with that of the fifth of November and are purposely intended for that very thing which he denyes to be taken notice of by us in such a manner What must we say to such men who openly and to our faces deny that which the whole Nation knows to be true These stories might have passed abroad where they have been wont to lye for the Catholick Cause but to have the impudence to say such things here which every Boy can confute is not the way to advance the Reputation of their Church among us And what doth Mr. Cressy think the Renuntiation of the Covenant was intended for if not to prevent the mischief of the former Rebellion And is it possible for any man who knows the Laws of his Countrey concerning these matters to dare to say in the face of the Kingdom That it seems there is no necessity at all of requiring from any a Retraction of the principles of Rebellion or a promise it shall never be renewed If this be the way of defending the innocency of Roman Catholicks I had rather be accounted guilty than have my innocency thus defended 3. He saith We also confidently affirm so we have seen he hath done too much already that by vertue of the Spiritual Iurisdiction inherent in the Pope the Temporal Rights and Power of the King or even of the meanest of his Subjects are not at all abridged or prejudiced Which assertion he saith hath been alwayes maintained in France the Pope not contradicting it from whence it follows that it is agreeable to Catholick Religion After this I expected he should speak home to the purpose and say this is all the Power challenged by the Pope as to England or owned by any Roman Catholicks here which finding what he had affirmed about other matters I thought he would have made no scruple of but I see he durst not either for conscience or meer shame But how then doth he get over this difficulty Why English Catholicks saith he should be suspected not to be as tender of the just Rights and precious lives also of their Soveraign as the Catholick Subjects of any other Kingdom and why they should be thought to be willing to acknowledge any Temporal Power director indirect to be inherent in the Pope over the King or Kingdom to which not any Catholick Gentleman or Nobleman would submit I cannot imagine I am very much to seek for the sense of this and know not what the submitting relates to but I suppose something left out or struck out by his Superiours who did not take care to leave sense behind But is this indeed all the security Mr. Cressy offers that he cannot imagine it should be otherwise here than in France We find when he pleases he can imagine strange things and is this only out of the reach of his imagination What doth he think of the Kingdoms being under Excommunication at Rome as Cardinal Barbarine takes care to put the Irish Nobility in mind for some good end doubtless Is the Kingdom of France so What doth he imagine of Bulls from Rome prohibiting the taking the Oaths required Are there any such things in France What doth he think of the Popes Nuntio appearing in the Head of an Army and absolving the Kings subjects from their Allegiance I confess it was not much better in France in the time of the Holy League but what opinion had they of the Popes temporal Power then Cannot Mr. Cressy imagine that there are such people in England as Iesuits and it is not many years since their Reasons were therefore shewed to be Unreasonable in pleading an exemption from the Sanguinary Laws because they did hold the Popes power of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance And do not the Iesuitical party still plead that their opinion is the common doctrine of their Church confirmed by General Councils and approved by multitudes of Divines of all sorts and that the contrary is only asserted here by a very inconsiderable party whereof some are excommunicated at Rome for their zeal in this matter And do not we know how much greater sway the Iesuitical party hath among the Nobility and Gentry than the despised Secular Priests I do not at all question but the Nobility and Gentry of England would do as much to preserve the just Rights and precious lives of their Soveraigns as of any Nation in the World and have as great a sense of their own Honour as well as Interest and of the Duty they owe to their Countrey But ought not the Laws to take so much the more care to keep their Consciences untainted in these things they being such Persons whose Loyalty cannot be corrupted but under a pretence of Conscience and their Consciences being so much in danger by being under the direction chiefly of those who are the sworn servants to the Papal Power 4. He offers by way of satisfaction concerning their Fidelity that they will subscribe the French Declaration lately made by the Sorbon or the Censure of the Faculty of Paris A. D. 1626. and that very few if any at all would refuse subscription to that Form prescribed by the State in case that unlucky word heretical were left out As though all those who had hitherto refused to take that Oath had done it only upon this nicety that the word heretical were to be taken not in the sense of the Givers but of the Takers of the Oath whereas Mr. Cressy himself saith that common Reason teaches that all Oaths Professions and Promises are to be understood in the sense of those who frame and require them and not of those upon whom they are imposed But if this were all the ground of refusing this Oath among any of them Mr. Cressy therein charges them with the want of common Reason whereas I shall make it appear in the progress of this Discourse that this was far from being the true and only reason of Roman Catholicks refusing the Oath of Allegiance 5. That since Ordination abroad doth not in the least render English Priests defective in their duties to the Civil Magistrate it will follow that whatsoever penalty is inflicted on them on such an account is not inflicted according to the Rule of Iustice and by consequence that whatsoever blood shall be shed the guilt of it before God will be imputed to the whole Kingdom since it is shed by vertue of the whole Kingdoms votes and consent given long since upon motives long since ceased And therefore he charges it deeply upon my conscience to endeavour to free the whole Kingdom from such a guilt This is the substance of what Mr. Cressy saith upon this very important subject as himself calls it and by vertue whereof he hopes the poenal Laws may be repealed and those of their Religion may enjoy the Liberty of their Religion and all the Rights of Free-born Subjects Which are things too important to be debated in
such a manner by persons who by making reflections on the Iustice and Wisdom of a Nation do endeavour to expose the Laws and Government of it to the censure and reproach of the malicious and ignorant But since our Laws are so publickly accused of injustice and cruelty and the Kingdom charged with the guilt of innocent blood I hope I may have leave as an English man to vindicate the Laws of our Countrey and as a Protestant to wipe off the aspersion of Cruelty from our Religion which I shall do without the least intention of mischief to any mens persons or of sharpening the severities of Laws against them § 3. And to proceed with the greatest clearness in this matter I shall consider 1. The charge of injustice and cruelty which he lays upon our poenal Laws 2. The proposals he makes in order to the repeal of them and giving a full liberty to the exercise of their Religion 1. The charge of injustice and cruelty upon our poenal Laws Whosoever adventures to charge the publick Laws of a Kingdom in such a manner ought to be very well advised upon what grounds he proceeds and to understand throughly the nature and constitution of Government and Rules of Iustice and the power of interpreting as well as making Laws and the certain bounds within which Laws may make actions Treasonable and how far actions thought Religious by the Persons who do them may become treasonable when they are against Laws made for the publick safety and what actions of Religion make men Martyrs when they suffer for them and what not for it is certain they are not all of equal consequence and necessity these and many other things a man ought to come well provided with that dares in the face of the World to charge the Laws of his own Nation with injustice and cruelty But Mr. Cr. may be excused in this matter for that would indeed be an unjust and cruel Law to require impossibilities from men I wish so noble a subject had been undertaken by a Person fit for it that could have managed it otherwise than in a bare declamatory manner But since he is the Goliah that dares so openly defie our Laws and Government I shall make use of his own Weapons to cut off the heads of this terrible accusation For 1. He grants That the Laws made by their Catholick Ancestors viz. the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors were just Laws 2. That our King hath reason to expect as much security of the Fidelity of his Catholick Subjects as any Catholick Prince hath from his 3. That all Christian Kings have in some sense a kind of spiritual Authority that they ought to be Nursing Fathers to Gods Church that they ought to promote true Christian doctrine both touching Faith and manners and to imploy their power when occasion is to oblige even Ecclesiastical Persons to perform their duties and all their Subjects to live in all Christian Piety and Vertue These are his oâ—n words which in short come to this that they are bound to promote and preâ—erve the true Religion 4. That it is absolutely unlawful for them to defend their Religion being persecuted by Soveraign Magistrates by any other way but suffering which he saith they do sincerely profess according to their perswasion 5. That the treasonable actions of persons of their own Religion were the occasion of making and continuing the poenal Laws for upon their account he saith they are thought dangerous Subjects and care is taken to exact Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy from them 6. That where the Popes temporal power is owned especially as to deposing Princes there can be no sufficient security given as to the Fidelity of such persons This I prove from his saying that there is no reason to question their Fidelity whose Ancestors were so far from any Supremacy of the Pope in Temporals and much less any Authority in him to depose Princes that they made the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors which by his favour is a very weak argument unless men can never be supposed to degenerate from the Vertues of their Ancestors but besides the satisfaction he offers is by renouncing the Popes temporal power and declaring that his power of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance is repugnant to the Word of God although they dare not call it heretical from whence it follows that Mr. Cressy doth not think those can give sufficient security for their Fidelity who dare not thus far renounce the Popes power 7. That where there is no sufficient security given for the Fidelity of Persons there is great reason they should lye under the severity of Laws Which Mr. Cressy alwayes supposes and only complains of their hardship upon the offers he makes of their Fidelity And this must hold as to all sorts of persons who may be dangerous to Government although they may pretend never so much exemption by their Function or being imployed in Offices not immediately relating to Civil Government From these concessions it will be no difficult task to clear our Poenal Laws from injustice and to vindicate the whole Kingdom from the guilt of innocent blood if I can prove these following assertions 1. That the same Reasons which justifie the antient Statutes of England and the Laws of Catholick Princes abroad do vindicate our Poenal Laws from the charge of Injustice and Cruelty 2. That Laws originally made upon the account of acknowledged treasonable practices do continue just upon all those who do not give sufficient security against the principles leading to those practices 1. That the same Reasons which justifie the antient Statutes of England and the Laws of Catholick Princes abroad do vindicate our Poenal Laws from the charge of Injustice and Cruelty For if the penalties do bear no greater proportion to the nature of the offence if the Power be as great and as just in our Law-makers if the occasions were of as high a nature and the pleas in behalf of the persons equal then there can be no reason assigned why those Laws should be just and lawful and not ours And the making out of these things is my present business 1. I begin with the antient Laws and Statutes of England And I hope no one dares question but that the power of makeing Laws is as good and just in England since the Reformation as ever it was before For if there be the least diminution of Power by vertue of the cutting off the Popes Authority then so much of the Civil Power as was lost by it was derived from the Pope and this is in plain terms to make the Pope our Temporal Soveraign and the whole Kingdom to be only Feudatary to him which is asserting his Temporal power with a vengeance and contains in it a doctrine that none but very Self-denying Princes can ever give the least countenance to because it strikes at the very root of their Authority and makes them only
is a part of Catholick Doctrine that heretical Princes being excommunicated by the Pope are to be deprived of their Kingdoms and their Subjects immediately upon excommunication are absolved from their Allegiance which he saith is not only the doctrine of Aquinas and Tolet and of the Canon Law but of the Council of Lateran and as he endeavours to prove of Scripture too and that War for Religion is not only just but honourable and for the deposing of Princes he brings several instances from Gregory the seventh downwards particularly King John and Henry the second and saith that the promise of obedience to Princes is only a conditional contract and if they fail of their faith to God they are free as to the faith they promised them This I confess is speaking to the purpose and the only way in appearance to make them suffer for Religion for no doubt these were the principles which led them to those treasonable practices for which they suffered But the main question remains still whether Treason be not Treason because a man thinks himself bound in Conscience to commit it and whether Magistrates have not reason to make severe Laws when such dangerous and destructive principles to Government are embraced as a part of Religion If there be any such thing as Civil Government appointed by God it must be supposed to have a just and natural Right and Power to preserve it self but how can it maintain it self without a just power to punish those that disturb and overthrow it if it have such a Power it must have Authority to judge of those actions which are pernicious and dangerous to it self and if there be such a natural inherent Right Power and Authority antecedently to any positive Laws of Religion either we must suppose that Religion left Civil Government as it was and then it hath the Power of judging all sorts of actions so far as they have an influence on the Civil Government so that no pretence of Religion can excuse Treasonable actions or we must assert that the Christian Religion hath taken away the natural Rights of Government which is very repugnant to the doctrine of Christianity and all the examples of the Primitive Church The substance therefore of what I say about suffering for Religion or for Treason is this that whatever principles or actions tend to the destruction of the Civil Government are in themselves Treasonable antecedent to Laws that Laws may justly determine the nature and degrees of punishment that those who are guilty of such actions let them be done out of what principle soever are justly lyable to punishment on the account of Treason and in the judgement of the Law and Reason do suffer on that account what ever private opinions they may have who do these things concerning the obligations of Conscience to do them and where there is just suspicion of a number of persons not easily discerned the Laws may make use of certain Marks to discover them although it happens that those marks prove actions of Religion which actions are not thereby made the Cause of their suffering but those principles or actions which were the first occasions and Motives of making those Laws From which it is I suppose evident that if the antient Poenal Laws were just and reasonable our modern Laws are so too because the Occasions of making them were of as high a Nature and the guilt as proportionable to the penalty and that men did no more suffer for Religion by these than by the Antient Poenal Laws § 23. 2. But supposing these Laws were acknowledged to be just and reasonable as to the Actors of those Treasons the Question is Whether they continue just as to other persons who cannot be proved actually guilty of those Treasons And here I confess as to the principles of natural Reason the case doth vary according to circumstances For 1. In a jealous and suspicious time when many Treasons have been acted and more are feared by virtue of bad principles the Government may justly proceed upon the tryal of the principles to the conviction of Persons who own them without plain evidence of the particular guilt of the outward actions of Treason For the very designing of Treason is lyable to the severity of the Law if it come to be discovered and where the safety of the publick is really in great danger the greatest caution is necessaâ—y â—or the prevention of evil and some actions are lawful for publick safety which are not in particular cases Especially when sufficient warning is given before-hand by the Law and men cannot come within the danger of it without palpable disobedience as in the case of Seminary Priests coming into the Nation when forbidden to do it under severe penalties In which case the very contempt of the Law and Government makes them justly obnoxious to the force of it He that owns the principles that lead him to Treason wants only an opportunity to act them and therefore in cases of great danger the not renouncing the principles may justly expose men to the sentence of the Law And if it be lawful to make any principles or declared opinions or words treasonable it cannot be unjust to make men suffer for them 2. In quiet times when the apprehension of present danger is not great it hath been the Wisdom of our Government to suffer the course of Law to proceed but not to a rigorous execution For the Law being in its force keeps persons of dangerous principles more in awe who will be very cautious of broaching and maintaining those principles which they hold and consequently cannot have so bad effects as when they have full liberty to vent them but in case Persons have been seized upon by the legal wayes of discovery who yet have not been actually seditious it hath been the excellent moderation of our Government not to proceed to any great severities 3. There can be no sufficient reason given for the total repeal of Laws at first made upon good grounds where there is not sufficient security given that all those for whom they were intended have renounced those principles which were the first occasions of making them These things I yield to be reasonable 1. That where there is a real difference in principles the Government should make a difference because the reason of the Law is the danger of those principles which if some hearâ—â—â—y renounce there seems to be no ground that they should suffer equally with those who will not but since the Law is already in being and it is easier to preserve old Laws than to make new ones whether the difference should be by Law or by Priviledge becomes the Wisdom of our Law-makers to determine 2. That such who enjoy such a Priviledge should give the greatest satisfaction as to their sincerity in renouncing these principles for if there be still ground to suspect their sincerity in renouncing by reason of ambiguous phrases aequivocations in words or
reservations in their minds they give instead of real satisfaction greater cause of jealousie because of the abuse they put thereby upon the Government For if men do aequivocate in renouncing aequivocation which it is very possible for men that hold that Doctrine to do they thereby forfeit their credit to so high a degree that they cannot be safely trusted in any Oaths or Protestations This therefore ought to be made sure that men use the greatest sincerity in what they do or else there is no ground to grant any favour upon their offers of satisfaction 3. Where there is sufficient ground to believe that the much greater number will not give sufficient satisfaction as to the renouncing the dangerous principles to Civil Government there is no reason for a total repeal of the Poenal Laws already established For if the Reason of the Laws was just at first and the same Reason continues it becomes not the Wisdom of a Nation to take off the curb it hath upon a dangerous and growing party and however cautious and reserved many may seem while the Laws are in force no man knows how much those principles may more openly shew themselves and what practices may follow upon them when impunity tempts them I do not plead for sanguinary Laws towards innocent and peaceably minded men whatever their opinions be and how hardly soever my Adversaries think and speak of me I would shew my Religion to be better than theirs by having more Charity and Kindness towards them than I â—ear they would shew me were I in their circumstances but I find that even some of themselves think fit not to have those Laws taken off from men of the Iesuitical Principles as appears by a Discourse written to that purpose since his Majesties Return by one of their own Religion Wherein he shews 1. That the Iesuitical party by their unjust and wicked practices provoked the Magistrates to enact those Laws and that their seditious principles are too deeply guilty of the Blood of Priests and Catholicks shed in the Kingdom ever since they came into it and that it is their principle to manage Religion not by perswasion but by command and force and then reckons up the several Treasons in Queen Elizabeth's time the Iesuitical design of excluding the Scottish succession and title of our Soveraign the Gunpowder Treason which if it were not their invention he confesses they were highly accessary to it by prayers before hand and publick testifications after the fact was discovered nay many years after they did and peradventure to this very day still do pertinaciously adhere to it 2. That their practices of usurping Iurisdiction making Colledges and Provinces in and for Enland possessing themselves of great summs of money for such ends are against the ancient Laws of the Land even in Catholick times it being the Law of England that no Ecclesiastical Community may settle here unless admitted by the Civil Power and those that entertain them are subject to the penalties ordained by the Ancient Laws 3. That it is no evidence of their Loyalty that any of them have been of the Kings side it being a Maxim or Practice of their Society in quarrels of Princes and Great men to have some of their Fathers on one part and others for the contrary which is a manifest sign they are faithful to neither 4. That there is no ground to trust them because of their doctrine of Probability and their General can make what doctrine he pleases probable for the opinion of three Divines is sufficient to make a Doctrine probable and whatever is so must be done by them when commanded by their Superiours so that the tenderness of their Consciences is only about doing or doing what their Superiours orders them besides their doctrines about deposing Princes Equivocations mental Reservations and divers other juggles 5. That they have never yet renounced the doctrine of the Popes deposing Princes that their Generals order against teaching this doctrine was a meer trick and never pretended to reach England that Santarellus his Book was Printed ten years after it teaching the power of deposing in all latitude and why should the peace of Kingdoms have no better security than their Generals Order Who knows how soon that may alter when good circumstances happen and then it will be a mortal sin not to teach this doctrine that the Iesuits have never spoken one unkind word against this Power of deposing Princes that when the Pope shall think fit to attempt deposing a King of England no doubt their Generals Order will be released 6. That by their particular vow of obedience to the Pope they are bound to do whatever he commands them as for example if the Pope should excommunicate or depose the Prince and command them to move Catholicks to take up Arms they are bound by their Vow to do it 7. That they make themselves Soveraigns over the Kings Subjects by usurping a power of life and death over those of their Order for pretended crimes committed in England which is High Treason for their Subjects have other Soveraigns besides the King 8. That there can be no sufficient security given by them who hold the Popes personal infallibility for whatever protestations or renunciations they may make at present they will be obliged to the contrary whensoever the Pope declares his judgement so and therefore no hearty Allegiance can be expected from those who hold it but such as must waver with every blast from Rome 9. That they not only renounce the doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservation without which all other protestations afford very little security but men ought to be assured that they do not practise them when they do renounce them and he desires them to find out some way for this which it seems came not into his head 10. That without renouncing those doctrines which are dangerous to the Civil Government there is no reason to expect favour from it for temporal subjection to Princes is the main ground of the peace and good Government of the Common-wealth and what is against that is against the Law of God and Nature § 24. I now come in the last place to consider the proposals made by Mr. Cressy for satisfaction to the Government and the repeal of the poenal Laws which are of two kinds 1. Subscribing the censures of the Faculty of Paris 1663. and 1626. 2. Taking the Oath of Allegiance if the word heretical were turned into Repugnant to the word of God But 1. It were worth knowing what Authority Mr. Cressy had to make these proposals in behalf of all the Roman-Catholicks of England he saith indeed that his Book is published permissâ— Superiorum and what he writes is not the inconsiderable opinion of one particular person only And what then It may be two or three more may be of his mind it may be his Superiours are it may be several Gentlemen not governed by the Iesuitical party aâ—e but is the
Now in this Kingdom of the Cambri Iohn of Tinmouth or Capgrave out of him saith that S. Kentigern came to preach Christianity and particularly he shewed that Woden the chief God of the Saxons was a mortal man and a King of the Saxons from whom several Nations were derived Now I desire to know whether this were not preaching Christianity among the Saxons and that long before she coming of Augustin â—or Alford places it in A. D. 566. and the landing of Augustin A. D. 597. No saith Mr. Cressy he preâ—ched only to the Picts who were revolted to the Saxon Idolatry and to prove that makes use of an excellent way by corrupting his Author for the words in Caâ—grave are these Woden verò quem principalem Deum crediderunt Angli de quo originem duxerant cui quartam feriam consecraverant hominem fuisse mortalem asseruit Regem Saxonum à quo plures nationes genus duxerant which he thus renders And as for Woden whom by the seduction of the Saxons they esteemed their principal God and to whose hâ—nour they consecrated the fourth day of the week c. What pretence is there to understand these words of the Picts and not of the Saxons themselves I know Alford brings that clause in by way of Parenthesis and reads it thus praecipuè Angli de quo originem duxerant c. but I have set the words down exactly as they are published by Bollandus the Iesuit who mentions his own care in the publishing of it but saith Mr. Cressy it is plain he meant the Picts because it is said that by his doctrine he freed the Nation of the Picts from Idolatry and heresie Here again Mr. Cressy discovers his admirable ingenuity for the words in Capgrave are several things being interposed Pictorum patriam quae modo Galwedia dicitur ab Idololatriâ haereticâ pravitate doctrinâ— suâ purgavit which he mentions as a distinct thing from his former preaching in the Regnum Cambrense of which the former words are expresly spoken And although Alford Mr. Cressy's Author will by no means allow any Saxons to be converted by Kentigern for fear forsooth the Saxons should not owe their entire Christianity to S. Gregories Missionaries yet Bollandus ingenuously confesseth that boâ—h Kentigern and Gildas did employ their zeal and charity towards the conversion of the English Saxons For in the life of Gildas published by Ioh. à Bosco it is said that the Northern pâ—rts of Britain flocked to his preaching and for saking the errours of Gentilism they destroyed their Idols and were â—aptized in the faith of the Holy Trinity Mr. Cressy although he allows the next passages to be understood of Gildas Sapiens who lived after the Saxons had over-run the Island yet he applyes the forâ—er passage to an elder Gildas called Gildas Albanius that it might with less probability be understood of the conversion of the Saxons but Bollandus hath sufficiently proved that there was but one Gildas called by those several titles and so much is acknowledged by the French Benedictins so that no relief can be had from thence Thus we see what ground we have to believe that the Northern Saxons were acquained with Christianity before the Order of Benedictines was ever heard of The next settlement we find was of the Western Saxons by Cerdic who landing with a great force after the death of Hengist A. D. 495. did so weary out the Britains that Malmsbury saith that they willingly yielded themselves to him and lived quietly together under his Government and is it then reasonable to conceive that so many Saints as lived in that Age by the Confession of our Adversaries should not in all that time acquaint their Neighbours with the Christian Doctrine especially if it be true which Mr. Cressy reports of them that they wrought so many miracles such as S. David S. Iustinian S. Dubricius S. Paternus S. Theliau S. Paulens c. Certainly these men were in all respects better qualified than Augustin the Monk if one half of the Legends concerning them be true and why should they neglect so necessary a duty where they had such advantages of doing it and such an easie way of working miracles to convince the Saxons Shall we say as Bede doth that the Britains wholly neglected it but that must certainly be understood of such wretched Britains as Gildas describes not of such Saints as these were and Bollandus thinks those words of Bede do need a limitation viz. that such Apostolical men were but few in comparison of those afterwards Or shall we say that these Saints had a great mind to do it but because of the continual wars and persecutions they were forced to retire to a Monastick life No Mr. Cressy himself tells us that Cerdic did permit the Inhabitants of Cornwal paying an annual tribute to enjoy the exercise of the Christian Religion which saith he appears by the great number of Saints which in these and the following times flourished there If there were such a number of Saints then how came they never to employ themselves in the Conversion of their Neighbour Infâ—â—els I had thought those who glory so much and beyond all reason in the Conversion of Remote Infidels would have allowed their Saints to have converted those that were so near at hand especially considering how successful they werâ— where they undertook it For S. Kentigern they tell us for his share purged Galloway converted Albania and sent disciples to the Orcades Norway and as far as Iseland Methinks a little charity would have dâ—ne well nearer home when the Saxons needed it so much and they bred up such numbers of Disciples under them as is reported of Gildas Iltutus S. David and the rest of them But if notwithstanding all this Christianity was unknown to the Saxons what will become of the Saintship of these persons who were so highly qualified by the gift of Tongues and all sorts of miracles if their Writers say true and yet utterly neglected to preach Christianity to the Saxons But for all that I can see the reputation of these British Saints must vaile when it stands in competition with the Apostolicalness of Augustin the Monk § 3. But although in these remâ—ter parts the Britains being mixed with the Saxons might acquaint some of them with the Christian Religion yet surely in Kent and those parts to which Augustin came he was the first who brought the knowledge of Christianity among them This is as far from being true as the other for to omit what Alford confâ—sseth to be very probable viz. that Irmiric Father to Ethelbert did permit the Christian Religion to be professed in his Kingdom I shall insist upon what is more certain viz. the confeâ—sion of Bede himself that the same of the Christian Religion was brought to Ethelbert before the coming of Augustin by the means of a
another Remonstrance of the grievances of the Clergie and People of England which they sent to the Pope and Cardinals wherein they declare that it was impossible for them to bear the burdens laid upon them that the Kings necessities could not be supplyed nor the Kingdom preserved if such payments were made that the goods of all the Clergie of England would not make up the summ demanded but all the effect of this was only a promise that for the future the Kings leave should be desired which saith Matthew Paris came to as much as nothing By which we may judge of the miserable condition of this Nation under the intolerable Usurpations of the Court of Rome § 18. After so long tryal of the Court of Rome by Embassies Remonstrances and all fair wayes and no success at all by them at last they resolved upon making severe Laws the last Reason of Parliaments and to see what effect this would have upon the Clergie for the recovering the antient Rights of the Crown For we are to consider that the Controversie still was carryed on under the same pretence of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and it is a fooâ—ish thing to judge of the sense of the Ruling Clergie at that time by the Acts of Parliament and Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire For by this time the Pope had them in such firm dependence upon him and they were fed by such continual hopes from the Court of Rome that they were very hardly brought to consent to any restraints of the Papal Power and in the Parliament 13 Rich. 2. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York for them and the whole Clergie of their Provinces made their solemn Protestation in open Parliament that they in no wise meant or would assent to any Statute or Law made in restraint of the Popes Authority but utterly withstood the same the which their Protestations at their requests were enrolled as that Learned Antiquary Sr. Robert Cotton hath shewed out of the Records of the Tower By which we see the whole Body of the Clergie were for the most exorbitant Power of the Pope and would not consent to any Statutes made against it So that what Reformation was made in these matters was Parliamentary even in that time and I do not question but the Friends to the Papal interest made the very same objections then against those Poenal Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire that others since have done against the Laws made since the Reformation And all that were sincere for the Court of Rome did as much believe it to be meer Usurpation in the Parliament to make any Laws in these matters For was the King Head of the Church might he not as well administer Saâ—raments as make Laws in deregation of the Popes Authority and Iurisdiction What was this but to make a Parliamentary Religion to own the Popes Sovereign Power no farther than they thought fit If any thing were amiss they ought humbly to represent it to his Holiness and to wait his time for the Reforming abuses and not upon their own Heads and without so much as the consent of their Clergie to make Laws about the restraint of that Power which Christ hath set up in his Church How can this be done without judging what the Pope hath done to be amiss and who dares say that his Holiness can so much err as to aim at nothing but his own profits without any regard to the good of the Church What! are they not all members and will they dare take upon them to judge their Head What! Sons rise up against their Father and Secular men take upon them to condemn the things which Christs Vicar upon earth allows What! and after all the Sufferings and Martyrdom of S. Thomas of Canterbury that ever we should live to see a Parliament of England make Laws against that good Old Cause for which he dyed This is but to increase the number of Confessors and Martyrs as all those will be who suffer by these Laws For do they not plainly suffer for Conscience and Religion although the Parliament may call it Treason What an honour it is rather to suffer than to betray the Churches Liberty for which Christ dyed or to disobey the Head of the Church who commands those things which the Parliament forbids And must we not obey God rather than men After this manner we may reasonably suppose the Roman Clergie and their adherents at that time to have argued but it is well Mr. Cressy at least allows these Stasutes of Provisors and Praemunire and boasts of the Loyalty of those Ancestors that made them but I fear he hath not well considered the occasions and circumstances of them and what opposition the Papal Clergie made against them or else I should think he could not afterwards have declaimed so much against the injustice and cruelty of our Poenal Laws But even those antient Statutes were passed with so much difficulty and executed with so little care that they by no means proved a sufficient salve for the sore they were intended for as will appear by this true account of them § 19. In the time of Edward the first who was a Prince both wise and resolute the grievances of the Kingdom by his connivance at the Papal encroachments for a long time grew to that height that some effectual course was necessary to recover the antient Rights of the Crown which had now been so long buried that they were almost forgotten but an occasion happened which for the time throughly awaked him to a consideration of them Bonif. 8. out of a desire still to advance Ecclesiastical Liberty had made a Constitution strictly forbidding any Clergie-man paying any Taxes whatsoever to Princes without the Popes consent and both the payers and receivers were to fall under excommunication ipso facto not to be taken off without immediate Authority from the Court of Rome unless it were at the point of death Not long after this the King demands a supply in Parliament the Clergie unanimously refuse on account of the Popes Bull the King bids them advise better and return a satisfactory Answer at the time appointed Winchelsea then Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of the whole Clergie declares That they owed more obedience to the Pope than to the King he being their Spiritual and the King only a Temporal Soveraign but to give satisfaction to both they desire leave to send to the Pope At which saucy answer the King was so much provoked that he put the whole Clergie out of his Protection and seized upon their Lands for which an Act of Parliament was made to that purpose saith Thorn And although many of the Clergie submitted and bought their peace at dear rates yet Winchelsea stood it out ready saith Knighton to dye for the Church of Christ which if he had done there might have been a S. Robert as good a Martyr as S. Thomas of Canterbury For our Historians say
there hath been so late so numerous so vehement nay I had almost said so Catholick an opposition to the Irish Remonstrance Not as Mr. Cressy would have it believed out of indignation at a particular person who had much greater Authority for what he did on the behalf of the rest by his Procuratorium than Mr. Cressy doth appear to have nor a quarrel at phrases but at the very substance of the doctrine contained in it Was it only about some phrases that the Popes Internuntio at Brussels de Vechiis condemned it when he said it contained in it propositions agreeing with those already reprobated by Paul the fifth and Innocent the tenth and this he expressed as the mind of the Pope Was it only about phrases when he said the Remonstrance would do more hurt than all the former persecutions of hereticks Was it only about phrases when Cardinal Barbarin charged the Remonstrants with corrupting faith under a pretence of Allegiance to the King and he adds too that the propositions were condemned before by the Apostolical See and that his Holiness was troubled to the very heart about it Methinks a few Phrases only should not have given his Holiness so much disturbance Was it only for some phrases that the Dominicans opposed it as contrary to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas who roundly asserts the Popes power of deposing Heretical Princes and they pleaded they were sworn to maintain his Doctrine It seems then they can give no security to the State without perjury and I suppose there were some of these among Mr. Cressy's Roman Catholicks who were so ready to renounce this doctrine Was it only for a few phrases that the Lovain Divines condemned it as wholly unlawful and detestable and containing things contrary to Catholick Religion The true grounds of which were the taking away the Popes power over Princes and the great Diana of Ecclesiastical Liberty If Mr. Cressy accounts these but phrases the Court of Rome owes him but little thanks for it But this is so ridiculous a pretence that all the quarrells about the Irish Remonstrance were only about a few phrases that either he looks on the parties as extreamly quarrelsome or it must be some greater matter which he confesses was the occasion of so many commotions dissentions and scandalous invectives on both sides Since then there hath so long been and we have reason still to believe there is such a difference among them about these matters how can Mr. Cressy undertake so boldly as he doth on the behalf of English Catholicks for the subscribing the Censures of the Faculty of Paris But of all sorts of men I am apt to mistrust great Undertakers § 25. 2. But supposing they should subscribe the Sorbon Censures we may yet question whether hereby they would give full satisfaction in these matters Mr. Cressy is of opinion that this would be a more full and satisfactory testimony of their Fidelity than can be given by taking the Oath of Allegiance which makes me very much wonder why they should refuse the less satisfactory and choose that which is more But men had need to have fast hold that are to handle such slippery points as these are for when we think we have them safe they slip through our Fingers and escape Those who have not considered all their arts and evasions in these matters would think they offer as fair things as any men in the world but when it comes home to the point there is some sly distinction or mental reservation by which they get through all and are as much at liberty as ever That alone which in our Age and Kingdom can give satisfaction 1. Must reach our own case and not that of the King of France i. e. 1. Of a King not of the same profession of Religion with those who make the profession of Fidelity 2. Of a King or Kingdom already under censure of excommunion as Cardinal Barbarin declared 3. Of a King not barely considered as a King i. e. while he remains such and the Pope doth not declare him not to be a King but so as to declare it not to be in the Popes power to make him no King For men may subscribe the Censures of Sorbon understanding them of Kings of their own Religion not excommunicated by the Pope and while the Pope doth not declare them to be no Kings 2. What gives satisfaction in our case must exclude all manner of aequivocation and mental reservation For where that is not excluded there can be no security at all given it being impossible to bring aequivocations and reservations within any bounds nay those who hold it lawful to use them may deny it and do it in denying it therefore the matter of aequivocation must be stated how far and upon what terms and in what cases they allow it and yet there may be aequivocation in all this So that as aequivocation hath all the advantages of lying it hath the disadvantage too viz. that those who use it cannot safely be trusted though they do not use it because though it be possible they may not no man can be well assured that they do not But the Sorbon censures never mention aequivocation at all and therefore I do not wonder to see such as Mr. Cressy ready to bring in those instead of the Oath of Allegiance because although himself and some others may disown the doctrine of aequivocation yet if that be not expresly excluded they know the very Iesuits will swallow a Camel let them but have the dressing of him They know so many tricks of Legerdemain that I do not see why a very cunning Iesuit may not then think himself a fit match for the Devil himself for let him make never so many promises in Words he would have such a secret Reservation in his Mind as should make his Words to signifie nothing But it is not safe for them to play such tricks with so old a Sophister that first found out the way of aequivocation 3. What gives satisfaction in our case must exclude absolutely all power of Dispensing in the Pope for if that be reserved they are safe enough they know how to get out presently for they have one ready that can knock off all their shackles and set them as free as ever nay they have yet another fetch concerning the Popes power for he can null an Oath before-hand and make it stand for nothing as well as absolve them from it afterwards But how then can the Sorbon censures be so satisfactory in our case when they never so much as mention the Popes power of dispensing much less disclaim it so plainly as it ought to be done to give satisfaction So that we see it is not without reason Mr. Cressy would so willingly have the Oath of Allegiance changed for the Sorbon Censures and I do not at all wonder that fourteen Iesuits in France offered to subscribe the Sorbon censures 1626. which Mr.