume a new power but to renew and publish the ancient right of the Kings of this Land It is true that Popes in former ages not finding means to hinder our Princes from exercising this right of their own would by priviledg continue it unto them So Pope Nichelas finding our Kings to express one part of their office to be Regere populum Domini Ecclesiam ejus wrote to Edward the Confessor Vobis posteris vesâ—ris regibus Angliae committimus convocationem ejusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum vice nostra cum consilio Episcoporum Abbatum constituatis ubique quae justa sunt We commit unto you and your successors Kings of England the government of that place and of all the Churches of England that in our name ye may by the Councils of Bishops and Abbots order in all places what will be just The same Pope did allow the like priviledg to the Emperor * Bar. 11. Annal. 1059. n. 23. Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium quod ex paterno jure susceperat praebuit Said the Emperors advocat Pope Nicholas allowed this priviledg to my Master which himself had by his birth-right By the like art finding the People of England unwilling to acknowledg any Ecclesiastic power besides that of the land and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for supreme of it under the King the Popes have contrived that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury should exercise that power as from them under the name of Legatus natus or Legat by his place of the Roman Sea This may seem like what they report of the great Cham of Tartary that after he had dined he orders to give leave by the sound of a Trumpet to all the Kings of the World that they may go to dinner But the Pope drives further in his grants that in time if power should assist him he may force upon them a subjection to him as if really the Princes did owe their power to him But the arts of Rome are too much known in England for the people to be further deluded by them And therefore a National Synod or a Convocation of the Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots and other Clergy of the Kingdom being celebrated at London by order of King Henry the sixth in the sixth year of his reign being that of our Lord 1552. a summary of Articles was agreed upon to remove dissentions in Religion and reform the Church from corruptions that crept into it so pious and moderate so well grounded upon Divine Scripture and upon the Doctrine and practice of the Primitive Apostolic Church that Romanists may more easily rail and rant at then discover any real error in them My adversary N. N. after highly inveighing against these Articles and boasting to discover Heresies in them singles out the 22. Article which runs thus The Roman
and of the stout glosses of his Canonists we shall say more after a Part 2. l. 15. N. N. seems to pretend to a share in this vast Superiority of the Pope over princes He betakes himself to a seat of Judicature and pronounces a severe sentence against our gracious Soveraign his own natural Prince That he has not bin just and impartial in the distribution of his favors to his Subjects applying to his Majesty that old verse Non erat Rex Jupiter omnibus idem That he was not the same King to all That all being guilty in Ireland as he supposes for this complaint he extended his Roial bounty to one party more then to the other In which supposition N. N. delivers both the guilt of his judgment and the defence of our King If all were guilty all lost their right to the Roial favours all forfeited their possessions Then all was at the will and mercy of his Majesty to confer upon those he thought fit why will you pretend to deprive him of his liberty herein May not his Majesty return upon you those words of the Lord of the Vineyard spoken to the envious Laborers b Mat. 20.15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own is thine eie evil because I am good But this is not the only defence his Majesty hath against your rash judgment It is very manifest that his Majesty has shewed the bowels of a loving Father to all his Subjects as well in Ireland as in all the rest of his Dominions and did procure by all the means possible to him the comfort and satisfaction of all as may consist with right and Justice And to this purpose for ordering the affairs of Ireland he hath erected in Dublin a Court of Claimes placeing therein Justices whom I have heard the Irish themselves commend for men of admirable integrity and constancy in delivering their judgment according to the right without regard of persons Such as could prove their Innocency in this Court had the benefit of it who were many and very many more who would not go through that trial had the benefit of the Kings gracious pardon and Roial bounty in restoring them to their Estates and Possessions I have heard from a person of great Honour and truth and of great knowledg in the matter that of the lands which by rigor of Law were declared to be forfeited to the King his Majesty has bestowed already more then the one half upon those that lost them Neither are the streams of his Roial Clemency put to a stop but ever flowing graces and favours upon deserving persons on all occasions possible tho when the pretenders are so numerous it is impossible to content all and not easy for standers far off to judg which of the several pretenders to the same thing ought to be preferred Men are apt to speak eagerly and conceive strongly for their own interest self love will suggest arguments for that side and suppress all that favour the contrary It is for the King that God has placed on high to see equally and accordingly to judg of both sides You plead vigorously for the necessity of a supream Judg in spiritual matters to whose decretory judgment all must stand to resist it or call it in question must be taken for a rebellion in religion for Heresy or Schism if such a judg were wanting say you there would be no end of controversies in religion How far your pretention goes that way and how well grounded will be seen in the second part of this Book now to our present purpose briefly Will not you acknowledg in a proportionable parity the like necessity of a supream Judg for civil debates in each Kingdom or State to whose final judgment the parties must stand otherwise there will be no end of quarrels no peace among neighbours I will not pretend for such a Judg that Soveraign kind of infallibility absolutely incapable of any error which you do pretend for your Ecclesiastic But such autority as Subjects ought to reverence and stand to his decretory sentence without further appeal I can prove out of Gods words that a King has it in his Dominions so as without breach of Loialty and transgression of Gods will and command a Subject may not resist the judgment of his King nor call it further in question much less may he pronounce a judgment against it See all declared by the Heavenly Preacher Ecclesiastes 8.4 in these words Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou Certainly it s no act of Loialty to question his actions don with accord and public Legality as in the case in hand It is a commenced Rebellion The first Rebellion of men upon Earth that of our first Fathers against God in Paradise whose contriver was the Devil began with such a question The hellish Serpent began his conspiracy with Eve calling in question the Law and Government of their Prince and Master cur praeceptit vobis Deus ut non comederetis ex omni ligno paradisi Why hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden Thus did the first Rebellion of man against God begin questioning his decree Questions against Laws established by a lawful Prince thus deriving their Progeny from the Devil should be for that very reason abhorred by Christians And the rather if we consider how destructive they must be to peace and human Society as overthrowing the very nature and intrinsic Constitution of a Magistracy ordained principally to decide quarrels and put an end to debates by a Legal Sentence which if not obeied but exposed to further inquiry and censure of the parties is fruitless and debates will be endless CHAP. XX. That it is not lawful for Subjects to raise armes and go to war with their fellow Subjects without the consent of their Prince The Doctrine of killing men and making War by way of prevention and on pretext of Religion confuted FRom the Lesson of censuring and murmuring against Roial orders rebuked in the precedent Chapter as from a corrupt root springeth this other very evil branch that its lawful for Subjects to war with their fellow Subjects without the consent of their Prince and so we find the one following the other in N. N. his Preface Neither could we expect less from the antecedent premised If Subjects will not submit to the Determination of their Prince in their debates they must appeal to their Swords And our Antagonist tells us Magisterially it s the common opinion of Divines that they may do it for which he quotes in the Margin * 2â— 2ae q. 40. art 1. Bannes ibi dub 4. Aquinas and Bannes But Aquinas in the place quoted by him delivers the quite contrary Doctrine affirming and proving with strong reasons that no war is just that is not made by the autority of the Prince and relating for his opinion these grave
judg of those quarrels I only attend the pernicious Doctrines I see assumed to maintain the interest of one side with intention to rebuke the same as universally false and destructive to the public peace and quiet Neither in truth can I understand which of both parties may fear more prejudice from the Doctrine I am reprehending I see complaints and jealousies upon both sides which of both hath more reason for it as I am not apt to determine so I do conceive that N. N. as also any other may be uncertain to which of the parties he do's prepare ruine by allowing subjects upon suspicion of danger from their fellow subjects to go to war with them without the consent of their Prince If both do complain and fear why may not either party as well as the other fall upon his fellow subjects when opportunity will assist him in conformity with that Doctrine Truly I cannot but wonder how any one living under a Prince or state that hath several Kingdoms Provinces or Societies to govern should dare to publish so pernicious a Doctrine as this I am reprehending If those of Navar and Arragon of Sicily and Sardinia of Brabant and Flanders should renew old quarrels or stir up new ones and run to war about them without the consent of their common Prince how long would the King of Spain be able to keep peace in his Dominions If his Ministers did take notice of this Doctrine and the consequences of it certainly they would have all Books containing it banished out of their territories But all this is sanctified with N. N. by telling us that the war was for Religion and since the law of God and nature do permit a Man to kill an other that pretends to take away his life with the same or more reason he may kill one that means to take away his Religion which ought to be more precious and dear to him then his life Good God whether has the perverseness of men arrived to canonize Murders and the most barbarous cruelties with the sacred name of Religion This language came not from Heaven Christ nor any of his Apostles did never teach it the Church instructed by them did not practise it Lactantius sets before us the maxims and practise of Christians in those times by these noble words Defendenda Religio est non occidendo sed moriendo non saevitia sed patientia non scelere sed fide Religion is to be defended not by killing but by dying for it not by cruelty but by patience not by mischief but by Faith Thus St. Peter and St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles thus did the brave Theban Legion defend their Religion tho able to defend it with Sword as is testified by Tertullian if the Spirit and Doctrine of Christ then steering the Church had permitted it A particular person to defend his life say you may kill by way of prevention an unjust aggressor that pretends to take it from him to this purpose you quote Divines and Civilians and from thence you infer two consequences the first that likewise a community or society may war against and destroy another society from whom it fears the like destruction the second consequence is that a private person or a Society may also by way of prevention set upon and kill another whom he suspects doth intend to take his religion from him You abuse foully the Doctrine above mentioned of Divines and Civilians by misapplying it both your consequences do not only contain a perverse Doctrine against right Divinity and Christian discipline as now declared but also do trespass against the rules of Logic. The former because it is not so easie to surprise a whole society largely dispersed as it is to surprise one particular person Evidences requisit to qualify a prudent fear such as may justify a preventing onset may not so easily be found against a society the threatning words or purpose of one particular or more in a society giveth not so much assurance of the purpose or intention of the whole society as the words of a particular may give of his intention Besides the killing of one particular is not so criminal and hainous nor so much exposed to an oppression of innocents as the killing and destroying of a whole society is therefore it s no lawful consequence a particular person may killby way of prevention another that he fear will kill him ergo a society or great party may likewise by way of prevention destroy another from whom it fears the like destruction Your second consequence above mentioned that if one to defend his life may kill an other that pretends to take it from him he may likewise kill him or them that intend to take his Religion from him this consequence also I say besides the perverse Doctrine it contains is a faulty piece of Logic it is not so easy to take his Religion from a man as his corporal life Your Religion may not be taken from you by a surprise or when you are a sleep or against your will as your corporal life may be Wherefore the same prevention cannot be necessary or lawful for the preservation of both Any that hath true Religion in him due love to God and a sincere and serious desire of his own happiness must take the loss of his corporal life for his Religion to be the greatest gain he can make it being the greatest security he can have of gaining life and glory everlasting for his Soul and body as our Saviour hath declared And is it not a desirable exchange to leave a painful short and wretched life for a glorious blessed and everlasting one Much he hath in him of Earth and little of Christian Spirit who would not wish to be dissolved if he were sure to be after his dissolution with Christ The only reason that can justifie a fear to dy and part with this miserable life is the uncertainty of what may be our doom in the other and the hopes of securing a good one by further living but when a security is given to pass by death to a life everlasting as Christ gives to such as die for God and his holy Faith what Christian consideration can justifie a fear to such a death so far as to kill those that intend to bring us to it Truly N. N. I have so much of kindness and true friendship left in me for you as made me sorry and not a little troubled to see such pernicious Doctrines as these contain'd in your book I took you for a Man better principled and if I had perceived any such errors in your conversation at the time of our acquaintance in Spain I would have refuted them and shewed my dislike to them as freely as I do now I am willing to imagine that non ex tuo haec dicis that it is not your own deliberate sentiment but imposed upon you by some of those fiery emissaries of Rome who will not stick to
the Pope and his Emissaries with censures and manifold vexations let two copious Volumes published upon the subject declare the one in Latin by Richard Caron the other in English by Peter Walsh largely relating and learnedly refuting the unjust procedure of the Pope and his Emissaries upon this subject I received my self from Cardinal Rospigliosi then Internuncius in Brussels a Copy of Cardinal Francis Barberini his Letter to him intimating the Popes will and command that the Irish should not subscribe to the said Remonstrance and the censure of the Theological Faculty of Lovain declaring the said Remonstrance to be repugnant to the truth of Catholic Religion and therefore unlawful and abominable such as no man may subscribe to without Sacriledg And being question'd what part of the Remonstrance merited so grave a Censure they answered it was * Vid. Caron in Rem Hibern contra Lovaniens part 1. cap. 5. p. 19. the denial of a power in the Pope of making war by himself or by others against our King for usurping the Primacy due to the Pope and retaining unjustly the Lands of the British Church In which case say they it may not be lawful for Catholics to oppose the Pope making war or favor the King usurping the Popes rights Thus the warlike Theologians of Flanders do beat to arms and denounce war against opposers of their Church which according to the rules of Mahomet must be defended with the sword when words will not do And must not all this administer an occasion of Jealousie to our King All will not make Mr. I.S. beleive that the practices of the Pope and his Emissaries herein did occasion any sufferings to the Irish It s remarkable what the foresaid †Caron supra cap. 4. p. 15. Author relates that Cardinal Francis Barbarini being questioned by one of his acquaintance why the English and Irish Papists may not disclaim that doctrine of King deposing power in the Pope as the French do he answered it is not the fashion with the French to consult them of Rome in such cases But the Irish and English consulting them were to expect they would resolve in Rome what was more agreeable to their pretended right I like of the Cardinals noble dealing in delivering the truth of the matter but whether it be a noble proceeding of them in Rome to aggravate the miseries of the English and Irish suffering for their sake let Ovid tell At Lupus turpes instant morientibus Vrsae Et quaecunque minor nobilitate fer a est That it is for Bears and Wolves and such like ignoble Brutes to insult over those that are down and kill the dying It behooves men to be stiff with the Pope for if they stoop he 'l throw them quite down CHAP. XVII The complaint of Papists against our King for the Oath of Supremacy he demandeth from his Subjects declared to be unjust Mr. I. S. sleighting that of the Remonstrance would have me condole the sufferances of the Irish for not taking the Oath of Supremacy to the King of England as Head of the Church which he saies to be a cruelty against Souls to demand from them I do condole heartily the sufferings of the Irish for that I mean their folly and blindness in suffering themselves to be deluded by the Arts of Rome believing rebellion to be Religion and Catholic Piety to pass the Obedience due to their natural Prince by Gods command to a forreigner that has no other right over them then what by craft and cruelty he hath usurped as is declared in the Chapter preceding All this will be made clear to such as will consider that our Princes pretend not to any other Supremacy or power over their Subjects then such as the godly Kings of Israel had in their time over the Jews and the Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church over their respective Subjects as is declared in the thirty seventh Article and seventh Canon of the Church of England and as indeed our Princes do execute practising even less power in Church Affairs then the Kings of Israel and Christian Emperors did Do but read the second of Kings commonly called the fourth in the 23. Chapter and see how forward the godly King Josiah was in reforming the Church both Clergy and Laity reading himself to them the Book of the Covenant deposing unworthy Priests and substituting lawful ones The same you may see practiced by Hezekias in the second Book of Chronicles chap. XXIX and the Text approving his proceeding in all this particular saying He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord according to all his Father had don If you do but confer the proceeding of these two good Kings related in the fore-mentioned places with the behavior of our Princes in the several Convocations of their Clergy and people for the Reformation of the Church in these Kingdoms you shall find them not to have taken so much of the work upon them in their own persons as those Kings of Israel did but commended to Prelates and Divines the Examination of Points belonging to Religion and Government of the Church holding themselves the sword and stern of Government to keep peace at home and defend them from forreign Enemies Neither did our Savior diminish but rather confirm this supreme power of Princes over their Subjects We have his will herein intimated to us by St. Paul Rom. XIII 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers where by higher Powers St. Augustin and the other Ancient Fathers do understand the secular power of Princes and the context it self is clear enough for that interpretation as Salmeron confesses a Salmer disp 4. in Rom. 13. Patres Veteres praecipuè Augustinus Ep. 54. Apostolum interpretantur de potestate seculari tantum loqui quod ipse textus subindicat And that to this power not only Seculars but all sorts of Ecclesiastical persons are subject S. Chrysostom b Chrysost Hom. 23. in Rom. Etiamsi Apostolus sis si Evangelista si Propheta sive quis tandem fueris declares Omnibus ista imperantur Sacerdotibus Monachis c. This is a command said upon all Men whether they be Priests or Monks whether Apostles Evangelists or Prophets or whoever they be and S. Bernard c Bernard Ep. 42. ad Henric. Archiep. Senonens Siomnis anima vestra quis vos excepit ab Vniversitate c. considers well that the very words of the text do declare so much If every Soul be subject unto the higher power says he writing to an Arch-Bishop yours also must be likewise subject Who hath exemted you from the general Rule c. Neither is it less certain by the practice of the Church both old and Christian and by the autority of Fathers that it belongeth to Princes to protect and have an eye over their people in matters of Religion to procure the integrity and reformation of it when decayed As for the