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
pretence or even true real only cause of Warr so declared and prosecuted by the Pope against our King is purely and solely for unjust laws made and executed against Catholicks and against as well their temporal as spiritual rights and only to restore such rights to the Catholick Subjects of great Brittain and Ireland and be it further made as clear and certain as any thing can be made in this life to an other by Declarations or Manifestoes of the Popes pure and holy intentions in such an undertaking and of his Army 's too or that they intend not at all to Usurp for themselves or alienat the Crown or other rights of the Kingdoms or of any of the people but only to restore the Catholick people to their former state according to the ancient fundamental laws and to let the King govern them so and only disinable him to do otherwise and having put all things into such order to withdraw his Army altogether let all this I say be granted yet forasmuch as considering the nature of Warr and conquest and how many things may intervene to change the first intentions so pure could these intentions I say be certainly known as they cannot to any mortal man without special Divine revelation what Divines can be so foolish or peremptory as to censure the Catholick Subjects for not lying under the mercy of such a forraign Army or even in such a case to condemn them either of Sacriledg or of any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith only for not suffering themselves to lye for their very natural being at such mercy Or if any Divines will be so foolish or peremptory as these Lovain Divines proved themselves to have been by this second ground of their Censure I would fain know what clear uncontroverted passage of Holy Scripture and allowed uncontroverted sense thereof or what Catholick uncontroverted doctrine of holy Tradition or even what convincing argument of natural reason they can alleadg in the case And as I am sure they cannot alleadg any so all others may presume so too being their said original long Censure wherein they lay down all their grounds and likely too their best proofs of such dare not see the light or abide the test of publick view And if all they would have by this ground or pretence of ground or by the bad arguments they frame to make it good were allowed it is plain they conclude no more against a Remonstrance which assures our King of his Roman Catholick Subjects to stand by him in all contingencies whatsoever for the defence of his person Crown Kingdom and people and their natural and political or civil rights and liberties against the Pope himself then they would against such a Remonstrance as comprehended not such standing by against the Pope but only against French Spanish or other Princes of the Roman Church or Communion For the Pope hath no more nor can pretend any more right in the case to make Warr on the King of England then any meer temporal Prince of that Religion can being if he did Warr it must be only and purely as a meer temporal Prince for as having pure Episcopal power either that wich is immediately from Jesus Christ or that which is onely from the Fathers and Canons of the Church or if you please from both he is not capacitated to fight with the sword but with the word that is by praying and preaching and laying spiritual commands and inflicting spiritual censures only where there is just cause of such And I am sure the Lovain Divines have not yet proved nor will at any time hereafter that the non-rebellion of Subjects against their own lawful Prince let his government be supposed never so tyrannical never so destructive to Catholick Faith and Religion or even their taking arms by his command to defend both his and their own civil and natural rights against all forraign invaders whatsoever and however specious the pretext of invasion be is a just cause of any such spiritual Ecclesiastical censure Nor have proved yet against them or can hereafter that such censures in either of both cases would bind any but him alone that should pronounce them and those only that besides would obey them Yet all this notwithstanding I am farre enough and shall ever be from saying or meaning that Subjects whatsoever Catholick or not Catholick ought or can justy defend any unjust cause or quarrel of their Prince when they are evidently convinced of the injustice of it Nor consequently is it my saying or meaning that Catholick Subjects may enlist themselves in their Princes Army if an offensive Warr be declared against the Pope or even other Catholick Prince or State soever and had been declared so by the Prince himself or by his Generals or Armyes and by publick Manifesto's or otherwise known sufficiently and undoubtedly to be for extirpation of the true Orthodox Faith or Catholick Religion or of the holy rites or Liturgy or holy discipline of it Nor doth our Remonstrance engage us to any such thing but is as wide from it as Heaven from Earth It engages us indeed to obey the King even by the most active obedience can be even to enlist our selves if he command us and hazard our lives in fighting for the defence of his Person Crowns Kingdoms and People amongst which people our selves are but only still in a defensive Warr for his and their lives rights and liberties but engages us not at all to any kind of such active obedience nor ever intended to engage or supposed us engaged thereunto in case of such an offensive Warr as I have now stated What obedience the Remonstrance engages us unto in this later case is onely or meerly passive And to this passive obedience I confess it binds us in all contingencies whatsoever even the very worst imaginable But therefore binds us so because the law of the Land and the law of God and the law of Reason too without any such Remonstrance bound us before The Remonstrance therefore brings not in this particular as neither indeed in any other any kind of new tye on us but only declares our bare acknowledgement of such tyes antecedently Even such tyes as are on all Subjects of the world to their own respective lawful supream politick Governours Which bind all Subjects whatsoever to an active obedience when ever and where euer they are commanded any thing either good of its own nature or even but only indifferent and where the law of God or the law of the Land doth not command the contrary or restrain the Princes power of commanding it And to a passive obedience when he commands us any evil or any thing against either of both laws That is to a patient abiding suffering or undergoing without rebellion or any forcible resistance whatever punishment he shall inflict on us for not doing that which he commands and is truly evil in it self as being against the laws of God or is
do not say not to reveal such fatal plots conspiracies or treasons without revealing the Confitent himself against the person of the Prince and the whole fabrick of the Commonwealth and by consequence ordinarily against so many millions of innocent harmless people without possibility or at least moral probability of seeing the end of the evils and general calamities arising thence but I say do not as much as tye them not to reveal the very person of the penitent or the confitent himself if the case be such or may be such though it can hardly ever be such that the design cannot by human industry be otherwise prevented For I am sure that neither that Canon of the Lateran Council nor any other of the Church doth reach this case As I am certain that all Divines will confess the Church can make no Canon hereafter to reach it if there be no former antecedent express or tacit rule for it in the law of God or nature And I am no less certain that until yesterday come back again neither the Doctors of Lovain nor any other in the world can ever demonstrate or prove any such antecedent rule either of natural reason or of Scripture or Tradition LVII As for the saying of some otherwise peradventure good Casuists or Canonists or even the croud of never so many of the later but worser Schoolmen who should valew them when they bring nothing to make their placits good no Scripture no Tradition no Fathers no Councils no reason at all that would take with a rational knowing pious man but on the contrary produce only their own ill grounded opinions and a world sometimes of barbarous names of Authors such as many of their own are even against the clear dictates of the law of God and nature against all virtue and piety and against all true Religion and even against the very first principles of reason I would very fain know of these Gentlemen these excellent Moralists who must needs dilate themselves on Metaphisical suppositions to shew forsooth their blind zeal for a meer fiction of a seal which neither God approved nor the Church ever commanded or allowed in our case what will godly pious understanding men Judge of them what will any good Christian Commonwealthsmen think of their foolish imagination of a very and truly not only unsacramental but also unnatural seal in a case proposed thus All the Catholick Princes and States of Europe and oâ— all other parts of the world professing Catholick Religion or enjoying the Roman Communion and all the power they can raise of horse and foot even two or three or four million more or less of men are in one field or one country joyn'd and amass'd together and the Emp. Kings of Spain France Poland Portugal c. and the very Pope with all the Court of Rome in the head of all against also all the contrary power of the habitable earth Hereticks and Jews Mahumetans and other Infidels and as well the Lutherans and Caluinsts and all the huge variety of other Sects both in the Greek and Latin Church as the Turk Tartar Persian Moore and Indian the Chinese and all the wild people of America and even those of the Terra australis incognita joyn'd also together in one body to ruine utterly the Catholick Church of Christ and raze it from the very face of the earth They are ready on both sides to joyn battle or as many battles as you please and to put all to a fatal hazard and let the resolution be so too that it is absolutely fixed upon by both sides and every individual of each side never to flye never to take quarter win all or loose all to kill or to be killed In this conjuncture suppose a Christian a Roman Catholick by name education profession and by inward belief too goes to confession to a Priest tells him of such a plot or yet a farre worse and incomparably more dangerous then that of Count Iulian against Roderico the Spanish King in that fatal battle wherein the Moores conquered Spain of some other discontented wicked Catholicks and whether himself had or had not a â—and therein it matters not that out of a divelish passion against the chief Commanders especially the Pope himself for some private quarrel had so devoted so resigned themselves over to the Divils power and to infernal revenge that they have contrived such a plot and are now ready for execution of it as will inevitably ruine all this Christian Catholick power deliver them up to their enemies and even bring to a most cruel slaughter all and singular the individuals of this never so vast army of the Roman Faith or Religion and in the first place the Pope himself and all his Cardinals and Court and all other Churchmen of the Roman City or Diocess and after all bring this â—ame holy City and Diocess and even all the temporal Patrimony of St. Peter within or without it to be plough'd up and sowed with salt to the end it may never again be inhabited as some conquerors are read to have done to some â—ebellions or enemy Cities But withall this penitent or this confitent when he reveals this so fatal conspiracy to the Priest is so possess'd suddenly by the Divels suggestion that notwithstanding any exhortations of the Priest he will not promise that himself will reveal it to those concern'd nor licence the said confessor to reveal it nor yet will tell him the persons time or place or manner of the execution of it whereby it might be prevented by the confessors giving a general notice only either in secret or in publick to the Pope or other King or General or person of the army and yet withal hath told so much and in such a manner that the confessor is and ought to be thereby absolutely perswaded of the truth of such and so unspeakably enormous conspiracy In such a case as this though a case that will never be yet because so many of our honest Casuists and famed Theologues and so great a croud of them too bring it or the like or yet a farre worse to a supposition because they suppose even the both temporal and spiritual destruction and even eternal damnation of all the World I demand what will truly pious understanding christian Commonwealthsmen or Divines that examine soberly and from its origin the true nature and the true ends of Sacramental confession or Sacramental secrecy or seal under which it is to be kept by the confessor and withal consider all the both general and particular most express and most indispensable tyes of the laws of God and man and nature of the laws of charity justice and loyalty and all the duties not of a Christian Subject only but of a man what I say will such other conscientious rational Commonwealthsmen or Divines think of their doctrine that maintain in such a case the lawfulness of quitting utterly all these duties or of reputing them no duties
or majority of those real cases that have alreaâ—â— happened or which may yet without any stress of moral impossibility happen hereafter in other or the 〈◊〉 same Nations having the like generation of wicked men do not vary or change the species or moral nature of the sin of one side or obligation on the other from that of the above metaphysical or morally impossible contingency so it is no less certain that the Kings or States being Protestant or Catholick doth not alter a jot aâ—â— our present purpose the nature of such confession or of the seal consequent or pretended to be conseque it or of the obligation of the Confessor 〈◊〉 repute no seal to be consequent where none at all can be or in right Reason and sound The â—ogy and Christian Doctrine ought to be reputed to â—e however the great Divine Suarez in his Work against King James l. 6. â— 3. sub finem doth but most undiscreetly and unreasonably too distinguish in this matter and yet distinguishes so too as to the discovery not of the person of such confitent but even of the treason it self or future such design only without any discovery of the confitent And it is no less certain with me that Father Gâ—â—â—â—â— never had out of any such inward perswasion of a true obligatory seal in the case abstained from discovering both the treason it self intended and the very person of the traytor that so confess'd it to him if this were necessary for prevention and if what the said Father preâ—eâ—ded of such knowledge had by him in the confessional seat only were true had he not been himself aâ—â—â—â—â—ed or at least not been not disaffected to that horrid conspiracy or had he not reputed it an attempt in point of conscience lawful just and meâ—â—tâ—â—â—ious too before God to wit grounding himself upon those other yet more plainly wicked and horrid and even I say too plainly heretical maximes of his old companion the said Father Suarez and other such Divine concerning the no Allegiance no Faith due by Subjects to heretical Princes of States oppressing the Church For a man of his calling breeding years and place could not be so little conversant in those very Catholick and Classick Authors or in the matter it self of the sacramental Seal which should require those Authors to be at least quoted Authors who are known to determine for the no sacramental confession no seal at all in our case no kind of obligation or tye on the Confessor not to discover such a confitent even I mean kill against his very will if it be of absolute necessity to discover so his person for prevention of such a future damnable treason 〈…〉 even fâ—â—â— prevention of the death or destruction of any one other even the most private person whatsoever in the world though no further evil were to be feared And yet I confess always the Confessor if such a case happened is bound to use all possible means which would not hinder what of necessity must be discovered or the discovery thereof to prevent scandal or an opinion of him that he would reveal Sacramental confession albeit there be no such confession really in the case but imaginarily or only in the erroneus imagination of others The hindering or clearing nevertheless of which imagination every Confessor is bound unto not by virtue of a seal which is not in the case but of charity towards our scandalized neighbour Which not only Confessors but all persons must observe in all kind of cases and more especially than others the Confessor in such cases wherein or whereby through want of his cautious prudential carriadge others might be frighted from confessing to him And I no less acknowledg that for preventing at least particular mischiefs of private men by discovering when it is of absolute necessity for prevention the person of such an unsacramental confitent the Confessor is not obliged under sin to discover if he rationally fear his own destruction thereby or that of other men who have no hand nor knowledg of it What I say therefore in such case of the confessor is that he may lawfully without sin nay meritoriously with the grace of God if he please out of charity either expose or even loose his own life for saving others Majorem â—aritatem nemo habet quam ut quis penat animam suam pro amicis suis but is not bound to either by any law of God unless peradventure to save the publick only For the saving of which I must confess I know no rule of reason or Divinity can excuse any person from hazarding himself if it be necessary and that he withal know or believe or hope rationally he may save it by hazarding himself And what I say besides in such case is that although therein the confessor may reveal the person of such a confitent declaring a resolution or design of such a sin to be hereafter committed yet in no case may he reveal the person of a Sacramental confitent as such of sins already committed and as such confess'd by him let the sins be never so horrid even the most inhuman treasons and the most general executions imaginable Lastly what I say and repeat again is that our masters of Lovaine will find it too too hard a taske if not altogether impossible to disprove what I have now so positively said of revealing and the lawfulness of the confessors obligation also to reveal at least where he may without danger to himself or other honest men the very person that confess'd to him so unsacramentally or consulted with him so impenitently in the confessional seat such wicked resolutions or designs to be hereafter executed to reveal such person I say without his Confitents either express or tacit consent nay against his consent expresly denyed him provided still that he reveal nothing of any sin already committed and sacramentally confess'd nor any more of the person of such the foresaid unsacramental confitent or of his actions past or of his resolutions for the future or of those of any others which he knew in that manner no more I say than is necessary for preventing the evil and provided also that he declare not in what manner he had such knowledge or that he had it in the confessional seat being this circumstance must be as well unnecessary as odious But if our Lovaine masters think otherwise of the case as I do not believe they do whatever they say or seem to say in their first and long censure or if they must undertake to refute what I here say let them proceed on a Gods name and prove their such thinking saying or undertaking to be just and prove it so either by Scripture tradition reason or by any Canon or Custom of the Church and I promise I will most willingly yield my self to be indoctrinated by them Otherwise they must pardon me if I tell them they are no less erroneous than censorious masters and no
be not mistaken in his rules of concluding And the minor is as manifest as the text of Silvester which I have before given is It remaineth only therefore that for a greater illustration yet of the major albeit there be no need I form this other syllogisme Whoever teacheth all this or all that above doctrine which I have given in the Latin text it cannot be rationally denyed to be as clear as the Sun that he meaneth and reacheth the lawfulness for and obligation also on the Confessor in our case to reveal all that is on evident grounds conceived by him to be necessary for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom For that doctrine supposes upon one side all the general laws of God and Nature of Charity Piety and Justice both exhorting and commanding the Confessor to prevent by all just and lawful means the execution of so evil a design and on the other side supposes also that there is no particular law of God or Nature or Man or Church against the revealing of all whatever the Confessor knows by such a confession and is conceived by him to be necessary for prevention For the only such particular law can be pretended by any is that of a seal of confession And the above doctrine expresly teacheth there is no seal at all of confession nor can be in the case or in such a confession as it expresly teacheth that when or where this seal is as it is alwayes in a true sacramental confession it is a seal wholly and only as to the person of the Confitent not as to his sin or other appendage Whereby it is further plain and evident that the above doctrine or argument derived from it cannot be eluded by saying it denies a seal as to the sin but not as to the person being it acknowledges no seal but as to the person and denies expresly all kind of seal in our case or confession But whoever meaneth and reacheth the lawfulness for and obligation too on the Confessor in our case to reveal all that is on evident grounds conceived by him to be necessary for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom meaneth also and reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of such a Confitent because that for prevention of such evils to a third person and much more to a Kingdom to reveal even the individual person of such a Confitent and without his own consent is in our case upon evident grounds conceived to be necessary Ergo whoever teacheth expresly the above doctrine it cannot be rationally denied to be as clear as the Sun that he meaneth reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of the Confitent and I mean still without nay against his consent when the danger to a third person much more to a Kingdom Commonwealth or even any lesser community is great and not otherwise to be prevented and that he may reveal him without danger to himself Out of all which if it be not clear that I have Sylvester on my side and by consequence Abbas Innocentius and so many other both ancient and modern Catholick and Classick Schoolmen who teach the same Doctrine with Silvester I must confess I see not what is clear Which is the reason I dare conclude that if the Doctors of Lovaine will oppose me in the Doctrine of this sixt consideration they will raise too great a storm against themselves And I have at least no less reason to think it will be so with them too if they write against the Doctrine of any of the other five precedent Yet I would have them or all that stickle for them in this Country where the language of this book of mine is understood for if God lend me life and health I mean to speak in good season yet to the Lovaine Divines in their own language or that of their Censure I say I would have them all to understand that I have not laboured so much as I have now here to prove my Doctrine out of Silvesteâ— or any other as if I were perswaded that I could not or dared not warrant any doctrine unless I could shew it extracted from or conformable to that of other Schoolmen that writ before me on the same subject As I am farr enough from such perswasion or such fear in matters wherein I may ground my self on plain Scriptures certain Tradition or evidence of natural Reason and see no plain Scripture or Tradition or undoubted and received true Canon of the Catholick Church to gain-say that evidence although I saw at the same time ten thousand Canonists and Summists or other Casuists and even ten thousand too of the very best School-divines against me so I assure the Reader my only design by so long a discourse of Silvester was no other but to confound the more those Lovaine Divines by the very Authors who are so familiar with and approved of in their own Schools For otherwise I know well enough it is the Doctrine of the very Schools that no man is bound to swear to their doctrine jurare in verba Magâ—stri upon this ground only of its being theirs I know very well too that the more common doctrine or absolutely and simply the common doctrine of the Schools is not alwayes the more true or even simply true That some doctrines have been common amongst them three hundred years since which now are so farr from being common as not to be scarce of any one man That some also now common have been some two or three ages past the doctrine of one single man And what is now of a single School-man against the torrent of the other side may after some few years more prove it self a torrent of all sides In fine that the doctrine of the Schools as such and the doctrine of the Church as the Church are 〈◊〉 least oâ—â—en 〈◊〉 wide one from another as Heaven and Earth LIX Bu◠〈◊〉 pâ—â—â—venture some may yet object the passion of Father 〈…〉 〈…〉 aâ—â—â—gation at or before his passion or death when he 〈◊〉 examined concerning the Gun powder-treason his opinion consequently against the doctrine of revealing in such a case the person of the Confitent although I have to this objection said enough already yet because what I â—aid so was only per transennam or transiently I thought fit to repeat here again that and further add what I conceive necessary to remove this only remaining but pitiful presence of a meer made scruple 1. That his passion or death suffered by him was not to bear testimony to the contrary doctrine but for having been found guilty himself by the law at least as a concealer of that wicked plot And that as it is most certain there was never
virtually pretends thereto at least otherwise then by these few and weak places whereof he composes his foresaid second proof for this his fifth Proposition l. 1. de clericis c. xxviii Exemptio Clericorum in rebus politicis tum quoad personas tum quoad bona introducta est jure humano pariter divino But I will not charge him with pretending to any argument of Tradition by either such sayings or any other whatsoever of such late Councils either Provincial or General or of these three or four Popes he alledges there And yet for what other end he should produce them but that of abusing his ignorant Reader I know not verily For we may justly suppose that he and others with him have on the very contradictory question examined searched for and alledged as many places out of Scripture as any of these Councils or Popes could possibly and yet was himself so convinced that none of all these places or texts nor altogether did really amount to a positive law of God that notwithstanding his said so positive and so absolute assertion or fifth proposition for such a positive law of God he falls immediatly to his distinguishing observation of a divine precept properly such and of not being expresly in Scripture and of its being only deduced thence per quamdam similitudinem though an observation in express terms contrary to the very conclusion or to that very proposition for which he brought these two kinds of proofs one out of Scripture and the other out of these Councils and Popes So that if he intended not these Councils and Popes so alledged and so applied by him for to prove Tradition in the case and this he doth not pretend nor any from him wil so weak an argument it must be confes'd he produced them only to abuse the undiscerning Reader as the same in truth must be also confess'd of all his Scripture-places quoted in his first proof nay and of that very proposition of his and also of both parts of it for which he brought these two sorts of proofs LXV 2. For what concerns the law divine natural or which is the same thing in effect the law of nature or the law of Reason or a convincing or concluding evident principle or maxime or position or proposition or conclusion either which is necessary of natural reason to all which the Schoolmen give the name or title of the law divine natural because or forasmuch as at our creation imprinted in our souls by God himself the Author of nature but still without any supernatural infusion being the condition of a reasonable soul requires it even without any order to immortality for what I say concerns this law divine natural the case is clear enough also by the concession of Bellarmine himself l. de Cler. c. 29. where he treats it of purpose Though withal I confess he involve it so as to abuse his Reader with a third but very false degree of the laws of nature or law divine natural of purpose to impose on his credulity or facility or undiscerning judgment and work him to a perswasion that in some true sense the exemption of Clerks is de jure divino naturali even in the whole latitude of this exemption or as he before in the 28. chap. prop. 1 2 3. expounded and maintained it generally as to their lands goods persons or as from taxes and Judgments and Courts and as not from the inferiour Magistrates alone but from the very supream and in all even the most temporal causes whatsoever as well criminal as civil and from both the directive and coercive power of the laws or commands of the supream temporal Magistrate To the end of imposing so on his Reader it must be that this otherwise most eminent and learned Cardinal in the beginning of his 29. chapter immediatly after he had stated or demanded the question An exemptio Clericorum sit juris divim naturalis for he would have it now supposed that in the foregoing chapter he had proved this Exemption in his own and now said latitude of it had been 1. de jure humano civili 2. De jure humano Ecclesiastico 3. De jure divino positivo It must be I say to this end of imposing on his Reader that after all this and after putting this question also whether the exemption of Clerks be of the law divine natural he distinguisheth three several degrees of this law divine natural and then placeth his said exemption in the third of them And yet saw well enough this third degree of his own and of Driedo's and some few Canonists forgery was of so false allay that he dares not stand to it stiffely in a proper true sense of a law of nature or of a necessary principle position or conclusion of natural reason without the free and positive constitution acceptation or custom introduced onely and freely by men and therefore useth so many windings and labours so much to reconcile Authors but all in vain as to his main purpose and finally by his position there and proofs of it which follow so confounds that his own jus divinum naturale with jus gentium and confounds them so too in express words leaving thereby his inconsiderat Reader in a labyrinth and his judicious in a laughter at both his division position and proofs whether these proofs be intended for a jus gentium taken either in a strict and proper or in a large improper sense or whether intended for a jus divinum naturale even in that very improper abusive meaning or sense of our Cardinal Whereof that you good Reader whoever you be so you be a man of reason may be yourself a discretionary Judg for authoritative judgment neither you nor I can pretend Sure I do not this being proper onely to such powers as God hath placed over us either in the spiritual or in the temporal commonwealth in the Church or State I will give here briefly these three degrees of Dictats all and every of which Bellarmine would impose on us as natural precepts and comprehend under the name of jus divinum naturale the law divine natural The first and chiefest and most proper is sayes he of such Dictats which are so perspicuously imprinted in the hearts of men that with the sole light of reason without any discipline or art nay without any discourse of reason they must be judged by all to be just Such are some first principles As for example these Good is to be desired Evil to be shunned life to be preserved with meat and drink children to be educated for the propagation of human kind God to be worshipped not to do that to an other which you would not have done to your self The second degree is of those precepts sayes he again which are from such first principles deduced as the very proximat conclusions or as conclusions naturally flowing by a facile evident and necessary consequence and so too that no discipline no art
excellency or dignity even the very supream of that Order is in it self unreasonable unevangelical and altogether groundless and unmantainable I referr thee first Good Reader to my foregoing LXIII LXIV LXV LXVI and LXVII Sections where as I have already in this very Section told you I have of purpose examined throughly and fully answered all Bellarmines arguments for his law divine either positive or natural alledged by him for the exemption of Clerks and secondly referr thee to the very next two or three Sections immediatly following this present but more especially to the first of them which in order is my LXIV of this first part of this first Treatise where I at large and of purpose and by positive arguments of Scriptures and Fathers demonstrate even the quite contrary of what Bellarmine sayes here of heathen Princes Besides that as I have also noted above my two next arguments of natural reason which you shall have immediatly in this present Section demonstrate the falsity of this last Answer as it relates to all Clerks in general Yet for as much as Bellarmine hath given us here a most particular or special exception of the Pope however the rest do for he thinks all may be in effect safe enough if the heal only he safe being that if the Pope himself alone be exempt by divine right or law de jure divino he may then by his own papal constitutions exempt all the rest of the Clergy whether Princes will or not I must give also here my animadvensions upon his reasons or those given by him for that special exceptions made or his Holiness and for his own answer to saying that Barclayes argument which I have reheâ—â—sed a little before had two faults viz a false Antecedent and a vitious or ill inferr'd Consequence that antecedent of Bâ—rclaye being That the Pope himself had not his own exemption 〈◊〉 that of his own person but from the meer liberaliâ—â— and favour of Princes because sayes Barclay as even our Adversaries confess the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to heathen Princes as other Citizens were and that consequent also being That therefore that is for the Popes having been subject by the law of God to heathen Princes before they were converted it must follow that he must also by the same law be subject to them when converted or which is the same thing to Christian Kings and Emperours I say that Bellarmine for his giving answer that the antecedent is false and consequent vitious alledges first for reason of the former That our Sauiour Christ had made the Pope his own Vicat on earth and that hoc ipso by making him such he exempted him from all power of earthly Princes And in the next place alledges for reason of the latter That whereas the Pope is by the same Lord and Saviour constituted over the whole family of beleevers and that Kings and Emperours are consequently incorporated by him to be directed and ruled by him certainly no reason suffers that he be subject to them over whom he is by divine right to preside But who sees not that as Barclay assumed that very Antecedent not only from Scripture Tradition and Reason as well appear in the next Section but from the common doctrine of all at least the best sort of even School Divines and which is more from Bellarmine himself for as yet our learned Cardinal had not set forth his Recognitions and Barclay could not have once suspected that Bellarmine would in his last days of old age have changed from that which till then he had publickly exposed to the world in his Controversie so that reason which Bellarmine alledges to prove it false must appear it self to be most unreasonable to wit that Christ had appointed the Pope his own Vicar and thereby exempted him from the power of Princes Indeed if Bellarmine could evidence that our Saviour had created the Pope his Vicar General and in all things and his own Vicar too as himself was the natural Son of God and second person of the Trinity and as God by pure nature not by communication or hypostastical union and not as a mortal man or as he appeared on earth before his Resurrection or if Bellarmine could evidence briefly that our Lord created the Pope his own Vicar as well in all kind of earthly powers and temporal matters whatsoever as in some kind of limited spiritual power and things then he might have truly said that Barclayes Antecedent is false and the contrary certain or that it is not from the favour of Princes the Pope hath what exemption he hath but from the law and power of God immediatly But nothing is more certain then that the Pope was not created such a Vicar General his power as that of the Universal Church being purely and only spiritual It is true Joan. 3.35 27.21 the Father gave Christ all things into his hands and the power of all flesh Pater dedit Christo omnia in manus potestatem omnis carnis But our Cardinal hath not yet proved that either Son or Father gave or ever yet committed so large a power to any one Vicar and the contrary is otherwise in it self very certain both by Scripture Tradition and Reason Our Saviour Jesus Christ therefore left by his law the temporal administration to the temporal civil or politick Magistrates as before and from the beginning it was by all laws to the great Pontiff he committed what was agreeable to a Pontiff only or to the prime Pontiff that is to be his Vicar in all pure spiritual administration and in such only too according to the holy canons of the Catholick Church And it is clear this Function or this Dignity how great soever it be doth no more exempt the Pope as Pope from temporal subjection that is from subjection in temporal matters to a meer lay or secular Prince or Magistrate then the most high supream and by God himself immediately ordained civil power of secular Princes Kings Emperours can or doth exempt them in spiritual matters from the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope or even of any other their own proper Patriarch or Bishop or even also of an inferiour Priest in the confessional seat or other administration of the Sacraments to them And who sees not that as that Consequent of Barclay follows manifestly and necessarily out of the Antecedent once admitted because that as I have already proved and as Barclay too alleadged Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominioque suo c even so it must follow and whether it follow or not it is clear enough in it self that Bellarmine's reason to the contrary or to shew this consequence to be vitious or ill inferr'd is a most pittifull unsignificant one indeed and as such by me very often answer'd already For how many times was it answered before that the Pope as Pope is by our Lord and Saviour appointed the chief Superintendent or
and this barely too crimen Ecclesiasticum it is declared that if any charge a Clerk with the former sort of crime the secular judges shall determine the cause but if with the later that the Bishop onely shall have power to judg it Quod si de criminali causa litigium emerserit tunc competentes judices in hac civitate scilicet Constantinopolitana vel in Provinciis interpellati consentaneum legibus terminum imponant c Sin autem crimen Ecclesiasticum est tunc secundum canones ab Episcopo suo causae examinatio paena procedat nullam communionem aliis judicibus in hujusmodi causis habentibus Which although it was first or originally a meer civil constitution or Novel of Iustinian yet was after made a canon of the Church by being inserted in and received by the Church amongst her canons in corpore Iuris canonici or in Gratian. Sixt canon as to pure Ecclesiastical crimes and to their punishment in case of disobedience to the Bishops was long before and not a Papal canon onely but a canon of the third Council of Carthage which was that is called the Vniversal Council understand you of Affrick and is that also in Gratian XI q. 1. c. Petimus where it is declared that intruded Bishops contemning the admonitions of the Church belong in such case to the lay judicatory Seaventh canon distinguishing likewise in effect sufficiently and clearly enough as the above fift hath done betwixt lay crimes or at least some lay crimes that is crimes which are common as well to lay-men as to Clergie-men and both Ecclesiastical crimes or such as are proper onely to Ecclesiastical persons and other crimes too which are strictly civil but not criminal is that of the first Council of Matiscon held in the year 582. under King Gunteramnus and Pope Pelagius II. wherein and in the 7. chap. the Fathers decree Vt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur aut custodiae deputetur Quod si quicumque Iudex cujuscumque Clericum absque causa criminali id est homicidio furto aut maleficio facere fortasse praesumpserit quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum suerit ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur Whence appears evidently these Fathers held it no breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity that Clerks accused of murder theft or maleficium what ever they understood by this word or whether witchcraft onely according the special acception and restriction of this word or sense of it by some authors or generally all kind of lay evils or wickedness according to the general or etymological sense thereof should be subject to the meer lay coercive power of even inferiour lay judges whereof I have said more at large before And therefore by this canon Princes were to the end of the fift age of Christianity in possession of their own proper supream civil power of punishing Clerks in their own lay and princely Iudicatories tribunals or courts and even by their own inferiour proper and meer lay delegated or commission'd judges when I say the cause or accusation was purely criminal and of such crimes in specie as are murder theft or witchcraft Eight canon is that still in Gratian 23. q. 5. cap. Principes For though Isidorus de sum bon c. 35. be the original Author of it yet as in Gratian it is now allowed and accounted amongst the canons of the Church And that indeed not unworthily For thus it speaks Principes seculi non numquam intra Ecclesiam potestatis adeptae culmina tenent ut per eamdem potestatem disciplinam Ecclesâ—asticam muniant Caeterum intra Ecclisiam petesta es necessariae non essent nisi ut quod non fraevalet sacerdos efficere per doctrinae sermonem potestat hoc impleat per disciplinae terrâ—rem Saepe per regnum terrenum caeleste regnum proficit ut qui intra Ecclesiam positi contra fidem disciplinam Ecclesiae agunt rigore Principum conterantur ipsamque disciplinam quam Ecclesiae humilitas exercere non praevalet corvicibus superborum potestas principalis imponat ut venerationem mereatur virtutem potestatis impertiat Cognoscant Principes saeculi Deo debere se rationem reddere propter Ecclesiam quam a Christo tuendam accipiunt Nam sive augeatur pax displina Ecclesiae per fideles Principes sive soluatur ille ab eis rationem exiget qui corum potestati suam Ecclesiam credidit Here you see that not out of or by vertue of any commission or delegation from Bishops or Popes Princes do exercise the distriction of their power even within the Church that is against Churchmen and even too in Church affairs but out and by vertue of their own proper authority which they received from God And you see also that the Church as such by reason of its humble and essential constitution may not exercise or make use of any penal discipline as belonging to her self but for such coercion must have recourse to the power of Princes Nor let any think to evade by saying that Princes are in so much or as punishing such persons or as determining correcting or amending such affairs but Ministers of the Church and executors of the sentence or power of the Church pursuant to that which Innocent III. and the Glosse upon him say or determine cap. ut famae de sent Excom extracted out of the said Innocent's answer to the Bishop of London For I have before already in several Sections proved by reason Scripture tradition of the Fathers and practise too both general and particular and of both Fathers and Princes and Pontiffs and people that Princes have hethertoo proceeded and de jure proceeded against such persons and even too in such matters by their own proper authority without any commission had from the Church As likewise that they received from God himself such their own proper universal authority and right to proceed so against all persons whatsoever laymen or Clergiemen guilty of any crimes and in all causes too whatsoever temporal or spiritual forasmuch or wherein they relate to the external peace of the Commonwealth and to the meer external government of the Church by the power of the material sword And we have seen too already that the power of inflicting corporal punishment by way of coaction and force is absolutely denyed to the Church as a Church Which being so who will be so unreasonable as to attribute a power to Her of deputing commissioning or delegating Ministers or executors to inflict them so But what this canon or Gratian or rather Isidore who was the original Author sayes here is very observable I mean where it sayes that Princes have the height of their power within the Church and that God himself hath committed his Church to their power even as Leo Magnus the Pope writing to Leo the Emperour ep 81. sayes Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non
as Subject to that Metaphysical contingency nay more most of them then that of our Protestation Why then may it not be as lawful for us to practice herein notwithstanding such conditional and caprichious interrogatories We have this advantage of them that in our judgments and in the judgments of at least the incomparably far greater part even of the Catholick Church there is not only both extrinsecal and intrinsecal probability in that we promise and protest but even an absolute certainty as grounded on most clear Scriptures and traditions and that the contrary positions or tenets are so farr from having any intrinsick probability at all that they are manifest errors against the word of God whereas they on the other side practice daily in matters of greatest concern relying only on the bare saying or quotation of one or two Casuists and these too not seldom extravagant and superficial men for matter of knowledg in the most profound questions of Religion And it is further manifest by reason that were such Metaphysical contingencies or apprehensions of them of power to render any unlawfulness in our signing the said Protestation the very same contingencie must vitiat their opposing us even I say as to the question of expediency or necessity And all the expositions made by the Fathers on hard passages of Scriptures and all the Sentences or controverted conclusions of Catholick writers in the succession of all ages since the days of Peter Lombard have been and are still unlawful even as to the expediency of delivering or teaching them Which to assert would be in effect to bereave our selves of all charity and all modestie and all reason Nay all the Canons Definitions Anathematismes of so many ancient holy Christian Councels either Provincial or National as we find in the Tomes of Councels and which have been held some a thousand others 11. 12. 13. 1400. years agoe and some latter all reverenced and many of them canonized by the very Popes themselves must have been unlawful and not onely temerarious but even sinful scandalous and schismatical yea the profession of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ or an Oath or Protestation made to that purpose disclaiming in and renouncing all Doctrine and authority to the contrary that is in so much would be not onely unexpedient but even unlawful sinful scandalous schismatical before the first general Councel of Nice against Arrius or that other which was held at Constantinople against Macedonius yea that admonition of Paul Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed would be so too nay and that asseveration of our Saviour Christ himself in the Gospel was rash and false Si dixero quia non scio eum similis ero vobis mendax if this argument or interrogatory of our opposers be to any purpose or if their foolish impertinent discourses or private whispers ever since the 15. of Feb. last amongst our lay Gentry here signifie any thing to prove that we renounced or disclaimed in the Doctrine or Authority of a General Councel because we disclaim and renounce any at all as yet known to us which teaches or maintains any power Papal or Princely Spiritual or Temporal which may absolve us from our natural Allegiance to His Majestie or which may license us to rebell against him or to kill or murther the Anointed of God our Prince though of a different belief from ours Though which is observable our Protestation rigorusly taken as to this particular be onely against all such authority as is forreign and that that of a general Council truly such be known not to be properly forreign to any Christian Country And although the true meaning and purpose of it be onely against the Spiritual or Temporal pretended power of Popes alone But however this be or any thing heretofore said to these wild imaginations I would â—ain know whither it be not an undubitable Maxime in moral Philosophy and Divinity that our action is then lawful when it is against no law that is yet known or doubted to be either of God or man And expedient when in the judgment of wise men or in our own weighing all circumstances it is expected to conduce towards a good or just end we propose to our selves And whether the possibility of a future law or declaration against or inhibition of the like any more can vitiat actions qualified so which precede such laws Certainly as this last querie must be answered in the negative so the two former in the affirmative Now let any man that reads this passage and what I have given before it and for its illustration here in this present Book and Section let I say any such man of what affection soever so he be a man of reason be judge himself whether in this passage I do undervalue the authority of general Councils And I am sure there is no other passage in any other of all my writings where I say any thing to undervalue them And yet I must tell my adversaries that such Catholick Divines as hold the absolute fallibility of General Councils even I mean in point of Faith think they can say enough for themselves to prove that themselves do not therefore or indeed at all undervalue General Councils And enough also to prove that they justly charge their opposers with overvalueing General Councils As also to prove that themselves do still acknowledg a General Council truly such to be the onely Supream Tribunal in the Church And still acknowledg the Supream power of making Canons which concern either Faith or Discipline to be in this Council And still too acknowledg both external and internal acquiescence and obedience due from all persons even from the Pope himself to all their decrees in all Spiritual matters purely such whatsoever wherein an intollerable error against the Faith received is not evidently demonstrated And enough moreover to prove that to attribute more then this to General Councils howsoever truly such were indeed to overvalue them against truth and Tradition And finally enough also to prove it may be as daungerous an errour in religion or Faith to overvalue either Pope or Council as to undervalue them But whether such Catholick Divines as think so or think themselves can say enough for all and each of these particulars do think aright I am not concern'd at present no further then to tell my Adversaries they should rather dispute against them who give some kind of ground then charge me and falsely too being I give them no such ground at all nor any other of being charged with undervalueing General Councils XXXII Fourthly they would find their allegations false where they say that in the opinion of the Diffusive Church corporal punishments may be inflicted by a spiritual power I say that this is false if they mean as they do certainly and must speaking to the purpose by the word
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
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
testimonies of all Ages from the first of Christianity I say that being it is therefore plain and clear enough to any dis-interessed judicious and conscientious Divine that neither these Councils or Popes could upon rational grounds pretend any positive law of God properly or truly such either out of Scripture or out of Tradition at least for such exemption of the persons of Clergymen and in temporal affairs too from the supream civil coercive power it must consequently be confessed that unless we mean to charge an errour on these Councils and Popes we must allow the answer of such Divines as with Dominicus Soto 4. dist 25. q. 2. art 2. hold against Bellarmine in this matter to be not only full of respect but of reason also viz. that by jus divinum ordinatio divina voluntas omnipotentis cura a Deo commissa these Councils and Popes understand that right or law Divine that ordination Divine that will of God that care by God committed which is such only in as much as it is immediatly from or by the Canons or laws of the Church and that by jus humanum they understand the civil laws or institutions of meer Lay-Princes And indeed that of respect in this answer will be allowed without contradiction And that that of reason also cannot be any more denyed I am sure will appear likewise to any that please to consider how it is very usual with Popes and Councils to stile their own meer Ecclesiastical Canons Divine and such Canons I mean which by the confession of all sides never had any positive law of God in Scripture or Tradition for them For amongst innumerable proofs hereof which I could give that of the 27. Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon and that other in the third action of the VII General Synod will be sufficient proofs For in the former it is plain that meer Ecclesiastical Rules though concerning only the district jurisdiction and preheminence of the Constantinopolitane Patriarch and some other Bishops and Metrapolitans are called divine Canons and that in the latter too the title of divine constitutions or divinely inspired constitutions is attributed to the laws or Canons in general of the Church So that jus divinum ordinatio Dei c. must not be opposed in these places quoted by Bellarmine or any other such to all that which is properly strictly immediatly or only from men however taken for Lay-men or Church-men but to that which is from men acting by a meer lay natural civil temporal and politick power and not at all acting or enacting laws as the Church enacts by a pure spiritual supernatural and therefore by way excellency called a divine power and their laws therefore too in that sense or for so much called divine though not divine at all in the strict proper sense of a divine law as by this we ought to understand that which was immediatly made or delivered by God himself and by the mouth of his Prophets or Apostles or by Scripture or Tradition 3. That however this be or however it may be said by Bellarmine or by any other to be well or ill grounded or to be truly according to the sense or mind of these Councils and Popes he alleadges yet even Bellarmine himself and all others of his way will and must grant that although we did suppose and freely admit his sense of these places to have been that indeed of these Councils and Popes yet the argument is no way concluding any other not even I say for as much as it is grounded on the authority or manner of speaking used by these very Councils which are accounted General as Trent and both these Laterans 1. Because the canons or places alleadged are at best and even at most even the very best and most material of them but canons of Reformation or canons of meer Ecclesiastical Discipline which are worded so And no man that as much as pretends learning is now so ignorant as not to know that even entire Catholick Nations and many such too oppose very many such canons even of those very Councils which themselves esteem or allow as truly General and oppose not the bare words or epithets onely as our dispute now is of such words or even of bare epithets but the whole matter and sense and purpose nay and the very end too uncontrovertedly admitted to have been that of such General Councils And the reason is obvious enough vz That in canons of Reformation Discipline or manners as it is generally allowed and certain the Fathers deliver not nor intend nor pretend to deliver or declare the Catholick Faith and that in all other things they are as fallible and as subject to errour as so many other men of equal knowledge though without any of their authority or spiritual superiority 2. Because that in the very Decrees or Canons of Faith General Councils even the most truly such may erre in such words as are not of absolute necessity for declaring that which is the onely purpose of such Canon For so even Bellarmine himself teaches l. 2. de Concilior Authoritate c. 12. expresly and purposely and in these very words Denique in ipsis Decretis de fide non verba sed sensuâ— tantum ad fidem pertinet Non enim est haereticum dicere in canonibus Conciliorum aliquod verbum esse supervacaneum aut non rectè positum nisi forte de ipso verbo sit decretum formatum ut cum in Concilio Niceno decreverunt recipiendam vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et in Ephesino vocem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where you see that he exempts onely from this general rule the case wherein a Council should of purpose frame a Decree or Canon of Faith concerning the very use of such or such a word or epithet as the first of Nice-did for the word bâ—mousion or consubstantial against Arrius and the Council of Ephesus did for the word Deotocon or Godbearing against Nestorius Which cannot be said by Bellarmine or any other in his behalf or that either any Council or Pope have ever yet done so as to or concerning the use of the words jus divinum ordinatio divina c or of the single word or Epithet Divine in our case 3. Because and according also to not onely truth but eveâ— Bellarmine himself again in the same book and chapter in the Acts of General Councils even those Acts which concern Faith neither the disputes which are premised nor the reasons which are added nor those things or words which are inserted for explication or illustration are of Faith or intended by the Fathers to be submitted unto without contradiction as a matter certain and infallible but the bare decrees onely and not all even those very decrees but such of them onely as are defined expresly to be the Faith delivered that is as even Bellarmine himself elswhere and all the Schools now teach with him such as are said in such Council to have